A Platform Custom built for Joe Boudreault to expand his Position

[Marius vanderLubbe]

Well, the title explains it.
Joe, a creationist, and here known as hereisjoe, might like to use this superiour format to further enlighten us with his world veiw.
The comments section of
Revisionist Darwinism: The Theory That Couldn't Sit Still (http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4035#)
is getting rather tedious.

[BobTheDonkey]

It would appear that I haven't missed anything in that section.

Science/Reality vs Joe/YEC.

[hereisjoe]

Evolution or The Godless Delusion
an essay
By Joe Boudreault

In science, as in anything about life itself, something is proved and accepted through the evidence that supports it. A theory becomes fact when the unarguable proof is presented. Evolution is one of the most devious theories ever to wend its way into the human psyche. Ideas in and of themselves are fine when we want to explore the structure of our world. And our world, as we see it, does exist in all of its physical aspects. It follows, therefore, that we are curious enough to want an explanation of how and why it is here. There really can be only two possible explanations: it came into being through some mysterious and hard-to-explain process, out of a mysterious and misunderstood past; or, it was planned, devised and brought about by an entity or power great enough to do this. In essence, we have those two main theories: Evolution, a godless process in which a state of chaos is brought into a beautiful order, or Creation, a god-ordained (or God-ordained) process in which the universes and everything in it was presented in a wonderful state of order. Evolution assumes that no deity was involved. Creation assumes that an intelligent creative power was involved. These are both theories and both deserve further consideration. But both of them cannot be correct, only one of them can, and only one of them will in truth be born out by the evidence around us. Keep in mind that science and religion need not conflict with each other. Creation does not negate science; it merely explains beginnings. And it isn’t just Biblical Christianity which validates the idea of Creation. Science writer Harun Yahya, (also known as Adnan Oktar, who is a Muslim) spoke about creatures like the purported 350-million-year-old trilobites and cockroaches, saying: “If such creatures had really lived, then we should see their remains everywhere. In fact, if this (evolutionary) thesis is correct, the number of intermediate transitional forms should be even greater than the number of animal species alive today and their fossilized remains should be abundant all over the world.” But I want to emphasize the word theory here. Evolution, as taught by the Darwinists, has no basis in fact whatsoever. Most credible scientists agree that so far as it affects the physical and biological worlds at large, evolutionary reasoning is highly overrated. Even its chief proponent, Charles Darwin (1809-1882) had many doubts concerning it before he died. Yet this misleading theory has impacted our world like no other theory, bending thought and policy alike everywhere it was taught.
In case you live under a rock (a possibility against this theory) then you must know that evolution teaches that all life came out of the chaos of the natural world and species themselves originated by way of diversion and natural selection, which was caused in turn by unexplainable mutations. The fittest mutations lived, the poorer ones died off.
But it is all nonsense.
To be sure, survival of the fittest is in many ways the law in nature, but what evolution offers, at best, is survival of the freakiest. Now listen to some of the evolutionists’ arguments: ocean chemicals (from out of the mysterious but convenient Big Bang) slosh around to form amino acids, which produce proteins and so on, which slosh around some more and become living reproducible cells. One cell joins a colony of cells to form an amoeba. Multiple-celled critters grow vertebrae and fins and eyes and prey on other critters. An amphibious reptile with eyes and lungs which can remain on land will survive better, hence the mammal class. An upright mammal is an improvement on a crawling mammal, hence the primates. A thinking primate with opposable digits can outperform a monkey, hence we humans exist. We’re some smart monkeys, but we’re stupid if we buy into this nonsense. All of it, according to evolutionists, took millions of years, then hundreds of millions of years, then billions of years. One current mathematical figure suggests 4.5 billion years for the age of the Earth, and 17 billion years for the known universe. The more their theory falls apart, the greater is the stretch of time. Oh well, allow enough time and anything can happen, right? Let’s go back even before God, why don’t we?
I will just point out a couple of fallacies in this mess. If superior species rise over inferior species, then what are all the ‘inferior’ ones still doing here? I can understand an extinction or two, but we still have one-celled things and amphibians with poor eyes and insects crawling over elephants and everything fighting and eating everything else. A Victorian era cartoon showed Darwin walking down a street with a monkey on a lease and a frown on his weary face. We evolved from the lesser primates and we are better? What is the monkey doing gaggling at us? Poor Darwin must have had some nightmares over that one. I admire this man’s observations in nature, but I do not subscribe to his interpretations. Evolutionists argue that changes from one species into another different species didn’t occur overnight (geologically speaking). Millennia were needed. My, my, how many millennia? How was this proved by them? Why, carbon dating and radioactive isotopes do that. The trouble is, cosmic radiation interferes with the levels found in fossils, and half-lifes are so long in years (by the evolutionary scientists’ own admission) that accurate measurement of these changes are impossible to make for any degree of acceptability. Example: if the isotope carbon-14 deteriorates to half its former level in 5730 years (so the story goes), then when did its initial level begin? Why, you keep doubling the measured level until you reach the full level that was there when the fossil was alive, so to speak. That would give you the time span for that fossil. Again, a huge problem: what was the original level? Well, you measure a living creature similar to the fossil, and then you backtrack. But the oldest living creature we could ever measure would be maybe a hundred years (a long human lifespan, or a turtle), IF we measure it while it is alive, and even at that there were no carbon-14 dating tools a century ago as ‘accurate’ as those we now use.
Just the same, it’s a measuring stick of sorts, say these intrepid evolutionists. Think about it: half of something is still half, and half of that is half of something else, and so on ad infinitum. Well, not quite ad infinitum, because you will never get to the actual end of that propagating equation. Yet they are taking a tiny drop of time (very poorly measured, remember) and extrapolating into an enormous stretch of the past and declaring that they know a fossil’s age, give or take a few million years, of course. And radio-isotopes like cesium, potassium-argon, rubidium-strontium offer much longer (I mean enormous) measuring spans, or so they argue. And evolutionists need vast amounts of time because eternity past can hide a lot of un-provable stuff.
And how is the value of our lives to be measured against this yardstick of eons? What thinking person (evolutionist or creationist) would be willing to consider that his/her distant ancestor was a sluggish and brutish beast of cave and forest compared to us, and that our distant descendents will be leaps and bounds above us both intellectually and morally? Are we really just turds (pardon the simile) in the line of life that goes from inconsequential amoeba to brilliant ethereal supermen? Where does it all end? And why should it be like that?
Another and simpler way to disprove evolution is in that impossible-to-date fossil record. Now, the evolutionists claim that their theory worked its way through billions of years, with life itself existing in at least many hundreds of millions of those years, and therefore the tiny changes needed to work their processes eventually came about. They do not disclaim the epochs of time in which these things occurred for life to battle it out and evolve so much in, and that is their downfall – their own mouths condemn them. If hundreds of millions of years (or billions, depending on which evolutionist you pay attention to) have passed and quadrillions of creatures deposited themselves into the sediments of land and sea, where are the huge deposits that should have come about? Especially on land where we do see a lot of life and where some coal and oil deposits exist? There isn’t a great deal of it, considering the gargantuan periods of time which have allegedly passed. In fact, there are no real missing links to connect one species with another descendent species. There’s no getting away from it: all that eerily long period of time and all those unthinkable numbers of living things, and still no discernable connections anywhere. Oh, there are some faked links and some suggested similarities, but nothing worth noting. It is as if I picked up a golden grain of sand on a beach and declared that, long enough in the past, the mountains were mostly made up of gold.
It’s not hard to see how such a stupid theory as evolution caught on. When the majority of people decided to take God out of the equation, they needed to fill the scientific world with something to explain all the marvels and wonders that do exist (including the millions of species and the utter complexity of DNA, for example). But their Something is actually nothing. The cosmos is not a lot of chaos with a bit of order thrown in (and where would such order come from?) but it is a lot of order and harmony with a bit of chaos thrown in by God.
Creationists do not (and should not) argue that biological changes cannot take place in the natural world. They actually do take place, in a lot of ways, much as Darwin saw them and described them. Creationists do not claim that the environment and our surroundings cannot affect the physical traits of creatures and plants. A sort of evolution, in the Darwinian sense, really does occur.
What Creationists hold Evolutionists to task for is the theory that one species changes enough over time that it becomes a new species, and that species changes, over more eons of time, to become another new species, and therefore that given enough time, a one or two-celled life form becomes a man or woman. That is known as macro-evolution, a theory of major change in biological diversity. It doesn’t happen because it never could happen. What we do have is a process best described as micro-evolution, wherein changes within a species do take place. There is a thin line between what constitutes a species, but there should be no doubt that a human is a human and a bug is a bug, and never the twain shall meet. Let the clever Evolutionist point at the manifold changes that occur throughout a thousand generations of fruit flies, but in the end they still wind up with fruit flies, perhaps more resistant to chemicals and with changed colors or stronger wings, but fruit flies just the same. Let the Evolutionists point out that species can become a new species and that you can see evidence of that by looking at the lowly butterfly or moth. The butterfly is at one stage a larvae, at another stage a pupae, and still another stage it sprouts beautiful wings and flies away. Three distinct biological versions, so very, very different from each other. I agree (on the differences). But they are still the same species! The butterfly will lay an egg which becomes a larvae which becomes a pupae etc etc. This is a graphic picture, but only of micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. Otherwise, Mr Evolution would have to settle for the following idea or process: a human being propagates itself by laying a single-celled egg which becomes an amoeba which becomes a fish which becomes a lizard which becomes a mammal which becomes a primate which becomes a man, etc. You get the picture. Whatever complex and long-drawn-out process he chooses in order to arrive at modern homo sapiens… We know this doesn’t happen, and we know all of those previous creatures do exist alongside us, as separate species in their own right.
So the scientific evidence around us backs up the one idea and not the other, for there is too much conflict for them both to be true. As someone once said, evidence demands a verdict. What does the empirical evidence of our natural world demand of us as a valid conclusion? A godless process or a special creation?
Let’s rule out, right away, that this creation can be called intelligent design. There are those who like to think that perhaps we are indeed formed and created by some higher power, and just perhaps that power is something far advanced of us and outside our sphere of life. They are talking of course about extraterrestrial intelligence. Again that is a theory and, as interesting as it may be, it has never been substantiated by any evidence. Let’s upgrade that idea and say we are here by special creation and that only God can do that. He has, mind you, already claimed very clearly and unequivocally, to have done just that.
So I ask you, which one of these two major theories holds true to the evidence which we hold in our hands? If you have come this far with me, go one step further, and consider these two-dozen or so major questions or problems which require an answer, and which of the two major theories explains these the best. Evolution cannot account for:

1. Severe lack of fossils to connect “billions” of years of different species.
2. No transition fossils between the “changes” of species.
3. How did fossils get out of place in the earth’s strata?
4. Evolutionists use circular arguments to support their fossil claims (the rock strata dates the fossil but the fossil also dates the rock etc).
5. No explanation for what happened before the Big Bang.
6. No explanation for the process which brought order out of chaos – evolution often defies the laws of physics and thermodynamics.
7. Complex organs (ie the human eye) could never just evolve.
8. The immune system cannot evolve according to evolutionary theory – the one process contradicts the other.
9. Languages are getting simpler, not more complex, and fewer.
10. DNA, RNA and genetic codes are far too complex to have happened by chance over the alleged eons of time.
11. Mutations never improve a species; they are counter-productive every time.
12. Human footprints are found alongside dinosaur footprints and next to trilobites in Cambrian formation.
13. Evolution cannot even begin to explain the existence of altruism in humans and animals, let alone moral compunctions. They defy the idea of “survival of the fittest”.
14. Evolution or geology in general, cannot explain the animals which were buried and preserved almost perfectly in the earth in what can only be a very rapid process of a few hours.
15. How to explain the existence of high pressures in oil deposits after “tens of millions” of years of them forming?
16. The geology, erosion, make-up, and planetary physics of the solar system are not explained by Evolution.
17. After “billions of years”, where is the abundance of moon dust, and where did the moon come from?
18. After “billions of years”, where are the abundant remains of meteorites which should show up all through the earth’s strata, but only show up in the uppermost strata?
19. How, for example, could a relatively small river like the Colorado create a gorge like the Grand Canyon when bigger rivers have not done so?
20. Some of the world’s most powerful earthquakes occur very far away from the plate tectonics boundaries.
21. Plate tectonics and continental drift, as commonly accepted, do not explain ocean trench fissures and those bent mountain strata, or unparallel fracture zones.
22. If the universe (and solar system) is billions of years old or even millions of years old, solar particles and planetary debris and formation gasses should have dissipated long ago. But they are still around (ie Saturn’s rings), defying cosmic physics.
23. The shape of and the spacing of galaxies actually DEFIES the Big Bang theory and the belief in the current theories of time and light and (example) stellar births.
24. The evolutionary explanation of the earth’s strata is not consistent with any known process of geology and does not even consider the proven phenomena of liquefaction, let alone the accepted principles of erosion and sedimentation.
25. The alleged evidence to support the theory of evolution has often been subject to forgery; for example, Piltdown Man (an orangutan jaw that somehow became a human jaw), archaeopteryx (the alleged cross-over fossil between reptiles and birds, PROVEN to be a hoax), Nebraska Man (a pig’s tooth that somehow became a human fossil), Lucy (an Australopithecus afarensis skeleton proven to be a consortium of various bones of different skeletons), the Yale Scandal (scientist Charles Sibley and accomplice Jon Ahlquist deliberately manipulated DNA evidence to try and “prove” apes and men are genetically related), and a living example of a “transitional species” in the tragic story of Ota Benga, an African pygmy who was displayed in zoos, next to chimpanzees and a gorilla, a century ago, as “evidence” of the closest ape-link to man.

Evolution likes to think that it dominates science and nature and sociology, but it cannot begin to explain concepts like the finite versus the infinite, time versus eternity, the process of aging, dating procedures (fallibility of infinite regress), or morality. It merely removes God from the equation of life and tries, UNSUCCESSFULLY, to explain the existence of man and nature through the impossible mechanics of coincidence and chance. Many predominant scientists have already pulled themselves away from this theory. Creation science goes a whole lot farther in explaining the natural universe than evolutionary theory does. The biblical claim of a Great Flood, for example, can easily explain all of the above problems, using the very evidences relied on by all of the mainstream scientists themselves. If you look closer, you will see that it is the only explanation.

[Marius vanderLubbe]

Crikey joe. Six posts in a few hours. I really must have rung your bell.

[arthwollipot]

Sorry, I got as far as "Science writer Harun Yahya" and realised that reading any further would be pointless.

[BobTheDonkey]

TL;DR

Basically, Joe, you're presenting the exact same arguments that have already been refuted.

We can refute these arguments of yours all day long with credible evidence and supporting fossil records, studies, and what not...bottom line is that you won't believe anything we prove because (and this is important) you simply don't want to give up belief in your God.

For all that you believe you know about evolution...you show how little you understand the theory when you claim that evolution attempts to explain the origins of the universe (it doesn't, merely the origins of life - big difference).

[Ferguson]

How nice, a great big wall of lies for Jesus.
It might have been entertaining if they were original, but nope, the same tired old lies that no one with a cursory understanding of biology would fall for.

"Mutations never improve a species; they are counter-productive every time."
:eek:

"In case you live under a rock (a possibility against this theory) then you must know that evolution teaches that all life came out of the chaos of the natural world and species themselves originated by way of diversion and natural selection, which was caused in turn by unexplainable mutations."
:jaw-dropp

"Evolution cannot even begin to explain the existence of altruism in humans and animals, let alone moral compunctions."
:bwall

[BobTheDonkey]

I personally find all the arguments from incredulity/ignorance to be my favorites.

ETA: "I don't know of, and can't imagine any way that, these things could develop on their own, so God Did It."

[Marius vanderLubbe]

This (http://richarddawkins.net/article,119,Why-I-Wont-Debate-Creationists,Richard-Dawkins) shold send my pal Joe into an apoplectic fit of rage.

Joe wants me to personally prove him wrong. (pauses to giggle). I suspect this is because he has taken a real shine to me. Understandable. I am quite adorable.
I do wish he would learn about the paragraph, and its uses in written English.

Joe, whats wrong with the millions of other folk who have done it before me?
Have you got about 15 years so I can de-program you, then re-educate you?
Stick to the pulpit, Joe. Leave the science to the scientists.

[quadraginta]

Sorry, I got as far as "Science writer Harun Yahya" and realised that reading any further would be pointless.


You're much more patient than I am. I only got this far. Sentence number two.

<snip>

In science, as in anything about life itself, something is proved and accepted through the evidence that supports it. A theory becomes fact when the unarguable proof is presented.

<snip>


Following a sentence describing science with that pretty much rings the gong.

[Marius vanderLubbe]

I suggest that everyone picks out their favorite passage of absurdity/fallacy and presents it for adjudication. In the interests of fair play, perhaps a brief explination of why the passage chosen is wrong/false/fallacious/even right, if thats what floats your boat.
There may well be prizes awarded, folks!


Here's mine (though technically I am ineligible to enter)

Evolution is one of the most devious theories ever to wend its way into the human psyche
I hardly think I need justify my selection criteria.

[quadraginta]

I suggest that everyone picks out their favorite passage of absurdity/fallacy and presents it for adjudication. In the interests of fair play, perhaps a brief explination of why the passage chosen is wrong/false/fallacious/even right, if thats what floats your boat.
There may well be prizes awarded, folks!

<snip>


Okay. I'll explain mine, if it's necessary.

"In science ..." theories don't "... become fact ...".

The " ... unarguable proof ..." thing goes into another topic entirely. Also unrelated to science.

[SezMe]

I suggest that everyone picks out their favorite passage of absurdity/fallacy and presents it for adjudication.
Problem is, that requires reading that gigantic wall of text. Not gonna bother.

[arthwollipot]

Do I really need to explain why Harun Yahya cannot be described as a "science writer"? He's a propagandist, that's all.

[Marius vanderLubbe]

Do I really need to explain why Harun Yahya cannot be described as a "science writer"? He's a propagandist, that's all.
Not to me, you don't.
But there may be others following that are not as well versed in matters skeptical.
I'd hate them to get the impression that we were attacking their sacred cattle just fer the heck of it.

[arthwollipot]

Anyone? Anyone need me to elaborate? Now's your chance to speak up.

[hereisjoe]

Show us all how evolution explains the origins of life. Please. For centuries now we have been collectively waiting for this infallible, repeatable, irrevocable proof. Anyone???

[hereisjoe]

Problem is, that requires reading that gigantic wall of text. Not gonna bother.

Here's the funny thing: vanderLubbe invites me to join him here on this forum because it allows more space and room to expand arguments and postings than Skeptoid.com. When I post a review of a book I was recommended to read (Dawkins) I get a mere one-sentence reply to it, and this reply is a twisting and corrupting of one sentence in that review. I think critically and intelligently, and somebody calls it not worth reading any further in. So my brief review is referred to as a 'gigantic wall of text' , and yet several Dawkins fans have pointed me to his books? I could have easily stopped halfway through the first chapter of the onerous "God Delusion", as soon as Dawkins had shown that he was incapable of proving his thesis of that book (he even admits this in the book!). Nevertheless I read the entire book, and I have other books by him. And yet you're 'not gonna bother'! Thanks for nothing.

[Marius vanderLubbe]

That's Mr. vanderLubbe, Joe.

Do you have a favorite passage to enter? Though technically, you are also ineligible to win.

[pipelineaudio]

Show us all how evolution explains the origins of life. Please. For centuries now we have been collectively waiting for this infallible, repeatable, irrevocable proof. Anyone???

Show us how fuel injector theory explains why people perceive minor intervals in music to be less happy than major ones

[jhunter1163]

tl(oony):dr

[BobTheDonkey]

Ok, Joe, let's do this one bit at a time.

First, we need to separate all the claims you are attempting to make and use to prove that evolution is a flawed theory. Evolution has nothing to do with how the universe began and/or formed. Arguments from incredulity are fallacious and will be met with ridicule. Just because you cannot (or choose not to, same difference really) understand the theory does not mean it's a preposterous one.

ETA: Evolution makes no attempt to deny nor prove the existence of any god(s). It is simply a theory regarding the ancestry of modern species, no more, no less. Just because evolution is supported by atheists does not mean that acknowledgment of evolutionary theory requires one to be atheist.

Any and all claims you make about what evolution is about need to presented with published articles backing your claims - and no, James Dobson does not count. We need peer-reviewed articles from reputable scientific journals.

And this is where I'm going to insist that you define what you mean by "evolution." You have a very skewed view of what evolution is and how it works. Think of evolution as a process, not a single step. No creature made huge leaps forward, it was done one very, very small step at a time. Regarding the link between rabbits and leopards, Dawkins has this to say:

...steadily and imperceptibly, as we retreat through time, we shall reach ancestors that look less and less like a rabbit and more and more like a shrew (and not very like either). One of these creatures I'll call the hairpin bend, for reasons that will become apparent. This animal is the most recent common ancestor...that rabbits share with leopards.

...we are talking only about locating a chain of animals that links a modern animal to another modern animal. We are most emphatically not evolving a rabbit into a leopard. I suppose you could say we are de-evolving back to the hairpin, then evolving forwards to the leopard from there...It is unfortunately necessary to explain, again and again, that modern species don't evolve into other modern species, they just share ancestors: they are cousins.

...however radical and extensive the differences between the ends of the hairpin - rabbit and leopard, say - each step along the chain that links them is very, very small. Every individual along the chain is as similar to it's neighbors in the chain as mothers and daughters are expected to be.

Second, you claim that Dawkins states that he has no real proof of evolution. Would you mind posting the quote (including citation)?

[JWideman]

Joe's absurdity: "But the oldest living creature we could ever measure would be maybe a hundred years (a long human lifespan, or a turtle), IF we measure it while it is alive, and even at that there were no carbon-14 dating tools a century ago as ‘accurate’ as those we now use."

Rebuttal: You got us, Joe. Why, radiocarbon dating was off by as much as 700 years! If only there were things that lived longer than that. But of course such things don't grow on... oh yeah. :D

[arthwollipot]

Show us all how evolution explains the origins of life. Please. For centuries now we have been collectively waiting for this infallible, repeatable, irrevocable proof. Anyone???Well, how long have you got? There are people who spend their entire lives studying evolution.

And let me just make one small point here. No, actually, it's a great big huge stonkin' point.

Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life.

That's so important, I'm going to say it again, in bold.

Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life.

The title of Darwin's book was On the Origin of Species, not the origin of life. Evolution describes how pre-existing life changes and develops into new species - it does not have anything at all to say about the initial origin of life.

The scientific study of the origin of life is called abiogenesis, and truth be told we know a whole lot less about that than we do about evolution. If you want to argue that species do not change and were created more or less in their present form, then you are arguing against evolution. But if you want to bring up the ultimate origin of life, you've gone beyond the scope of evolution and delved into abiogenesis.

So what is it, hereisjoe? Do you want to argue about evolution, or do you want to argue about abiogenesis? We can do either one. It's up to you.

[hereisjoe]

BobTheDonkey, you wrote: "ETA: "I don't know of, and can't imagine any way that, these things could develop on their own, so God Did It."

Show me where I made that quote, and I'll show you two sunrises on the same day...

[pay attention, your lies get worse]:

you also said: "Second, you claim that Dawkins states that he has no real proof of evolution. Would you mind posting the quote (including citation)?

Umm, would you mind first showing where it is I MADE that claim? Dawkins name isn't even in my essay on evolution, and any claims I attribute to him in The God Delusion book are clearly marked and present. What other twists of literature are you going to try here? What drug are you on? What strange drug is dawkins on considering the warped and convoluted messages he believes in, re the paragraphs yu quoted above from his latest trash opus?

Consider (Dawkins): "It is unfortunately necessary to explain, again and again, that modern species don't evolve into other modern species, they just share ancestors: they are cousins..."

So then, we are NOT evolving after all! Hmmm. Brilliant, this man...

Regarding post #24 above: "Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life..."

Wow! Species aren't life??? You mean to tell me that I cannot look backwards inside this theory of yours and try to see the first species? Or maybe you believe that there were no First Specie??? No first Life Critters? You fail to connect Beginnings with Present and Future? You utterly fail to project the implications of evolution (change in species) to any kind of first origin? Am I reading you correctly? Therefore, can I safely say that the health of a plant in my garden is not related to the source of the electromagnetic spectrum which originates from our sun? One is plant biology, the other is nuclear physics...

I love the way you evolutionists twist words and relationships of sciences to suit your unfounded claims. Beautiful warped semantics to hide behind!

Incidentall, my definition of Evolution is the same as your definition. I've never anywhere denied the theory itself (read my essay again in order to avoid foot-in-mouth disease). I just see it as another theory, not a fact.

One more thing: "We need peer-reviewed articles from reputable scientific journals..."

Oh Boy, you're in for an earful on THAT slushpile!!! Hold your breath...

[Marius vanderLubbe]

Hey Joe. Here's a little present. (http://tinyurl.com/joesdegree) I hope you like it. It will give your beliefs some weight. Possibly.

I imagine that you dont have one already....

[JWideman]

BobTheDonkey, you wrote: "ETA: "I don't know of, and can't imagine any way that, these things could develop on their own, so God Did It."

Show me where I made that quote, and I'll show you two sunrises on the same day...


This isn't a quote. This is what we call a snarky summation of your position.


[pay attention, your lies get worse]:

you also said: "Second, you claim that Dawkins states that he has no real proof of evolution. Would you mind posting the quote (including citation)?

Umm, would you mind first showing where it is I MADE that claim? Dawkins name isn't even in my essay on evolution, and any claims I attribute to him in The God Delusion book are clearly marked and present. What other twists of literature are you going to try here? What drug are you on? What strange drug is dawkins on considering the warped and convoluted messages he believes in, re the paragraphs yu quoted above from his latest trash opus?


He's probably referring to this:
"Dawkins had shown that he was incapable of proving his thesis of that book (he even admits this in the book!)"


Consider (Dawkins): "It is unfortunately necessary to explain, again and again, that modern species don't evolve into other modern species, they just share ancestors: they are cousins..."

So then, we are NOT evolving after all! Hmmm. Brilliant, this man...


You deny you said it and then you go and defend it with a quote. A quote which, incidentally, indicates you have trouble with reading comprehension. It's clear to the rest of us that Dawkins wasn't at all saying that we are not evolving. Of course we're all evolving. Every living thing is evolving. But a monkey isn't going to give birth to a human baby. Dawkins is lamenting the need to repeatedly point this out.


Regarding post #24 above: "Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life..."

Wow! Species aren't life???


Well, no. Species is a classification. Cats are a species. Dogs are a species. Both are a form of life. But species aren't life. Evolution only addresses how one species survived while another species died out.


You mean to tell me that I cannot look backwards inside this theory of yours and try to see the first species? Or maybe you believe that there were no First Specie??? No first Life Critters? You fail to connect Beginnings with Present and Future? You utterly fail to project the implications of evolution (change in species) to any kind of first origin? Am I reading you correctly?


It is safe to say that it is doubtful you read anything correctly.


Therefore, can I safely say that the health of a plant in my garden is not related to the source of the electromagnetic spectrum which originates from our sun? One is plant biology, the other is nuclear physics...

I love the way you evolutionists twist words and relationships of sciences to suit your unfounded claims. Beautiful warped semantics to hide behind!


I love the way you creationists twist words and relationships of sciences to suit your unfounded claims. Beautiful warped semantics to hide behind!


Incidentall, my definition of Evolution is the same as your definition. I've never anywhere denied the theory itself (read my essay again in order to avoid foot-in-mouth disease). I just see it as another theory, not a fact.


Gravity is just a theory, Joe. Better hold onto something.

[arthwollipot]

Regarding post #24 above: "Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life..."

Wow! Species aren't life??? You mean to tell me that I cannot look backwards inside this theory of yours and try to see the first species? Or maybe you believe that there were no First Specie??? No first Life Critters? You fail to connect Beginnings with Present and Future? You utterly fail to project the implications of evolution (change in species) to any kind of first origin? Am I reading you correctly?You didn't actually read what I wrote, did you?

[Marius vanderLubbe]

Hey Joe. Here's a little present. (http://tinyurl.com/joesdegree) I hope you like it. It will give your beliefs some weight. Possibly.

I imagine that you don't have one already....
Sorry, fellow unbelievers and Joe. That link appears to be crap. It was to a degree In Intelligent design from Thunderwood College (http://thunderwoodcollege.com/) for Joe to hang on his wall.
Jokes on me this time, for not being intertubz savvy.

[BobTheDonkey]

You didn't actually read what I wrote, did you?

Well, you'll have to excuse him, Joe has only a handful of talking points to use as "evidence" against evolution. So he skims everyone else's posts/comments, latches onto a few points he thinks he has the talking point response to, and then posts those in a less-than-coherent manner.

[BobTheDonkey]

BobTheDonkey, you wrote: "ETA: "I don't know of, and can't imagine any way that, these things could develop on their own, so God Did It."

Show me where I made that quote, and I'll show you two sunrises on the same day...

Well, you might not have said exactly those words...but then, I wasn't really quoting you. See, when I actually quote someone, I use quote boxes like these:

Evolution, a godless process in which a state of chaos is brought into a beautiful order, or Creation, a god-ordained (or God-ordained) process in which the universes and everything in it was presented in a wonderful state of order.
7. Complex organs (ie the human eye) could never just evolve.

10. DNA, RNA and genetic codes are far too complex to have happened by chance over the alleged eons of time.
13. Evolution cannot even begin to explain the existence of altruism in humans and animals, let alone moral compunctions. They defy the idea of “survival of the fittest”
Evolution likes to think that it dominates science and nature and sociology, but it cannot begin to explain concepts like the finite versus the infinite, time versus eternity, the process of aging, dating procedures (fallibility of infinite regress), or morality. It merely removes God from the equation of life and tries, UNSUCCESSFULLY, to explain the existence of man and nature through the impossible mechanics of coincidence and chance...Creation science goes a whole lot farther in explaining the natural universe than evolutionary theory does.

So, perhaps you didn't exactly say "I don't understand how it happened, so God did it," but...well, in far more words you did claim that Evolution cannot explain everything (it doesn't try to, btw) and Creationism - which is to say "God did it" - does.

Moving on:


[pay attention, your lies get worse]:

you also said: "Second, you claim that Dawkins states that he has no real proof of evolution. Would you mind posting the quote (including citation)?

Umm, would you mind first showing where it is I MADE that claim? Dawkins name isn't even in my essay on evolution, and any claims I attribute to him in The God Delusion book are clearly marked and present. What other twists of literature are you going to try here? What drug are you on? What strange drug is dawkins on considering the warped and convoluted messages he believes in, re the paragraphs yu quoted above from his latest trash opus?

From your third post in this thread:

Dawkins had shown that he was incapable of proving his thesis of that book (he even admits this in the book!).

So, again, I ask, could you please post the quote, complete with citation, where Dawkins states that there is no proof of evolution?


Consider (Dawkins): "It is unfortunately necessary to explain, again and again, that modern species don't evolve into other modern species, they just share ancestors: they are cousins..."

So then, we are NOT evolving after all! Hmmm. Brilliant, this man...

Actually, Dawkins was stating that while evolution does happen, it is not from a modern species to another modern species - modern species evolve into new species. Actually, Waterman covered this pretty well in his response, so I'll just leave it at that.

Regarding post #24 above: "Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life..."

Wow! Species aren't life??? You mean to tell me that I cannot look backwards inside this theory of yours and try to see the first species? Or maybe you believe that there were no First Specie??? No first Life Critters? You fail to connect Beginnings with Present and Future? You utterly fail to project the implications of evolution (change in species) to any kind of first origin? Am I reading you correctly? Therefore, can I safely say that the health of a plant in my garden is not related to the source of the electromagnetic spectrum which originates from our sun? One is plant biology, the other is nuclear physics...

I love the way you evolutionists twist words and relationships of sciences to suit your unfounded claims. Beautiful warped semantics to hide behind!Please, refer to Waterman's responses to this bit.


Incidentall, my definition of Evolution is the same as your definition. I've never anywhere denied the theory itself (read my essay again in order to avoid foot-in-mouth disease). I just see it as another theory, not a fact.
Ok, so perhaps we both have the same definition of the word "evolution." However, the Theory of Evolution is not what you think it is. I can assure you, your original essay (and it's list) makes it abundantly clear that you aren't even sure what you're arguing against/about. (just a few gems to show this: )

Creationists do not (and should not) argue that biological changes cannot take place in the natural world. They actually do take place, in a lot of ways, much as Darwin saw them and described them. (here you admit that Darwin was right...but then, in the same paragraph: )
This is a graphic picture, but only of micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. Otherwise, Mr Evolution would have to settle for the following idea or process: a human being propagates itself by laying a single-celled egg which becomes an amoeba which becomes a fish which becomes a lizard which becomes a mammal which becomes a primate which becomes a man, etc.( http://api.ning.com/files/cvpLPiJrSae9NZiNoS6W5*2uWqM8kWe9jqu7i-SR7ee5blMKWZ0-s7AZNCYfpmJCdQ4aBtyAKfyLBIJ5q2rflfJPnMDcVLow/macroevolution_microevolution_ape_to_man2.jpg )

5. No explanation for what happened before the Big Bang.
(note that Evolution does not claim to be able to explain this)
11. Mutations never improve a species; they are counter-productive every time.(tell that to the Xmen, btw...)
16. The geology, erosion, make-up, and planetary physics of the solar system are not explained by Evolution.(see response to #5 above)
21. Plate tectonics and continental drift, as commonly accepted, do not explain ocean trench fissures and those bent mountain strata, or unparallel fracture zones.(see response to #5 above)



One more thing: "We need peer-reviewed articles from reputable scientific journals..."

Oh Boy, you're in for an earful on THAT slushpile!!! Hold your breath...
I'm waiting, Joe. Btw, have you found your pre-cambrian bunny yet?

[hereisjoe]

“Well, you might not have said exactly those words...but then, I wasn't really quoting you. See, when I actually quote someone, I use quote boxes like these:..”

No, Bob, I did not say those words. If you want to quote me, copy/paste is handy, OK? Just get the quote right, please. I will acknowledge what I do say…

“So, perhaps you didn't exactly say "I don't understand how it happened, so God did it," but...well, in far more words you did claim that Evolution cannot explain everything (it doesn't try to, btw) and Creationism - which is to say "God did it" - does.”

Perhaps I didn’t exactly say..??? No, Bob, I DIDN’T SAY! If you search this site under my username you will see that I have tried to explain to others the difference (in my opinion) between “God Created’ and ‘Science/nature performs’. You might want to further educate yourself on the actual beliefs of a creationist before you jump down their throats like this.

“From your third post in this thread:Quote: (by Joe)
Dawkins had shown that he was incapable of proving his thesis of that book (he even admits this in the book!).”

Again, Bob, you don’t seem to read things correctly. At the tedious monotony of repeating myself, I did not use the name Dawkins anywhere in my posting on Evolution. The quote you are using refers to my posting of a review of the Dawkins book ‘The God Delusion’. You really need to keep better track of what you think you say, Bob.

“Actually, Dawkins was stating that while evolution does happen, it is not from a modern species to another modern species - modern species evolve into new species. Actually, Waterman covered this pretty well in his response, so I'll just leave it at that.”

It’s pretty clear to me what Dawkins is saying. Unless, of course, he is using a different form of the English language (Academia Pontificus, maybe?) which I am unfamiliar with, in which case I am at the disadvantage. But I am not debating Dawkins here, I am debating you.


“However, the Theory of Evolution is not what you think it is...”

Ummm. I understand evolution to be a theory in which changes over time presents the planet with new species, and that this is an ongoing process. Looking forward, there might be men who have six fingers and three eyes, dolphins who talk English, and turkeys carrying shotguns, who knows? These are not my beliefs. Looking back, there has to be a beginning of all species we now know about. Were they mostly in place, as a Creator would have, or came out of some primordial mud or sea or whatever? Darwin had a huge question mark next to his tree of life diagram. He wasn’t sure what the answer was. Evolutionary theory still isn’t, Bob. I have no argument with biological changes; I do have opposing opinions on how far those changes go. Have I missed something essential here?

“…tell that to the Xmen, btw...)”

I am not debating the X-Men. I do not believe they are real (no surprise)…

“I'm waiting, Joe. Btw, have you found your pre-cambrian bunny yet?”

For an answer to that, you will have to address my questioning of the dating processes used by mainstream evolutionary scientists here, because it impacts on the veracity of those alleged biological periods of earth’s geological history. Pre-Cambrian bunny? Is that by any chance a variation of the pseudo-Christian Easter Bunny?? {Don’t answer its rhetorical).

Incidentally, I am not aware of anybody of the name CrazyJoe posting here. There IS a donkey called Bob etc, but no ‘CrazyJoe” that I could find..

[hereisjoe]

Marius, thanks for your recent efforts to enlighten me. But you should know that I am not a big fan of the term "intelligent design" as it is currently used in regards to origins. For example, this term can refer to a super-civilization who came over to our part of the galaxy and introduced us to high-technology etc. If that were the case, there would have to be an explanation for that civilization's origins. This more or less reflects the infinite regress argument: any Origin capable of being explained by science as we know it would have to have an explanation for THAT origin. A conundrum. Not that I discard the possibility of an alien civilization of some sort being responsible for starting other civilizations (the sci-fi book "The Uplift War" dealt with this idea). I just don't think we have good evidence of ET interference with planet Earth. It's possible, I admit, but evidence? Zilch...

Now as for God creating everything... well, think: what can give you 'something' from 'nothing"? Hmmm?

[BobTheDonkey]

Now as for God creating everything... well, think: what can give you 'something' from 'nothing"? Hmmm?

Well, that's exactly what irreducible complexity involves Joe. If a complex being requires a higher intelligence, then what created your God? And what created what created your God, and on and on. See, Joe, it doesn't end. You claim that nothing can just "poof" into existence, and then turn around and claim that your God did just that.

[BobTheDonkey]

“Well, you might not have said exactly those words...but then, I wasn't really quoting you. See, when I actually quote someone, I use quote boxes like these:..”

No, Bob, I did not say those words. If you want to quote me, copy/paste is handy, OK? Just get the quote right, please. I will acknowledge what I do say…

“So, perhaps you didn't exactly say "I don't understand how it happened, so God did it," but...well, in far more words you did claim that Evolution cannot explain everything (it doesn't try to, btw) and Creationism - which is to say "God did it" - does.”

Perhaps I didn’t exactly say..??? No, Bob, I DIDN’T SAY! If you search this site under my username you will see that I have tried to explain to others the difference (in my opinion) between “God Created’ and ‘Science/nature performs’. You might want to further educate yourself on the actual beliefs of a creationist before you jump down their throats like this.Really Joe? Because right below my remark, I posted all the statements you made that have the exact effect of science cannot explain it, so we must default (how is this the default anyway?) to the creationist standpoint of: It was created (poofed into existence) by God. That is what the previously quoted excerpts from your initial post say, or are you going to try (again) to deny that you've made statements to this effect?


“From your third post in this thread:Quote: (by Joe)
Dawkins had shown that he was incapable of proving his thesis of that book (he even admits this in the book!).”

Again, Bob, you don’t seem to read things correctly. At the tedious monotony of repeating myself, I did not use the name Dawkins anywhere in my posting on Evolution. The quote you are using refers to my posting of a review of the Dawkins book ‘The God Delusion’. You really need to keep better track of what you think you say, Bob.Well, in that case, I apologize for my mistake. Let me rephrase the request:

Joe, could you please quote and cite where Dawkins claims he is incapable of proving his thesis?



“Actually, Dawkins was stating that while evolution does happen, it is not from a modern species to another modern species - modern species evolve into new species. Actually, Waterman covered this pretty well in his response, so I'll just leave it at that.”

It’s pretty clear to me what Dawkins is saying. Unless, of course, he is using a different form of the English language (Academia Pontificus, maybe?) which I am unfamiliar with, in which case I am at the disadvantage. But I am not debating Dawkins here, I am debating you.
True, well, almost. You aren't debating me, Joe. Debate requires that you prove my arguments false, not that you attempt to simply dismiss them.

Dawkins (and I included enough of a quote to show it) indeed is stating that species evolve into other species, not from a current species into another current species. This is the Theory of Evolution. Evolution covers nothing more, nothing less.

“However, the Theory of Evolution is not what you think it is...”

Ummm. I understand evolution to be a theory in which changes over time presents the planet with new species, and that this is an ongoing process. Looking forward, there might be men who have six fingers and three eyes, dolphins who talk English, and turkeys carrying shotguns, who knows? These are not my beliefs. Looking back, there has to be a beginning of all species we now know about. Were they mostly in place, as a Creator would have, or came out of some primordial mud or sea or whatever? Darwin had a huge question mark next to his tree of life diagram. He wasn’t sure what the answer was. Evolutionary theory still isn’t, Bob. I have no argument with biological changes; I do have opposing opinions on how far those changes go. Have I missed something essential here?
Really? Because you claim that all mutations are negative. Do I need to requote you on that?

“…tell that to the Xmen, btw...)”

I am not debating the X-Men. I do not believe they are real (no surprise)…...right over your head...

“I'm waiting, Joe. Btw, have you found your pre-cambrian bunny yet?”

For an answer to that, you will have to address my questioning of the dating processes used by mainstream evolutionary scientists here, because it impacts on the veracity of those alleged biological periods of earth’s geological history. Pre-Cambrian bunny? Is that by any chance a variation of the pseudo-Christian Easter Bunny?? {Don’t answer its rhetorical).

I asked for the citations regarding your claims, you have yet to provide any evidence. Until I see a study published in a peer reviewed scientific journal that supports your opinions on these claims, I fail to see how I am the one needing to provide proof. The onus of proof is on the accuser - you, Joe, are accusing the scientific community (and evolutionists in particular) of being wrong. Prove it to me.

[arthwollipot]

Ummm. I understand evolution to be a theory in which changes over time presents the planet with new species, and that this is an ongoing process. Looking forward, there might be men who have six fingers and three eyes, dolphins who talk English, and turkeys carrying shotguns, who knows?Ah. I see the trouble. This is most certainly not what evolution states. Humans will never evolve three eyes. Our embryology wouldn't allow it. Six fingers, possibly. But three eyes would require more mutation than is reasonably possible.

I suspect that you have been misled about what evolution actually does and does not claim.

[Mojo]

Consider (Dawkins): "It is unfortunately necessary to explain, again and again, that modern species don't evolve into other modern species, they just share ancestors: they are cousins..."

So then, we are NOT evolving after all! Hmmm. Brilliant, this man...


Try reading all the words you quoted. It doesn't say modern species are not evolving, just that they're not evolving into other modern species.

[arthwollipot]

Oh dear - this isn't another "why are there still monkeys" argument, is it?

[Mojo]

It arises from one, but I think it's either an inability to comprehend a simple sentence or a particularly incompetent (given that it actually quotes the sentence it misrepresents) attempt at a strawman.

[arthwollipot]

It arises from one, but I think it's either an inability to comprehend a simple sentence or a particularly incompetent (given that it actually quotes the sentence it misrepresents) attempt at a strawman.To be fair, I don't think hereisjoe even realises how wrong he is. I'm sure that given the opportunity, he'd be able to come to an honest understanding of the science of evolution. Unless, of course, his opposition to it is purely ideological. We wouldn't be able to do anything about that.

[BobTheDonkey]

To be fair, I don't think hereisjoe even realises how wrong he is. I'm sure that given the opportunity, he'd be able to come to an honest understanding of the science of evolution. Unless, of course, his opposition to it is purely ideological. We wouldn't be able to do anything about that.

Given Joe's responses on the Skeptoid website and the few here, he refuses to acknowledge what evolution truly explains/entails based on ideological reasons.

There really is no explanation of evolution more simple than:

Species change over time, eventually becoming new species.

[Marius vanderLubbe]

To be fair, I don't think hereisjoe even realises how wrong he is. I'm sure that given the opportunity, he'd be able to come to an honest understanding of the science of evolution. Unless, of course, his opposition to it is purely ideological. We wouldn't be able to do anything about that.

Joe's position is pure YEC dogma. He has demonstrated relatedly that he is completely unwilling to consider any other possibility other than "God did it. End of story."

[hereisjoe]

Ideology is something you strongly believe in. Thus, even an Evolutiomist has his/her ideology. The ideal belief system... Be careful of how strongly you stick to your ideology and how weakly you might turn away from anything else.

"This is most certainly not what evolution states. Humans will never evolve three eyes. Our embryology wouldn't allow it..."

You've gotta think: going back through the millennium, it was possible to think that such-and-such an ancient creature like a primordial ape or lemur (something in the primate family) could turn into a modern cellphone-weilding upright man. So it's not improbable what it is that a man of the 21st centuy might turn into. You are beating aboutn the bush. Species change for the better would be...What, exactly?

[Marius vanderLubbe]

Ideology is something you strongly believe in. Thus, even an Evolutionist has his/her ideology. The ideal belief system... Be careful of how strongly you stick to your ideology and how weakly you might turn away from anything else.

"This is most certainly not what evolution states. Humans will never evolve three eyes. Our embryology wouldn't allow it..."

You've gotta think: going back through the millennium, it was possible to think that such-and-such an ancient creature like a primordial ape or lemur (something in the primate family) could turn into a modern cellphone-wielding upright man. So it's not improbable what it is that a man of the 21st century might turn into. You are beating about the bush. Species change for the better would be...What, exactly?


Here's something that you might not have gleaned yet, J-Bo.

I (and am very confident many, many others) do not believe in the theory of evolution by natural selection.
Shocked?

Same as I do not believe that I am sitting on a chair.

I accept evolution as the best possible explanation based on the best available evidence at this point in time.

To believe is to accept as true, unswervingly, in absence of, or despite, evidence.

That's you.

The rest of your last post?
Arrgh!! It burns.
Do some reading. From the biology section of a good public library. Something that doesn't have the word god in it.

[BobTheDonkey]

Ideology is something you strongly believe in. Thus, even an Evolutiomist has his/her ideology. The ideal belief system... Be careful of how strongly you stick to your ideology and how weakly you might turn away from anything else.

"This is most certainly not what evolution states. Humans will never evolve three eyes. Our embryology wouldn't allow it..."

You've gotta think: going back through the millennium, it was possible to think that such-and-such an ancient creature like a primordial ape or lemur (something in the primate family) could turn into a modern cellphone-weilding upright man. So it's not improbable what it is that a man of the 21st centuy might turn into. You are beating aboutn the bush. Species change for the better would be...What, exactly?

