Nick Matzke posted Entry 2595 on September 17, 2006 09:51 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/2589

Anyone who has been a “creationism watcher” for any length of time is familiar with the venerable creationist tactic of “quote mining.” Since creationists, essentially universally, can’t (or don’t want to) deal with actual scientific data pertaining to evolution, they attempt maintain a facade of respectibility by quoting statements from biological authorities. This can take many forms; for example, for the 1987 Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard case, the creationist lawyer Wendell Bird, apparently with the help of Paul Nelson, assembled a massive 500-page brief that consisted almost entirely of thousands of quotes from authorities on every topic bearing on “creation science”, from astrophysics to biology to philosophy to religion. This failed to convince the Supremes, but Bird turned his brief into a large two-volume book, The Origin of Species Revisited. Other elaborations on creationist quote-mining include various “Quote Books”, including The Quote Book (1984 booklet, inserted in Creation magazine I believe) and The Revised Quote Book (1990) from Answers in Genesis, the Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter (now online), and Henry Morris’ That Their Words may be used against Them (comes with CD!). Then we have endless collections of quotes on creationist websites, 50 of which were recently surveyed and ranked against the Talk.Origins Quote-Mine Project. Sometimes these quotes evolve and mutate over time (here is an example from Of Pandas and People), and sometimes they even spontaneously generate from thin air, as with this imaginary quote from Clarence Darrow.

You may be saying, “Surely this is a problem, but only famous authorities get quote mined. It would never happen to me!” Think again. On September 5, 2006, an article I coauthored in Nature Reviews Microbiology on flagellum evolution was published on the NRM website as an Advanced Online Publication. Before the ink was even dry – heck, before the ink was even wet, the October issue hasn’t come out yet – Casey Luskin at the Discovery Institute is quote mining it! The mining occured in Luskin’s insta-response to the revised edition Chris Mooney‘s book The Republican War on Science. Check this out:

While intelligent design may be a persecuted minority viewpoint within the scientific community, it is nonetheless receiving increasing levels of scientific support and its proponents continue to publish their research in scientific publications which develop and extend the theory. Meanwhile, Darwinists feel compelled to respond to ID-claims in scientific journals, admitting that their own literature has lacked adequate responses to the ID arguments.[4]

[…]

[4] For a very recent example, see Mark J. Pallen and Nicholas J. Matzke, “From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella,” Nature Reviews Microbiology, AOP, published online 5 September 2006; doi:10.1038/nrmicro1493 which writes, “the flagellar research community has scarcely begun to consider how these systems have evolved.”

As if once wasn’t enough, we actually get a two-fer, presumbably just in case the Discovery Institute’s readers missed it the first time around:

Moreover, if there is no scientific controversy, then why are Darwinists responding to the scientific claims of ID-proponents in leading scientific journals such as Science and Nature? One article recently published in Nature Review Microbiology [sic] acknowledges that “the flagellar research community has scarcely begun to consider how these systems have evolved.”[26]

[…]

[26] Mark J. Pallen and Nicholas J. Matzke, “From The Origin of Species to the origin of
bacterial flagella,” Nature Reviews Microbiology, AOP, published online 5 September 2006; doi:10.1038/nrmicro1493.

Wow. Do we get some kind of prize? A plaque welcoming us to the illustrious “quote-mined by creationists” club? [1] I feel a little bit like I’ve joined the big leagues now. [2]

Whipping the Flagellum in the Quote-Mine

This particular variety of quote-mining, which basically argues something like “devastating and dismissive rebuttals of us actually means we are being taken seriously scientifically!”, has been increasingly popular with the ID creationists in the period following Kitzmiller (the DI does the same thing to Chris Adami just after citing the Pallen/Matzke article – maybe their secret plan is to swell my head so much that it pops). Superficially, it’s a no-lose strategy – if no one rebuts the ID nonsense, then they can propagate it with no interference, and if someone gets annoyed enough to publish a rebuttal, well then, there’s a controversy!

The Problem with “there is a scientific controversy!”

