BEEP! BEEP! IT'S ME.

"Begin at the beginning,and go on till you come to the end: then stop." (Lewis Carroll, 1832-1896)

Alice came to a fork in the road. "Which road do I take?" she asked."Where do you want to go?" responded the Cheshire cat."I don't know," Alice answered."Then," said the cat, "it doesn't matter."

"So long as I get somewhere," Alice added as an explanation. "Oh, you're sure to do that," said the Cat, "if you only walk long enough."

"All right," said the Cat; and this time it vanished quite slowly, beginning with the end of the tail, and ending with the grin, which remained some time after the rest of it had gone. "Well! I've often seen a cat without a grin," thought Alice; "but a grin without a cat! It's the most curious thing I ever saw in my life!"

My Photo
Name:
Location: Australia

I am diagonally parked in a parallel universe. Like Arthur Dent from "Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy", if you do not have a Babel Fish in your ear this blog will be completely unintelligible to you and will read something like this: "boggle, google, snoggle, slurp, slurp, dingleberry to the power of 10". Fortunately, those who have had the Babel Fish inserted in their ear, will understood this blog perfectly. If you are familiar with this technology, you will know that the Babel Fish lives on brainwave radiation. It excretes energy in the form of exactly the correct brainwaves needed by its host to understand what was just said; or in this case, what was read. The Babel Fish, thanks to scientific research, reverses the problem defined by its namesake in the Tower of Babel, where a deity was supposedly inspired to confuse the human race by making them unable to understand each other.

"DIFFICILE EST SATURAM NON SCRIBERE"

Beepbeepitsme has been added to The Atheist Blogroll. You can see the blogroll in my sidebar. The Atheist blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to Atheist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts.

Subscribe to BEEP! BEEP! IT'S ME

Thursday, November 30, 2006

Evolution Rocks!

~*~
Imagine there is a giant boulder sitting on top of a high hill. One rainy and windy day, the boulder’s purchase is so eroded that it finally tumbles down the hill scouring a huge groove in the surface of the hill. The way down is rocky and clogged with debris, so the boulder, as it tumbles, bounces this way and that, popping up in the air when it hits an outcrop or a fallen tree. At the bottom of the hill, the boulder bounces off the ground and falls into the lake beyond, where it sinks into the mud and is covered over by water.

Hundreds of years later some men come by and notice the great furrow cut in the surface of the hill. The furrow is incomplete because over time parts of it have weathered away, and a subsequent landslide has destroyed portions of it, and there were times when the boulder was airborne. The rock itself lay hidden beneath the muddy floor of the lake. The men try to explain what caused this furrow. One man, the theist, says that God created the furrow. The other men like this idea and they go back to their village and spread the good word, culminating in Fred Franklin writing a book that tells about God creating the furrow.

Several hundred years after that a theist and a scientist come to visit the furrow.
The scientist climbs the hill and studies the rock at the top. He tests rolling small rocks in various places on the hill’s surface. He studies the sides of the furrow and compares them to pictures of furrows created when other boulders rolled down other hills. After much study, he announces that something massive, probably a large boulder or a slab of stone, slid or rolled down the surface of the hill sometime in the past.

The theist points to the missing areas of the furrow and says “If a rock rolled down the hill, where is the evidence here? There are gaps in your evidence, and therefore you must be wrong, and God must have done it.”

The scientist explains that (a) even if his hypothesis is incorrect, that doesn’t mean that the “God hypothesis” is correct, and (b) it’s possible that over time that some of the furrow would be filled in by landslides or other sorts of erosion.

The theist refuses to abandon the God hypothesis (despite the fact that there is no proof.) So the scientist takes a pick and a shovel and digs up a spot in the center of the landslide. Sure enough eventually he uncovers evidence of the rolling boulder beneath several feet of gravel and dirt, a deely gouged stone and compacted dirt matching the profile of the furrow above and below the slide.

“See?” he says.

“See what?” the theist says.
“You uncovered a stretch that is only six feet long. How do I know that if you dug upslope or downslope another six feet you would find any evidence there? You haven’t uncovered the whole furrow! Therefore, you’re wrong, and God did it.”

So the scientist removes the rest of the landslide. It takes many days, but it reveals the furrow like structure almost the entire length of the formerly covered area. In the meantime, while the scientist is doing real work, the theist preaches and glorifies the greatness of the god that cut the furrow. Once the landslide is removed the scientist identifies two thousand three hundred and seventy eight pieces of evidence that point to a large slab of stone rolling through that location following a path that connects up the furrow on both ends.

“See?” he says to the theist.

“See what?” the theist says.
He points to a 3 foot gap between evidence #1,536 and #1,537. “You haven’t demonstrated that a boulder rolled through this three foot area.”

The scientist shakes his head while wiping dirt and sweat from his brow. “No, and I’m not going to. I’ve amassed more than enough evidence to demonstrate that a boulder rolled down the entire length of this hill. There is enough evidence on either side of this gap to safely assume that the boulder which caused impact #1,536 also caused scrape #1,537.”

“Your theory has holes in it. How can you accept that?”

“You’re not thinking, sir. The only way to be 100% certain that a boulder rolled down this hill would be to go back in time and watch it happen. That’s clearly impossible. Over time some of the evidence will be destroyed, and therefore gathering all of the evidence after the fact is similarly impossible. Nonetheless I’ve been able to find enough evidence to support that hypothesis.”

“Why should I take your word for it?”

“Oh you shouldn’t. It’s still a hypothesis. Now I need to publish my findings, those findings will have to be reviewed by other scientists, and they will need to come here and conduct their own experiments to see if I’m right or wrong. They will likely perform other sorts of tests that I haven’t thought of, they may propose alternative hypotheses that will need to be tested, and I will need to stay out of their way and let them work. Only after my findings have been independently reproduced and thoroughly reviewed and confirmed will my hypothesis become a theory.”

“And then it is simply accepted as fact?”

“Oh no, theories can be and are challenged all the time. Over time through scientific advances we come up with new and better ways to test old theories. The best theories will endure the test of time.”

“So when will you know for sure?”

“I don’t understand?”

“When will you be able to say beyond all shadow of any doubt that a giant boulder rolled down this hill?”

“Never. Science doesn’t deal in 100% certainties, only in probabilities. Personally I’m 90% certain a boulder rolled down this hill, science will never be certain. Science may approach 100% certainty, but it can never say ‘for sure’… new information may be found in the future that casts an accepted theory into doubt. That’s why Science is so wonderful, it’s not doctrinal… it’s open to new information.”

“So you admit you can’t prove with 100% certainty that a rolling boulder did this.”

“Yes, of course I admit that.”

“Then I can’t see why you would expect me to believe that. I am 100% certain that God created that furrow.”

“Well what evidence can you provide to support your hypothesis?”

The theist pulls his holy book from his pack, opens it, and begins to read. “Yea and verily, it was upon the morning of the ninth day that The Lord touched the great hill with the tip of his divine finger and scratched a long furrow in it leading to the lake and said. ‘See how I your God have marked this hill. Look upon this mark and remember it is I who …’”

“I’m still waiting for evidence,” the scientist interrupts.

The theist holds up the book. “This is the word of God.”

“That is the word of Freddie Franklin. The fact that he wrote that story to explain the great furrow is interesting from an anthropological perspective, but it doesn’t amount to proof either way. Besides, I can provide evidence that this furrow is 750 years old. Freddie Franklin only lived 300 years ago, so he didn’t see it being formed. Therefore I repeat, where is your evidence?”

The theist flips to another page and begins reading again. “I stood upon the Earth and trembled as God cut the furrow in the soil …”

The scientist interrupts again. “That’s not evidence dammit. You can read that book from end to end and it doesn’t amount to one iota of evidence beyond ’someone said so’.”

“Well where is YOUR evidence?” the theist demands.

“Are you kidding? I just spent two weeks digging up this…”

“No, I know you’ve uncovered a few scattered bits of evidence to support your delusional rolling boulder idea, but where is your evidence that God DIDN’T create this furrow?”

“Why on Earth would I ever try and prove that?”

“What?”

Science reaches conclusions which fit the evidence. You have a conclusion based on no evidence at all. That’s not science, it’s storytelling, and I can’t see why you would expect me to disprove it. I’m not the one making an outrageous claim here. You’re the one who is claiming an invisible supernatural being made this feature. That’s one hefty claim, and you need to prove that it is true.”

“You don’t seek proof of the almighty… that would be blasphemy.”

“I’m not asking you to prove the existence of your supernatural entity of choice, I am asking you to prove that this furrow was created by a supernatural entity. And DON’T start reading from that book again. That’s not evidence.”

“This is all the evidence I have, and it’s the only evidence I need.”

And off the theist goes to his village to profess how Science was unable to disprove that God made the great furrow. Leaving the exhausted and exasperated scientist to shake his head and get back to work discovering the truth.

So it is with evolution my friend. The amount of evidence which has been gathered which supports evolution is overwhelming. It is a truly phenomenal quantity of evidence. It is more than enough evidence to allow one to safely assume that A evolved to B even when there is a gap in the evidence between A and B.

And, as the scientist notes in the above story, gaps in the evidence for evolution do not equal proof of creationism. If someone managed to scientifically disprove evolution as we understand it today, that would not mean that creationism is proven. Creationism would be just as much poppycock then as it is now.

LINKS:



, , , , ,



"Like A Rolling Stone" - (Dylan Cover) by A Beggar's Opera

Link

109 Comments:

Blogger Arthur_Vandelay said...

Genius . . .

30/11/06 2:32 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yes, genius.. pure brilliance!

30/11/06 3:39 pm  
Anonymous Arizaphale said...

Er,why couldn't God have pushed the boulder????

Just quietly?

And why did the idiotic scientist allow himself to be talked into digging up all that dirt? He needs to get over himself and stop worry what the lunatic finge think. The rest of us Christians are perfectly happy that boulders create furrows etc etc etc

30/11/06 11:09 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE: arizaphale

Just quietly, God didn't push the boulder because he was busy having sex with mary at the time. Didn't you get the email?

As for the "idiot scientist", it appears that the lunatic fringe are usually the same people who call scientists idiots.

30/11/06 11:15 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If evolution is most likely true, than why haven’t evolutionists been winning their debates with creation scientists? I mean, if the creation scientists are just blindly following their own proof less dogmatism, than why don’t the evolutionists debate them on national television and make them look like the fools that they are? Your dating systems are all errant; the fossil record is a bunch of baloney, and you ignore evidence all over the place. Why? If evolution is probably true, than show it! I’m not saying that science has proven the existence of God; it has just demonstrated that there is a strong probability of His existence. You were unable to answer my questions about the sun, moon, and other things. Why not? I have more questions for you too. How does evolution fit into the Second Law of Thermodynamics? How do you explain the complete LACK of ‘missing links’? How do creatures like the Coelacanth survive ‘unchanged for millions of years’? How do you explain both dinosaur tracks AND human tracks in the exact same rock? Why have human skeletons (some of them complete) been found in coal beds that have been estimated at ‘millions of years old’? For above said reasons and more I cannot accept evolution. Does creation science PROOVE the existence of God? No. Does it 100% disprove evolution? No. Does it lend great credibility to the existence of God while exposing evolution as hogwash? Definitely yes. If anyone can convincingly answer these questions and the others that I have, than maybe I’ll become an atheist and an evolutionist myself.

Daniel

1/12/06 3:27 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wonderful story.

I also wondered if anyone would propose that god coulda pushed the bolder...

Or, perhaps god is the bolder! The evidence says that the bolder marked the hill... the book says that god marked the hill... therefore, by the transitive property; the bolder is god! Glory be!!!

1/12/06 4:38 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OMG, I love this. It's just... perfect!

Thanks!

1/12/06 4:56 am  
Blogger Aaron Kinney said...

Excellent. Even better than Bertrand's teapot analogy. :)

1/12/06 5:13 am  
Blogger L>T said...

I liked this parable alot. As one who was raised by a dyed in the wool fundimentalist, I can relate. How frustrating those people are!

Did i tell you this is becoming one of my favorite blogs to read? :)

1/12/06 5:27 am  
Anonymous adam said...

"Just quietly, God didn't push the boulder because he was busy having sex with mary at the time. Didn't you get the email?"

So God was having sex and the Earth moved! LMAO!

1/12/06 7:49 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE: anonymous daniel

What strong probability of his existence?

The second law of thermodynamics requires a closed system.

There are no missing links. That is creationist speak for " why can't I see evidence of a dog with a fish's body?"

How can the coelacanth survive for millions of years wen you believe that the earth is between 6 and 10 thousand years old?

There is no evidence of human tracks and dinosaur tracks which were made at the same time.

Go and listen to Miller's dialogue on Apes and Humans

http://beepbeepitsme.blogspot.com/2006/11/ken-miller-on-apes-and-humans.html

1/12/06 8:47 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Brilliant, Beep.

You've kicked a goal here.

The fact that Anonymous Daniel wrote what he did just shows that he has no comprehension skills.

I only wish there was a blog category in the Walkleys - this gets my nomination for 2006.

1/12/06 8:54 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE adam:

God, being a selfish bugger, only allowed the earth to move for him.

Because, unfortunately, although god had made mary from a rib, he had absolutely no idea where he placed her clitoris.

1/12/06 9:05 am  
Blogger IAMB said...

Okay, now I'm not content to lurk anymore...

If evolution is most likely true, than why haven’t evolutionists been winning their debates with creation scientists?

You obviously have very little idea how oral debate works. An oral debate is already in favor of creationists because each claim, while taking only a few seconds to spew, takes more time to refute. Creationists like Hovind win oral debates by volume, not by fact. Ever wonder why many creationists refuse written debate where there's no sympathetic audience and no time limit?

I mean, if the creation scientists are just blindly following their own proof less dogmatism, than why don’t the evolutionists debate them on national television and make them look like the fools that they are?

Oral debate is not how science progresses. Debates in science are settled in journal publications. Sadly, this is a venue where creationists refuse to tread...

Your dating systems are all errant

How so? A claim does not a proof make. You remind me of a creationist on AtBC that showed a dating graph to prove that the method in question was inaccurate... except all of the "missed" marks on the graph were put there by him. That has to be embarrassing.

the fossil record is a bunch of baloney

How so?

and you ignore evidence all over the place.

In shrinkology we call this "projection".

You were unable to answer my questions about the sun, moon, and other things. Why not?

Must have missed those... what were the questions? Are you talking about shrinking sun, solar neutrinos, moon dust, moon recession, what?

How does evolution fit into the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

Beep nailed that one. No more clarification necessary. You really do need to learn a little about the second law before you say it disproves evolution.

How do you explain the complete LACK of ‘missing links’?

Easy: every time we find one, it creates two additional gaps for creationists to bitch about. The problem is, for you, that those gaps shrink every time we find something new. Plus Beep is right: your side rarely has a good grasp of what a transitional species should look like (hint: it's not a cat/dog).

How do creatures like the Coelacanth survive ‘unchanged for millions of years’?

Unchanged? Hardly. The coelacanth of today is not the same species as the cretaceous version. Same family, yes, but it appears that the family nearly went extinct and only a couple versions survived to pass their genes to the present day. It's not as if an individual actually survived millions of years, and it's not as if a genus or family surviving that long is unheard of either. Are you familiar with horseshoe crabs? Dragonflies? Termites? Wasps? Sharks? Gators and crocs? Shrews? Ect...

How do you explain both dinosaur tracks AND human tracks in the exact same rock?

Easy: you don't. Never been an even remotely conclusive find. Ever wonder why credible research teams aren't allowed to look at the Paluxy tracks?

Why have human skeletons (some of them complete) been found in coal beds that have been estimated at ‘millions of years old’?

It's called "intrusive burial" in most cases. In other situations, it's possible for coal to get dissolved in water and possible for the slurry to encase objects and then harden again. Since the minerals it's composed of remain the same he age remains pretty consistent for the coal once it hardens again, despite what it might encase.

If anyone can convincingly answer these questions and the others that I have, than maybe I’ll become an atheist and an evolutionist myself.

A couple things:

1) I have an itching suspicion that you're version of "convincingly" will change with any evidence presented, or you will ignore the evidence altogether.

2) You don't have to be an atheist to be an evolutionist. Sure, some people seem to think so, and some scientists are markedly anti-theist (like PZ, which is one place where we don't see eye to eye), but plenty of evolutionists are religious.

3) Bring on the questions. If they're anything like what I've seen so far I'm going to officially dub you the "PRATT King". Oh, and bring along any quotes you might have. Those are always fun.

Holding my breath...

1/12/06 9:35 am  
Anonymous ted said...

Excellent stuff Beep.

Re: Anon

than why haven’t evolutionists been winning their debates with creation scientists?

They have.

than why don’t the evolutionists debate them on national television and make them look like the fools that they are?

The fact that you have belief is respected, just not accepted by science as a valid explanation of our physical would. No-one is looking to make a fool of anyone. All we ask for is testable evidence.

Your dating systems are all errant;the fossil record is a bunch of baloney,

I assume there's evidence for this which you are now going to present?

and you ignore evidence all over the place.

I'm still waiting for that evidence to turn up...

Why? If evolution is probably true, than show it!

Because the theory of evolution is more believable. Please read this it explains the theory well enough.

it has just demonstrated that there is a strong probability of His existence.

Once again, I'm sure you'll post your evidence for this.

How do you explain the complete LACK of ‘missing links’?

Please re-read Beeps story. The gaps are explained very well and in quite simple terms.

How do you explain both dinosaur tracks AND human tracks in the exact same rock?

I can't. I've never seen any evidence for it. I assume you'll now present some.

Why have human skeletons (some of them complete) been found in coal beds that have been estimated at ‘millions of years old’?

I thought the oldest skeleton that's been found was in a cave in an aquifer that was once dry in Sth. America. It was about 9000 years old if memory serves me corectly. Now I'm exited. If you could just point me to some evidence for this I'd appreciate it.

Does creation science PROOVE the existence of God? No. Does it 100% disprove evolution? No.

It seems you do understand how science works after all. There are no absolutes.

If anyone can convincingly answer these questions and the others that I have, than maybe I’ll become an atheist and an evolutionist myself.

Likewise, should you produce a testable hypothesis for the existence of god, I'll become a christian.

1/12/06 9:36 am  
Blogger thewordygecko said...

Fascinating posts on your site, beepbeep, thanks.

1/12/06 10:31 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

By, the way, god didn't push the boulder, I did, and I have written a book to prove it.

1/12/06 10:56 am  
Blogger Arthur_Vandelay said...

Re Anon: It's amazing how many of these creationists are willing to re-invent the wheel in their cockamamie endeavours to provide slam-dunk refutations of evolution.

The fossil record? Missing links? Dinosaur tracks beside human tracks? Coelacanth? The Second Law of Thermodynamics?

No-one's ever thought of these things before!!!

1/12/06 11:09 am  
Anonymous remy said...

I am reminded of the movie Dumb and Dumber in which our hero asks the object of his affection, "What are the chances of us getting together?"

"A million to one." she responds.

After a brief moment where the viewer expects him to be dashed to the floor he says,

"SO THERE'S A CHANCE!"

He reminds me of a theist.

1/12/06 11:15 am  
Blogger Renegade Eye said...

It's increasingly a waste of time to debate Creationists. Their influence has been until recently overrated.

There is no point to debate the religious belief called Creationism.

1/12/06 11:52 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE dikki: I was thinking more along the lines of the Darwin awards ( http://www.darwinawards.com/ )

1/12/06 11:53 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE gecko: Thanks for visiting. Pop in anytime.

1/12/06 11:57 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE: iamb

Anonymous daniel is a new earth creationist who believes that anyone who says they are a christian isn't a christian if they accept evolution.

You know the story - They are not "true christians." (no true scotsman fallacy)

1/12/06 1:45 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know some ppl wouldn't bother to respond to a young-earth-creationist because they don't wish to validate the creationist theory, and I totally respect that. But I feel some people asking these questions really think it is a matter of debate instead of science, and I'd like to direct them to sources of true scientific information, even if they refuse to see.

Considering that, I turn to Daniel's Q's:

If evolution is most likely true, than why haven’t evolutionists been winning their debates with creation scientists?

You probably just haven't been looking for any, they're out there. Everything you have argued has been used before & refuted: http://www.talkorigins.org Perhaps there you can also find answers to your questions about the sun, moon, & other things?

How does evolution fit into the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

Lets remind everyone of the Second Law, shall we?
The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy. In simple terms, it is an expression of the fact that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and density tend to even out in a physical system which is isolated from the outside world. The earth is NOT a closed system because; all energy we get comes from the Sun, or from initial heat now stored within the earth's crust. The sun & earth's core is giving off energy; the earth (and life on earth) use it up. The overall is a universe is still equal.


How do you explain the complete LACK of ‘missing links’?

Some haven't been found yet. Many have. Check out the horse for instance:
http://www.google.com/search?q=horse+evolution&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official
If you wanna go even simpler, almost all land vertebrates have 4 appendages... I think a god coulda gotten a bit more creative with creature lay-out if he was just drawing up some animals for fun.

How do creatures like the Coelacanth survive ‘unchanged for millions of years’?

(For those who don't know what Coelacanth is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth )

It's well suited to it's environment. Other species of fish "branched off" from it over time.

How do you explain both dinosaur tracks AND human tracks in the exact same rock?

It's either not human footprints, or a hoax; here is a great explanation on that: http://paleo.cc/paluxy.htm, and http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC101.html

Why have human skeletons (some of them complete) been found in coal beds that have been estimated at ‘millions of years old’?

I'm not sure of the particular instance you are referring to, please clarify?

Check here for many more answers here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
But if you still have questions, feel free to bug me with them. I have quite a few of my own about the whole "intelligent design" thing as well. Like, if the earth really was created 6000 years ago, & the speed of light being what it is, how come we can see thousands of light-years into space? What is so repulsive about the idea of evolution? And if there really was a great flood, how in the world did almost all the marsupials just happen to wind up in Australia & how did Noah get them there?

1/12/06 2:47 pm  
Blogger Krystalline Apostate said...