Well, Joe, if way back in the day, natural selection had favored a creature who's embryology supported 3-eyes, then yes, we'd likely have developed 3-eyes over time.

Genetics pwns you, Joe.


Aside from genetics:


Evolution via natural selection isn't "well, this would be more beneficial, let's add it."

Channeling Dawkins again, an antelope has a primary enemy in the cheetah. In order to survive and pass on it's DNA/Genes, the antelope needs to be able to run fast and maneuver well. Long, spindly legs are faster and more maneuverable than shorter, fatter legs. However, longer, spindly legs are more susceptible to breaking - which actually decreases the antelope's survivability. Thus, we have antelope with what has become a good compromise (remember, it's not that the antelope has to outrun the cheetah...he/she only has to outrun another member of the pack :D) because those with short fat legs would be outrun and those with longer, more spindly legs would fall from broken legs.

Evolution does not support mutation for the sake of mutation. Evolution, via natural selection, is the idea that those creatures which are best suited for survival will do so and, thus, be more productive than other members of it's species, thereby passing on it's genes.

Joe, you seem to be in a "scientific" mindset constrained by a single lifetime. Evolution doesn't happen in a single creature's lifetime. Even if I were to be miraculously born with a 3rd eye (really not much of a survival benefit in our species, but that's beside the point), it would take many generations of humans before they all had 3 eyes.

You're only looking at the ends. In this case, the ends (perhaps) justifies the means...but natural selection doesn't see it that way. Natural selection lives in the moment, in this generation - not 10, not 100, not 1000 generations from now. So while we might say "ya know, a 3rd eye would be really beneficial to survival," natural selection is looking at the first step (which wouldn't be, at all, beneficial to natural selection given we already have 2 eyes) and saying: "ya know, I'd rather use these resources over here building stronger muscles/longer legs/etc because I can see the immediate benefits."

[Mojo]

Evolution via natural selection isn't "well, this would be more beneficial, let's add it."

Channeling Dawkins again, an antelope has a primary enemy in the cheetah. In order to survive and pass on it's DNA/Genes, the antelope needs to be able to run fast and maneuver well. Long, spindly legs are faster and more maneuverable than shorter, fatter legs. However, longer, spindly legs are more susceptible to breaking - which actually decreases the antelope's survivability. Thus, we have antelope with what has become a good compromise (remember, it's not that the antelope has to outrun the cheetah...he/she only has to outrun another member of the pack :D) because those with short fat legs would be outrun and those with longer, more spindly legs would fall from broken legs.

Evolution does not support mutation for the sake of mutation. Evolution, via natural selection, is the idea that those creatures which are best suited for survival will do so and, thus, be more productive than other members of it's species, thereby passing on it's genes.


On the other hand, if the environment changes, you're going to see a different equilibrium point: if the cheetahs were to become extinct, then the slower predators would result in antelopes with slightly shorter legs as the optimum form. If a predator even faster than cheetahs appeared, then longer legs would be selected for.

[BobTheDonkey]

On the other hand, if the environment changes, you're going to see a different equilibrium point: if the cheetahs were to become extinct, then the slower predators would result in antelopes with slightly shorter legs as the optimum form. If a predator even faster than cheetahs appeared, then longer legs would be selected for.

Thanks. That wraps it up better than I did. :D

[hereisjoe]

Well, that's exactly what irreducible complexity involves Joe. If a complex being requires a higher intelligence, then what created your God? And what created what created your God, and on and on. See, Joe, it doesn't end. You claim that nothing can just "poof" into existence, and then turn around and claim that your God did just that.

Bob, 'irreducible complexity' means that a God is the only explanation to the origin of life. If Evolutionists can't go back to the Begining, they can't discuss the Orgins of life per se.

[BobTheDonkey]

Bob, 'irreducible complexity' means that a God is the only explanation to the origin of life. If Evolutionists can't go back to the Begining, they can't discuss the Orgins of life per se.

Um. I don't think you know what you think you know. Irreducible Complexity is, by definition really, the idea that something complex must be developed by something more complex - i.e. your argument that because the eye is so complex, it must have been designed is an example of irreducible complexity. Unfortunately, this falls down when we try to find out what made God since complex things must be created/designed by a more complex being by definition of irreducible complexity.

In other words: You say the eye is so complex it must have been designed. I say: Well, in that case, your god is so complex it could not have just "poofed" into existence, what made your god?

[Marius vanderLubbe]

He's back, in all his shining glory.
Wazzup Joe?
"...you get your own wacky stories straightened out...". You haven't straightened out your wacky theory, Mr vanderLubbe. Lots of blah blah blah but no attempt to address my question above. Fancy words and phrases from somebody who hasn't demonstrated his knowledge of science. No wonder nobody bothers to take you on.

"...see if you can come up with some new angle...". Why bother? The old proven angles mean nothing to you, re erosion or radiation rates. So I repeat: tell me how either the decay rates of radiations or the erosion rates of geology can prove an Old Earth scenario, and you've got my attention.

Ohh, and look here: another Richard Dawkins boot-licker comes a'bleating. Gregory, do you really think this Dawkins bloke actually knows what he is talking about, when he cannot comprehend even basic geology or cosmology? And don't give me the old poop about "evolution has nothing to do with other origins" - it has everything to do with it. With a hundredfold increase in the timeline from Darwin's day to now, the entire false theory he purported is "trivially false" and then some.

So, anybody for proving the "Old Earth" hypothesis? Please, no boring links. Do it in your own words. I'm listening.

And... I will post again to the randi forum on this topic.

I can hardly wait.

[LarianLeQuella]

These arguments are so tiresome, predictable, and downright silly, that I even have a couple web pages set up. Too bad the average creationist will still continue to plug their ears, scream, "LA! LA! LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" and then go forth to repeat the bad arguments yet again!

http://factsnotfantasy.com/evolution.html

http://factsnotfantasy.com/creationists.html - This is my favorite smack down! :D

http://www.factsnotfantasy.com/15.html

http://www.factsnotfantasy.com/25.html

[Marius vanderLubbe]

Here's the lates gem from joe..
It's a doozy!
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4035
1. I accused Mr vanderlubbe of being incapable of arguing science, in his own words. I ask for no boring links, but that's precisely what I get from him. He proves my point - he gives me a mythological, caustic, fantasy-world link in FactsNotFantasy ... thus, he proves incapable of demonstrating facts from fantasy. Oh yes, I bookmarked that site and will read it completely, all of the lies, not just some of them. By the way, this (above) site promotes hatred of creationists and accuses us all of being totally incapable of science WHILE demonstrating no knowledge of science. Typical atheistic/evolutionist thinking - demonize the opponent...BORE-ing...

2. I ask for scientific discussion, some critical thinking, a response to a pure scientific question or two. I get zilch in return. Either he doesn't know what to say, or he is ignorant. OR he is scared. He defaults (and why is this a surprise to me - it isn't) to the typical packet of lies which is another atheist website - much ado about shallow accusations.

3. Marius, I think you're nothing but a clown, NOT a critical thinker. Here's one more chance to prove me wrong on that point: address my dual question from above. Prove you are not really a Richard-Dawkins-sphaghetti-monster-pixie-unicorn clone. You spread his outlandish phrases like you believe them, but really, they reflect nothing short of intellectual impotence. Prove yourself. I'm a'waitin...

4. Serial creationistas? Cute! So, are you a serial evolutionista

I respond thus;
I dont debate science with you, Joe, for the same reason I dont debate it with pre-schoolers, or furry animals.
Science is my career, Joe, and I am elbow deep in it every day.

I wonder what logical fallacy he will be using next?

[hereisjoe]

A Response to the Article by Larian LeQuella
On the website Facts not Fantasy re
Evolution – “Creationists read this”

Is it possible, guys, that I have been enlightened at last?

I was recently referred to an online article by Steve Lundquist, also known as Larian LeQuella, about the long list of asertions made against evolutionary biology and other sciences by creationists. Having read this entire article and studied it carefully, I must say that it has influenced my opinion. A whole forest of questions has arisen and the apparent clarity and precision of the whole thing made me question myself. The entire “web of lies and deceptions” (as the article’s author puts it) has prompted me to respond.

How long was I to remain entangled in the list of canards erected by proponents of creation theory? How much reality-denial could some people be involved in? Consider the mythological assertion that you can’t get something from nothing. What Bronze Age thinking was I trying to use? Of course you can get a universe from nothing – you just wait for the right science to come along. You might wait and wait and wait for hundreds of millions of years but, heck, it will materialize. How stupid was I to think that an assertion, no matter how well-thought out, was evidence of something? Creation stories have to be unsupported, blind assertions. Never mind that most of the world has these stories – they are without evidence. Most of the world is crazy anyway.

How dare I claim that some invisible magic man in the sky has control of everything? Why, the biosphere is smart enough all by itself, by Jove! How dare I think that a super-intelligent being could come up with smart science around everything? Heck, science is clever enough to find its own way, thank you. We see results, therefore, it all just happened. And those millions of years have been around for a long, long time. Practically everybody says so. Why, you just gotta measure the radiations; they’re all as solid as Gibraltar, right? How preposterous to think that they might have been different once! Scientific conclusions are scientific conclusions, never mind what the facts are. Well, perhaps I got that last little bit backwards. The final interpretation of science has all been done and proved and published by peers. Thousands and thousands of very smart, agreeable guys every which way. You wouldn’t think that these fellows would dare risk their comfy, secured positions at our best institutes of learning by being anyways disagreeable, now would you? Tarnation, they heard all these things so many times before, in so many ways, that surely they ain’t gonna be in error, hmm? Hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of hours go into these peer-reviewed publications. Big money and big time like that doesn’t get wasted on silliness, right? What do you think they are, some kinda politicians who lie when it’s convenient? Empirical evidence is pretty hard to beat – enough people have said so.

It seems that I probably got my view of reality all out of kilter. I was looking at a world that was very complex. I was trying to figure out the possible ways in which it functioned. If things were changing from the past to the present to the future, then they must be evolving. Not just life, but planets, moons, the stars, everything. There are sciences for these different things. The changes are slow and the sciences are not yet complete, right? But the world is chock-a-block full of proof and evidence. We all know that interpretation of evidence is final and conclusive – all these great peers tell us so. All those universities, those science societies, those foundations, those evolutionary biologists – how could I have been so delusional? Why would I possibly be so ignorant as to believe that there could be any other conclusion, such as a special creation? Wouldn’t that be throwing all science out the window?

Science is like a story or a formula: it has a beginning, a middle, and (usually) an ending. Take a little bit of this, some more of that and the other stuff, and a whole lotta time, and presto! A universe of diversity. A creator? Shucks, boot my ass, Mr. LeQuella, and heap me with sarcasm! But a creator isn’t needed, right? Why, just let it all come together on its own, why don’t you? Intelligent design, dumb design, no design, it doesn’t matter, if you only allow the natural processes to be, well, just plain natural. Y’all can see, you myth-mongers you, that the molecule and the protein chains will look after themselves if you give ‘em a chance.

What has God got to do with it? How ignorant was I to think of a deity at all? Heavens to Betsy, our libraries are brimming with textbooks full of proofs of all kinds. We’re literally buried in proof, it’s so overwhelming.

I mean, talk about overwhelming. Just look at all our fossils. Pardon me for being presumptuous but I’d have thought that with hundreds of millions of years under our collective belt, why, we’d be up to our eyes in the things. But, no, I was an ignoramus, it seems. Some fossils go away, others stick around, and right where you have to find ‘em. It’s like a book where you turn the pages and read the story, isn’t it? Or like some little ‘ole song:

The lemur bone connected to the …monkey bone,
The monkey bone connected to the …Lucy bone,
The Lucy bone connected to the … erectus bone
The erectus bone connected to the …neanderthal bone,
The neanderthal bone connected to the …homo bone…
Oh, hear the word and don’t moan!

Golly gee, there’s your biological evolution, right there clear as can be. Them bones, them bones, yeah! And who could ever think our bodies are pretty much perfect? Zounds, we’re crawling with vestigial organs, and so are many other critters. Tailbone, male breasts, appendix, anyone? Garbage anatomy! I can’t wait to get quadraphonic ears, four-dimensional eyes, extra fingers or even a set of wings, not to mention a bigger brain to take it all in.

Land sakes, fellas like Theo Dobzhansky, Gregor Mendel, and Rudy Clausius clinched the basic science for us. Was I such a nincompoop ever to doubt their genius? There is, of course, enough time to illustrate any evolutionary theory here. Tons of time, remember? Irrefutable postulates and suppositions and revised ideas everywhere. Charlie Darwin, please forgive me my clouded senses.

And on top of it all, I was letting my own eyes deceive me if I was willing to fall for the misleading evidence of natural erosion, wasn’t I? Son of a gun, but can a river actually wear a valley in just a few thousand years? And the Grand Canyon and the Rocky Mountains are superb because they’re such ancient old girls, am I right? Continental drift in only a few short years? Am I a dunce or what?

I don’t have to hate a fictional God to know all this, do I? I only have to read the same stuff all the supporters read and it all makes evolutionary sense. They said it; I shouldn’t have to argue it. Slap me silly, but even if I don’t get a lot of PhDs and MBSs and other letterized credentials and real close peer friends, I can still trust ‘em all, eh? Majority rules, minority fools etc.

Well, I’m out of petunia mode, right? I’ve evolved a better sense. A God or intelligent design? I’m walking proof against that, am I not? I may not have come from a monkey but I most certainly didn’t come by a magic man. Of course you gotta admit it, if I’m somewhere between an amoeba and a super dude, what’s the whole purpose? Doesn’t matter. I gotta be a pretty impressive stepping stone between a lump of mud and a genius. Teleology be dammed!

Now math doesn’t lie and the universe is mathematical, right? And the law of probability follows numbers and with enough numbers the chances are great, aren’t they? Was I ever a dumbo to think that a well-organized thing always tends to fall apart. Why, shake a compound and things stick together, let a universe be shook and you get living things. That’s the trend. Chaos into order – no intelligence needed for that sort of design, pardon the hyperbole. Things may have been stupider in the past but can we not all look forward to a brilliant, enlightened future? Whatever the reason is for how things work now, there should be enough beauty and majesty for us all. Heck, even the meaning of life is evolving. We don’t need a magical backstory. Enough important people have said things happen because they left a clear scientific trail of evidence, and besides, there’s a huge magnitude of time in the equation. Never mind the fuzzy facts, it’s just…there.

You gotta be kidding if you think that a small variation, over time, won’t produce great change, right? I mean, a species created, full fledged, is one thing; but a species that evolved, well, that’s quite another thing. There ain’t nuttin’ static, you might say, so there isn’t any life around now that looks like life away back when. The cat of today could very well have come from some dog of an ancient yesterday. Buckets of time for this, don’t y’see? Them genes…them genes… The lizard gene’s connected to the …dog gene. The dog gene’s connected to the …cat gene. The cat gene’s connected to… Yeah. Biological evolution is so possible that it’s likely, and it’s so likely, it just musta’ happened, and it still does.

And hot-diggity-dang, those thermodynamic laws are something, aren’t they? Things will always change if they’re allowed to change. Will they get better? Looks like they will, ‘cause they use the exchanges of energy and matter to do just that. I’m better than my grandpa; my grandchild will be better than me. Mr. LaQuella says so himself: “you are a ‘transitional form’ between your parents and your offspring…” Little by little it gets us from molecule to man, never you mind where the smart molecule came from. Shake that bottle of molecules and you’re gonna get that cell. Eric Schneider and James Kay says so, Daniel Styer says so, Chris Adami and Charlie Ofria says so, Emory Bunn says so. Gotta love those guys, eh?

Now don’t you all go a’worryin’ about how those first grams of matter or those first joules of energy came about. We’ve got gobs of time to find that out, and ain’t science terrific? It can explain anything. When it can’t, we just wait for more time and better ways. The Bronze Age knew nothing compared to us, and the distant future will even make us look like dumb kids.

And the creationists say we’re tellin’ it wrong, eh? And the names some of them call us! Jerks, dumbos, stupid, blind, mislead, and such ilk. Why, we’re kind by comparison when we instructively rebuke them. Even Mr. LaQuella is downright tame in his condemnation. Just look at his own words in describing creation theory people: reality-denial, liars, deserving of derision, scornful, asinine, vacuous, cretins, palsied, specious apologetists, blowhards, ridiculous, ill-educated, laughable, fatuous, Bronze Age nomads, mythological, low-grade chewies, verminous, sub-amoeboid, retarded, moronic, spastic, terminally lazy, gullible rubes, propagandizers, execrably ignorant, charlatans, conceited, intellectually constipated, indolent, naïve, simplistic, duplicitous, dishonest, nonsensical… Why, we’re so fair with them all, and they dare to call us fools?

No wonder, is it, that with all those canards, we don’t like them much? Why wouldn’t their ongoing list of blind assertions and deceptions and decerebrate cortical faeces and vacuously apologetic pseudo-arguments be allowed in our world of clarity and impeccable pillars of truth? Should they not have their buttocks in a sling with a big measure of withering scorn and utter disdain? How dare they oppose us! Down the toilet with a hard peer-reviewed flush to them all.

[BobTheDonkey]

Joe, is that really you? :D


If it truly is, does the world you see around you now appear more or less wonderous than the world you used to see?

[hereisjoe]

Joe, is that really you? :D


If it truly is, does the world you see around you now appear more or less wonderous than the world you used to see?
Same world. Still beeUUteeFull!

[JWideman]

Same world. Still beeUUteeFull!

I think what was being asked was if the world still seemed as strange and mysterious. Personally, I found it no less so when I had my own epiphany.

[BobTheDonkey]

I think what was being asked was if the world still seemed as strange and mysterious. Personally, I found it no less so when I had my own epiphany.

Exactly. In fact, when I take the time to look around and marvel at the world and the wonders I am even more blown away by the beauty of the world. It's absolutely flooring that this world could arise from, quite literally, nothing.

[Marius vanderLubbe]

A Response to the Article by Larian LeQuella
On the website Facts not Fantasy re
Evolution – “Creationists read this”

Is it possible, guys, that I have been enlightened at last?

I was recently referred to an online article by Steve Lundquist, also known as Larian LeQuella, about the long list of asertions made against evolutionary biology and other sciences by creationists...(place your pointy finger under your nose and oscillate rapidly between that point and directly beneath the bottom lip, whilst making a steady g#. For about four minutes.) ? How dare they oppose us! Down the toilet with a hard peer-reviewed flush to them all.
Clearly, being a creationist doesn't impinge to much on your time, Joe.

[BobTheDonkey]

Clearly, being a creationist doesn't impinge to much on your time, Joe.

Marius, go back and read the post again. Joe was renouncing creationism/embracing evolution :)

[Marius vanderLubbe]

Marius, go back and read the post again. Joe was renouncing creationism/embracing evolution :)

Er..no, Bob. Joe is taking the piss.
He is attempting irony. An art form best left to those who can use it best (and briefest).
I will believe he is renouncing his creationism when he writes this;
"I, Joe Boudreault, deny the Holy Spirit."
We all know what the faithful think are the consequences of uttering that sentence. Even in print.

[arthwollipot]

Marius, go back and read the post again. Joe was renouncing creationism/embracing evolution :)Joe was DEFINITELY taking the piss. There's been no epiphany here.

[BobTheDonkey]

It would appear my naivete allowed me to be taken in :(.

[Safe-Keeper]

1. Read up on various lies and misconceptions about evolution (fossils, morality, evolution of the eye, etc.).
2. Add to this some studying on lies and misconceptions irrelevant to evolution (age of earth, etc.).
3. Cut and paste them together.
4. Post essay in sceptics' forums.
5.????
6. Profit!

[Safe-Keeper]

Reading through the thread now, and god... that's a lot of strawmen.

[Safe-Keeper]

Also, reading through Joe's essays here, I must say I liked him a lot better when he was restricted by the character limit of the Skeptoid comments format. His use of Proof by Verbosity is a bit tiring, as I prefer to actually be able to reply to people without spending hours writing a pages-long paper in doing so.

[hereisjoe]

1. "taking the piss" (not my words, but...) This place WAS such an inviting toilet to urinate into!
2. Sorry, BobTheDonkey, but it will take more than the likes of Larian LeQuella to give me an epiphany. Have any of you bumpkins even READ his drivel? Stay posted - I'll enlighten you on his hypocritical nonsense in the future...
3. Safe-Keeper, you really liked me better in my brevity in Skeptoid? Aw, geez! It was Marius (I'm sure) who convinced me to come here where there is more room to share ideas. For that, I'm castigated? Too over-your-head, is it? Hey, "Illuminator", illuminate me!
4. For some of you, who worship the ground that such ilk as Richard Dawkins walks upon, you tire of my explanations of a few pages but uphold his "Proof by Verbosity” books as holy writ?
5. Marius, seriously, by denying something that YOU say doesn't exist, this would henceforth validate anything I would thereafter attempt to say in a scientific manner?

[Safe-Keeper]

3. Safe-Keeper, you really liked me better in my brevity in Skeptoid? Aw, geez! It was Marius (I'm sure) who convinced me to come here where there is more room to share ideas. For that, I'm castigated?No, if I had a problem with you posting here, I'd... say so.

Too over-your-head, is it? Hey, "Illuminator", illuminate me!Writing lengthy posts and cramming them chock-full of ideas and factoids isn't a good debate tactic as it's impossible for anyone with a life to go through the entire post and address all the points.

4. For some of you, who worship the ground that such ilk as Richard Dawkins walks upon, you tire of my explanations of a few pages but uphold his "Proof by Verbosity” books as holy writ?A forum post and a book are two entirely different things, written for entirely different purposes.

[hereisjoe]

So... it seems that this is not the correct forum for me, right?
Strange ... since I came here for the larger room to express opinions. There doesn't seem to be some iron-clad rule on forums. But I do notice that many people just want to drop brief comments, and not really debate anything.
Give me a hint; how many sentences or paragraphs are yoy reafy to tolerate..?

[BobTheDonkey]

The problem, Joe, is that you are so out of touch with reality and science that you don't even accept that your definitions are wrong.

And posting huge posts does not correct this error on your part.

Posting long diatribes about how the theory is incorrect means nothing when you don't even know what the theory postulates.

[AdinDraco]

Er..no, Bob. Joe is taking the piss.
He is attempting irony. An art form best left to those who can use it best (and briefest).
I will believe he is renouncing his creationism when he writes this;
"I, Joe Boudreault, deny the Holy Spirit."
We all know what the faithful think are the consequences of uttering that sentence. Even in print.

Sorry Marius, but we can't use this anymore. I went and committed the blasphemy as soon as I found out about the challenge...but then my favourite militant atheist who's studied the bible has since pointed out a loophole that some theists could use to argue that we haven't commited the sin that we were hoping to commit.

Hey Joe, can I recommend Daniel Loxton's new book "Evolution : how we and all living things came to be". It's a colourful, well-written beginners guide for children that covers all the main points and is a great primer for adults as well as kids. I ordered it the day I found out about it and will be reading it with my 7yo daughter...just as soon as we finish the book we're on now about Charles Darwin. We split our bedtime reading between a science book and Harry Potter.

Here's a question I just read in a book I'm working through (QI : The book of General Ignorance) - who was born by Immaculate Conception? If you want something easier (and I've asked this elsewhere) how many wisemen visited Jesus?

[Safe-Keeper]

Posting long diatribes about how the theory is incorrect means nothing when you don't even know what the theory postulates. Agree with this. Claiming to talk about the Theory of Evolution for then to go off on a rant about the Big Bang doesn't make you sound very informed.

The army of straw men isn't helping either. I write:
Also, reading through Joe's essays here, I must say I liked him a lot better when he was restricted by the character limit of the Skeptoid comments format. His use of Proof by Verbosity is a bit tiring, as I prefer to actually be able to reply to people without spending hours writing a pages-long paper in doing so.

He replies:
Strange ... since I came here for the larger room to express opinions. There doesn't seem to be some iron-clad rule on forums. But I do notice that many people just want to drop brief comments, and not really debate anything.

I complain that his posts are too long to adequately reply to, and he replies as if I'd said I didn't want a debate?

[Marius vanderLubbe]

So... it seems that this is not the correct forum for me, right?
Strange ... since I came here for the larger room to express opinions. There doesn't seem to be some iron-clad rule on forums. But I do notice that many people just want to drop brief comments, and not really debate anything.
Give me a hint; how many sentences or paragraphs are yoy reafy to tolerate..?

One of the reasons I suggested you join this forum, Joe, was so you might tale advantage of the edit function. Are yoy reafy to give it a try?

Right or wrong is not determined by the length of the comments, by the way Joe. It is the quality of what one brings to the table. Being prolix does not equate to proof.

[hereisjoe]

Sorry about the typos, guys.

But I notice that, you, Marius, do not engage in personal debate no matter how many dozens of postings you do. You just point fingers and sustain your denial mode.

Now, here's a question (and NOT a quote from a book or website) for you all: how do you explain away infinite regression? Seriously...

And, Safe-Keeper, I did not say you weren't interested in debate. I said "many people..."etc. So... pick a paragraph from my essay and discuss it.

BobTheDonkey, you said "The problem, Joe, is that you are so out of touch with reality and science that you don't even accept that your definitions are wrong." demonstrate this with an example and I would be willing to fess up, buddy.

[BobTheDonkey]

Sorry about the typos, guys.

But I notice that, you, Marius, do not engage in personal debate no matter how many dozens of postings you do. You just point fingers and sustain your denial mode.

Now, here's a question (and NOT a quote from a book or website) for you all: how do you explain away infinite regression? Seriously...

And, Safe-Keeper, I did not say you weren't interested in debate. I said "many people..."etc. So... pick a paragraph from my essay and discuss it.

BobTheDonkey, you said "The problem, Joe, is that you are so out of touch with reality and science that you don't even accept that your definitions are wrong." demonstrate this with an example and I would be willing to fess up, buddy.

This has already been explained to you.

Infinite regression is a problem you have to explain away. See, the ToE (Theory of Evolution) provides for incredibly small incremental increases in complexity - that is, in fact, the very essence of ToE.

Your argument, however, states that something complex cannot be developed/designed/constructed by something less complex. That's all well and good - except that it doesn't exactly work. What created God?

This is where your argument falls apart. in the idea that any complex being/device must have been created by a more complex being - Your god being what created the complexities of the world, there is a requirement by your own reasoning that some being more complex than your god exists. And if we determine what the being that created god is, then we must determine that there is a being more complex than the complex being that created your god - ad infinitum.

That is infinite regression. Every solution to the "complex design" algorithm you present requires a next-higher solution.

What infinite regression is there in the ToE? That everything started out as single celled amoeba? That all species share common ancestors? There is a distinct starting point here.

[Marius vanderLubbe]

But I notice that, you, Marius, do not engage in personal debate no matter how many dozens of postings you do. You just point fingers and sustain your denial mode.



Really, Joe?
I was quite happy to discuss ambulocetus, and tiktaalik for example.
Would you like to discuss talking snakes, or burning bushes? Do you have a hydroplate equivelent for those alleged events? I hope if you do, its not another post hoc rationalization.
You dont like discussing my industrious Unicorns, Joe. Why is that?

[owenransen]

We may as well stop arguing until Joe replies to this question:

Q) Is there any proof you would accept as a proof of evolution or do you simply believe that God did it?

This is a simple question and I am genuinely interested in your answer.

A similar question was to put to me about my disbelief in reincarnation. My reply was:

"Well if someone remebered a previous life and pointed to an unexplored place in the world and said something like <There you will find an ancient city with 7 towers at its center, I know because I lived there in my previous life> and the archeologists dug and dug and found the ancient city with 7 towers...well then I'd have to at least rethink my disbelief in reincarnation."

My question is what proof do you require?

[owenransen]

Another slightly off-thread question for Joe:

Q) Do you think that the evolution of bacteria and fruit flies is faked?

These are actual document cases of evolution happening now.

[IMST]

1. Severe lack of fossils to connect “billions” of years of different species.
2. No transition fossils between the “changes” of species.
3. How did fossils get out of place in the earth’s strata?
4. Evolutionists use circular arguments to support their fossil claims (the rock strata dates the fossil but the fossil also dates the rock etc).
5. No explanation for what happened before the Big Bang.
6. No explanation for the process which brought order out of chaos – evolution often defies the laws of physics and thermodynamics.
7. Complex organs (ie the human eye) could never just evolve.
8. The immune system cannot evolve according to evolutionary theory – the one process contradicts the other.
9. Languages are getting simpler, not more complex, and fewer.
10. DNA, RNA and genetic codes are far too complex to have happened by chance over the alleged eons of time.
11. Mutations never improve a species; they are counter-productive every time.
12. Human footprints are found alongside dinosaur footprints and next to trilobites in Cambrian formation.
13. Evolution cannot even begin to explain the existence of altruism in humans and animals, let alone moral compunctions. They defy the idea of “survival of the fittest”.
14. Evolution or geology in general, cannot explain the animals which were buried and preserved almost perfectly in the earth in what can only be a very rapid process of a few hours.
15. How to explain the existence of high pressures in oil deposits after “tens of millions” of years of them forming?
16. The geology, erosion, make-up, and planetary physics of the solar system are not explained by Evolution.
17. After “billions of years”, where is the abundance of moon dust, and where did the moon come from?
18. After “billions of years”, where are the abundant remains of meteorites which should show up all through the earth’s strata, but only show up in the uppermost strata?
19. How, for example, could a relatively small river like the Colorado create a gorge like the Grand Canyon when bigger rivers have not done so?
20. Some of the world’s most powerful earthquakes occur very far away from the plate tectonics boundaries.
21. Plate tectonics and continental drift, as commonly accepted, do not explain ocean trench fissures and those bent mountain strata, or unparallel fracture zones.
22. If the universe (and solar system) is billions of years old or even millions of years old, solar particles and planetary debris and formation gasses should have dissipated long ago. But they are still around (ie Saturn’s rings), defying cosmic physics.
23. The shape of and the spacing of galaxies actually DEFIES the Big Bang theory and the belief in the current theories of time and light and (example) stellar births.
24. The evolutionary explanation of the earth’s strata is not consistent with any known process of geology and does not even consider the proven phenomena of liquefaction, let alone the accepted principles of erosion and sedimentation.
25. The alleged evidence to support the theory of evolution has often been subject to forgery; for example, Piltdown Man (an orangutan jaw that somehow became a human jaw), archaeopteryx (the alleged cross-over fossil between reptiles and birds, PROVEN to be a hoax), Nebraska Man (a pig’s tooth that somehow became a human fossil), Lucy (an Australopithecus afarensis skeleton proven to be a consortium of various bones of different skeletons), the Yale Scandal (scientist Charles Sibley and accomplice Jon Ahlquist deliberately manipulated DNA evidence to try and “prove” apes and men are genetically related), and a living example of a “transitional species” in the tragic story of Ota Benga, an African pygmy who was displayed in zoos, next to chimpanzees and a gorilla, a century ago, as “evidence” of the closest ape-link to man.


What a fun list! Let's dismiss this quickly.
1. Simply false. Are you lying or genuinely unaware of this?
2. Simply false. Are you lying or genuinely unaware of this?
3. I'm unfamiliar with this one, so I won't comment.
4. Simply false. Are you lying or genuinely unaware of this?
5. Not a biology issue. Evolution is the theory that explains the diversity of life on earth and nothing else.
6. The sun exists.
7. Simply false. Are you lying or genuinely unaware of this?
8. Simply false. Are you lying or genuinely unaware of this?
9. So? Also, not a biology issue. Evolution is the theory that explains the diversity of life on earth and nothing else.
10. Simply false. Are you lying or genuinely unaware of this?
11. Simply false. Are you lying or genuinely unaware of this?
12. Simply false. Are you lying or genuinely unaware of this? Not to mention that the during the Cambrian life was only in the oceans.
13. Simply false. Are you lying or genuinely unaware of this?
14. Perhaps you've heard of volcanos and landslides and avalanches.
15. Not a biology issue. Evolution is the theory that explains the diversity of life on earth and nothing else.
16. Not a biology issue. Evolution is the theory that explains the diversity of life on earth and nothing else. Electricity isn't explained by evolution either.
17. Not a biology issue. Evolution is the theory that explains the diversity of life on earth and nothing else.
18. Not a biology issue. Evolution is the theory that explains the diversity of life on earth and nothing else.
19. Not a biology issue. Evolution is the theory that explains the diversity of life on earth and nothing else.
20. Not a biology issue. Evolution is the theory that explains the diversity of life on earth and nothing else.
21. Not a biology issue. Evolution is the theory that explains the diversity of life on earth and nothing else.
22. Not a biology issue. Evolution is the theory that explains the diversity of life on earth and nothing else.
23. Not a biology issue. Evolution is the theory that explains the diversity of life on earth and nothing else.
24. Not a biology issue. Evolution is the theory that explains the diversity of life on earth and nothing else.
25. Of the many things you list here, there is one hoax: Piltdown man. This was discovered quickly by scientists once they finally got to examine it in detail and was long known not to fit the sequence that was being found elsewhere.

Of course, this was made easier through the use of ctrl-v and non biology explanations are quite well established for the many that I had to mark "Not a biology issue. Evolution is the theory that explains the diversity of life on earth and nothing else."

You can't of thought that silly, silly list would be convincing to anyone even remotely familiar with what evolutionary theory actually is, did you?

[John Albert]

survival of the freakiest

That's my favorite song by Parliament-Funkadelic!

[Safe-Keeper]

Since the eye gets tossed around so much:

6sdYGpTR0bM
Couple of the others:

1. Severe lack of fossils to connect “billions” of years of different species.
2. No transition fossils between the “changes” of species.This is like saying the dog breeds we see today could impossibly have been the result of domestication and breeding from the wolf, because if this was the case, there would be "transitional breeds" (whatever that is supposed to mean). Yet I hear no one say that unless I can show them a fossil that's half wolf, half dog, they won't believe in dog breeding.

3. How did fossils get out of place in the earth’s strata?I suppose the same way everything else is thrown out of place under the earth. It's not a tranquil, dormant planet. There's earthquakes, erosion, floods, glaciers, tectonic movement and the gods only know what else. I'd be more surprised if everything was perfectly preserved.

6. No explanation for the process which brought order out of chaos – evolution often defies the laws of physics and thermodynamics.No idea what you're trying to say here.

8. The immune system cannot evolve according to evolutionary theory – the one process contradicts the other.Please elaborate.

10. DNA, RNA and genetic codes are far too complex to have happened by chance over the alleged eons of time.
They didn't. Read up on natural selection. Or, better yet, how about we have a look at it in action.

http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/11/evolution_produces_better_ante.php

Researchers wanted to improve an antenna, so they set up a program that simulated evolution (real evolution, not your silly caricature), and guess what? It did indeed produced something that looked like a bent and twisted paper clip... but it worked really, really well. Better than any antenna we've built so far.
"The fascinating thing about the antenna story is that no one had any idea of just what a "better antenna" would look like. In fact, they wound up with something that looks like a paper clip bent into triangles. Let me repeat the key thing here: a bunch of engineers wanted a better antenna. They had no idea what that better antenna would look like. But by throwing it into an evolutionary algorithm, they produced an antenna better than anything designed by a human being.11. Mutations never improve a species; they are counter-productive every time.Let me find an Icelander for you. I'm sure he'd be very happy to hear that his ethnic group's immunity to winter depression is counter-productive.

Or, heck, let's save the bother, I'm right here. Tell me how my reduced amount of pigmentation is counter-productive, and how it would be better for me to have as dark skin as the African ancestors I evolved from. Go ahead, I'm open-minded and willing to listen.

12. Human footprints are found alongside dinosaur footprints and next to trilobites in Cambrian formation.Correction: dinosaur footprints interpreted as human footprints by Creationists have been found alongside dino footprints.

13. Evolution cannot even begin to explain the existence of altruism in humans and animals, let alone moral compunctions. They defy the idea of “survival of the fittest”. On the contrary, not only do biologists have a very clear understanding of how morality works, but I find this understanding to be far better than, "oh, I see no reason to be moral, but God firmly said we shouldn't kill, and I guess He knows what He's doing, and He's very strict, so I wouldn't dare cross Him":rolleyes:.

More on the subject here:


Nice Guys Finish Firstm (http://www.google.com/url?q=http://video.google.com/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D-3494530275568693212&ei=9u3RS4y7LombOJDY1IoO&sa=X&oi=video_result&resnum=1&ct=thumbnail&cad=14952213798140858404&ved=0CEwQuAIwAA&usg=AFQjCNHkA_eDvnAoiPjB77F0psVKS-DNKQ), by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene (http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/faith_and_spirituality/watch/v15482710cQ2aapaM), by Richard Dawkins

Perhaps you, joe, don't value humans enough to see why we should treat each others well without a babysitter in the sky forcing us to for his own hidden reasons, and that's your right. But please realize that the rest of us are slightly more evolved (no pun intended) than that.

14. Evolution or geology in general, cannot explain the animals which were buried and preserved almost perfectly in the earth in what can only be a very rapid process of a few hours.16. The geology, erosion, make-up, and planetary physics of the solar system are not explained by Evolution.
Correct; these things (and most of the points below 16) have nothing to do with the ToE:). Moving on...

25. The alleged evidence to support the theory of evolution has often been subject to forgeryEvery field of human affairs has been subject to forgery, from Christianity to Italian paintings to paper money to collectable toys. Does the shroud of Turin mean all of Christianity is a lie? Does the few counterfeit dollar bills out there make all US bills worthless?

[Marius vanderLubbe]

Here's Joes latest pearl of wisdom from the Skeptoid thread.
It is just too good not to share with y'all.


I'm waiting for even one example of real science from evolutionary biology. Don't give me that nonsense about your tons of evidence in science - it's all pseudoscience. The only real science has creation written all over it, guys. You're not looking very deeply. I was bullied by your "fairy tales" all my life. Still waiting for your alleged evidence for origin of life. Not holding my breath though.

This guy is a solid gold true believer. Even the Maddest Mullah would call him a fundamentalist extremist.
He should be cast in perspex and put in a museum.

[Marius vanderLubbe]

Well, Joe Boudreault is back from a little break from his postings at Skeptoid. Unwell, apparently. I hope he is sufficiently recovered.

Joe, I was wondering if you had any intentions on submitting your critique on Richard Dawkin's latest tome, "The Greatest Show On Earth" ?
Your last essay on "The God Delusion" was very interesting, on many levels.

[Dinwar]

This is Gregory from Alabama (sorry for the name change--Gregory didn't work, and this is my "online" name). I had a few minutes to kill, and decided to join the frey.

3. I'm unfamiliar with this one, so I won't comment.This one is simple. The only real issue is that it can happen a number of ways.

First off, a fossiliferous unit can be erroded and embedded into another unit. Sedimentary rocks are essentially rocks built up of pieces of other rocks--which means that sometimes they include other sedimentary rocks. When that happens, you get some weird fossils that at first look difficult to explain. It's one reason why paleontologists are usually careful to put their finds in stratigraphic context.

Second, not all rocks are found in situ. A lot of fossil collection is done in scree slopes or debris piles. You can usually get good stratigraphic control here, but not always, and fossils can be attributed to the wrong time period relatively easily.

You can also get mold/cast impressions across a significant span of time, though this is unlikely. If a fossil bivalve from the Silurian weathers out of its rock in the Triassic, then gets covered in sand again, you'll have a mold of a Silurian fossil formed in the Triassic. It's not out of context at all, but the context is really weird.

Scientists can also be wrong. For example, fossils typically associated with the Early and Middle Cambrian have recently been found much later. Similarly, we sometimes find fossils from periods well before we thought they evolved, or well outside of the area we thought they had evolved in(resulting in range extensions).

The person interpreting the fossils may be genuinely ignorant. If all the data are there, but you don't know how to interpret it, you're going to get the wrong answer.

Finally, the person interpreting the data may be falsifying some or all of the data.

evolution often defies the laws of physics and thermodynamics. This statement annoys me more than any other. It's a personal thing--for some reason this really gets under my skin.

It's easily enough disproved as well. Sit still, in a quite room. Take a deep breath, counting to ten. Hold it for a moment, then exhale, counting to ten. There, you've just demonstrated the error in that statement.

The laws of thermodynamics apply to CLOSED systems. OPEN systems can do weird things, like lower entropy (it always rises somewhere else, though). Breathing is allowing matter and energy into your system--meaning it's an open system.

14. Evolution or geology in general, cannot explain the animals which were buried and preserved almost perfectly in the earth in what can only be a very rapid process of a few hours. I'll disagree with others here. This one DOES apply to ToE, in that it helps establish the long time periods necessary for ToE to function. Unfortunately for Joe, geologists do have explinations for this: neocatastriphism. Basically, mud slides come in and kill everything in a lagoon or pond, burrying it in seconds. Without anything to consume the organic matter, it gets preserved as carbon films--sometimes well enough that the things can be disected. Read "Wonderful Life" by Gould to see more on that subject.

[BobTheDonkey]

I'll disagree with others here. This one DOES apply to ToE, in that it helps establish the long time periods necessary for ToE to function. Unfortunately for Joe, geologists do have explinations for this: neocatastriphism. Basically, mud slides come in and kill everything in a lagoon or pond, burrying it in seconds. Without anything to consume the organic matter, it gets preserved as carbon films--sometimes well enough that the things can be disected. Read "Wonderful Life" by Gould to see more on that subject.
Welcome Gregory!


Quick note on this one point: Doesn't the village of Pompeii completely counter that argument of Joe's? IOW: The argument from Joe doesn't even stand up to the first objective scrutiny due to an event of rapid fossilization within recorded history.

[Dinwar]

It does, but that brings up the issue of the boundary between sedimentary and igneous rock, and the definition of a fossil. Pompei isn't 10,000 years old, so techincally it's not a fossil; on the other hand, I have shells from a few million years ago that are pretty much unaltered, yet ARE fossils. So something can be fossilized but not be a fossil.....It gets confusing. :)

[BobTheDonkey]

It does, but that brings up the issue of the boundary between sedimentary and igneous rock, and the definition of a fossil. Pompei isn't 10,000 years old, so techincally it's not a fossil; on the other hand, I have shells from a few million years ago that are pretty much unaltered, yet ARE fossils. So something can be fossilized but not be a fossil.....It gets confusing. :)

Ahh, but the example of an instant process whereby fossilization may have occurred is the point of referencing Pompeii. I suppose it will be a better reference in another 8000 years or so :D

[Dinwar]

True. There's also examples of coral growths that engulf modern trash, which is another version of fossilization (provided the coral reef survives). And a mine or landfill can be viewed as a rather impressive trace fossil. I once had a friend say that humanity's greatest ability is that of creating truly amazing trace fossils. :D

Of course, an introductory textbook on geology (meaning a Rocks for Jocks book) will answer a large numberr of Joe's attempts to refute evolution, so I suppose it shouldn't surprise us that he's missed a numberr of examples that disprove his assertions. After all, Pompeii is only on TV a dozen times or so a year, and coral reefs are only spoken about once every few weeks on the news.

[Marius vanderLubbe]

Here is the latest comedy gold from the Reverend Holy Joe in response to Craig, Washington DC. (who deserves an award for patience)
WE have one up on you, here in Canada. We are allowed to teach whatever we want to teach our children, and in the case of not liking some of the trash which the public schools teach, we can opt out and use home schooling. Many families do this, to escape having the lies of evolution shoved down their throats at state expense. It is also required here to have the government fund home schooling.

And yes, you DO in fact have a state religion: evolution. You may think it isn't but you just haven't seen it yet. ["We only teach science in science class. You're advocating the teaching or religion."] No, we are asking for truth to be taught, and simply for an equal billing along with your pseudoscience. TRUTH, Craig, not your vague assumptions...

I really don't expect that you will ever grasp this truth, Craig. You're just too blind to realities right now. The science that creationists believe in is true science, not the warped and biased agenda that you love to prattle on about. Democracy? Don't be so sure you have much of that commodity left - as neither do we.

(So, when is it that your kind will demand that "...endowed by their creator..." be taken out of your Declaration, hmmm?)

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, Ontario
August 08, 2010 8:12pm

Be brave, Joe. Join us here once again, and explain how we all bow down to worship the great God Darwin, and exactly what the "lies of evolution' are.

[Dinwar]

The science that creationists believe in is true science,*facepalm*

The guys who don't understand thermodynamics, utilize debunked and discredited "evidence", don't understand the basics of stratigraphy, don't even TRY to define the terms they use (go ahead, Joe--define "species" and "speciation" for us), who ignore 150 years worth of academic literature, who demonstrably cannot be bothered to actually look at the evidence (well, to be fair only one has demonstrated this--the one that Dawkins interviewed, the transcript of which can be found in The Greatest Show on Earth, I believe), who ignore the literally TONS of fossil evidence, who ignore valid experiments whenever the experiments disagree with their conclusions, who don't even know what evolution IS (why do they insist on discussing astronomy, physics, abiogenesis, etc. whenever they ostensibly wish to discuss evolution), etc. ad nauseum, are doing "true science"? I'll do you a favore and assume that you realize that Ben Stein's movie was a piece of garbage... :rolleyes:

It is to Brian Dunning's credit, I think, that he has allowed Joe to continue posting. It shows a remarkable amount of patience on his part. What is the atheistic equivalent of sainthood? :D

[Dinwar]

You DO understand how your fossil bunny is apparently missing in your Cambrian, don't you, Craig? Oh, you don't? It's those millions of years of sediments forming without the bunny, eh? Now to be fair, small mammal fossils have never been found in this first of the geologic periods. BUT, (important, so pay attention) different 'periods' were not proven to be different time zones in fossilization. Just different economies. It explains why bottom-dwelling sea creatures were in one period, other sea creatures in another period, lower land animals in still another period or zone, and still other higher-level land animals in it' separate period, for the most part. Sedimentation of the geologic zones was more rapid than you may think. How to explain the shellfish found embedded standing on its end in a multi-million-year formation? How to explain the fact that most marine fossils are found in mountains? The missing Cambrian bunny doesn't prove an eventual evolution of mammals later in history; it merely indicates that bunnies and other mammals are in their own economic zones when fossilization occurred. Think of parallel periods in a much shorter time zone.


The latest and greatest.....

I'm responding here because Skeptoid doesn't provide enough room for a full rebuttal.

