Religious Sanctuary Thread

my thought exactly, Wylding

 

Snow Dog,

Do you suffer from a mild form of congenital Tourettes syndrome? You seem unable to contain yourself from lacing thin invective in your posts.

Take a chill pill.


Science looks for causes. Causes, Snow Dog. That means evolutionists look for causes, thus by extension, yes, science is definitely concerned with "triggers."

Responses to your enumerated comments, and I do expect a retraction and an apology where appropriate.

1.)You predicted nothing. In which post did you predict I wouldn't answer?

Now, go back up to my last post. Shall I copy paste? Do you see the paragraph with the name Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., Reread the words. Did I not say I was intending to return to that topic? Yes, I did.

That also means your statement regarding no creationist addressing HOX is also fallacious. You just make this stuff up don't you?

HOX doesn't prove evolution, it shows the possibility of a mechanism that might allow for evolution. That's all. It doesn't show macroevolution.

2 strikes; You predicted nothing. A basic lie from an assumptively arrogant stance. Sure, it's being nit-picky, but still accurate. And, I did say I was returning to the topic specifically utilizing the words of Jonathan Wells.

If this is any indication of your analytical prowess and comprehensive skills, you are indeed wasting OUR time.


NO SCIENTIST DISAGREES WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION? Jonathan Wells does, for starters. Secondly, name the scientists who specifically cite," I agree with Snow Dog." You're utilizing exaggerative ad hoc. Besides, it isn't you they agree with; you're trying to agree with them. But you didn't seem to comprehend that the articles proved nothing that you stated.

I suggest you reread the articles more slowly.



2.)Male pattern baldness is a genetic trait. Plain and simple. The complete "idiocy" of your statement is you didn't explain it's relevancy.

I'm sure you meant something by it, but you didn't explain what. You didn't exhibit it's proof for macroevolution. You sourced a genetic characteristic.


3.) We'll start with Jonathan Wells, since he's been mentioned;
Michael Behe
David Berlinski
Phillip Johnson
Hugh Ross
William Dembski
Henry F. Schaeffer
Walter l. bradley
Nancy Pearcy
Sigrid Hartwig-Scherer
Steven Meyer
Paul Nelson
J.P. Moreland...


...(sighs)...that's a few names, drop in the bucket, but ones that I've personally read. I've listened to more than I could hope to remember, and certainly don't recall their names. The absurdity of your request would be equivalent to my asking you for the name of every person in a scientific discipline who adheres to evolution.

A QUOTE:


"Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each."



Bruce Alberts
President
National Academy of Sciences













4.) See above. You are wrong again. It may not be the prevalent belief, but I don't know that for certain, so PPOR. Show me your data stating the personal beliefs of all scientists.


No, I don't think those Christians who subscribe to evolution are "idiots". You're putting words in my mouth.

I'll join them if evolution is definitively proven.


YOU SAID:"How many times have experiments in Creation theory produced consistent results?

Not once. Why? Because Creationists generally don't conduct their own research. They read a few snippets of someone else's work, in which case they are no more scientific in their analytical methodology than those of us bantering here on the JC, and then they cut and paste together different factoids from unrelated studies, without having done one shred of testing on their own, and call it proof. "


I SAY: PPOR. That's mere exaggerative personal conjectural hogwash on your part. Wishful thinking. Back it up, or show me that you've an ounce of integrity and admit t

 

"Missing Star Formation: No natural way has been found to explain the formation of planets, stars, and galaxies. An explosion should produce, at best, an outward spray of gas and radiation. This gas should continue expanding, not form intricate planets, stars, and entire galaxies."

Gravity pulls stuff together.

" Some experiments indicate that the universe may be young, on the order of 10,000 years old."

What experiments are these?

"How then can science speak about "origins" with any authority?"

So because there's some things they can't explain yet, nothing they say can be taken seriously? As I pointed out earlier, religious organisations have been wrong before too, that doesn't mean they're wrong about everything. Same with science.

"We need go no further than right here on planet Earth; The eco-system is incredibly fragile and precise. If the planet were closer to the sun life wouldn't exist, if further life couldn't exist"

It's not so much that the ecosystem and location is perfect for the life here, but rather the life here is perfect for the ecosystem and location. Life adapts to environment, not the other way around.

 

Darth Brooks,

Ok...Breath.

Anyway. let me touch briefly on just a few things. I don't want to get winded.

You said,
"No natural way has been found to explain the formation of planets, stars, and galaxies. An explosion should produce, at best, an outward spray of gas and radiation. This gas should continue expanding, not form intricate planets, stars, and entire galaxies."

It is not very simple to explain, but let me give it a shot.

After the initial explosion of the Big Bang, particles of energy which were under intense heat (heat even more intense than the sun) traveled away and began to collide to form quarks. All the while, a cooling process begins right after the explosion.

Quarks collided to form protons and neutrons
(and antiprotons and antineutrons) at a ten-thousandth of a second after the intial explosion. Annihilations of particles of matter and antimatter began, eventually leaving a slight residue of matter.

After about a minute, the temperature cooled enough to allow protons and neutrons to stick together when they collided forming the most simplistic and most abundant elements in the universe...hydrogen and helium...which is what STARS are made of.

As the cooling continued, these simple elements collided in large quantities and formed clouds of gases, stars, etc.