Aye caramba, Bubble boy is back.
Let's just focus for a bit on the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
1st & foremost, it can vary. It doesn't go in 1 particular direction. 1 of the problem w/most creationists (as well as others), is that progression is almost always measured in a specific direction, as opposed to drawing on a pool.
Sometimes, entropy stablizes. It doesn't necessitate an upward or downward direction. Sometimes it just stays on a plateau.
"It is claimed that evolution, by increasing complexity without supernatural intervention, violates the second law of thermodynamics. This law posits that in an idealised isolated system, entropy will tend to increase or stay the same. Entropy is a measure of the dispersal of energy in a physical system so that it is not available to do mechanical work.[57] The claim ignores the fact that biological systems are not isolated systems. Simple calculations[58] show that the Sun-Earth-space system does not violate the second law because the massive increase in entropy due to the Sun and Earth radiating into space dwarfs the small decrease in entropy caused by the evolution of life. In statistical thermodynamics entropy has been envisioned as a measure of the statistical "disorder" at a microstate level, leading to the mistaken idea that entropy implies increasing chaos.[57]"
http://www.answers.com/evolution

As to the Coelacanth? It stayed very much in the same condition because there were no alterations in its environment: ergo, no need to evolve.

How do you explain both dinosaur tracks AND human tracks in the exact same rock?
That, my friend, was a huge error:
"In 1984 additional evidence of the dinosaur nature of some the prints was found when Kuban and Ron Hastings (another researcher) noticed independently that some of the metatarsal footprints had left and right dinosaur toe marks not outlined by indentations in the rock, but by a slightly different coloration of the material. They suspected and later confirmed that the outer toes of the dinosaur tracks in ancient times had filled with a sediment of a slightly different composition than the material into which the actual footprint had been imprinted. When the footprints had been exposed, the center portion had weathered-out more quickly than the outer toes, but the shape of the toes could still be discerned by the coloration. This coloration became more pronounced over time as the material in the tracks turned a rust-like color due to its high iron content."
http://www.unmuseum.org/palx.htm

I might add, as an unkind shot, that thus far, there aren't any evolutionists serving time.

Beep:
Wonderful post, BTW. Kudos. Did you put that parable together? I'm jealous. Seriously.

1/12/06 6:05 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE KA:

Unfortunately I can't claim it. But I agree that it is a great way of explaining "god of the gaps" plus what science is and does.

It is a post by Abacquer at Dear Christians… ( http://indigestible.nightwares.com/2006/10/11/dear-christians/ )

1/12/06 8:50 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

dikkii

‘The fact that Anonymous Daniel wrote what he did just shows that he has no comprehension skills.’

Do you mind backing up your statement?

Daniel

2/12/06 2:49 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

beepbeep

‘There are no missing links. That is creationist speak for " why can't I see evidence of a dog with a fish's body?"’

I’m looking for anything in the ‘fossil record’ or anywhere else that even MIGHT be a ‘missing link’. Unfortunately for you, the ‘missing links’ are still missing.

‘How can the coelacanth survive for millions of years when you believe that the earth is between 6 and 10 thousand years old?’’

It didn’t survive for millions of years, that’s my point.

‘There is no evidence of human tracks and dinosaur tracks which were made at the same time.’

Are you blind and deaf? This was written on January 31 1995 in the Russian newspaper called ‘Komsomolskaya Pravda’.

‘Human footprints lie alongside thousands of dinosaur prints on a Turkmenian plateau.’ The man who wrote the article reported that every metre of the half-kilometre-wide rock surface is covered by three-toed footprints ‘made by giant dinosaurs making their morning or evening promenade along the ancient sea-shore’. The Turkmenian plateau contains more than 3,000 footprints.

There have also findings like this in Texas and other places in the world.

I also wonder about the TENS OF THOUSANDS of reported sightings of dinosaurs or dinosaurs-like creatures. Now, undoubtedly may of these were hoaxes or the people had overactive imaginations, but TENS OF THOUSANDS of reported sightings? Looks like there’s a distinct probability that there may be at least some left alive. And IF there are, how do you explain it?

More later.

Daniel

2/12/06 3:05 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

iamb

‘You obviously have very little idea how oral debate works. An oral debate is already in favor of creationists because each claim, while taking only a few seconds to spew, takes more time to refute. Creationists like Hovind win oral debates by volume, not by fact. Ever wonder why many creationists refuse written debate where there's no sympathetic audience and no time limit?’

Most of the claims cannot be refuted by evolution, which is why I am a creationist. And where have creationists refused written debate. (Hey, I’m in one right now! Though I don’t know my stuff nearly as well as most creationists.) Most if not all of the creation/evolution debates have been recorded on tape, audio, or paper. Now you should be able to take that home and pick it apart right? Then why haven’t you?

‘Oral debate is not how science progresses. Debates in science are settled in journal publications. Sadly, this is a venue where creationists refuse to tread...’

That’s because those papers won’t let the creationists in. Come on, invite someone like Ken Ham or someone of his caliber to do that and he would jump at the chance.

‘How so? A claim does not a proof make. You remind me of a creationist on AtBC that showed a dating graph to prove that the method in question was inaccurate... except all of the "missed" marks on the graph were put there by him. That has to be embarrassing.’

All your dating methods are baloney and I’ll get to that later.

‘‘the fossil record is a bunch of baloney’ ‘How so?’’

I was hoping that you would ask! One of the best evidences are the trees that stand upright passing through multiple layers of rock that are supposedly ‘millions of years old.’ Come on, tell me. And how do you tell the age of the layers? Do you tell the age of the rock by the fossils that are in then, or the age of the fossils by the rock that they are in?

‘In shrinkology we call this "projection".’

Let me give some examples then. How ‘bout human fossils in coal beds? How ‘bout pictures of dinosaurs on pottery and other things from civilizations that weren’t even supposed to know of the existence of dinosaurs?

‘Must have missed those... what were the questions? Are you talking about shrinking sun, solar neutrinos, moon dust, moon recession, what?’

You did, they were a little while back. They were about the shrinking of the sun, moon recession, the Mississippi River Delta and I forget what else.

‘Beep nailed that one. No more clarification necessary. You really do need to learn a little about the second law before you say it disproves evolution.’

I for got to address that one, sorry beepbeep. I need some clarification before I address it further. Are you saying that evolution is an open system? And if so please explain.

‘Easy: every time we find one, it creates two additional gaps for creationists to bitch about. The problem is, for you, that those gaps shrink every time we find something new. Plus Beep is right: your side rarely has a good grasp of what a transitional species should look like (hint: it's not a cat/dog).’

Then I would like two favors please. First, I would like to know what they are supposed to look like. And second, would you give me an example?

‘Unchanged? Hardly. The coelacanth of today is not the same species as the cretaceous version. Same family, yes, but it appears that the family nearly went extinct and only a couple versions survived to pass their genes to the present day. It's not as if an individual actually survived millions of years, and it's not as if a genus or family surviving that long is unheard of either.’

Than why are the almost exactly the same as the fossilized specimens that we find? And how do you know that they almost went extinct?

‘Are you familiar with horseshoe crabs? Dragonflies? Termites? Wasps? Sharks? Gators and crocs? Shrews? Ect...’

Wunderbar! You were able to give seven examples of creatures that have been around for 6,000 years! Got any that have been around longer? I’ll give you the answer. There aren’t any. Before you try to combat this one, you must lend credible support to the ‘fossil record.’

‘Easy: you don't. Never been an even remotely conclusive find. Ever wonder why credible research teams aren't allowed to look at the Paluxy tracks?’

Ever wonder why evolutionists refused to examine them? There was one site here in the U.S. where an evolutionist who was at a site refused to look at the tracks, and then turned around and told a camera crew that he found no evidence against evolution at the site. And when were ‘credible research teams’ denied access to the site? (And who owned the site, where did the team come from, and who denied them access?)

‘It's called "intrusive burial" in most cases. In other situations, it's possible for coal to get dissolved in water and possible for the slurry to encase objects and then harden again. Since the minerals it's composed of remain the same he age remains pretty consistent for the coal once it hardens again, despite what it might encase.’

That often?

‘I have an itching suspicion that you're version of "convincingly" will change with any evidence presented, or you will ignore the evidence altogether.’

First off, you haven’t presented any evidence that is even remotely convincing, so it’s a moot point so far. Secondly, if I have no answer for something, call me on it and I will either find and answer shortly thereafter or will admit that I have no answer and none forthcoming.

‘You don't have to be an atheist to be an evolutionist. Sure, some people seem to think so, and some scientists are markedly anti-theist (like PZ, which is one place where we don't see eye to eye), but plenty of evolutionists are religious.’

Well you can’t believe the Bible AND evolution because they are mutually exclusive.

‘Bring on the questions. If they're anything like what I've seen so far I'm going to officially dub you the "PRATT King". Oh, and bring along any quotes you might have. Those are always fun.’

Remind me, what does PRATT stand for?

‘Holding my breath...’

You can breathe now. If you don’t I guess I’ll have to ask for ‘ole blue.

Daniel

2/12/06 4:14 am  
Blogger Krystalline Apostate said...

Hey, Bubble Boy:
I’m looking for anything in the ‘fossil record’ or anywhere else that even MIGHT be a ‘missing link’. Unfortunately for you, the ‘missing links’ are still missing.
http://www.mirabilis.ca/2006/03/27/ancient-skull-found-in-ethiopia/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik_roseae
There's a lot of them, but I don't see the point of presenting them to you, if you refuse to accept the evidence.
Now, undoubtedly may of these were hoaxes or the people had overactive imaginations, but TENS OF THOUSANDS of reported sightings?
What, you subscribe to the Fortean times or something?
There are also THOUSANDS of UFO sightings. It's still hogwash.
I went & looked it up:
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/russ.htm
"In view of the fact that elongate dinosaur tracks and other non-human phenomena that have been mistaken for human footprints in the past, (Kuban, 1986), and the lack of rigorous documentation by the human track advocates, Golovin's suggestion that the those who do not accept the human track claims suffer from "evolutionary indoctrination" rings hollow. Likewise, when Brenner suggests that the human track claims seem convincing simply because evolutionists have not disproved them, he seems to misunderstand the nature of science. When extraordinary claims are made, the burden is on the claimants to back them up. Without rigorous documentation of the alleged human tracks, what does Brenner expect the scientists to address? They've described and documented the dinosaur tracks, and so far the humanoid track proponents have presented no substantial evidence that human or even very human-like tracks occur at the site. Indeed, even major creationists groups have refrained from endorsing the claims. For example, "Answers in Genesis" tempered Golovin's remarks by noting that "one needs to be cautious about accepting the prints described on the basis of just this report. None of our sources has been able to obtain any further information on the prints, nor any photographs to this date." (AIG website, 2006).

Conclusions
Alleged human or human-like prints alongside dinosaur tracks in Turkmenistan have not been rigorously described or documented. In view of this, and the extensive evidence that millions of years separate non-avian dinosaurs from humans, the tracks in question cannot be regarded as reliable or even probable human prints."
But of course, you won't accept any evidence presented to you until AIG approves it, right? You realize that the bibble is a sloppy, inaccurate, non-historical set of documents, right? Let me guess: you're homeschooled? 'Cause this Hovind bushwah doesn't cut it in the real world, sonny.

2/12/06 4:45 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ted

‘They have.’

Would you mind showing me when?

‘The fact that you have belief is respected, just not accepted by science as a valid explanation of our physical would. No-one is looking to make a fool of anyone. All we ask for is testable evidence.’

Then don’t trash my belief, trash my view of science.

I assume there's evidence for this which you are now going to present?

Explain the fossilized trees that stand through multiple layers of rock for me.

‘I'm still waiting for that evidence to turn up...’

Like I told iamb.
Let me give some examples then. How ‘bout human fossils in coal beds? How ‘bout pictures of dinosaurs on pottery and other things from civilizations that weren’t even supposed to know of the existence of dinosaurs?

‘Because the theory of evolution is more believable. Please read this it explains the theory well enough.’

Your answer doesn’t make any sense. If evolution is true, then bring it to me, don’t make me go chasing it.

‘Once again, I'm sure you'll post your evidence for this.’

Will it do any good? How about I first bash evolution, then demonstrate the existence of God?

‘Please re-read Beeps story. The gaps are explained very well and in quite simple terms.’

I see monkeys. I see people. I see frogs. I see lizards. I see nothing that brings them together. There isn’t even evidence of them being even close to the same. Your rock would have to have bounced about 500 yards (about 450 meters for you metric people) to one side or the other for it to be even close.

‘I can't. I've never seen any evidence for it. I assume you'll now present some.’

This was written on January 31 1995 in the Russian newspaper called ‘Komsomolskaya Pravda’.

‘Human footprints lie alongside thousands of dinosaur prints on a Turkmenian plateau.’ The man who wrote the article reported that every metre of the half-kilometre-wide rock surface is covered by three-toed footprints ‘made by giant dinosaurs making their morning or evening promenade along the ancient sea-shore’. The Turkmenian plateau contains more than 3,000 footprints.

There have also findings like this in Texas and other places in the world.

I thought the oldest skeleton that's been found was in a cave in an aquifer that was once dry in Sth. America. It was about 9000 years old if memory serves me correctly. Now I'm exited. If you could just point me to some evidence for this I'd appreciate it.

In 1842 coal miners in Germany found a human skull while mining deep in a coal bed that was estimated at 50 million years old. The scull is now part of the Freiberg Mining Academy. In 1985, a coal mine in Italy produced a human jawbone from 600 feet deep in the Miocene stratum, which is dated at 20 million years old. Have you ever heard of the Calaveras skull? It was found during the California gold rush, deep beneath layers of lava flow that were assumed to be millions of years old. In 1975, a rock collector found the lower halves of two human skeletons. The man had his find verified by experts and camera men, but when he took them to the University of Utah, to get them officially tested, they refused. Was it because the bones were found in rocks dated to be 100 million years old?

‘It seems you do understand how science works after all. There are no absolutes.’

You missed it. Science doesn’t prove anything. God makes the absolutes.
Likewise, should you produce a testable hypothesis for the existence of god, I'll become a Christian.

First let me disprove evolution, then I can build a foundation on science that while not proving God, does lend evidence to His existence.

Daniel

2/12/06 4:57 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What I assume to be Dan's source for the dinosaur tracks:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/dinosaurs.asp

But the tracks in question are not human. Human tracks along side of dinosaur tracks don't exist. Tracks in question were made by bi-pedal dinosaurs. http://paleo.cc/paluxy/russ.htm

Who's seen a dinosaur lately? Are you referring to Nessy? Ya know... a lot of people claim to have seen aliens, bigfoot, and Elvis, and I don't believe their stories either. I'd believe pictures that haven't been photo-shopped.

2/12/06 5:34 am  
Anonymous remy said...

In some ways I am glad that there are people willing to answer the childish questions of xian bloggers. NGB is being mugged by three of them at the moment. Then, when I come to one of my other favourite sites I find another impossibly stupid person masquerading as a debater.

I have been admonished for being too harsh with said xians but I know it is not possible to reason with them.

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions" Jefferson

2/12/06 6:33 am  
Anonymous Jeff Guinn said...

beepbeepitsme:

This is completely OT, but ...

I found my way here via Is Natural Selection Tautological

Sometime later, while googling Muslims + "Pig Racing", I came upon Random_Speak, which links to ...

You.

The Web is amazing.

2/12/06 9:14 am  
Blogger Arthur_Vandelay said...

I also wonder about the TENS OF THOUSANDS of reported sightings of dinosaurs or dinosaurs-like creatures.

(Hint: Capitalising something does not make it true.)

‘Human footprints lie alongside thousands of dinosaur prints on a Turkmenian plateau.’ The man who wrote the article reported that every metre of the half-kilometre-wide rock surface is covered by three-toed footprints ‘made by giant dinosaurs making their morning or evening promenade along the ancient sea-shore’. The Turkmenian plateau contains more than 3,000 footprints.

Quashed. Try again. And while you're at it, please explain why evidence, testability, etc. makes any difference to you whatsoever, given that as a creationist you believe that the scientific method (i.e. where conclusions are drawn from the evidence at hand) should be thrown out the window, and that the only useful function of scientific research--if indeed it has a use at all--is to try and make the evidence fit what is already assumed to be true in advance out of blind devotion to religious ideology?

2/12/06 9:33 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This guy is Hilarious. Doest he realize he's just like the priest in you post Beep? No matter what kind of proof you have for evolution, he'll still find plenty of missing links and TENS OF THOUSANDS of reported sightings of Dinosaurs and men having breakfast together.
Hilarious, please, keep commenting, i find it very entertaining

2/12/06 10:18 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE jeff:

"Pig racing"? - lol Welcome to my blog. Pop back whenever you like.

For the rest of the commenters here. Anonymous daniel has a reset button, so no matter how many times you explain something to him, he resets the button in his head and goes back to believing the claims of Kent Hovind.

He is compelled to do this for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it will shatter his religious belief that the world is only a few thousand years old if he doesn't.

Secondly, he also believes that no "real christian" can believe the earth is billions of years old. So, if Kent Hovind and the likes' claims are summarily dismissed, he can not only NOT call himself a creationist, he cannot consider himself a christian either.

This is where the reset button in his brain comes in handy.

Now, a quick comment to daniel.

RE: anonymous daniel:

According to your logic, if you cast doubt on natural selection, you make it more probable that the god you believe in exists.

This doesn't occur in the logical world, only the world in which you inhabit.

As, I have said to you before, even if all of cosmology, physics, genetics, geomorphology etc could be shown to be wrong; it does not make the case for your god any more probable.

Why is this? Why doesn't it make your god concept more probable?

Firstly, because you would have to be able to design a test which shows that the earth is only a few thousand years old. This test would have to be repeatable.

That is, it would need to indicate that the earth is young consistently and any anomolies would need to be able to be addressed scientifically. Is there a test or scientific procedure which shows this? No.

So where does this idea come from? I will tell you as I am not sure that you know the history.

According to the timeline worked out by Archbishop James Ussher when he was 73, "the heavens and the earth" were created on 4004 BCE at 9:00 a.m. Ussher's "Chronologies of the Old and New Testaments" was first published 1650-54.

Now, how did Ussher, an archbishop, come to this conclusion? He derived these figures by using the ages given in the genealogies and other dates in the Bible. So, based on his BELIEF that the bible was inerrant, he added up the lifespans of people in the bible, some of whom are claimed to have lived for hundreds of years, and came to the decision that the earth was created in 4004BC.

This isn't a scientific process to determine the age of the earth. This is conclusion reached through religious belief. There is nothing scientific about it, unless you equate being able to perform 3 digit addition as scientific.

Now, the onus is on you and the other YECs to provide a scientific model which indicates that the earth is only a few thousand years old.

Now, I don't mean a chapter from the bible. And I don't mean adding up geneologies from the bible as for those of us who do NOT believe that the bible is scientifically, historically, and cosmologically inerrant; will not consider this to be an account of the earth's age based in reason.

I mean a scientific model based in scientific principles which will indicate the age of the earth as being only a couple of thousand years old.

You seem to have confidence that the entire scientific community, excluding "science creationists" (many of whom do NOT hold accredited degrees in anything except religious navel gazing); has some sort of worldwide conspiracy where they only agree with each other in order to piss off new earth creationists.

The likelihood of the world's scientific community organizing and continuing a conspiracy of such vastness and magnitude is proposterous.

I know many scientists in various scientific disciplines and to my knowledge, they have no secret handshake they perform which alligns them with a mass worldwide conspiracy to deliberately devise scientific methodology which will mislead everyone into believing that the world is not billions of years old.

You see it is never going to be enough to make claims that modern science is wrong because it conflicts with your belief system. You need to be able to provide a system which dates the earth differently.

So, where is that scientific system?

2/12/06 11:57 am  
Anonymous ted said...

Re: Daniel

Would you mind showing me when?

Sorry, it was a loaded statement. It's a matter of opinion really. I think they have, you think they haven't.

The vast majority of your arguments however, have been refuted by creationists. The guys at Answering Genesis, a site that's considered to be pretty good by most creationists standards, have already dealt with most of your questions. Remains in coal beds, the anomalies you mention in the fossil record, the second law of thermodynamics, the tracks, missing links, the moon and many other things you haven't mentioned as yet.

Then don’t trash my belief, trash my view of science.

Sorry, that's what I thought I'd done. Science requires testable evidence so I asked for something testable.

Your answer doesn’t make any sense. If evolution is true, then bring it to me, don’t make me go chasing it.

You asked about the theory, I provided a link to an explanation of it. That my friend is providing you with information. One click is hardly a chase. Now, it being a theory, it is up to you to provide some credible evidence if you wish to disprove it. A link will do me, although I've already provided a link that provides you what's arguably the best creationist argument on the web. Failing that, please see Beep's, KA's, Arthur's and New.Atheist's responses. There's no point in me repeating them.

Will it do any good? How about I first bash evolution, then demonstrate the existence of God?

You can if you want I suppose and I'll probably enjoy arguing it with you, but there's no need really. You see, I'm not bashing god. All I'm saying is that I can't find any scientifically testable evidence I can use to help me form a hypothesis in support of the existence of god.

You missed it. Science doesn’t prove anything. God makes the absolutes.

No, I think you missed it. Science doesn't prove anything, as you correctly point out. All it asks for is evidence it can test. So if god makes absolutes, why aren't they testable?

2/12/06 2:20 pm  
Blogger IAMB said...

Most of the claims cannot be refuted by evolution, which is why I am a creationist.

On the contrary... most of the claims have been refuted numerous times. Not only by evolutionists, but by physicists, geologists, chemists, etc. You just refuse to acknowledge this.

And where have creationists refused written debate. (Hey, I’m in one right now! Though I don’t know my stuff nearly as well as most creationists.) Most if not all of the creation/evolution debates have been recorded on tape, audio, or paper.

Hovind, notably, is famous for saying he won't engage in written debate. You and others like you do this all the time. The leaders of the movement rarely engage in written debate at all. This doesn't apply all around, but it's fairly common. There's really no reason to take oral debates home and pick them apart. One exception I've taken to that was chewing into the ID debate tapes from Liberty's debate team a while back. Like I said: oral debate gives an advantage to creationists by volume (not to mention many creationists manage to rig debates and bus in a sympathetic audience for the venue... if you've never debated in front of a totally hostile audience against a seasoned debater to whom the audience is sympathetic, you should try it sometime).