BUT, (important, so pay attention) different 'periods' were not proven to be different time zones in fossilization. Just different economies.I'd like to see how this works.

See, there are three problems with this idea. The first is that we have a really good understanding of a large number of Paleozoic and Mesozoic environments. We have more shallow marine fossils than anything else, but they certainly do not make up the whole of the fossil record. Simply put, there's no where for these "different economies" to hide.

Secondly, these "different economies" aren't so different. You get shallow marine, deep marine, reef, and all other environments we have today.

Third, there are environments and organisms that DO NOT EXIST today. If you don't like the Cambrian bunny, that's fine--find me a live Hallucinogenia. As for the environments, the Ediacara period had firm sea floors. This won't mean much to you, but when I first heard it I spent a week trying to pull all of the information I could about it. Today's sea floors are soft--the water/sediment interface is gradational. This is an entirely different environment, with entirely different requirements and life forms. Here's another challange--explain to me how the Ediacara fauna work. I've wondered that for 10 years now. Paleontology has since they were discovered. I'm sure we would eagerly awate your answer.

Oh, and there's little things like dendrochronology and icre core chronology that demonstrate rather conclusively that the world is very, very old. Corals do a similar thing (though once you get far enough back that the number of days in a year changes it's difficult to work with).

It explains why bottom-dwelling sea creatures were in one period, other sea creatures in another period,This is simply false. The Middle Cambrian had benthic and nectic creatures (I can't speak to the Ediacara period, but if you put a gun to my head I'd say that many of the Small Shelly Fauna were nectic). Read "A Wonderful Life" by Goulde--he includes descriptions of many organisms found in the Middle Cambrian. Ignore the interpretation if you like; those are the creatures that were found in that time, and they included huge predators, stationary organisms, walking critters, and a fairly complex tiering system (by the way, that's what you're talking about here--tiering).

You also fail to explain why tiering is often decreased after a mass extinction. Well, you ignore mass extinctions all together, but that part is particularly applicable here.

Sedimentation of the geologic zones was more rapid than you may think. How to explain the shellfish found embedded standing on its end in a multi-million-year formation? I can think of several ways. However, I would have to see at least a photograph of the shell (and the surounding rock) to even begin to interpret it. Sedimentology is an exact science, and VERY complex.

How to explain the fact that most marine fossils are found in mountains? Three ways. First, this is false--or at least the validity is unknowable. Fossils have been collected for a LONG time, and I doubt anyone has gone through and looked at whether they were found in mountains or on hillsides. Second, paleontologists tend to excavate only the surficial portions of any unit, and mountains offer us more surface area (there have been studies of Spekoiski's curve that indicate that much of the reason for the shame of the curve is due to the nature of collection--more exposed rock=more fossils collected from it). Finally, sediments deposited in a marine environment can be (and are) uplifted durring orogenies.

Think of parallel periods in a much shorter time zone.
This doesn't epxlain the fossil record. I strongly suggest that you get ahold of a copy of Sepkoiski's Curve and look through it. The three faunas did not live in different environments; they lived in the SAME environment, and sometimes at the same time (the Paleozoic fauna is not entirely extinct, though most if not all of the individual species are).

If you think I have misrepresented your argument, okay, fair enough. What do you mean by "economy" if not "environment"?

[Cainkane1]

Ideology is something you strongly believe in. Thus, even an Evolutiomist has his/her ideology. The ideal belief system... Be careful of how strongly you stick to your ideology and how weakly you might turn away from anything else.

"This is most certainly not what evolution states. Humans will never evolve three eyes. Our embryology wouldn't allow it..."

You've gotta think: going back through the millennium, it was possible to think that such-and-such an ancient creature like a primordial ape or lemur (something in the primate family) could turn into a modern cellphone-weilding upright man. So it's not improbable what it is that a man of the 21st centuy might turn into. You are beating about the bush. Species change for the better would be...What, exactly?
Humans evolved from a common ancestor of a now extinct ape. Like the common ancestor we have essentially the same features with some enhanced and some not so enhanced. We are still primates and are in fact a species of ape ourselves that some scientists call a gracial ape. For humans to evolve a third eye there would have to be a need to evolve such an organ and its probably not possible anyway.. Some [people have six fingers already and who knows that may be the next step in the evolutionary process.

This isn't ideology its science. If something comes along to change our ideas then our ideas will change. Ideology doesn't change whereas science does. Quit suggesting that our ideology is evolution because what you are saying is very wrong.

[BobTheDonkey]

Humans evolved from a common ancestor of a now extinct ape. Like the common ancestor we have essentially the same features with some enhanced and some not so enhanced. We are still primates and are in fact a species of ape ourselves that some scientists call a gracial ape. For humans to evolve a third eye there would have to be a need to evolve such an organ and its probably not possible anyway.. Some [people have six fingers already and who knows that may be the next step in the evolutionary process.

This isn't ideology its science. If something comes along to change our ideas then our ideas will change. Ideology doesn't change whereas science does. Quit suggesting that our ideology is evolution because what you are saying is very wrong.

I would ask for a single change:

Here, where you use the word "need", it should read something more like "...there would have to be a survival benefit to evolve...". Humans don't need appendixes, and yet there they are and continue to be... :D


ETA: Minor nitpick, to be sure. I can just see creationists twisting the word to fit their pre-conceived, incorrect notions of what drives evolution.

[Dinwar]

I'm bored, and decided to tackle the "Why are there fossils in the mountains" claim. Because marine limestone forms the peak of Mount Everest, I'm going to use that as the starting point.

The Earth's diameter is roughly 24,902 miles, or 131,482,560 feet. This yields a radius of 65,741,280 feet, or a volume of roughly 6.69122x10^23 cubic feet.

Because of the properties of fluids, enough water to deposite marine limestone on Mount Everest would result in the same height of water everywhere on Earth (again, roughly; I'm excluding tides and waves and such for this purpose). Assuming that Mount Everest is precisely at mean sea level, that gives us a sphere of6.7009x10^23 cubic feet, or a hollow sphere (assuming Everest is a straight pole with negligible affect on volume) of 8.86956x10^20 cubic feet.

I'm going to assume that 15% of the volume of that hollow sphere is taken up by rock (it's a geology thing--15% is enough to make you say "Hey, there's some grains of X in here" but not enough for you to say "...and there's a lot of 'em" when you're looking at sediment in a hand lense; it's rough, so it could be higher or lower). This gives us a volume of 7.5393x10^20 cubic feet of water.

That's water that's no longer here. It's water that's completely missing.

Now, I know that Joe didn't say that water was that high when Everest was deposited. However, he hasn't explained how that rock could get up there AND has argued (through implication) that fossils form in situ. He's rejected techtonics.

Well, Joe, if you want this idea taken seriously you need to explain where this water went. It obviously isn't here anymore. And while my calculations are very rough, you're still talking 10^20 cubic feet of water that just.....disapeared. For my part, you can leave out the Precambrian bunny rabbit (though that's another prediction of your idea that hasn't come to pass)--where did the water go?

[hereisjoe]

Well, Joe Boudreault is back from a little break from his postings at Skeptoid. Unwell, apparently. I hope he is sufficiently recovered.

Joe, I was wondering if you had any intentions on submitting your critique on Richard Dawkin's latest tome, "The Greatest Show On Earth" ?
Your last essay on "The God Delusion" was very interesting, on many levels.

Marius, I will do that as soon as I have time to read a copy of his book. But with this provision: you must read all of my essay on "The God Delusion" (if you already haven't) and post your own rebuttal or response to it here (if you haven't yet done so).

If I am going to spend valuable reading time going through an entire book by an evolutionist/atheist (as I did with Dawkins), and write a criticism on it, I expect the same from an evolutionist: to read an entire book by a creationist/Christian and post a criticism on it. No copying and pasting other quotes on it. Otherwise, don't bother me.

As for providing good evidence of the alleged fallacies or wrongful science which is presented (you say) by creationist publications, be careful what you present. Science is fact, not conjecture. I can assure you that there is no more democratic society in the world than the Christian society. So you might consider telling us all what it is you really know about theology and real Christianity before you prosecute and condemn us with your clownish and misplaced comments hereafter...

[hereisjoe]

Humans evolved from a common ancestor of a now extinct ape. Like the common ancestor we have essentially the same features with some enhanced and some not so enhanced. We are still primates and are in fact a species of ape ourselves that some scientists call a gracial ape.

A question: from where did this ape evolve from?

[Craig4]

I can assure you that there is no more democratic society in the world than the Christian society. So you might consider telling us all what it is you really know about theology and real Christianity before you prosecute and condemn us with your clownish and misplaced comments hereafter...

I'd encourage you to avoid this line of inquiry. As you seem to get unhinged at the slightest suggestion that the obviously mytholgoical Book of Genesis is in fact a made up story. Honestly delving into that history and origins Christianity would probably make you apoplectic and leave in the fetal position rocking back and forth. For the sake of your own well being leave this bit alone. You're nowhere near ready for the truth on this topic.

[xXMoshtradamusXx]

Evolution or The Godless Delusion
an essay
By Joe Boudreault

In science, as in anything about life itself, something is proved and accepted through the evidence that supports it. A theory becomes fact when the unarguable proof is presented. Evolution is one of the most devious theories ever to wend its way into the human psyche. Ideas in and of themselves are fine when we want to explore the structure of our world. And our world, as we see it, does exist in all of its physical aspects. It follows, therefore, that we are curious enough to want an explanation of how and why it is here. There really can be only two possible explanations: it came into being through some mysterious and hard-to-explain process, out of a mysterious and misunderstood past; or, it was planned, devised and brought about by an entity or power great enough to do this. In essence, we have those two main theories: Evolution, a godless process in which a state of chaos is brought into a beautiful order, or Creation, a god-ordained (or God-ordained) process in which the universes and everything in it was presented in a wonderful state of order. Evolution assumes that no deity was involved. Creation assumes that an intelligent creative power was involved. These are both theories and both deserve further consideration. But both of them cannot be correct, only one of them can, and only one of them will in truth be born out by the evidence around us. Keep in mind that science and religion need not conflict with each other. Creation does not negate science; it merely explains beginnings. And it isn’t just Biblical Christianity which validates the idea of Creation. Science writer Harun Yahya, (also known as Adnan Oktar, who is a Muslim) spoke about creatures like the purported 350-million-year-old trilobites and cockroaches, saying: “If such creatures had really lived, then we should see their remains everywhere. In fact, if this (evolutionary) thesis is correct, the number of intermediate transitional forms should be even greater than the number of animal species alive today and their fossilized remains should be abundant all over the world.” But I want to emphasize the word theory here. Evolution, as taught by the Darwinists, has no basis in fact whatsoever. Most credible scientists agree that so far as it affects the physical and biological worlds at large, evolutionary reasoning is highly overrated. Even its chief proponent, Charles Darwin (1809-1882) had many doubts concerning it before he died. Yet this misleading theory has impacted our world like no other theory, bending thought and policy alike everywhere it was taught.
In case you live under a rock (a possibility against this theory) then you must know that evolution teaches that all life came out of the chaos of the natural world and species themselves originated by way of diversion and natural selection, which was caused in turn by unexplainable mutations. The fittest mutations lived, the poorer ones died off.
But it is all nonsense.
To be sure, survival of the fittest is in many ways the law in nature, but what evolution offers, at best, is survival of the freakiest. Now listen to some of the evolutionists’ arguments: ocean chemicals (from out of the mysterious but convenient Big Bang) slosh around to form amino acids, which produce proteins and so on, which slosh around some more and become living reproducible cells. One cell joins a colony of cells to form an amoeba. Multiple-celled critters grow vertebrae and fins and eyes and prey on other critters. An amphibious reptile with eyes and lungs which can remain on land will survive better, hence the mammal class. An upright mammal is an improvement on a crawling mammal, hence the primates. A thinking primate with opposable digits can outperform a monkey, hence we humans exist. We’re some smart monkeys, but we’re stupid if we buy into this nonsense. All of it, according to evolutionists, took millions of years, then hundreds of millions of years, then billions of years. One current mathematical figure suggests 4.5 billion years for the age of the Earth, and 17 billion years for the known universe. The more their theory falls apart, the greater is the stretch of time. Oh well, allow enough time and anything can happen, right? Let’s go back even before God, why don’t we?
I will just point out a couple of fallacies in this mess. If superior species rise over inferior species, then what are all the ‘inferior’ ones still doing here? I can understand an extinction or two, but we still have one-celled things and amphibians with poor eyes and insects crawling over elephants and everything fighting and eating everything else. A Victorian era cartoon showed Darwin walking down a street with a monkey on a lease and a frown on his weary face. We evolved from the lesser primates and we are better? What is the monkey doing gaggling at us? Poor Darwin must have had some nightmares over that one. I admire this man’s observations in nature, but I do not subscribe to his interpretations. Evolutionists argue that changes from one species into another different species didn’t occur overnight (geologically speaking). Millennia were needed. My, my, how many millennia? How was this proved by them? Why, carbon dating and radioactive isotopes do that. The trouble is, cosmic radiation interferes with the levels found in fossils, and half-lifes are so long in years (by the evolutionary scientists’ own admission) that accurate measurement of these changes are impossible to make for any degree of acceptability. Example: if the isotope carbon-14 deteriorates to half its former level in 5730 years (so the story goes), then when did its initial level begin? Why, you keep doubling the measured level until you reach the full level that was there when the fossil was alive, so to speak. That would give you the time span for that fossil. Again, a huge problem: what was the original level? Well, you measure a living creature similar to the fossil, and then you backtrack. But the oldest living creature we could ever measure would be maybe a hundred years (a long human lifespan, or a turtle), IF we measure it while it is alive, and even at that there were no carbon-14 dating tools a century ago as ‘accurate’ as those we now use.
Just the same, it’s a measuring stick of sorts, say these intrepid evolutionists. Think about it: half of something is still half, and half of that is half of something else, and so on ad infinitum. Well, not quite ad infinitum, because you will never get to the actual end of that propagating equation. Yet they are taking a tiny drop of time (very poorly measured, remember) and extrapolating into an enormous stretch of the past and declaring that they know a fossil’s age, give or take a few million years, of course. And radio-isotopes like cesium, potassium-argon, rubidium-strontium offer much longer (I mean enormous) measuring spans, or so they argue. And evolutionists need vast amounts of time because eternity past can hide a lot of un-provable stuff.
And how is the value of our lives to be measured against this yardstick of eons? What thinking person (evolutionist or creationist) would be willing to consider that his/her distant ancestor was a sluggish and brutish beast of cave and forest compared to us, and that our distant descendents will be leaps and bounds above us both intellectually and morally? Are we really just turds (pardon the simile) in the line of life that goes from inconsequential amoeba to brilliant ethereal supermen? Where does it all end? And why should it be like that?
Another and simpler way to disprove evolution is in that impossible-to-date fossil record. Now, the evolutionists claim that their theory worked its way through billions of years, with life itself existing in at least many hundreds of millions of those years, and therefore the tiny changes needed to work their processes eventually came about. They do not disclaim the epochs of time in which these things occurred for life to battle it out and evolve so much in, and that is their downfall – their own mouths condemn them. If hundreds of millions of years (or billions, depending on which evolutionist you pay attention to) have passed and quadrillions of creatures deposited themselves into the sediments of land and sea, where are the huge deposits that should have come about? Especially on land where we do see a lot of life and where some coal and oil deposits exist? There isn’t a great deal of it, considering the gargantuan periods of time which have allegedly passed. In fact, there are no real missing links to connect one species with another descendent species. There’s no getting away from it: all that eerily long period of time and all those unthinkable numbers of living things, and still no discernable connections anywhere. Oh, there are some faked links and some suggested similarities, but nothing worth noting. It is as if I picked up a golden grain of sand on a beach and declared that, long enough in the past, the mountains were mostly made up of gold.
It’s not hard to see how such a stupid theory as evolution caught on. When the majority of people decided to take God out of the equation, they needed to fill the scientific world with something to explain all the marvels and wonders that do exist (including the millions of species and the utter complexity of DNA, for example). But their Something is actually nothing. The cosmos is not a lot of chaos with a bit of order thrown in (and where would such order come from?) but it is a lot of order and harmony with a bit of chaos thrown in by God.
Creationists do not (and should not) argue that biological changes cannot take place in the natural world. They actually do take place, in a lot of ways, much as Darwin saw them and described them. Creationists do not claim that the environment and our surroundings cannot affect the physical traits of creatures and plants. A sort of evolution, in the Darwinian sense, really does occur.
What Creationists hold Evolutionists to task for is the theory that one species changes enough over time that it becomes a new species, and that species changes, over more eons of time, to become another new species, and therefore that given enough time, a one or two-celled life form becomes a man or woman. That is known as macro-evolution, a theory of major change in biological diversity. It doesn’t happen because it never could happen. What we do have is a process best described as micro-evolution, wherein changes within a species do take place. There is a thin line between what constitutes a species, but there should be no doubt that a human is a human and a bug is a bug, and never the twain shall meet. Let the clever Evolutionist point at the manifold changes that occur throughout a thousand generations of fruit flies, but in the end they still wind up with fruit flies, perhaps more resistant to chemicals and with changed colors or stronger wings, but fruit flies just the same. Let the Evolutionists point out that species can become a new species and that you can see evidence of that by looking at the lowly butterfly or moth. The butterfly is at one stage a larvae, at another stage a pupae, and still another stage it sprouts beautiful wings and flies away. Three distinct biological versions, so very, very different from each other. I agree (on the differences). But they are still the same species! The butterfly will lay an egg which becomes a larvae which becomes a pupae etc etc. This is a graphic picture, but only of micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. Otherwise, Mr Evolution would have to settle for the following idea or process: a human being propagates itself by laying a single-celled egg which becomes an amoeba which becomes a fish which becomes a lizard which becomes a mammal which becomes a primate which becomes a man, etc. You get the picture. Whatever complex and long-drawn-out process he chooses in order to arrive at modern homo sapiens… We know this doesn’t happen, and we know all of those previous creatures do exist alongside us, as separate species in their own right.
So the scientific evidence around us backs up the one idea and not the other, for there is too much conflict for them both to be true. As someone once said, evidence demands a verdict. What does the empirical evidence of our natural world demand of us as a valid conclusion? A godless process or a special creation?
Let’s rule out, right away, that this creation can be called intelligent design. There are those who like to think that perhaps we are indeed formed and created by some higher power, and just perhaps that power is something far advanced of us and outside our sphere of life. They are talking of course about extraterrestrial intelligence. Again that is a theory and, as interesting as it may be, it has never been substantiated by any evidence. Let’s upgrade that idea and say we are here by special creation and that only God can do that. He has, mind you, already claimed very clearly and unequivocally, to have done just that.
So I ask you, which one of these two major theories holds true to the evidence which we hold in our hands? If you have come this far with me, go one step further, and consider these two-dozen or so major questions or problems which require an answer, and which of the two major theories explains these the best. Evolution cannot account for:

1. Severe lack of fossils to connect “billions” of years of different species.
2. No transition fossils between the “changes” of species.
3. How did fossils get out of place in the earth’s strata?
4. Evolutionists use circular arguments to support their fossil claims (the rock strata dates the fossil but the fossil also dates the rock etc).
5. No explanation for what happened before the Big Bang.
6. No explanation for the process which brought order out of chaos – evolution often defies the laws of physics and thermodynamics.
7. Complex organs (ie the human eye) could never just evolve.
8. The immune system cannot evolve according to evolutionary theory – the one process contradicts the other.
9. Languages are getting simpler, not more complex, and fewer.
10. DNA, RNA and genetic codes are far too complex to have happened by chance over the alleged eons of time.
11. Mutations never improve a species; they are counter-productive every time.
12. Human footprints are found alongside dinosaur footprints and next to trilobites in Cambrian formation.
13. Evolution cannot even begin to explain the existence of altruism in humans and animals, let alone moral compunctions. They defy the idea of “survival of the fittest”.
14. Evolution or geology in general, cannot explain the animals which were buried and preserved almost perfectly in the earth in what can only be a very rapid process of a few hours.
15. How to explain the existence of high pressures in oil deposits after “tens of millions” of years of them forming?
16. The geology, erosion, make-up, and planetary physics of the solar system are not explained by Evolution.
17. After “billions of years”, where is the abundance of moon dust, and where did the moon come from?
18. After “billions of years”, where are the abundant remains of meteorites which should show up all through the earth’s strata, but only show up in the uppermost strata?
19. How, for example, could a relatively small river like the Colorado create a gorge like the Grand Canyon when bigger rivers have not done so?
20. Some of the world’s most powerful earthquakes occur very far away from the plate tectonics boundaries.
21. Plate tectonics and continental drift, as commonly accepted, do not explain ocean trench fissures and those bent mountain strata, or unparallel fracture zones.
22. If the universe (and solar system) is billions of years old or even millions of years old, solar particles and planetary debris and formation gasses should have dissipated long ago. But they are still around (ie Saturn’s rings), defying cosmic physics.
23. The shape of and the spacing of galaxies actually DEFIES the Big Bang theory and the belief in the current theories of time and light and (example) stellar births.
24. The evolutionary explanation of the earth’s strata is not consistent with any known process of geology and does not even consider the proven phenomena of liquefaction, let alone the accepted principles of erosion and sedimentation.
25. The alleged evidence to support the theory of evolution has often been subject to forgery; for example, Piltdown Man (an orangutan jaw that somehow became a human jaw), archaeopteryx (the alleged cross-over fossil between reptiles and birds, PROVEN to be a hoax), Nebraska Man (a pig’s tooth that somehow became a human fossil), Lucy (an Australopithecus afarensis skeleton proven to be a consortium of various bones of different skeletons), the Yale Scandal (scientist Charles Sibley and accomplice Jon Ahlquist deliberately manipulated DNA evidence to try and “prove” apes and men are genetically related), and a living example of a “transitional species” in the tragic story of Ota Benga, an African pygmy who was displayed in zoos, next to chimpanzees and a gorilla, a century ago, as “evidence” of the closest ape-link to man.

Evolution likes to think that it dominates science and nature and sociology, but it cannot begin to explain concepts like the finite versus the infinite, time versus eternity, the process of aging, dating procedures (fallibility of infinite regress), or morality. It merely removes God from the equation of life and tries, UNSUCCESSFULLY, to explain the existence of man and nature through the impossible mechanics of coincidence and chance. Many predominant scientists have already pulled themselves away from this theory. Creation science goes a whole lot farther in explaining the natural universe than evolutionary theory does. The biblical claim of a Great Flood, for example, can easily explain all of the above problems, using the very evidences relied on by all of the mainstream scientists themselves. If you look closer, you will see that it is the only explanation.

There's only one thing I can say to such a well though out, articulate, block of text.
TLDR!

Actually, that's probably the root of this problem. He saw a biology textbook and probably said the same thing.

[SezMe]

There's only one thing I can say to such a well though out, articulate, block of text.
TLDR!
Then why did you have to quote the whole bloody thing?

[Marius vanderLubbe]

Marius, I will do that as soon as I have time to read a copy of his book. But with this provision: you must read all of my essay on "The God Delusion" (if you already haven't) and post your own rebuttal or response to it here (if you haven't yet done so).

If I am going to spend valuable reading time going through an entire book by an evolutionist/atheist (as I did with Dawkins), and write a criticism on it, I expect the same from an evolutionist: to read an entire book by a creationist/Christian and post a criticism on it. No copying and pasting other quotes on it. Otherwise, don't bother me.

As for providing good evidence of the alleged fallacies or wrongful science which is presented (you say) by creationist publications, be careful what you present. Science is fact, not conjecture. I can assure you that there is no more democratic society in the world than the Christian society. So you might consider telling us all what it is you really know about theology and real Christianity before you prosecute and condemn us with your clownish and misplaced comments hereafter...

Rebut your re-buttal?
Your little assay has more than enough butt about it already, Joe.
Dawkin's book is it's own rebuttal.


Real theology? Real Xianity? As opposed to what? You even insult people that have a sightly different take on your mythology.
The Catholics and Anglicans are smart enough to accept an ancient earth and evolution, yet the anachronistic irrelevance that is YEC seem to find themselves feeling smugly superior.

Interesting that you mention clowns, Joe.
Burning bushes that are not consumed, talking snakes, righteous smiting, incest, rape, zombies, torture, murder, infanticide, genocide, homophobia, misogyny, fratricide, slavery, the Ark, the parting of the Red Sea, etc, etc, etc.

Sounds like fun. If you are a psychopathic, delusional,l mass murdering, schitzophrenic.

[Marius vanderLubbe]

So Joe, what's your take on Darwinius Masillae?

[hereisjoe]

righteous smiting, incest, rape, zombies, torture, murder, infanticide, genocide, homophobia, misogyny, fratricide, slavery, etc, etc, etc.
Sounds like fun. If you are a psychopathic, delusional,l mass murdering, schitzophrenic.[/QUOTE]

Let me see; most of this was committed throughout human history by atheists, correct? And YOUR complaint is..???!!

[Marius vanderLubbe]

righteous smiting, incest, rape, zombies, torture, murder, infanticide, genocide, homophobia, misogyny, fratricide, slavery, etc, etc, etc.
Sounds like fun. If you are a psychopathic, delusional,l mass murdering, schizophrenic.

Let me see; most of this was committed throughout human history by atheists, correct? And YOUR complaint is..???!!
You will have to do better than that, Joe.

This list , Joe, should seem all too familiar to you, as it is all given the wink of approval, even encouragement , by the very same god who you believe created the world in seven days. But surely as a pious man, you know this.
Haven't you read your bible? it's all there, Joe, no point hiding from it.
Indeed, all of these horrors have been committed by the godless at one time or another. No one is stating otherwise. But in their case, they were not acting out of devotion to a primitive, bloody death cult. You know, the one you're in.

No thoughts on Darwinius Masillae then?
I hope you are not being poop de poulet and simply ignoring some of the mountain of evidence for speciation and evolution by natural selection again.

[Dinwar]

A question: from where did this ape evolve from? Some earlier ancestor. I'm not sure how that's even a serious question. It's sorta like saying "My sister and I share the same mother" and you responding "Well, where did your mother come from?"

(By the way, the same logic applies to the pseudo-argument "Why are there still apes if we evolved from them?")

So you might consider telling us all what it is you really know about theology and real Christianity before you prosecute and condemn us with your clownish and misplaced comments hereafter... My father went to a seminary. I went through 8 years of private Catholic school, including daily religious education. My family was VERY good friends with several local priests (as in, they'd randomly show up at my grandmother's place and had a standing invitation to any family gatherings), and on a first-name basis with the local bishop (not me personally, but most of the men in my family of the previous generation). I was an alter boy for almost 10 years. Oh, and I've recently taken to reading the works of Aquinus, Augustus, Abulard (when I can get my hands on the latter; he's remarkably hard to come by), and other such thinkers of the Middle Ages, due to being in a re-enactment group and focusing on the Teutonic Order.

I'll grant you that some of the more essoteric theology is beyond me, but I've certainly got a good handle of what Joe Chruchgoer thinks of his religion, and plus a fair bit.

Now, what qualifies you to discuss evolution?

[Craig4]

Joe, you might want to refresh yourself on the Old Testament. It's all in there. If you happen to find anyone following the teachings in it, call the police. They're going to need bio-hazard suits and many, many, body bags.

[Craig4]

I'd recommend "Against Celsus" when you get the time. It's a rare example of the sort of debate that went on in the early (pre Constantine) Christian Church. Celsus was a Pagan critic and the early Christian Origin was engaged in debate with him. You mostly get to see Origin's responses as Celsus's letters are lost to history. Still, you can reconstruct Celsus's points based on the responses.

[hereisjoe]

Now, what qualifies you to discuss evolution?[/QUOTE]

The same thing as every oher human being who discusses it: curiosity. Combined with a lifetime of accumulated general knowledge in many disciplines, personal observations over many decades, trusting others who have proven their trust in what they tell me, and best of all, using the mind to reason things out in as logical a way as possible. Now, you are going to tell me what horrendous intellectual crime I am guilty of by daring to question anybody on anything?

FYI, your upbringing is remarkably similar to mine regarding Catholicism, reading materials, and so on.

Now, if you just want me to go away and leave you alone, say "wew're in a Mexican stand-off, Joe, and I won't have this anymore!"

???

[Dinwar]

Now, if you just want me to go away and leave you alone, say "wew're in a Mexican stand-off, Joe, and I won't have this anymore!"
Nope. I just wanted you to openly acknowledge that you're starting from the position of someone who hasn't really studied evolution. You've probably studied bits and pieces, but you are not a member of a science that intensively studies the subject.

Some here are.

What this means is not that we know better than you so sit down shut up and know your place. What it means is that they have studied this subject intensively, and have formed opinions based on knowledge you don't have and evidence you haven't seen. Not that you CAN'T, but that you HAVEN'T. No slight against you--I don't know literary crticism that well, for example, for the same reason as you don't know evolution that well.

Mostly, I'm trying to get a feel for where to start discussing the evidence with you. If I jump in with the fact that Devonian corals have 400 daily rings, I doubt you'd accept that as evidence for evolution (it's indirect, not direct, evidence, by the way), because you haven't studied invertebrate paleontology or astronomy.

And, given your tone from what I've seen, I'd rather start this with you admitting that you haven't studied the subject. It's not that I think questioning things is wrong--it's just that much of what you raised at the start of thsi thread has already been dealt with. You've admitted you haven't studied the subject intensively, which means you have a legitimate excuse for not knowing that many of the questions you've asked have already been dealt with, quite definitively for the most part.

[Safe-Keeper]

righteous smiting, incest, rape, zombies, torture, murder, infanticide, genocide, homophobia, misogyny, fratricide, slavery, etc, etc, etc.
Sounds like fun. If you are a psychopathic, delusional,l mass murdering, schitzophrenic.
Let me see; most of this was committed throughout human history by atheists, correct? And YOUR complaint is..???!!This has to be one of the most jaw-droppingly bizarre excuses I have ever encountered. Not even the jaw-drop smiley does this justice. What are you saying, that it's OK that God is a ruthless, evil tyrant through many parts of the Bible because people who happened to be atheists have done bad things throughout history as well? That's like saying Europeans of today can't complain about Saddam's gassing of the Kurds because Europeans have done bad stuff in the past. I can picture this logic being put to use across the board.

White prosecutor: we hope to prove to the jury that the suspect, John Doe [an African-American male], committed the brutal kidnapping, rape and murder of Jane Doe on date such-and-such.
African-American lawyer: let me see; most of this was commited throughout history by whites, correct? And YOUR complaint is...???!!

Seriously, what on earth are you on about?

ETA: The obvious difference between the Soviet/Communist atrocities and God is that no one today claims that Joseph Stalin or Mao Zedong or Pol Pot were omnibenevolent, or the source of our morality, or that without them their rules would be no way to separate right from wrong.

(...) Haven't you read your bible? (...)I have a feeling I know the answer.

[Tomtomkent]

Just posting something here because for some reason, over on the Skeptoid site, Joe didn't think I had taken the time to read any of his past information before asking questions. As a matter of fairness I should point out that he has not expanded on his points further, simply repeating that there is no evidence for Evolution, it's just a theory, it doesn't explain the origin of the universe, etc.

Now frankly, he is entitled to his religious point of view. But I find it a cowards tactic to hop back and forth between Creationism being treated as religious matter of faith and a scientific alternative to Evolution. And if he is going to make statments like "It's just a theory, there is no evidence" then he should be prepared to say why the evidence offered is invalid, instead of changing tact and saying "I am debating Religion vs science! Not Science vs Science!" Nope. Sorry, when you give 25 debating a scientific theory, you are talking science. You are talking fact, not debate.

So, Joe...

1)Fossils are rare by their nature. The chances of finding fossils of every species that ever existed are ludicrous. Thankfully we have enough to define a trend, and enough other evidence to prove the theory.
2) There are transition fossils. There are even fossils for "paths not taken."
3)Through the wonders of Geogoly and shifting earth. Ever notice the different bands of colour in cliffs?
4)Nope, evolutionists use the date of the rock to date the fossil. In some cases fossils can date rocks. But I have never seen both arguments used against the same rock.
5) Several theories abound about what happened before the big bang. But hey, we shouldn't try and find out right? These is completely irrelevant to your argument.
6) Evolution defies Thermodynamics? Oh, Albert Fisch? Yeah, he misrepresented the laws of thermodynamics. (Dave Gormans Googlewhack Adventure is by far the most entertaining discussion on this point. Go watch it now, and chuckle.) CONTAINED systems tend to entropy, uncontained ones don't.
7)Yes. They could. Why not?
8)Nope, the theories do not contradict each other. The immune system is exactly the sort of advantage that you would expect evolution to spit out.
9)And you don't think that understanding more of the earths population is an evolutionary advantage?
10) No they are not. Wondrous, yes, but not impossible. So, any evidence other than your opinion? Thought not. Next!
11) Just plain wrong. Who says mutations are always a disadvantage? Observed evidence known by any school kid proves this wrong. Miss school the day you were taught about brown moths almost dying out and black moths thriving during the industrial revolution? Oh well, never mind.
12) Source? Evidence? Those hoaxes you mention later...
13) Amazingly, yes it can explain the advantages, and no it does not. Simply put: Alturism helps a species survive over weaker competition.
14) well, as you don't mention which animals I am going out on a limb here and saying: Geology and Biology can. as I am assuming you mean flash frozen, mumified, peat-bogged or fosilised animals. All readily explained. Evolution has no baring on this.
15) As part of the geological process of fossil fuels forming. Again, nothing to do with evolution.
16) And why would they be? COSMOLOGY on the other hand explains them readily.
17) Again, Cosmology has explained not just our moon, but lots of moons. And astroids, comets and stellar bodies. Amazing huh? Nothing to do with evolution.
18) Well documented by geologists and cosmologists. The vast majority of evidence of impact is found in regions where plants, animals (including people) and geological processes don't obscure or more likely destroy the evidence. Same for fossils.
19) The magic of geography! Some rocks are worn down easier than others! Whod'a thunk it? Oh wait, anybody who noticed they could carve their name into sandstone with a coin, but not into other rocks.
20) Yep, well documented by geologists, and although I don't understand the theory myself that is not good enough grounds to dismiss it. Again, not to do with Evolution.
21) As far as some brief, leyman web browsing can tell, to suggest these are miracles science can not explain is simply wrong. Any geology savvy posters want to point me to a simple explanation?
22) Nope, Cosmology explains these hanging around as the work of gravity. Saturns rings are trapped in Saturns Gravity. And as somebody who scored real low on his A Level science exam, even i knew THAT. Nothing to do with evolution. (Very little of the arguments against evolution are to do with evolution, are they?)
23)And the works of Doctor Brian Cox says you are absolutely WRONG in this statement. Congratulations!
24) Evolution HAS no theory on these. Geologists do! But feel free to explain how this relates to the evolution of a species. Unless perhaps the Earth is a species? Hmm...
25) Yes, there has been a history of forged fossils. But there is also a long history of good evidence for evolution. To look at the few examples of bad evidence and assume all evidence is bad, is simply flawed practice. I could as easily assume that every christian is a member of the KKK, because I know the KKK exists, and is an example of christians carrying a cross. By your reasoning I need not bother to check which other churches are out there, or if the KKK are a minority.

Conclusion: Your reasoning and evidence are flawed. You other no conclusive proof evolution is wrong, digress into unrelated fields, and fail to supply any evidence what so ever that your theory is any more likely. At best you are misinformed, and have left yourself open to critical review.

[Tomtomkent]

Ok, first of, worried if read wrong this may appear a personal attack, not inteded that way, but if mods are worried feel free to delete it.


Now, if you just want me to go away and leave you alone, say "wew're in a Mexican stand-off, Joe, and I won't have this anymore!"

???


Well, as far as I can tell people have offered you a much more polite option: To admit that you are standing from a religious point of view and have no interest in taking an objective look at the evidence. You have pretty much refused such offers. Over on Skeptiod, in the discussion thread I even asked to clarify your stand point myself. You stated you were talking from a science ve religion point of view, but you actual statements failed to follow up on this.

The question Joe, is not if people want you to go away, you have the right to an open debate. The question is if you fully inderstand the feedback you are getting, and if you are willing to supply sources for some of your claims. Just part of the debating procedure.

[Dinwar]

Been out in the Mojave for a few days, and I've had some time to think (deserts and open sky always do that to me).

If we're going to discuss this topic, we need to define some terms. I really don't care if the definitions are what most people agree upon (with a few exceptions), but when you say "microevolution" I need to know precisely what you mean, and what I say "macroevolution" you need to know precisely what *I* mean (by the way, Creationists and paleontologists have VASTLY different definitions, which never fail to confuse me).

To be fair, I'll start. Please feel free to add, contest, or otherwise pick apart my definitions.

Evolution: The change in allel frequency over time. PLEASE NOTE: This is the ONLY topic I'm going to debate here. Not abiogenesis (I don't know enough about it, and considering you've admitted to not studying even paleontology, Joe, neither do you). Not astronomy. Not physics (except as it's directly related to certain claims geologists make in regard to evolution). Not any of the myriad of other red herrings that are completely outside of evolutionary theory that Creationists and ID advocates throw out.

Allel: A particular variant of a gene (in the classic pea experiments, for example, one allel caused wrinkly skin and another caused smooth skin, but they were the same gene (yes, I know the complications and all; I'm merely using this as an example)).

Gene: A bit of DNA coding for an individual protien

Organism: Any individual living thing (this one gets kinda blurry...)

Population: A group of interbreeding organisms.

Species: I'm going to leave this for someone else. Paleontologists use the morphospecies concept (which is the worst, in my opinion, though we really don't have any other options--ALL we have is the morphology, and sometimes not even that). The biological species concept is always popular (any organisms that could potentially initerbreed successfully are the same species). Circle species throw all our ideas out the window and force us to think of new ones (one population with multiple species? A gradation between species?). Other species definitions exist.

Fossil: Any remains of organisms, or evidence thereof, older than 10,000 years old. This one can't change--given NEPA, the Federal Antiquities Act, the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act, and numerous other Federal, state, and city laws, ordanences, regulations, and professional standards use this definition, altering this one will take an act of Congress. These come in a number of forms: body fossils, trace fossils, and chemical trace fossils being the major catagories. If you want, I can define these later.

Transition fossil: I'm going to leave this for someone else to define as well. The way I see it, either 99% or more of all fossils (basically anything that died after it reproduced, and good luck proving that one) is a transition fossil, we assume that punctuated equilibrium works for ALL organisms (I've heard persuasive arguments for why it doesn't), or we assume that no fossils are (in which case we'd either have to throw out the term or accept ID, which is what you're arguing for).

Intelligent Design: The idea that some intelligent agent either put life on Earth in the first place, or that some intelligent agent directed life's development after it arose/was planted.

Creationism: The idea that the Christian God planted life on this planet. There are many variants (YEC, Dieistic evolution, etc).

What other terms are needed for this discussion to continue?

[Dinwar]

21) As far as some brief, leyman web browsing can tell, to suggest these are miracles science can not explain is simply wrong. Any geology savvy posters want to point me to a simple explanation?
For reference, # 21 is:

21. Plate tectonics and continental drift, as commonly accepted, do not explain ocean trench fissures and those bent mountain strata, or unparallel fracture zones.The field of study which is concerned with these topics is structural geology. This field is very complex, far more complex than this simple question indicates (there's a reason people make entire careers out of this sort of thing).

I'll knock out the easy one first: Plate techtonics predicts that plates will pull apart (there's some debate as to WHY, but they alla gree on how). Where those plates pull apart the mantle undergoes pressure release melting, causing massive volcanism, which creates the ridges. Because the plates are moving, you get a trench. You can also get a trench in a subduction zone--the subduction would pull the plate under, and when you push something under something else you get a trench (the sedimentation wouldnt' contribute too much to the equation, given the isostatic depression caused by it).

First, you have to understand deformation. There's two broad types: elastic and inelastic. If you hit a ball with a bat, it undergoes elastic deformation--the TV show Time Warp has demonstrated that the ball compresses, then expands back to its original size and shape. Inelastic deformation includes such things as window pains shattering. There's also brittle and ductile deformation. Brittle is (again) a window pain shattering. Ductile is what you do when you kneed dough (it stretches, but doesn't break). Under various strains (which is stress (force, roughly) in a given direction acting on a given area) the same rock can do different things. A small strain may result in an elastic deformation. A large strain may cause an inelastic brittle deformation. This can be demonstrated--buy some Silly Putty and stretch it slowly, then stretch it fast, then whack it with a hammer. Ductile, brittle, shatter. :D

This is complicated by two factors: Strain rate and area. Small forces over a long period of time can result in dramatic deformation, for example. As for area, imagine the difference between being stepped on by a stilletto heel and being stepped on by an elephant (well, being driven over by a backhoe is more accurate--they're actually fairly similar).

Finally, you have to remember that rocks aren't in a vacuum. They exist surrounded by...well, rocks, mostly. Which means (and I'm simplifying here) that there are three orthogonal axis of strain, ranging from highest (most strain) to lowest (least strain). Sometimes all three are equal, sometimes two are, sometimes two may as well be (ie, the third is either so high or so low that the minor deviations for the other two don't really matter).

Okay, so rocks act weird when you apply force. What does that mean?

First off, it means that if you put a stress on a rock, it'll usually break at roughly 30 degrees to the angle of maximum strain. In a lab, that's usually the end. In the real world, however, this may only be the begining--the second axis may now become the maximums strain axis, and may cause additional fracturing (remember, the real world is messy--this second angle can be due to pressure from a mountain range, or different heat in the rock, or different pore fluid pressures, or a magma intrusion, or a falt, or.....). This additional fracturing would occur at 30 degrees to the second axis. Hey guess what! We get nonparallel fractures! :D You can get multiple sets of these, which get really, REALLY hard to interpret.

Oh, there's another way. "Brittle" and "ductile" are two endmembers of a very long gradational line. A fold is a ductile deformation. Except that you can get fractures in it (folding isn't a single event, and the process can speed up or slow down--as I said before, the real world is messy). This means that you can get fractures. These can sometimes get turned, but that's not necessarily important. Folds alter strain direction, which alters how the fractures occur. A simple stress can produce a complex fracture pattern when the rock unit isn't simple.

There's also the fact that many rocks have a foliation--a prefered orientation of grains, weak points, etc. A slicken side is a fracture, after all.

Also, fractures alter the way strain affects other fractures. Fractures preferentially intersect one another at 90 degrees to one another (if one is hitting another--if they're formed from the same stress they can form at 120 degrees to one another). This can actually turn a fracture, making it not parallel with ITSELF.

In summary, this is, as usual, a vastly more complex issue than Creationists or ID advocates would have us believe. It's far more than merely one plate colliding with another.

[Tomtomkent]

Whoot! I understood a geological explanation. Now just don't ask me to remember any of that...

[Dinwar]

:D Once you go through a semester of Structural Geology class, the words "30 degrees" and "pore fluid pressure" are engraved on the inside of your skull.

[Craig4]

I hate to quibble but I think we should be free to use "intelligence design" and "creationism" interchangeably. The term "intelligent design" appeared immediately following the US Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Aguillard. The proponents of ID are creationists and they coined the phrase in a failed attempt to get past the language in Aguilard. ID was found to be creationism in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

As an aside I'm disappointed that the defendants in that case didn't appeal because we could have had an appellate decision on ID.

[Dinwar]

From a legal standpoint, I can sort of agree. From a philosophical standpoint, I had several reasons for separating the two. There are groups that believe that aliens started/controled life on Earth, after all, and that would definitely fit within the Intelligent Design paradigm (in that the aliens would be intelligent). Also, it's easy enough to demonstrate that the concept of ID is unscientific and flat-out silly while taking the ID advocates at their word (that ID is not tied to any religion), so I figure why not?

I think the legal issue arose from the fact that the overwhelming majority of ID advocates are Creationists in disguise.

And don't appologize for quibbling--the whole point of my post was to get people quibbling. Better to do it now than to do it when someone brings up the term later on. :)

[Tomtomkent]

The flimsiest argument I have heard from a creationist, in a jovial and interesting discussion has been repeated here: "Science does not explain what was there before the Big Bang, so it is wrong! Ergo, my version is right!" Which quickly devolves into: "Well, if God didn't make the universe, where did it come from? Where did the Big Bang come from to create the Universe eh?"

Unfortunately using this same logic against the idea of God cobbling the Universe together is rarely appreciated. "Ah, so God created everything? So where was he before he had a universe? where did God come from? Who or what created him? What was there before he threw all of creation out into space?"
"Oh grow up."
"And if God was created by Prime God, who created Prime God?"
"This stopped being fun now Tom, and don't do your joke about Moses again..."

[Dinwar]

I'm bored enough that I'll respond to this crap list. Joe, FYI, this is the reason I asked for that discussion to be taken to the forums here--no explanation can be given in the limits set by the Skeptoid podcast. If you continue to post on Skeptoid, we can continue to debate over there. But this is a better venue.

1. Severe lack of fossils to connect “billions” of years of different species.This is false. We have many, many, many fossils, certainly enough to cover the past 550 ~ 600 million years (from the Ediacara Period to today). Before that fossils are tricky, because they're more chemical trace fossils and stromatolites, which are hard to see. But this is false.


2. No transition fossils between the “changes” of species.First, define "species". However, this is explained two ways. First, it's false. We DO have good transitions between many species. Second, punctuated equilibrium argues for very fast diversification events (multiple speciations at once). Fast events=few fossils. Simple.

3. How did fossils get out of place in the earth’s strata?Which would these be? I've never heard of them. Well, actually, to be fare I saw a decapod fossil that supposedly extend the range of that genus far beyond what was previously considered the FAD. It's HOTLY disputed, however, because Cretaceous bryozoa were found in the rock as well, and it was found in a scree slope.