A good analogy would be steam. As steam cools, the steam forms condensation and then water droplets.

Now in order to understand how certain planets were formed, you have to know what happens inside stars. Nuclear fusion.
The simple elements compressed upon eachother because of gravity. All the while being "fused" under intense heat and this is where the more complicated elements were formed. Hydrogen fusing with Helium to form
Berilium, etc. Until heavier elements, such as iron, are formed.

Earth has an iron core. It's core is still molten. Towards the outside of the planet, you have more simple elements...Hydrogen, Oxygen (H2O), and of course the gases in the atmosphere...by-products of the chemistry of the planet.

Remember this...the universe did not expand into existing space after the Big Bang; it's expansion created space-time as it went.

Now, what experiments have showed that the universe is 10,000 years old?

The Universe in fact is @ 15 billion years old.

Oh...by the way...the dark matter is not missing. Scientists know of it but are still in the process of understanding it.
You see, our galaxy and thousands of galaxies in our "cluster" are moving towards "something" at 600 Km per second.
They attribute this to a large cluster of dark matter.

One more thing.

Life.

Life, in my opinion is abundant. The Universe is so vast, however that we do not know of intelligent life elsewhere. (I do believe that Earth has been visited, but that's a whole other post.)

Life finds a way to exist. Most people think that life needs certain things to exist...
sun light, oxygen, the perfect temperature, etc. Truth is, one should not be so narrow in thought. Look at Earth for example.

Go to the deepest depths of the ocean, where light does not penetrate, temperatures are just above freezing and it's so dense their is no free floating oxygen. Life found a way to exist. Evolving by volcanic vents that spew sulphur dioxide. Life will find a way.

Fossilized bacteria on Mars? Of course. Mars has water....a lot of water frozen at it's poles and under the surface. Evidence where rivers onced flowed is abundant. So why not?

Anyway...that's all I have for now. Just remember... the mind is like a parachute; it only works when it is opened.

Talk to you soon.

 

HOX doesn't prove evolution, it shows the possibility of a mechanism that might allow for evolution. That's all. It doesn't show macroevolution.

And again... you dance around the issue.

Denial. The UCSD study, if you actually read the particulars, does show a mechanism by which macroevolutionary changes can occur. That is, of course, if you understand the definition of macroevolution... (or evolution for that matter).

Reread all those sources again. Then you might come across this key point in the UCSD article:

The achievement is a landmark in evolutionary biology, not only because it shows how new animal body plans could arise from a simple genetic mutation, but because it effectively answers a major criticism creationists had long leveled against evolution?the absence of a genetic mechanism that could permit animals to introduce radical new body designs.

?The problem for a long time has been over this issue of macroevolution,? says William McGinnis, a professor in UCSD?s Division of Biology who headed the study. ?How can evolution possibly introduce big changes into an animal?s body shape and still generate a living animal? Creationists have argued that any big jump would result in a dead animal that wouldn?t be able to perpetuate itself. And until now, no one?s been able to demonstrate how you could do that at the genetic level with specific instructions in the genome.?

If you failed to understand the core point of this entire study, it demonstrates that macroevolutionary changes are a function of master genes that, when mutated, switch many other genes in a hierarchical manner. In other words, only one gene needs to be mutated to trigger a chain reaction of tens, maybe hundreds, or even thousands of other genes related to that HOX gene.

They did it with live organisms, effectively demonstrating how crustacean DNA can be mutated so radically as to produce offspring that would fall into the insect class--in one generation... now imagine ten such iterations, 1000, 1 million...

Let's get to the meat of the matter... If creationists have some staggering evidence against evolution (or to actually prove Creation, for that matter), why don't you present it here?

I'm still waiting.

My father is a scientist. He's also a theologian. He, like many others in his field, doesn't find enough evidence in favor of Creation.

When I said that other scientists agree with my views... I mean to say that many scientists hold the same view as I, for the same reasons, on the same bases of evidence. Not just many... actually the overwhelming majority of scientists hold the same view towards evolution.

What you did was produce a list of a few scientists... How many scientists are there in the world, Darth_Brooks? When's the last time you went to a scientific organization and heard them say they no longer endorse evolutionary theory? Care to show me a written statement from the NSF?

I'm supposed to refute evolution just because 13 scientists out of the global scientific community disagree with it?

Well, 50 percent of the world isn't Christian, and I can safely assume they don't hold to the Biblical model of Creation... or anything else maintained by the Bible and the Church's dogma. So, on that basis maybe I should just flat out say Christianity and the Bible is entirely a load of crap. But, despite your insistence that I hate Christianity and Christians, I have never held such a belief.

Maybe it just bothers you that I have more love for Christ than I have for dogma and egocentricity.

If you have just even one original study... one piece of primary research, conducted by "Creation scientists" that has anything whatsoever to do with proving creation (and not just disproving the opposite... just because B is untrue doesn't automatically make A wholly true... unfortunately, this is the presumption upon which even the biggest proponents of Creation hinge their argument), please present such a study here... or, more appropriate

 

Very good, Darth Snow-Dog....very good indeed.

"If you have just even one original study... one piece of primary research, conducted by "Creation scientists" that has anything whatsoever to do with proving creation (and not just disproving the opposite... just because B is untrue doesn't automatically make A wholly true... unfortunately, this is the presumption upon which even the biggest proponents of Creation hinge their argument)"

I think that quote of yours sums it up for the Evolution/Creation argument.