That’s because those papers won’t let the creationists in. Come on, invite someone like Ken Ham or someone of his caliber to do that and he would jump at the chance.

Funny you should say that. There's been several instances (notably in the McLean v. Arkansas case) where creationists have been asked to supply rejected publications in a court of law. They have failed to produce any. Why don't you email Ken and ask him to supply samples of rejected papers? I'm sure he'd be happy to oblige.

All your dating methods are baloney and I’ll get to that later.

Don't take too long.

I was hoping that you would ask! One of the best evidences are the trees that stand upright passing through multiple layers of rock that are supposedly ‘millions of years old.’ Come on, tell me.

Polystrate trees weren't a problem for geologists over a hundred years ago. Why should they be now? Modern geology does not say anywhere that layers can't be deposited suddenly, nor does it say a fossilized tree cannot be exposed and buried again several times in succession. Some forests tend to grow on flood plains, and they aren't call "flood plains" because a body of water only flooded the plain once...

And how do you tell the age of the layers? Do you tell the age of the rock by the fossils that are in then, or the age of the fossils by the rock that they are in?

I love this one. Contaminant-free rock samples can be dated independently from any fossils. Actually, you don't want a fossil in the sample if your using radiometric dating. Index fossils are only used to estimate the age of a layer. They're called index fossils because we only find them in certain layers, and independent dating of the layer apart from the fossils using radiometric methods agrees with the estimates, no matter where in the world the index fossil is found or what the composition of the sample is.

Let me give some examples then. How ‘bout human fossils in coal beds?

Source please? Then we can discuss. As is, the claim is too general to comment on.

How ‘bout pictures of dinosaurs on pottery and other things from civilizations that weren’t even supposed to know of the existence of dinosaurs?

How about pictures on pottery of creatures that no one has ever seen or creatures that never existed? You underestimate the human imagination, and you also overestimate the relevance of art and folklore to actual events. What would you think of someone a thousand years from now watching a horror film of today featuring giant spiders and concluding that it's solid evidence that we regularly fought giant spiders?

They were about the shrinking of the sun,

The sun generates heat via nuclear fusion, not gravitational collapse. Besides, the most accurate recent measurements show virtually no shrinkage over the last 20 years, so it's entirely possible that the original measurements were wrong (understandable since the surface of the sun isn't solid so a reference point for measurement is difficult) or that the sun's diameter is cyclic just like plenty of other stars.

moon recession,

Since the moon is receding at 3.8cm/year, and is 38,500,000,000cm from the earth, that means it would have been touching earth 10.1 billion years ago. This demonstrates a young universe how?

the Mississippi River Delta

That one assumes that the mouth of the river was always in the same location as today. Isn't that the sort of uniformitarian assumption that you creationists like to complain about? Besides, the sediment in the delta is seven miles thick. That's a little much for a 6k year old earth, and cannot be explained by a global flood either.

I need some clarification before I address it further. Are you saying that evolution is an open system? And if so please explain.

Evolution is not an open system. It's a process, not a system. However, the process operates within an open system: earth. A closed system is one in which energy does not come from an outside source. We have one here on earth: the sun. The energy to run pretty much every bit of life on this planet comes either directly or indirectly from the sun.

Then I would like two favors please. First, I would like to know what they are supposed to look like. And second, would you give me an example?

Depends what animal's ancestry we're talking about. Another commenter gave you a good one: Tiktaalik rosea. It had a bone structure perfectly suited for "walking" while partially supported by shallow water. This gives a good idea where legs in amphibians came from. Even better: it was pretty much exactly what we predicted a fish/amphibian transition would have in the way of features. Want more?
not as if an individual actually survived millions of years, and it's not as if a genus or family surviving that long is unheard of either.’

Than why are the almost exactly the same as the fossilized specimens that we find? And how do you know that they almost went extinct?

Same reason fossilized anything (when it comes to extant versions of extinct creatures) resembles the modern version: it was successful. If it isn't, it goes extinct. If it is, you won't see much in the way of changes among that family. We know that they almost went extinct because out of many different types of prehistoric coelacanth, only a couple versions are still with us. That means the rest of the different species are extinct. You lose the majority of diversity in a family, the survivors count as lucky.

Wunderbar! You were able to give seven examples of creatures that have been around for 6,000 years! Got any that have been around longer?

Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you to show how all current understanding of the fossil record is wrong. My examples stand.

Ever wonder why evolutionists refused to examine them? There was one site here in the U.S. where an evolutionist who was at a site refused to look at the tracks, and then turned around and told a camera crew that he found no evidence against evolution at the site. And when were ‘credible research teams’ denied access to the site? (And who owned the site, where did the team come from, and who denied them access?)

Hate to tell you, but scientists did examine the tracks at one point, and I've seen the research work (including very detailed pictures). The tracks in Texas are bogus, and now research teams aren't allowed to visit.

First off, you haven’t presented any evidence that is even remotely convincing, so it’s a moot point so far.

Guess we'd better find out what you would consider "convincing". We can go from there.

Secondly, if I have no answer for something, call me on it and I will either find and answer shortly thereafter or will admit that I have no answer and none forthcoming.

That's very good of you. However, at this point I'm not the one asking the questions so we may not get there...

Well you can’t believe the Bible AND evolution because they are mutually exclusive.

Beep, you're a psychic. I owe you a beer, and I'll see about getting you in for Randi's million dollar challenge..

Remind me, what does PRATT stand for?

Points Refuted A Thousand Times. Sorry, it's a Usenet term that isn't so common anymore. To make a long story short, I know people have pointed this out to you before but I'll do it again: The Index to Creationist Claims. Read through it. I think you'll find most of your arguments there. I encourage you not to just take their word for it, but follow up on the sources listed with each refutation. Those of us who actually contribute to TalkOrigins spend lots of our spare time working on this stuff. It's insulting to dismiss it without follow-up.

I've invited you before, and I'll do it again: bring everything you have to the talk.origins newsgroup. You'll get more responses than you know what to do with. Until next time... TTFN

2/12/06 2:27 pm  
Blogger Krystalline Apostate said...

Bubble Boy anonymous daniel:
I see monkeys. I see people. I see frogs. I see lizards. I see nothing that brings them together. There isn’t even evidence of them being even close to the same.
Do you even understand the concept of speciation? Do you know there's more than 1 kind? Do you realize we are closer to chimps than mice are to rats? You're expecting some sort of ridiculous explanation of a frog becoming a lizard overnight, or some Lamarckian hogwash? Do you know what DNA is? A genome? An allele? Have you heard of punctuated equilibrium? Punctuated gradualism? Have you watched the Ken Miller video, where he squashes creationism like a bug? (Special note: Miller's a CHRISTIAN, just like yourself)
Then don’t trash my belief, trash my view of science.
You. Don't. Have. A. View. Of. Science. What you have is a poorly constructed, illogical sequence slapped together by a bunch of non-degreed religious folk (oh, they have degrees? Sure they do: they printed their own diplomas) who are spending far more money on anti-evolution propaganda than they are on real research.
As to the rest of your indoctrination:
A. SCIENCE IS NOT A DEMOCRACY - we don't vote on what makes everyone feel better, what works is what's accepted.
You asked prior for a list of items that have impacted your life via evolution?
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/medicine_01
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/agriculture_01
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/pigliucci.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/060301_crime
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/ellington_01
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/bull.html
B. Creationism isn't falsifiable - go look up the definition of the word
C. Evolution is NOT ACCOUNTABLE for the condition of the world today.

Hovind made those figures up - they're not even remotely correct. (how on earth can any demographic figures be over a 100%? It's ludicrous.) Abortion has always been w/us, since recorded history. Rape also has been (go look in your own bible for both of those - they existed LONG before). Teenagers have always been somewhat suicidal. Why do you think that generals send young men into battle?

First let me disprove evolution, then I can build a foundation on science that while not proving God, does lend evidence to His existence.
You're a homeschooled teenager: you're going to take on the entire scientific community? Yeesh, talk about hubris. You're in for a biiiiggg shock, sonny boy. I'd say you have a snowball's chance in hell.

PRATT, BTW, stands for POINTS REFUTED A THOUSAND TIMES.

If you're going to continue w/argument ad Hovind, you will be laughed outta every blog that has anyone w/the remote resemblance of intelligence among the commenters/posters, unless they're sympatico.

& honestly, I'm somewhat sympathetic here. I had a variety of nutty views when I was your age. If I'd read Hovind at that age, I'd've been swayed too.
But I grew up. I outgrew all the weird nonsense. I could tell you piles of stories that I believed in. All ridiculous.
"By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out." - Dawkins.

2/12/06 7:05 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous Daniel wrote:

Do you mind backing up your statement?

I don't mind at all.

Click here and read this.

2/12/06 7:13 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can someone be anonymous and daniel at the same time, Beep?

2/12/06 7:44 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

Re daniel: Yeah, I know. I have to differentiate between you and him. (Unless of course, you are the anonymous daniel as well? lol)

2/12/06 8:21 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

auther_vandelay

‘Hint: Capitalizing something does not make it true.’

Whoever said that it did? I was emphasizing.

‘…given that as a creationist you believe that the scientific method (i.e. where conclusions are drawn from the evidence at hand) should be thrown out the window…’

Look who’s talking! In my entire life, I have never seen anything scientific that supports evolution. The scientific method is a useful and fitting tool, and the evidence points to creation.

‘…is to try and make the evidence fit what is already assumed to be true in advance out of blind devotion to religious ideology?’

If I am blindly following religious ideology without any regard for scientific evidence, than you should have no problem squashing anything and everything that I say.

Daniel

5/12/06 2:42 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ka

‘There's a lot of them, but I don't see the point of presenting them to you, if you refuse to accept the evidence.’

Did it ever occur to you that I refuse to accept evolution because no one has shown me a reason to? And I would be only too happy to discuss any bogus missing links that you may come up with.

‘…and the extensive evidence that millions of years separate non-avian dinosaurs from humans…’

I would love to see you back up that claim.

‘Cause this Hovind bushwah doesn't cut it in the real world, sonny.’

Is the only way that you can debate is by mudslinging, belittling, and name-calling? Thanks but no thanks. I like evidence.

Daniel

5/12/06 2:53 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

beepbeep

‘According to your logic, if you cast doubt on natural selection, you make it more probable that the god you believe in exists.’

(Sigh) I keep telling you but you keep ignoring me. I am going to say this once again and I want you to listen carefully. I AGREE WITH NATURAL SELLECTION.

‘Firstly, because you would have to be able to design a test which shows that the earth is only a few thousand years old. This test would have to be repeatable.’

Scientific evidence throughout the universe demonstrates that the world is 20,000 years old AT THE MOST. Yet you continue to blindly follow evolution. Why? Are you afraid that God MIGHT be real? Did you know that this was predicted in the Bible? Second Peter 3:3-7 say, ‘3First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.’

Wow! How did some guy 2,000 years ago know that people would deny that God made the heavens and the earth (v5)?

‘According to the timeline worked out by Archbishop James Ussher when he was 73, "the heavens and the earth" were created on 4004 BCE at 9:00 a.m. Ussher's "Chronologies of the Old and New Testaments" was first published 1650-54.’

As the exact time is not in the Bible, I would not go quite as far as he did, but as for the age of the earth, he was reasonably close.

‘Now, how did Ussher, an archbishop, come to this conclusion? He derived these figures by using the ages given in the genealogies and other dates in the Bible. So, based on his BELIEF that the bible was inerrant, he added up the lifespans of people in the bible, some of whom are claimed to have lived for hundreds of years, and came to the decision that the earth was created in 4004BC.’

And I agree with that.

‘This isn't a scientific process to determine the age of the earth. This is conclusion reached through religious belief. There is nothing scientific about it, unless you equate being able to perform 3 digit addition as scientific.’

Whoever said that it was scientific? I look at it in this way. Ok, so the Bible says that the universe is approximately 6,000 years old. So now what does scientific evidence say? Evidence says that the world is definitely less than 20,000 years old and probably less than 10,000 years old. Hey! What do you know! That’s close to what the Bible says! Hum, if the newest parts of the Bible are 2,000 years old already, than someone smarter than just fishermen and shepherds must have had something to do with it. Maybe God is real!

‘Now, the onus is on you and the other YECs to provide a scientific model which indicates that the earth is only a few thousand years old.

Now, I don't mean a chapter from the bible. And I don't mean adding up genealogies from the bible as for those of us who do NOT believe that the bible is scientifically, historically, and cosmologically inerrant; will not consider this to be an account of the earth's age based in reason.’

It’s called creation. Study it. I mean really, objectively study it. Then go back and compare it with evolution. Look at it with an open mind, and study. There is no way that I would want you to accept creation just because I say that it’s true, as that would be very foolish. Look at it neutrally. Just for the fun of it, look at it from the perspective of having no idea which one is right and look only at the evidence for both sides. I know that you won’t do this because that would leave the door open to the possibility of the existence of God and that is a no-no. As it says in John 3:19 and 20, ‘This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.’

‘You seem to have confidence that the entire scientific community, excluding "science creationists" (many of whom do NOT hold accredited degrees in anything except religious navel gazing); has some sort of worldwide conspiracy where they only agree with each other in order to piss off new earth creationists.’

Actually, I know that not all evolutionists agree with each other. They are constantly disagreeing with each other over one thing or another, normally the exact origin of the earth, whether it be the big bang or something else. But as the old saying goes, ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend.’ They don’t like each other, but they like the creationists even less.

Daniel

5/12/06 3:53 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ted

‘Sorry, it was a loaded statement. It's a matter of opinion really. I think they have, you think they haven't.’

Apology accepted. I probably do the same from time to time.

‘You asked about the theory, I provided a link to an explanation of it. That my friend is providing you with information. One click is hardly a chase. Now, it being a theory, it is up to you to provide some credible evidence if you wish to disprove it. A link will do me, although I've already provided a link that provides you what's arguably the best creationist argument on the web. Failing that, please see Beep's, KA's, Arthur's and New.Atheist's responses. There's no point in me repeating them.’

I just don’t have a lot of time to write, so I would appreciate it if you just told me on here.

‘You can if you want I suppose and I'll probably enjoy arguing it with you, but there's no need really. You see, I'm not bashing god. All I'm saying is that I can't find any scientifically testable evidence I can use to help me form a hypothesis in support of the existence of god.’

At last, some one who will approach this with a reasoning attitude. I’m out of time so I’ll get back to you tomorrow.

‘So if god makes absolutes, why aren't they testable?’

Where do you think the ‘scientific laws’ came from? Are our interpretations of the laws always accurate? No. But where would the world be without laws? Got to go.

Daniel

5/12/06 4:03 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE: anonymous daniel

"Scientific evidence throughout the universe demonstrates that the world is 20,000 years old AT THE MOST. Yet you continue to blindly follow evolution."

Provide that scientific information from sources. Also provide the method they use to test the age. (NO Hovind stuff - He is a laughing stock.)

5/12/06 10:24 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

Throughout the universe? There are scientists on other planets who provide you with answers?

5/12/06 10:25 am  
Blogger Krystalline Apostate said...

Bubble Boy:
Look who’s talking! In my entire life, I have never seen anything scientific that supports evolution.
I'd advise you get out more, then.
Did it ever occur to you that I refuse to accept evolution because no one has shown me a reason to? And I would be only too happy to discuss any bogus missing links that you may come up with.
See how you negate any evidence presented? Bogus? Poisoning the well.
I would love to see you back up that claim.
'any bogus missing links' makes this an effort in futility.
Is the only way that you can debate is by mudslinging, belittling, and name-calling? Thanks but no thanks. I like evidence.
I've provided evidence on more than 1 occasion. So has everyone else here. You continuously dismiss it w/ridiculous points derived from Dr. Dufusoid. Sorry, I call it the way I see it. You only like the evidence that agrees w/you, that much is blaringly obvious.
Allow me to do a little armchair shrinkology here:
Any time someone tries to discuss this is a calm manner, it just encourages you. I can pretty much guarantee, you're not going to change anyone's mind here. Chances are zero.
Your entire epistomology is just a joke. The bibble's a load of crap. I can prove that. Deal w/it.
Somebody's got to tell you the truth, straight up: Hovind's a fucktard. I'd advise you drop the hero worship - you're in for a world of hurt.
It’s called creation. Study it. I mean really, objectively study it. Then go back and compare it with evolution. Look at it with an open mind, and study. There is no way that I would want you to accept creation just because I say that it’s true, as that would be very foolish. Look at it neutrally. Just for the fun of it, look at it from the perspective of having no idea which one is right and look only at the evidence for both sides.
I've done all that. Seriously. I can't seem to get past a few things, however:
A. A single biologist in 1 year publishes more than any (and all of) the 'researchers' at the DI.
B. Not 1 piece of (peer-reviewed) research has ever been released by any of your beloved 'scientists'.
C. Millions of dollars spent: nothing to show for it.
D. All any creationist has ever done is try to piss on the 'theory'.
E. None of the claims are falsifiable.

Fact is, you've been sold a false bill of goods.
I'd be pissed off, if I were you.

P.S, where'd you get that 'TENS OF THOUSANDS of dinosaurs' dreck? Discovery Channel? Nat'l Geographic? Got proof?

5/12/06 11:11 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE ka:

Just out of interest. Do you call him bubble boy because he blows bubbles out of his arse, or because he lives in a pseudo-intellectual bubble? Personally, I prefer the former.

5/12/06 12:13 pm  
Blogger Krystalline Apostate said...

BBIM:
Do you call him bubble boy because he blows bubbles out of his arse, or because he lives in a pseudo-intellectual bubble?
I started calling him bubble boy, because he
A. Had no clue his hero was on trial for fraud, &
B. the latter.

Bubble Boy:
Hey, I got 1 for ya:
In an earlier thread, you dug out from dictionary.reference.com, this definition:
"the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation."
It occurs to me, however, that you too, believe in spontaneous generation. You just posit a supernatural source.
Yet according to the definition YOU provided, we're BOTH wrong.
Sorry - can't have it both ways.
So now: prove this supernatural source, if you'd please. No bibble, no 'Paley's Watchmaker' (I can debunk that in less than 50 words anyways, thanks).

5/12/06 1:09 pm  
Anonymous ted said...

Re Daniel

I just don’t have a lot of time to write, so I would appreciate it if you just told me on here.

How would my re-writing it all here save you writing time. I thought I asked you to read something...

Where do you think the ‘scientific laws’ came from? etc...

Nature as far as I can tell. So how does this help me form a working hypothesis that god exists if you don't provide evidence to back your claim?

5/12/06 5:13 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ted

‘How would my re-writing it all here save you writing time. I thought I asked you to read something...’

Mainly convenience. I am also debating with the others as you can see, and along with other things that I have to do, I try to spend as little time as possible on any one thing.

‘Nature as far as I can tell. So how does this help me form a working hypothesis that god exists if you don't provide evidence to back your claim?’

Let me pose a question to you. You do realize that just about all the laws would have to had come into being right when the earth did and some couldn’t have until later right? Without gravity, how would anything have kept on the earth? Unless you have some outside energy force, the second law of thermodynamics, also called the law of entropy, would rule out anything evolving on its own. That is unless that law came into being later. According to evolutionists, (correct me if any of my statements about what evolutionists believe are false) when the earth first came into being, (we’ll not go into how that happened) there was no oxygen. Now the sun is supposedly already in existence right? Without the ozone layer, the earth would have been so bombarded with u-v rays that no life of any kind could have been able to form unless it deep underground. And any oxygen that got formed would have been immediately destroyed before it would have the chance to form any kind of ozone layer.

Anyway, when I get the chance I’ll look at the site that you linked to. But I would appreciate it if you (and anyone else reading this) would look at. It is the Institute for Creation Research. www.icr.org These guys are accredited scientists and some are even ex-evolutionists. And this website, www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Index.htm has loads of information on this subject. And for beepbeep, neither of these sites have any affiliation with AIG or Kent Hovind. And as I said I will try to read your site as soon as possible.

Daniel

6/12/06 2:55 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

RE: anonymous daniel

"If I am blindly following religious ideology without any regard for scientific evidence, than you should have no problem squashing anything and everything that I say."

Actually, that really makes it all the harder to convince you that we've squashed what you have to say. Blind faith means you aren't seeing anything else but your chosen faith. Beep-beep is right, you are kinda like a broken record. You aren't looking at what we've said; you haven't debated any of it, you've just denied the evidence presented to you without any counter-evidence. Even if it is on us to present you with evidence, just you essentially saying "nu-uh! You're still wrong!" isn't a debate. You haven't addressed a single bit of evidence you've been presented with, you just complain about name-calling. If you really want to debate, ignore the name-calling & just address the issues.

How do you agree with natural selection but not evolution?

Please present us with this "Scientific evidence throughout the universe demonstrates that the world is 20,000 years old AT THE MOST." Please source this information. I am willing to study it.

The fact that I can go outside with my naked eyes & see the Andromeda Galaxy which is 2.5 million light years away means the universe is at least that old; the laws of physics say it took 2.5 million years for the light to reach me.

I am not afraid that there may be a god; I just haven't been presented with any evidence of anything super-natural. But I wouldn't even say god is the issue; the particular issue is evolution & the age of the earth. Some people believe that god works through completely natural means. You may believe that it's not possible, but you should be open to the idea. The god of the bible has a history of lying to his people.

If the Bible really did present us with true history, evidence for it should be found outside of the bible. I need evidence from more than one source to even consider it conclusive. If you are going to say you have evidence; please source it. In order to make the debate most credible, none of us should source the bible or any written works older than 50 years ago; technology has changed a lot in this time.

6/12/06 3:27 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Daniel

iamb

It’s going to take me a couple of days to address your whole comment.

‘On the contrary... most of the claims have been refuted numerous times. Not only by evolutionists, but by physicists, geologists, chemists, etc. You just refuse to acknowledge this.’

Where and when?

‘Hovind, notably, is famous for saying he won't engage in written debate.’

Quote and source please.

‘You and others like you do this all the time.’

Is that a compliment or an insult?

‘Like I said: oral debate gives an advantage to creationists by volume.’

Could you explain that one?