The only problem with this is that vicious one-sided pummeling in the scientific literature (well, in review essays at least – Pallen and Matzke 2006, Adami 2006, and Bottaro et al. 2006 were all essays commenting on how the research literature pertains to the social controversy around ID) does not a real scientific controversy make. In a fake scientific controversy, like the one about ID, the scientific community occasionally gets annoyed enough to write an essay commenting on how this or that piece of recent research just happens to destroy a claim that is common in the social controversy outside the scientific community. On the other hand, in a real scientific controversy, both sides produce original research data that indicates one hypothesis or another, and the two (or more) hypotheses are considered sufficiently well-supported that peer-reviewers recommend publication in the research literature. Despite the Discovery Institute list of “peer-reviewed” “articles” that Casey Luskin has been promoting to anyone who will listen – and which actually consists of ragbag of (1) non-reviewed book chapters, (2) “peer-edited” chapters and articles that are evidently supposed to impress us because “peer-edited” sounds kind of like “peer-reviewed” even though it actually means “DI fellows like William Dembski or Stephen Meyer liked the article”, (3) articles that don’t even mention “intelligent design”, and (4) one non-research review article that didn’t even review the relevant literature – they haven’t got anything like that. Judge Jones knew it, Chris Mooney knows it, and deep down the ID movement knows it, as Paul Nelson admitted in print and as Michael Behe admitted on the stand under oath last year.

The First Problem with “[scientists admit] that their own literature has lacked adequate responses to the ID arguments”

Okay, so we have established that kicking the ID movement while it’s down does not equal a scientific controversy. What about the DI’s claim that Pallen and Matzke 2006 shows that:

Darwinists feel compelled to respond to ID-claims in scientific journals, admitting that their own literature has lacked adequate responses to the ID arguments.[4]

[…]

[4] For a very recent example, see Mark J. Pallen and Nicholas J. Matzke, “From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella,” Nature Reviews Microbiology, AOP, published online 5 September 2006; doi:10.1038/nrmicro1493 which writes, “the flagellar research community has scarcely begun to consider how these systems have evolved.”

There are several very sneaky things going on here. Now, we meant what we said: “the flagellar research community has scarcely begun to consider how these systems have evolved.” This is quite true, at least in print (I am aware of informal discussions amongst flagellar researchers on the question). Leaving out work not by flagellar/T3SS specialists, there are two major articles on the relationship between flagellar and non-flagellar Type 3 Secretion Systems (F-T3SS and NF-T3SS), some discussions of this work in other papers, many papers documenting the specific homologies of flagellum proteins, and finally Pallen et al.’s 2005 paper that contains a bioinformatics survey of flagellar components and some more extensive discussion of the evolution question. This is actually quite a lot of evolutionary work. But (at least until Pallen and Matzke 2006), no one in the flagellar research community had really sat down and published a survey of all of this relevant data – took a synoptic view of all of the known homologies, for instance – and boiled it down to a basic model for how the flagellum evolved.

But notice sneaky implication #1: the DI article suggests that “Darwinists” [3] have had no “adequate responses” at all to the flagellum argument. But this is not what we said. We said that the flagellar research community hadn’t done much synthetic work producing an evolutionary model. That doesn’t mean that no one had done such work. In fact, just to be clear on this point, we kicked off the article by citing Kenneth Miller’s testimony at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial:

Kenneth Miller, who appeared as a witness for the plaintiffs, elaborated, in non-technical terms, some of the arguments against the notion that the flagellum is irreducibly complex (see Further information for links to trial material); he and others have also done so in print [1,2]. Crucially, Miller pointed out that the flagellum is modular, in that the T3SS that is responsible for flagellar protein export constitutes a functionally intact subsystem capable of performing a useful function (protein secretion) in the absence of the rest of the flagellar apparatus.

[…]

1. Musgrave, I. in Why Intelligent Design Fails: a Scientific Critique of the New Creationism (eds Young, M. & Edis, T.) 72–84 (Rutgers University Press, Piscataway USA, 2004).

2. Miller, K. R. in Debating Design: from Darwin to DNA (eds Dembski, W. & Ruse, M.) 81–97 (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2004). [Miller’s article, entitled “The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of Irreducible Complexity” is online at Miller’s website, along with another one.]