Darth Brooks,

"HOX doesn't prove evolution, it shows the possibility of a mechanism that might allow for evolution."

I think Snow Dog's right...you're in denial.

 

Qui-rune: Here's what perplexes me...

HOX doesn't prove evolution, it shows the possibility of a mechanism that might allow for evolution.

If taking a crustacean and mutating their DNA to produce an insect offspring (by turning off the Ubx protein that produces abdominal legs in the artemia species...) isn't evidence of macroevolution, what is?

mac·ro·evo·lu·tion
Pronunciation: 'ma-krO-"e-v&-'lü-sh&n also -"E-v&-
Function: noun
Date: 1939
: evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as in species formation)

 

Snow-Dog,

Like I said in a previous post...

People will interpret evidence in the manor that suits their view.

The extreme religious folk will eventually have no choice but to allow their beliefs to finally catch up to science, but they will be
kicking and screaming....like trying to take a security blanket away from a child or taking the training wheels off for the first time.

I think it stems from a deep rooted fear.

 

I think it stems from a deep rooted fear.

For some it's the unfounded fear their religion will be absolutely meaningless if evolution is true. I say unfounded because there's no reason to hinge your entire faith on the concept of "original sin" when Jesus did so much more than just get nailed to a cross.

For others, it's the fear that *gasp* we evolved from people of color. (God forbid!) Well, that certainly was the ignorance and fear out of which the Creationist philosophy was born.

For that matter, why does the iconography of the Church always seem to favor fairer-skinned people? What does it matter what color Jesus, or Adam and Eve, were? If the churches have finally begun to accept that Jesus wasn't dark blonde-haired, blue eyed... but rather more typically middle-eastern in appearance, then why haven't they gone out of their way to start publishing more accurate imagery? Still using the old Warner Sallman paintings? Doesn't anyone know he was once a Hollywood artist commissioned by the Vatican to make a more "marketable" Jesus?

"When you start tinkering with Jesus' face, you're tinkering with people's deepest emotions. Sallman's painting became an icon of Jesus to both Protestants and Catholics. People saw this guy as their friend. It's a way that people visualized their relationship to God."

For centuries, European and American artists depicted Jesus in a similar fashion, said Morgan. "In Western art, he's shown over and over again as a white guy who is not a Jew. Sallman's Jesus, which has been reproduced 1 billion times, was described by one wag as 'a Swede with a suntan.'"

- David Morgan, Professor of Christianity and art at Valparaiso University, Indiana

(Source: www.freep.com)

 

Snow Dog and Qui-Rune,

Allow me the privilege of trying to get back in here to respond. My difficulty currently is a lack of time.

Unfortunately, I have no way to bring to this screen easily much of the info I'd like to present on my behalf because it is in book form. It'd be much easier if we all had a copy whereby we could refer to page numbers and comment from there. Most of this material can't be presented comprehensively in a single paragraph, which necessitates my resorting to the key-pad. Sad to say, I'm a relatively slow typist, so this is very time consuming for me. For instance, Snow Dog, Jonathan Wells discusses HOX, as I've mentioned, but my task is to be able to abbreviate his writings, type it out with as much space as it takes for it to be coherent, and then submit it here. Hopefully, you are reasonable enough to understand it puts me in a bit of straight; not only because it is lengthy, but because the conversation here in the forum moves much quicker than my finger tips. Combine this with the available time I have for this forum, and it becomes that much more difficult.

Darth Geist brought up questions regarding the Flood, something I've been intending to return to, but as yet haven't. And the current conversation takes me further from that. I'm not ducking anything, nor have I forgotten. There is just only so much of me to spread across being a husband, a father, an employee, working overtime, and attempting to discuss this material. Geist is also an example of a compounded difficutly, namely, responding to multiple respondents.


IN the last couple of posts, before I can finish what I'm typing on Wells for dessimination here, I now see where presenting information on the Oparin Scenario, and the Miller-Urey experiments are necessary, particularly as they pertain to the NASA article involving amino acids submitted by Snow Dog. Specifically, that NASA was acting in a basic continuation of those chemical experiments involving amino acids, that it is in fact nothing new(Oparin 1930's/Miller 1950's), and with the basic limitations intrinsic towards this being applicable to the development of life, and how this brings us full back around to design hypothesis.


In short, chemicals are, if you will, nothing but material. Analogously, I could use a cake or an automobile for the purpose of expressing my view. Certainly, we mine ores, and understand the basic elements found in metals, and certainly through history have become adept at manipulating these materials, to the point of creating alloys and such, et el., with ever more sophistication and practicality to our needs. Such that, we use these materials as conductors for electricity, ad infinitum. One way in which we've fashioned these materials is in conjunction with other materials in to the common automobile. The complexity of a car next to a piece of ore is a virtual quantum leap.

We could decide to utilize a dating technique now on that vehicle, which would probably be sufficient for purposes of this illustration, but lets go a little further with the analogy. Let's suppose the car outlasted it's usefulness, such that it was junked, and various parts were smelted back down, and some were recycled and retooled for the manufacturing of microwave ovens. Some parts of the car still exist in the shape of auto parts. Papers on the car still exist. Then, the microwave was recycled.