‘not to mention many creationists manage to rig debates and bus in a sympathetic audience for the venue... if you've never debated in front of a totally hostile audience against a seasoned debater to whom the audience is sympathetic, you should try it sometime’

Fighting on your home turf is defiantly an advantage but why would that get in the way of the facts?

‘Funny you should say that. There's been several instances (notably in the McLean v. Arkansas case) where creationists have been asked to supply rejected publications in a court of law. They have failed to produce any.’

What was that case about?

‘Don't take too long.’

With C-14, it’s half-life is 5,730 years. In 5 half-lives (29,000 years), there would be very little of the C-14 isotope left, which would make an accurate conclusion unlikely. For the most part, an object assumed to be past 50,000 years old would not make it into a C-14 lab.

For K Ar, volcanic rocks in Hawaii were dated at 160 million to 3 billion years old. Upon further review, the rocks were formed from a flow in 1801. Big difference.

‘Polystrate trees weren't a problem for geologists over a hundred years ago. Why should they be now? Modern geology does not say anywhere that layers can't be deposited suddenly, nor does it say a fossilized tree cannot be exposed and buried again several times in succession. Some forests tend to grow on flood plains, and they aren't call "flood plains" because a body of water only flooded the plain once...’

Uh oh, did you say that layers of rock could have been laid down by water? And quickly at that? Does that mean that possibly most of the fossils and rock layers could have been laid down quickly by water? Be careful what door you leave open.

‘I love this one. Contaminant-free rock samples can be dated independently from any fossils. Actually, you don't want a fossil in the sample if your using radiometric dating. Index fossils are only used to estimate the age of a layer. They're called index fossils because we only find them in certain layers, and independent dating of the layer apart from the fossils using radiometric methods agrees with the estimates, no matter where in the world the index fossil is found or what the composition of the sample is.’

You do realize that most (90 %+) fossils are clams and other hard-bodied creatures right? And why are many on top of mountains?

Out of time, more tomorrow.

Daniel

6/12/06 3:53 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE: "For K Ar, volcanic rocks in Hawaii were dated at 160 million to 3 billion years old. Upon further review, the rocks were formed from a flow in 1801. Big difference."

(Claim CD013: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013.html

Potassium-argon dating of rocks from lava flows known to be modern gave ages millions to billions of years older.)

This is based on a complaint by H. M. Morris (1974).

Argon may be incorporated with potassium at time of formation. This is a real problem, but it is easily overcome either by careful selection of the material being dated or by using 40Ar/39Ar dating instead of K-Ar dating.

The majority of minerals and rocks dated by K-Ar do not contain the excess argon. Where excess argon is a problem, accurate, reliable dates typically can be obtained using 40Ar/39Ar dating, as demonstrated by Dalrymple (1969) and Renne et al. (1997) and discussed by Dalyrmple (2000).

Morris's complaints are out of date in that, for the most part, geologists no longer use the K-Ar dating technique as was practiced in 1974. Instead, K-Ar dating has been largely replaced by the related 40Ar/39Ar dating technique.

K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar dating both provide extremely consistent dates when the methods are used properly.

The single paper (Engels 1971) cited by Morris clearly stated that variability resulted from presence of unwanted impurities in the specific mineral being dated.

If the sample dated consisted of an absolutely pure mineral, there would not be any variability in the K-Ar dates obtained from them.

As I said about 5 or 6 times before daniel, all these creationist claims have been rebutted by scientists at talk origins.

Rather than me hunt through them to find your "latest" complaint from the 70's, I suggest you go and read them.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

6/12/06 4:48 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE: " Are "polystrate" fossils a problem for conventional geology?"

Young Earth global flood creationists, have no idea that even data from the 19th century, presented by a creationist geologist is enough to demolish the "polystrate fossil trees" part of their presentation.

"Polystrate fossil trees" are probably one of the weakest pieces of evidence YEGF creationists can offer for their interpretation.

"Polystrate" Tree Fossils
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

6/12/06 4:59 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE: "You do realize that most (90 %+) fossils are clams and other hard-bodied creatures right? And why are many on top of mountains?"

(Claim CC364:
Seashells and other marine fossils have been found on mountaintops, even very tall ones. These indicate that the sea once covered the mountains, which is evidence for a global flood.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC364.html )

Shells on mountains are easily explained by uplift of the land. Although this process is slow, it is observed happening today, and it accounts not only for the seashells on mountains but also for the other geological and paleontological features of those mountains.

The sea once did cover the areas where the fossils are found, but they were not mountains at the time; they were shallow seas.

A flood cannot explain the presence of marine shells on mountains for the following reasons:

1.Floods erode mountains and deposit their sediments in valleys.
2.In many cases, the fossils are in the same positions as they grow in life, not scattered as if they were redeposited by a flood. This was noted as early as the sixteenth century by Leonardo da Vinci (Gould 1998).
3.Other evidence, such as fossilized tracks and burrows of marine organisms, show that the region was once under the sea. Seashells are not found in sediments that were not formerly covered by sea.

6/12/06 5:08 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE: "Contaminant-free rock samples can be dated independently from any fossils. Actually, you don't want a fossil in the sample if your using radiometric dating. Index fossils are only used to estimate the age of a layer. They're called index fossils because we only find them in certain layers, and independent dating of the layer apart from the fossils using radiometric methods agrees with the estimates, no matter where in the world the index fossil is found or what the composition of the sample is."

( This related to Claim CD101:
The geological column is a fiction, existing on paper only. The entire geological column does not exist anywhere on the earth.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD101.html )

The existence of the entire column at one spot is irrelevant. All of the parts of the geological column exist in many places, and there is more than enough overlap that the full column can be reconstructed from those parts.

Breaks in the geological column at any spot are entirely consistent with an old earth history. The column is deposited only in sedimentary environments, where conditions favor the accumulation of sediments.

Climatic and geological changes over time would be expected to change areas back and forth between sedimentary and erosional environments.

6/12/06 5:39 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

And while I am dismissing the claims of Morris, how about this false claim made by him in '87?

"There is no observational evidence of any planets outside the solar system let alone planets that could support life." ~ Henry M. Morris and Gary E. Parker, What is Creation Science?

This is more in the nature of a failed prediction. What is the silliest thing about this quotation is that when it was written in 1987 we were obviously on the verge of actually measuring the wobble in the star's path which would be caused by planets.

Indeed, this was a statement that was doomed to fail from the start. Today, we have evidence of over 60 extrasolar planets
http://www.obspm.fr/encycl/catalog.html .

6/12/06 6:25 am  
Anonymous ted said...

You do realize that just about all the laws would have to had come into being right when the earth did and some couldn’t have until later right?

Actually, they were already in existence at the very beginning of the universe. There's good evidence to suggest that the earth didn't come into existence until a long time after that. Now, given that the laws of which we speak were required in order for the universe to be formed, why is it that some couldn't have until later?

the second law of thermodynamics, also called the law of entropy, would rule out anything evolving on its own.

I already provided you a link that explains this law and why you are wrong. Just in case you missed it, here it is again.

Anyway, when I get the chance I’ll look at the site that you linked to.

It's a site for creationists made by creationists so I suggest that you do. There's no point in me refuting arguments that creation scientists have already refuted for me. It will also save me quite a bit of writing time...

6/12/06 7:54 am  
Blogger IAMB said...

It’s going to take me a couple of days to address your whole comment.

Not a problem. These things do take time...

Where and when?

TalkOrigins is a good place to start, as you have been told numerous times. If you don't like the idea of taking their word for it, all I can say is that the journal references included with the refutations aren't just put there to look pretty.

‘Hovind, notably, is famous for saying he won't engage in written debate.’

Quote and source please.


Sure. In his own words: "I do not have time or interest in getting involved in long e-mail debates, but I will talk to anyone by phone or debate with any qualified scientist (even a panel of evolutionists) in a public forum at a university, on radio or TV, as long as there is equal time for each position not each person."

‘You and others like you do this all the time.’

Is that a compliment or an insult?


It's neither... just an observation. The point is that people like you spend plenty of time in written debate, but the people you use as sources tend to refuse any debate other than oral. Why do you think this is? Personally I think it's admirable that you spend the time. It isn't like this is something you or I get paid to do.

‘Like I said: oral debate gives an advantage to creationists by volume.’

Could you explain that one?


Thought I already had. Again: for you to claim that a shrinking sun disproves an old system takes only a few seconds. For me to explain in detail how fusion works and how Hemholtz was wrong takes a bit more time. Creationist claims are typically quite brief and suited to oral debate. You can toss out 30 or so solid-seeming claims in several minutes. In order for me to adequately refute each claim I would need several orders of magnitude more time. Oral debates are limited in time, therefore if you make 30 claims and I have time to refute only a few, you win by volume in the eyes of the listener. Make sense? (Sorry, the sun isn't the best example but it's the one that came to mind first.)

Fighting on your home turf is defiantly an advantage but why would that get in the way of the facts?

Two things: 1) most scientists aren't seasoned debaters in an oral setting (many don't even have much speaking experience) 2) Until you've been in front of a hostile audience there's no way to adequately impress upon you what it does to your nerves and your ability to think quickly. Without an adequately polished presentation, which Hovind's most certainly is since he's done the same one hundreds of times, being prepared to respond to everything thrown at you isn't as easy as you think. Scientists are specialized, and many will not respond to claims that challenge anything outside of their specific area of expertise because they don't want to make a mistake. It often doesn't matter where the facts are in oral debate as far as the audience is concerned... all that matters is the appearance of winning. If you make more claims than the other can refute, you win. Simple as that. The benefit of a sympathetic audience is that they will tend to ignore even the points you lose horribly on. Beyond that, the creationist is almost always the one to start first, therefore they can set the tone and pace. That's a huge advantage when you have a slick and practiced presentation, as you get to decide where things are going. Debating a biologist on evolution? Fine. Throw out a bunch of geology or physics claims and watch your opponent wither. Debating a geologist? Good enough. Just make a few biology claims and it's all over. Make sense?

There's a reason us biologists give so much shit to the folks at the Discovery Institute when an engineer or physics guy starts making grand claims about evolution. Think about it: you don't ask your electrician about heart surgery, and you don't ask you surgeon about your car... why in the heck would you believe an engineer over a biologist when it comes to biology?

‘Funny you should say that. There's been several instances (notably in the McLean v. Arkansas case) where creationists have been asked to supply rejected publications in a court of law. They have failed to produce any.’

What was that case about?


That case struck down a ruling giving creationism equal time in Arkansas schools in 1982. This was not long after creationism started calling itself "creation science" in order to get a foot in the school door. Later it became "intelligent design theory" and when that didn't work, the "teach the controversy" approach came about. One wonders what will be next...

With C-14, it’s half-life is 5,730 years. In 5 half-lives (29,000 years), there would be very little of the C-14 isotope left, which would make an accurate conclusion unlikely. For the most part, an object assumed to be past 50,000 years old would not make it into a C-14 lab.

This matters why? C14 is used for stuff that it's useful for. Other methods are used where they are needed. The half-life of C14 has nothing to do with the age of the earth, other than to establish a minimum of around 50,000 years (actually, the amount of C14 in a sample can accurately be measured up to ten half-lives, not five... and that was discovered by Libby et al in 1949, so your source is either waaayyy out of date or just plain misleading). Besides that, methods have improved and accuracy has increased a bit since then. Oh, and by the way: C14 is only useful on organic matter, in case you didn't know.

Someone else answered your lava flow one nicely, so we'll move on...

Uh oh, did you say that layers of rock could have been laid down by water? And quickly at that? Does that mean that possibly most of the fossils and rock layers could have been laid down quickly by water? Be careful what door you leave open.

Don't have to be careful here. Sedimentary layers are laid down by fluids, whether that be air or water. That's nothing out-of-the-ordinary at all. We know that some sediment layers can be laid down quickly. We also know that not all of them are. Saying that because sedimentary layers around a place like St. Helens were laid down quickly therefore all layers are is like concluding that people sprint wherever they go because you saw Carl Lewis run once... even though you know damn well that people walk more often than run. Some events can lay down sediments quickly... most don't. River bed and lake sediments take a bit of time... catastrophic events not so much. For the case of terrestrial fossils, they were often buried quickly, whether by drowning in the right place or being covered in landslides. This is because the body has to be isolated from normal decay factors, and has to stay that way, in order to fossilize. This is part of why such fossils are so rare, even when compared against the rarity of fossil specimens in general.

The problem with the layers we see having been laid down in a single event depends on several things. You'll get the short version. Hydrologic sorting: moving waters sort sediments by density. If a global flood laid down the layers we see, everywhere on earth, with very few exceptions, would show a decrease in average density from bottom to top. What we really see is that decrease in density across individual layers instead of the whole column as we'd expect to see with a global flood. Next: certain sedimentary formations (like the Mississippi delta you mentioned) would not exist in present form if there had been a global flood. In floods, tall and deep formations tend to get distributed laterally, not vertically. Final: I've heard creationists explain fossil deposition patterns as animals better able to escape rising waters being buried higher in the column. Of course, this means a magnolia tree can obviously outrun a velociraptor, since they both occupy similar environmental conditions... and your everest clams were obviously the swiftest of all...

You do realize that most (90 %+) fossils are clams and other hard-bodied creatures right? And why are many on top of mountains?

This is a surprise why? Hard bodied creatures tend to fossilize better due to their composition. What does that have to do with anything? Being amazed that some are found atop mountains shows that you know little about mountain building. The Himalayas are formed along the border between two tectonic plates. Before the plates collided, that area was underwater. As for the claim that the clams being fossilized in the closed position (indicating they were buried at death) is evidence of the flood, have you ever wondered why we call it "digging for clams"? Their natural state is buried dude. If you ever cook steamer clams, you'll know that you throw out the ones that don't open when you cook them. That's because they were dead prior to cooking and the decay carries a serious risk of food-borne illness (spoiled oysters, anyone?). You may even find some of these dead ones if you go dig your own and cook them immediately. Guess what? They were dead before you dug them up, and it certainly didn't take a global flood to bury them (that is, unless you think your clam dinner is 4400 years old or more...). This making sense?

Out of time, more tomorrow.

Waiting with baited breath...

6/12/06 1:51 pm  
Anonymous Aesmael said...

This supoib.

Just posting to register my appreciation of what you do.

6/12/06 9:41 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ted

‘I already provided you a link that explains this law and why you are wrong. Just in case you missed it, here it is again.’

I wasn’t claiming anything about when it started from my point of view, just yours. You see, I believe in an omnipotent God, if He created the universe and all of the laws, He could have held everything together. With evolution, the second law of thermodynamics won’t let anything evolve. It basically says that everything is breaking down, not getting better. How do you make that fit?

Daniel

7/12/06 2:23 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

iamb

Do you mind waiting until I address your whole comments before answering? Otherwise I’ll be playing catch-up while falling farther and farther behind.

‘Source please? Then we can discuss. As is, the claim is too general to comment on.’

Read this. www.genesispark.com/genpark/skeleton/skeleton.htm

‘How about pictures on pottery of creatures that no one has ever seen or creatures that never existed? You underestimate the human imagination, and you also overestimate the relevance of art and folklore to actual events. What would you think of someone a thousand years from now watching a horror film of today featuring giant spiders and concluding that it's solid evidence that we regularly fought giant spiders?’

You have a point, but pictures that detailed? They even had swirl patterns on the dinosaurs’ skin, and we had no idea that this was true until we found some fossilized skin relatively recently. Coincidental?

‘The sun generates heat via nuclear fusion, not gravitational collapse.

Yes, nuclear fusion, and the sun is eating away at itself.

Besides, the most accurate recent measurements show virtually no shrinkage over the last 20 years, so it's entirely possible that the original measurements were wrong (understandable since the surface of the sun isn't solid so a reference point for measurement is difficult) or that the sun's diameter is cyclic just like plenty of other stars.’

How do you know which measurements were wrong? If what I showed was right, that means the sun would only have shrunk .02 % in the last 20 years. Not much.

‘Since the moon is receding at 3.8cm/year, and is 38,500,000,000cm from the earth, that means it would have been touching earth 10.1 billion years ago. This demonstrates a young universe how?’

I heard 2in (5.08cm)/year. Regardless, you have to take into account what the tides would have been doing with the moon that close. With my figures ( a little more if we use your’s), if the moon started at a reasonable distance 5 billion years ago, it would be out of sight by now.

‘That one assumes that the mouth of the river was always in the same location as today. Isn't that the sort of uniformitarian assumption that you creationists like to complain about? Besides, the sediment in the delta is seven miles thick. That's a little much for a 6k year old earth, and cannot be explained by a global flood either.’

Any evidence whatsoever that the river was ever anywhere else? And why can’t it be explained by a worldwide flood? With all the water rushing off the continent, and enormous amount of sediment would have been washed off.

And I remembered what else was mentioned. The magnetic field. If Physicist Thomas Barns was correct, the earth’s magnetic field would have been equal to a star’s as little as 10,000 years ago, which is incompatible for life.

‘Evolution is not an open system. It's a process, not a system. However, the process operates within an open system: earth. A closed system is one in which energy does not come from an outside source. We have one here on earth: the sun. The energy to run pretty much every bit of life on this planet comes either directly or indirectly from the sun.’

So your saying that while everything on earth is a system, evolution defies the general rule and is a process? And so being, is immune to the laws of nature?

‘Another commenter gave you a good one: Tiktaalik rosea. It had a bone structure perfectly suited for "walking" while partially supported by shallow water. This gives a good idea where legs in amphibians came from. Even better: it was pretty much exactly what we predicted a fish/amphibian transition would have in the way of features.’

Oh, so now that the coelacanth has been debunked, you need something else? Looks rather similar to a crocodile to me, but I’ll have to research it more before I take any position.

‘Want more?’

Please.

‘Same reason fossilized anything (when it comes to extant versions of extinct creatures) resembles the modern version: it was successful. If it isn't, it goes extinct. If it is, you won't see much in the way of changes among that family. We know that they almost went extinct because out of many different types of prehistoric coelacanth, only a couple versions are still with us. That means the rest of the different species are extinct. You lose the majority of diversity in a family, the survivors count as lucky.’

One problem. What was wrong with animals like the saber toothed tiger or the wooly mammoth? Why couldn’t they have lived on in the artic regions of the planet? And why couldn’t certain small, quick species of dinosaurs survive in African swamps? The habitat is ideal for them.

‘Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you to show how all current understanding of the fossil record is wrong. My examples stand.’

I was going to get some articles for you from AIG, but there were too many. Go to www.answersingenesis.org/search/Default.aspx?qt=fossil%20record and you’ll find a bunch of articles to read. Sorry for not answering your question on here. And I thought that the ‘burden of proof’ was supposed to be held by the person making the positive claim.

‘Hate to tell you, but scientists did examine the tracks at one point, and I've seen the research work (including very detailed pictures). The tracks in Texas are bogus, and now research teams aren't allowed to visit.’

Source please.

Out of time again.

Daniel

7/12/06 3:57 am  
Anonymous ted said...

Re: Daniel

I wasn’t claiming anything about when it started from my point of view, just yours.

The quote you answered with this was to do with the second law of thermodynamics. Did you look at Answering Genesis? They explain the second law of thermodynamics and why you are wrong about it quite well, depite that they are creationists.

7/12/06 9:35 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ted

‘The quote you answered with this was to do with the second law of thermodynamics. Did you look at Answering Genesis? They explain the second law of thermodynamics and why you are wrong about it quite well, depite that they are creationists.’

Yes I did look at it. Maybe I misread it, I don’t know. It seemed to me that it was talking about when it started from the creationist point of view.

Daniel

8/12/06 3:20 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

iamb

‘Thought I already had. Again: for you to claim that a shrinking sun disproves an old system takes only a few seconds. For me to explain in detail how fusion works and how Hemholtz was wrong takes a bit more time. Creationist claims are typically quite brief and suited to oral debate. You can toss out 30 or so solid-seeming claims in several minutes. In order for me to adequately refute each claim I would need several orders of magnitude more time. Oral debates are limited in time, therefore if you make 30 claims and I have time to refute only a few, you win by volume in the eyes of the listener. Make sense? (Sorry, the sun isn't the best example but it's the one that came to mind first.)’

Makes sense. Though why don’t evolutionists arrange the debates and make the initial claims?

‘Scientists are specialized, and many will not respond to claims that challenge anything outside of their specific area of expertise because they don't want to make a mistake.’

So why don’t they state at the beginning that they will only discuss a certain area of the topic?

‘Beyond that, the creationist is almost always the one to start first, therefore they can set the tone and pace. That's a huge advantage when you have a slick and practiced presentation, as you get to decide where things are going. Debating a biologist on evolution? Fine. Throw out a bunch of geology or physics claims and watch your opponent wither. Debating a geologist? Good enough. Just make a few biology claims and it's all over. Make sense?’

Makes sense, but why don’t the evolutionists take the challenge under the condition that they get to open the debate and limit the topic?

‘That case struck down a ruling giving creationism equal time in Arkansas schools in 1982. This was not long after creationism started calling itself "creation science" in order to get a foot in the school door. Later it became "intelligent design theory" and when that didn't work, the "teach the controversy" approach came about. One wonders what will be next...’

Ok, I remember. And just to let you know, I disagree with ‘Intelligent Design.’ And what’s wrong with giving them both equal time? It’s my tax dollars that are funding it, so why don’t I get a say in what is taught?

‘Sedimentary layers are laid down by fluids, whether that be air or water. That's nothing out-of-the-ordinary at all. We know that some sediment layers can be laid down quickly.’

I agree.

‘We also know that not all of them are.’

How do you know that?

‘Saying that because sedimentary layers around a place like St. Helens were laid down quickly therefore all layers are is like concluding that people sprint wherever they go because you saw Carl Lewis run once... even though you know damn well that people walk more often than run. Some events can lay down sediments quickly... most don't. River bed and lake sediments take a bit of time... catastrophic events not so much. For the case of terrestrial fossils, they were often buried quickly, whether by drowning in the right place or being covered in landslides. This is because the body has to be isolated from normal decay factors, and has to stay that way, in order to fossilize. This is part of why such fossils are so rare, even when compared against the rarity of fossil specimens in general.’

So you admit that it is possible for a lot of water to lay down a lot of layers really quickly?