4. Evolutionists use circular arguments to support their fossil claims (the rock strata dates the fossil but the fossil also dates the rock etc).Completely wrong. And it illustrates a lack of understanding of geology. See, geologists don't divide time the same way others do. For one thing, we have multiple times (Rancholbrian, Pleistocene, 5 million years ago, Cenozoic.....). Fossils have been used since the time of James Hutton for RELATIVE DATING--basically, saying "this rock is older than that rock". Stratigraphic principles have long been used for that purpose. Through fossils, paleontologists recognized most of the major time periods--if you find these organisms, the rock was deposited in this time period. Still used today, by the way--the K/Pg boundary is defined as a transition in marine microfossils as much as anything else. ABSOLUTE DATING (the 65.4 +/- .05 million years dates and the like) are done via radiometric dating, which is predominantly done on igneous rocks (or very young sedimentary rocks). If we're really, really lucky we find a place where igneous rock and sedimentary rock interfinger, like in the Deccan Traps. With that, we can tie index fossils (fossils that are useful in age diagnosis) to specific radiometric dates, and use those fossils to give fairly firm dates to sedimentary rocks the fossils are found in in other areas. We use the fossils AND igneous rock to date rocks. Among other things.

5. No explanation for what happened before the Big Bang.Ask a cosmologist.

6. No explanation for the process which brought order out of chaos – evolution often defies the laws of physics and thermodynamics.Wrong. First, organisms are open systems. Second, while you might be able to argue that organisms violate the laws of thermodynamics you can hardly argue that changes in allel frequency violates those laws. Mutations occur for the same reasons as reproduction.

7. Complex organs (ie the human eye) could never just evolve.This is the classic Argument from Personal Incredulity. Behe couldn't figure out how an eye evolved, and therefore Goddidit. Problem is, others can (not to mention that this creates a God of the Gaps situation). We have modern organisms which preserve most of the major changes in the eye, from a cluster of photosensitive cells (cteniphera) to eyes far more complex than human eyes (eagles), showing how the evolution could easily have happened.

8. The immune system cannot evolve according to evolutionary theory – the one process contradicts the other.Bananas are red. See? Simply asserting something doesn't make it so. Also, see #7.

9. Languages are getting simpler, not more complex, and fewer.And...............? Evolution does not mean increased complexity (a common misconception among everyone, on both sides of this debate). It merely means changes through time. Becoming simpler is actually pretty common (look at any parasite).

10. DNA, RNA and genetic codes are far too complex to have happened by chance over the alleged eons of time.This is either Argument from Personal Incredulity, or really bad math (how do you calculate something like this?).

11. Mutations never improve a species; they are counter-productive every time.This is false. The majority of mutations (most that occur on the third bit in a sequence, for example) aren't even noticeable to the organism. Of those, many are bad for the organism. Others, not so much. Mutations are vastly more complicated than you're giving them credit for.

12. Human footprints are found alongside dinosaur footprints and next to trilobites in Cambrian formation.I'd love to see a good photo of this. Because all such formations I've heard of merely show some weird erosional/weird depositional features which, with an unhealthy dose of paradolia, look like human footprints and dinosaur footprints.

13. Evolution cannot even begin to explain the existence of altruism in humans and animals, let alone moral compunctions. They defy the idea of “survival of the fittest”.Only for a very shallow and human-centered view of "fittest". Altruism, specifically reciprocal altruism, has evolved in numerous lineages because while its short-term affect is negative, its long-term affect is clearly positive.

14. Evolution or geology in general, cannot explain the animals which were buried and preserved almost perfectly in the earth in what can only be a very rapid process of a few hours.I've already dealt with this, but again--neocatastraphism deals with these issues quite nicely.

15. How to explain the existence of high pressures in oil deposits after “tens of millions” of years of them forming?Pressure increases with depth (I forget the specific numbers). Deep oil will be under a lot of pressure. Add pore fluids (which oil is one of) to the mix, and you get a remarkable amount of pressure.

16. The geology, erosion, make-up, and planetary physics of the solar system are not explained by Evolution.That's because evolution deals with organisms. Other areas of research deal with these (geology, sedimentology, minerology, and astronomy, for example).

17. After “billions of years”, where is the abundance of moon dust, and where did the moon come from?The accumulation rate of dust on the Moon is less than previously thought. As for where the Moon came from, during the Hadean a Mars-sized body hit the Earth and shattered it. The Moon is the remnants.

18. After “billions of years”, where are the abundant remains of meteorites which should show up all through the earth’s strata, but only show up in the uppermost strata?They're not as uncommon as most people think. The issue is that with active sedimentation/erosion on a planet like Earth, most of them get covered and obscured. Besides, plate tectonics erases many of them. Venus, which doesn't have much in the way of plate tectonics, shows a huge number of randomly spaced bolide impact sites--certainly enough for millions of years (over time older craters will be obliterated by newer ones).

19. How, for example, could a relatively small river like the Colorado create a gorge like the Grand Canyon when bigger rivers have not done so?This isn't biology, and thus is outside the realm of evolution. However, the answer is simple. The area the Colorado runs through in the Grand Canyon is experiencing uplift. The Colorado is used in geology classes to freak out new students--it's got many of the traits associated with old streams (abundant meanders, for example), but the most striking are those of young streams (steep cuts, deep incisions). You may want to attend a geology class sometime; it'd really help your understanding of many of the issues you have with evolution.

20. Some of the world’s most powerful earthquakes occur very far away from the plate tectonics boundaries.This is a structural geology issue, not an evolution issue. Please see my explanation for nonparallel fractures--the answer is very similar. Rocks are weird, and the real world is messy. Specifically, you can have slabs of subducted crust break off, creating massive earthquakes. You can also have blocks of rock that are very deep and (relatively) wet, creating a situation where a chunk of rock the size of Main moves a half inch to the north under Atlanta. Pore fluid pressure isn't something to take lightly.

21. Plate tectonics and continental drift, as commonly accepted, do not explain ocean trench fissures and those bent mountain strata, or unparallel fracture zones.I believe I've dealt with this adequately.

22. If the universe (and solar system) is billions of years old or even millions of years old, solar particles and planetary debris and formation gasses should have dissipated long ago. But they are still around (ie Saturn’s rings), defying cosmic physics.Not biology, so it's not evolution. But I'll answer anyway. At least one of Saturn's rings is actually being deposited as we speak (see Bad Astronomy for photos). Also, while the solar wind can blow away certain particles/gases/whatever, that wind by definition IS particles/gases/whatever. So it'd add to it. Solar system gas would reach a relatively steady state after a while.

23. The shape of and the spacing of galaxies actually DEFIES the Big Bang theory and the belief in the current theories of time and light and (example) stellar births.Others have dealt with this. I'll just say that this isn't biology, so it's not evolution.

24. The evolutionary explanation of the earth’s strata is not consistent with any known process of geology and does not even consider the proven phenomena of liquefaction, let alone the accepted principles of erosion and sedimentation.Gee, it'll be hard to break this to all the great stratigraphy professors I've known. :rolleyes: In reality, flame structures, pillow structures, and other stratigraphic features clearly are caused by liquefaction, and are well known among stratigraphers. Other processes are also known--turbididites, tempestites, grain flows, debris flows, mud flows, heinrich events, etc. are all very clear in the rock record. Besides, evolution explains organisms, not rocks.

25. The alleged evidence to support the theory of evolution has often been subject to forgery; for example, Piltdown Man (an orangutan jaw that somehow became a human jaw), archaeopteryx (the alleged cross-over fossil between reptiles and birds, PROVEN to be a hoax), Nebraska Man (a pig’s tooth that somehow became a human fossil), Lucy (an Australopithecus afarensis skeleton proven to be a consortium of various bones of different skeletons), the Yale Scandal (scientist Charles Sibley and accomplice Jon Ahlquist deliberately manipulated DNA evidence to try and “prove” apes and men are genetically related), and a living example of a “transitional species” in the tragic story of Ota Benga, an African pygmy who was displayed in zoos, next to chimpanzees and a gorilla, a century ago, as “evidence” of the closest ape-link to man.
I'd love to see the evidence that Archaeopteryx is a hoax. All the paleontologists I've spoken with agree that it's legit. You may be thinking of the feathered birds from China a few years ago, which were a hoax. Same for Lucy. But 1) all of the true examples you present here were discovered by scientists, and 2) you're deliberately ignoring the (again, literally) tons of evidence for evolution that we have in the form of fossils, let alone all the other fields of study (not that they're invalid, merely that they don't lend themselves to weight measurements). I mean, are you going to say that Galathea isn't a good transitional taxa?

You can point to a hoax in any science. The presence of hoaxes doesn't invalidate the science, it merely reinforces the standard fact that one should always be skeptical of extraordinary claims.

[Craig4]

Speaking of hoaxes Joe, do you think you could find us some collocated humane, dinosaur, Cambrian fossils that aren't hoaxes? There a few examples but none that have stood up to scrutiny. It's funny you bring up hoaxes while being so dismissive of peer review. These hoaxes weren't discovered by creationists, they were discovered by real scientists evaluating evidence.

[Tomtomkent]

So, let me counter the 25 points with some basic requirements that would have to be met before Evolution is fundamentaly disproven. At least then we know we are playing fair and offering a reasonable ground for debate.

0) This is Zero, because it is a requirement that should been in place from the moment Joe made his first post: Give us some indication of what evidence we would have to offer before Joe will consider Evolution as a possibility.

1) The most obvious is a life form that can not have possibly have evolved. I offered this challenge on Skeptoid.com, and Joe responded with four:

1. human beings
2. The rotary motor of bacterial flagella
http://www.nanonet.go.jp/english/mailmag/2004/011a.html
3. sexual reproduction, courtship and roles
4. http://www.rae.org/revev5.html

Unsurprisingly I couldn't find much there to prove that these four species (sexual reproduction and courtship is a species now) could not have possibly evolved. But if Joe ever points to definitive proof that a life form exists with no evolutionary track record, and evidence that it can NOT have evolved, I will reconsider my viewpoint.

2) Joe makes a habit of accusing me of pushing the point that "Evolution" does not explain other stuff. Like the Big Bang, the dawn of life, and so forth. He has even, over in Skeptoid said:

Tom, you're really a piece of work. Too lazy to go through my previous posts to see what I've been saying. Yet you jab me with "Evolution began with the dawn of life" but cannot answer my question of where that life first arose from. It's creation or evolution from nothing, Tom. Have you got that yet?

Yeah Joe, I got it. But I still say that statement is bad science. Your posts here and in Skeptoid treat "EVOLUTION" and "THE BIG BANG" and "COSMOLOGY" and let's be honest "SCIENCE" as interchangable. Go back, rewrite your theories in a coherent language using correct terminology and convention, and most reasonable members of the discussion will give it a fresh review. This is only fair.

3) If you insist on including Geology, cosmology, and everything else in one meta-theory, then disprove the Big Bang happened. Prove it was "SOMETHING FROM NOTHING", and not "Mass from Energy" as Big Bang theory suggests. Don't just keep asking "What was there before?" Give some concrete evidence that the big Bang COULD NOT have happened.

4) Explain WHY life could not have stated on Earth from a chemical reaction as science has supposed for some time. It's all very well demanding we explain HOW it did, but these explanations are ignored. So explain WHY the current understanding of the origin of life COULD NOT BE POSSIBLE. (Sorry to use caps there, but I needed emphasis).

5) Offer credible evidence for the Creationist version of events. Not a list of things Evolution can't explain. Not a question about "well how do you explain THIS?" No. Evidence for the Creationist version of the origin of species. It of course will have to meet the requirements of scientific conventions. But hey, those conventions have been listed at length here. So it should be easy enough to check it is up to scratch.

And these aren't just for Joe folks. If any other creationists want to offer up some evidence it should be an interesting discussion.

[Dinwar]

1. human beingsWe have a remarkably good record of human evolution. Particularly when you consider we arose (as a taxa) in Africa's rift valleys, which aren't known for being good places for fossil formation.

2. The rotary motor of bacterial flagellaCopy and paste this into Google. Wikipedia is the second link to pop up, and it does a reasonable job of dismantling this argument. This argument also has Behe all over it.

3. sexual reproduction, courtship and rolesWhile it's weird that this arose, it's certainly not difficult to think of an evolutionary pathway for this. Sexual reproduction is as old as bacteria, and courtship is merely an expression of that. Dating is all one long mating dance, essentially. In fact, Darwin recognized the importance of sexual selection--if a female finds a certain behavior attractive in a male, that preference will be stronger than most other selective pressures. So you get complex courtship rituals. This is basic biology.

The fourth website is merely a rehash of the standard Creationist claims, all of which amount to the Argument from Personal Incredulity.

Explain WHY life could not have stated on Earth from a chemical reaction as science has supposed for some time. I will add that I expect you to show your work, Joe. Meaning that simply stating "DNA is too complex!" or "The laws of probability state that these won't arise in eight billion years!" I want to know where those numbers came from. Mostly because the overwhelming majority of such calculations I've seen are based on a seriously flawed understanding of the Hadean and the processes by which abiogenesis researchers say that life arose.

[Tomtomkent]

I think that is fair Dinwar. Saying that you want to see somebodies working is giving them further chance to discuss reasonably any percieved flaw in each others work. I truly want this to be an enlightening discussion where neither side assumes the other is a fanatic who can not be convinced. Cheers for spotting a flaw in my idea that have been used for both sides to reduce it to a shouting match. :)

[Tomtomkent]

Apparently DNA is too complicated to have been created by chance. So you show that actually some DNA has been put together in a lab, and suddenly that is evidence NOT that DNA is not as magical as Joe believed, but DNA MUST have beem created by god.

Damned if you do. Damned if you don't. Apparently the answer is GOD DID IT, even when it is the opposite to what you believed with all your heart a few months back.

[Dinwar]

Another term we'll need to define is "information". Creationists attempt to use information theory in ways which it is not intended to be used, and commit a lot of errors while doing so; however, I'm not up on information theory, so I can't really speak to it as well as I can the geology errors Joe perpetrates.

[Craig4]

Have you all read anything about c-decay? It's a creationist fairy story about the decay of the speed of light. In essence, earlier in the universe light traveled much faster and the speed decayed over time. Here's the best part, according to the creationist who came up with the idea, the speed of light hit "equilibrium" in about 1960 meaning the "decay" stopped. This makes it pretty convenient since we can now no longer measure the decay what with it becoming constant in 1960 and all. I shot gin through my nose when I read this.

The point of "c-decay" is to provide a plausible theory as to why we can see light from stars more than 10,000 light years away. This may have unseated hydroplate theory as the most idiotic creations argument yet.

[Tomtomkent]

Yes, and C-Decay is as discredited, and lacks as much proof as the idea that "the human eye can not have evolved" or "fossils only take a few hundred years to make".

The absolute irony is that Joe, over in the skeptoid site, just ridiculed me for asking stupid questions like: "Where was God when he created everything?" Or "What did he create it from?" Or "What form does he take?"

Now, for a guy who does not believe the evidence for evolution is good enough, he wants us to take it on, for lack of a better word, faith, that God just was there and he did create the Universe.

Now, let's think back. what is Joes big problem with both the Big Bang, and the Birth of life? Oh yeah! "It's Something from Nothing." Something from Nothing? Oh... So, WHAT exactly did God create the Universe out of again? Where did he exist before he created a Universe to exist in, and where does he exist now? His story falls down on the same hurdles as he applies to evolution, or the Big Bang.

Once again: All the "Evidence" Joe has ever supplied in any conversation falls into one of three catagories:
1) Misrepresentation or misunderstanding of actual science.
2) Opinion and supposition about what it is believed is and is not possible with out actual evidence.
3) "Evidence" created by "Christian" scientists, that starts with an assumption God is real, and looks only for partial evidence to support this claim. It is not objective, not evidence lead, and not valid.

C-Decay falls into all three camps. It misunderstands that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. It assumes the Universe can NOT be billions of years old. It is only touted by scientists who need to reconcile the speed of light with their percieved age of the universe. It has not, and can not be proved.

[Craig4]

Yeah, I was just so astounded by its obvious mendacity that my martini shot out of my nose. For the record, gin burns when it gets into your nasal cavity.

[Marius vanderLubbe]

Which is your favorate from this list of god approved activities, Joe?
Burning bushes that are not consumed, talking with snakes, righteous smiting, incest, rape, zombies, torture, murder, infanticide, genocide, homophobia, misogyny, fratricide, slavery, the Ark, the parting of the Red Sea, etc, etc, etc.

The corpse of your horse (in fact a donkey) is flogged into a million stinking parts, each equally worthless. Your "science" is leaning against a garbage skip taking a 20 from another John in a cheap suit witha bible in his pocket. "Sure, I'll tell ya the earth is 6000 years old, but it will cost ya an extra 20"

[Tomtomkent]

And if the distance between stars was the only flaw in a new universe it might be considered. We know that light can effected by gravity, so there could be wiggle room with the idea of a gravity well distorting our view of the universe.

Unfortunately it is pretty well established that our sun and solar syustem was built from the debris of a sun that exploded millions of years in the past. There is simply no other explanation for the abundance of heavy metals, radioactive materials, etc. Or at least no other explanation that actually has tangible evidence. A lump of Uranium is fairly tangible.

[Craig4]

Why do you suppose he's staying away? Is it because he can be answered in detail here where he can't on sekeptoid?

[Dinwar]

That was my guess, particularly after he tried to call me out for continuing the discussion at Skeptoid (he's responded to what, two of my posts here?).

[Paradox74]

5. No explanation for what happened before the Big Bang.

16. The geology, erosion, make-up, and planetary physics of the solar system are not explained by Evolution.

17. After “billions of years”, where is the abundance of moon dust, and where did the moon come from?

18. After “billions of years”, where are the abundant remains of meteorites which should show up all through the earth’s strata, but only show up in the uppermost strata?

16. The geology, erosion, make-up, and planetary physics of the solar system are not explained by Evolution.

19. How, for example, could a relatively small river like the Colorado create a gorge like the Grand Canyon when bigger rivers have not done so?

20. Some of the world’s most powerful earthquakes occur very far away from the plate tectonics boundaries.

21. Plate tectonics and continental drift, as commonly accepted, do not explain ocean trench fissures and those bent mountain strata, or unparallel fracture zones.

22. If the universe (and solar system) is billions of years old or even millions of years old, solar particles and planetary debris and formation gasses should have dissipated long ago. But they are still around (ie Saturn’s rings), defying cosmic physics.

23. The shape of and the spacing of galaxies actually DEFIES the Big Bang theory and the belief in the current theories of time and light and (example) stellar births.


The above claims have nothing to do with evolution. Of course evolution doesn't explain the makeup of the cosmos or earthquakes or the shape of galaxies; evolution covers biology, it's not astronomy or geology. If you want to know how clouds are formed, you would get a meteorologist, not a psychologist. Want to know how plants grow? Get a botanist, not a physicist.

Still confused? Here are the definitions of astronomy and evolution:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evolution

3. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/astronomy

1. The scientific study of matter in outer space, especially the positions, dimensions, distribution, motion, composition, energy, and evolution of celestial bodies and phenomena.

Do planets or rocks have genes? Atoms do not count as genes.



6. No explanation for the process which brought order out of chaos – evolution often defies the laws of physics and thermodynamics.


From The Counter-Creationism Handbook by Mark Isaac pg 191:

"It [Second Law of Thermodynamics] says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalent, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease."

Now, please explain to me, in full detail, how "evolution often defies the laws of physics and thermodynamics".


I've been reading some of your posts on this thread and you're accusing us of not quoting our sources, yet you're (or at least the author of this essay) not doing it for your own claims.

One last point that I would like to add. The Bible itself is no book of scientific truth. I urge you to take a close look at Joshua chapter 10 (particularly verses 10-12). Now, explain to me how it is possible for the sun to stand still if it's the Earth that circles around it.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua%2010&version=NIV

[Tomtomkent]

So the way I see it the Young Universe theory collapses in on itself. All the "evidence" boils down to descriptions to how the universe might appear older but is actually just six thousand years old. This only works if you think the universe IS only six thousand years old. But if you performed real science with out a bias you would reach a different conclusion.

Take the circular logic of C Decay, to a creationist it makes sense. You KNOW the universe is only six thousand years old so you suppose the speed of light must change over time to fit the age of the universe. But then you state C-Decay as evidence that the stars can be visible that far away. The two theories can ONLY work if they are both assumed to be right with out testing.

So what happens if we test C-Decay? Well, we know some stars are millions (with six noughts) of light years away, but to support the young universe the light can only have been travelling for thousands (with three noughts) of years. So the speed of light MUST (apparently) have decayed to a thousandth of its initial speed over a thousand years. At that rate it should be dectable. And you know what, even the Mythbusters are able to fire a laser at the moon and measure how long it takes for the light to bounce back of reflective plates and calculate the distance between the earth and the moon. Observatories have been carrying out the experiment for decades. If C was changing we would see the light taking longer to travel (accounting for expected variations of course) and the moon would appear further away. But it doesn't. C has not changed in decades. No genuine experiment seems to validate C-Decay.

So if C-Decay is not validated does the Young Universe theory stand up? well no, because there is no reason to assume that stars that can be calculated to be millions of light years away are not exactly what they appear to be. The light we observe from them has been travelling for a thousand times longer than the universe has apparently existed. The universe is anything but young.

In fact the argument that the universe is too young for evolution to be possible falls apart when you consider that Earth floats around a sun that is itself hundreds of millions of years old, that was built from the dust of an exploded sun that was hundreds of millions of years old. The moon was created by an object the size of mars hitting earth fifty million years ago. And even then they quible. "Oh no, given all that time the dust would have drifted away from the moon." Really? A mass with one-sixth g of gravity would lose all it's dust? Yet Earth has an atmosphere full of vapours and gasses made of particles much smaller than dust. Gravity does a pretty fine job of keeping those pesky air molecules from escaping, at far greater distances.

Gravity is a factor, it seems that can be argued against in space, with out asking what the ramifications would be on earth. You know, where we can measure it. Planets should lose their rings, or moons at the drop of a hat, despite it benn plainly rubbish.

The worst arguments are those that claim life on earth could not have simply started with out a divine touch. Is there any evidence that a divine touch was ever required? Well, no. we can create the building blocks of life and manipulate them like any other chemicals, because they are just chemicals. Does matter change forms when it goes from inert to living? Nope, all just atoms. Claiming God was required to start life, therefore life can not start with out God is to argue about a flaw that simply is not there. How can you argue that Evolution does not take account of an event that we have no evidence happened, can of happened, or needed to happen before life could start? Simple answer, you can't.

The arguments rest against each other so finely that if you disprove any, Intelligent design collapses.

[Tomtomkent]

Oh and I have recently been reminded that the rotary motor of bacterial flagella could not have evolved. The basic idea being that if any one component was not there the whole bacterium would not work. Well yes, if humans did not have a heart or lungs, the whole body would not work, this argument just proves that intelligent design advocates misrepresent the theory of evolution as baddly as Answers in Genesis suggests. Because you "can't turn an amoeba into a donkey", or what ever the quote is.

The simple fact is that the flagella are EXACTLY the sort of refinement we would expect evolution to kick out, after millions or even billions of mutations across uncountable numbers of generations (ever tried to stop bacteria from multiplying?). It was not a case of one day there was flagella with out a tail, that could not live, then suddenly there was. It was a case there being bacteria that gradually adapted and evolved one gene at a time, that had other models of survival that became redundant and were discarded. Like I said, there was not a generation of men who kept keeling over dead until one them evolved lungs, or fish who kept drowning until one day they had fully formed gills. These eveolved one gene at a time. And if that sounds like it took a mind boggling amount of time? Guess what... It did. There may well be species that it took a while to establish the ancestry off, but there has never been, to my knowledge any valid evidence that any species could not have evolved. Oh there were some that stumped scientists, but then research was done and answers were found. And even if there were some species that could not have evolved would that prove divine creation? No, it would prove not all species evolved and there was a new mystery to investigate. It would not prove NO species evolved, and would not undo the evidence we have for the species that DID evolve.

Take the story of the three men in the train. A priest, a leyman and a Scientist are on the train and they cross the border into scotland, where they see a black sheep in a field. "There!" Shouts the priest. "Scottish sheep are black!"
"No," says the leyman, "some scottish sheep must be black, but there might be white sheep too."
"No." Says the scientist. "There is at least one sheep in scotland, one side of which appears to black. To say any more is speculation."

[Dinwar]

I wanted to address a question Joe raised in the Skeptoid comments, namely:

Q: do you believe only in Naturalism (the belief that nature is all that there is) and Empiricism (the idea that all knowledge is gained from observations)?

He goes on to say that this is a simple question. And it is--either you allow for the possability of the supernatural, or you do not (for the record, I do not). This doesn't necessarily mean that you consider the supernatural to not exist--one can ignore a category of explinations for reasons other than disbelief in that category (for example, any attempt to prove the supernatural by systematically rulling out all natural explinations)--but from previous discussions with Joe I feel safe in assume that will be his interpretation.

The issue is that while yes, one's preconcieved notions necessarily color the data, there are times that the data is truly overwhelming. Even if I believe that ghosts exist after you show me the footprints, a video of a man rattling the door handle, and a videotaped confession I'm going to conclude that okay, maybe in this instance it wasn't a ghost (which puts me above 99% of crop circle believers, but that's another conversation). In evolution, even if you believe that God/gods exist the sheer amount of evidence for the theory of evolution necessarily will lead to the conclusion that no deity is necessary to explian biological diversity.

Please note the phrasing of that sentence. Evolution doesn't disprove gods, any more than it disproves the nebular theory of star formation. It's an entirely different topic, and to conflate the two is an error. Evolution can be used as one line of reasoning agains the existence of a deity, but a debate about the facts of how life arose and changed through time neither supports nor disproves the existence of a god.

The reason it's so emotional is that it shatters specific hypotheses about the nature of gods, and their activities. The fossil record proves, as well as any historical science can prove anything (which is remarkably well), that life arose from chemical processes and evolved over billions of years. This means that we don't get to argue in favor of special creation, or of God making the world specifically for humans. It shatters our pedistool--we're not special, we're not unique. God didn't create it just for us.

The topic is "Is the theory of evolution true?" We should stick to that. If there is evidence against it, I'll gladly examin it with the same intensity as I examin any other evidence. But it has nothing to do with our metaphysics.

[Tomtomkent]

Conversley the notion of a divine creator does not mean evolution is bunk. If we found God with the hubble telescope we would still havean overwhelming weight of evidence for evolution. This is not a case of binary logic where the universe can only act one of two ways. One day the creationists may prove beyond any doubt that any one species did not evolve, but that would not disprove the evolution of all species.

And yes, i adore the irony of Joe claiming that scientists have to "warp" science to include evolution and ignore the "real" science of creationism. And peer review is a call to authority! My, real science must be so much more when themajority of academics are wrong.

[Dinwar]

My issue is that Joe is ignoring a powerful chain of reasoning.

Let's say you want to demonstrate that the supernatural exists, not just to yourself but to the world at large. How would you do it? There are two key routes one can take: one can try to prove that X is in violation of the laws of the universe (ie, show positive evidence that it's not natural), or one can try to explain X with the known laws of the universe. The first way is what the majority attempt. The second way is the more powerful. Why? Well, first off, even if you're wrong (even if it IS a natural event) you've still contributed something to the general pool of knowledge. Secondly, you're speeking our language at that point. Once you educate yourself in the subject matter you can intelligently debate with the scientists.

I'm not explaining it well, but it's analigous to a mathematical tactic. You try to prove the opposite of the theorum you're attempting to prove--for example, instead of proving that f(x)=y, you prove that f(x)=/=y. It's dangerous, in that you may well prove that f(x)=/=y; but it's powerful because you've already taken into account most of the counter-arguments.

It's also a powerful tool in science. The best way to test your pet hypothesis is to try your best to prove it wrong. If you fail, after many systematic attempts, you can begin to conclude that yeah, you may be onto something here. And no one will accuse you of bias--or, rather, they'll acknowledge that you're biasing your results AGAINST what you want, thus eliminating any bias in favor of your pet hypothesis.

A Creationist interested in honest debate shouldn't discount the idea of attempting to prove the world is old. If the attempt fails, they'll be right.

Now, all of this assumes that the Creationist in question is honest. This is somewhat of a false assumption, I've found. Not that they lie--most honestly believe what they say--but they do not put forth the effort necessary for me to conclude that they actually give a hoot about the subject matter. Joe, for example, repeatedly makes errors that would earn a student an F in a first-year "Rocks for Jocks" class, yet he demands to be shown the same respect as professional paleontologists, geologists, and astronomers. I'm only picking on Joe because he's set himself up as an example; you could easily replace "Joe" with "Kent Hovand", or any other Creationist I've spoken with, with a few notable exceptions (as I've said before, I have seen some very interesting talks at GSA by Creationists, ones that other geologists agree are well thought-out and interesting; they tend to be Holocen/modern geology, but still).

[Tomtomkent]

No, I would have to say that in my experience of creationists Joe is unique in claiming the same authority as the scientists he disagrees with. Well, myself being the other possible exception (purely driven by my riding a high horse, no delusions of competence on my end). Oh sure, I meet other people with the same traits when discussing climate change, ghosts, or the legalisation of drugs, but the majority of the creationists I have spoken to don't claim to be any kind of authority. They are just folks with strong religious beliefs.

[Dinwar]

I believe I was somewhat unclear in my statement. I wasn't referring to Joe's explicite demand to be taken as seriously as (now more seriously than) professionals in the fields in question--I've rarely seen that sort of demand from Creationists. I'm referring to the more implicite side of things. When an engineer tells me "That won't work", I shut up and listen. The engineer has the training, skills, and experience to make such a statement, while I do not. I may ask for their reasoning, and I may comment on it or argue the point, but I do not say that people like me, who are more or less ignorant in the field of engineering, should be given equal time or even a say in discussions among engineers. Similarly, when astronomers discuss space/time I may ask questions, or present thoughts for critique, but I do not presume to be their equals in that field. I don't even know the jargon.

Creationist do presume to be equals to paleontologists, stratigraphers, geologists, etc. They demand their pet hypothesis, long disproven in science (Darwin) and in the legal system (Scopes), be given equal time. When a paleontologist or stratigrapher says "No, this is the way things are" instead of asking for their reasoning Creationists simply make bold assertions ('Evolution is dead").

I don't mind discussing evolution--it's a favorite passtime of mine. But I object strongly to someone taking a tone of superiority when they have demonstrably not troubled themselves to learn even the most basic concepts of the field.

I'll admit that a lot of this is based on the tone of various arguments I've been in, which is problematic in an on-line format. However, I doubt anyone but Joe will accuse me of misinterpretting Joe's tone in this case.

[Dinwar]

Billions of years would mean many billions of mammal fossils, especially in the Paleozoic. Except for the fact that mammals didn't evolve until the end of the Paleozoic/beginning of the Mesozoic. No paleontologist or biologist would expect to find mammals in the Paleozoic.

And terrestrial ecosystems are notorious for not leaving high-quality fossil records--they're typically in errosional environments. Go outside and look at the ground. If you see soil, it's an errosional environment and not a good place to preserve fossils.

We DO have billions of invertebrate fossils, however.

The majority of life forms appeared in the Cambrian , 530 million years ago (by your reckoning). Before that, there was really only single-celled and multi-celled life. Almost all the families, classes, and kingdoms of creatures appeared suddenly. Evolutionists have never been able to explain the "Cambrian explosion" aside from some other variant of the theory that fails to justify so many animals coming into existence in so short a time.The reason we can't explain it is because this view of things is simply wrong. There's a lot of debate about the cause of the Cambrian Explosion. Personally, I favore the view that really the CE is a record of the evolution of hard parts--prior to that the ocean chemistry wasn't correct for the formation of hard parts (hard to have a shell if the ocean dissolves it as fast as you build it). Either way, it's rediculous to say that "Before that, there was really only single-celled and multi-celled life." That's all we have today. In fact, those are your two options--single or multicellular.

Oh, and by "short time" you mean five million years. You've gotta be carefull when you talk to geologists--they consider the whole Holocene (ie, all of human history and then some) to be a rounding error.

There are about 1.3 billion total species named by science out of maybe 2.5 billion from history. Many are extinct. Even with the Cambrian, animal species are rare, yet covering about 30 million years out of 600 million years. None of this makes sense. The Ediacara Fuana was what, 610 million years ago till 560 million years ago? The "modern" fauna (in quotes because it's not technically Sepkoiski's modern fauna, but rather includes all three of his faunas) has a good fossil record from 560 million years ago until present. Mammal species are known from 250 million years ago, and most modern mammal groups were around in the Eocene, roughly 50-55 million years ago (depending on who you talk to).

Since we have named only about 250,000 fossil species to date, this line of reasoning predicts that the fossil record has preserved less than 2% of all the species that have ever lived. Yup. Look up Prothero's Bringing Fossils to Life for a more detailed discussion on taphonomy (what you're alluding to here). However, the issue you're going to run into is that no rarefraction curves exist for paleontological sites.

Even Darwin recognized that the fossil record did not contain anything like he expected - that the fossil record preserved at the very most only a few percent of the species that lived in the past.
Got a quote for that? It would honestly come in handy for me.

That said, Darwin's problem with the fossil record 1) has been mitigated by 150 years of continued and accelorated scientific inquiry, and 2) wasn't that there was only a few percent of the species preserved, but rather the manner of preservation (or, rather, the lack thereof--again, taphonomy).

88% of the mammal species living today are also present in the Europe fossil record and 99% are present in the fossil record somewhere else. The creation model and timeline best explains the fossil record as we see it.
Doesn't follow.

The statistical issue you're dealing with here (in a round-about way) is called the Pull of the Recent. Of COURSE we have more mammal fossils than trilobyte fossils--the last trilobyte to fossilize has underwent roughly 5 times as much techtonic upheaval, errosion, and other fossil-destroying processes as the first horse to get fossilized, and the youngest trilobyte has undergone 11 times as much. The longer something is in the ground, the less likely it is to survive. Also, the Principle of Superposition predicts that we'll have more recent rock to pick through than ancient rock (the ancient being covered by the recent). Then there's the funding issue--you get more cash to look for Lucy than for Sue, and more cash for either than to look for Raphonesquina or the Ediacara fauna.

This isn't some new and exciting data you're providing. This is all explained very well in any geology/paleontology class. The specific stuff you're looking for is a discussion about Sepkoiski's Curve.

Actually, we do. They are around the Great barrier reef, for example. "Living fossils", recognized by many evolutionists.Please provide a photograph. The last trilobyte died in the Permo-Triassic Mass Extinction, roughly 250 million years ago. If you have found another one it'd be worth a LOT of money.

" you don't understand fossilisation"
Indeed I do undrestand.No, you don't. You fail to comprehend taphonomy. And that's the EASY stuff to understand--once you grasp that we can move on to diagenesis.

Every fossil group (phyla, family, kingdom) without exception has no samples of crossover or transitions.Demonstrably false. Either you're lying or willfully ignorant. See this thread and the one at Skeptoid.com to see examples.

All show undeniable evidence of progression from complex and large to less complex and smaller, within each group. Demonstrably false. Either you're lying or willfully ignorant. See this thread and the one at Skeptoid.com to see examples.

That's certainly not evolution, it's a model for sickness and death.
Actually, going from more to less complex is a fairly common evolutionary track.

And there are plenty of inverted geologic columns, unexplainable in the evolutionist hypothyesis. I can think of several explinations off the top of my head:

1) Techtonic upheaval
2) Improper fieldwork
3) Falsified data
4) Errosional surfaces (if you have a cliff that's old enough you can sometimes get fossils at the base that are younger than the fossils in the rock at the top--the Principle of Inclusion explains this very well).

Given enough time, I can come up with a lot more. Inverted bedding isn't that hard to explain, it turns out.

None of this is new. None of it goes beyond what an undergrad could dismantle. All of it is discussed in introductory courses on geology, paleontology, and biology. And none of it has shaken the paleo world, much less evolutionary science as a whole.

[Tomtomkent]

Ah, I appear to have had a flaw in my understanding that I am happy toappologise for. I thought the Cambrian Radiation was a 50m years period not a 5m. But I was never a fan of the Creationists who trat it like itwas all part of one afternoon.

Joe scoffs at my remark of how any fossil can have been made in a six thousand year time line. SoI have a serious question now, do any of the creationists reading this have a good answer? I don't want to reconsider my viewpoint based on the opinion of the ignorant halfwit who accuses me of beinga liar, then liesabout what was in the Skeptoid post that the mods deleted. But i will bewilling to reconsider if there is good evidence that withstands proper scrutiny, and it would be remis of me to not read your evidence. So please, any creationists reading this post a link or two.

[Dinwar]

A bit more detail on the whole "relative age" thing.

There are, in essence, two ways to date rocks: Absolute and relative methods. Absolute methods mean radioactive isotopes--C14, for example. The second involve some basic logic and reasoning, and can be demonstrated at home.

Take a glass jar, fill it partway with water and pour some sand (1" or so) in it. See how the sand covers from one side of the jar to the other? That's called the Principleof Lateral Continuity (when deposited, sediments are continuous). See how it's relatively flat (ie, it's not an extream slope)? That's called the Principle of Original Horizontality (when deposited, sediments are relatively flat). One difference between this and a regular depositional basin--the processes involved in a depositional basin usually yield a much flatter pile of sediment.

Now take a different color of sand and pour that on top. You see Original Horizontality and Lateral Continuity still. Now, which did you pour in first, the top or the bottom? The bottom, obviously. That's the Principle of Superpossition (when deposited, older sediment is below younger sediment).

The next two are harder to demonstrate with sand, but still easy to comprehend. Imagine that you froze your sand/water mixture and cut it in half. Which formed first, the sand pile or the cut? Obviously the cut (can't cut what ain't there). That's the Principle of Cross-cutting Relationships (any break in the sediment [cut, fault, erosional surface, etc] had to form after it was deposited).

Now cut upen a Snicker's bar. See those nuts? Which is older, the candy bar or the nuts? The nuts, obviously--can't put something into another thing if the something didn't exist first. That's the Principle of Inclusion (any rock included into sediment is older than that sediment).

All of this is easily observed in any depositional environment, from a jar on a kitchen counter to the Pacific Ocean.

Using those principles, geologists can determine which rocks are older than which other rocks, and a general sequence of what happened when. This won't tell you how many years ago something happened, but it will tell you X happened before Y.

Now, add organisms to the mix. Organisms lived during specific times--a species arises and goes extinct at definite dates, meaning none exist before some date and none exist after some date. What that means is that if I find bug Q, W, and E in that order in one set of rock (called a stratigraphic column) and only W and E in another, I know that the first set of rock was deposited before the second, or that the rock where Q was deposited has eroded away. And if I find only Q and E in a third set of rock I can bet that there's some missing time here--W should be here.

This was all noticed by James Hutton, long before the theory of evolution, and used to create the frist geologic maps. In fact there were direct practical applications--Hutton realized that by figuring out which fossils were where he could predict what rock units his crew of ditch diggers would encounter. And trust me, when digging dirt for a living the knowledge of what's coming up is priceless.

As for absolute dating, that's more complicated. I'm not going to go into the math or the heavy physics here. The concept is relatively easy to demonstrate, however. Get 100 pennies and put them all face up in a box. Shake the box for a few seconds, then take out all the penneys which are now tails-up. Record how many penneys are left. Repeat 5 or 6 times. Now plot the results.

You'll notice imediately that forms a curve--the number of penneys left in the box is about 100, 50, 25, 12, 6, 3 for the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth itteration (you'll get some varience; if you do the experiment five or six times and average it you'll get closer to those numbers). This isn't theory--I used to have undergrads do this exact experiment, for this exact purpose, and out of a few hundred students this is what we universally got.

What does this have to do with anything? Well, if I said I had 6 pennies left in my box you could tell I've done five itterations. If I said I had 25, you could tell that I've done one.

A half-life works in the same way. C14 has a half-life of 5730 years, give or take. This means that in 5730 years about half the C14 in any rock will convert to N14. So if I have a rock that's 3/4 N14 and 1/4 C14, I know it's 11460 years old.

Thsi all relies on the decay rates being constant. Are they? Well, we have pretty good evidence that they are--there are several natural nuclear reactors (see here for one example (http://geology.about.com/od/geophysics/a/aaoklo.htm)) and they seem to fit our equations kinda sorta nearly perfectly. That, plus a lot of heavy physics and some very good astronomic and geologic data, indicates that the decay rates are pretty much set.

Problem is, this is all statistical--it's all on average. And past certain points, the variance due to unrelated factors dominates. For example, if you try to date a 300 year-old bit of wood with C14 dating you're going to get a LOT of noise and very little signal. Same with if you try to date a 100,000 year old bit of wood. You ideally want to stick within 1 to 3 or 4 half-lives when dating stuff.

Also, you can only really date igneous and metamorphic rock with this method.

Fortunately, we're not working in a vaccuum. Which means that knowledge gained by one method can be applied to another. If we find an index fossil in between two volcanic ash beds, and none above or below it, we can figure out the dates when that index fossil appeared and when it went extinct (technically the first appearance datums [FADs] and last appearance datums [LADs]). Now whenever we find this fossil, anywhere in the world, we can say "This rock was deposited between X and Y years ago". Now, obviously we don't rely on a single ash bed to do this--this is merely a cartoon to illustrate what happens.

Other dating methods exist. For example, we can match magnetic reversals back through the Cretaceous (the poles have switched north/south orientation many, many times). We can also look at stable isotope chemistry (oxygen and carbon, mostly; some hydrogen, some other stuff) and match the concentration of each element to the global conditions. But the relative and absolute stuff described above is the most common.

[Tomtomkent]

So while arguing that creationism is REAL science, Joe piped up with these:
"The fact which I'm making, Tom, is that it is creationist writers who freely admit how a bias (world view) colors the interpretation. Jason Lisle, for example, graciously explains this, and the problems it presents. The way out of the biased conundrum is to each side present their world view and model, then honestly show how available data may back that up."
My response was that no, admitting you have a bias is not the answer. Simply put Science has checks and ballances to ensure an OBJECTIVE look is made at any given subject. A Bias is never a good thing in science. Why do Creationists believe Darwinism is "Revionist" if it does not revise itself objectiveley to new data? I mentioned one of the ballances a Null Hypothesis and Joe answered: "What do you mean by 'null"? Is the evolutionary theory a null hypothesis? To me it's a heavily biased philosophy and religion."

Now, if the guy couldn't be bothered to, oh I don't know, google "null hypothosis" (what do you know, a nice leymans description on Wiki is the first result listed on google UK)and has to ask if Evolution is a null hypothesis alarm bells should ring. Joe has been arguing that AIG and other Creationist sites are "Real Science", yet he is unfamiliar with WHY Bias is a bad thing, assumes all scientists ARE Biased, and is remarkably unfamiliar with the most basic of tools you should use to establish if a paper or experiment followed good form.

I am also arguing against the word "Evolutionist". I do not attend Evolution Church, Worship Evolution, or turn to Evolution for moral guidence, any more than I would Boyles Law, Gravity or Ohms Law. Evolution is not a philosophy or a religion, nor can it be biased. It is a theory of biology. I made the point that the correct term to use would be Scientist, for somebody who studies evolution. There is a good reason I use the term "Creationist" and not "Scientist" when reffering to AIG or simaler groups: You do not have to be a scientist to be a creationist. You can be a philosopher or priest, or just a plain old Christian. But to claim any authority on the subject of Evolution? Well, you have to be a geologist, biologist, paeleontologist, or sod it. Let's just say "Scientist."

The next nugget: "Besides, biblical creationism is based on the words of the Bible. We cannot revise the Bible. Clear enough? (see above para)." Yes, that is clear Joe. And that is why you have no right to pretend that Creationism is a science perpetrated by Real Scientists. How can it possibly be? Morally, ethically, and more importantly Factually, this statement means that Creationists should stop trying to sell their belief as any kind of viable alternative to evolution. Because if something can not change REGARDLESS OF THE EVIDENCE, it IS NOT SCIENCE. It is religion. It is not based on reason, deduction, or evidence, or fact. It is based on "Hey look, it was written in this book so I don't care what you say! It has to be right!" It is, in short, complete cobblers.

To spout this while trying to argue that anybody who supports creationism as fact is a "scientist" obviously casts all kinds of doubt on the validity of the science. How exactly do you perform any kind of objective study into a "science" that can not possibly be wrong? And to what effect if the outcome is unchangable? The answer it appears to a Creationist is shrug and say "Hey I bet all those pesky evolutionists are biased too." Well tough luck, that is not how science works.

You don't do an experiment to prove what you already know. You start from a possition where nothing, not even God, is taken for granted. You start assuming you have no idea what will happen and build your theory on the results. You do not select the results that support your theory (Joe again:"Are you going to tell me that evolutionists would use data which doesn't support their viewpoints?" Yes Joe, that is why the theory is revised. That is how science progresses. That is why Einstein described a relationship between gravity and time that was completely beyond anything Newton could have guessed. That is why you read Skeptoid posts on a computer not a typewriter) and ignore those which don't. That is called "Bias." That is unscientific.

[Dinwar]

The next nugget: "Besides, biblical creationism is based on the words of the Bible. We cannot revise the Bible. Clear enough? (see above para)."I wonder if he uses the original Aramaic texts... If he's using King James, it's over for him. King James asked for a beautiful translation, not an accurate one.

Joe again:"Are you going to tell me that evolutionists would use data which doesn't support their viewpoints?"Of course they will. The real scientists of the Soviet Union used data that contradicted their state-mandated official opinion. You know, that state-mandated opinion that ended up starving millions of people. (Something that no Creationist mentions--the rejection of evolution has a body count associated with it that's comperable to that of most wars.)

ETA: To be fair, scientists are just as biased as other people. The difference is, we recognize our biases and learn how to take them into acount. I know that the fossil record is predominantly shallow marine invertebrates--so when I compare extinction rates between the Maastrictian/Danian and today I focus on the shallow marine invertebrates, not the worms or large vertebrates or trees. Similarly, most scientists understand that no matter how hard they try not to, they'll have a pet hypothesis. It's humannature. They counter this by trying to disprove that pet hypothesis, or by using the Strong Inferrance method, or some other tactic that favors the other hypotheses. It's hard, and it takes a long time to train yourself to do it, but it's what's expected of scientists, even from themselves. Creationists do none of that--otherwise museums would be overrun with people looking at the fossils, and I'd have to beat people off of my sites with a stick. Richard Dawkins famously (or infamously) cought a Creationist in the act in an interview--she kept repeating that Professor Dawkins couldn't produce a single transition fossil, despite the fact that he gave her the location of several.