One illustration is this;
When dating begins we could end up with results like this:
1.)the age of the microwave
2.)the age of the car
3.)the age of some alloy
4.)the age of some ore

(Here I want to inject a curiosity of the Book of Genesis, which it is your prerogative to regard as grasping for straws, but God tells man to "replenish" the Earth. An interesting word in it's implication.)

The metal itself existed in raw form previous to forging through the various forms and structures. A religious person would probably be dating the vehicle from what was written on the existant papers. A scientist from the ore. And this doesn't deal with any pos

 

The materials in the above scenario are somewhat simple compared with the complexity of RNA and DNA, their chemical make up and their susceptibility to maipulatuin (sic). They are in essence just another material such as ores, albeit more complex to build with, but that is precisely the task of scientists at this given time in history.

Do you understand how they duplicate the conditions of genetic mutation?

But because we can artifice ores to our likening (our technological infancy), doesn't suggest that the microwave macroevolved(although we could make that argument by definition of the terminology)all the way from the ore form. But it's various 'incarnations'certainly show intelligence behind the manipulation of it's materials.

One word: Mendel. Just because he wasn't aware that DNA and HOX genes are the mechanism, doesn't mean he didn't conduct experiments in crossbreeding to recreate conditions of genetic mutation, which began the path towards the intricate understanding we have today of the myriad causes of genetic mutation.

My father had done the same... about 30 years ago. In his PhD dissertation on plant physiology, by recreating the conditions of exposure to naturally-existing radioactive isotopes, he was able to observe the effects of an environmental stimulus on plant physiology, morphology and genetics. It's been a continuing process of discovery, Darth_Brooks... one that never stops.

Likewise, because we are discovering the various ways in which the genetic materials can be manipulated doesn't necessitate the affirmation of evolution. It shows at this time the possibility of the manipulation of more complex materials on our part (our technological adolescence, if you will).

Again, maybe you aren't aware that the scientific community has been studying the mechanisms of genetic mutation. Do you think they manipulate genes by "grabbing" one amino acid and replacing it with another? No. Typically what scientists try to do in every genetic mutation study is they take a mutation stimulus that occurs in the real world, isolate it and the subject being mutated, to rule out other random factors... and demonstrate how the natural phenomena causes the mutation of said genes.

Again, they're using natural phenomena to instigate chemical mutations, not just 'grabbing' and 'swapping' amino acids as some Creationists oversimplify the perception.

I'd post it all here for you, but I believe you're sufficiently intelligent enough to find this information on your own.

In short, chemicals are, if you will, nothing but material.

And? That's it? That's the premise upon which you hang your denial of the HOX gene experiments? FYI... Life really is nothing more than a metastable mass of (sometimes hypercomplex) electrochemical compounds. Do you know precisely what distinguishes living matter from nonliving matter?

IN the last couple of posts, before I can finish what I'm typing on Wells for dessimination here, I now see where presenting information on the Oparin Scenario, and the Miller-Urey experiments are necessary, particularly as they pertain to the NASA article involving amino acids submitted by Snow Dog. Specifically, that NASA was acting in a basic continuation of those chemical experiments involving amino acids, that it is in fact nothing new(Oparin 1930's/Miller 1950's), and with the basic limitations intrinsic towards this being applicable to the development of life, and how this brings us full back around to design hypothesis.

How is the NASA study limited? What measures of relevance are flawed? Which design hypothesis? Can you give even a summary of the reasons why you think you have a point to make here? By the way, do you understand the Miller-Urey experiments and Oparin scenario? You seem to be regurgitating counterarguments from someone else without yet having understood their basis.

Our very greatest clue to, and proof of, God, will probably come from the evolutionists, not the theologians, precisely through this learnin

 

_Darth_Brooks_:
When we're establishing criterion there are numerous guidelines to be utilized. There has to be the credentials of the examiner to observe. Many reporters have written books on subjects that they were not immenently [sic] qualified to write, or even scholars delving into topics that aren't their field of expertise; and again, we have to ask motives, agenda's and bias. It doesn't take much for someone to be heralded an "expert" these days.

In the media, this is certainly true. In the scientific community, it is not at all true.

An Example; noted physicist Luis Alvarez, brilliant in his specialized field, venturing into mainstream publishing with extrapolations involving the extinction of the dinosaurs.

I am sure that Dr. Alviraz was very capable in his field, but why do you characterize him as "noted" and "brilliant"?

So, we end up with ground-breaking headlines on chief periodicals and prolific saturation by media that the dinosaurs were killed by the impact of a single giant meteorite slamming into the Earth 100 million(or however many)years ago in the dim prehistoric past.

You appear to be confused here. Just what is a "ground-breaking headline"? I trust that you are aware that the popular press is irrelevant to science.

You may have noticed this theory has changed significantly over the years, from a single meteorite striking in a single location to millions of meteorites in various locations over a period of millions of years.