Sorry, I’ve got to go again.

Daniel

P.S. These articles are interesting.
www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution

8/12/06 3:52 am  
Blogger Krystalline Apostate said...

Daniel:
With evolution, the second law of thermodynamics won’t let anything evolve. It basically says that everything is breaking down, not getting better. How do you make that fit?
By that logic, we should all be mush then, evolution notwithstanding.
Oh, so now that the coelacanth has been debunked, you need something else?
Say what? You haven't debunked a thing yet.
So your saying that while everything on earth is a system, evolution defies the general rule and is a process? And so being, is immune to the laws of nature?
Processes are a part of a system. Nice try, no cigar.
And I thought that the ‘burden of proof’ was supposed to be held by the person making the positive claim.
It is, until the scientific consensus is reached. Ergo, it was beholden on Galileo to prove the Ptolemaic system incorrect (Eratosthenes did, centuries prior). Einsteinian theories replaced Newtonian.
If a criminal is convicted, it's beholden to the challenger of the verdict to overturn it.

8/12/06 10:12 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE: anonymous daniel

CLAIM: The second law of thermodynamics says that everything tends toward disorder, making evolutionary development impossible.

The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease.

This does not prevent increasing order because the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off.

This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.

Entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998)

Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).

Even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.

In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.

The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection.

All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them.

In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution (Demetrius 2000).

Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy (McShea 1998).

Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law (Brooks and Wiley 1988), so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container.

Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently (Schneider and Kay 1994).

Creationists themselves admit that increasing order is possible. They introduce fictional exceptions to the law to account for it.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_3.html

Creationists themselves make claims that directly contradict their claims about the second law of thermodynamics, such as hydrological sorting of fossils during the Flood.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH561_2.html

8/12/06 10:34 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE anonymous daniel
CLAIM: Systems or processes left to themselves invariably tend to move from order to disorder.

This is an attempt to claim that the second law of thermodynamics implies an inevitable increase in entropy even in open systems by quibbling with the verbiage "left to themselves."

The simple fact is that, unless "left to themselves" means "not acted upon by any outside influence," disorder of systems can decrease.

And since outside influence is more often the rule in biological systems, order can and does increase in them.

That the claim is false is not theory. Exceptions happens all the time. For example, plants around my house are left to themselves every spring, and every spring they produce order locally by turning carbon from the air into plant tissue.

Drying mud, left to itself, produces orderly cracks. Ice crystals, left to themselves, produce arrangements far more orderly than they would if I interfered.

Freeze-thaw cycles naturally sort stones into regular patterns (Kessler and Werner 2003).

How can a trend to disorder be invariable when exceptions are ubiquitous? And why do creationists argue at such length for claims that they themselves can plainly see are false?

Disorder and entropy are not the same. The second law of thermodynamics deals with entropy, not disorder (although disorder defined to apply to microscopic states can be relevant to thermodynamics). There are no laws about disorder as people normally use the word. (Styer 2000)

8/12/06 10:37 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE anonymous daniel

CLAIM: The entire universe is a closed system, so the second law of thermodynamics dictates that within it, things are tending to break down. The second law applies universally.

The second law of thermodynamics applies universally, but, as everyone can see, that does not mean that everything everywhere is always breaking down.

The second law allows local decreases in entropy offset by increases elsewhere. The second law does not say that order from disorder is impossible; in fact, as anyone can see, order from disorder happens all the time.

The maximum entropy of a closed system of fixed volume is constant, but because the universe is expanding, its maximum entropy is ever increasing, giving ever more room for order to form (Stenger 1995, 228).

Disorder and entropy are not the same (Styer 2000). The second law of thermodynamics deals with entropy. There are no laws about things tending to "break down."
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_2.html

8/12/06 10:39 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE: anonymous daniel:

CLAIM: The sun is shrinking at such a rate that it would disappear completely in 100,000 years. This would make it impossibly large and hot in the distant past if the sun is millions of years old.

This assumes that the rate of shrinkage is constant. That assumption is baseless.

(In fact, it is the uniformitarian assumption that creationists themselves sometimes complain about.)

Other stars expand and contract cyclically. Our own sun might do the same on a small scale.

There is not even any good evidence of shrinkage. The claim is based on a single report from 1980. Other measurements, from 1980 and later, do not show any significant shrinkage.

It is likely that the original report showing shrinkage contained systematic errors due to different measuring techniquies over the decades.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE310.html

8/12/06 10:44 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE anonymous daniel

"I’m looking for anything in the ‘fossil record’ or anywhere else that even MIGHT be a ‘missing link’. Unfortunately for you, the ‘missing links’ are still missing."

"Missing link" is an inappropriate term when referring to a transitional form not yet discovered in the fossil record.

"Missing" usually describes something that was supposed to be present but has disappeared for unknown reasons — if, for example, a favorite book suddenly disappeared from your room But you wouldn't describe the book as "missing" if you had lent it to a friend and expected it to be gone.

The same arguments apply to so-called "missing links." Biologists know that fossilization is a chancy process — most things that have lived on Earth are eaten or rot away before they can be fossilized.

Very few organisms wind up in situations in which fossilization is possible and have body parts that can be preserved in fossils.

Thus, biologists expect that most intervening steps of an evolutionary transition (such as vertebrates' invasion of the land) will not be preserved in the fossil record.

Occasionally, we get lucky and discover a transitional form that has been preserved in a fossil — but that does not imply that its ancestors, descendents, or other organisms that once lived on Earth are "missing."
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/060501_tiktaalik

8/12/06 10:50 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE: anonymous daniel:

CLAIM: "There are no transitional fossils. Evolution predicts a continuum between each fossil organism and its ancestors. Instead, we see systematic gaps in the fossil record."

Firstly, transitional fossils is what you mean incorrectly as "missing links".

There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another.

However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. The mapping of each genome to compare and contrast would be able to strongly suggest a direct lineage, but this requires the presence of DNA.

What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.

Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years.

Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.

The following are fossil transitions between species and genera:

1. Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.

2.The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).

3.A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost.

The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).

4. The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).

5.Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.

6.Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).

Lake Turkana mollusc species (Lewin 1981).
Cenozoic marine ostracodes (Cronin 1985).
The Eocene primate genus Cantius (Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983).

7.Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).

8.Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 1968).

9.The following are fossil transitionals between families, orders, and classes:

a. Human ancestry. Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking (Richmond and Strait 2000).

b.Dinosaur-bird transitions.

c.Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors (Tchernov et al. 2000). Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis (Caldwell and Lee 1997).

d. The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards (Caldwell and Lee 1997; Lee et al. 1999; Tchernov et al. 2000).

e.Transitions between mesonychids and whales.

f.Transitions between fish and tetrapods.

g.Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced (Domning 2001a, 2001b).

h.Runcaria, a Middle Devonian plant, was a precursor to seed plants. It had all the qualities of seeds except a solid seed coat and a system to guide pollen to the seed (Gerrienne et al. 2004).

i.A bee, Melittosphex burmensis, from Early Cretaceous amber, has primitive characteristics expected from a transition between crabronid wasps and extant bees (Poinar and Danforth 2006).

10.The following are fossil transitionals between kingdoms and phyla:

a.The Cambrian fossils Halkiera and Wiwaxia have features that connect them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida.

In particular, one species of halkieriid has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod species Neocrania.

It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of hollow sclerites, an arrangement that is similar to the chaetae arrangement of polychaetes. The undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft sole like a mollusk's foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusk's mouth.

b. Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive mollusks, have a soft body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia (Conway Morris 1998, 185-195).

c.Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods.

d.An ancestral echinoderm has been found that is intermediate between modern echinoderms and other deuterostomes (Shu et al. 2004).

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

8/12/06 11:10 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE anonymous daniel:

CLAIM "Thousands of clay and stone figurines discovered in Acambaro, Mexico, include figurines of dinosaurs. They are apparently from the preclassical Chupicuaro Culture (800 B.C.E. to 200 C.E.). Radiocarbon and thermoluminescent dating gives them even older ages. These figurines show that the ancient people were familiar with dinosaurs."

The figurines show every evidence of being recent folk art, fraudulently buried in an archeological excavation. De Peso (1953) made the following observations:

1.The surfaces of the figurines were new. They were not marred by a patina or coating of soluble salts characteristic of genuinely old artifacts from the same area.

2.The owner said none of the figures had been washed in acid. Edges of depressions were sharp and new. No dirt was packed into crevices.

3.Genuine archeological relics of fragile items are almost always found in fragments. Finding more than 30,000 such items in pristine condition is unheard of.

4.The excavators of the artifacts were "neither careful nor experienced" in their field technique, yet no marks of their shovels, mattocks, or picks were noted in any of the 32,000 specimens.

5. Some figurines were broken, but the breaks were unworn and apparently deliberate to suggest age. No parts were missing.

"The author spent two days watching the excavators burrow and dig; during the course of their search they managed to break a number of authentic prehistoric objects. On the second day the two struck a cache and the author examined the material in situ. The cache had been very recently buried by digging a down sloping tunnel into the black fill dirt of the prehistoric room. This fill ran to a depth of approximately 1.30 m.

Within the stratum there were authentic Tarascan sherds, obsidian blades, tripod metates, manos, etc., but these objects held no concern for the excavators. In burying the cache of figurines, the natives had unwittingly cut some 15 cms. below the black fill into the sterile red earth floor of the prehistoric room. In back-filling the tunnel they mixed this red sterile earth with black earth; the tracing of their original excavation was, as a result, a simple task" (Di Peso 1953, 388).


6.Fresh manure was found in the tunnel fill.

7.Fingerprints were found in freshly packed earth that filled an excavated bowl.

8.The story of their discovery gives a motive for fraud. Waldemar Julsrud, who hired workers to excavate a Chupicuaro site in 1945, paid workers a peso apiece for intact figurines.

It very well may have been more economical for the workers to make figurines than to discover and excavate them. Given the quantity that he received, the contribution to the peasants' economy would have been substantial.

The figurines are not from the Chupicuaro. They came from within a single-component Tarascan ruin. The Tarascan are post-classical and historical, emerging between 900 and 1522 C.E.

If authentic, the figurines imply even more archeological anomalies:
If the figurines really were based on actual dinosaurs, why have no dinosaur fossils been found in the Acambaro region?

Why did no other Mexican cultures record any dinosaurs?

What caused the dinosaurs to disappear in the last 1,100 years?

There is no credible information to support the claims. The only sources are pseudoscience journalists, creationists, and crackpots, who have obvious ulterior motives for gullibility.

Their own dating results are discordant with each other and with the ages of the native cultures, and even attempting to do carbon dating on the inorganic figurines shows their incompetence.

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

8/12/06 11:18 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE anonymous daniel:

The evidence that human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two of the common ancestor's chromosomes is overwhelming.

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

Passes the tissues to daniel and breaks into the theme song "Hey! Hey! We're the MOnkees."

8/12/06 1:19 pm  
Anonymous ted said...

Well, I'll try just one more time Daniel. I will grant you that the title of the entry does indeed say "The 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics Began At The Fall." The first paragraph however, addresses the law itself. Here's what it says.

From Answering Genesis:
This law says that the entropy (“disorder”) of the universe increases over time, and some have thought that this was the result of the Curse. However, disorder isn’t always harmful. An obvious example is digestion, breaking down large complex food molecules into their simple building blocks. Another is friction, which turns ordered mechanical energy into disordered heat—otherwise Adam and Eve would have slipped as they walked with God in Eden! A less obvious example to laymen might be the sun heating the earth—to a physical chemist, heat transfer from a hot object to a cold one is the classic case of the Second Law in action. Also, breathing is based on another classic Second Law process, gas moving from a high pressure to low pressure. Finally, all beneficial processes in the world, including the development from embryo to adult, increase the overall disorder of the universe, showing that the Second Law is not inherently a curse.

I hope quoting it here will help. Now as to when it began, you say god made the laws when he created the universe, not at the fall. I say they exist becuase nature requires them and so does the universe if it wants to exist at all, which implies that they probably existed before the universe came into existence. So how does the rest of this entry help either yours or my argument in that respect? In short, it doesn't. Our personal points of view on this are pure opinion and will have to remain so simply because neither of us can prove that what the other says is incorrect.

That said however, I am quite prepared to admit that I'm wrong, but only if you can provide me with some testable evidence that backs any claim that I am. What I can say however, is that there is no testable evidence for the existence of god where this law is concerned.

8/12/06 6:04 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

iamb

‘Next: certain sedimentary formations (like the Mississippi delta you mentioned) would not exist in present form if there had been a global flood.’

Why couldn’t the deltas been washed into place when the waters were receding?

‘Final: I've heard creationists explain fossil deposition patterns as animals better able to escape rising waters being buried higher in the column.’

Never heard that one myself.

‘Of course, this means a magnolia tree can obviously outrun a velociraptor, since they both occupy similar environmental conditions’

Now that’s a fast tree.

‘This is a surprise why? Hard bodied creatures tend to fossilize better due to their composition.’

My point was that there are only a small amount of fossils, and of those fossils, only a small percentage vertebras. That means that most rocks have few if any fossils and… now I forget where I was going with that point. Drat.

‘Before the plates collided, that area was underwater.’

How do you know that?

‘Guess what? They were dead before you dug them up, and it certainly didn't take a global flood to bury them’

Maybe I’m wrong, but I thought I had heard that many of then weren’t buried.

‘that is, unless you think your clam dinner is 4400 years old or more’

Ugh, good thing I don’t like clam!
Daniel

9/12/06 3:23 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ted

‘I say they exist becuase nature requires them and so does the universe if it wants to exist at all, which implies that they probably existed before the universe came into existence.’

That just clarified it. One more point of clarification. So you are saying that the laws have always existed?

‘That said however, I am quite prepared to admit that I'm wrong, but only if you can provide me with some testable evidence that backs any claim that I am.

I would just think that it would greatly interfere with evolution.

What I can say however, is that there is no testable evidence for the existence of god where this law is concerned.’

I just thought of something. I am going to assume that we all agree that atoms exist. Have you ever seen an atom? No. Have I? No. Do we know of any one who has seen an atom? No. Why do we believe that atoms exist? Through series of tests and observations, scientists have concluded that atoms exist. Why can’t the same be done for God? Just for the fun of it, lets’ pretend that I demonstrated to you that evolution was most likely wrong and creation was most likely correct. From that, we could conclude that there is a good chance that God exists. Would we have proven it? No, just like it has not been proven that atoms exist. Do you get my point?

Oh, and I did go to that site that you mentioned. Some of their ‘creationist claims’ I disagree with, and some I could dispute easily. Others I would have to study.

Daniel

9/12/06 3:40 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ka

‘By that logic, we should all be mush then, evolution notwithstanding.’

We aren’t yet, but we are slowly getting there.

‘Say what? You haven't debunked a thing yet.’

I didn’t say that I had debunked it, others have.

‘Processes are a part of a system. Nice try, no cigar.’

And processes in a system are subject to the laws of the system are they not?

‘If a criminal is convicted, it's beholden to the challenger of the verdict to overturn it.’

Ah, but evolution has not been proven now has it?

Daniel

9/12/06 3:47 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

beepbeep

I will answer you on Monday.

Daniel

9/12/06 3:49 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I keep coming back here. I find this fascinating.

I read Daniels "interesting article" http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution

And I really want to know what a "basic kind" of organism is?
Daniel, do Creationists deny Classification of living organisms into: Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species?

The basis for these classifications is their genetic relationship, and how far back any two organisms became genetically different enough to be classified differently.

My pet hamster, is a basic kind of Animal (kingdom), a basic kind of vertebrate (Phylum), a basic kind of Mammal (class), a basic kind of Rodent (order). Obviously (as stated in the above article) cats & dogs aren't the same "basic kind" of animals, despite they are both mammals & vertebrates. But while pet hamster is very different from a Capybara, are they the same "basic kind" of animal since they're both rodents. If creationists consider them different kinds, is my hamster the same "basic kind" of animal as a mouse? They are both in the Cricetidae family, and they're both tiny little rodents. But I can't mate them.

Do we reduce being the same "basic kind" of animals to animals that can made with eachother? The same Species? But there are many fresh-water species of animals that never would have survived a world-wide flood of salt-water... or is it there are many salt-water-species that never would have survived a world-wide-flood of fresh water? (Even if fresh water fell on top of all the salt water, salt water floats, this would churn everything all up.)

Even the second law of thermodynamics, which (many) Creationists think means everything is "breaking down" and they admit has never been found to have been broken, allows for every complex, individual, unique, and beautiful snowflake to form and fall. http://www.snowcrystals.com/

Daniel, I'm willing to listen, please explain.

9/12/06 10:18 am  
Anonymous ted said...

So you are saying that the laws have always existed?

That's exactly what I said. You see, the universe requires them so it can exist.

I would just think that it would greatly interfere with evolution.

Well it seems to have been working well enough despite what you think. You are a product of it after all...

No, just like it has not been proven that atoms exist.

You're right, there's absolutley no evidence to suggest Hiroshima ever existed either.

9/12/06 1:00 pm  
Blogger Krystalline Apostate said...

Daniel:
We aren’t yet, but we are slowly getting there.
Doesn't look that way. Not for another million years, at least. Probably more.
I didn’t say that I had debunked it, others have.
For the umpteenth time, the coelancanth didn't evolve because there was no need to. Unconvinced whatsoever.
And processes in a system are subject to the laws of the system are they not?
Yes they are.
Ah, but evolution has not been proven now has it?
Ummm...yes it has. Have you been paying attention? Doesn't seem like it.
Recall that, once upon a time, creationism was considered legitimate science. That is, until the evidence began building that refuted it. Much like astronomy replaced astrology. Spontaneous generation was once thought to be an actual process, until Redi showed otherwise.

Here's food for thought:
http://www.answers.com/topic/rubidium-strontium-dating-2
"The method is applicable to very old rocks because the transformation is extremely slow: the half-life, or time required for half the initial quantity of rubidium-87 to disappear, is approximately 48.8 billion years."
http://www.answers.com/topic/potassium-argon-dating
"Method for determining the age of igneous rocks based on the amount of argon-40 in the rock. Radioactive potassium-40 decays to argon-40 with a half-life of about 1.3 billion years, making this method useful for dating rocks that are billions of years old. A more sophisticated method, called argon-argon dating, provides a more accurate estimate of the original potassium-40 content by means of the ratio of argon-40 to argon-39 in the rock, thus yielding a more accurate age determination."
http://www.answers.com/ALH84001
"Based on hypotheses surrounding attempts to identify from whence extraterrestrial rocks come, it is supposed to have originated on Mars. The theory holds that it was shocked and broken by one or more meteorite impacts on the surface of Mars some 3.6 billion years ago, but remained on the planet. It was later blasted off from the surface in a separate impact about 15 million years ago. Following some interplanetary travel, impacted Earth roughly 13,000 years ago. These dates were established by a variety of radiometric dating techniques, including samarium-neodymium (Sm-Nd), rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr), potassium-argon (K-Ar), and carbon-14."

10/12/06 4:57 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ted

‘Well it seems to have been working well enough despite what you think. You are a product of it after all...’

Can you really make a statement like that? I might as well just say that God is obviously real, after all, we are both here.

‘You're right, there's absolutley no evidence to suggest Hiroshima ever existed either.’

Other than before and after pictures and eye witness accounts, no evidence whatsoever.

Daniel

12/12/06 3:14 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ka

‘Doesn't look that way. Not for another million years, at least. Probably more.’

I like it how evolutionists throw a few million years around like it is ‘chump change’.

‘For the umpteenth time, the coelancanth didn't evolve because there was no need to. Unconvinced whatsoever.’

You’ll have to explain yourself further.

‘Yes they are.’

So why would the second law of thermodynamics not apply to evolution?

‘Ummm...yes it has. Have you been paying attention? Doesn't seem like it.’

What happened to ‘science can’t PROVE anything’?

‘Recall that, once upon a time, creationism was considered legitimate science.’

And when exactly was that?

‘That is, until the evidence began building that refuted it.’

And the evidence against evolution is building up against evolution. Will you allow it to be refuted, or will you keep trying to patch it up?

‘Much like astronomy replaced astrology.’

That was a change for the better.

‘Spontaneous generation was once thought to be an actual process, until Redi showed otherwise.’

A trivial matter, but I thought that it was Louis Pasteur.

‘The method is applicable to very old rocks because the transformation is extremely slow: the half-life, or time required for half the initial quantity of rubidium-87 to disappear, is approximately 48.8 billion years.’

I am amused at how sometimes you guys say that conditions were the same in the past, and sometimes say that they were different.

The rest of the stuff I’ll have to lookup.

By the way, has any one seen evolution in action(other than microevolution)?

Daniel

12/12/06 3:32 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

new.atheist

‘And I really want to know what a "basic kind" of organism is?
Daniel, do Creationists deny Classification of living organisms into: Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species?’

To the best of my knowledge, yes.

‘The basis for these classifications is their genetic relationship, and how far back any two organisms became genetically different enough to be classified differently.’

I read that it was to show basic similarities in physical (not biological) makeup.

‘My pet hamster, is a basic kind of Animal (kingdom), a basic kind of vertebrate (Phylum), a basic kind of Mammal (class), a basic kind of Rodent (order). Obviously (as stated in the above article) cats & dogs aren't the same "basic kind" of animals, despite they are both mammals & vertebrates. But while pet hamster is very different from a Capybara, are they the same "basic kind" of animal since they're both rodents. If creationists consider them different kinds, is my hamster the same "basic kind" of animal as a mouse? They are both in the Cricetidae family, and they're both tiny little rodents. But I can't mate them.’

My view is that all dogs probably are descended from one original dog kind, probably similar to a wolf. When the dogs were created, they had large gene pools. As time went on (through the process of natural selection) the dogs lost genes that did not suite the climate and conditions that they lived in. Wolves lost short hair genes, dingos lost long hair genes, and poodles lost the big dog genes. Can you find anything preposterous with that?

‘Do we reduce being the same "basic kind" of animals to animals that can made with eachother? The same Species?’

I think that kinds are narrowed down into the Genus category, but I would have to check it to make sure, so don’t quote me on it.