[Tomtomkent]

Richard Fortey, (who I know I reference a lot, but as I am not a geologist or biologist but somebody with a passing interest I can not begin to describe how useful the patient spoonfeeding of information in theNat Hist Museum, their texts, and his book Life; a Short Biography is) made a point of takinga transitional fossil with him to an interview. I am sure I linked the video in Skeptoid where he explains what was, how he used it to open the eyes of a critic and how we know it is a transitional fossil. Yet. Joe still makes statements that we arbitarily call them"transitional", and at one point complained that all fossils were fully formed. I am sorry but what is that meant to mean? "This is just a horse, show me one before it evolved legs and a head?" Of course they are fully formed. But if we have increasingly old fossils of horse like species that grow less horse like as they get older (oh look at that, we do!) we can ofcourse put these together to form a map of the evolution of horses, and the paleontologists will have good reason to look for evidence of transition. (Oh look they did that too!)

[Tomtomkent]

Apparantly I'm still not getting that creation created science! This clearly means that what ever creationists say must be the REAL SCIENCE. Except of course it doesn't work like that. And shortly before the skeptoid thread was closed Joe promised to dig out one of my links (to. A short book on fossils) only if I promised to read one of his books. Soallthis time, and the guy who did not ignore evidence just had not read the evidence that had been posted. Oh and was still insisting iemperical evidence alone can not explain the beginings of life, the universe and everything. I am sure he thought of that as a fact notan opinion.

So Joe, if you did not ignore the evidence presented why would I have to read a creationist book beforeyou read the Fortey text? Why would I believe your god created science when I dont personally believe he created anything? (And if he did then established science performed by scientists are decoding the mechanisms he used, not a bunch of patronising cretins like you Joe). And yes,I said something rude, because Joe has now clearly lied, and frankly it annoys me that hemade the same accusation of me. Well that and saying God created science so anything a creationist wants tobe "science" must be true (no matter silly or unscientific) is the most cretinous, pompous, patronising and odious statement I have ever heard. The idea that a religion of any creed should have a vito over science is frankly WRONG AND IMMORAL. In polite circles we call it indoctrination.

[Dinwar]

Hm. I'm of mixed feelings regarding the closing of that thread. Obviously Mr. Dunning can do as he likes--it's his website, after all, and we're guests. And I'm glad that he's no longer giving willful ignorance a platform. That said, it'll probably be twisted into the typical "They're afraid to face The Truth!!!11!!!" rant that Creationists seem to find so appealing.

As for reading the works of Creationists, there's a simple answer to that. The criteria for regarding a work as worth reading are that it passes peer review. Popular press books can be informative, but are NOT admissible as evidence in a scientific debate, period. So until a Creationist gets their work passed through peer review, there's no reason to read them. And to forestall the inevitable "But they won't pass it, because it's Creationism"--several journals (including Nature) often publish on contentious topics, in order to generate discussion and debate. A well-written and well-researched paper on Creationism would certainly fit the bill there. Until a Creationist publishes under the same rules as science, they cannot claim to be science, and therefore can be ignored.

[Marius vanderLubbe]

Gentlemen, we must remind ourselves that Joe and all the other similarly inclined doofus (doofi?) are just that. Doofus.
Crossing intellectual swords with these creeps is akin picking a knife fight with a blind, crippled, retarded old sloth. You will always win, though the fight is hardly fair as even a healthy sloth lacks the ability or will to fight back, and is of little merit as a spectator sport, given the time it takes to give the twats a KO. While the victory may afford you some small pleasure, that is more your failing than the sloths.
I must admit to enjoying taunting these idiots, and that is a character flaw I fully acknowledge. Schadenfreude is sweet, if a little naughty.

So gentlemen, don't be exasperated by the continued dimwittedness of the dimwitted. Its like being surprised by there being dogs at a dog show.
That's just how they is.

[Dinwar]

My problem is that I can't let such falsehoods go unanswered--someone may get the impression that they are correct. And I take this sort of thing personally. I know what effort it takes to gain an understanding of evolution and the processes involved--I've been through it, most of my friends have been through it, and a number of us have nearly been killed going through it. To have someone ignorantly spouting off obviously false babble is a slap in the face. Worse, he DIRECTLY insulted me, saying that those who study evolution (and I'm among that number) are guilty of falsifying evidence.

You're right, of course; there's no way to come out ahead in these fights. But I'm afraid that if we leave the field others will assume that we have nothing to offer in our own defense.

[Tomtomkent]

I have no trouble recommending a book as evidence that summarises peer reviewed science for a layman in place of the original articles or papers, for the simple reason that it may be more approachable, and will encourage those like Joe to use the bibliography and dig deeper into the subject. Hopefully reading the original papers with a fresh enthusiasm. If the science itself is sound, has been varified and critiqued I find no shame presenting evidence in the simplest way. Especially as there were times that Joe seemed to mistake important distinctions in terminollogy or process as "word games". I got the distinct impression that layman terms might avoid misunderstanding.

Still, we are talking about a person who seemed to believe that god made science, so science had to work how he said (though his points were terribly unclear at times and I honestly have no idea if that is what he meant, or why it would be relevant to the deductive process if God created scoence or not, as it neither negates the bias of creationism, proved there was a "special creation" or inany way effected the. Evidence). Trying to convince him of the methodology of science appeared futile, which unfortunately is a prerequisite for discussing what is or is not provable science.

[Dinwar]

This brings up a valid point, I think--at what point should a non-peer reviewed book be considered acceptable as evidence? I mean, few would argue that The Universe in a Nutshell isn't admissable, merely because it hasn't been peer-reviewed. Few would accept Dianetics without question, however.

I think that as long as the data in the book is from peer-reviewed sources, and the book makes logical claims (meaning it doesn't have a handful of quotes and then go flying off into flights of fantasy) we can accept it. There's a huge number of books like that--The Demon-Haunted World, The God Delusion, The Greatest Show on Earth, The Origin of the Species, The Origin of the Phyla, Bringing Fossils to Life, A Brief History of Time, and Principles of Geology, to name the ones I've read and can name off the top of my head. That said, I think that this is shaky ground to be on. If nothing else, it's someone's interpretation of someone else's work, always a dangerous thing. And it's far too easy to fall into the traps of pseudoscience.

The key is to read critically. One always should anyway, but with these books it's even more important.

[Tomtomkent]

Marius; As for if he is a doofus it is hard to tell. He may well have believed his own words he claimed that he and all creationists understood science, though this was patently proven untrue by his ownposts. He failed to understand why a biast paper is not good science, what a null hypothosis is, why a theory changes, why theories are built upon evidence instead of selecting evidence to suite the theory, and why taking God or the Bible for granted was not "science". Buthe continued to insist he was following the methodology of science. Now the question is, was this a calculated attempt at deceit or was he just far more confident in his understanding than perhaps he should have been? He claimed all scientists were part of a conspiracy, self dillusional or idiots because he apparently knew better. So there is reason to believe his motives were well aimed nastyness than well intended but idiotic bumbling. It is probably best not speculate if he himself is stupid, and stick pointing out his statements were cretinous. As that is pretty much beyond arguing. He made serious claims about the majority of scientists and has shown no evidence of a better understand than them, or of foul play on their part.

[hereisjoe]

Earlier in 2010 I posted my essay, “Evolution or The Godless Delusion”, which was my criticism of the Richard Dawkins book ‘The Godless Delusion’. At the end of the essay, I included about 25 points which I stated had no support by evolution but have plenty of support by special creation. Several of you have tackled this in your responses, but I can see that no further support for evolution was given. In fact, the rebukes given were totally inadequate.

Evolution theory deals with gradual changes over immense time. It speculates that life began from non-living matter. It suggests that living things change into newer forms and species from common ancestors and lower species. It claims that these changes require millions and billions of years to do this. Evolution comes directly out of the mindset which rejects a creator God. It tries to explain everything in naturalistic terms alone, with lip service to some form of uniformitarianism and empiricism.

Special creation lays claim to the proposal that a creator God established everything in its place by the power of a single supernatural fiat. The foundation for this creation (but not necessarily the natural world created) is the revelation of the Bible. With the species (or ‘kinds’) fixed, a global cataclysm occurred which destroyed the former economy of the earth. If the Genesis Flood took place as described, then something very much like the following would have happened:
If the Flood caused the sedimentary rock strata to form, with their billions of fossils, then the following points would be expected and, upon examination of the fossils in the strata, it happens that they all prove true:
(1) Animals living at the lowest levels would tend to be buried in the lowest strata.
(2) Creatures buried together would tend to be buried with other animals that lived in the same region or ecological community.
(3) Hydrologic forces (the suck and drag of rapidly moving water) would tend to sort out creatures of similar forms. Because of lower hydraulic drag, those with the simplest shapes would tend to be buried first.
(4) Backboneless sea creatures (marine invertebrates), since they live on the sea bottom, would normally be found in the bottom strata.
(5) Fish would be found in higher strata since they can swim up close to the surface.
(6) Amphibians and reptiles would be buried higher than the fishes, but, as a rule, below the land animals.
(7) Few land plants or animals would be in the lower strata.
(8) The first land plants would be found where the amphibians were found.
(9) Mammals and birds would generally be found in higher levels than reptiles and amphibians.
(10) Because many animals tend to go in herds in time of danger, we would find herd animals buried together.
(11) In addition, the larger, stronger animals would tend to sort out into levels apart from the slower ones (Tigers would not be found with hippopotamuses).
(12) Relatively few birds would be found in the strata, since they could fly to the highest points.
(13) Few humans would be found in the strata. They would be at top, trying to stay afloat until they died; following which they would sink to the surface of the sediments and decompose.
In the above 13 points, we have a solid explanation for what we find in the sequence of fossils in the geologic column. Yet, lacking any other evidence to bring forward, it is that very sequence of fossils as they are discovered which evolutionists declare to be the primary evidence that animals have "evolved" from one another.


Let’s look again at previous comments posted here – [responses directed particularly at Dinwar (Gregory) here, for everyone’s benefit]. Keep in mind that I am arguing the grand theory of evolutionary change, not just modern biology…

Dinwar (and someone else) said (to my query of a common ancestor ape, ie “… where did this ape evolve from?”)
“Some earlier ancestor. I'm not sure how that's even a serious question. It's sorta like saying "My sister and I share the same mother" and you responding "Well, where did your mother come from?"”

Well, yeah! Where did it (ancestor) come from?
It’s a serious question because evolution claims to come from inorganic matter, somehow, in the ancient past. Wondering where the common ancestors of all species is very legitimate. I understand that no evolutionist can answer this question. Too bad. Also, I for one do not ask where the original apes are now.

Dinwar says” …but I've certainly got a good handle of what Joe Churchgoer thinks of his religion, and plus a fair bit…”

No you don’t, Greg, if that’s your snide reference (Joe Churchgoer) to me. You tell us that your background is ‘private Catholic school’; however, this is far from Biblical Christianity, I assure you. The Catholic church has apostatized everything in the Bible. I’ve studied this topic thoroughly. Born-again Christianity (ie biblical) bears very little resemblance to Catholicism or many of the other major denominations. The Bible says one truth; the organized churches say quite another thing. The fact that Catholics and Anglicans promote an old earth scenario does not validate a biblical perspective on it, and it has no proof as well. I can discuss evolution very effectively, as well as any biblical topics, because I have studied both of them thoroughly. I can go to the actual heart of these topics, not the opinionated theories.

Now, Craig, you and Marius et al have the weird idea that because the Old Testament contains examples of “righteous smiting, incest, rape, zombies, torture, murder, infanticide, genocide, homophobia, misogyny, fratricide, slavery, etc” that this is a God you cannot accept. Strange how so many skeptics look at the awful works of man and blame it all on God, to the point of calling Him a racist, bigoted, genocidal monster. Those are the ‘upstanding’ qualities of man, not God. That God has allowed these practices is not mud in his face. He has allowed freedom of the person but had previously warned of the consequences of immoral actions. A God who would see to it that no immorality or cruelty or suffering was done by man to man would be a God who created automatons, not free-thinking peoples. You misunderstand the very concept of God, and thus you enter into arguments you are not prepared to engage in.

Dinwar says: “you are not a member of a science that intensively studies the subject.”

Well, neither are you, Gregory. To ‘intensively study’ this big subject does not require a bachelor degree or university diploma (though they’re OK), but it requires paying close attention to the topics at hand and in using good deductive reasoning according to scientific principles. I have those qualities.

“…I don't know literary criticism that well, for example, for the same reason as you don't know evolution that well…” Wrong again. You commit the fallacy of straw man here, assuming what I know or don’t know, but that your alleged sources are the best, when they aren’t.

At this point, one Tomtomkent enters in and rollicks through my 25 points, throwing out every fallacy in the books at me. Especially the old evolutionary standard, Begging The Question. Yep, Tomtom believes his take on good science is the only take. You can’t prove anything with him unless it fits securely into his pre-supposed pattern of evolutionary nonsense. Bye-bye, Tomtom.

Dinwar offers a definition: Evolution: The change in allel frequency over time. PLEASE NOTE: This is the ONLY topic I'm going to debate here. Not abiogenesis (I don't know enough about it, and considering you've admitted to not studying even paleontology, Joe, neither do you). Not astronomy. Not physics (except as it's directly related to certain claims geologists make in regard to evolution). Not any of the myriad of other red herrings that are completely outside of evolutionary theory that Creationists and ID advocates throw out.

Very sad, Greg, that you use only a definition that makes you feel cozy but one which has almost nothing to do with biological changes over vast amounts of time, causing species change in a major way, which in itself infers biology from non-biology at some past point. I won’t argue this definition as it’s a cop-out from someone who is too cowardly to acknowledge the real problem here: how evolution is supported by true evidence of its mechanisms and processes, as observed and proven into fact.

Dinwar says (in part): “Transition fossil: “…. The way I see it, either 99% or more of all fossils …. is a transition fossil, we assume that punctuated equilibrium works for ALL organisms …. or we assume that no fossils are (in which case we'd either have to throw out the term or accept ID, which is what you're arguing for).

Greg, there is no sound reason for thinking that any fossil is a transition fossil. You would have to have irrefutable evidence to link the fossils (regarding reproduction and descent etc). Similarity or homology aside, it’s an arbitrary declaration, not a fact. And I do not argue simply for ID.

Also, your lengthy explanation of geological events regarding trenches and ridges and elasticity simply avoid my simple question/point: “Plate tectonics and continental drift … do not explain ocean trench fissures and those bent mountain strata, or unparallel fracture zones”. I was referring to the fissures in the mid-Atlantic ridge which are contrary to stresses from sliding plates or subduction or volcanism. I’ve studied strain, stress, ductility, brittleness, sheer, elasticity, deformation etc in my engineering classes. The very fact, for example, that shattering and extreme seismic forces occur at the tensions surrounding fault lines does away with the idea (assumed by geologists) that granite or sandstone or compacted sedimentary rock can bend smoothly under long periods. We know what happens at earthquake fault lines. And you can see the folds and bends in the mountains of Banff Park (Canada) for example. And why do evolutionists talk about neocatastrophism but ignore the possibility of one global catastrophe causing it all? Plate tectonics, continental drift, wandering poles, paleomagnetism, seafloor spreading, field reversals, and transforming faults all have dozens of unanswered questions according to evolutionary theory, but these are better explained by one singular, rapid global catastrophism.


(Craig gives us this): “I hate to quibble but I think we should be free to use "intelligence design" and "creationism" interchangeably…. The proponents of ID are creationists and they coined the phrase in a failed attempt to get past the language in Aguilard.”

Not so. As it applies to special creation (our argument), ID is that which was put in place by God. As it applies to other arguments, it could easily mean extraterrestrial intelligence, which would beg the question of where those ETs come from… (not to forget the writings of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, who admit that they ran into a stone wall trying to prove life started from outer space…). I am not interested in the legal battles here, Craig. I am interested in the science, which by the way came after the occasion of the creation event. They are perfectly compatible with each other. Gregory seems to see this distinction, but he adds “the overwhelming majority of ID advocates are Creationists in disguise…” Yipes! In disguise? Last time I checked, no creationist was hiding his/her beliefs.

Tomtomkent isn’t able to carry logic to its end. Ie “The flimsiest argument I have heard from a creationist….(says) "Science does not explain what was there before the Big Bang, so it is wrong! Ergo, my version is right!" Tom can’t follow up on the argument so he throws in a strawman fallacy or two (science can’t explain so creationist says it must be God). In other words, go after the arguer instead of the argument. We don’t do this. We argue science more deeply and effectively than the other side does, pure and simple.

Point 1. by Greg: ie “We have many, many, many fossils, certainly enough to cover the past 550 ~ 600 million years (from the Ediacara Period to today)…”

This is the evolutionist’s favorite fallacy, by the way. Begging The Question. The proof of ‘billions of years’ hasn’t been established, yet the evolutionist wants us to accept it nonetheless, as further proof that fossils for the precious theory are adequate, very old, and illustrative. Oh, the circular reasoning of it!



Point 2 by Greg: “First, define "species"…. (and)… “We DO have good transitions between many species. Second, punctuated equilibrium argues for very fast diversification events (multiple speciations at once). Fast events = few fossils. Simple.”

Far too simple. Best def: Species is any group of creatures which can interbreed successfully. Transitions do not occur and have never been proven. They are biologically impossible, and shouldn’t be confused with variation within a species, which is possible. DNA also refutes this transition of species. Punctuated equilibrium is an argument, not a fact. It isn’t even a credible argument – it clashes with the evolutionist viewpoint of uniformitarianism, so it’s just an act of desperation. Genesis Flood geology argues on fossilization of most species in a brief period, not millions of years.

Point 3. by Greg: “Which would these (out of place fossils) be? I've never heard of them.”

Really, Greg? How about nonconformities and paraconformities? Not to mention polystrates (plants do fossilize as well, remember). South American horse fossils show up in reverse stratigraphic series to what evolution predicts, with hooves and sizes in different order than elsewhere. And if, according to evolutionary theory, flood waters never covered all the mountains, why are there marine fossils in the mountains?

Point 4. by Greg: “(Joe: circular arguments to support their fossil claims (the rock strata dates the fossil but the fossil also dates the rock etc). Greg attempts: “Completely wrong. And it illustrates a lack of understanding of geology. See, geologists don't divide time the same way others do.”

So that explains it. Beg The Question again, and how dare you (creationists) say we’re wrong!

“…For one thing, we have multiple times…” From where, and based on what??? Oh, let’s see… you can say something like this: “Through fossils, paleontologists recognized most of the major time periods--if you find these organisms, the rock was deposited in this time period.”

Umm… and the age of said fossils depends on…what, again? The rock they’re in? Which was established by…arbitrary designation, by the way, based on the theory to begin with. We can all thank Charles Lyell for that bit of genius. Evolutionists don’t want you to know that the new/middle/ancient rock strata pf geology was guessed at, because they knew little or nothing about fossils. They dated the ancient layers because they found fewer fossils there, but we know that it doesn’t reflect reality. A paleontologist like Greg should know this but it embarrasses him. So we wind up with the eras of Cenozoic, Mesozoic, and the Paleozoic strata, and they really don’t reflect their suggested ages at all because they’re based on pre-Victorian error.
Radiometric dating? Once again, that has been disproved by many tests on many substances. Diamonds give thousands of years, not many millions, time after time, even when done in ‘evolutionist’ labs. No evolutionist can explain why the dating clock is started at ‘zero’ and no evolutionist can claim unequivocally that the decay rates are uniform. Without these assurances, it is all weak theory, not fact.

Point 5. (Gregory): “Ask a cosmologist.”

No, I’m asking you. Don’t bother with your appeal to ignorance or to authority (“I don’t know” or “somebody else knows it better”). Look at it yourself, or I will ignore even your own expertise for the same reason. If you are going to claim a faith or dependence on deep time, you had better look at evidences for/against it in the cosmos too.

Point 6. (Gregory): “First, organisms are open systems.”

Exactly the point. Everything we can observe deteriorates into chaos from order. Evolution claims the opposite.

“…you can hardly argue that changes in allel frequency violates those laws. Mutations occur for the same reasons as reproduction.”

Mutations are almost always destructive, and besides, even the extremely rare ‘good’ mutations could never establish the complexity of life. The mathematics of the probability of mutation/natural selection mechanisms are so staggeringly against evolutionary theory of any kind that they (predicted outcomes) do not exist.

Point 7. (Greg): “This (evolution of complex organs) is the classic Argument from Personal Incredulity.”

No, Greg, it’s your rejection of irreducible complexity and the inability of cross-over between species and the impossible odds against DNA coding allowing such evolution of organs.

“Behe couldn't figure out how an eye evolved, and therefore Goddidit.”

Here we go with the Goddidit plea. It’s called Fallacy Of Irrelevant Thesis, by the way, and you evolutionists love to resort to fallacies (no wonder you list them on all your websites). The question here isn’t whether God did this, but in how complex organs are. Evolutionists couldn’t figure out how the eye ‘evolved’ either, because it didn’t. Nevertheless, you go blindly ahead, accusing. Behe knows very well the barriers involved.

“Problem is, …. We have modern organisms which preserve most of the major changes in the eye, from a cluster of photosensitive cells (cteniphera) to eyes far more complex than human eyes (eagles), showing how the evolution could easily have happened.”

Completely wrong, and a stupid assumption to boot. None of these organs are related or linked biologically. Saying so doesn’t make it so. It’s the same tactic used by evolutionists in regards to vestigial organs, also completely discredited by modern science (vestigials being a very big part of the fallacious ‘evidence’ given in the fossil record of such fallacious ‘evolution’). And in what way is an eagle’s eye more complex than a human eye? It was just designed different, that’s all.

Point 8. I will restrain myself from calling the ‘who’s bananas’ shot …
Without any sort of immune system already in place, no organism can survive. We know that from observation. No assertions here.

Point 9. (Greg): “Evolution does not mean increased complexity…etc etc”

Are we talking the same theory here? From non-life to single cells to multiple-organs to sentient humans… Simplicity to complexity. Charles Darwin wrote a book, published way back in 1859, called “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of
Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” blah blah blah, and (horror of horrors!) he did not explain or talk about those origins, but hinted at all of life coming from some common source by way of natural laws of chemistry and biology, via mutations over time and so on. Did you get that, Greg? Or are you deliberately sticking to your ‘change in allel frequency over time’, which is to say, microevolution. Simplicity to complexity, simplicity to complexity, that’s the rampant preaching of evolution.

Point 10. (Greg): “This (DNA and RNA complexity) is either Argument from Personal Incredulity, or really bad math (how do you calculate something like this?).”

No, Greg, this is argument from observed facts. The human DNA molecule is so vastly complex that it has been estimated that its data, if written out, would be similar to a thousand books of 600 pages each, and that’s just the codes in one gene. Then there’s the immense information system needed to assimilate and control it all, A,C,G,T to A,C T, G, as it were. To go from a single cell (which alone is incredibly complex, even if it’s a bacterial cell) to a human organism with all the detailed instruction needed to form that person is to ask for gradual changes, protein by protein, until the trillions of individual cells are in the right place for such a creature as we are. So you want math? The odds of that happening are more than the number of atoms in the known universe. Personal Incredulity? I’d say: definitely! It’s an immensely incredible claim. Not sure what fairyless-tale you wanna believe in…

As to “how do you calculate something like this over eons of time”, well, it appears evolutionists have proposed that is what happens, and they call it all “tons of facts”. 14 billion and 4.5 billion years, remember? Enough time for the impossible to become possible. And Christians are silly to believe in miracles?

Part 11. “Mutations are vastly more complicated than you're giving them credit for.”

No, they’re vastly more deadly than you give them credit for. Every observed mutation either kills the organism or cripples it severely (a well-proven scientific fact). There’s about a thousand bad mutations for every harmless one, and (more math here for you, Greg) the cell or organism must survive all those harmful mutations, which, however, kill or maim every time. You DO understand math, do you?

Part 12. (Greg): “I'd love to see a good photo of (human footprints alongside dinosaur prints) this.”

Human footprints have been found in allegedly ancient strata. Evolution says that humans didn’t evolve until the late Tertiary. So we’re no more than maybe ‘three million years old’. Yet human footprints have been found in rocks from as early as the Carboniferous Period, which is "250 million years old" (your zany theory). Albert C. Ingalls, as long ago as 1940 in his article "The Carboniferous Mystery, (Scientific American) says “On sites reaching from Virginia and Pennsylvania, through Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri and westward toward the Rocky Mountains, prints. . from 5 to 10 inches long, have been found on the surface of exposed rocks, and more and more keep turning up as the years go by."
It should be noted that these are human footprints, not ape prints or some weird erosional/weird depositional features. If you’re going to stick to that explanation, then how can you seriously expect us to accept that several different fossils are related and transitional to each other, based simply on location, strata, or homology?
Your Cambrian formation, by the way, contains the vast majority of fossils and it is by no means clear why you think it spans over 200 million years in time. But then the assigning of names and dates onto the geologic column of earth was done long before Darwin’s days and it stuck and it serves to underscore the Big Mess, which is a lie.

13. You’ve simply failed to answer my point here. I claimed that altruism (unselfish care for another species) goes against all that survival of the fittest stands for. All you offer is something I already agree with, that altruism does exist in other animals, but you cannot say why. For example, dolphins show altruism towards humans, yet humans indiscriminately slaughter dolphins. Altruism is behavioral (like moral law or reasoning) and is not chemical or biological. There is no gene for it, and it is certainly not a mutagen.

14. Neocatastrophism is local or regional, not global. Mammoths were found buried across the Arctic with undigested seeds in their mouths. That indicates instant burial in freezing cold. Evolutionists neglect to make mention of the fact that these animals lived in a tropical environment, not an arctic one. Fossil evidence of this is abundant. A worldwide global catastrophe explains this quite nicely, including an ice age coming rapidly on the heels of the previous environmental economy.

15. Again, no attempt to answer the question of how pressures maintain themselves for many millions of years; instead, you merely toss out a fact about the reason for the pressure of oil reserves in the first place, which we already know. Isn’t paleontology linked with geology – don’t you know this? Either the earth was very stable during this time, or you forget the factors of permeability of rock and the millions of earthquakes and the volcanism which would upset any reservoir in that immense amount of time. No go, Greg. Your reasoning is sloppy.

16. (Greg): “That's because evolution deals with organisms.”

As opposed to planetology, geology, sedimentology, minerology, and astronomy blah blah blah. If you want me to even contemplate billions of years of deep time for biological evolution, you had better be prepared to consider these sciences and the clear evidences they also offer. Stop avoiding the grand question we’re dealing with.

17. (Greg): “The accumulation rate of dust on the Moon is less than previously thought.”

It would have to be drastically less to account for the amount found after ‘billions’ of years. And where is the science to say just how much less this rate is?

“As for where the Moon came from, during the Hadean a Mars-sized body hit the Earth and shattered it. The Moon is the remnants.”

More speculation. No proof. And none of this can explain the regression of the moon’s orbit. There is excellent math to show that it is more extended than billions of years allows for.

18. (Greg): “They're not as uncommon as most people think. The issue is that with active sedimentation/erosion on a planet like Earth, most of them get covered and obscured.”

How, then, can you say that they are more common than we think, if they are covered and obscured? As for erosion, evolutionists adamantly rebuke me on the rate of earth erosion, which I observe is quite rapid everywhere. And as for your plate tectonics, you already claim them to be abysmally slow, hence your incredibly ‘ancient’ earth. So, lack of evidence can still point to plenty of evidence, by your reasoning. How convenient.

19. Again, you avoid the grand question: deep time for evolutionary theory. I don’t accept this constant dodging of the issue at hand. The supposed uplift in the Grand Canyon is allegedly many millions of years old. There are no indications of million-year-old sedimentary layers, just rapid and clean transitions in the geologic column there. This place is a classic example of rapid deposit of sediments from a catastrophe. And I went one better than ‘attend a geology class’. I studied everything I could on this canyon, both evolutionary and creation models. Many, many years at this, including an extensive walk to the bottom of the Colorado. There is simply no way that millions of years elapsed here. I direct you to your erosion comments above, Greg.

20. Conventional geology doesn’t admit freely to deep earthquakes away from fault zones. They also don’t admit to the obvious fact that a 4.5 billion-year-old earth would have cooled significantly by now, and the magnetic field would have dissipated a lot more, and that old mid-Atlantic ridge is built up by magma outflow and doesn’t create large mountain ranges etc. Too many geological features cannot be explained by mainstream thesis, except the local phenomenon, but they fit a worldwide upheaval of the geological structure, as represented by the Genesis Flood. This is not biological evolution per se, but ties in with earth age and misinformation on geology as commonly believed and taught.

21. You did not deal with this adequately at all. There is overwhelming evidence against your arguments on this. The creation model suggests a cataclysm of such magnitude that mountains were formed in very short order, with bending of strata while it was still saturated and the sedimentary layers were not yet compacted. Always remember that tectonic drift (like radiation decay) was not always constant. Things happened rapidly, especially for universal fossilization. Again, it is your extreme timeline I dispute.

22. Evolution of the cosmos comes under evolution of life on earth, time-wise. You do not differentiate between mass and gas, or between energy contained in solar particles and debris from planetary formation. Wind that blows sand or snow is moving air molecules, whereas the snow is water molecules (sand being silica etc). Thus, snowdrifts and sand dunes are not added to by the air particles of the wind. It’s the same analogy and a poor explanation by you. Come again, Gregory, you’re the professional with letters after your name and a Fortune 500 company to stand up for – but wait, you can’t admit the true evidence – it jeopardizes your position. Darn!

(Greg): “Solar system gas would reach a relatively steady state after a while.”

Interesting how you allow for this “after a while” state of affairs (not to forget the illusory ‘punctuated equilibrium’, an oxymoron if ever I heard one) but you won’t allow for a declining decay rate in radiometric dating, or for a possible varying speed of light. Problem is, you don’t hold to any standard for your flawed arguments. You do love Special Pleading, don’t you?

23. Others (who) have dealt with this ‘galaxy dispersion’ and light speeds etc have offered but weak explanations for the phenomena. They refuse to accept the anomalies associated with red shift and comet formation and spiral arms. Big Bang cannot explain how all of matter was infinitesimally tiny, then huge in a fraction of a picosecond. Without Grand Deep Time, it is evolution that is the weird and messy story.

24. You’re quoting geological terms here but you’re not answering my question: how does evolutionary time explain these facts? Evolution is “changes over time”, from one state into another. It’s not just biology, Greg.

25. I will be generous here and admit that hoaxes in the fossil record do not invalidate true finds, or the science itself, and every field of endeavor has its con artists. Highly reputable evolutionists have tried to lay claim to support for old-age earth theory by quoting Catholic and Anglican clergy as supporting it. This is not valid support, however. To do this, they (clergy) have had to disown their own theology and the Genesis record. The two do not mix.

By the way, I’d love to see the evidence that Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil, (the Archaeopteryx which you say is a real fossil, that is). Perhaps you could use your astounding powers of observation and repeatable scientific experimentation (and your paleontology) to cement your grand theory (ummm, fact) of this iron-clad transition. For example, how does a scale become a feather, and why? Really, the whole idea of why a fossil represents a transitional specimen is a mystery to me. Can you explain the process whereby this proof is obtained? I mean, even I can explain the repeatable process by which liquid water transforms into solid ice (same element, different state).

(Greg again): “you're deliberately ignoring the (again, literally) tons of evidence for evolution that we have in the form of fossils…”.

NO, all you have is (again literally) tons of fossils, period. OK, so maybe: tons of guesses, surmises, ideas, theories, suggestions, hypothesis. But not evidence. Not at all.

AND… “one should always be skeptical of extraordinary claims.”

I couldn’t agree with you more.

It is astonishing how most evolutionists do not attempt to understand God, or the concept of an almighty creator. They despise the notion of creation. They demand scientific proof of God, and don’t see the fallacy in this request. They rail against the alleged indecencies and immorality of the God of the Bible, yet they cannot scientifically prove logic, reason, or thought. They hold to naturalism and its processes, but can’t explain a beginning or an end. They chide this God for unfair, murderous, vicious and totalitarian behavior while at the same time disowning His existence. God is a monster, but man is a result of incidental, accidental accumulations of matter and energies over vast time, not accountable to anything while unable to explain himself.

Yet the general theory of evolution stands entirely outside of anything scientific. If the beginning and the end (or present state) of this theory were true in any sense, we’d see it. But we don’t. So why do the evolutionists insist on it? It can only be because they ‘will not have a God to rule over them’. There is, quite literally, nothing in all of the fields of scientific endeavor to clash with the existence of a supreme God, and everything to be explained, from Beginning to End. There is, quite literally, nothing in all of the fields of evolutionary endeavor to comply with the universe as we observe it. And the general theory of evolution stands entirely within the foundations of our societal structures and educational systems held there by a fear of a God they are accountable to but will not recognize. A God of wonder, beauty, love and mercy, present in every creation story of every culture of mankind. A God within the conscience of every human who ever lived. Some men say “I became an atheist when or because (insert atrocity by man here)”. Others merely quote the great phrase that states “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” To be God, he simply always existed, outside any of His creation. Nature and science, created by Him, cannot by itself explain time before time, place beyond infinity, or something out of nothing. Throwing out your Creator means you have only a godless trinity: atheism, evolution and communism. That is, no absolute truth, no explainable process, and no meaningful order to our lives.

[Marius vanderLubbe]

He's baaaack!

Captain Special Pleading!
Looks like you have had a few trips back to the Creation museum, Joe.


Now, Craig, you and Marius et al have the weird idea that because the Old Testament contains examples of “righteous smiting, incest, rape, zombies, torture, murder, infanticide, genocide, homophobia, misogyny, fratricide, slavery, etc” that this is a God you cannot accept. Strange how so many skeptics look at the awful works of man and blame it all on God, to the point of calling Him a racist, bigoted, genocidal monster. Those are the ‘upstanding’ qualities of man, not God. That God has allowed these practices is not mud in his face. He has allowed freedom of the person but had previously warned of the consequences of immoral actions. A God who would see to it that no immorality or cruelty or suffering was done by man to man would be a God who created automatons, not free-thinking peoples. You misunderstand the very concept of God, and thus you enter into arguments you are not prepared to engage in.

Actually, truth be known, all these unpleasant attributes are indeed human as there is zero evidence of your imaginary sky guy.
We don't blame god, as that is an empty argument. We blame the mindless worshipper who commits horrors in the name of fantasy.

But that is not what you think, is it Joe?
For you, the bible is the literal word of god, and to suggest otherwise is a mortal sin. One that will consign you to the lake of fire, for, how long was it? Eternity?

So your pal didn't say this?
.Numbers 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. .

Psalms 137:9 Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks.


You deny the word of your own god, hypocrite.
What is the penalty for apostasy?

[Craig4]

Now, Craig, you and Marius et al have the weird idea that because the Old Testament contains examples of “righteous smiting, incest, rape, zombies, torture, murder, infanticide, genocide, homophobia, misogyny, fratricide, slavery, etc” that this is a God you cannot accept. Strange how so many skeptics look at the awful works of man and blame it all on God, to the point of calling Him a racist, bigoted, genocidal monster. Those are the ‘upstanding’ qualities of man, not God. That God has allowed these practices is not mud in his face. He has allowed freedom of the person but had previously warned of the consequences of immoral actions. A God who would see to it that no immorality or cruelty or suffering was done by man to man would be a God who created automatons, not free-thinking peoples. You misunderstand the very concept of God, and thus you enter into arguments you are not prepared to engage in.


Dude, read a copy of the Bible. Even I know you're wrong here. Spend some time reading Leviticus. You're clearly misinformed about the content of your fairy story.

No luck on the pre Cambrian Bunny huh?

[Tomtomkent]

" At this point, one Tomtomkent enters in and rollicks through my 25 points, throwing out every fallacy in the books at me. Especially the old evolutionary standard, Begging The Question. Yep, Tomtom believes his take on good science is the only take. You can’t prove anything with him unless it fits securely into his pre-supposed pattern of evolutionary nonsense"

Or more accurately: Joe has not been able to convince me. Not because of my preconceptions, but because his "evidence" is largely derived from sources that rely on confirmation bias, selective evidence, opinion-as-fact, binary logic and so on. Joes biggest complaint about Evolution is that the theory is "revisionist", it revises as new evidence comes to the fore. Now one has to wonder how I can only accept evidence that meets my preconceptions (ignoring for the moment that this is the major falling of ALL Joe's "Evidence" so far) and still revise the theory to suit the changing shape of the evidence. Hmm. Ok, let's not ignore that Joe said himself creationism can not develope to fit the evidence, it is rigid because that is what the bible said. Read his statement back, except my name. Sound familiar? Yep. He is trying to accuse me of the same logical fallicies he happily defends in his own argument. Gosh! How daring! The simple fact is Joe, it is not a matter of "my" version of science. Science operates under certain principles of investigation. Your sources are "bad" science, because they don't follow such principles. AIG admits openly it is biased, and in Skeptoid you treated that as a good thing. It isn't. You claimed God created science so creationists get to say what good science is. You don't. If you understood the principles of science you would understand a theory is built upon evidence observed, you don't choose to observe the evidence that fits the theory as AIG does. You would also understand that you can not have eat your cake and keep it: either evolution is rigid because of the preheld conceptions, or it is mutable and "revitionist". How about telling us whcih would be right?

"It is astonishing how most evolutionists do not attempt to understand God, or the concept of an almighty creator." Ah, but "understanding" and "happening to believe in" are too different things. I would postulate that myself and other posters have understood the concept. That doesn't change the facts that a) "Evolutionists" is still a wrothless term. b) There is still no evidence of an almighty creator. And c) Creationism in general strays away from the "concept" in the scientific use of the term. Ever tried to define what God is, where God is, or how God is able to interact with the physical universe if he is beyond the emperical realm. No. You just say "Because he is god." Well, sorry folks, but if Creationism is a science then it has to define itself in terms of science. "God created a universe" is a neat idea. But where was he when he did that? what did he create it out of? What form does a God take? Does Creationism do the actual science thing of saying these are currently unkowns? Nope. It says that we can't ask these questions. They are wrong! Why Dawkins would say the same thing? So what? You want to prove God did anything you need to prove there is a god to have done them, and the first step is to define what he she or it is.

[Tomtomkent]

"Strange how so many skeptics look at the awful works of man and blame it all on God, to the point of calling Him a racist, bigoted, genocidal monster." No. We blame them on men who believe in God. We don't blame somebody who doesn't exist, that just isn't fair. How ever you can't pretend that such acts have NOT been done in the name of God (unless the KKK were burning stars of David, the Crusaders were just kidding when they said they wanted to reclaim the Holy Land for the true God, the "divine" right for Kings was just a jest and it was a pure coincidence that Oliver Cromwell was a Puritan).

What is more interesting is what the CHRISTIANS blame on God: The bible is chock full of God throwing around plagues, genocidal wrath (flooding the Earth? I mean you heard of "Noah" right Joe? You got that far into the bible? Ok, how about the bit where God kills the first born children of Egypt- that's innocent kids who had nothing to do with their ruler- after Pharoa tried to sue for peace? Or "I am a Vengeful God and my name is Vengence"?) and the like. Now the term we use here int he UK for Preachers who rely on these passages is "Blood and Thunder", and the name suites. I wouldn't want to suggest that this is ALL that is in the bible, but to pretend they aren't in the Old Testiment, let alone important parts of the old testiment is naive. And, above all, the quibbling fact that if there is the Divine creator and we all part of a grand scheme, then he is responsible for natural disasters. "Acts of God" is a literal truth if you believe in the divine hand.

[hereisjoe]

Earlier in 2010 I posted my essay, “Evolution or The Godless Delusion”, which was my criticism of the Richard Dawkins book ‘The Godless Delusion’. At the end of the essay, I included about 25 points which I stated had no support by evolution but have plenty of support by special creation. Several of you have tackled this in your responses, but I can see that no further support for evolution was given. In fact, the rebukes given were totally inadequate.

Evolution theory deals with gradual changes over immense time. It speculates that life began from non-living matter. It suggests that living things change into newer forms and species from common ancestors and lower species. It claims that these changes require millions and billions of years to do this. Evolution comes directly out of the mindset which rejects a creator God. It tries to explain everything in naturalistic terms alone, with lip service to some form of uniformitarianism and empiricism.

Special creation lays claim to the proposal that a creator God established everything in its place by the power of a single supernatural fiat. The foundation for this creation (but not necessarily the natural world created) is the revelation of the Bible. With the species (or ‘kinds’) fixed, a global cataclysm occurred which destroyed the former economy of the earth. If the Genesis Flood took place as described, then something very much like the following would have happened:
If the Flood caused the sedimentary rock strata to form, with their billions of fossils, then the following points would be expected and, upon examination of the fossils in the strata, it happens that they all prove true:
(1) Animals living at the lowest levels would tend to be buried in the lowest strata.
(2) Creatures buried together would tend to be buried with other animals that lived in the same region or ecological community.
(3) Hydrologic forces (the suck and drag of rapidly moving water) would tend to sort out creatures of similar forms. Because of lower hydraulic drag, those with the simplest shapes would tend to be buried first.
(4) Backboneless sea creatures (marine invertebrates), since they live on the sea bottom, would normally be found in the bottom strata.
(5) Fish would be found in higher strata since they can swim up close to the surface.
(6) Amphibians and reptiles would be buried higher than the fishes, but, as a rule, below the land animals.
(7) Few land plants or animals would be in the lower strata.
(8) The first land plants would be found where the amphibians were found.
(9) Mammals and birds would generally be found in higher levels than reptiles and amphibians.
(10) Because many animals tend to go in herds in time of danger, we would find herd animals buried together.
(11) In addition, the larger, stronger animals would tend to sort out into levels apart from the slower ones (Tigers would not be found with hippopotamuses).
(12) Relatively few birds would be found in the strata, since they could fly to the highest points.
(13) Few humans would be found in the strata. They would be at top, trying to stay afloat until they died; following which they would sink to the surface of the sediments and decompose.
In the above 13 points, we have a solid explanation for what we find in the sequence of fossils in the geologic column. Yet, lacking any other evidence to bring forward, it is that very sequence of fossils as they are discovered which evolutionists declare to be the primary evidence that animals have "evolved" from one another.


Let’s look again at previous comments posted here – [responses directed particularly at Dinwar (Gregory) here, for everyone’s benefit]. Keep in mind that I am arguing the grand theory of evolutionary change, not just modern biology…

Dinwar (and someone else) said (to my query of a common ancestor ape, ie “… where did this ape evolve from?”)
“Some earlier ancestor. I'm not sure how that's even a serious question. It's sorta like saying "My sister and I share the same mother" and you responding "Well, where did your mother come from?"”

Well, yeah! Where did it (ancestor) come from?
It’s a serious question because evolution claims to come from inorganic matter, somehow, in the ancient past. Wondering where the common ancestors of all species is very legitimate. I understand that no evolutionist can answer this question. Too bad. Also, I for one do not ask where the original apes are now.

Dinwar says” …but I've certainly got a good handle of what Joe Churchgoer thinks of his religion, and plus a fair bit…”

No you don’t, Greg, if that’s your snide reference (Joe Churchgoer) to me. You tell us that your background is ‘private Catholic school’; however, this is far from Biblical Christianity, I assure you. The Catholic church has apostatized everything in the Bible. I’ve studied this topic thoroughly. Born-again Christianity (ie biblical) bears very little resemblance to Catholicism or many of the other major denominations. The Bible says one truth; the organized churches say quite another thing. The fact that Catholics and Anglicans promote an old earth scenario does not validate a biblical perspective on it, and it has no proof as well. I can discuss evolution very effectively, as well as any biblical topics, because I have studied both of them thoroughly. I can go to the actual heart of these topics, not the opinionated theories.

Now, Craig, you and Marius et al have the weird idea that because the Old Testament contains examples of “righteous smiting, incest, rape, zombies, torture, murder, infanticide, genocide, homophobia, misogyny, fratricide, slavery, etc” that this is a God you cannot accept. Strange how so many skeptics look at the awful works of man and blame it all on God, to the point of calling Him a racist, bigoted, genocidal monster. Those are the ‘upstanding’ qualities of man, not God. That God has allowed these practices is not mud in his face. He has allowed freedom of the person but had previously warned of the consequences of immoral actions. A God who would see to it that no immorality or cruelty or suffering was done by man to man would be a God who created automatons, not free-thinking peoples. You misunderstand the very concept of God, and thus you enter into arguments you are not prepared to engage in.

Dinwar says: “you are not a member of a science that intensively studies the subject.”

Well, neither are you, Gregory. To ‘intensively study’ this big subject does not require a bachelor degree or university diploma (though they’re OK), but it requires paying close attention to the topics at hand and in using good deductive reasoning according to scientific principles. I have those qualities.

“…I don't know literary criticism that well, for example, for the same reason as you don't know evolution that well…” Wrong again. You commit the fallacy of straw man here, assuming what I know or don’t know, but that your alleged sources are the best, when they aren’t.

At this point, one Tomtomkent enters in and rollicks through my 25 points, throwing out every fallacy in the books at me. Especially the old evolutionary standard, Begging The Question. Yep, Tomtom believes his take on good science is the only take. You can’t prove anything with him unless it fits securely into his pre-supposed pattern of evolutionary nonsense. Bye-bye, Tomtom.

Dinwar offers a definition: Evolution: The change in allel frequency over time. PLEASE NOTE: This is the ONLY topic I'm going to debate here. Not abiogenesis (I don't know enough about it, and considering you've admitted to not studying even paleontology, Joe, neither do you). Not astronomy. Not physics (except as it's directly related to certain claims geologists make in regard to evolution). Not any of the myriad of other red herrings that are completely outside of evolutionary theory that Creationists and ID advocates throw out.

Very sad, Greg, that you use only a definition that makes you feel cozy but one which has almost nothing to do with biological changes over vast amounts of time, causing species change in a major way, which in itself infers biology from non-biology at some past point. I won’t argue this definition as it’s a cop-out from someone who is too cowardly to acknowledge the real problem here: how evolution is supported by true evidence of its mechanisms and processes, as observed and proven into fact.

Dinwar says (in part): “Transition fossil: “…. The way I see it, either 99% or more of all fossils …. is a transition fossil, we assume that punctuated equilibrium works for ALL organisms …. or we assume that no fossils are (in which case we'd either have to throw out the term or accept ID, which is what you're arguing for).

Greg, there is no sound reason for thinking that any fossil is a transition fossil. You would have to have irrefutable evidence to link the fossils (regarding reproduction and descent etc). Similarity or homology aside, it’s an arbitrary declaration, not a fact. And I do not argue simply for ID.