You are misrepresenting Dr. Alviraz's idea, whether through design or ignorance I cannot say. Long before he and his son Walter discovered evidence of a major meteor impact around the time of the mass extinction event of 65 million years ago, it was accepted that there had been millions of meteor impacts on this planet. It was also known that there have been several "mass extinction events" in the history of life on Earth. The particular insight that Dr. Alviraz offered was that a really big meteor impact may have been responsible for the latest mass extinction event. He certainly did not claim that this one impact was the only one, nor that it was somehow responsible for all of the mass extinction events, nor that other mass extinction events must also have been caused by other meteor impacts, nor that all meteor impacts caused mass extinction events, nor that other mass extinction events were not caused by other meteor impacts. The hypothesis (it is not really a theory) that Dr. Alviraz proposed has not changed significantly since he proposed it.

Quite a change.

Nope.

Why? Firstly, doesn't it seem the media jumped the gun? Did they really check the facts? According to a published book by two scientists at the prestigious Smithsonian Institute the answer is no. They also strongly assert that Alvarez was never qualified to make the pronouncements he did, and the media was incredulously careless in picking up this proverbial ball and running with it for dessemination [sic] to the public. They go into all the politics involved in the scientific community and media, but the bulk is the indepth [sic] dispelling of the theory.(I was trying to find the book, but I've either loaned it out or it's packed up. To the best of my recollection the title is The Dinosaur Extinction Controversy.)

What is your point, exactly? That the popular media are not a good source for science? That is a no-brainer. The scientific community communicates through peer-reviewed journals. Some are better than others, but they are all read with skepticism by scientists. That is why each paper published in them must be thoroughly referenced, with detailed methods and clear background, and conclusions that do not go beyond the evidence provided by the data. It is based on thousands of such papers that evolution has been accepted by the scientific community at large, and all but a few ideologically-driven scientists.

Pe

 

_Darth_Brooks_:
And, why are scientists saying evolution ceased 6,000 or so years ago?

Darth Geist:
Which scientists are you referring to? None I know have ever said as much.

_Darth_Brooks_:
Well, for starters some months ago an article from a national news agency linked on the Drudge Report was one source that I read having a scientist stating humna [sic] evolution ceased 6,000 years ago. More information can be gleaned in the book referred to Qui-Rune above, titled Mere Creation.

Sorry, I didn't save any "proof" for you, but then I didn't know I'd be having this discussion. I'm just repeating the words of more academically qualified than myself.

If you can elucidate on any of the 'evolutionary' changes in homo sapien sapien in the last 10,000 years, please do so.

You went from "scientists saying evolution ceased 6,000 or so years ago" to one report in an un-named "national news agency" that allegedly talks about ONE scientist stating that HUMAN evolution ceased 6,000 years ago. If you want the words of someone "more academically qualified than" yourself, I can tell you as a professor of biology that we have no reason to believe that evolution has ceased at any particular time. In fact, we see it continuing today.

Peez

 

Darth Geist:
As far as the recent evolution of man is concerned, we've grown taller, lived longer, and (according to some) we're losing our little toes.

I don't know about the little toes (though there is no reason that I can see for us to be evolving fewer toes), but the changes in body size and lifespan are almost certainly due to environmental influences, as _Darth_Brooks_ has noted. It is possible that there has been body size and lifespan evolution, but we have no way of testing those hypotheses.

That may not be evolution on the scale you're thinking of, but it's the same principle; besides, a species as well-suited to its environment as we are has little need of adaptation.

This is a good point. If a population is well-adapted to its current environment, evolution by natural selection might not cause any significant change in traits.

Peez

 

_Darth_Brooks_:
I failed to make the connection between priests committing morally reprehensible actions, and evolutionist failing in 100+ years to produce some concrete, undeviating and undisputed facts.

I don't know what you mean by an "evolutionist" or by "concrete, undeviating and undisputed facts." Certainly scientists have established many "facts" in the sense of hypotheses that have been so well established by empirical observations that it would be silly to deny their factuality (e.g. the Earth is roughly a sphere, it orbits the sun, life on it evolved from a common ancestor, etc.). However, I agree that science in general and evolutionary biology in particular have nothing to say about what is right and what is wrong.

Peez

 

Peez: The scientific community communicates through peer-reviewed journals. Some are better than others, but they are all read with skepticism by scientists. That is why each paper published in them must be thoroughly referenced, with detailed methods and clear background, and conclusions that do not go beyond the evidence provided by the data. It is based on thousands of such papers that evolution has been accepted by the scientific community at large, and all but a few ideologically-driven scientists.

I'm still waiting for Gish to team up with Wells and get the be-all/end-all of Creationist "evidence" (much less even one study on Creation theory) published in Scientific American... but something tells me I'm more likely to find it on the Institute for Creation Research website (and maybe even the Philadelphia Inquirer's editorial section...).

 

_Darth_Brooks_:
COELACANTH
Well, I guess I did want to open that messy can of worms. It was a definite black eye for the evolutionists was it not?[/b]

It was not. I honestly cannot imagine how the discovery of living coelacanths could be taken in any way as evidence against evolution.

Also a strike against the integrity of many involved.

Integrity? Are you saying that someone involved with this was being intentionally dishonest?

They never said they were wrong, only tried to imply it was some sort of anomaly that the coelacanth still existed alive, well, and definitely unchanged without adaptation for "millions" of years, and didn't have any of the evolved descendants or traits they had
HYPOTHESIZED.