‘But there are many fresh-water species of animals that never would have survived a world-wide flood of salt-water... or is it there are many salt-water-species that never would have survived a world-wide-flood of fresh water? (Even if fresh water fell on top of all the salt water, salt water floats, this would churn everything all up.)’

First of all, I am sure that you know that the oceans are about 3% salt. That is a problem for evolution, but let me address your point first. The ocean is getting saltier at a measurable rate. So you could logically conclude that the oceans were less salty in the past. It would seem that sea creatures were living in water that was noticeably fresher. Now that would help them greatly in the event of a worldwide flood. Now, how does evolution explain the oceans being only 3% salt? The oceans should be far saltier, shouldn’t they? How was the salt removed?

‘Even the second law of thermodynamics, which (many) Creationists think means everything is "breaking down" and they admit has never been found to have been broken, allows for every complex, individual, unique, and beautiful snowflake to form and fall.’

The way that water freezes disproves that the second law of thermodynamics disallows evolution?

‘Daniel, I'm willing to listen, please explain.’

I hope this helps, but I’m not exactly an accredited scientist!

Daniel

12/12/06 4:24 am  
Blogger Krystalline Apostate said...

I like it how evolutionists throw a few million years around like it is ‘chump change’.
When the world itself is 4.5 billion years old, it is a drop in the bucket.
You’ll have to explain yourself further.
I already did. If you can’t figure that out, not my lookout.
So why would the second law of thermodynamics not apply to evolution?
This is getting ever so old.
The 2nd law applies to everything. Obviously, you’re still stuck in the groove of ‘move up/move down’ – it doesn’t necessitate ‘either/or’. I’ve explained this before. It’s not about a straight linear progression.
What happened to ‘science can’t PROVE anything’?
Okay; now you’re just quote mining. I didn’t say that, ted did, remember?
If you want to go into the existential realm, someone else can lead you thru it. Besides which, flu shots help prevent the flu. How is this done? Thru science. It’s PROVEN it’s efficacy. I could go into extended rant mode, but I’ll forgo that for now.
And when exactly was that?
http://www.answers.com/topic/creationism
“Indeed, prior to the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859, America's leading naturalist, Louis Agassiz, had articulated a scientifically sophisticated creationism—a position he continued to defend until his death in 1873, using it to point out flaws in Darwin's theory. In response to Darwin's work, many American scientists sought to retain a place for divine intervention in the history of life, even if they—like renowned botanist Asa Gray—considered themselves evolutionists.”
‘That is, until the evidence began building that refuted it.’
And the evidence against evolution is building up against evolution. Will you allow it to be refuted, or will you keep trying to patch it up?
Ever hear the phrase, ‘a work in progress’? You keep talking about it as if there’s some end that should be reached. It might be. Probably not in either of our lifetimes.
“On the other hand, evolution would be falsified (or at least put into extreme doubt) with the discovery of a reptilian or mammalian fossil in the pre-Cambrian strata, or by the discovery of a non-DNA-based reptile, or a mammal with no junk DNA or pseudo-genes, or two morphologically related species based on radically different proteins. There is a virtually limitless list of such things that could easily refute evolution; but these things are never found.”
So refute away. Must be nice to have so much free time to waste being wrong.
That was a change for the better.
Glad we agree on something.
A trivial matter, but I thought that it was Louis Pasteur.
You really need to spend more time at other sites besides creationist ones, I think. I thought so too, but I looked it up.
I am amused at how sometimes you guys say that conditions were the same in the past, and sometimes say that they were different.
Did the sun rise and set back in the old days? Sure it did. Was water wet? Was molten lava still hot?
What a ridiculous comment.
The rest of the stuff I’ll have to lookup.
That’s about the most sensible thing I’ve heard from you. Try steering clear of Young Earthers: you may learn something useful.
By the way, has any one seen evolution in action(other than microevolution)?
Oh, this weary old canard: “Did you actually SEE it?” I’m so ready to pop Ham & Hovind in their respective mouths: I can smell the bullshit from here.
Microevolution and macroevolution are the same damn things, kiddo.
Gee whiz, did you actually SEE the resurrection?

You're also wrong about the salinity of the ocean:
http://www.answers.com/ocean
"The measurement of salinity is essentially the determination of the amount of dissolved salts in 1 kg of ocean water and is expressed in parts per thousand (‰). Ocean salinities commonly range between 33 ‰ to 38 ‰, with an average of about 35 ‰. Thirty-five parts per thousand salinity is equivalent to 3.5% by weight."

12/12/06 5:46 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

krystalline apostate

I had to look twice to figure out who you were with your name change!

‘When the world itself is 4.5 billion years old, it is a drop in the bucket.’

Indeed. But I would be willing to bet big money that that number goes up.

‘This is getting ever so old.
The 2nd law applies to everything. Obviously, you’re still stuck in the groove of ‘move up/move down’ – it doesn’t necessitate ‘either/or’. I’ve explained this before. It’s not about a straight linear progression.’

Alright, here’s how I see it. The second law of thermodynamics (which you admitted applies to everything, including evolution) states that everything, from our DNA to the sun, is breaking down. Evolution states that everything is gradually getting better. The law of non-contradiction says that both can’t be right. How do you get around that? And here is an article for you.

www.answersingenesis.org/docs/370.asp

‘Okay; now you’re just quote mining. I didn’t say that, ted did, remember?’

Yes I remember, but beepbeep said it, among other people, including most scientists. So are you saying that you know better than almost everyone else on the planet?

‘Besides which, flu shots help prevent the flu. How is this done? Thru science. It’s PROVEN it’s efficacy.’

So flu shots ALWAYS work? No they don’t. Science has demonstrated that if you put a weakened or altered form of the virus into the body, the body should produce antibodies in order to eliminate the threat. Does that always happen? Nope. Has science proven anything? Definitely not.

‘I could go into extended rant mode, but I’ll forgo that for now.’

Thank you most gracious sir!

‘Indeed, prior to the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species…’

If you are referring to the ‘gap theory’ and ideas like that, than you’re right, they are a bunch of garbage.

‘Ever hear the phrase, ‘a work in progress’? You keep talking about it as if there’s some end that should be reached. It might be. Probably not in either of our lifetimes.’

So what you take to be fact now, might be considered old and errant in the future? I do think that evolution will be discredited in our lifetimes. Will everyone, or even most people accept creation then? Maybe, but I highly doubt it. People do not like the idea that God is out there and has the ability to reward and punish, so they will think up something else that excludes God.

‘On the other hand, evolution would be falsified (or at least put into extreme doubt) with the discovery of a reptilian or mammalian fossil in the pre-Cambrian strata, or by the discovery of a non-DNA-based reptile, or a mammal with no junk DNA or pseudo-genes, or two morphologically related species based on radically different proteins. There is a virtually limitless list of such things that could easily refute evolution; but these things are never found.’

I assume that you know that creation predicts ‘junk genes’? The other stuff I will have to look into.

‘You really need to spend more time at other sites besides creationist ones, I think. I thought so too, but I looked it up.’

I didn’t get that of anything creation related. Pasteur must have publicized his more.

‘What a ridiculous comment.’

Is the same amount of oxygen, carbon dioxide, and helium in the air today as in the past?

‘That’s about the most sensible thing I’ve heard from you.’

Yea! I’m winning in sensible comments! 1-0

‘Oh, this weary old canard: “Did you actually SEE it?”’

Not ‘did’, ‘CAN’ you see it.

‘Microevolution and macroevolution are the same damn things, kiddo.’

You mean that you’re defending evolution like this and you don’t even know the different facets? Microevolution is a lateral or downward movement that results in more helpful genes becoming dominate. The less useful genes are lost or stored. No new information is gained. Macroevolution is an upward movement. Macroevolution is where a swallow becomes an eagle. Lots of new information is added.

‘Gee whiz, did you actually SEE the resurrection?’

Am I 2,000 years old?

‘"The measurement of salinity is essentially the determination of the amount of dissolved salts in 1 kg of ocean water and is expressed in parts per thousand (‰). Ocean salinities commonly range between 33 ‰ to 38 ‰, with an average of about 35 ‰. Thirty-five parts per thousand salinity is equivalent to 3.5% by weight."’

Answer this article.

www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i1/seas.asp

Daniel

13/12/06 3:57 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting to know that Creationists do deny classification.

I read that it was to show basic similarities in physical (not biological) makeup.

You should read something more recent; Modern classification has its root in the work of Carolus Linnaeus, who grouped species according to shared physical characteristics. These groupings have been revised since Linnaeus to improve consistency with the Darwinian principle of common descent. Molecular systematics, which uses DNA sequences as data, has driven many recent revisions and is likely to continue to do so.

As time went on (through the process of natural selection) the dogs lost genes that did not suite the climate and conditions that they lived in. Wolves lost short hair genes, dingos lost long hair genes, and poodles lost the big dog genes. Can you find anything preposterous with that?

Yes, this is preposterous first because this is not really how genes work. Domestic dogs have not lost genes, but dogs have the same genes as wolves, as they still can be bred, just some of the genes which aren't expressed in wolves have become expressed, as they were selected for, in domestic dogs. This was something that was discovered while attempting to domesticate Silver Foxes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tame_Silver_Fox). Second, domestic dogs were not developed through natural selection; it was very artificial selection done by humans. And third, poodles are "big" dogs and dingos are thought to have originated as domestic dogs brought with Aboriginal tribes. In many places where domestic dogs have gone feral, their wild personality & physical traits come back.

But none of this is strictly evolution, and while you have answered what you think a basic-kind of animal is, I am still confused as to why you would accept differentiation within a "kind" of animal yet not, especially with evidence, that over time these differentiations could lead to whole new "kinds" of organisms? (If it's just that you believe that the earth is only 6000 yrs old, and if evolution was occurring, you'd think we'd find visible examples of large animals evolving; could you imagine evolution being a possibility if the world was indeed older?)

First of all, I am sure that you know that the oceans are about 3% salt...The ocean is getting saltier at a measurable rate.
First of all, I know that the salinity of the ocean varies across the planet, from the dead-sea to the arctic oceans, there is a big difference. A detailed analysis of sodium shows that 35.6 x 1010 kg/yr come into the ocean, and 38.1 x 1010 kg/yr are removed ( http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199606/0051.html ). Salt is removed mostly as sentiment.

If you do imagine that all fish at one time lived in fresh water, have they not evolved to live in salt water? Go down to the pet store and they'll tell you there are very specific conditions for keeping salt-water creatures tanks.

In a world-wide flood, what would have happened to all the desert plants? The cacti? Land plants cannot survive long under water, and many plant seeds that soak in water for more than 24 hours go bad.

After a world-wide flood, how were animals distributed to specific regions of the world? Like almost all of the marsupials are in Australia, not to mention the thousands of islands on this planet home to unique species?

The way that water freezes disproves that the second law of thermodynamics disallows evolution?

*sigh* That was a double negative, and while I cannot prove evolution through the way water-freezes, I am just trying to illustrate the point that the 2nd law does not describe a universe moving towards disorder. You still don't understand thermodynamics, and despite everyone else trying to explain & you not getting it, I will try one more time.

Law 1: In any process, the total energy of the universe remains constant.

Law 2: There is no process that, operating in a cycle, produces no other effect than the subtraction of a positive amount of heat from a reservoir and the production of an equal amount of work.

One way of stating this 2nd law is that closed systems tend to increase entropy. Entropy is not the same as disorder. Entropy is the amount of energy that is not available for work during a certain process.

The earth is not a closed system in that it receives energy from the sun, in addition to the heat that the core of the earth dissipates from the time of it's formation. Entropy on earth does not increase, because energy available on earth increases from sunlight. This is how solar-power works.

Evolution fits into the 2nd Law just as every other natural process does.

In a primordial world, devoid of oxygen, bombarded with radiation, there were still organisms that could survive; "Oxygen was toxic to the Earth's earliest organisms, which had evolved to survive in oxygen-free environments. As oxygen accumulated in the atmosphere, these anaerobes sought shelter in locations where oxygen did not exist. Today, anaerobic organisms can still be found, but only in extreme environments such as undersea vents and geothermal formations, under conditions that would be deadly to most other life forms." (http://www.teachersdomain.org/resources/tdc02/sci/ess/earthsys/stetteroxy/index.html)

The oxygen early organisms produced couldn't be "destroyed" (see the first law; oxygen is an element). It may have take a long while to build up in the atmosphere, but that's ok with those of us who acknowledge the earth being several billion years old. (I may seem to "throw around" millions of years, but these things do take time. Imagine all of Earth's four-and-a-half-billion-year history condensed into a single 24 hours. If we start right now, then the first humans walked the Earth only 30 seconds ago. Dinosaurs began roaming the planet just before 11 p.m. The first multi-celled animals evolved at 9:05pm. Before that, mostly single-celled organisms existed, and we think the first of those appeared around 4 o'clock in the morning.)

13/12/06 7:07 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE: "Alright, here’s how I see it. The second law of thermodynamics (which you admitted applies to everything, including evolution) states that everything, from our DNA to the sun, is breaking down. Evolution states that everything is gradually getting better. The law of non-contradiction says that both can’t be right."

No, it doesn't.

13/12/06 9:11 am  
Blogger Krystalline Apostate said...

Indeed. But I would be willing to bet big money that that number goes up.
???? No clue what you mean.
Alright, here’s how I see it. The second law of thermodynamics (which you admitted applies to everything, including evolution) states that everything, from our DNA to the sun, is breaking down.
It does. In increments. Again: not a linear progression. By your logic, there shouldn’t be ANY life on earth.
Evolution states that everything is gradually getting better.
No, it doesn’t. It states everything is evolving. Better is a matter of perspective. Creatures can improve, devolve (atavisms), or stay on a plateau. Same w/ye old 2nd law.
The law of non-contradiction says that both can’t be right. How do you get around that?
Already explained it in detail. Onwards.
www.answersingenesis.org/docs/370.asp
Sorry, not in the mood for satire.
Yes I remember, but beepbeep said it, among other people, including most scientists. So are you saying that you know better than almost everyone else on the planet?
No, but I’m willing to bet that I got you beat.
Nice try w/the Agrippa trilemma, BTW.
So flu shots ALWAYS work? No they don’t. Science has demonstrated that if you put a weakened or altered form of the virus into the body, the body should produce antibodies in order to eliminate the threat. Does that always happen? Nope. Has science proven anything? Definitely not.
You’re really trying my patience here. You blew this 1 big time. No, flu shots don’t always work. Why? Viruses EVOLVE, bypassing antibodies. Shot yourself in the foot.
If you are referring to the ‘gap theory’ and ideas like that, than you’re right, they are a bunch of garbage.
Did you read it?
So what you take to be fact now, might be considered old and errant in the future?
Sure. That’s how science works. In w/the new, out w/the old.
I do think that evolution will be discredited in our lifetimes. Will everyone, or even most people accept creation then? Maybe, but I highly doubt it. People do not like the idea that God is out there and has the ability to reward and punish, so they will think up something else that excludes God.
Hey, I’ll echo Dawkins on this 1: “I’m open-minded – give me some PROOF.”
I get tired of this old ‘You just want validation for your misbehavior’ crap. I can’t speak for anyone else here, but if I’m wrong? I’ll take it on the chin, thanks much. This ‘reward & punish’ crap is an argument from force, coupled w/Pavlovian conditioning.
I don’t do the ‘carrot on the stick’ schtick.
I assume that you know that creation predicts ‘junk genes’? The other stuff I will have to look into.
Say whaaattt? Lemmee guess: you’re going to cough up some nebulous passage that’s probably outta context to support that zinger. 8)
I didn’t get that of anything creation related. Pasteur must have publicized his more.
No, Pasteur finalized it. Redi began it. Please do some research.
Is the same amount of oxygen, carbon dioxide, and helium in the air today as in the past?
Gee, I dunno, where you THERE to measure it?
Yea! I’m winning in sensible comments! 1-0
Sez you.
Not ‘did’, ‘CAN’ you see it.
Sure. I have an autistic nephew. 1 eyed kittens, handicapped people.
You mean that you’re defending evolution like this and you don’t even know the different facets? Microevolution is a lateral or downward movement that results in more helpful genes becoming dominate. The less useful genes are lost or stored. No new information is gained. Macroevolution is an upward movement. Macroevolution is where a swallow becomes an eagle. Lots of new information is added.
& here ya go:
”Microevolution can be contrasted with macroevolution; which is the occurrence of large-scale changes in gene frequencies, in a population, over a geological time period (i.e. consisting of lots of microevolution). The difference is largely one of approach. Microevolution is reductionist, but macroevolution is holistic. Each approach offers different insights into evolution.”
Still stuck on the ‘downward/upward’ thing, aintcha?
Swallows becoming eagles sounds terribly Lamarckian.
Am I 2,000 years old?
Obviously not. Your mindset obviously is.
Answer this article.
Utterly ridiculous. You can’t date water. Besides which, aren’t the YEC’ers claiming there was an ‘ice canopy’ surrounding the earth, since there’s not enough water to flood the entire earth?
I couldn’t find Steve Austin (the million $ man!) on answers.com, but Dr Russell Humphreys is a bit of a loon: http://www.answers.com/Dr%20Russell%20Humphreys.
I’ll take the word of accredited scientists over Young Earthers any day. Even if the YECer’s are nuclear physicists.
Oh, hey, been re-reading this, & this 1 jumped right out at me:
I am also debating with the others as you can see, and along with other things that I have to do, I try to spend as little time as possible on any one thing.
So take some bleedin’ notes already. Sit down, take a week off, give it a real think.
Personally, I’m getting a little bored w/repeating myself here. The only reason I’m responding at this point, is I was raised polite (speak when spoken to, all that).
You’ve got enough material for a nice, long, extended meditation on the subject. Sit down & chew on it for a while. I’d advise you let go of the 1-upsmanship: you’re obviously not retaining anything short-term.

13/12/06 12:02 pm  
Blogger IAMB said...

Anon Daniel, I had a nice (if rather long-winded) response to you yesterday, but Blogger ate it (which tends to happen when threads get a bit on the long side), so I'll try to recreate it here...

We'll start with the debate thing:
Makes sense. Though why don’t evolutionists arrange the debates and make the initial claims?

Oral debates do not advance science. Evolutionists do the debating where it counts: in peer-reviewed publications.

So why don’t they state at the beginning that they will only discuss a certain area of the topic?

It's been tried. A notable case from not long ago involved Hovind (I'll have to look up who and when, but the info is out there). The terms were stick to science and away from religion, and that neither could use Powerpoint slide shows and such. Well, the mod allowed Hovind to bring his Powerpoint anyway, and to use it, without contacting the opponent to say that the rules had changed. As icing, Hovind opened with (paraphrased) "he's here to debate science... I'm here to win souls for Jesus!" so the rules went right out the window, and the mod allowed it. The science guy should have backed out right then, but stubbornly he stayed (or should I say stupidly). Of course, if he'd backed out Hovind would have used that to his advantage anyway...

The point is: oral debate is a waste of time with these guys.

And what’s wrong with giving them both equal time? It’s my tax dollars that are funding it, so why don’t I get a say in what is taught?

Just because you pay the taxes doesn't mean you dictate what should and shouldn't be taught. You think higher math would be taught if popular vote determined the curriculum? Think about it. Appropriate material is recommended by experts in the field and approved by the school boards. The fact that you pay taxes doesn't give you any right to determine what is and isn't science, nor does it give that right to me. What gets taught in science class is determined by what is scientific consensus.

On the sediment thing, there are several ways to determine whether something formed quickly or not. Part of it is the size and shape of a formation. A prehistoric lake bed will show different formations for basic sedimentation like what you'll see at the bottom of the lake from sediments precipitating out of solution, than the formations you'll see that came from rapid events such as landslides and flooding. Another thing is that rapid events tend to have all sorts of interesting things trapped in them. Additionally, a rapid event, depending on how rapid, will show less sorting by density the faster it happens.

It is possible for a lot of water to lay down a lot of sediment quickly, but it won't lay down layers like what we see. As I've said before, a year long global flood would leave all layers sorted by density from bottom to top. What we see is sorting within individual layers... not sorting across the whole column. Does that make sense?

On the Mississippi Delta thing, the volume of water moving off of the continent in a global flood would have carried sediments quite a bit farther out than what we see. What we see now looks suspiciously like something that neatly matches sediments laid down by the same river we see now. The amount of water you're thinking of in a global flood would wash things off a bit faster, and what we'd expect to see would look more like the leftovers in Washington and Oregon from the Missoula Lake flood, or the leftovers of the Bonneville flood in Idaho.

Another point on the Mississippi:
Any evidence whatsoever that the river was ever anywhere else? And why can’t it be explained by a worldwide flood? With all the water rushing off the continent, and enormous amount of sediment would have been washed off.

Well, considering the last ice age reached as far down as Kansas and Nebraska the river would have been much smaller for a time. Beyond that, it appears that the mouth of the river has changed plenty of times, including being as far North as Illinois.

Looks like others have covered plenty of the other stuff (magnetic field, transitions, etc) so we'll move on...

As for the fossil deposition patterns, that one came out of the Evolution Cruncher by Vance Ferrel. That book is a real hoot... especially the cosmology section. I've heard his reasoning repeated elsewhere as well.

My point was that there are only a small amount of fossils, and of those fossils, only a small percentage vertebras. That means that most rocks have few if any fossils and… now I forget where I was going with that point. Drat.

I suspect here that you came to the realization that you'd just answered your own question, but I could be wrong.

‘Before the plates collided, that area was underwater.’

How do you know that?


Do a little learning on the subject of plate tectonics and all will become clear. India and Asia are on two separate plates, and the India plate is pushing its way under the Asian plate. The result is the formation of mountains. We can measure how fast this is happening, and how fast the Himalayas are growing. Based on this, we can simulate what things looked like in the past, and moving plates backward eventually leaves you with a gap between the two where mountains will be in the future. Tectonic models have been shown to be quite accurate, and are very solidly supported, despite creationist claims that Africa had to be shrunk for the Pangaea model to work and that Central America had to be completely removed. I can tell you different, and explain it, if you'd like.

Onto the clam thing:
Maybe I’m wrong, but I thought I had heard that many of then weren’t buried.