Also, your lengthy explanation of geological events regarding trenches and ridges and elasticity simply avoid my simple question/point: “Plate tectonics and continental drift … do not explain ocean trench fissures and those bent mountain strata, or unparallel fracture zones”. I was referring to the fissures in the mid-Atlantic ridge which are contrary to stresses from sliding plates or subduction or volcanism. I’ve studied strain, stress, ductility, brittleness, sheer, elasticity, deformation etc in my engineering classes. The very fact, for example, that shattering and extreme seismic forces occur at the tensions surrounding fault lines does away with the idea (assumed by geologists) that granite or sandstone or compacted sedimentary rock can bend smoothly under long periods. We know what happens at earthquake fault lines. And you can see the folds and bends in the mountains of Banff Park (Canada) for example. And why do evolutionists talk about neocatastrophism but ignore the possibility of one global catastrophe causing it all? Plate tectonics, continental drift, wandering poles, paleomagnetism, seafloor spreading, field reversals, and transforming faults all have dozens of unanswered questions according to evolutionary theory, but these are better explained by one singular, rapid global catastrophism.


(Craig gives us this): “I hate to quibble but I think we should be free to use "intelligence design" and "creationism" interchangeably…. The proponents of ID are creationists and they coined the phrase in a failed attempt to get past the language in Aguilard.”

Not so. As it applies to special creation (our argument), ID is that which was put in place by God. As it applies to other arguments, it could easily mean extraterrestrial intelligence, which would beg the question of where those ETs come from… (not to forget the writings of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, who admit that they ran into a stone wall trying to prove life started from outer space…). I am not interested in the legal battles here, Craig. I am interested in the science, which by the way came after the occasion of the creation event. They are perfectly compatible with each other. Gregory seems to see this distinction, but he adds “the overwhelming majority of ID advocates are Creationists in disguise…” Yipes! In disguise? Last time I checked, no creationist was hiding his/her beliefs.

Tomtomkent isn’t able to carry logic to its end. Ie “The flimsiest argument I have heard from a creationist….(says) "Science does not explain what was there before the Big Bang, so it is wrong! Ergo, my version is right!" Tom can’t follow up on the argument so he throws in a strawman fallacy or two (science can’t explain so creationist says it must be God). In other words, go after the arguer instead of the argument. We don’t do this. We argue science more deeply and effectively than the other side does, pure and simple.

Point 1. by Greg: ie “We have many, many, many fossils, certainly enough to cover the past 550 ~ 600 million years (from the Ediacara Period to today)…”

This is the evolutionist’s favorite fallacy, by the way. Begging The Question. The proof of ‘billions of years’ hasn’t been established, yet the evolutionist wants us to accept it nonetheless, as further proof that fossils for the precious theory are adequate, very old, and illustrative. Oh, the circular reasoning of it!



Point 2 by Greg: “First, define "species"…. (and)… “We DO have good transitions between many species. Second, punctuated equilibrium argues for very fast diversification events (multiple speciations at once). Fast events = few fossils. Simple.”

Far too simple. Best def: Species is any group of creatures which can interbreed successfully. Transitions do not occur and have never been proven. They are biologically impossible, and shouldn’t be confused with variation within a species, which is possible. DNA also refutes this transition of species. Punctuated equilibrium is an argument, not a fact. It isn’t even a credible argument – it clashes with the evolutionist viewpoint of uniformitarianism, so it’s just an act of desperation. Genesis Flood geology argues on fossilization of most species in a brief period, not millions of years.

Point 3. by Greg: “Which would these (out of place fossils) be? I've never heard of them.”

Really, Greg? How about nonconformities and paraconformities? Not to mention polystrates (plants do fossilize as well, remember). South American horse fossils show up in reverse stratigraphic series to what evolution predicts, with hooves and sizes in different order than elsewhere. And if, according to evolutionary theory, flood waters never covered all the mountains, why are there marine fossils in the mountains?

Point 4. by Greg: “(Joe: circular arguments to support their fossil claims (the rock strata dates the fossil but the fossil also dates the rock etc). Greg attempts: “Completely wrong. And it illustrates a lack of understanding of geology. See, geologists don't divide time the same way others do.”

So that explains it. Beg The Question again, and how dare you (creationists) say we’re wrong!

“…For one thing, we have multiple times…” From where, and based on what??? Oh, let’s see… you can say something like this: “Through fossils, paleontologists recognized most of the major time periods--if you find these organisms, the rock was deposited in this time period.”

Umm… and the age of said fossils depends on…what, again? The rock they’re in? Which was established by…arbitrary designation, by the way, based on the theory to begin with. We can all thank Charles Lyell for that bit of genius. Evolutionists don’t want you to know that the new/middle/ancient rock strata pf geology was guessed at, because they knew little or nothing about fossils. They dated the ancient layers because they found fewer fossils there, but we know that it doesn’t reflect reality. A paleontologist like Greg should know this but it embarrasses him. So we wind up with the eras of Cenozoic, Mesozoic, and the Paleozoic strata, and they really don’t reflect their suggested ages at all because they’re based on pre-Victorian error.
Radiometric dating? Once again, that has been disproved by many tests on many substances. Diamonds give thousands of years, not many millions, time after time, even when done in ‘evolutionist’ labs. No evolutionist can explain why the dating clock is started at ‘zero’ and no evolutionist can claim unequivocally that the decay rates are uniform. Without these assurances, it is all weak theory, not fact.

Point 5. (Gregory): “Ask a cosmologist.”

No, I’m asking you. Don’t bother with your appeal to ignorance or to authority (“I don’t know” or “somebody else knows it better”). Look at it yourself, or I will ignore even your own expertise for the same reason. If you are going to claim a faith or dependence on deep time, you had better look at evidences for/against it in the cosmos too.

Point 6. (Gregory): “First, organisms are open systems.”

Exactly the point. Everything we can observe deteriorates into chaos from order. Evolution claims the opposite.

“…you can hardly argue that changes in allel frequency violates those laws. Mutations occur for the same reasons as reproduction.”

Mutations are almost always destructive, and besides, even the extremely rare ‘good’ mutations could never establish the complexity of life. The mathematics of the probability of mutation/natural selection mechanisms are so staggeringly against evolutionary theory of any kind that they (predicted outcomes) do not exist.

Point 7. (Greg): “This (evolution of complex organs) is the classic Argument from Personal Incredulity.”

No, Greg, it’s your rejection of irreducible complexity and the inability of cross-over between species and the impossible odds against DNA coding allowing such evolution of organs.

“Behe couldn't figure out how an eye evolved, and therefore Goddidit.”

Here we go with the Goddidit plea. It’s called Fallacy Of Irrelevant Thesis, by the way, and you evolutionists love to resort to fallacies (no wonder you list them on all your websites). The question here isn’t whether God did this, but in how complex organs are. Evolutionists couldn’t figure out how the eye ‘evolved’ either, because it didn’t. Nevertheless, you go blindly ahead, accusing. Behe knows very well the barriers involved.

“Problem is, …. We have modern organisms which preserve most of the major changes in the eye, from a cluster of photosensitive cells (cteniphera) to eyes far more complex than human eyes (eagles), showing how the evolution could easily have happened.”

Completely wrong, and a stupid assumption to boot. None of these organs are related or linked biologically. Saying so doesn’t make it so. It’s the same tactic used by evolutionists in regards to vestigial organs, also completely discredited by modern science (vestigials being a very big part of the fallacious ‘evidence’ given in the fossil record of such fallacious ‘evolution’). And in what way is an eagle’s eye more complex than a human eye? It was just designed different, that’s all.

Point 8. I will restrain myself from calling the ‘who’s bananas’ shot …
Without any sort of immune system already in place, no organism can survive. We know that from observation. No assertions here.

Point 9. (Greg): “Evolution does not mean increased complexity…etc etc”

Are we talking the same theory here? From non-life to single cells to multiple-organs to sentient humans… Simplicity to complexity. Charles Darwin wrote a book, published way back in 1859, called “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of
Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” blah blah blah, and (horror of horrors!) he did not explain or talk about those origins, but hinted at all of life coming from some common source by way of natural laws of chemistry and biology, via mutations over time and so on. Did you get that, Greg? Or are you deliberately sticking to your ‘change in allel frequency over time’, which is to say, microevolution. Simplicity to complexity, simplicity to complexity, that’s the rampant preaching of evolution.

Point 10. (Greg): “This (DNA and RNA complexity) is either Argument from Personal Incredulity, or really bad math (how do you calculate something like this?).”

No, Greg, this is argument from observed facts. The human DNA molecule is so vastly complex that it has been estimated that its data, if written out, would be similar to a thousand books of 600 pages each, and that’s just the codes in one gene. Then there’s the immense information system needed to assimilate and control it all, A,C,G,T to A,C T, G, as it were. To go from a single cell (which alone is incredibly complex, even if it’s a bacterial cell) to a human organism with all the detailed instruction needed to form that person is to ask for gradual changes, protein by protein, until the trillions of individual cells are in the right place for such a creature as we are. So you want math? The odds of that happening are more than the number of atoms in the known universe. Personal Incredulity? I’d say: definitely! It’s an immensely incredible claim. Not sure what fairyless-tale you wanna believe in…

As to “how do you calculate something like this over eons of time”, well, it appears evolutionists have proposed that is what happens, and they call it all “tons of facts”. 14 billion and 4.5 billion years, remember? Enough time for the impossible to become possible. And Christians are silly to believe in miracles?

Part 11. “Mutations are vastly more complicated than you're giving them credit for.”

No, they’re vastly more deadly than you give them credit for. Every observed mutation either kills the organism or cripples it severely (a well-proven scientific fact). There’s about a thousand bad mutations for every harmless one, and (more math here for you, Greg) the cell or organism must survive all those harmful mutations, which, however, kill or maim every time. You DO understand math, do you?

Part 12. (Greg): “I'd love to see a good photo of (human footprints alongside dinosaur prints) this.”

Human footprints have been found in allegedly ancient strata. Evolution says that humans didn’t evolve until the late Tertiary. So we’re no more than maybe ‘three million years old’. Yet human footprints have been found in rocks from as early as the Carboniferous Period, which is "250 million years old" (your zany theory). Albert C. Ingalls, as long ago as 1940 in his article "The Carboniferous Mystery, (Scientific American) says “On sites reaching from Virginia and Pennsylvania, through Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri and westward toward the Rocky Mountains, prints. . from 5 to 10 inches long, have been found on the surface of exposed rocks, and more and more keep turning up as the years go by."
It should be noted that these are human footprints, not ape prints or some weird erosional/weird depositional features. If you’re going to stick to that explanation, then how can you seriously expect us to accept that several different fossils are related and transitional to each other, based simply on location, strata, or homology?
Your Cambrian formation, by the way, contains the vast majority of fossils and it is by no means clear why you think it spans over 200 million years in time. But then the assigning of names and dates onto the geologic column of earth was done long before Darwin’s days and it stuck and it serves to underscore the Big Mess, which is a lie.

13. You’ve simply failed to answer my point here. I claimed that altruism (unselfish care for another species) goes against all that survival of the fittest stands for. All you offer is something I already agree with, that altruism does exist in other animals, but you cannot say why. For example, dolphins show altruism towards humans, yet humans indiscriminately slaughter dolphins. Altruism is behavioral (like moral law or reasoning) and is not chemical or biological. There is no gene for it, and it is certainly not a mutagen.

14. Neocatastrophism is local or regional, not global. Mammoths were found buried across the Arctic with undigested seeds in their mouths. That indicates instant burial in freezing cold. Evolutionists neglect to make mention of the fact that these animals lived in a tropical environment, not an arctic one. Fossil evidence of this is abundant. A worldwide global catastrophe explains this quite nicely, including an ice age coming rapidly on the heels of the previous environmental economy.

15. Again, no attempt to answer the question of how pressures maintain themselves for many millions of years; instead, you merely toss out a fact about the reason for the pressure of oil reserves in the first place, which we already know. Isn’t paleontology linked with geology – don’t you know this? Either the earth was very stable during this time, or you forget the factors of permeability of rock and the millions of earthquakes and the volcanism which would upset any reservoir in that immense amount of time. No go, Greg. Your reasoning is sloppy.

16. (Greg): “That's because evolution deals with organisms.”

As opposed to planetology, geology, sedimentology, minerology, and astronomy blah blah blah. If you want me to even contemplate billions of years of deep time for biological evolution, you had better be prepared to consider these sciences and the clear evidences they also offer. Stop avoiding the grand question we’re dealing with.

17. (Greg): “The accumulation rate of dust on the Moon is less than previously thought.”

It would have to be drastically less to account for the amount found after ‘billions’ of years. And where is the science to say just how much less this rate is?

“As for where the Moon came from, during the Hadean a Mars-sized body hit the Earth and shattered it. The Moon is the remnants.”

More speculation. No proof. And none of this can explain the regression of the moon’s orbit. There is excellent math to show that it is more extended than billions of years allows for.

18. (Greg): “They're not as uncommon as most people think. The issue is that with active sedimentation/erosion on a planet like Earth, most of them get covered and obscured.”

How, then, can you say that they are more common than we think, if they are covered and obscured? As for erosion, evolutionists adamantly rebuke me on the rate of earth erosion, which I observe is quite rapid everywhere. And as for your plate tectonics, you already claim them to be abysmally slow, hence your incredibly ‘ancient’ earth. So, lack of evidence can still point to plenty of evidence, by your reasoning. How convenient.

19. Again, you avoid the grand question: deep time for evolutionary theory. I don’t accept this constant dodging of the issue at hand. The supposed uplift in the Grand Canyon is allegedly many millions of years old. There are no indications of million-year-old sedimentary layers, just rapid and clean transitions in the geologic column there. This place is a classic example of rapid deposit of sediments from a catastrophe. And I went one better than ‘attend a geology class’. I studied everything I could on this canyon, both evolutionary and creation models. Many, many years at this, including an extensive walk to the bottom of the Colorado. There is simply no way that millions of years elapsed here. I direct you to your erosion comments above, Greg.

20. Conventional geology doesn’t admit freely to deep earthquakes away from fault zones. They also don’t admit to the obvious fact that a 4.5 billion-year-old earth would have cooled significantly by now, and the magnetic field would have dissipated a lot more, and that old mid-Atlantic ridge is built up by magma outflow and doesn’t create large mountain ranges etc. Too many geological features cannot be explained by mainstream thesis, except the local phenomenon, but they fit a worldwide upheaval of the geological structure, as represented by the Genesis Flood. This is not biological evolution per se, but ties in with earth age and misinformation on geology as commonly believed and taught.

21. You did not deal with this adequately at all. There is overwhelming evidence against your arguments on this. The creation model suggests a cataclysm of such magnitude that mountains were formed in very short order, with bending of strata while it was still saturated and the sedimentary layers were not yet compacted. Always remember that tectonic drift (like radiation decay) was not always constant. Things happened rapidly, especially for universal fossilization. Again, it is your extreme timeline I dispute.

22. Evolution of the cosmos comes under evolution of life on earth, time-wise. You do not differentiate between mass and gas, or between energy contained in solar particles and debris from planetary formation. Wind that blows sand or snow is moving air molecules, whereas the snow is water molecules (sand being silica etc). Thus, snowdrifts and sand dunes are not added to by the air particles of the wind. It’s the same analogy and a poor explanation by you. Come again, Gregory, you’re the professional with letters after your name and a Fortune 500 company to stand up for – but wait, you can’t admit the true evidence – it jeopardizes your position. Darn!

(Greg): “Solar system gas would reach a relatively steady state after a while.”

Interesting how you allow for this “after a while” state of affairs (not to forget the illusory ‘punctuated equilibrium’, an oxymoron if ever I heard one) but you won’t allow for a declining decay rate in radiometric dating, or for a possible varying speed of light. Problem is, you don’t hold to any standard for your flawed arguments. You do love Special Pleading, don’t you?

23. Others (who) have dealt with this ‘galaxy dispersion’ and light speeds etc have offered but weak explanations for the phenomena. They refuse to accept the anomalies associated with red shift and comet formation and spiral arms. Big Bang cannot explain how all of matter was infinitesimally tiny, then huge in a fraction of a picosecond. Without Grand Deep Time, it is evolution that is the weird and messy story.

24. You’re quoting geological terms here but you’re not answering my question: how does evolutionary time explain these facts? Evolution is “changes over time”, from one state into another. It’s not just biology, Greg.

25. I will be generous here and admit that hoaxes in the fossil record do not invalidate true finds, or the science itself, and every field of endeavor has its con artists. Highly reputable evolutionists have tried to lay claim to support for old-age earth theory by quoting Catholic and Anglican clergy as supporting it. This is not valid support, however. To do this, they (clergy) have had to disown their own theology and the Genesis record. The two do not mix.

By the way, I’d love to see the evidence that Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil, (the Archaeopteryx which you say is a real fossil, that is). Perhaps you could use your astounding powers of observation and repeatable scientific experimentation (and your paleontology) to cement your grand theory (ummm, fact) of this iron-clad transition. For example, how does a scale become a feather, and why? Really, the whole idea of why a fossil represents a transitional specimen is a mystery to me. Can you explain the process whereby this proof is obtained? I mean, even I can explain the repeatable process by which liquid water transforms into solid ice (same element, different state).

(Greg again): “you're deliberately ignoring the (again, literally) tons of evidence for evolution that we have in the form of fossils…”.

NO, all you have is (again literally) tons of fossils, period. OK, so maybe: tons of guesses, surmises, ideas, theories, suggestions, hypothesis. But not evidence. Not at all.

AND… “one should always be skeptical of extraordinary claims.”

I couldn’t agree with you more.

It is astonishing how most evolutionists do not attempt to understand God, or the concept of an almighty creator. They despise the notion of creation. They demand scientific proof of God, and don’t see the fallacy in this request. They rail against the alleged indecencies and immorality of the God of the Bible, yet they cannot scientifically prove logic, reason, or thought. They hold to naturalism and its processes, but can’t explain a beginning or an end. They chide this God for unfair, murderous, vicious and totalitarian behavior while at the same time disowning His existence. God is a monster, but man is a result of incidental, accidental accumulations of matter and energies over vast time, not accountable to anything while unable to explain himself.

Yet the general theory of evolution stands entirely outside of anything scientific. If the beginning and the end (or present state) of this theory were true in any sense, we’d see it. But we don’t. So why do the evolutionists insist on it? It can only be because they ‘will not have a God to rule over them’. There is, quite literally, nothing in all of the fields of scientific endeavor to clash with the existence of a supreme God, and everything to be explained, from Beginning to End. There is, quite literally, nothing in all of the fields of evolutionary endeavor to comply with the universe as we observe it. And the general theory of evolution stands entirely within the foundations of our societal structures and educational systems held there by a fear of a God they are accountable to but will not recognize. A God of wonder, beauty, love and mercy, present in every creation story of every culture of mankind. A God within the conscience of every human who ever lived. Some men say “I became an atheist when or because (insert atrocity by man here)”. Others merely quote the great phrase that states “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” To be God, he simply always existed, outside any of His creation. Nature and science, created by Him, cannot by itself explain time before time, place beyond infinity, or something out of nothing. Throwing out your Creator means you have only a godless trinity: atheism, evolution and communism. That is, no absolute truth, no explainable process, and no meaningful order to our lives.

[Dinwar]

Joe: Learn the definitions of the terms you are using. Evolution is defined as the change in allel frequency over time. Adding abiogenesis to it is artificial at best, disengenuous at worst, and ONLY done by Creationists and you (you've objected to being called a Creationist before, so I'll refrain for now). The equivocation between these, as well as your complete lack of knowledge of the history of evolutionar theory, make discussing this with you extremely difficult. It's akin to discussing chess with someone who thinks that you win by scoring home runs.

If the Flood caused the sedimentary rock strata to form, with their billions of fossils, then the following points would be expected and, upon examination of the fossils in the strata, it happens that they all prove true:
(1) Animals living at the lowest levels would tend to be buried in the lowest strata.
(2) Creatures buried together would tend to be buried with other animals that lived in the same region or ecological community.
(3) Hydrologic forces (the suck and drag of rapidly moving water) would tend to sort out creatures of similar forms. Because of lower hydraulic drag, those with the simplest shapes would tend to be buried first.
(4) Backboneless sea creatures (marine invertebrates), since they live on the sea bottom, would normally be found in the bottom strata.
(5) Fish would be found in higher strata since they can swim up close to the surface.
(6) Amphibians and reptiles would be buried higher than the fishes, but, as a rule, below the land animals.
(7) Few land plants or animals would be in the lower strata.
(8) The first land plants would be found where the amphibians were found.
(9) Mammals and birds would generally be found in higher levels than reptiles and amphibians.
(10) Because many animals tend to go in herds in time of danger, we would find herd animals buried together.
(11) In addition, the larger, stronger animals would tend to sort out into levels apart from the slower ones (Tigers would not be found with hippopotamuses).
(12) Relatively few birds would be found in the strata, since they could fly to the highest points.
(13) Few humans would be found in the strata. They would be at top, trying to stay afloat until they died; following which they would sink to the surface of the sediments and decompose.


1) A basic understanding of tierinig in an ecosystem proves this wrong.
2) This is hardly a prediciton of anything--it's saying that things that lived together likely died together, which is trivially obvious (meaning it's of no diagnostic value)
3) The Silica Shale in Ohio presents organisms of many different body plans, ranging from very airodynamic horn corals to columner crinoids, to the Isotilus maximus. Similarly, the Burgees Shale (and similar deposits) show a remarkable range of body plans. It's only in areas where the deposits were put down by running water (fluvial or tidal, predominantly) that your prediction holds true.
4) Marine invertebrates can be found throughout the water column--man-of-war jellyfish float at the surface, for example, and worms of all types are on the bottom. Xanthid crabs are nectic, as are many types of lobsters.
5) Many fish are bottom feeders. Ever see an algae eater in a fish store? How about the nurse shark?
6) amphibians and reptiles are land animals, and have nearly the same airodynamic qualities (once you rot away the stinky stuff), making this special pleading.
7) This is nonsensical if you look at flood deposits (anything from yesterday's flood to a flood 6,000 years ago will demonstrate this amply).
8) This is based on nothing. It's an assertion without support.
9) WHY?
10) This is untrue. Herbivores travel in herds, yes. Some carnivores travel in packs. However, many mammals are solitary, even when threatened. Sloths, for example.
11) What does strength have to do with how far the bones will travel?
12) This is not a diagnostic prediction, as it's the same for both theories.
13) This doesn't explain why humans, which are terrestrial, are found above whales and fish, which are aquatic.

You haven't learned anything, it seems.

[Dinwar]

Point 1. by Greg: ie “We have many, many, many fossils, certainly enough to cover the past 550 ~ 600 million years (from the Ediacara Period to today)…”

This is the evolutionist’s favorite fallacy, by the way. Begging The Question. The proof of ‘billions of years’ hasn’t been established, yet the evolutionist wants us to accept it nonetheless, as further proof that fossils for the precious theory are adequate, very old, and illustrative. Oh, the circular reasoning of it!

This is not a fallacy. An old Earth has been amply demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Creationists in the scientific community in the 1700-1800s. In other words, the evidence convinced those most skeptical about the claim. The fact that you reject the evidence is irrelevant to its validity.

Point 2 by Greg: “First, define "species"…. (and)… “We DO have good transitions between many species. Second, punctuated equilibrium argues for very fast diversification events (multiple speciations at once). Fast events = few fossils. Simple.”

Far too simple. Best def: Species is any group of creatures which can interbreed successfully. Transitions do not occur and have never been proven. They are biologically impossible, and shouldn’t be confused with variation within a species, which is possible. DNA also refutes this transition of species. Punctuated equilibrium is an argument, not a fact. It isn’t even a credible argument – it clashes with the evolutionist viewpoint of uniformitarianism, so it’s just an act of desperation. Genesis Flood geology argues on fossilization of most species in a brief period, not millions of years.

Yeah........Look up "circle species" sometime. The boundaries are not as clear-cut as you would like, and your statement that transitional forms are not possible is demonstrably wrong. As in, we have them. Right now. Today. In fact, if I recall corretly one circle species is a lizard that lives in California.

As for the definition of species, the fact that you think it simple shows how little you know about the topic. That's the biological species concept. There's also the morphospecies concept. Then things get weird--both of those really only work for the animal kingdom (and, to a lesser extent, the plant kingdom). Bacteria change DNA in ways that throw the entire concept of a species into question. Personally, I don't use it; it's an outdated concept that assumes fixity a priori, and has ad-hoc definitions built around it to butress it against the onslaught of evidence that it just doesn't matter. I prefer the concept of populations.

Point 3. by Greg: “Which would these (out of place fossils) be? I've never heard of them.”

Really, Greg? How about nonconformities and paraconformities? Not to mention polystrates (plants do fossilize as well, remember). South American horse fossils show up in reverse stratigraphic series to what evolution predicts, with hooves and sizes in different order than elsewhere. And if, according to evolutionary theory, flood waters never covered all the mountains, why are there marine fossils in the mountains?

Really? These are your arguments?

Okay.

Nonconformities, paraconformities, disconformities, and the rest are stratigraphicly controled fairly easily, and in no way represent fossils out of stratigraphic sequence. They ALL follow the principle of cross-cutting relations, among other things. As for the horses, evolution doesn't predict horse hoove size that way--it's entirely possible that hooves evolved differently in different locations (in fact, it's probablye). As for marine rock on mountains, there's this theory called plate techtonics you may want to look into. For example, the reason there's marine limestone on top of Mount Everest is because the rock was deposited in a shallow marine environment, and was subsequently uplifted when India slammed into Asia.

Point 4. by Greg: “(Joe: circular arguments to support their fossil claims (the rock strata dates the fossil but the fossil also dates the rock etc). Greg attempts: “Completely wrong. And it illustrates a lack of understanding of geology. See, geologists don't divide time the same way others do.”

So that explains it. Beg The Question again, and how dare you (creationists) say we’re wrong!

“…For one thing, we have multiple times…” From where, and based on what??? Oh, let’s see… you can say something like this: “Through fossils, paleontologists recognized most of the major time periods--if you find these organisms, the rock was deposited in this time period.”

Umm… and the age of said fossils depends on…what, again? The rock they’re in? Which was established by…arbitrary designation, by the way, based on the theory to begin with. We can all thank Charles Lyell for that bit of genius. Evolutionists don’t want you to know that the new/middle/ancient rock strata pf geology was guessed at, because they knew little or nothing about fossils. They dated the ancient layers because they found fewer fossils there, but we know that it doesn’t reflect reality. A paleontologist like Greg should know this but it embarrasses him. So we wind up with the eras of Cenozoic, Mesozoic, and the Paleozoic strata, and they really don’t reflect their suggested ages at all because they’re based on pre-Victorian error.
Radiometric dating? Once again, that has been disproved by many tests on many substances. Diamonds give thousands of years, not many millions, time after time, even when done in ‘evolutionist’ labs. No evolutionist can explain why the dating clock is started at ‘zero’ and no evolutionist can claim unequivocally that the decay rates are uniform. Without these assurances, it is all weak theory, not fact.

Actually, fossils are dated relatively based on stratigraphic principles easily demonstrated with a glass jar and some colored sand. They're also dated using radiometric dating, which you've yet to disprove (those tests you speak of, like the ones for Mount St. Hellens? Yeah, they're based on misapplication of the theory behinid radiometric dating; it's been amply demonstrated to be true, multiple times). As for being embarissed about how stratigraphy started, I'm no more embarised by the errors of my predecessors than a doctor is embarised by the practice of bleeding--we've moved on from there.

Point 5. (Gregory): “Ask a cosmologist.”

No, I’m asking you. Don’t bother with your appeal to ignorance or to authority (“I don’t know” or “somebody else knows it better”). Look at it yourself, or I will ignore even your own expertise for the same reason. If you are going to claim a faith or dependence on deep time, you had better look at evidences for/against it in the cosmos too.
Annnnd we're done. You expect me to demonstrate my expertise, BY PRESENTING ARGUMENTS WE BOTH KNOW ARE OUTSIDE OF MY AREA OF EXPERTISE. I'm sorry, but this is beyond illogical. NO real scientist will rise to that bate; we are REQUIRED to acknowledge areas we don't know. You obviously do not have the same intellectual honesty, and are therefore not worth discussing science with.

[Tomtomkent]

Oh I love that Joe still complains I "Rollick" through his 25 points at high speed as though this makes my critique invalid. *sigh* for those who are interested I could have gone a lot quicker by copying and pasting this sentence when required; "No, Evolution does not explain that. It is not covered by the theory."

As forGreg and his "Faith" on deep time he is quite right to admit his boundaries. He is not a cosmologist. His explanations on how we know the Earth are older than 6K should be evidence enough, but if Joe insists we should all be experts about EVERYTHING (jus by reading no qualifications required!) We will have to rely on schoolboy physics;

THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS A CONSTANT in a vacuume.
WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE FOR C DECAY.
WE OBSERVE STARS MORE THAN 6K LIGHT YEARS AWAY.
ERGO THE UNIVERSE IS MORE THAN 6K OLD.

Oh yes, and lest we forget;
IF THE AGE OF THE UNIVERSE WAS LESS THAN A MILLION YEARS, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT GOD CREATED IT.
IF THE AGE OF THE UNIVERSE WAS LESS THAN A MILLION YEARS OLD IT DOES NOT DISPROVE THE FOSSIL RECORD. IT WOULD PROVE EVOLUTION HAPPENED FASTER THAN ORIGINALLY EXPECTED.

Just two small points that should be remembered.

[Dinwar]

I'm in an unusual possition to understand just how little I know about cosmology: My wife was in a Ph.D. program in physics (she left to follow me across the country when my job transferred me to California). I've sat in on physics talks, and like any good bookworm browed her textbooks, and came to an understandiing that I simply don't know the material. I know my OWN science, but demonstrably don't know her's. And it would be the hight of huberous, which I would not tollerate should someone attempt it in regards to my field of study, to pretend that I know what I demonstrably don't.

The thing is, that's an argument you hear fairly frequently in scientific circles: "It's not my field, I'll differ to the experts". Joe apparently is not aware of that (just like he's not aware of fluid dynamics, or basic biology, or what the field of geology actually has to say on, well, anything...).

As for the god thing, I find it telling that Creationists were the first (and by FAR the most common) ones to make god an issue with evolution. Sure, a few of Darwin's intellectual predicessors thought that the theory gave Biblical literallism trouble, but once they accepted the Bible as allegory they didn't have many problems. It's people like Joe, who believe in gods, that insist that evolutiono deal with it one way or the other. The scientists in the field? By and large the question never arises. A few, like Dawkins, have gotten sick of the Creationists and stated "Yes, evolution means your god is false", but most of us look at the whole god thing in evolution the way we look at someone inisisting that we discuss bananas when we talk about nuclear radiation: It's irrelevant, and only interesting as a very minor tangential point.

[Tomtomkent]

But Dawkins is not an "Evolutionist", he is an athiest who happens to work in a related field. Ihave noisea why Joe would use the term "evolutionist" unless he wants to list all the theorems that he thinks we support; "special theory of relatitists" is a mouthful mind. He clearly uses the word in a context that means to believe in evolution means you have a philosophical bent that does not allow for the belief in god. Hmm. This seems to be no problem to the majority od christians in the world who believe in both.

Having read back through the majority of posts here and in skeptoid several trends emerge. Joe argues about what "real" science is, that AIG is not hampered by Bias because we all have one, what the conventions of theory, evidence and proof are or should be, that certain proven factors are disputed (not through lack of evidence but because, er, creationism doesn't sit well with them). What is clear is that Joe has read an awful lot of books, seemingly creationist books, that are fullof "facts" or rather "factoids", but has no academic or scholarly or professional background in the basic principles of how one goes about forming, examining and testing a theory. He has read something along the lines of AIG or Christian Science and assumed that it was "science" because it said so. If when folks pointed out flaws in his sources he had just found better sources a large proportion of his circular bull crap posts would have not been needed. If he had the toolkit to put together a reasonable argument that did not rely on the majority of the worlds academics being ignorant liars, his posts would have had no need to descend into trolling on frequent occassions mistaking "basic objective reasoning" for "unfair preconceptions of what the world looks like." He might, in short, have read what most the Skeptoid regulars actually said as opposed to what he assumed they were saying. A sad state of affairs indeed, because pretty much fromthe first post here most forum users have pointed out his fallacies,innacuracies, and false evidence not to say "this is wrong" but to say "the methodology of science does not work like that", but has taken a confrontational stance to "defend" what should be an obkective argument with a subjective set of morals. It isa persons right to believe what they want. But much of what he posted claimed to be "evidence" and "science", which means the freedom is tempered by responsibility and standards his evidence rarely meets.

To present dogma as anything other than dogma is misguided at best.

[Craig4]

The term intelligent design as adopted by the anti science authors of "Pandas and People" as a way to avoid the restrictions placed on them by the US Supreme Court decision Edwards v Agullard. In Agullard the Supremes found that creationism was religion not science and the teaching of it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. The authors of "Pandas" edited the test to remove creationism and add intelligent design. The trial judge in Kitzmiller v Dover School District found that intelligent design was a thinly veiled attempt to disguise creationism as science and ruled that its teach violated the Establishment Clause in the same way as creationism. The judge in the Dover trial also asked that two members of the school board be arrested for perjury because evidence surfaced during the trial that they were away of the religious nature of intelligent design but claimed not to be.

And that ladies and gentlemen is the history of intelligent design.

[Craig4]

Please provide evidence that the speed of light in a vacuum has ever not been constant.

[Tomtomkent]

The idea of a decaying speed of light is an uproven concept that Young earthers use to explain how we see stars more than 6000 Light Years away:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-decay

Basically they claim the speed of light has dropped exponentially over the last few thousand years. Unfortunately there is no evidence for this idea, there is good evidence against it (we regularly use light/time measurements to prove we landed on the moon by bouncing a laser off reflecting pads left there for example), and the logic supporting it is circular: We know C must have decayed because the universe is young, which we know because of C-decay... Any attempt to take C-decay as a seperate entity and prove it exists collapses under scrutiny.

[Craig4]

I'm familiar with the idea. I'm just asking to see proof of it. If there's no proof we need not consider it further.

[Dinwar]

I'd like to go into a bit more detail concerning the use of fossils in relative dating, for the benefit of any lurkers here (Joe is a lost cause).

Geologists most emphatically did NOT simply guess as to the sequence of fossils in the rock record. The giants who started the field were not men who were prone to such flights of fancy. When James Hutton first described fossils and rocks in a systematic fashion he focused on the fact that fossils appear in an orderly sequence, something that no one who has analyzed a road cut can deny. There were no evolutionary overtones to this discovery--there was no theory of evolution to influence Hutton. He, along with all other educated people in Europe at the time, was a Creationist and close to what we would call a Biblical literallist. What Hutton discovered was that if you find a sequence of rock with fossils (going from the top down) a, b, c, d, e, f, and g, and you then found a second sequence of rock with fossils a, c, d, and e you could be reasonably sure that 1) there was some explination for why b was missing, and 2) f and g could be found with further excavations. Because fossils tend to stick to individual lithofacies (note the caviat there), this is useful in civil engineering, or was at the time--if you found a, b, and c in loosely consolidated sandstone, while f and g were in much more robust limestone, you could use the fossil record to predict what equpiment you'd need, how much time you'd need, etc. This can only hold true if the fossils are in some universal or nearly universal sequence, however. Hutton may have speculated on why such a sequence exists (it is not obvious that such order necessarily should exist without some sort of evolutionary framework), but it was in terms of the Bible, not evolution and certainly not guessing. Geologists, by and large, do not guess.

It was discovered that there was, in fact, a universal sequence--stratigraphy. There were local variations, but all the fossils found during the Age of Exploration (and these were found by many people, as collecting curiosities became a popular passtime of the rich) fit into a relatively neat order. The problem was, there were catestrophic changes at certain times (we now call them mass extinctions). These were explained by arguing for multiple Flood events, among other things--the concept fo Catastrophism was born. Note that there was still no real sense of time to this: science could tell what was older and what younger, but debate raged fairly bitterly about how long it took (Catastrophists and Uniformitarians still, to this day, have trouble speaking to one another in civil tones at times). We knew THAT something terrible had happened, but we didn't know WHAT happened or WHEN it happened.

Interesting things were going on in terms of stratigraphy as well. Science developed the Principles of Stratigraphy (original horizontality, superpossition, lateral continuity, cross-cutting relations, and inclusion). Using this, and the fossil record (still merely using it to describe what happened, without any firm time established), science was able to divide the Earth's time into the ages and periods and such that we know and love. The first geologists did not guess when they described their geologic sequences--they described them as they found them. And the later workers, when they attempted to put this into some sort of conceptual framework, certainly did not guess as to the nature of stratigraphy. These were very serious men (sorry, but it's historical fact that few women were participating in these discussions), none of whom would have engaged in guesswork any more than they would engage in fabrication of data.

This was certainly not the final act in this drama. In fact, I remember when "Ediacaran" referred to animals, not a time period. We're constantly tweeking the dates of the start and end of time periods (and, if you ask me, the time periods are not planetary--meaning that it's entirely possible for one continent to be in the Miocene while another is in the Pliocene, for the same reason why it's possible for one continent to be in the Iron Age and another in the Stone Age).

I've discussed how we apply absolute dating to fossils before (brief version: we find independently datable volcanic events, which are dated radiometricly,, that correlate with the FAD and LAD of some species, thus constraining the species' time range). Using those techniques, and a knowledge of the definition of the changes in time periods, stratigraphers (oddly enough, generally NOT paleontologists) determine when the various time chunks start and stop. Again, there is no guesswork here. I've seen the arguments, and gotten into a few myself (I dislike the use of the term Ediacaran as a temporal unit; I prefer to use it as a faunal term, and this has generated some heated discussions): a remarkable amount of data is brought to bear on these questions, and while we certainly can debate the utility of the methodology as a whole one certainly cannot debate the validity of the terms.

For those who are interested, there are several very good books on the history of evolutionary theory. The one I'm reading now is called "Darwin's Century", and touches on all of this (and a great deal more). It shows that Joe is, in fact and indesputably, ignorant of the history of geology, paleontology, and evolutionary theory.

[hereisjoe]

Marius,
I'm replying to you here simply because you accuse me of being a hypocrite. This is a serious charge. It's not appropriate here, as it amounts to a typical Ad Hominem accusation, where you blame the arguer and not the argument. What God's character has to do with the truth/falsehood of evolutionary theory and the argument at hand, I don't know. But it seems that you love to pick Bible verses out of context in your desperate attempt to discredit somebody. You accused creationists in the past of "quote mining" but now you do it in spades.

Back up a bit, Marius, and consider what God has declared in his scripture concerning mankind not obeying him: pretty well all of the first 5 books of the OT. Also read from Numbers chapter 14 (especially starting around verse 11) onwards up to chapter 31. Pay special attention to 14:18,19 ["The Lord is longsuffering and abundant in mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression…to the third and fourth generation..."]. Back up even further, Marius, and see where God offers mercy to everybody if they obey him [Exodus chapter 34, ie v.5 to v.28], paying particular attention to the misdeeds God knew the Israelites would commit if not guided by him (v.15 to v.17 etc). Go even farther back, to Genesis chapter 3, verses 8 to 24. Observe the curse placed upon humankind by the Creator of humankind. Notice the place where all the blame is correctly laid; Gen. 6:5-7. It is God's divine right, yet he spared a remnant from the flood. If you think this kind of God isn't worthy of worship or understanding, that he's a monster of man's imagination, what would your version of an almighty being be? If we didn't follow this sort of God, how much better would we be? The history of atheistic regimes answers that question. Try and understand both the active will of God and the permissive will of God as applied to free-thinking peoples. Read a bit more of the Bible you obviously take delight in tearing apart before you discard God. Like most atheists, you never make mention of the gospel of Christ or the beatitudes or the ten commandments or the great moral law underlying all of these. You just cherry-pick verses and stand back and mock truths you don't understand, probably because you don't want to understand it.

On war with Midian, commentator Matthew Henry says:
…Unless it can be proved that the wicked Canaanites did not deserve their doom, objectors only prove their dislike to God, and their love to his enemies. Man makes light of the evil of sin, but God abhors it. This explains the terrible executions of the nations which had filled the measure of their sins. (Nu 31:7-12)
31:13-18
The sword of war should spare women and children; but the sword of justice should know no distinction, but that of guilty or not guilty. This war was the execution of a righteous sentence upon a guilty nation, in which the women were the worst criminals. The female children were spared, who, being brought up among the Israelites, would not tempt them to idolatry. The whole history shows the hatefulness of sin, and the guilt of tempting others; it teaches us to avoid all occasions of evil, and to give no quarter to inward lusts. The women and children were not kept for sinful purposes, but for slaves, a custom every where practised in former times, as to captives.
To lend some perspective here, let's first look at verse 16, "Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD." Remember back in Numbers 22:4-7 (see notes) that the Midianites and the Moabites conspired to contract the Midianite prophet Balaam to curse Israel; that plan failed. But Balaam subsequently devised a plan that they corrupt the morals of Israel instead. The Midianite episode in Numbers 25 (see notes) was orchestrated by Balaam. With all the adversity Israel had overcome, they were almost corrupted by the heathen Midianites and Moabites. And what was the weapon of their warfare against Israel back in Numbers 25? It was a troop of women who had been designated to entice Israel sexually for the purpose of introducing them to heathen gods, thus causing Israel to forsake the one true God. As a matter of fact, one of the women (Cozbi) was identified in Numbers 25:15 as being the daughter of one of the Midianite leaders. Make no mistake about it, the Midianites, along with the Moabites, had conspired, as a nation, to use their women to corrupt Israel's allegiance to the Lord, Jehovah. Balaam's evil plan was quite effective, but fell short due to the heroic deed of Phinehas (Numbers 25:6-8). Understand this, the Midianites and Moabites (including the women) were bent on Israel's destruction.
Maybe the resulting events of chapter 31 seem extreme. What about the events of 1945 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Innocent people died there as well at the hands of the USA. Was there another solution that would have brought to a close World War II? Then it seemed that there was not, and in retrospect today it seems that there was not. War is war. When God commissioned the events of Numbers 31, it's because there was no other way. And who knows better than God? Oh, and appropriately, Balaam was executed in this battle as well.

I would urge you, Marius, to get a Bible commentary, read the scriptures, and pay attention to at least a brief outline of the history in the testaments, and the times and cultures. I never deny scripture; I see it in its context. The real hypocrisy takes place with atheists who only see what they want to see. Their quote-mining is legendary. Most atheists tell me that, for example, God commands cruel and vicious acts to his people, and who could follow a God like that? Then they ay that Hebrew history (Old Testament) is fictional anyway. Further, they are asked about the incomparable grace and sacrifice of Jesus, but they say he is fictional as well. In other words, the Bible is fictional. BUT, the acts such as numbers 31 is awful … so why follow this fictional God who prescribed fictional deeds? You can't have it both ways. Either you have nothing to complain about here (it's all bogus and never existed and never happened) or you have to do what the "fictional" God already has done: declare the historical deeds of mankind (you and me included) as horrible and in need of some kind of fixing.

Next time, Marius, give us all an honest point of view of the evolutionary argument at hand, using science, and leave this topic for another thread elsewhere. Or just stay away. In the meantime, draw up a picture in which you describe what a singular, all-supreme god would have to be like - character, attributes, personality, knowledge, justice, kindness, mercy, love, etc etc. What kind of a god would you have if you could chose? Use your imagination. If you can do this honestly, as a thought exercise, compare your results with what the Bible says. You may be surprised.
Too many people try to present a God who is all love, but they forget the justice. They also forget that he is Creator, therefore he owns it all. And I did say "He has allowed freedom of the person but had previously warned of the consequences of immoral actions. A God who would see to it that no immorality or cruelty or suffering was done by man to man would be a God who created automatons, not free-thinking peoples."

Marius, you said: "We don't blame god, as that is an empty argument. We blame the mindless worshipper who commits horrors in the name of fantasy."

Would you like me to point you to the mindless worshipper who commits horrors in the name of atheism? While you're at it, please give me your definition of "Christian".