Of course they admitted that they were wrong! They thought that the entire group had gone extinct, and now they admitted that it had not. It is pretty straightforward. Now, from your comment here it seems that you think that it would be a problem for evolution if the coelacanth had not evolved. This derives from your poor grasp of evolution. There is no reason to expect that the coelacanth must evolve to look different than it did. You also imply that the coelacanth has been "unchanged" for millions of years. In fact, the living species of coelacanth are not found in the fossil record at all. Perhaps you were not aware that "coelacanth" does not refer to one species, but rather to a large group that included fish with various sizes and shapes. May I suggest that you learn about it before making such statements.

But, this is only one incident of many like Cro-Magnon man, which has turned out to be nothing but the deformed skeletol [sic] remains of an individual suffering severest rickets.

Why do you think this? Do you think that there is only one fossil of "cro-magnon man"? (incidentally, cro-magnon is considered H. sapiens sapiens)

And the list goes on and on.

The list of misinformation certainly does.

How many times has the bone fragment of a patella been extrapolated into some form of early man, virtually out of whole cloth, only to be quietly repudiated a short time later, with the knee chip being discovered as a part of the anatomy of some South Pacific marsupial? Bunches!

By all means, give us an example (with reference, please).

Not yelling, Emphasizing;

THE PROBLEM IS THAT THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS FOR THE 100,000'S OF LIFE FORMS THAT HAVE EXISTED ON PLANET EARTH.

This is simply false, but you need to define "transitional" before it can really be addressed. In a sense, all organisms are "transitional."

Reliable dating techniques? There basically are none. Most have a reliability within 5,000 years, and even then are known to fail.

You seem to think that 5,000 years is a long time in geology. I would like to point out that it is about 0.0001% of the age of the earth. Can you measure anything to within 0.0001%?. If you can, then I would say that you are being very precise. In any event, there are many very reliable radioisotope dating techniques which agree with each other, and also agree with other estimates of age. This may surprise you, but the physicists actually do know some stuff. In fact, the same principals are used to make "atomic clocks" work.

Geological strata has also been shown to be relatively unreliable. "They" say the Grand Canyon took millions of years to erode into it's current form, yet, When Mt. St. Helen's erupted back in the 80's, virtually over night a mini Grand Canyon was formed by the destruction.

This is comical. Would you please explain how the age of the Grand Canyon has been shown to be incorrect, and why the geologists missed it.

Another problem; the Grand Canyon is jagged, not smooth. The sort of erosion over time would tend to smooth the edges. Turbulent, abrupt cataclysms l

 

Darth_SnowDog:
I'm still waiting for Gish to team up with Wells and get the be-all/end-all of Creationist "evidence" (much less even one study on Creation theory) published in Scientific American... but something tells me I'm more likely to find it on the Institute for Creation Research website (and maybe even the Philadelphia Inquirer's editorial section...).

Don't hold your breath.

Peez

 

_Darth_Brooks_:
But maybe we need to back up, and compare what is in agreement, and maybe we should spend time looking at what the Bible contains that is indiputably [sic] fact.

Things like the genetic material designating that all human beings did originate from one set of parents.

If you mean "one set of human parents", then you are wrong. There is no such evidence. By all means show me to be wrong and post this alleged evidence (with references, please).

(Yet, allegedly we have fossil remains of pre-humans across Europe, spread out and not in a single localized area. If we came out of Africa, then there were others ahead already waiting. Here again, suggesting not the evolution of a single species, and one must wonder why other species haven't evolved a necessary intelligence to survive, or why a recesive [sic] tendency towards the non-reproductivity of homosexuality hasn't been genetically weeded out of the gene pool,...but then again, this is for the evolution thread.)

There are no fossils of H. habilis or fossils of any earlier human ancestors outside of Africa. H. erectus and H. sapiens spread out over the rest of the world, and we find their fossils outside of Africa. As for homosexuality, there are a number of hypotheses for why it may be found. We do not know which is true, but we do know that it does not present any evidence against evolution.

Peez

 

_Darth_Brooks_:
40 dolphin fossils showing the complete development from 250,000 years ago?

Are you sure that's what you saw?

Given that the best that you have managed is a vague recollection of an alleged article in the popular press, you should perhaps not be throwing stones.

I don't think so. And while I can respect you're [sic] time in the museum, I also have a close relative who's a biologist, with whom I've spent considerable time discussing this subject.

I suggest that you ask your biologist friend to explain what evolution is.

I don't know about the dolphins, but I do know there is no alleged unbroken chain of transitional fossils housed anywhere.

Ah, you have changed from

_Darth_Brooks_:
THE PROBLEM IS THAT THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS FOR THE 100,000'S OF LIFE FORMS THAT HAVE EXISTED ON PLANET EARTH.

to

_Darth_Brooks_:
I do know there is no alleged unbroken chain of transitional fossils housed anywhere.

This is a typical creationist tactic, moving the goalposts. In any event, I would not expect to find a fossil of every living organism in any lineage. If nothing else, that would require billions of fossils. What we do find is many series of fossils, each slightly different than the one before it, in the right order, from one form to another in a manner consistent with evolution.

I believe that's what you thought you saw, but where I'd place my money is on fibre-glass constructions artificed [sic] to resemble someone's personal conception of what might have been the evolution. Right here, I can think of a dozen skeptically valid questions to posit, but instead I'd rather have you read something else. That way, I'll tie this into your statements about men.