They were when they fossilized. Things have to be buried, and stay that way, in order to be replaced with enough minerals from the encasing sediment in order to fossilize. The fact that they are in the closed position means they were buried. When a bivalve dies and is not buried, eventually the soft tissues will decompose and the shell will open. This is because slightly open is the relaxed position of the shell, and the mollusc has to exert energy to stay shut. If you're walking on the beach and come across a whole shell (both halves still attached) where no soft tissue remains you'll notice that it's open at least slightly. The reason the ones that are dead before you cook them stay shut is that whole rigor mortis thing. Eventually, tissue decay will allow the shell to open. Just because a fossil is exposed, however, doesn't mean it wasn't buried (unless of course you doubt erosion, in which case I can't help you at all). Most fossil finds are partially exposed due to erosion. It's not like we mine for them, you know...

Ugh, good thing I don’t like clam!

Unfortunately for you, our molluscan overlords don't care what you think... they'll be taking over any day now (though we can slow the revolution a bit with enough wasabi). If it was up to me, the bacteria would win, so I'm still holding out for eventual victory (being a micro guy I have to admit to a little bias in that field).

Let's backtrack now for a quick point about the figurines and art you mentioned...

You have a point, but pictures that detailed? They even had swirl patterns on the dinosaurs’ skin, and we had no idea that this was true until we found some fossilized skin relatively recently. Coincidental?

Your point here is expected, but what it shows is that you've done very little research into Mesoamerican art. Detailed swirl patterns have always been a pretty popular motif for the area. So, unless you think that those same swirl patterns also mean the jaguars, birds and people exhibited similar skin patterns once upon a time, the patterns on the figurines can be attributed to coincidence, even if the authenticity of the figurines was not severely in doubt.

Back to cosmology now...

Yes, nuclear fusion, and the sun is eating away at itself.

Nope. Fusion does not mean the sun is changing in mass... the only thing being "eaten" is available fuel. The neutrons ejected in a fusion reaction aren't typically lost in the case of a star because gravity keeps a nice tight hold on them. Fusion is simply two atoms being forced together to create another atom of larger mass (Deuterium 2H + Tritium 3H = Helium 4He and one neutron is ejected). Nothing is used up in the sense that it disappears... the only thing being used up is available fuel. Eventually all that's left in a star will be heavier elements which require energy input to fuse rather than releasing energy. That's when a star goes dead (if it isn't big enough to go nova). Our sun will increase in size rather substantially just before it dies, when all of the Hydrogen has been fused and the core starts working on fusing Helium.

On the moon thing, even given your rate of recession it wouldn't be out of sight in five billion years, unless you have a substantially different view of what a "reasonable distance" is. Given your rate it would appear about a third the size it is now in five billion years, even if you start at its current position. Besides, current understanding says the moon is the result of an impact of earth by an object approximately the size of Mars while earth was still "squishy". This was about 4.5 billion years back, and the moon has been receding ever since.

Here's another one (I apologize for jumping around, but I catch them as I find them):
One problem. What was wrong with animals like the saber toothed tiger or the wooly mammoth? Why couldn’t they have lived on in the artic regions of the planet? And why couldn’t certain small, quick species of dinosaurs survive in African swamps? The habitat is ideal for them.

The main issue is the predator-prey relationship. The prey goes extinct from lack of food and competition by species more able to get at the food, and the prey follows. Really one of the only extant species we have in America that's left over from that time period is the Pronghorn Antelope. The adults don't have any natural predators other than people, because their predators (saber tooth kitties and direwolves) are all extinct. Coyotes play hell with the young ones, but other than that they have nothing capable of catching them... even if you transplanted predators from Africa. As for the dino thing, it's possible but not necessarily likely, given that there's no credible evidence of their current existence. However, even if one were found it would have no bearing on evolution at all... it would just mean that a species of dino managed to survive.

Couple more things...

I read that it was to show basic similarities in physical (not biological) makeup.

The tree of life has been shifting emphasis to genetic makeup and away from morphology. Morphology is useful for determining plausible relationships, but genetic sequencing is better.

On the "kind" thing, the problem people such as myself have is that you can't nail down a definition. Sometimes it's species, sometimes its genus, sometimes it's family... etc. It's too flexible to be useful, and appears to mean whatever is most convenient for creationists. The problems is eventually the flexible definitions become contradictory to creationist dogma... especially where the ape/human relationship is concerned. For example, to have a "wasp kind" you need to go all the way out to order, but you can't do that because it puts humans and apes in the same "kind". That's a no-no as far as I'm aware...

Enough for now...

13/12/06 12:21 pm  
Anonymous ted said...

I might as well just say that God is obviously real, after all, we are both here.

You can, but you need evidence to support your position. I have plenty, where's yours?

Other than before and after pictures and eye witness accounts

The problem is the in between isn't it? The devistation was caused by an atomic blast. That evidence, to my mind at least, pretty much proves that atoms do exist and behave, at least in that instance, exactly as expected.

13/12/06 11:02 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Due to lack of time and other issues, I won’t be able to comment regularly after Friday (my time). I hope that it doesn’t appear that I am running away, as I really want to continue this debate. Oh well, I will keep it up until Friday, than leave you to pick my arguments apart unopposed.

Daniel

14/12/06 2:19 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ted

‘The problem is the in between isn't it? The devastation was caused by an atomic blast. That evidence, to my mind at least, pretty much proves that atoms do exist and behave, at least in that instance, exactly as expected.’

Like I said, we have evidence that atoms exist, but we can’t be sure until we see them right? The same applies to God. We have evidence that He exists, but we (more you, but I’m not going to go into the becoming a Christian thing) won’t be 100% sure until after death, then either you won’t know anything, because death will be the end, or you will wind up in hell and it will be to late to fix your mistake.

Daniel

14/12/06 3:35 am  
Blogger Krystalline Apostate said...

I dunno about the rest of you, but I'm still waiting (w/baited breath, no less!) the evidence that TENS of THOUSANDS of dinosaurs that still walk the earth.
I checked at a local pet store, but they seem to be fresh out (& the lady gave me the oddest look, too).

14/12/06 9:01 am  
Blogger Krystalline Apostate said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

14/12/06 9:01 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Daniel,
Like I said, we have evidence that atoms exist, but we can’t be sure until we see them right?

You will accept atoms without actually seeing them, because scientific evidence for them exists. Yet you cannot accept evolution despite the fact that evidence for that exists as well?

I am sorry that you won't have time to reply to everyone... I understand that these conversations have gotten lengthy. I myself just really wished to help you understand thermodynamics at the least.

I really don't think any amount of time we had could convince you of evolution; you are stuck believing what you've been told as a child and you apparently don't have time or resources to educate yourself and learn real science on your own. I do feel sorry for you, not that you believe in god, but just that your fear of god doesn't allow you to use the brain given to you.

14/12/06 10:15 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

krystalline apostate

‘No clue what you mean.’

I mean as scientists learn more about how complex everything is, they will raise their estimates as to how old everything is.

‘It does. In increments. Again: not a linear progression. By your logic, there shouldn’t be ANY life on earth.’

After 6,000 years? Not yet. As far as I can tell, God created man stronger, faster, smarter than he is now. Over time, man has gotten shorter, slower, and dumber. Now it is true that man has gotten taller over the past couple centuries, but that is due mainly to better living conditions, better nutrition and better sanitation. Technology is the result of years of accumulated work and research. And brains? Take a look at a test from the early 1800’s. Could you pass it with flying colors? I couldn’t.

‘No, it doesn’t. It states everything is evolving. Better is a matter of perspective. Creatures can improve, devolve (atavisms), or stay on a plateau. Same w/ye old 2nd law.’

Evolving is getting better is it not? I would have thought that becoming more apt at survival was better, but that’s just me.

‘Already explained it in detail. Onwards.’

Either refresh my memory or direct me to where you explained it.

‘Sorry, not in the mood for satire.’

Don’t let the facts get in the way of your opinion!

‘No, but I’m willing to bet that I got you beat.’

Maybe, Maybe not.

‘Why? Viruses EVOLVE, bypassing antibodies.’

No, I was saying that the shots don’t always have the desired effect, and they sometimes harm the body.

‘Did you read it?’

Read what?

‘Sure. That’s how science works. In w/the new, out w/the old.’

So everything that you are saying now could be wrong?

‘Hey, I’ll echo Dawkins on this 1: “I’m open-minded – give me some PROOF.”’

Than go and read the articles from ICR and Answers in Genesis, if you are serious.

‘Say whaaattt? Lemmee guess: you’re going to cough up some nebulous passage that’s probably outta context to support that zinger. 8)’

Nope, the second law of thermodynamics predicts that everything is braking down, including genes.

‘Gee, I dunno, where you THERE to measure it?’

No, and neither were you, my point is that we don’t know.

Sure. I have an autistic nephew. 1 eyed kittens, handicapped people.

I see the second law of thermodynamics in action, but no evolution.

‘Microevolution can be contrasted with macroevolution…’

Isn’t another name for microevolution ‘natural selection’?

‘Swallows becoming eagles sounds terribly Lamarckian.’

I disagree with it, do you?

‘Utterly ridiculous. You can’t date water. Besides which, aren’t the YEC’ers claiming there was an ‘ice canopy’ surrounding the earth, since there’s not enough water to flood the entire earth?’

Obviously you can to some extent. And yes there is more than enough water to flood the earth.

Reading.

And I have read most of that stuff since then.

‘Personally, I’m getting a little bored w/repeating myself here.’

Me too.

‘The only reason I’m responding at this point, is I was raised polite (speak when spoken to, all that).’

No comment.

Daniel

15/12/06 2:58 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

new.atheist

‘Yes, this is preposterous first because this is not really how genes work. Domestic dogs have not lost genes, but dogs have the same genes as wolves, as they still can be bred, just some of the genes which aren't expressed in wolves have become expressed, as they were selected for, in domestic dogs.’

That sounds pretty much like what I was saying.

‘Second, domestic dogs were not developed through natural selection; it was very artificial selection done by humans. And third, poodles are "big" dogs and dingos are thought to have originated as domestic dogs brought with Aboriginal tribes. In many places where domestic dogs have gone feral, their wild personality & physical traits come back.’

Yes, their genes weren’t lost, just became recessive until they were needed. But no new information.

‘But none of this is strictly evolution, and while you have answered what you think a basic-kind of animal is, I am still confused as to why you would accept differentiation within a "kind" of animal yet not, especially with evidence, that over time these differentiations could lead to whole new "kinds" of organisms?’

I have not found sufficient evidence that variations within kinds would lead to new kinds. That would require new information to be added.

‘If it's just that you believe that the earth is only 6000 yrs old, and if evolution was occurring, you'd think we'd find visible examples of large animals evolving; could you imagine evolution being a possibility if the world was indeed older?’

I would at least be more open to the idea.

‘First of all, I know that the salinity of the ocean varies across the planet, from the dead-sea to the arctic oceans, there is a big difference.’

Please note two words. ‘About’ and ‘oceans’, I didn’t say ‘are’ and ‘bodies of water’.

‘A detailed analysis of sodium shows that 35.6 x 1010 kg/yr come into the ocean, and 38.1 x 1010 kg/yr are removed ( http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199606/0051.html ). Salt is removed mostly as sentiment.’

This article gives a different rate.
www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i1/seas.asp

‘If you do imagine that all fish at one time lived in fresh water, have they not evolved to live in salt water? Go down to the pet store and they'll tell you there are very specific conditions for keeping salt-water creatures tanks.’

Not fresh, just less salty.

‘In a world-wide flood, what would have happened to all the desert plants? The cacti? Land plants cannot survive long under water, and many plant seeds that soak in water for more than 24 hours go bad.’

Noah would have brought many seeds with him on the ark. Also, there would have been huge mats of up rooted plants and animal carcasses floating around, enabling the seeds to stay relatively dry.

‘After a world-wide flood, how were animals distributed to specific regions of the world? Like almost all of the marsupials are in Australia, not to mention the thousands of islands on this planet home to unique species?’

Migration. The animals would survive on in places that were best suited to them, and in others, they would either die out, or be hunted to extinction. As for the islands, all I can think of is land bridges, which is how you also answer that question I believe.

‘That was a double negative’

Sorry, but you get my point.

‘Law 1: In any process, the total energy of the universe remains constant.’

No problem there.

‘Law 2: There is no process that, operating in a cycle, produces no other effect than the subtraction of a positive amount of heat from a reservoir and the production of an equal amount of work.’

I believe that this is a better summery.

‘As processes in nature occur, the total energy reservoir is reduced to simpler forms with a consequential increase in what has been termed ‘entropy’. As energy is used it becomes less available for further use. Part of the energy spent to produce something is always lost by radiation, friction, or other effects. It becomes non-recoverable heat dissipating in space. Ultimately, as things are going, the entire universe will end up being filled with a stagnant mass of low-level heat energy.’

‘One way of stating this 2nd law is that closed systems tend to increase entropy. Entropy is not the same as disorder. Entropy is the amount of energy that is not available for work during a certain process.

The earth is not a closed system in that it receives energy from the sun, in addition to the heat that the core of the earth dissipates from the time of it's formation. Entropy on earth does not increase, because energy available on earth increases from sunlight. This is how solar-power works.’

And all this time the sun is losing energy and breaking down. Also, some of that energy is destructive gamma, X, and U-V rays. As you know, those rays are very destructive. Entropy is a change inward and downward, while evolution is a change outward and upward. For example, you get a new car. You drive it around for a few years and what happens? It begins to break down. Does the energy from the sun help fix your car? No, it deteriorates it and breaks it down more quickly. The same for evolution, unbridled energy destroys.

‘In a primordial world, devoid of oxygen, bombarded with radiation, there were still organisms that could survive; "Oxygen was toxic to the Earth's earliest organisms, which had evolved to survive in oxygen-free environments.’

They were able to survive the gamma, X, and U-V rays? How?

‘The oxygen early organisms produced couldn't be "destroyed" (see the first law; oxygen is an element).’

But you need ozone (O3) in order block the U-V rays, water for the X-rays, and the radiation belt for the gamma rays. The ozone would be broken apart as soon as it was formed, so you are back to square one.

‘It may have take a long while to build up in the atmosphere, but that's ok with those of us who acknowledge the earth being several billion years old.’

Hehe, so true.

‘Yet you cannot accept evolution despite the fact that evidence for that exists as well?’

But I don’t see evidence for evolution. Maybe I’m blind, or maybe you are. I guess we’ll just have to keep studying.

‘I am sorry that you won't have time to reply to everyone... I understand that these conversations have gotten lengthy. I myself just really wished to help you understand thermodynamics at the least.’

I try to get back to people who at least sound reasonable first. And thank you for your concern, although I was trying to do the same thing for you!

‘I really don't think any amount of time we had could convince you of evolution; you are stuck believing what you've been told as a child and you apparently don't have time or resources to educate yourself and learn real science on your own.’

Probably not, and the same is probably true vice versa.

‘I do feel sorry for you, not that you believe in god, but just that your fear of god doesn't allow you to use the brain given to you.’

Is that a polite was of saying ‘you’re being stupid’? ( At least it was polite!) And please respond to what I have written. Even if I cannot reply, I will try to read it.

Daniel

15/12/06 4:22 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Daniel,

If it's what you're trying to say, then you are using the wrong words. Words have VERY specific meanings, and using the wrong words causes a lot of confusion. Many arguments can get heated purely over semantics. We all must try to be clear, & say exactly what we mean.

That would require new information to be added.

Ah, what if there was 1 set of information (in DNA, we've got 4 chemical combinations that are commonly refereed to as G,A,T,C http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:DNA_chemical_structure.png), and then chemistry copied it? (I fully acknowledge not knowing fully how that happened the first time, it is being researched http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/060609_life_origin.html) But the copy got stuck to my original. And then copied it a few more times, and repeated. But not all the copies were exact. Or not all of the reproductions were exact. Radiation can mess with cells in all sorts of ways. Again, with millions of years to play with (don't laugh! I can hear you....) you can eventually get a few good "mistakes."

Please note two words. ‘About’ and ‘oceans’, I didn’t say ‘are’ and ‘bodies of water’.

Your lack of specifics has lead me to think that you are just ignorant of the facts, and I apologize for that assumption. Seriously thou; these are HUGE differences in salinity.

This article gives a different rate.

Yes, because answersingenesis is wrong. And I don't mean just "I don't believe them, so they're wrong" I mean because they have no legitimate scientific backing. (I've checked the references, they are all either ancient (over 100yrs old), or creationist-minded texts. I would only accept non-bias, peer reviewed, recent references.)

Entropy is a change inward and downward, while evolution is a change outward and upward

Entropy isn't "in charge" of anything, it's a word used to describe a natural state. Just as "evolution" isn't in charge of anything; it's a word given to a process. They are not opposites. Just as "gravity" or "momentum" isn't in charge of anything. These phenomenon have no motives, no thoughts.

And still; even as the sun looses energy, it dissipates that energy onto the earth, and all life on earth uses that energy.

Cars aren't natural, so I'm not sure what you're saying there, I'd rather stick with natural processes. How about plants? Plants start small, they grow by sunlight & water... yes, an individual plant may die, but parts of it live on; in seeds, in cuttings, and the cycle continues, with no end in sight; with plants fixing themselves, and re-producing, all within the confines of thermodynamics.

The rays from the sun & the edges of the universe that course through our bodies may be destructive to us as a whole. But when they strike at the level of DNA they don't always take-away from our genes. The times it's good get to pass on, and sometimes when it's bad it gets passed on as well. There are recent studies to suggest that lactose tolerance was one of these good "mistakes" http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/science/10cnd-evolve.html?hp&ex=1165813200&en=459da82e1510cecf&ei=5094&partner=homepage

How did early cells survive radiation?
Science is still figuring that out, but there are examples of radiation-resistant organisms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinococcus_radiodurans
Perhaps it's like how people survive radiation & chemotherapy. The strongest cells survive & reproduce, and pass on whatever it is that helps them survive.

Perhaps also the earliest forms of life developed well within the earth, protected by the layers above it.

I was actually brought up to believe like you... I've kinda grown out of it, like I grew out of Santa & the Easter-bunny. My only faith is in mankind.

And no, I wasn't trying to say "you're being stupid" more like; I have a tendency to think that many Christians feel that if they even entertain the idea that something in the bible is wrong, they are bad in the eyes of god. Even if you do believe there is a god; than that god gave you a very powerful brain, and I seriously doubt he would ever say "ok, here's your brain, but don't use it; look at this one really really old book instead." That just doesn't make any sense to me. If anything, my religious upbringing taught me that Jesus didn't like those people that were sticklers for the religious dogma (he healed on Saturday! for shame!) and that the most important thing is to treat everyone the way we ourselves wish to be treated. The bible can be a good book; but that doesn't mean it's factual.

15/12/06 11:33 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The more I thought about it, I wonder if the reason you brought up cars falling apart was that you were contemplating that there are no examples of non-living things "getting better?" That's why I previously gave you the example of snow flakes. How about volcanoes? You may think volcanoes are destructive, but they form new islands & that can be a "good" thing. Stalactites? Cloud formation? Lots of physical & chemical reactions are sparred on by sunlight that falls on this planet, let alone the chemistry we know as life.

Better is always in the eye of the beholder. A thousand insects can clean a carcass cleaner than one lion, does that mean they're better? Birds or Bats? Butterfly or hummingbird? Cockroach's can survive in a lot of environments, while fig wasps and figs have formed a symbiotic relationship where one cannot live without the other.... is it better to be good at a little bit of everything? Or specialize in one area?

Just as gravity doesn't make things fall, evolution isn't an "upward" process. We (those of us who don't believe in biblical creation) understand that humans evolved from the great apes, yet we have less chromosomes than they do: 23 vs. 24. Butterflies have 380 chromosomes. Cats have 38. Corn has 20.

Evolution just allows for creatures best suited to their environment.

I don't want you to think I ignored your comments about the flood either. I'm contemplating them. What I'd really like to see is a re-creation of an arc full of animals, surviving 40 days with only an influx of fresh-water, perhaps fish to eat. That would be an interesting experiment.

15/12/06 2:03 pm  
Blogger Krystalline Apostate said...

I mean as scientists learn more about how complex everything is, they will raise their estimates as to how old everything is.
Is THAT how you think things are done?
Wow. How naïve.
After 6,000 years? Not yet. As far as I can tell, God created man stronger, faster, smarter than he is now. Over time, man has gotten shorter, slower, and dumber. Now it is true that man has gotten taller over the past couple centuries, but that is due mainly to better living conditions, better nutrition and better sanitation. Technology is the result of years of accumulated work and research. And brains? Take a look at a test from the early 1800’s. Could you pass it with flying colors? I couldn’t.
What test? Slower? Dumber? You mean more civilized. I don’t think they even HAD I.Q tests back in the 1800’s. They used to use LEECHES to bleed people. They thought race=intelligence. They slaughtered other cultures. That’s right: your brilliant, wonderful christian morality meant squat back then, & it means squat now.
Sure, savages are faster.
Evolving is getting better is it not? I would have thought that becoming more apt at survival was better, but that’s just me.
Evolution isn’t always about improving, getting better. Sometimes it remains static: sometimes it goes backwards.
Either refresh my memory or direct me to where you explained it.
Consult your notes.
Don’t let the facts get in the way of your opinion!
I won’t. You don’t have any.
No, I was saying that the shots don’t always have the desired effect, and they sometimes harm the body.
& yet they work for the larger portion of the time, don’t they? The point stands.
So everything that you are saying now could be wrong?
Everything? Highly unlikely. Possible, but unlikely.
Than go and read the articles from ICR and Answers in Genesis, if you are serious.
I’ve been to AIG. I’ve cross-checked their stats. All has been refuted to my satisfaction.
Nope, the second law of thermodynamics predicts that everything is braking down, including genes.
This is really getting ridiculous. You still don’t understand the 2nd law, do you?
No, and neither were you, my point is that we don’t know.
There’s plenty of evidence. Demanding an eyewitness when there wasn’t anyone around is just…idiotic.
I see the second law of thermodynamics in action, but no evolution.
Then I’d advise you get out more often. Read something other than creationist websites.
Isn’t another name for microevolution ‘natural selection’?
You tell me.
I disagree with it, do you?
Of course I do. Lamarckianism has been refuted. You see, there HAVE been other competing theories. They, too, have been refuted, or are struggling to come out on top.
Natural selection indeed.
Obviously you can to some extent. And yes there is more than enough water to flood the earth.
Enough water to flood the earth? That’s impossible. Ever hear of water displacement?
Here’s more reading material: Scientific American.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2
Let me take a shot at some armchair psychiatry.
You’re a hopeless romantic. That’s not a bad thing in most areas of life, but in science? It’s a handicap. Also, I understand the desire to stand w/the underdog. You might envision yourself as some verbal warrior for your imaginary deity, waging war against the heretics. Hopelessly romantic. You’re young, but I can’t tell how smart you are. You’re a kid. Don’t bridle at this, but you know jack squat at age 17. I was the same way. Thought I knew it all, knew diddly. Believed in all sorts of wild nonsense.
You’re welcome to believe any damn thing you like. It’s America: knock yourself out. But in NO WAY is anything you’ve said on this blog scientific, or useful. It’s not even logical. Despite every effort made to instruct you, you continue to fight a useless battle against foolish odds. You refuse to listen. No amount of evidence will convince you, no matter what.
So cut the 1-upsmanship: take a month, hey, take a year off from the ‘battle’. Read, study, and approach this (like any subject) not from the angle that it’s wrong or right, but as to whether or not it stands on its own merits. (Don’t reply to that: just take my advice.)
That’s how I became an atheist. Not because I wanted to be ‘wrong’ or ‘right’ about it – it wasn’t about my ego. It was about the TRUTH. It’s not about what I want – it’s about the facts, the evidence.
I discovered, after 20-odd years, that the bible was wrong. On so many topics, contradicts itself so often, is so non-historical, that it can’t stand alone w/o help.
So live free, or be a slave to an ancient book that has no truth, no strength in it.
That’s your choice. I can’t take that away from you.
But you can’t force it on me, nor can you force your morality, your rules, or your beliefs on others, ESPECIALLY in the classrooms.
Keep it to yourself, & let your prophecies take care of things.
I predict you’ll have a long, long wait.