I'm pasting in here another parallel commentary, with similar problems and background, from Jason Kumar of ThinkingMatters.org:


One of the most difficult episodes to understand in the Old Testament is God’s command for Israel to kill the Canaanites. Paul Copan, a philosophy and ethics professor at Palm Beach Atlantic University, has made available an article, due out in the next issue of Philosophia Christi addressing this topic. The President of the Evangelical Philosophical Society (he also blogs at Parchment and Pen), Copan evaluates the passages in the context of archaeology and Ancient Near East literature and argues that the evidence suggests that the Canaanites who were killed were combatants rather than noncombatants (“Scenario 1”) and that, given the profound moral corruption of Canaan, this divinely-directed act was just.” Should this scenario be shown to be false, he also maintains that “even if it turns out that noncombatants were directly targeted (“Scenario 2”), the overarching Old Testament narrative is directed toward the salvation of all nations–including the Canaanites.”
The Canaanite campaign jars our moral sensibilities and jeopardizes our confidence in the Bible as a supernaturally inspired interpretation of history. Christians therefore have an obligation to try to understand this episode and Copan’s article, as a follow-up to his eariler essay on this issue (“Is Yahweh a Moral Monster? The New Atheists and Old Testament Ethics”), is very helpful in this regard.
I have tried to summarize the main points but if you’re interested in the topic, I strongly recommend that you read the whole thing.
Firstly, Copan argues that God’s judgment on the Canaanites was not only morally just but that evidence also indicates that the Israelite campaign was directed primarily at military combatants (Scenario 1):
1. The Canaanites were morally corrupt.
There was a profound moral corruption amongst the Canaanites that called out for God’s justice, in keeping with His salvation historical purposes. The divine judgment enacted upon the nation was consistent with God’s oracles against other nation states that had crossed moral thresholds. The Canaanite campaign is also, in a sense, anticipatory of the final judgment where justice will be firmly established on a cosmic scale. (Also see Clay Jones, “We Don’t Hate Sin So We Don’t Understand What Happened to the Canaanites: An Addendum to ‘Divine Genocide’ Arguments,” Philosophia Christi 11 (2009): 53–72.))
2. The Canaanites were morally culpable.
God has made available moral ideals and insights through general revelation to Gentile nations such that they are sufficiently accountable. Prophetic warnings as in Amos 1 -2 demonstrate that God can hold other nations responsible for stifling compassion, suppressing their consciences, and carrying out particularly heinous acts. The language used in the New Testament of the Gentile population also confirms this (“disobedient” (Heb. 11:31)–a term indicating a moral awareness of wrongdoing but a refusal to turn from it and also Paul’s affirmation of those outside the Sinai covenant who possess the capacity (through conscience) to distinguish right from wrong (Rom. 2:14–15))
3. The preservation of Rahab’s family demonstrated the possibility of amnesty.
Rahab’s embrace of Yahweh and discovery of salvation exhibited both the compassionate character of Yahweh and His to relent from judgment, whether Canaanite, Ninevite (Jon. 4:2) or those from any “nation” that “turns from its evil” (Jer. 18:7–8). It is Yahweh’s desire that the wicked turn rather than die (Ezek. 18:31–32; 33:11) but once a nation surpasses a point of no moral and spiritual return, God will intervene (as He did even upon Israel and Judah (2 Chron. 36:16; cp. 2 Kings 18:11–12; 1 Chron. 5:23) ).
4. The Canaanite campaign was not motivated by racial hatred or ethnic superiority.
Yahweh repeatedly commands Israel to show concern for strangers and aliens in their midst (for example, Lev. 19:34; Deut. 10:18–19) and throughout the Old Testament this theme is evident in the way enemies of Israel are shown as eventual objects of His salvation and are consequently incorporated into the people of God (Ps 87). Yahweh’s concern for the nations and His continual reminder that the taking of the land is not due to Israel’s intrinsic superiority (“indeed, the Israelites are “a stubborn people” (Deut. 9:4–6)”) hardly supports a Gentile-hating, arrogant ethnocentrism.
5. The religious dimension of Israel’s campaign cannot be equated with the sanctioning of human sacrifice.
The OT passages that treat Israel’s motivation for the campaign highlight punishment against idolaters (especially those who have lead Israel astray or committed injustice against her), the total destruction of warriors and the consecration to God of everything that was captured. Further, the OT strongly condemns child sacrifice as the epitome of anti-Yahwist and anti-social behavior. Even to take certain (dubious) readings as demonstrating the act of sacrifice is to forget that not all behavioral examples included in Scripture are good ones (cp. 1 Cor. 10:1–12) and in fact the theology of Judges emphasizes the nadir of Israelite morality and religion.

6. The rhetorical devices common to Ancient Near East (ANE) literature must be taken into account when understanding the passages that talk of total obliteration.
The phrase “all that breathes” is a standard ANE expression of military bravado and refers to total victory and the crushing defeat over one’s enemies. The accounts made clear that many inhabitants remained in the land and prescriptions against alliances and intermarriage with them actually assumed this.
7. Following OT scholar Richard Hess, it can be argued that the Canaanites targeted for destruction were the political leaders and their armies rather than noncombatants. The language employed appears to be stereotypical for describing all the inhabitants of a town or region, without forcing the reader to conclude anything further about their ages or even their genders.

8. Both the language and archaeological evidence point to Jericho, Ai, and the other targeted cities in Canaan as military forts, lacking civilian populations. The actual battles in Joshua do not mention noncombatants and excavated physical evidence show that, for example, Jericho was a military settlement and therefore all those killed were warriors.
9. The methods of Israel’s warfare demonstrate restraint and lack the bloodthirsty fervor of similar ANE annals.
Many battles were defensive and in response to calculated assaults and attempts to lead Israel into immorality. God often prohibited Israel from conquering other neighbouring nations.
10. The Canaanite campaign did not set down a pattern or legitimize similar action for later Israel or even professing Christians.
The killing of the Canaanites was deliberately limited in scope and restricted to a specific period of time. Neither Deuteronomy nor Joshua imply the campaign as precedent-setting and successive OT leaders did not take it as such. We see do not see Saul, David or the other leaders of Israel and Judah undertaking similar action against Assyria, Babylon, Persia, or the local equivalents of the Canaanites in the Second Temple period. Christians that have sought to justify their military campaigns with the killing of the Canaanites ignore Jesus clear own kingdom teaching (Matt 26:52; John 18:36).
However, even if the evidence was overturned and it could be shown that women and children were explicit targets of the campaign (Scenairo 2):
1. For the Israelites, the killing of the Canaanites would have been a grim task but in the ANE, warfare was a way of life and a means of survival.
Combatant and noncombatant would not have been easily distinguished and in combination with the hardness of human hearts (Matt. 19:8) and human moral bluntedness in the ANE, would have likely rendered such actions considerably less psychologically damaging for the Israelite soldier.
2. The Canaanite campaign must be set within the context of God’s overarching goal to bring blessing and salvation to all the nations, including the Canaanites, through Abraham (Gen. 12:3; 22:17–18; cp. 28:13–14). The killing of the Canaanites is not the norm but a troubling exception, apart of a background of Yahweh’s enemy-loving character and worldwide salvific purposes. While simultaneously punishing a morally wicked people and seeking to establish Israel in the land, God was certainly willing to preserve any who acknowledged his evident lordship over the nations, which was very well known to the Canaanites (Josh. 2:8–11; 9:9–11, 24; cf. Exod. 15:14–17; Deut. 2:25).
3. We should expect God’s purposes to be often unclear and even baffling, but not let this eclipse the overwhelming revelation of God’s trustworthy character.
We cannot measure God by our own defective standards, afterall, humanity is incapable of refereeing God’s actions. Apart from God, we have no transcultural standpoint to assess the moral fitness of a culture, least of all, judge God Himself and His purposes in judgment. We must remember both His “kindness and severity” (Rom. 11:22) and realize God’s unique cosmic authority will seek to correct our profoundly selfish human ways, even in civil contexts. Given the inadequacy of our “cognitive position”, and the recognition that even in human relationships there must be room for trust, the full picture of God’s purposes may not always be available to us.

[hereisjoe]

" Joes biggest complaint about Evolution is that the theory is "revisionist", it revises as new evidence comes to the fore."

Actually, Tom, my complaint is bigger than that: it is that evolution has no scientific proof to support it. Example (and I tire of asking this): give me a direct answer for 1. origins of the species 2. incontrovertible evidence of trans-species change (would probably have to be fossils) and 3. undeniable example of observed species cross-over in biology. All of these would move the theory into the realm of fact. It's a fair request.

If you followed my posting above, in which I reviewed the 25 earlier posts, you would notice some science involved, which I believe to be sufficient evidence.

" He is trying to accuse me of the same logical fallicies he happily defends in his own argument. Gosh! How daring!"

No, Tom, pointing to real science is not fallacy. However, please point out, clearly, the fallacies I committed (and why they are fallacies).

" Science operates under certain principles of investigation. Your sources are "bad" science, because they don't follow such principles. AIG admits openly it is biased, and in Skeptoid you treated that as a good thing. It isn't."

Yes, AIG admits to bias, but the blunt honesty of one writer there, Jason Lisle, at least recognizes this problem. He says that we need to see our bias and look beyond this to present a cogent and logical argument. I don't know of evolutionists who are honest enough to say this, but there are some out there (ie, the writers in my attached list of reading materials). Perhaps we can't resist trying to fit data into our theories, Tom, but all sides do this. The thing to remember is to always look at the facts as they exist, then to compare with the theory as presented and what it would entail. I do not see this happening in evolutionary theory anywhere, and believe me, I look very closely at it all. One other thing: I can't for the life of me see why AIG doesn't present real science. Give me an example…

" You claimed God created science so creationists get to say what good science is. You don't. If you understood the principles of science you would understand a theory is built upon evidence observed, you don't choose to observe the evidence that fits the theory as AIG does."

But this is the very problem which Jason Lisle points out. I have seen innumerable examples of evolutionist writers doing just this. There is often guilt on both sides, Tom.

"… either evolution is rigid because of the preheld conceptions, or it is mutable and "revitionist"

I think you meant 'revisionist" here… There's nothing wrong with revising a theory in light of new facts. The problem is that every time some facts come along that dispell a facet of your theory, the revision tries to override it all. That's what happened with the ridiculous 'punctuated equilibrium' junk, or the 'Big Bang' idea(s). the more that science reveals to us, the more it supports the creation model. Creationists don't ever revise their 'theory', Tom, it has always been the same: God created everything, as genesis says. We just observe what comes to light in the world of the sciences, like you claim to do, and we apply it all.

" Ah, but "understanding" and "happening to believe in" are too different things. I would postulate that myself and other posters have understood the concept. That doesn't change the facts that a) "Evolutionists" is still a wrothless term."

You meant 'worthless'? I'm not sure if there's a distinction between belief and understanding, because I believe BECAUSE I understand. If 'evolutionists' is a poor term, so is 'creationist'. But don't we use these terms in context of the theories and beliefs we follow - it identifies. You didn't 'evolve' anything any more than I 'created' anything…

"… b) There is still no evidence of an almighty creator."

How about Paul's statement in Romans 1:18-23, especially v. 20. but I suppose it's unfair to use the Bible to validate God's existence. What creationism wants to do is point to all the aspects of science, in total honesty, as far as we can see it and the facts revealed to everyone, and demonstrate how it all supports, for example, a young world and the presence of created things. It is primarily why we go to all the areas of the sciences, not just biology. The best way to approach it, Tom, is to look at both world views side by side and see which way the known evidences seem to point. Draw a chart with 'evolution' on one side, 'creation' on the other side, and fill in the best answers to the big questions.

"… c) Creationism in general strays away from the "concept" in the scientific use of the term."

In what way? Sure, the special act of creation itself cannot be scientifically explained, but so what? No creationist ever said it could. But any alternate explanation of Beginnings cannot be scientifically explained either. Whether 'created' or 'came about some other (unknown) way', it is still the same science we look at. Creationists don't look at 'different science' or use 'false' principles in interpreting it, Tom. Sometimes, evolutionists don't either. So why the big split?

" Ever tried to define what God is, where God is, or how God is able to interact with the physical universe if he is beyond the emperical realm. No. You just say "Because he is god."

Not exactly. You misinterpret the concept of God, or deity. If God, for example, gave incontrovertible physical evidence of himself (what would it be, Tom?), would you believe it just the same? Probably not. Humans are doubters to a fault - I know, I was that way.

"…sorry folks, but if Creationism is a science then it has to define itself in terms of science."

You're looking in the wrong place. What we mean by 'creationism as a science' is not the special act of creation itself, but the results, the world we live in and deal with. I've given analogies for this before. An aboriginal tribesman spotting a plane overhead has no idea whatsoever of the origin or logic of the plane, but he has to deal with it's reality. Poor analogy, I admit (WE can explain the plane's origin), but this enters into a non-physical realm when it concern's God's existence. Keep in mind, Tom, a misunderstanding OR rejection of the reason for something's origin does not do away with it. Lack of proof is not proof of lack.

"… you need to prove there is a god to have done them, and the first step is to define what he she or it is."

You need to accept the possibility that the world around us contains things which are not observed by the physical senses. How do you prove 'thought' or 'ambition' or 'love' or 'force'? Perhaps 'gravity' isn't a provable force but we know what it does. Or do we? Is it perhaps invisible gnomes playing with us? I am just trying to illustrate a point here - gnomes don't exist, forces do.

" We blame them (awful acts etc) on men who believe in God. We don't blame somebody who doesn't exist, that just isn't fair. How ever you can't pretend that such acts have NOT been done in the name of God…"

I agree. This problem or controversy has plagued people throughout history. I think the story of Job illustrates it somewhat. Men and women throughout history committed atrocities in the name of a god or God. But being perfect, God does not condone this and strictly warns against disobedience. Please read my reply to Marius on this topic. If, as you think, God doesn't exist, the atrocities still do. There's no denying that people who claim to follow a god may be vicious and very wrong. None of this makes God a monster (else he couldn't be God if his justice itself is flawed). Can't you see this predicament? On the other hand, if God does exist, his attributes are perfect, all of them. That includes his omnipotence, which means he is Creator too, which means he owns all of us, and he has the right to dispense with us as he deems fit. This would have to be in a most fair, truthful, justifiable, and efficient manner etc. you aren't the first or only person to see this dilemma, Tom.

Personally, my favourite writer who explained the necessity of understanding both the existence of a Creator and the logic of causes-and-effects and so forth was C.S. Lewis. I highly recommend his book, "Mere Christianity", if you have never so far read it. The interesting thing is that Lewis was once a confirmed atheist and doubter in humanity. But his brilliant intellect wouldn't leave him alone with that stand. I found him to be at the same time both humble and profound. His reasoning is very blunt and very honest.

"… how about the bit where God kills the first born children of Egypt- that's innocent kids who had nothing to do with their ruler.."

In spite of many warnings, Pharaoh kept going back on his word. Even when the Hebrews left in exodus, this pharaoh pursued them, after having seen the power of Moses' God, and the forewarned consequences on his peoples. He wasn't concerned with the suffering and unfairness he levied on the Hebrews, so I find it impossible to pity him or his tribes. And as for 'innocent children", who said so? You were there, you witnessed their innocence? They would have easily been spared everything if pigheaded pharaoh relented and acted justly. Further, in the absence of God, where is the moral direction from? I see what the atheistic (godless) regimes have done and are still doing against 'innocent' peoples everywhere. Russia, China, Myanmar, Burma, Cuba, etc etc. my vote is definitely on God's side and in his justice.

"… if there is the Divine creator and we all part of a grand scheme, then he is responsible for natural disasters…"

Yes,, he is. But you are forgetting that this divine creator owns it all and he forewarned that if people disobeyed him, there would be dire consequences. Tom, God clearly stated that the penalty for disobedience was death. Adam sinned, and was banned from a paradise. Think about it, a perfectly balanced world (an Eden) and he had free will to do what he wanted but he and she screwed it up. But no immediate death for them: God just cursed the perfect world and gave them some cause for regret and tears, and an opportunity for redemption. Pretty gracious if you ask me. This same principle applies for everyone since.
If God, as omnipotent Creator, was to step in to prevent natural disasters, he would also have to step in to prevent disease, murder, corruption, and sin itself. And we would all be…? Automatons, that's what, incapable of our own decisions if those decisions were wrongful or immoral etc. we can perhaps create robots that are always obedient and good, but are they like us? It is why God said that man was created "in his image and likeness" - free thinking, moralistic, discerning of right from wrong, and allowed to make the choices. Always, mankind makes the choices, Tom.


Something to consider:

"While simultaneously punishing a morally wicked people and seeking to establish Israel in the land, God was certainly willing to preserve any who acknowledged his evident lordship over the nations, which was very well known to the Canaanites (Josh. 2:8–11; 9:9–11, 24; cf. Exod. 15:14–17; Deut. 2:25)."

"… We must remember both His “kindness and severity” (Rom. 11:22) and realize God’s unique cosmic authority will seek to correct our profoundly selfish human ways, even in civil contexts. Given the inadequacy of our “cognitive position”, and the recognition that even in human relationships there must be room for trust…" etc etc

[Craig4]

Joe, do you or do you not intend to provide evidence that the speed of light has ever not been constant? We're looking for you to show your work here too.

Your biblical quotes mean nothing until we see proof that a god exists and that this god entity had some hand in the authorship of the Bible.

You have done nothing to refute the whales with ankles found in Egypt and the Indus river valley that I've mentioned both here and in the Skeptoid forum. You've said that those are just whale bones. You are incorrect. The fossil record from both Egypt and Pakistan show a clear evolution over time is response to selective pressures. You just don't like that the fossils demonstrate this. This is of no importance. Now provide evidence please.

[Dinwar]

More generally, Joe has yet to offer any serious criticism of any counter-argument that does not rest on prior acceptance the argument he's trying to demonstrate (that the world is young, that the Flood caused all of geology, etc). The argument is circular; as soon as you step outside of the Biblical literalism it falls apart. It demonstrably does so--that's basically the history of geology and evolutionary theory in brief.

[Tomtomkent]

Joe, you ARE a hypocrit. You make complaints about "evolutionist" science that you claim disprove it, while ignoring vast (and almost identical) holes in the Creationist view.

Example One: Claiming the Big Bang is "something from nothing" and there fore invalid, while also claiming God can create "something from nothing" because it is a miracle. Either something can come from nothing, or it can't. for something to be okay for god, wrong for the universe makes you a hypocrit.

Example Two: You claim to work from empirical evidence supported by science and fact. Yet you also claim that God requires no evidence to be proven. If you claim to work from fact and evidence then make the statement you require none, that makes you a hypocrit.

Example three: You claim to understand (better than scientists who do label themselves as "creationist") the principles and frameworks of science. You then fail to show any understanding of the null hypothisis, and claim your theory "can not change" because of the bible, that only two possibilities can possibly be right, the objective viewpoint free of personal belief, the principles of evidence lead knowledge, and in general, how science works. If you claim to understand, and base your knowledge upon science, then choose to ignore it, you are a hypocrit.

Example four: Claiming not to ignore evidence, while clearly refusing to read several links posted, and only promising to read the most basic evidence if I agreed to a pointless condition. Surprisingly myself and other posters do read the creationist texts before arguing against them, hence making specific arguments. If you claim to do something, then double back and try to bargain around doing it, you have been a hypocrite.

Worse is the fact you are trying to drag science down to the level of your personal belief to scrap it out:
Too much of your argument against the science is based on your perception of the beliefs of those carrying the science out. You make dispariging comments about Dawkins, for example, that prove you can not seperate his wider beliefs from any given work, rather than reviewing that work on the individual merits. You are determined to paint evolution as an athiest philosophy despite millions of folks world wide believing in both concepts with out conflict. You insist on imposing an agenda and a motive on those who disagree with you. In your world Paeleontologists do not call fossils "transitional" because they have studied evidence you were not privvy to and come to a different conclusion because they are some how mistaken. No, they "arbitarily" make the claim and you insist nobody has explained how or why, despite numerous posts pointing you to online media that, erm, explained how and why at varying levels of depth. Then again, we have another case of hypocrism right there don't we? Claiming that fossils are "arbitarily" called transitional and using that as a reason to void the fossil record as evidence, yet you have no issues being arbitary yourself, calling opinions evidence or fact of what is too comples to have evolved (as the most jarring example).

But you know what, you once called the AIG page about "statements evolutionists should not make" as unassailable. Despite such stupidity as "take a single celled organism and turn it into a donkey.. I'll wait" statement. So you know what Joe, if that is an unassailable argument let's kill your theory here and now and we can both be wrong...

Take nothing, and get your god to magic a donkey out of thin air. I'll wait. (Seems pretty unassailable to me, and hey, if you make it work you can claim the million from JREF.)

[Tomtomkent]

Actually, Tom, my complaint is bigger than that: it is that evolution has no scientific proof to support it. Example (and I tire of asking this): give me a direct answer for 1. origins of the species 2. incontrovertible evidence of trans-species change (would probably have to be fossils) and 3. undeniable example of observed species cross-over in biology. All of these would move the theory into the realm of fact. It's a fair request.

1) Nope, as that is not covered by Evolution. Mind you, if you want the evidence look up "Life: A short biography" by Fortey. It's all in there.
2) Already done, pleanty of links to evidence of transitional fossils, explanations and evaluations over on the Skeptoid thread.
3) See "2)".

[Tomtomkent]

"In spite of many warnings, Pharaoh kept going back on his word. Even when the Hebrews left in exodus, this pharaoh pursued them, after having seen the power of Moses' God, and the forewarned consequences on his peoples."

Yes, but Pharaoh pursued Moses AFTER God had killed INNOCENT CHILDREN. Justify it any way you like, but God KILLED KIDS who were not the ones keeping the slaves. God created Genocide, so that stuff you said was not in the bible...is. Ho hum.

[Tomtomkent]

"[...]"… b) There is still no evidence of an almighty creator."

How about Paul's statement in Romans 1:18-23, especially v. 20. but I suppose it's unfair to use the Bible to validate God's existence."

Not unfair, just pointless as a story about God is not evidence of God. It might shock you Joe, but there are even older books than the bible. And some of them may not even be true! Dum dum DUM! I can say "Hey look, a Womble!" at the top of my voice, and somebody may write it down. But that doesn't make it EVIDENCE. If having a few million people believe something is enough to make it true then frankly, you and Scientologists can't both be right.

How about trying again with real evidence? something tangible. That can count as "proof" of more than the fact there is an old book some people like?

[Tomtomkent]

"[...]" Ever tried to define what God is, where God is, or how God is able to interact with the physical universe if he is beyond the emperical realm. No. You just say "Because he is god."

Not exactly. You misinterpret the concept of God, or deity. If God, for example, gave incontrovertible physical evidence of himself (what would it be, Tom?), would you believe it just the same? Probably not. Humans are doubters to a fault - I know, I was that way. "
Amazingly enough Joe, yes, if there was physical evidence, that was indeed emperical and incontrovertible we could start to evaluate it and (if it were actual evidence) believe in it. Why on earth do you think I have been having this conversation for months and asking you to supply evidence all the time? Why do you think I have pointed out exactly you other posts have NOT been proof? If, as unlikely as it seems, you could achieve a proof of concept here it would be given EXACTLY the same objective scrutiny as any other theory in science. It is why I keep harping on about process, peer review and objectivity.

How ever this claim I don't understand what God is needs a little addressing; if we were talking philosophy I would not be using the same language. If you were comparing, for example, interpretations of the divine host, I would not be asking for evidence. But you are comparing it to science, so we are obliged to use the decorum of science. Stage one is you define your terms. Newton didn't just assume what people meant by "gravity" he described a force pulling mass towards the ground, before explaining why it was there. That is called forming a model. If yout talk about origins of the universe (and don't take this term personally) it is a "model of creation", for dawn of life "model of biogenesis", and so forth. We use models to describe how one thing reacts with another thing. But you have to define your components before you can discern how they react. And you ask the question what evidence would convince me of there being a god? Well, that is exactly why we need to define the term for our model.

Step One: Define the known properties a god would need if he existed. (Let's assume he created the universe from "nothing", that leaves us two major possibilities, either he has a source of singularities handy, or he has a lot of energy. Let's assume he exists outside of our universe, so we have to look for something that works in the quantum physicals model of multiple universes. Assuming your bible is correct he has a method of communicating directly with sentient humans... and so forth. You get the idea.) Once we have this general idea of the what, we can talk about the how: How he talks to people, how he existed before there was a universe, how he created a universe, and so forth. Then we can look for physical evidence that fits the model.

If that sounds big, then remember it is no more vast a task than science has faced before. The Big Bang radiation, for example, was only theory thirty years ago. antimatter a few decades ago. Hawkings radiation too. Black Holes were generally considered an impossibility in living memory, and yet now there is definate energy of what they are, how they form, and we can observe their effects on the universe. And there is real science that offers a precednet for how to explain a deity. It is the norm these days to consider Arthur C Clarke only as an author of sci-fi, but the guy was a genuine scientist who invented geo-stationary satalites and gave the world Clarkes Law: "Any technology significantly more advanced than the observer will resemble magic". Or, to put it another way, anything several leaps ahead of our frame of reference requires a default explanation. In the case the bible was true the worshippers of God would have seen something far beyond their frame of reference and decided an entity was a deity. Which he could well be, but where as some took that answer as the absolute limit, I see it as the start. If I see something cool I want to know how it works. It's why I'm a HV technician. 33,000KV of electricity is VERY cool, and I love knowing how and why it works. I'm not trying to step on your toes but if you say "God did it", that is a Who, not a How and a Why. If something is a miracle, then that is not an answer. There is a process happening, and it can and will be explained. If the human mind can comprehend super strings it can comprehend a god. If God is real we can work out what he is, and work out how to start looking for him. I know it is taboo for many Creationists, who for reasons of faith take the answer as a simple "It was a miracle", but I don't. That to me is a warning that somebody does not want me to go looking for the full answer, and putting aside the moral arguments for a second, the practicle one is a shame. Some folks don't want to go making the first steps for actual proof because they are worried there is no evidence. A shame, but also the cost of talking science. There is no shame in being the guy who thought the Ether was real however. There is more dignity in making the model and finding that light does not need a medium to travel in space through proper tests, than to just tell folks "we assume it is right because we choose to believe".

[hereisjoe]

I offer you these Resources, because you are always asking for scientific proofs for my position, and constantly reject the smaller tidbits I offered so far. If you read even one of these thoroughly, you will be enlightened.

"Time's Arrow and Evolution" by Harold F. Blum (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1968).
"Homology, an Unsolved Problem" by Sir Gavin R. DeBeer (London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1971)
"Unknown Earth: A Handbook of Geological Enigmas" by William R. Corliss (Glen Arm, MD: Sourcebook Project, 1980).
"Bone Peddlars" by William R. Fix (NY: Macmillan, 1984).
"Evolution: A Theory In Crisis" by Michael Denton (London: Burnett Books, 1985).
"Evolution of Living Organisms" by Pierre P. Grasse (New York: Academic Press, 1977).
"Monkey Puzzle" by John Gribbin and Jeremy Chertas (New York: Pantheon Books, 1982).
"Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution" by Gertrude Himmelfarb (London: Chatto and Windus, 1959).
"Neck of the Giraffe" by Francis Hitching (New York: Tichnor and Fields. 1982).
"Intelligent Universe" by Sir Fred (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984).
"Evolution in Space by Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1982).
"Nature of the Stratigraphical Record" by Derek Agar (New York: John Wiley, 1981).
"Implications of Evolution" by G.A. Kerkut (London: Pergamon Press, 1860).
"Darwin Retried" by Norman Macbeth (Boston: Gambit, Inc., 1971).
"Introduction to 'Origin of Species'" by L. Harrison Matthews (London: J.M. Dent 8 Sons, Ltd., 1971).
"Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution" by P.S. Moorhead and M.M. Kaplan (Eds.) (Philadelphia: Wistar Institute Press, 1967).
"Systematics and Biogeography" by Gareth Nelson and Norman Platnick (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1981).
"Entropy: A New World View" by Jeremy Rifkin (New York: Viking Press, 1980).
"Great Evolution Mystery" by Gordon Rattray Taylor (London: Sacker and Warburg, 1983).
"Biology, Zoology and Genetics" by Adell Thompson (Washington: Univ. Press of America, 1983).
"Earth in Upheaval" by Immanuel Velikovsky (New York: Deu, 1955).
"Supermature" by Lyall Watson (London: Hodder and Stoughton, (1973).

[hereisjoe]

Joe, do you or do you not intend to provide evidence that the speed of light has ever not been constant? We're looking for you to show your work here too.

Barry Setterfield's and Co. work. 16 separate examples.

Your biblical quotes mean nothing until we see proof that a god exists and that this god entity had some hand in the authorship of the Bible.

You have done nothing to refute the whales with ankles found in Egypt and the Indus river valley that I've mentioned both here and in the Skeptoid forum. You've said that those are just whale bones. You are incorrect. The fossil record from both Egypt and Pakistan show a clear evolution over time is response to selective pressures. You just don't like that the fossils demonstrate this. This is of no importance. Now provide evidence please.

They'er still just more fossils. YOU argue by BeggingTheQuestion, assuming that these whale 'ankles' are connected to other ankle-less whales. Proof of connection and descent, or shut up, please.

[hereisjoe]

More generally, Joe has yet to offer any serious criticism of any counter-argument that does not rest on prior acceptance the argument he's trying to demonstrate (that the world is young, that the Flood caused all of geology, etc). The argument is circular; as soon as you step outside of the Biblical literalism it falls apart. It demonstrably does so--that's basically the history of geology and evolutionary theory in brief.

My counter-arguments rest on science, Gregory, which yours do not. My criticism rests only on science as well. Or is your science a very special blend that no-one else can cope with? Your world view has totally blinded you. Sad to see someone as far into denial as you are. Go the list of books I posted to see how your professional compatriots deny your neo-Darwinian illusions.

If you want to call me a liar, ignoramus, and hypocrite, beware what the penalty is for doing that here.

[hereisjoe]

[QUOTE=Tomtomkent;6640105]Joe, you ARE a hypocrit. You make complaints about "evolutionist" science that you claim disprove it, while ignoring vast (and almost identical) holes in the Creationist view.

Example One: Example Two:Example three: etc etc blah blah ...

It is obvious to me now, Tom, that you are either incapable of conceiving the notion of a God, or you are unwilling. It doesn't matter.

[hereisjoe]

Actually, Tom, my complaint is bigger than that: it is that evolution has no scientific proof to support it. Example (and I tire of asking this): give me a direct answer for 1. origins of the species 2. incontrovertible evidence of trans-species change (would probably have to be fossils) and 3. undeniable example of observed species cross-over in biology. All of these would move the theory into the realm of fact. It's a fair request.

1) Nope, as that is not covered by Evolution. Mind you, if you want the evidence look up "Life: A short biography" by Fortey. It's all in there.
2) Already done, pleanty of links to evidence of transitional fossils, explanations and evaluations over on the Skeptoid thread.
3) See "2)".

You see, Tom, you refuse to recognize the true argument here. Creationism argues for a young earth based solely on scientific evidence. Set our biases aside for once. I was the one who always tried to draw the arguments back to science and away from theology, over at Skeptoid. But you evolutionists tried all the time to bring back God into it all the time, trying to bait me with my alleged 'bias'. This was especially true with you and Marius, who demonstrated so fat that he is unwilling/incapable of arguing science at all.
So, Tom, who's the hypocrite now? The man who refuses to accept a stated world view and compare the evidence for/against it,, or the creationist (me) who stated over and over and over the science that shows a young world, impossible evolutionary biology and the works?

Careful who you call a hypocrite, Tom. You DO know what Ad Hominem is, right?

[hereisjoe]

"In spite of many warnings, Pharaoh kept going back on his word. Even when the Hebrews left in exodus, this pharaoh pursued them, after having seen the power of Moses' God, and the forewarned consequences on his peoples."

Yes, but Pharaoh pursued Moses AFTER God had killed INNOCENT CHILDREN. Justify it any way you like, but God KILLED KIDS who were not the ones keeping the slaves. God created Genocide, so that stuff you said was not in the bible...is. Ho hum.

God created EVERYTHING. God owns everything.
Tom, you still didn't state what sort of theoretical god you would accept. And if you won't accept ANY God, what do you have in place? Your responses are cherry-picking (and close to hypocrisy) here.

Please study history some more before you condemn practices of national security by Islraelis or others. I don't like the things the Hebrews did in Numbers 31 any more than you do, believe me (I'm a pacifist). I look at our soldiers as heroes in a tight predicament during warfare that involves civilian casualties. I urge you to look into honorable warfare (there's such a thing) and into the actual definition of 'innocence' in the eyes of God. First, define what God should be like. Then ask the question: what can be expected from an all-mighty, all-omnipotent, all-wise, all-just, all-loving God? The Bible already did. Your ideal of a world 'free' of all religions and strife re dedication to any kind of god is not reality, Tom. Get with it. Godless regimes don't even offer reasons for 'genocide', and the true God requires an accounting from mankind.

[Tomtomkent]

Joe, your arguments arent based on science, and dont follow the scientific method. if you truly believe my statements are ad hominim attack then prove me wrong. Define how god created the universe six thousand years ago. Explain how you intend to prove there is a god and that he created life on earth. Then set about proving that life has not evolved. Unless you actually do that, and offer the resulting paper for peer review, you don't get to pretend you are the one basing your argument on "science", because you aren't. You are basing it on a belief in god.

If you want to prove you aren't the hypocrite prove your conflicting statements weren't hypocritical. Or just keep blowing smoke with out substance. You have been offered every oppertunity to follow a line of reasoning resembling real science rather than the "my opinion is fact" kind most creationist sites favour, and you keep failing to do so. Produce a viable model or admit you can't.

[Tomtomkent]

Oh and it's nice to know that children can be killed by god as long as they are the first born children of a different country. I mean that doesn't sound at all morally dubious. Strangely I was not questioning the national security of any state. I was discussing the vengeful murder of children who had seemingly done nothing wrong other than be the sons of evil people. I don't care if God "owned" them. I am seriously worried that Joe feels the need to defend an act of genocide. Just saying. This is not an act of war that involves civillian casualties, this is an attack that targets children. After the "enemy" sued for peace.

So yes, there is indeed moraly dubious material in the bible and joes denial does not convince.

[hereisjoe]

"[...]"… b) There is still no evidence of an almighty creator."

How about Paul's statement in Romans 1:18-23, especially v. 20. but I suppose it's unfair to use the Bible to validate God's existence."

Not unfair, just pointless as a story about God is not evidence of God. It might shock you Joe, but there are even older books than the bible. And some of them may not even be true! Dum dum DUM! I can say "Hey look, a Womble!" at the top of my voice, and somebody may write it down. But that doesn't make it EVIDENCE. If having a few million people believe something is enough to make it true then frankly, you and Scientologists can't both be right.

How about trying again with real evidence? something tangible. That can count as "proof" of more than the fact there is an old book some people like?

Once again, you are failing to separate God from nature, which he created. If your senses do not detect God, so be it. But your intellect is capable of doing that. God didn't say, "See me with your eyes, hear me with your ears, feels me with your touch, taste me with your tongue...". He said "Thy shalt worship me with thy whole heaart...thy whole mind." Mind, Tom. You have one. Cognition that can't be empiracally proved but we know is real.

To say I am a hypocrite because I claim a special creation by God, yet I hold myself and others to the same scientific principles is not al all a controversy. You must separate special creation from science, Tom, because they ARE separate. Because you claim a different world view which involves only empiracle science, you think OUR world view must submit to THAT one? Now, THAT approaches real hypocrisy. Yes, Tom, to expect a creationist to prove a special beginning, by observable science, is hypocrisy itself. It reeks of "My way or no way". Creationism, however, simply says, look at the world we see, and determing what the observable facts show: a young universe or an ancient, inexplainable one. I have as much moral right to say that I believe there is a specialo Beginning, as you have tom say there is an (as yet) an inexplainable beginning, and that nom God has any hand it it all. My 'bias' doesns't blind me to science, and I can accept God; your 'bias' blinds you to God and you plead ONLY your science.

[hereisjoe]

[QUOTE=Tomtomkent;6641034]Joe, your arguments arent based on science, and dont follow the scientific method. if you truly believe my statements are ad hominim attack then prove me wrong.

Above, you stated: "Joe, you ARE a hypocrit." That's Ad Hominem, Tom; case closed. No more of it, please.

Tom, the issue isn't whether I'm a hypocrite (in your eyes) or whether you are "a real piece of work etc". It's the science behind eithor of these theories. I do apologize for whatever sounded like name-calling, Tom. Lets' get back on track, OK?

If evolution requires billions of years, then a demonstration that such time is impossible would disarm the theory, agreed? Even Darwin acknowledged this. When I followed all those suggested links over at Skeptoid, I could not find any reason (logic etc) to accept that the suggested specimens of fossils are 'bone fide' transitional fossils. All fossils give the appearance of being complete species. Specialists more knowledgeable than me on this topic have affirmed this many times. I did not defame Richard Dawkins in any way; I held him accountable for erroneous statements he made re science, and his vitriol against my God. I can take a criticism of God's existence, in true query style, Tom, but I will not stand a defamation of his character or my association with him. But I want to leave God out of this, if we can, and concentrate on science. We can take up a theological discussion on another thread if you wish.

So... read at least one of the books I posted here (above) regarding the rebuke of neo-Darwinism. It might also help if you re-state briefly, for my benefit, just what you think is 'evolution' and why it matters, once again. Thank you. (Pardon my typos).

[hereisjoe]

Oh and it's nice to know that children can be killed by god as long as they are the first born children of a different country. I mean that doesn't sound at all morally dubious. Strangely I was not questioning the national security of any state. I was discussing the vengeful murder of children who had seemingly done nothing wrong other than be the sons of evil people. I don't care if God "owned" them. I am seriously worried that Joe feels the need to defend an act of genocide. Just saying. This is not an act of war that involves civillian casualties, this is an attack that targets children. After the "enemy" sued for peace.

So yes, there is indeed moraly dubious material in the bible and joes denial does not convince.

I agree with you, Tom. But, believe me, I do not defend genocide in any way. I already stated elsewhere here that I don't like what the Israelites did to the Midianites. I wept when I watched the Atom Agoyan film on Armenia. Did you read what I posted concerning the treatment of the Canaanites? Tom, we have to separate man's free will to commit atrocities from God's aim for righteousness. It's certainly a dilemma. If God is who the Bible says he is and who I believe him to be (absolute perfectness in every sense) then we Christians have to accept his promises and his dispositions. The "moraly dubious material in the bible" is in our perception, not in God's. This topic really should be taken to another forum, don't you think?

[Tomtomkent]

So you aren't able to put forward a convincing model for what a god is, and how we would goabout proving he exists? As until you do Joe you can claim you are compaing the "evidence" for the two scenarios you recognise (but again, binary logic is a bad habit Joe, stop assuming one or other has to be right) but Creationism is an argument flawed by a lack of creator.

And also, stop this silly idea that if you proved a young universe Evolution is automatically wrong. That is just silly. If the timescale of the evidence is wrong we revise the theory to fit new evidence. It does not undo the tangible evidence for evolution. The fossil record does not dissapear ina puff of smoke, nor does other evidence.

However, having said that, it remains unlikely you can prove a young universe while we can observe stars more than six thousand light years away, detect Big Bang Radiation, prove isotropic dating and the half life ofnuclear materials, have evidence the moon was formed by a portion of the earth several billion years ago, observe that the planets in our solar system are formed from the debris of an exploded star, observe thatsix thousand years is not enough time for plant matter to have turned into fossils jet or coal, observe that other cultures have history and structures predating the six thousand year limit you set, we can observe the effects of glaciation and volcanic cycles in scotland predation the six thousand year limit and much more evidence than can easiky be ignored. Unless Creationism (or ratheryour biblical literal brand of it) considers revising itself to fit the evidence that is here, rather than the evidence you suppose is in a book of dubious providence, it remains unlikely.

Joe,if you want to claim that your theory is basedon science and evidence itis time to turn itfrom a story into a theory. Describe a model of what a divine being is and how it creates a universe. Give yourself some paremeters for evidence that do not rely on "If you are wrong I must be right." Proof the universe popped into being on an arbitary date is not proof evolution is wrong, it is not proof god did it.

[Marius vanderLubbe]

Marius,
I'm replying to you here simply because you accuse me of being a hypocrite. This is a serious charge. It's not appropriate here, as it amounts to a typical Ad Hominem accusation, where you blame the arguer and not the argument. What God's character has to do with the truth/falsehood of evolutionary theory and the argument at hand, I don't know. But it seems that you love to pick Bible verses out of context in your desperate attempt to discredit somebody. You accused creationists in the past of "quote mining" but now you do it in spades.

Yes, Joe, you are a hypocrite. Sure, its an ad homme. An entirely accurate ad homme. Don't go all sensitive on me, Joe. You are quite fond of them yourself. So that point is refuted utterly. Forget about using it again. It only re-enforces your hypocrisy.
You are also quite fond of prostituting science to fit your YEC beliefs. This is denying your faith, Joe. What is the penalty for apostasy according to the book that you believe to be the literal truth? The actual word of your god?
Something reeealy nasty.

You cant pick and choose, Joe. Its science, or its the bible. To even try to use science to justify your medieval superstition is to deny your god. To deny your faith. Burning lakes of fire await you, at least in the minds of fundamentalists. Think of that the next time you perform your cannibalistic rituals.
I actually can respect the full on fundies. You are just having an each way bet.

blah, blah, religious twaddle, religious twaddle.

Marius, you said: "We don't blame god, as that is an empty argument. We blame the mindless worshipper who commits horrors in the name of fantasy."

Would you like me to point you to the mindless worshipper who commits horrors in the name of atheism? While you're at it, please give me your definition of "Christian".

No one suggests that the godless are flawless, hypocrite, they just don't justify it by invoking a delusion. The godless are not claiming moral superiority. I am not anti god, as that is like being anti flying pink elephants, I am anti mindless, hypocrite believer. Particularly ones that feel they need to justify their mindless hypocricy with what they think is science.
Don't feel your particular brand of cretinism is being singled out, Joe. all religions are equally cretinous. RThe only thing to be salvaged from the whole abortion that is faith is "do unto others". That works.

My definition of Christian is the same as yours. Someone who accepts Christ died for their sins so they might be saved, blah, blah, blah.
I just don't see any evidence to suggest it is anything other than a middle eastern, early first century death cult, that the Romans failed to stamp out.



blah, blah, religious twaddle, religious twaddle
.

[Tomtomkent]

Oh and I would like to point out Joe supported one of my earlier posts by supplying a long reading list that "supports" his claims. He is very well read, but continues to fail to give any indication that he has the first clue how to put those "facts" into a coherent argument. The process of filtering and appraising the standards of papers are missing. If Joe actually concentrated on this, the principles of turning an idea into a model, and backed away from his seeming certainty that there are only two possibilities (you know what, we could all be very wrong), and actually looked at why AIG and others completely fail scrutiny he might actually get half way to making a reasonable argument. Wrong and with no real evidence, but he can work on that later. He is far to eager to tell everybody why his science is "right" while declaring contrary geography or physics or biology (etc) as wrong while never actually finding fault with it beyond "somebody else says you are wrong". Despite the current concensus having lots of open information to prove the process by which conclusions are reached. This is unfortunately verydifferent from most of Joes links and tidbits that jump to the conclusion and look only for selective evidence to match the conclusion. There is a good reason for this of course, creationism has no need to experiment to see what happened. They "know" god created the earth and have no interest in finding if they are right or wrong, only in proving themselves right.

If Joe, or Creationism advocates in general understood science they would know why this is wrong,and why it proves nothing. If you already know geological features are formed by a flood you willfully ignore any evidence that does not support the claim, or you simply don't test anyfeatures that may not be formed by a flood.

They would also know that proving some species "could not evolve" is several steps short of disproving the evidence for animals that DID evolve. We have the DNA of whales with the remnants of an ankle. We have DNA from whales that walked on land with ankles. We can compare and show that the genes from one were passed to the other, and both share common ancestry. This does not vanish ifyou prove a bacterium didn't evolve. All you have done is prove that some species don't evolve,not that ALL species did not evolve.

The same tools would be essential for understanding proper context of simple ideas. For example Joe has in the past suggested that either everything or nothing happens at constant rate. This is rubbish of course. He has confused also evolution happening constantly (as in since the dawn of life with out break) for a constant evolution (as in evolution at a steady unchanging pace). If you can't spot that reading stuff yourself it can be forgiven. If it isn't spotted by peer review, even informal review from a colleague, something is wrong.

[Dinwar]

My counter-arguments rest on science, Gregory, which yours do not. My criticism rests only on science as well. Or is your science a very special blend that no-one else can cope with? Your "science" consists of denying the sciences of stratigraphy, hydrology, paleontology, paleoecology, hydrodynamics, fluid dynamics, geophysics, seismology, astronomy, cosmology, physics, systematics, biochemistry, geochemistry, and probably a number of others that I'm forgetting.

My conclusionos are supported by every one of those.

Which of us is in denial again?

If you want to call me a liar, ignoramus, and hypocrite, beware what the penalty is for doing that here. I've been trying to find a way to respond to this without getting kicked off the boards. I suppose I will have to suffice to say that it is astoundingly disengenuous that someone who accuses a huge number of scientists generally, and me personally, of those exact traits is now warning me against accusing HIM of those traits. It says something about the mind of such a person.

All fossils give the appearance of being complete species. This continues to speak to the mindset of this particular person. Of course all fossils are complete species--an incomplete species would necessarily be a DEAD species. However, this goes deeper. When I was in grad school teaching introductory paleontology labs we actually used Creationist arguments to demonstrate that there are in fact transitional species. Various Creationists have, at various times, called the transitional species between humans and our common ancestor with apes humans and apes. They've tried to shoe-horn the fossils into their worldview--it's either a human, or an ape, and there's nothing in between. The thing is, each Creationist had a different opinion on which specimen is which; there was no concensus. When the opposition cannot decide which box the specimens belong in, it's a fairly good argument for that specimen being a transitional form--it's got traits of both taxa, and cannot justifiably be put in EITHER.

The standard Creationist counter-argument is to point out that we've now DOUBLED the number of gaps in the fossil record!!!!

But I want to leave God out of this, if we can, and concentrate on science. Without the Bible your "science" collapses. That short list of scientific sub-diciplines you're arguing against all provide data which demonstrate that your hypotheses are not valid. What else do you have?

It might also help if you re-state briefly, for my benefit, just what you think is 'evolution' and why it matters, once again. No, it won't. Evolution is the change in allele frequency in populations over time. Last time someone stated that you rejected it, and tried to make a Frankenstein's monster of a definition which drew from multiple theories (evolution, abiogenesis, cosmology...). You are not interested in honest debate, Joe.

ETA: Oh, I forgot--you've rejected what I say on the grounds that I don't pretend to have knowledge in fields I freely admit are not my area of specialty. Which merely proves the last sentence of the paragraph above...

[Craig4]

How about looking at the closest land mammal relative to the whale, the hippopotamus. The DNA evidence shows a clear link between the hippo and current cetaceans. You could maybe familiarize yourself with the dozens of papers written about the evolution of the whales. There's a very clear progression in the fossil record. I'd recommend reading the journal Nature, October of 1998 and the paper titled "Whales with Ankles and Evolutionary Relationships". It explains the whole thing.

So I won't be shutting up.

[Craig4]

Still waiting on the bunny. You people produce one and you win. Just one will do.

Ken Miller will help your misunderstanding about whale fossils. You are clearly ill-informed on the topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9a-lFn4hqY

[Dinwar]

Or looking into foraminifera, diatoms, radiolaria, gastropods, bivalves, cephalopods, trilobites, bryozoans, brachiopods, crabs, lobsters, and all the other invertebrate fossils for which there is are clear evolutionary lineages streching over tens of millions of years. (Hint: Look up punctuated equilibrium. Agree with it or not, it'll emerse you in the literature concerning microfossil speciation rates vs. gastropod/bivalve rates).

Oops, I forgot that because I acknowledge the limits of my expertise I'm disqualified to discuss my area of expertise. Sorry, that just keeps slipping my mind....

[Craig4]

Do try to make an attempt to read something about biology, geology, and paleontology. You might get more out of the discussion if you had some familiarity with science.

[Dinwar]

I wanted to point out: I was incorrect earlier in stating that Hutton was the person who came up with biostratigraphy. It was William "Strata" Smith, who also created the first geological map. Mia copa.