Are you not even considering the possibility that paleontologists might actually know more about it than you? That they have actually dug up fossils? Are they stupid, or dishonest, or both?

Is there really evidence that man descended from apes?

Humans are apes, but yes, there is evidence that humans evolved from non-human ancestors.

Many people honestly believe that the ancestry of mankind has been mapped faithfully and nearly completely.

There may be such people, but the scientists who actually study this subject do not.

They have heard about "missing links," and regard them as scientific proof for man's evolution from primates. However, in truth, no ancestor for man has ever been documented.

That is a falsehood.

The "missing links" are still missing.

Talk about circular reasoning. No matter how many fossils of human ancestors are found, there will always be some "missing". For example, if we find fossils from 100,000 years ago and from 50,000 years ago, the creationsts say that there are no fossils to connect them. If we then find fossils from 75,000 years ago, they will claim that there is nothing to connect the 100,000 year old fossils to the 75,000 year old fossils. If we then find fossils from 90,000 years ago, they will ask for more, and more... Look, if I have photographs of myself at the base of Mt. Marcy, 25% of the way up, 50% of the way up, 75% of the way up, and on top, it is pretty strong evidence for my having climbed this mountain. The fossil evidence is much better than that, and of course there is plenty of evidence outside of the fossil record.

Here is a summary of facts relating to some of the most well known fossil discoveries.

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neandertal man) - 150 years ago Neandertal reconstructions were stooped and very much like an 'ape-man'. It is now admitted that the supposedly stooped posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind.

"Admitted" by who? There are a number of Neanderthal fossils, and there is no indication that

 

Peez,

I do not know what evolution is?

Here's one article I read, tell me if you think these evolutionists do?
Is human evolution finally over?

Scientists are split over the theory that natural selection has come to a standstill in the West. Robin McKie reports

Sunday February 3, 2002
The Observer

For those who dream of a better life, science has bad news: this is the best it is going to get. Our species has reached its biological pinnacle and is no longer capable of changing.
That is the stark, controversial view of a group of biologists who believe a Western lifestyle now protects humanity from the forces that used to shape Homo sapiens.

'If you want to know what Utopia is like, just look around - this is it,' said Professor Steve Jones, of University College London, who is to present his argument at a Royal Society Edinburgh debate, 'Is Evolution Over?', next week. 'Things have simply stopped getting better, or worse, for our species.'

This view is controversial, however. Other scientists argue that mankind is still being influenced by the evolutionary forces that created the myriad species which have inhabited Earth over the past three billion years.

'If you had looked at Stone Age people in Europe a mere 50,000 years ago, you would assume the trend was for people to get bigger and stronger all the time,' said Prof Chris Stringer, of the Natural History Museum, London. 'Then, quite abruptly, these people were replaced by light, tall, highly intelligent people who arrived from Africa and took over the world. You simply cannot predict evolutionary events like this. Who knows where we are headed?'

Some scientists believe humans are becoming less brainy and more neurotic; others see signs of growing intelligence and decreasing robustness, while some, like Jones, see evidence of us having reached a standstill. All base their arguments on the same tenets of natural selection.

According to Darwin's theory, individual animals best suited to their environments live longer and have more children, and so spread their genes through populations. This produces evolutionary changes. For example, hoofed animals with longer necks could reach the juiciest leaves on tall trees and therefore tended to eat well, live longer, and have more offspring. Eventually, they evolved into giraffes. Those with shorter necks died out.

Similar processes led to the evolution of mankind, but this has now stopped because virtually everybody's genes are making it to the next generation, not only those who are best adapted to their environments.

'Until recently, there were massive differences between individuals' lifespans and fecundity,' said Jones. 'In London, the death rate outstripped the birth rate for most of the city's history. If you look at graveyards from ancient to Victorian times, you can see that a half of all children died before adolescence, probably because they lacked genetic protection against disease. Now, children's chances of reaching the age of 25 have reached 98 per cent. Nothing is changing. We have reached stagnation.'

In addition, human populations are now being constantly mixed, again producing a blending that blocks evolutionary change. This increased mixing can be gauged by calculating the number of miles between a person's birthplace and his or her partner's, then between their parents' birthplaces, and finally, between their grandparents'.

In virtually every case, you will find that the number of miles drops dramatically the more that you head back into the past. Now people are going to universities and colleges where they meet and marry people from other continents. A generation ago, men and women rarely mated with anyone from a different town or city. Hence, the blending of our genes which will soon produce a uniformly brown-skinned population. Apart from that, there will be little change in the species.

However, such arguments affect only the Western world - where food, hygiene and medical advances are keeping virtually every member of society alive and able t

 

If I'm not mistaken, you were the one who opened the evolutionary "can of worms" in the first place.

I would have more respect for you if you questioned evolution because you are a scrutinizing individual in search of the truth (like any self-respecting scientist). Instead, you won't open your mind to the possibility of evolution because you simply DON'T WANT TO. You grasp tightly and desperately to an ancient creation myth as being the finite truth of existence. (Believing in the absolute literality of the Bible is not a pre-requisite for believing in a creator.)

It's strange... if you are so sure that every word of the Bible is true, why did you present "news" that there is recent evidence to suggest that the universe is 10,000 years old? That's still older than what the Bible suggests... whether it be 15 billion or 10,000, either view of the cosmos' age would be in conflict with your faith. There is already so much contradiction in your argument, I really shouldn't be surprised.