15/12/06 6:28 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

new.atheist

‘If it's what you're trying to say, then you are using the wrong words. Words have VERY specific meanings, and using the wrong words causes a lot of confusion. Many arguments can get heated purely over semantics. We all must try to be clear, & say exactly what we mean.

I know and like I said, I’m sorry, though since you addressed it, I assumed that you understood what I meant (perhaps another mistake).

‘Ah, what if there was 1 set of information (in DNA, we've got 4 chemical combinations that are commonly refereed to as G,A,T,C http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:DNA_chemical_structure.png), and then chemistry copied it? I fully acknowledge not knowing fully how that happened the first time, it is being researched http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/060609_life_origin.html) But the copy got stuck to my original. And then copied it a few more times, and repeated. But not all the copies were exact. Or not all of the reproductions were exact. Radiation can mess with cells in all sorts of ways. Again, with millions of years to play with (don't laugh! I can hear you....) you can eventually get a few good "mistakes."’

If something gets copied, than you have a duplicate object. If some information gets mis or incompletely copied, than you have lost information, not gained any. If the object is completely copied and then suffers a mutation (even if the mutation is beneficial), information is lost, not gained. For example, there is some sort of blind fish that lives in subterranean lakes (I forget the name of the fish). The fish has lost the use of it’s eyes and the information required to see. That mistake is not harmful to the fish because it would be unable to see in there anyway. Perhaps the blindness helps the fish in some ways, I don’t know enough about it. But the fish has lost the information needed for eyes, and gained no information. And radiation mainly destroys cells, which is why the use it to fight cancer.

And I wasn’t laughing until I read ‘don't laugh! I can hear you....’, but I’m glad to see that you have a sense of humor.

‘Your lack of specifics has lead me to think that you are just ignorant of the facts, and I apologize for that assumption. Seriously thou; these are HUGE differences in salinity.’

My mistake. But how big are the differences? And by ‘these’ do you mean between seas, lakes, and oceans, or between oceans?

‘Yes, because answersingenesis is wrong. And I don't mean just "I don't believe them, so they're wrong" I mean because they have no legitimate scientific backing. (I've checked the references, they are all either ancient (over 100yrs old), or creationist-minded texts. I would only accept non-bias, peer reviewed, recent references.)’

But all the peers are biased for creation. Evolutionists are 100% biased for evolution, and creationists are 100% biased for creation. Neither side is non-biased or entirely objective, which is why you have to differentiate between creationist scientists and evolutionary scientists. There are no (that I know of) just plain scientists who objectively look at the facts and say ‘alright, after examination, this is evidence for creation and this evidence is for evolution, now after careful cross-examination, there is more evidence for this theory than that one, so unless further evidence comes up, this theory will be declared correct.’ But all we have is creationists who say ‘alright, let’s see in what ways this evidence fits creation,’ and evolutionists who say ‘alright, let’s see in what ways this evidence fits evolution.’ No objectivity.

‘Entropy isn't "in charge" of anything, it's a word used to describe a natural state.’

I agree, but it seems to me that it would either stop evolution in it’s tracks, or slow it down so much that you will have to move your dates back a couple of billion years.

‘And still; even as the sun looses energy, it dissipates that energy onto the earth, and all life on earth uses that energy.’

Yes, but everything is wearing down is my point.

‘Cars aren't natural, so I'm not sure what you're saying there, I'd rather stick with natural processes.’

By natural you mean anything that can grow on its own right?

‘How about plants? Plants start small, they grow by sunlight & water... yes, an individual plant may die, but parts of it live on; in seeds, in cuttings, and the cycle continues, with no end in sight; with plants fixing themselves, and re-producing, all within the confines of thermodynamics.’

Yes, but the plants have all of the information needed to harness the sun’s energy in them.

‘The rays from the sun & the edges of the universe that course through our bodies may be destructive to us as a whole. But when they strike at the level of DNA they don't always take-away from our genes. The times it's good get to pass on, and sometimes when it's bad it gets passed on as well. There are recent studies to suggest that lactose tolerance was one of these good "mistakes"’

What I was talking about is when the life was supposedly single-celled, would the radiation not destroy any and all life like that? And I guess I don’t get what you mean with the ‘lactose tolerance,’ could you explain further?

‘Perhaps it's like how people survive radiation & chemotherapy. The strongest cells survive & reproduce, and pass on whatever it is that helps them survive.’

But the radiation is narrowed down so only a specific area is being bombarded. Still the side effects are not good, even with a small area being radiated. And that small area would be what happened to life without any protection from the sun. Also the sun would be much bigger millions of years ago, so not only are you getting more radiation, the sun is getting to be big enough to make it too hot for life. Look into the shrinking of the sun and I think that you will find some very interesting information.

‘Perhaps also the earliest forms of life developed well within the earth, protected by the layers above it.’

That’s kind of where you have to go but there are still problems.

‘I was actually brought up to believe like you... I've kinda grown out of it, like I grew out of Santa & the Easter-bunny. My only faith is in mankind.’

Similar maybe, (and this is one of the saddest parts of Christianity) what denomination were you part of? And about mankind, I’ve seen enough wars and fighting to have no faith in mankind. You see in the last 100 years two world wars and many other wars that have cost millions of lives, you see genocides (and that word didn’t even exist until after WWII) and misery. Man is getting more wicked and depraved all the time. Right now we are engaged in a war with Islam that has the potential (and some say that it has already) to erupt into a third world war. I don’t see any way around it. Islam has declared jihad against the U.S. and Israel first and foremost, and the world. America is trying to stop them, and is bogged down in Iraq (I actually have some interesting ideas as to why were over there). The world hates our guts and even many Americans hate their own country. The world monetary system is collapsing (part of the reason for the war in Iraq) through the insane deficit spending of politicians and the populace at large (look that one up on the internet and you’ll either get really scared or think that I belong in an in an insane asylum).

No, I have lost all faith in mankind.

‘And no, I wasn't trying to say "you're being stupid" more like; I have a tendency to think that many Christians feel that if they even entertain the idea that something in the bible is wrong, they are bad in the eyes of god.’

I know, I was exaggerating what you said.

‘Even if you do believe there is a god; than that god gave you a very powerful brain, and I seriously doubt he would ever say "ok, here's your brain, but don't use it; look at this one really really old book instead." That just doesn't make any sense to me.’

No it doesn’t unless you also believe that God made the book infallible.

‘If anything, my religious upbringing taught me that Jesus didn't like those people that were sticklers for the religious dogma (he healed on Saturday! for shame!)’

Jesus upheld the law, but he rebuked those that added their own traditions to the law, made it impossible to follow, than they themselves wouldn’t follow it (and it was legal to do acts of mercy on Sabbath, until the rabbinic traditions were added).

‘and that the most important thing is to treat everyone the way we ourselves wish to be treated. The bible can be a good book; but that doesn't mean it's factual.’

The two greatest laws are found in Matthew 22:37-39 among other places and say ‘Jesus replied: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.

‘The more I thought about it, I wonder if the reason you brought up cars falling apart was that you were contemplating that there are no examples of non-living things "getting better?"’

No, it was just the first example that came to mind.

‘How about volcanoes? You may think volcanoes are destructive, but they form new islands & that can be a "good" thing.’

How does that show energy from the sun making things better?

‘Stalactites?’

That is an interesting one. I suppose that you know that stalactites do grow quite quickly? I was in line for a water ride at an amusement and they had three inch (7.5 cm) stalactites growing near the waterfall part of it. And once again, how does the sun make them better?

‘Cloud formation? Lots of physical & chemical reactions are sparred on by sunlight that falls on this planet, let alone the chemistry we know as life.’

Yes, but those are intricate processes, I don’t get how they could have evolved.

‘Better is always in the eye of the beholder. A thousand insects can clean a carcass cleaner than one lion, does that mean they're better? Birds or Bats? Butterfly or hummingbird? Cockroach's can survive in a lot of environments, while fig wasps and figs have formed a symbiotic relationship where one cannot live without the other.... is it better to be good at a little bit of everything? Or specialize in one area?’

It depends. But wouldn’t any organisms that have symbiotic relationships had to have evolved at the same time? Coincidence?

‘Just as gravity doesn't make things fall’

???

‘We (those of us who don't believe in biblical creation) understand that humans evolved from the great apes, yet we have less chromosomes than they do: 23 vs. 24.’

Gained information and lost some eh?

‘Evolution just allows for creatures best suited to their environment.’

And I have no problem with natural selection, it is an important process. I just don’t get how the story of the ‘princess and the frog’ becomes science when you add millions of years.

‘I don't want you to think I ignored your comments about the flood either. I'm contemplating them.’

I understand completely.

‘What I'd really like to see is a re-creation of an arc full of animals, surviving 40 days with only an influx of fresh-water, perhaps fish to eat. That would be an interesting experiment.’

Noah had over 100 years to build that boat, couldn’t he have grown and stored up enough food during that time period?

Sorry I won’t be able to reply from now on, I have enjoyed debating with someone who is willing to be reasonable. Like I said before, please reply and I will try to read what you post and consider what you say.

And to krystalline apostate, iamb, and beepbeep, sorry I wasn’t able to get back to you.

Daniel

16/12/06 4:34 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Daniel, I dunno if you'll be back, but...

Ok: really simple example
Simple Cell DNA: GATC
Copies itself: GATC
Copies itself wrong: GATCGA (OHH, look, it added information!)
This happened to be a good thing. Repeat.
GATCGA
GATCGATC
GATCGTTC (oops, didn't copy right... but seems ok)
GATCGTTC
GATCGATTC (Oops... didn't copy right... look! it added information!)

ETC. etc. etc. for 4.5 billion years. You do understand survival of the fittest. If you really want to see fossil evidence of evolution; check out the horse. This little creature called hyracotherium (which looks nuttin like a horse) evolved into a michippus, into a merychippus, into Equus (horse). Look at the picture: http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=55003 It's the best example I can think of that shows "transitional" species.

"Different bodies of water have different amounts of salt mixed in, or different salinity's. Salinity is expressed by the amount of salt found in 1,000 grams of water. Therefore, if we have 1 gram of salt and 1,000 grams of water, the salinity is 1 part per thousand, or 1 ppt.
The average ocean salinity is 35 ppt. This number varies between about 32 and 37 ppt. Rainfall, evaporation, river runoff, and ice formation cause the variations. For example, the Black Sea is so diluted by river runoff, its average salinity is only 16 ppt.
Freshwater salinity is usually less than 0.5 ppt. Water between 0.5 ppt and 17 ppt is called brackish. Estuaries (where fresh river water meets salty ocean water) are examples of brackish waters."

"Nearly nine times as salty as the ocean, the Dead Sea contains at a depth of 305 m (1,000 ft) some 27 percent solid substances."

Note: these are things you could look up yourself as well... things that (I really hope) aren't disputed by creationists, but you should consider a non-creationist web-site.

There are no (that I know of) just plain scientists who objectively look at the facts and say ‘alright, after examination, this is evidence for creation and this evidence is for evolution, now after careful cross-examination, there is more evidence for this theory than that one, so unless further evidence comes up, this theory will be declared correct.’

Part of the problem with this is that Science is past this... it's like there aren't any scientists around any more who are for a flat-earth... they figured it out, we moved on. I do understand the bias each side may hold, but I do know for a fact that Scientists are among the most argumentative people out there, and if there is evidence for both sides of an issue, you will find people arguing for it on both sides in scholarly journals. Hence, the whole "string theory" thing hasn't been resolved yet; it's still up for debate as a theory as a whole. Generally, evolution as a whole is accepted, but sometimes the details are still argued over in the scientific community.


Entropy would either stop evolution in it’s tracks, or slow it down so much that you will have to move your dates back a couple of billion years.

I don't see why you think this is so? As I've said: Entropy is a law about heat, energy, and the ability to do work. It doesn't say that heat can't be moved or used to do "work." (In thermodynamics, thermodynamic work is the quantity of energy transferred from one system to another. It is a generalization of the concept of mechanical work in mechanics. In the SI system of measurement, work is measured in joules (symbol: J). The rate at which work is performed is power. )

Yes, but everything is wearing down is my point.

The universe is reaching equilibrium. This does not prevent certain parts being "built up" as other parts "break down." If I insulate a box (as well as can be done) and put in the box 3 ice cubes, and one freshly-microwaved hot-pocket (yes, we should to take into account the initial temperature within the box, but unless you want to do some math, we'll just go with the basic idea), the totall temperature of the inside of the box will eventually be warmer than the ice-cubes, but cooler than the hot-pocket. The water gets warmer & melts. The hot-pocket cools down. It all evens out... not better, not worse. The laws of thermodynamics don't allow for everything to "break down," only even-out in the end... and as far as we know, the end of the universe is a way-ways off.

Would the radiation not destroy any and all life like that?
No, there is still life on earth, single celled organisms called Deinococcus radiodurans that can survive that kind of radiation.

And I guess I don’t get what you mean with the ‘lactose tolerance,’ could you explain further?

Not every one's body is tolerant of lactose as an adult. There is evidence that it is a recent mutation in human history. No other animals drink milk as adults; just humans. It's an advantage when water is polluted, or scares (cows get moisture from plants they eat, convert it into milk, people drink the milk). (You really should check out the links... I'm not sure what is preventing you.)

I grew up Catholic; went to Catholic school in fact, till 8th grade. I got bombarded with bible everything.

I’ve seen enough wars and fighting to have no faith in mankind.

That is so sad. So very, very sad for you. I look on mankind at an individual basis; at the guy who stops for me to cross the street, the person who holds the door, the penny jar at the grocery store, the food pantry, the good will, etc. I can't say I think mankind is getting more wicked; slavery is gone, women's rights, modern medicine, etc. History was a lot crappier for people. It's just that now we have 6 billion people to be unhappy all at once. (over-crowding & global warming are very real... I don't care what hovid says; you need a lot of land to feed one person. You can calculate your global footprint and how much land would be needed if everyone on earth lived as well as you do: http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/ecologicalfootprint/calculators/personal/introduction.asp )

I really hope we are not at war with Islam... we were at war with Iraq, and now they're fighting themselves more than us as far as I can see. Everyone has "interesting" ideas as to why we are over there. Lets not go there here. (I do agree with the abandon of the gold standard being very, very bad for the world.)

unless you also believe that God made the book infallible.

I've never believed anything man did, no matter how inspired by a higher power, was perfect. Lots of people do a lot of things in the name of god; doesn't mean they're all correct... why do you believe one person over another? Just cuz that's how you grew up? If you grew up in an Islamic household, you'd just as well think god inspired the Koran to be perfect. Aside from that, I have a lot of questions on why are there so many changes in policy within the bible & christian dogma? For example; how come gays are still bad, but pork is ok? Who gets to make up these rules & why?

Volcanoes have energy from within the earth; but just the same as the sun, the energy (heat) within the earth is lessening. Stalactites; yes, they can grow quickly, but it depends on where they are growing. (kinda like the salinity of the ocean depends on where you're measuring it.) The point was; they grow without being alive. (I use them as an example because I think you assume growth = better)

I'm not saying volcanoes, stalactites, or clouds "evolved." I am saying that they are processes working within the bounds of thermodynamic laws, just as evolution does. All off of the energy within the earth or from the sun.

Now I get to explain gravity; for every action, there is an equal/opposite reaction. The earth is attracted to you just as much as you are attracted to the earth; you "fall" towards the earth with the earth reacting equally to you (it's just MUCH bigger than you are). So gravity isn't "falling." it's attraction between bodies of mass. We see it as falling just because that's our perspective. (You may know this, but I'm trying to be technical.)

Again: entropy isn't "getting worse." Entropy is the process by which your freezer gets cold... but it's not really the coils in the back of your freezer making your freezer cold, the coils are technically removing heat from the space. But lots of people say the coils "make the freezer cold" because that's the easiest way to explain it from their perspective. Doesn't make it technically correct.

My point: saying entropy is "everything is wearing down" is not correct in the least. If you have a different theory that everything is wearing down, it needs a different word for that definition.

I'd also like to thank Beep for letting this continue; I have found it highly interesting & enlightening into the mind of a creationist. Daniel, if you ever have time to comment again; please stop by my blog as well: http://www.new-atheist.blogspot.com/ I much prefer trying to convince you than just berating you for being young/stupid; I really think you just don't know better, and the only way to know better is through learning.

16/12/06 12:20 pm  
Blogger Abacquer said...

Wow. I am the original author of the "Parable of the Boulder" which I first wrote on "Dear Christians" and then reposted on my own blog. I'm happy to see that it has gotten a lot of attention and that people have enjoyed it so much. Thank you all for your kind words.

Apart from the obvious messages, one of the points in the story is that it is pointless to debate with Creationists. As the saying goes, "you cannot reason a man out of a position he did not reason himself into".

I note from the extensive comments (108!?!? how do I get conversations like that on MY blog?) an ongoing debate between "Daniel", a Creationist, and many folks who have a working grasp on Science and Evolution. It's sad to hear the same old tired arguments coming out of Daniel's mouth that have been refuted hundreds if not thousands of times before.

But Dan can hardly be blamed. Those institutions that push the Creationist agenda tell half truths and outright lies to people who are inclined to trust them.

It's not really Dan's fault that he believes the propaganda he hears directly from such groups, or parroted by friends he respects.

The concept of a loving deity who created us all, knows us all, loves us all, who will save us from death with an afterlife where we will be so happy there will be nothing we shall want, who will reunite us with loved ones who have died--this is a very touching an powerful concept. It is very appealing and comforting.

That doesn't make it true, but it does make it hard to abandon. Particularly when one is indoctrinated into it from an age where one is gullible enough to believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny as well.

Where Creationists have gotten themselves into trouble is not in believing that God is the progenitor of all, but in insisting on Biblical inerrancy. There's no need for a believer to abandon his supernatural comforts as long as he isn't trying to refute obvious and prolific evidence. Evolution could be the work of a deity with a grand and awesome plan.

Those who devote themselves to a purely naturalistic viewpoint understand that there are still problems with the concept of a deity complicated enough to create the entire universe. But as long as a believer isn't trying to teach our kids nonsense about the age of the Earth, or not to worry about germs becoming resistant to drugs because evolution doesn't happen, and other such idiotic stuff, then they are perfectly entitled to their beliefs. They can even profess and teach their beliefs.

Thousands of years ago Religion was the Cosmology of the day. Answers to metaphysical questions were the province of Religion alone. But Science was in its infancy, and therefore Religion--the source of solace--was also called upon to answer physical questions as well. Which it did. Poorly. But well enough to provide the necessary solace.

Now Science is ascendant, and can answer the physical questions far better than Religion ever could. Why? Because Science is a method of finding truth through observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and independent review. It is knowledge based on actual physical evidence, instead of hokum.

Metaphysical questions cannot be answered by Science, because heaven cannot be measured, God cannot be weighed, spirits cannot be detected to the point where their spectra can be collected and analyzed. There is no evidence, and since there is no evidence, there is no Heaven, God, or spirits. Until such time as evidence is found, Science sticks to the physical.

Which means there is still a rich, vast, and storied body of knowledge with which Religion can concern itself--the metaphysical--where angels do not fear to tread.

This is the time in which we find ourselves. Science is taking over the physical, and Religion is retreating to the metaphysical. Change is scary, and people resist. These are the growing pains of our Cosmology.

I can only hope that in time, nonsense such as Biblical inerrancy will be abandoned or at least marginalized, and people will learn to look to their faiths for metaphysical comforts, and to Science for answers about everyday life.

Carbon dating isn't hokum Dan. Your world is billions of years old, and the genetic material of men and chimpanzees is 96% identical. I know you don't believe me on those points, and there's little I can do to convince you if evidence is not the coin of your belief system.

Given that, you must stop trying to provide evidence to support your faith. Your faith is supposed to exist no matter what the evidence says, so why would you present evidence to support it? And since it isn't done with any sort of scientific rigor, the evidence is likely to be poppycock anyway. I mean, really, sightings of dragons and dinosaurs?

It's okay for you to believe in God. That's fine, I hope your faith brings you great solace. Stop trying to rewrite the world to fit a storybook put to paper by a nomadic society that lived thousands of years ago, okay? It's silly.

24/3/07 3:41 am  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home