[Tomtomkent]

Anyone else find it strange that Joe, who claims to have read enough in each field toqualify for "itensive study" rarely argues the specifics of certain fields. He wont make point by point arguments for Dinwar on the specific case study offered. Yet those of us who are "unfamiliar" with the bible all seem to have pointesd to specific content we disagree with. Just a thought, could be the way he makes his arguments, but suggests something odd about he views his version of "science".


And is not a little hard to leave god to one side when your "science" is meant to prove god made the world?

[hereisjoe]

Anyone else find it strange that Joe, who claims to have read enough in each field toqualify for "itensive study" rarely argues the specifics of certain fields. He wont make point by point arguments for Dinwar on the specific case study offered. Yet those of us who are "unfamiliar" with the bible all seem to have pointesd to specific content we disagree with. Just a thought, could be the way he makes his arguments, but suggests something odd about he views his version of "science".


And is not a little hard to leave god to one side when your "science" is meant to prove god made the world?


I posted a list of 22 books (out of many more) which dispute your various claims. I have read many mainstream textbooks on these topics, all peer reviewed and from shining, stupendously aceptable atheistic/evolutionist publ;ishers and institutions. Wish to try any of them? I did.

OOps - I get it. Since I don't have a degree, doctorate, cognate, masters or diploma in any field of knowledge, I am Mr Ignoramus.

[Dinwar]

OOps - I get it. Since I don't have a degree, doctorate, cognate, masters or diploma in any field of knowledge, I am Mr Ignoramus. No, the fact that you fail to have any understanding of basic biology, geology, paleontology, fluid dynamics, astronomy, etc. ad nausium, and yet expect your ideas to be taken seriously by people who DO, makes you that. I mean come on, you cited Velikovski and the Bible as support for a scientific position. And your position was shown to be in error BEFORE EVOLUTION WAS EVEN PROPOSED (Darwin's Century outlines that process fairly well).

As Tom said, you may have a vast amount of knowledge, but you have no idea what to do with it.

But hey, what do I know? I'm only honest about the limits of my knowledge.

[Tomtomkent]

Joe, you don't need a degree. Just an understanding of how arguments work, so you can make one solid and genuinely call it "science" or "deductive reasoning". For example you do yourself no favours claiming to have so many good mainstream sources this late in the game. Did you assume they would be too complex for other forum users before? If you genuinely understand science and the principles of analysis why post so many links to creationist sites like AIG that make flawed arguments instead? Why waste so many of your 25 points saying "evolution claims something about the moon" which clearly did not evolve? Why waste so many more assuming opinion to be fact? Why make the defence that the need for peer review is a claim for authority when you could of said "here is anotherarticleof far better providence". Why say God is beyond evidence and point blank refuse to answer how he made the universe if you are capable of constructing a robust model for an argument?

You leave us no choice but to assume you can't.

[Marius vanderLubbe]

..
Since I don't have a degree, doctorate, cognate, masters or diploma in any field of knowledge, I am Mr Ignoramus.
That is correct. But not for those reasons.
you are an ignoramus for swallowing the whole YEC pack of demonstratable (and demonstrated) utter stupidity, and having the gall to say that "science"
( in your case,standing on a street corner, with supperating, scabrous sores) supports the YEC model.

You are an ignoramus.

[hereisjoe]

[QUOTE=Dinwar;6644897]Or looking into foraminifera, diatoms, radiolaria, gastropods, bivalves, cephalopods, trilobites, bryozoans, brachiopods, crabs, lobsters, and all the other invertebrate fossils for which there is are clear evolutionary lineages streching over tens of millions of years. (Hint: Look up punctuated equilibrium. Agree with it or not, it'll emerse you in the literature concerning microfossil speciation rates vs. gastropod/bivalve rates).

2 Timothy 3:7
1 Corinthians 8:2
2 Corinthians 10:5

[hereisjoe]

How about looking at the closest land mammal relative to the whale, the hippopotamus. The DNA evidence shows a clear link between the hippo and current cetaceans. You could maybe familiarize yourself with the dozens of papers written about the evolution of the whales. There's a very clear progression in the fossil record. I'd recommend reading the journal Nature, October of 1998 and the paper titled "Whales with Ankles and Evolutionary Relationships". It explains the whole thing.

So I won't be shutting up.

Proverbs 1:7

[hereisjoe]

My definition of Christian is the same as yours. Someone who accepts Christ died for their sins so they might be saved, blah, blah, blah.
I just don't see any evidence to suggest it is anything other than a middle eastern, early first century death cult, that the Romans failed to stamp out.




.[/QUOTE]

Proverbs 14:9

[hereisjoe]

And is not a little hard to leave god to one side when your "science" is meant to prove god made the world?[/QUOTE]

Psalm 53:1-3

[Dinwar]

2 Timothy 3:7
1 Corinthians 8:2
2 Corinthians 10:5 The Bible is not a valid source of paleontological data. It is not peer-reviewed, nor has it been submited for formal review to qualified paleontologists. Furthermore, the authors' intent is obviously not to deliver an in-depth look into marine invertebrate taxonomy.

Do you have anything RELEVANT to offer?

[Tomtomkent]

As Joe answered my concern with a quote from the bible I will take that as "Yes, it is hard to put God to one side when the "science" I wish to prove was centered on the existence of God."

So, what Joe cleverly said was this:
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." Which maybe true, but it is also true to say the Tom has looked in his heart and said "There is no evidence".

Isaiha 53: "Who hath believed our report?" Not me if it is from a book of dubious providence that has no more (or less) reason to be belieeved than any other book of stories and legend. If the only evidence you have that the bible is right about an issue IS the bible, then that is not much of an argument. I can thump my fist on the table and tell Joe I believe Winnie the Pooh is true all I like. But with out any supporting eveidence to suggest that talking bears are real, it is just a story. I can read passage after passsage, prove that honey jars and umbrellas work as water going vessels, even take Joe to see Hundred Acre Woods, and show how the fans of Rupert also believe in a talking bear who lives in woods. But none of it proof that Winnie is real.

Joe, all you have done is proven the criticisms laid against you. You have no idea how science works. You have no idea how evidence works. You have no idea how to form your claims into a proper grown up discussion, and trying to call me a fool through the bible wont change my mind.

Is there any chance of you actually being able to show that you can? Or will you just admit that your argument is not based on logic or reason and admit it is a simple matter of faith?

[Tomtomkent]

Corinthians 10:5. We are to come to have the very mind of Jesus Christ, bringing absolutely every thought into captivity or control.

Oh good, so your answer to "Look up punctuated equilibrium. Agree with it or not, it'll emerse you in the literature concerning microfossil speciation rates vs. gastropod/bivalve rates" is not an argument against the specifics, but a statement we all have to think like Jesus and hand our thoughts into his control. Whoopee! Because when logic and reason fail, claim domination instead. *Slow clap* Well done Joe. THAT will count as reasonable evidence I am sure...

[Marius vanderLubbe]

Bible passages??
I thought you didnt believe in Unicorns, Joe.

[Marius vanderLubbe]

Here's a first for me.

Romans 14:1 .

Game over, Joe.
actually it was over before this thread was started.

[hereisjoe]

The Bible is not a valid source of paleontological data. It is not peer-reviewed, nor has it been submited for formal review to qualified paleontologists. Furthermore, the authors' intent is obviously not to deliver an in-depth look into marine invertebrate taxonomy.

Do you have anything RELEVANT to offer?

The Bible is not a specific record of paleontology (the verse references were to show you what it has to say about knowledge in general), but it has valid worth in how it presents a world flood geology scenario, related to the geologic record. And it certainly is peer reviewed by many legitimate scientists in regards to that creation model, related to the Genesis flood etc. Like all creationists, and some evolutionists, the procedure is to assume the Genesis account is real and then look at the geology for a reflection of that. I recommend you read at least "Nature of the Stratigraphical Record" by Derek Agar and/or "Bone Peddlars" by William R. Fix . I posted this reference stuff a short while ago. You owe our creation model at least that much of a look.

[hereisjoe]

You have no idea how science works. You have no idea how evidence works. You have no idea how to form your claims into a proper grown up discussion, and trying to call me a fool through the bible wont change my mind.

Is there any chance of you actually being able to show that you can? Or will you just admit that your argument is not based on logic or reason and admit it is a simple matter of faith?

Actually, Tom, it is you who have no idea how to enter a discussion wherein two different worldviews are presented for condideration and discussion, against the same sets of evidence. You are not capable of looking at a special creation model (which we present) and say: "OK, assuming this is true and has happened, what does science show us about it?" Instead, you merely look at the proposal and ask: "God is behind this model, therefore no science can possible support it." It's the classic bias and denial syndrome. Yet you fail to see the errors of your reasoning. I always look at only science when determining what the observable world has in it. The fact that I also believe God created it all has no alternative bearing on the science itself. It is your misfortune and denseness that stops you from seeing this. It is also why you, not me, is the hypocrite. Why? Because you will only allow YOUR worldview to be considered and you think only the conclusions of YOUR interpretation of the facts is allowable. You start from the wrong end (the Ending!) of the argument every time.

[Tomtomkent]

No Joe, that is not the procedure at all.

The procedure would be to look at ALL geographical features and study WHICH IF ANY support your claim, and those that DO NOT support your claim. You do not start your study with an assumption or you will BIASTHE OUTCOME. I am sorry Joe, but there is no way you can persist in being that wrong about how science works for this long by accident. You must have made a deliberate choice to rely on bad methodology like that. if that is how you perform "real science" to prove your theory you are either stupid or a morallly bankrupt charlaton trying to dupe people.

[Dinwar]

The Bible is not a specific record of paleontology (the verse references were to show you what it has to say about knowledge in general), but it has valid worth in how it presents a world flood geology scenario, related to the geologic record. The Flood (Deluge geology) was discarded over 200 years ago, based on basic stratigraphic analysis. For more information, look up the works of Smith, Lyell, Huxley, Hutton, etc.

And it certainly is peer reviewed by many legitimate scientists in regards to that creation model, related to the Genesis flood etc. That is not what peer review means. Stop equivocating.

Like all creationists, and some evolutionists, the procedure is to assume the Genesis account is real and then look at the geology for a reflection of that. That is the opposite of what good science does. A geologist looks at the data, then forumlates multiple hypotheses which can potentially explain the data, and then seeks evidence for which hypothesis is correct. Attempting to prove some story one assumes a priori to be true is an invalid methodology, and has been considered to be so for about 200 years.

I recommend you read at least "Nature of the Stratigraphical Record" by Derek Agar and/or "Bone Peddlars" by William R. Fix . I posted this reference stuff a short while ago. You owe our creation model at least that much of a look. No, I don't. Your model is not based on valid science, and cannot be bothered to enter into the a real scientific debate. Once a Creationist hypothesis is accepted into a peer-reviewed journal, THEN I will owe it a fair hearing (though I doubt you will appreciate what I consider a fair hearing). Until then, they're trying to side-step the process of science while at the same time demanding we treat the idea with the respect due a well-supported scientific theory (actually far more respect, but that's another issue).

[hereisjoe]

[QUOTE=Tomtomkent;6635957]But Dawkins is not an "Evolutionist", he is an athiest who happens to work in a related field. Ihave noisea why Joe would use the term "evolutionist" unless he wants to list all the theorems that he thinks we support; "special theory of relatitists" is a mouthful mind. He clearly uses the word in a context that means to believe in evolution means you have a philosophical bent that does not allow for the belief in god. Hmm. This seems to be no problem to the majority od christians in the world who believe in both.

This is a blatant lie and you, Tom, are a liar. Richard Dawkins book "The Greatest Show On Earth" is actually subtitled The Evidence For Evolution and deals with nearly everything in neo-Darwinism. He runs the whole gamut from natural selection through deep time to fossils and missing links, DNA, homology, plate tectonics, and ancestry. He is viewed as the world's foremost proponent of the theory and doesn't apologize for it. Consider this statement from his Forward: " This book is my personal summary of the evidence that the ‘theory’ of evolution is actually a fact – as incontrovertible a fact as any in science." If you read anything by him, you'd realize that Mr Evolution he definitely is. It's fine with me - I don't take issue with most of what Dawkins describes, just with his errant conclusions.

Just so you other posters know this: Tom will twist words and deny what he previously posts just to be heard. He was caught out by me in a lie over at Skeptoid, and still denied it. Beware this deceiving man!

[hereisjoe]

Corinthians 10:5. We are to come to have the very mind of Jesus Christ, bringing absolutely every thought into captivity or control.

Oh good, so your answer to "Look up punctuated equilibrium. Agree with it or not, it'll emerse you in the literature concerning microfossil speciation rates vs. gastropod/bivalve rates" is not an argument against the specifics, but a statement we all have to think like Jesus and hand our thoughts into his control. Whoopee! Because when logic and reason fail, claim domination instead. *Slow clap* Well done Joe. THAT will count as reasonable evidence I am sure...

Actually, it was the first part of the verse (ie 2 Cor.10:5a) which I was directing towards Gregory here: "Casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God...". This was in answer to Gregory's listing of so many educational references and words regarding his own knowledge. I do not refute his knowledge, just the clear fact that worldly knowledge, fine in itself, should never exalt itself above God or the knowledge of God. These were words of instruction to Christians from Paul. To his credit, Gregory did not rebuke the wisdom of this verse but asked for more relevant stuff, which I have given him.

[Dinwar]

He is viewed as the world's foremost proponent of the theory and doesn't apologize for it.Not really. Just the most vocal.

The issue here is with the term "evolutionist". It is used only by Creationists, and only to imply that evolution is a religion/has as much evidence as religious dogma. You'll note that no one calls anyone a Wagnerist, a Ptolomist, a Newtonist, a Gravitationist, a Thermodynamist, a Nebulist, or anything like that. They specifically target one theory, evolution. Moreover, those who use this term nearly universally imply atheism in it. There are many people who believe in both evolution and God, including the Roman Catholic Church (officially, at least). The fact that one man, even if he were the foremost proponent of the theory, happens to be an atheist and happens to think that his pet theory proves gods don't exist, doesn't mean the theory necessarily does.

Once again, Tom is correct, and Joe's arguments have fallen short.

[Tomtomkent]

Just out of interest I can't find the peer review section in my bible. I mean, two thousand years of being (as Joe claims) "peer reviewed by many legitimate scientists in regards to that creation model, related to the Genesis flood etc," and not a single appendix addressing the rebuttles, new evidence, revisions etc, nor can I find any evidence that ANY of the named authors submitted articles on their claims for constructive feed back in a respected peer review journal. Either they are slacking or Dinwar is right and Joe doesn't understand the term. So again, do we assume he has read a lot of books but has no grounded concept of the procedures and decorum of actual science? As it is beyond the point where any reasonable debater would simply admit that no, they haven't a clue what a "null hypothosis" or "real science" is, and that their belief is based on good old fashioned faith, not deduction, reason, or evidence, and that any attempt for it to be taken as seriously as a scientific theory or as a basis for the questioning evidence based science is unreasonable outside of personal belief and faith. Attempting to disprove anything with your personal belief is an act of dubious morality at best. Dressing your beliefs up as "science" and trying to bamboozle people into thinking it is fact, based on evidence, and confirmed by repeated study (when it is nothing of the sort) is outright imoral and fraudulant.

Now I fully expect some wag to cut and paste that and say "A good description of... EVOLUTION!" So here is why you are wrong before you waste your own time making the clicks: Evolution was formed based on observed evidence, with no prior assumption. The evidence was gathered, the hypothosis tested on evidence that continued to be gathered, and revised to fit the data. If you have observed species, seperated by millenia, sharing traits, with each new trait passed on to younger species, it is a reasonable hypothosis to build that those species are related. If you continue to study further species, and find that they also devolope in the same path, then you can safely consider the possibility that more than one species evolves in this way. This is not the process that creationists follow. To start with the assumption you are right, then looking for evidence you are right (and thus ignoring all other possibilities) the model is invalid as science, if not as faith or philosophy.

[Tomtomkent]

"This is a blatant lie and you, Tom, are a liar. Richard Dawkins book "The Greatest Show On Earth" is actually subtitled The Evidence For Evolution and deals with nearly everything in neo-Darwinism. He runs the whole gamut from natural selection through deep time to fossils and missing links, DNA, homology, plate tectonics, and ancestry. He is viewed as the world's foremost proponent of the theory and doesn't apologize for it. Consider this statement from his Forward: " This book is my personal summary of the evidence that the ‘theory’ of evolution is actually a fact – as incontrovertible a fact as any in science." If you read anything by him, you'd realize that Mr Evolution he definitely is. It's fine with me - I don't take issue with most of what Dawkins describes, just with his errant conclusions."

As I said, he is an Athiest who also happens to have studied in a related field. 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. "Evolution" is not a religion, it is not a philosophy, it is not a moral code. It has simply been adopted by those who do have a philosophy, moral code or (in this case lack of) religion.

If you are unable to seperate belief from objective theory then you are unable to create an objective theory. If you want to believe that "evolutionist" is a valid term for any kind of organised philosophy or religion you are mistaken. If you think I am a liar, then so be it. As your lies have been proven many times in this discussion (notably about apparent NOT calling me a liar previously) knock yourself out. It changes none of the reasons your arguments are invalid.

[Dinwar]

In fact, Lyell's struggle with evolutionary theory demonstrates that evolution is not simply assuming X is true and then finding evidence for X. Lyell took a LOT of convincing, and was perhaps the most respected of Darwin's critics at one point. Lyell finally accepted evolution (and rejected HIS OWN theory of what happened) based on the overwhelming evidence Darwin brought to bear.

[Tomtomkent]

Just so you other posters know this: Tom will twist words and deny what he previously posts just to be heard. He was caught out by me in a lie over at Skeptoid, and still denied it. Beware this deceiving man!

If anybody is wondering Joe posted a message in Skeptoid that called me a liar and breached the personal attack rules. The post was pulled, and he made a smarmy statement suggesting I must have pulled some trickery. Then he denied having called me a liar or having made the personal attack. To which Brian responded confirming the deleted post was a personal attack. Joe also lies about other statements I made. For example by pointing out he claimed the "Big Bang was something from nothing," and explaining that is not what I believe and why it was wrong I was telling a "lie" about my earlier posts. I try to remain objective and argue about the theory not the man, but if anybody wants to take Joes theories about me seriously I at least recommend you read the posts yourself rather than take his words. start with a null hypothosis, examine the evidence, and decide for yourself. It is of course, the only way to be fair. Personally I am assuming that is further evidence of Joes hypocricy (decrying my apparent lies, ignoring his own) but personal vendettas have no place in reasoned discussions such as this.

[Tomtomkent]

Actually, it was the first part of the verse (ie 2 Cor.10:5a) which I was directing towards Gregory here: "Casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God...". This was in answer to Gregory's listing of so many educational references and words regarding his own knowledge. I do not refute his knowledge, just the clear fact that worldly knowledge, fine in itself, should never exalt itself above God or the knowledge of God. These were words of instruction to Christians from Paul. To his credit, Gregory did not rebuke the wisdom of this verse but asked for more relevant stuff, which I have given him.

Unfortunately, as God is not answering the questions Joe, and we have no evidence he wrote the Bible, or anything else, we should probably be asking if Gregs knowledge in his field is greater than yours, not Gods.

[Dinwar]

To his credit, Gregory did not rebuke the wisdom of this verse but asked for more relevant stuff, which I have given him. Don't give me too much credit--the only reason I didn't say anything about the "wisdom" of such a stupid statement is that there was a far better reason to dismiss it. Knowledge of any god is minimal, and entirely based on faith (oddly enough, they never speak for themselves, but always through someone else, and what any given god says always seems to line up with what the priests want). I'd say knowledge about other fields is vastly superior.

[Craig4]

I posted a list of 22 books (out of many more) which dispute your various claims. I have read many mainstream textbooks on these topics, all peer reviewed and from shining, stupendously aceptable atheistic/evolutionist publ;ishers and institutions. Wish to try any of them? I did.

OOps - I get it. Since I don't have a degree, doctorate, cognate, masters or diploma in any field of knowledge, I am Mr Ignoramus.

No, you are ignorant because you've made a conscious decision to be.

[Tomtomkent]

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 athiest agenda. University presses are secular by default, they have to remain objective. Mainstream publishers tend to have branches that publish religious and spiritual texts and essays, so it would be difficult to prove they were athiest. On top ofthis the views of authors are not always the views of the publishers.

That Joe insists on trying to turn evolution into a religious stand simply implies he wants to fight on a moral battlefield, because 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.

[hereisjoe]

Not really. Just the most vocal.

The issue here is with the term "evolutionist". It is used only by Creationists, and only to imply that evolution is a religion/has as much evidence as religious dogma. You'll note that no one calls anyone a Wagnerist, a Ptolomist, a Newtonist, a Gravitationist,....... There are many people who believe in both evolution and God, including the Roman Catholic Church

Once again, Tom is correct, and Joe's arguments have fallen short.

The particular topic being discussed here was the fact that Richard Dawkins is indeed both an atheist and an evolutionist. He confesses to both of these and writes extensively on both topics. I agree that there are some Bible believers who claim the theory of evolution. They are sometimes called "theistic evolutionists" or "old-earth evolutionists". I don't hold much respect for theeir viewpoint because 1. they disdain the theory and 2. they disdain their God. They want it both ways.

The use of the word 'evolutionist' should be understood to refer to anyone who holds to a general theory of evolution as it applies to all the sciences, not just biological (allele) changes. I commented about these terms elsewhere. I am a 'creationist', for examople, in the sense that I believe in a special creation event by God, as explained in Genesis. For simplicity's sake, i will refer to both sides using these terms. If you want to play word games (as above) go ahead. I have indeed heard people called 'Ptolomists', 'Dickensianists', empiricists, and all sorts of 'ists'. In context, it works fine, so why do you whine about it? But lets stick to what we understand of each other's world views, OK? No slur is intended here. Gregory, if you only weanht to discuss issues in your particular field if interests, you may not want to engage fully in a discussion of the varied issues of general neo-Darwiniianism, or what the world refers to as 'evolution' and all it's aspects. At the risk of repeating myself, I am interested in discussing Beginnings and endings, not just biological change.

[hereisjoe]

[I As I said, he is an Athiest who also happens to have studied in a related field. 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. "Evolution" is not a religion, it is not a philosophy, it is not a moral code. It has simply been adopted by those who do have a philosophy, moral code or (in this case lack of) religion.

As your lies have been proven many times in this discussion (notably about apparent NOT calling me a liar previously) knock yourself out. It changes none of the reasons your arguments are invalid.

You seem to constantly trip over your own words, Tom. But I am not going to bother with name-calling anymore. I am apologizing here about calling you a liar in reference to Dawkins. It might have been a misjudgement on your part, not a deliberate falsehood. You do seem to have the irritating habit of refusing to recognice your own clear statements from the past ("science can prove something from nothing", "Dawkins is not an evolutionist", etc). In fact, unlike your twisting of phrases and re-defining words, Dawkins actually considers himself an 'evolutionist' in the full sense of that word. So in light of you still insisting on my 'lies' herein, are you going to continue with your ad hominems and attack the person instead of attacking the argument?

It should be pointed out, Tom, that I have always tried to draw these discussions back to science and away from religion. Evolutionists (a term I will continually use here) always try that tactic, especially when debating origins. they know that they can never prove origins through mainstream science. It only apperas that you detect a double standard here, from me, because you insist on looking at my point of view from the wrong end. Yes, I believe in special creation, but I address the issue of God-in-beginnings from the science side, simply by looking closely at the world around us, examining all the known facts, and seeing if they fit a young-earth scenario and anything resembling a creation rather than anything resembling beginnings from something-out-of-nothing. I have never asked you to accept an explanation of the W5s of a God (What, Who, Where, When, Why). It is you and others who try to ask this - we point our arguments towards true science. You don't seem to pick up on that little fallacy. Perhaps you're truly blind to it. It is a fact that in public debates on origins, evolutionists invariably lose the debate because they try to force theism into the debate in order to perhaps avoid the science that will shoot down their theories. This is a matter of public record. I can cite many examples. My suggestion to you is to stick with the examples of science that show the world around us and stick with explaining the reason for your "facts" as being facts.

If you also want to discuss Biblical topics (such as the character of God) here, there are tghreads for that, and I can oblige as best as I can.

Best wishes, Tom...

[Craig4]

To refer to someone as a scientist implies they find the evidence of evolution compelling. To say a biologist or paleontologist is an evolutionist is redundant. To be scientists in those fields mean they already study evolution. It's not as if there is a scientific debate about the merits of evolution.

[hereisjoe]

To refer to someone as a scientist implies they find the evidence of evolution compelling. To say a biologist or paleontologist is an evolutionist is redundant. To be scientists in those fields mean they already study evolution. It's not as if there is a scientific debate about the merits of evolution.

But there IS a scientific debate regarding evolution, and it's worldwide.
And the designate those scientists who are graduated from a creationist-wolrdview university as being non-scientific is very redundant and stupid. For example, to try and say that Henry Morris, Duane Gish or Gary Parker were nota scientists is very ignorant on the part of others. I will continue to call anybody who prescribes to the general idea of evolutionary theory as being an evolutionist, in spite of their other credentials. Scientists who accept the creation model of our universe are still real scientists and they study scienc in every aspect. Not that it matters a lot, but they are also peer-reviewed and published.

[Dinwar]

To refer to someone as a scientist implies they find the evidence of evolution compelling. To say a biologist or paleontologist is an evolutionist is redundant. To be scientists in those fields mean they already study evolution. It's not as if there is a scientific debate about the merits of evolution. What I don't get is why they single out that theory. I mean, I'm not called a Copernicist, or a Newtonist, or an Eisteinian merely because I believe the world revolves around the sun, that f=ma, or that the speed of light is constant. There are a million theories that I find compelling that they don't give me labels for. Why this one?

But there IS a scientific debate regarding evolution, and it's worldwide. If there's a world-wide debate going on about the validity of the theory of evolution, why have no biologists or paleontologists of my acquaintance heard of it? I've been to an awful lot of GSAs, and eaten an awful lot of the Paleo Society's cardboard chicken (it's actually really good, it's something of a running joke), and not heard a single argument against the theory of evolution. It's only Creationists that insist there is, not the scientists who actually take the time out to study the subject. I wonder why that could be.....

Scientists who accept the creation model of our universe are still real scientists and they study scienc in every aspect. Not that it matters a lot, but they are also peer-reviewed and published. Yeah....See, here's the problem. A lot of them don't publish papers about EVOLUTION in peer-reviewed journals. Your boy Velikovski? He was an engineer. A very good one, from all I've heard, but still, an engineer. I've got first-hand knowledge of how much engineers know about evolution. It's about as much as I have on bridge-building--that is to say, they know the general principles, kinda, but none of the details. Yes, there are scientists that are Creationists. But, because it's outside of their field and they make gross basic errors similar to what you've repeatedly made (and what every other Creationist makes), the people who actually study the subject of evolution tend to not pay much attention to them. Which is as it should be--no reason for a quantum physicist to pay attention to my views on quantum mechanics, after all (unless, that is, I get a quantum mechanics paper published in a peer-reviewed journal).

ETA: Also, it should be pointed out that the last time an industrialized nation attempted to actually run agriculture on a theory other than evolution, it ended very, very badly. The USSR abandoned evolution for political reasons, favoring I believe Lemarkian evolution. They went from exporting grain to mass starvation. That alone demonstrates the power of the theory, and casts the Creationist claims in a much grimmer light. Not that I'm saying they're communists--I don't know and don't care about the political affiliations of Creationists--but that they generally don't care about the piles of corpses the last experiment in non-evolutionary thinking left behind.

ETA2: Gregory, if you only weanht to discuss issues in your particular field if interests, you may not want to engage fully in a discussion of the varied issues of general neo-Darwiniianism, or what the world refers to as 'evolution' and all it's aspects. At the risk of repeating myself, I am interested in discussing Beginnings and endings, not just biological change. Couldn't let this pass. It's glaringly obvious that you don't actually know what the theory of evolution is, thanks to this little passage. The theory of evolution is purely a BIOLOGICAL phenomenon--it applies ONLY to organisms. Beginnings and endings are physics, and more precisely cosmology, questions (with the exception of abiogenesis, which is a biology, chemistry, geology, and paleontology question). These are different theories, and are not united by anything other than the fact that they all occurred in the same universe. To attempt to combine them into a single discussion, much less to combine them into a single theory, is rediculous--there's simply no way any individual could know all of the information required to have an informed opinion on all of the topics necessarily included in such a discussion. You're stretching the theory to fit your idea of what it should cover, Joe. And I'm being generous here--you could also be stretching it that far in order to give yourself enough wiggle room to continue to pretend that your argument is without support. After all, if you re-define evolution to include cosmology what are the odds that a biologist will be able to contradict you?

Learn what the theory actually is before you criticize it. You don't get to re-define words to fit what you want them to mean, just because it'll make your arguments easier.

[Marius vanderLubbe]

. I don't hold much respect for theeir viewpoint because 1. they disdain the theory and 2. they disdain their God. They want it both ways.


Hypocrisy.
When you attempt to shore up your "YEC Bible the literal truth" with what you call science (which is in complete opposition to the evidence), you are denying the very notion of faith.
I have more respect for the most insane Mullah than for the likes of you, Joe. you are having an each way bet. You want it both ways.This is tantamount to apostasy.

[Craig4]

But there IS a scientific debate regarding evolution, and it's worldwide.
And the designate those scientists who are graduated from a creationist-wolrdview university as being non-scientific is very redundant and stupid. For example, to try and say that Henry Morris, Duane Gish or Gary Parker were nota scientists is very ignorant on the part of others. I will continue to call anybody who prescribes to the general idea of evolutionary theory as being an evolutionist, in spite of their other credentials. Scientists who accept the creation model of our universe are still real scientists and they study scienc in every aspect. Not that it matters a lot, but they are also peer-reviewed and published.

Morris is a civil engineer. Gish's work focuses on religious and moral questions. Parker says in an interview his religious conversion made him a creationist though "not at first". Still no scientific debate on the merits of evolution.

[hereisjoe]

Morris is a civil engineer. Gish's work focuses on religious and moral questions. Parker says in an interview his religious conversion made him a creationist though "not at first". Still no scientific debate on the merits of evolution.

Henry Morris' book, "The Genesis Flood" concentrates entirely on the scientific evidence behind a worldwide flood scenario, and it's science which hasn't been defanged to this day. Duane Gish's book "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" is pure science, from a scientist who has a ph.D in biochemistry. Gary Parker avidly teached and believed in evoloution until he willingly submitted himself to the studies of biblical history and flood geology and the geological evidence supporting it. His book "Creation Facts of Life" is pure geology and biology - he has doctorates in both. If you wish to launch ad hominems against these men rather than against their arguments, knock yourself out. It will show your spiteful biases.

[hereisjoe]

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 athiest agenda. University presses are secular by default, they have to remain objective. Mainstream publishers tend to have branches that publish religious and spiritual texts and essays, so it would be difficult to prove they were athiest. On top ofthis the views of authors are not always the views of the publishers.

That Joe insists on trying to turn evolution into a religious stand simply implies he wants to fight on a moral battlefield, because 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.

Don't debate a Creationist

Dr Eugenie Scott, director of the national Center for Scientific Education, said:

"Forty-six percent of Americans believe that humans were specially created about 10,000 years ago, and this has been a fairly stable statistic for the past dozen or so years." - ["Creationism and the Pope's Statement", Quarterly Review of Biology, vol. 72, Dec. 1997, p. 401]

further, she stated:

"Avoid debates. If your local campus Christian fellowship asks you to 'defend evolution', please decline … you will probably get beaten." ["Monkey Business", The Sciences, Jan/Feb 1996, p. 25]

Scott (who is funded by the Carnegie Foundation) doesn't reason, she just bullies people, including followers.

The Institute For creation Research (CRS), with approximately 700 scientist members, has participated in well over 300 creation/evolution debates with leading evolutionary scientists on university campuses, and the general consensus has been that the creationists always win the debates.
*Interesting note by Henry Morris: "Since all of our 300 creation/evolution debates are set up as strictly scientific debates, with no references to the Bible or religion (and we always stick to that format, even though the evolutionists don't), one would think that evolutionary scientists would be happy and eager to debate. After all, they insist that evolution is science and creation is religion."

This author (me) can't help remembering the many times I had God dragged into my debates with evolutionists, against my will. It appears that evolutionist of every stripe and education level are not able to debate creation without using religious overtones to slant the debate away from real science. It further reminds me of the refusal of Joe Meert to debate Walter Brown (who wanted to stick to science alone) unless he could undermine it all with religious references.

ALSO:
http://creation.com/global-atheists-reject-debate-challenge

Note: "They were to be permitted to have a panel of their choice of atheists (preferably including Dawkins) formally debate the issue—of whether the evidence best supports creation or evolution—against our choice of CMI staff scientists.
Global atheists turn down debate
We got a rejection back the same day—which didn’t surprise us, except for possibly the speed. It’s easy for popular anticreationist books to distort and misrepresent the science involved in proper creationist claims made by scientifically trained and competent people, and also to set up strawmen to “demolish” in front of an unsuspecting audience. But if it wasn’t obvious before, it is clear now, that it was never going to be palatable to such anti-creation promoters to be held accountable in public for their misrepresentations, strawmen (and sometimes blatant deceptions). "

[Dinwar]

Henry Morris' book, "The Genesis Flood" concentrates entirely on the scientific evidence behind a worldwide flood scenario, and it's science which hasn't been defanged to this day. Evidence he is not qualified to interpret. It's obvious merely from his premise that he doesn't know about sedimentology (and this fits with what I know of engineers--they don't even use the same terms to describe sediments).

Duane Gish's book "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" is pure science, from a scientist who has a ph.D in biochemistry. Which is not evidence that the person is qualified to discuss paleontology, any more than my paleontology degree is evidence of my ability to do biochemistry.

Gary Parker avidly teached and believed in evoloution until he willingly submitted himself to the studies of biblical history and flood geology and the geological evidence supporting it. His book "Creation Facts of Life" is pure geology and biology - he has doctorates in both. His previous beliefs are irrelevant, and if he has a Ph.D. in geology he should know better--he should at least be able to identify flood deposits, which is a critical failure of flood geology (always has been).

If you wish to launch ad hominems against these men rather than against their arguments, knock yourself out. It will show your spiteful biases. And if you wish to use the testimony of people who are experts in irrelevent fields, be my guest. It shows the intellectual vacuity of your arguments.

[hereisjoe]

[QUOTE=Dinwar;6695679]What I don't get is why they single out that theory. I mean, I'm not called a Copernicist, or a Newtonist, or an Eisteinian merely because I believe the world revolves around the sun, that f=ma, or that the speed of light is constant. There are a million theories that I find compelling that they don't give me labels for. Why this one?

So … there's no such persons as ISTs or IANs..? By your definition or reasoning here, that would mean I'm not a CreationIST or a religionIST or a BiblicIST or a Young Earth-IST or a ChristIAN, … or … a Bronze-Age mythologIST. If that's the terminology you wish to stick to, make it consistent and across the board, Gregory. I'm sticking with the mainstream language in these matters (you're an atheist, I'm a biblical creationist).

Nonetheless… on July 17, 2010 5:13am, on Skeptoid, you said (quote):

"Joe, I'm a staff paleontologist with a Fortune 500 company. Spent 6 years
studying paleontology, and continue to read up on it whenever I get a chance
(read, constantly). One of my professors was a grad student of Gould, and
another an ex-president of the Paleontological Society. Had a really nice chat
with Dr. Jablonski at GSA once…"

I've posted my clear views on Skeptoid, on several threads, in which I stated my argument, which is the general view of evolutionary theory, sometimes called neo-Darwinianism. I have offered the acceptable definitions of evolution re Cambridge, Oxford and webster dictionaries. I offered the definitions according to Wikipedia and LetsTalkOrigins and AnswersInGenesis. If you haven't picked up an what it is I am actually arguing, what are you doing here?

[hereisjoe]

Evidence he is not qualified to interpret. It's obvious merely from his premise that he doesn't know about sedimentology (and this fits with what I know of engineers--they don't even use the same terms to describe sediments).

Which is not evidence that the person is qualified to discuss paleontology, any more than my paleontology degree is evidence of my ability to do biochemistry.

His previous beliefs are irrelevant, and if he has a Ph.D. in geology he should know better--he should at least be able to identify flood deposits, which is a critical failure of flood geology (always has been).

And if you wish to use the testimony of people who are experts in irrelevent fields, be my guest. It shows the intellectual vacuity of your arguments.

You have failed to provide proof of how these men have not given proofs or are not qualified. This is still Ad Hominem.

[hereisjoe]

No, you are ignorant because you've made a conscious decision to be.

I can't resist this one:
If I'm consciously ignorant, how is that even logical?
(don't answer - you're not capable of an answer).

[hereisjoe]

Unfortunately, as God is not answering the questions Joe, and we have no evidence he wrote the Bible, or anything else, we should probably be asking if Gregs knowledge in his field is greater than yours, not Gods.

We should be asking you,, Tom, if you want to discuss this topic in another thread..?

[hereisjoe]

Dressing your beliefs up as "science" and trying to bamboozle people into thinking it is fact, based on evidence, and confirmed by repeated study (when it is nothing of the sort) is outright imoral and fraudulant.

...If you have observed species, seperated by millenia, sharing traits, with each new trait passed on to younger species, it is a reasonable hypothosis to build that those species are related. If you continue to study further species, and find that they also devolope in the same path, then you can safely consider the possibility that more than one species evolves in this way.

A reasonable hypothesis, yes. A valid, proven theory, no.

This is not the process that creationists follow. To start with the assumption you are right, then looking for evidence you are right (and thus ignoring all other possibilities) the model is invalid as science, if not as faith or philosophy.

You can easily look at it from the other direction, Tom, and still see the same evidences. add them up and...?? Creation or evolution-out-of-nothing? Your big problem is that you will simply not drop everything pertaining to religious viewpoinhts (from others) and follow the signs of the world's physical evidences, prove or disprove them, and make any general conclusion. Ask someone like Gary Parker why he finally gave up believing in the religion of evolution and came to accept what the evidence really says? My bet is that you are unwilling or incapable of distancing yourself like this.

[Dinwar]

Unless you assume that my knowledge of paleontology makes me an expert on engineering and biochemistry, your statement is only possibly a valid argument in a single case.

If I'm consciously ignorant, how is that even logical?
(don't answer - you're not capable of an answer). Okay, I will! :D You've made the choice to be ignorant of a remarkable number of science. It's a concious choice at this point--enough references and data have been handed to you that anyone actually interested in the topic could easily learn at least something. Yet you have continuously failed to do so. You still don't know what a valid source is. You still don't know what makes one an expert in a field. You still refuse to acknowledge that most, if not all, of the works you reference have been debunked, either directly or indirectly (ie, the evidence is in the peer-reviewed literature). You still refuse to understand the way science works (the peer review system). I could go on. This is all stuff you are willfully ignoring.

I've posted my clear views on Skeptoid, on several threads, in which I stated my argument, which is the general view of evolutionary theory, sometimes called neo-Darwinianism. I have offered the acceptable definitions of evolution re Cambridge, Oxford and webster dictionaries. I offered the definitions according to Wikipedia and LetsTalkOrigins and AnswersInGenesis. If you haven't picked up an what it is I am actually arguing, what are you doing here? I have. However, NONE of the definitions you've used for evolution are valid. The simple fact of the matter is that evolution is a jargon term, which are not typically included in dictionaries (and I know I've explained the problem with dictionaries before to you). Your understanding of the theory of evolution is NOT the general view of the theory--you're arbitrarily including cosmology, abiogenesis, and a host of other theories under one umbrella--so your statement is a bold-faced lie (I'd say "ignorant" but I've explained this to you quite patiently for several months now). I'm arguing that you should learn what you're talking about before criticizing it, and you obviously haven't done so.

[hereisjoe]

As I said, he is an Athiest who also happens to have studied in a related field. 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. "Evolution" is not a religion, it is not a philosophy, it is not a moral code. It has simply been adopted by those who do have a philosophy, moral code or (in this case lack of) religion.

If you are unable to seperate belief from objective theory then you are unable to create an objective theory. If you want to believe that "evolutionist" is a valid term for any kind of organised philosophy or religion you are mistaken. If you think I am a liar, then so be it. As your lies have been proven many times in this discussion (notably about apparent NOT calling me a liar previously) knock yourself out. It changes none of the reasons your arguments are invalid.

Let's analyze this, folks:

1. Your religious beliefs shouldn't keep you from separating your ideas from your science. I agree heartily. Few manage to do this. I've studied tons of evidences from both sides and I concur with creationism based on that alone.

2. ". "Evolution" is not a religion, it is not a philosophy, it is not a moral code. It has simply been adopted by those who do have a philosophy, moral code or (in this case lack of) religion. Ummm… a religion it certainly IS. Looking at biological changes within species and projecting that this will cause untold changes into the future (even tho completely unproven) is religion to me: hoping that is what will happen! Philosophy, yes. But that's fine: philosophy is the reasoned search for truth. Moral code? Now, where did that stuff come from? Oh, yes… it came from natural selection which came from the environment etc etc. And here I was thinking it was all 'survival of the fittest' and so on. Everybody has a moral code, regardless of religious beliefs or backgrounds.
3. " If you are unable to seperate belief from objective theory then you are unable to create an objective theory.' I couldn't agree more, Tom. Funny thing is, you can't do this. You continue to drag God into the to the discussion when I ask you (scientifically) about stuff like decay rates, transition species, speed of light, sedimentations and the like. I can go on for ages in a discussion without once mentioning God or my 'religious beliefs' - can you do the same?
4. " As your lies have been proven many times in this discussion…" Completely untrue - so what that say about you, Tom? Over at Skeptoid.com, I pointed out your obvious refusal to acknowledge that you said something like "Why can't science prove something-from-nothing?" to which you refused to acknowledge the claim. I was slapped on the wrist for calling you out, not for any lie on my part (and later re-instated after private emails with Brian Dunning, who saw the truth); yet this same website has allowed virulent and worst-case-scenario name calling by posters there to continue, even after they warned them to desist. Seems that Skeptoid has it's own hypocritical standards, which are easily proven. And here at JREF, you again refuse to acknowledge that you stated that Richard Dawkins wasn't an evolutionist, when I proved otherwise, right from the man's own mouth. It's a sad case, tom, of you not recognizing your literary gaffs but yet throwing accusations at others like me. On top of that, I have extended you grace by apologizing - ie, allowing that you might possibly have simply not known anything about Richard Dawkins beliefs and statements.
5. " If you want to believe that "evolutionist" is a valid term for any kind of organised philosophy or religion you are mistaken." You're going to have to explain this one. It appears that you are entering into the play-with-words game once more. Gregory is already playing this game with his comments on ISMs etc. I don't have time or patience for word games, Tom. Simple straight-shooting language works the best for me. Of course, in this post, you maintain he (ie Dawkins) is an 'evolutionist', but elsewhere you lamented the use of these terms. Not very consistent, Tom.

So, Tom, I cannot wipe away or hide the fact that writers I suggest have such and such beliefs. This applies whether they are atheists or Christians or whatever. What I can do is to offer pure scientific discussions from them (and from me) and debate it all. It will be up to you to look at things from my worldview (a "what if" question, as it were) and consider it. That is how to handle theories and hypothesis. Example: if a resident of southeast Asia told me "I can't believe in this stuff called snow - water is not like that, in my experience", I can only reply, "It is in my experience. Look at it this way - and I'd proceed to explain global climates and the Hows and Whys of it all. I have actually had encounters like this. When you're unwilling to step into the shoes of a creationist and tell yourself, "OK, if this model is to be true, what can we expect to see around us?" On the other hand, you can follow the evidence and make a general conclusion, then form a theory or hypothesis, no matter how strange it may be. The only reason that evolutionists made theories of any kind to begin with was because they all first discarded the idea of God, then tried explaining the universe without that ingredient. Charles Darwin was no exception - he was initially biased against special creation not because of any science but because he threw God aside for petty reasons.

Finally, if everything is just opinions, then there are no theories worth considering, by anybody, period. Science just sits there in front of us all and let everybody have a go at it all. I would then ask you this: 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?

[Craig4]

I can't resist this one:
If I'm consciously ignorant, how is that even logical?
(don't answer - you're not capable of an answer).

Well since logic isn't really your strong suit and I can't be bothered with your little assessments of my abilities here goes. Your view of the evolution is incorrect. You've been informed numerous times of your error. You've been given the correct information many times and you insist on your incorrect understanding. This would be, and do try to keep up with me here, willful ignorance. I'm sure correcting you here will be just as effective as all the other times you've been shown your errors. One does hope you'll join the rational at some point though.

[Dinwar]

Looking at biological changes within species and projecting that this will cause untold changes into the future (even tho completely unproven) is religion to meThan 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.

Moral code? Now, where did that stuff come from? Oh, yes… it came from natural selection which came from the environment etc etc. And here I was thinking it was all 'survival of the fittest' and so on. 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.

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.

You continue to drag God into the to the discussion when I ask you (scientifically) about stuff like decay rates, transition species, speed of light, sedimentations and the like. Maybe if you asked honestly we'd be more inclined to discuss the science with you.

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?

[Tomtomkent]

Wow, Joe you go into such long winded and tedious detail, all of which is pointless. You can't seperateProf. Dawkins personal beliefs in a pop science book from his objective works in research, or from a general theory (which i'm not convinced you actually understand).

One can only assume by now you are "playing silly word games" because you have no idea how science works, but hey you said you did and you probably convinced yourself you do. You cant wipe away the fact somebody has a belief? Guess what. In science you do just that. All the time.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.

[Craig4]

"I've studied tons of evidence from both sides"

Have you no sense of integrity?

[Tomtomkent]

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.

[CDFingers]

creationism by any other name is still mythology.

I'll take "Names of Imaginary Cloud Beings" for $100, please.

CDFingers

[hereisjoe]

Well since logic isn't really your strong suit and I can't be bothered with your little assessments of my abilities here goes. Your view of the evolution is incorrect. You've been informed numerous times of your error. You've been given the correct information many times and you insist on your incorrect understanding. This would be, and do try to keep up with me here, willful ignorance. I'm sure correcting you here will be just as effective as all the other times you've been shown your errors. One does hope you'll join the rational at some point though.

Go away, little man...