 

Snow Dog,

This is getting redundant.

The quote of my words you presented:

"HOX doesn't prove evolution, it shows the POSSIBILITY(emphasis mine) of a mechanism that might allow for evolution. That's all. It doesn't show macroevolution."


The quote from the article you presented right beneath it:

"The achievement is a landmark in evolutionary biology, not only because it shows how new animal body plans COULD(emphasis mine) arise from a simple genetic mutation, but because it effectively answers a major criticism creationists had long leveled against evolution?the absence of a genetic mechanism that could permit animals to introduce radical new body designs."


I SAY:So what was your point? You had none. The article was talking possibilities. Is that not what I said? Yes, it is exactly what I said.


They didn't manipulate fly dna into a crustacean; one organism to another. Nowhere close. We can't even replicate clones well, cells of a same organism, muchless take one organism's cell and produce another.


LEt'S QUOTE YOU NOW:

"They did it with live organisms, effectively demonstrating how crustacean DNA can be mutated so radically as to produce offspring that would fall into the insect class--in one generation... now imagine ten such iterations, 1000, 1 million..."


Is that what the article said? No.

ARTICLE SAID:

"In an advance online publication February 6 by Nature of a paper scheduled to appear in Nature, the scientists show how mutations in regulatory genes that guide the embryonic development of crustaceans and fruit flies allowed aquatic crustacean-like arthropods, with limbs on every segment of their bodies, to evolve 400 million years ago into a radically different body plan: the terrestrial six-legged insects."


They are talking hypotheticals.

FINAL QUOTE OF ARTICLE:
"If you compare this gene to many other related genes, you can see that they share certain regions in their sequences, which SUGGESTS(emphasis mine) that their function MIGHT (emphasis mine)be regulated like this gene," says Ronshaugen. ?This MAY (emphasis mine)establish how, not only this gene, but relatives of this gene in many, many different organisms actually work. A lot of these genes are involved in the development of cancers and many different genetic abnormalities, such as syndactyly and polydactyly, and they MAY(emphasis mine) explain how some of these conditions came to be."


Hypotheticals.
You wasted a lot of your time having never really bothered to read what my comments actually were.

I tried to tell you nicely. I asked you to reread the articles.


You also spent a great deal of time telling me that neanderthal man wasn't an ancestor of man, which was precisely what I said. You spent time and energy looking up articles, which only reiterated what I'd been saying all along.



Look, it's time to agree to disagree.

There's no further point to this exercise in futility. You shown yourself incapable of comprehending even the little illustrated here of your ineptness to either understand what I've written or even the material you've provided.

Next, without even having read Wells, a Ph.D twice over from Berkeley and Yale (we know they turn out idiots. sarcasm), you've tried to disqualify him. Obviously, having written extensively on the subject , he has some iota of an idea as to what evolution is and isn't. You're idea of objectivity is appalling to me.

Someone actually PM'd me days ago to ask me why I was even bothering to respond to you.

I tried to do so out of courtesy beyond insults, beyond stating I wasn't interested in this debate( or I'd simply post in the evolution thread), and asked that I be given a fair chance to respond.

You've made comments all along very suggestive that you haven't been reading my posts, so I see no reason to continue.

At this juncture I'm going to attempt to locate a couple of news articles I've alluded to, as it's been insinuated that I'm not presenting actual info as read by me. Then, back to other topics that are of inter

 

Republic Clone,

1. Go back through and reread a little more carefully. I repeatedly stated I wasn't interested in persuing this line. I did so, attempting to be fair and courteous.

2. I have had exposure to evolution, which I stated. I believe in degrees of evolution, but not to the point of macroevolution at this point.

3. I didn't believe in Christianity until having experienced a divine intervention in my life, otherwise I would have been dead and buried. It's hard to deny someone once you've met them.

4. Conjecturally, there's quite a bit out there, and there's no definite, across the board, consensus to any of it.

I already stated that I don't know the age of the universe. If you'd really read everything, then you should know that.



If certain theories are definitively proven, then I will believe.

Could Genesis be metaphor? Perhaps. But I don't subscribe to that at this time.

Is Christ mythology? No one disputes that He was an actual historical figure.

Was He God incarnate? Yes.

The fact is that you think scientists, human beings, are reliable witness in the area of evolution. Yet, conversely, you don't think those scientists, human beings, who dispute evolution on scientific grounds are credible.

In the article above presented to Peez, it is abundantly clear that even all evolutionary scientists are not of a united front.

Human beings are also eye-witnesses to miraculous events. In Fatima, Portugal, over 70,000 individuals, including scientists, witnessed miraculous events testifying to the authenticity of Christ. Tip of the proverbial iceberg. That was a single day, not the combined number of all eye-witness involved in Fatima, or at any other location where similar events have occured.

I was at one. Over 50,000 eye-witnesses in 1992.

How do you determine who is a reliable witness? Which human beings? Are you open minded towards the truth?


Why is it not "open-minded" to accept a possiblity the Bible is true?

 

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."


STEPHEN JAY GOULD.

Could we get a reference as to where this quote is from? See, creationists are experts at quoting scientists out of context. They've made a science out of it.


"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."


(Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory", in _Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes_, p. 260, Norton, New York, 1980.)