So, not only do we say that Miller successfully made crucial points, we also cite what we think are two very good book chapters (one by PT poster Ian Musgrave) where biologists elaborate the arguments and propose evolutionary models basically similar to ours. (And even if Kenneth Miller and Ian Musgrave didn’t exist, there are other responses to ID arguments that are more general, but still adequate. E.g., it is a valid argument to note that “Biologists don’t yet know everything about everything” does not support “IDdidit.”)

So, sneaky implication #1 about our quote goes down the drain. But if the existing arguments were adequate, why did we write the article? Well, knowing more about a question is always better. As we note just after the above passage,

However, there are additional arguments, which we elaborate below, in favour of viewing bacterial flagella as evolved – rather than designed – entities. (emphasis added)

In other words, Ken Miller’s testimony and the chapters by Miller and Musgrave are great, but there is even more evidence that makes the ID argument flagellum untenable.[4]

Obligatory Trial Detour

To give you a little background on why we saw this was important, ever since my 2003 Big Flagellum Essay (updated!) I have been gathering papers that document homology or inessentiality for flagellum proteins. Even before the trial started, I knew that the common ID talking point – that, apart from the Type 3 Secretion System, “the other 30 proteins are unique” – was just wrong (see my previous PT post on this point). When Scott Minnich wrote in his expert report, “the other thirty proteins in the flagellar motor (that are not present in the type III secretion system) are unique to the motor and are not found in any other living system”, I knew we had a potential scientific “gotcha” that would be scientifically devastating (at least I thought so). You can see this strategy explored somewhat in Minnich’s deposition, where we showed that Minnich didn’t have a clue about the homologies of the flagellum motor proteins, MotAB, to the nonflagellar proteins TolQR and ExbBD (pp. 180-185).

So, during the trial, I lobbied enthusiastically for trying to get this evidence into court somehow. The problem was that any review of homologies would require a lawyer (or Ken Miller) to read into the record passages from a dozen or more articles, and even if this onerous procedure was done, it wasn’t clear that a nonspecialist judge would “get it.” So – proving, by the way, that the plaintiffs had some very good lawyers – we never attempted this particular cross. In the end, Minnich did not the repeat the “30 unique proteins” statement during his direct testimony, and since the expert report is not typically introduced into evidence, there was no strong reason to rebut it. This was the only (very, very, very minor) regret I had in the case.

Readers can now see that while Ken Miller did get the basic points across in court (and they are admirably laid out in the Kitzmiller decision), there is a great deal more that science can say about the evolutionary origin of the flagellum. And that is what is done in the NRM article. Among the points we make:

1. There is no such thing as “the” bacterial flagellum. There are thousands, maybe millions, of variations on the bacterial flagellum. Some of these variations are minor, but others are substantial (I blogged another example recently):

Many new flagellar systems have been discovered through genome sequencing – a trend that is likely to increase with time. For example, over three hundred flagellin sequences were obtained in a single sequencing project that focused on samples from the Sargasso Sea. By even the most conservative estimate, there must therefore be thousands of different bacterial flagellar systems, perhaps even millions. Therefore, there is no point discussing the creation or ID of ‘the’ bacterial flagellum. Instead, one is faced with two options: either there were thousands or even millions of individual creation events, which strains Occam’s razor to breaking point, or one has to accept that all the highly diverse contemporary flagellar systems have evolved from a common ancestor.

2. Within this diversity, bacterial flagella show the same evidence of being subject to the same evolutionary mechanisms as other systems – for example, with vestigiality, internal duplications, duplications of the whole system, modification for different environments, etc.

3. The axial proteins (rod, hook, linker, filament) are all related to each other:

Beyond the common ancestor

Despite this diversity, it is clear that all (bacterial) flagella share a conserved core set of proteins. Of the forty or so proteins in the standard flagellum of S.typhimurium strain LT2 or E. coli K-12, only about half seem to be universally necessary (Table 1). This reduced flagellum is still a challenge to explain, but if one accepts that all current flagellar systems diverged from their last common ancestor (the ur-flagellum), why stop there? All flagellins show sequence similarity indicative of common ancestry (homology). But then all flagellins also share homology with another component of the flagellar filament, the hook-associated protein 3 (HAP3) or FlgL (as is evident from the application of InterProScan to FlgL from E. coli). Therefore, although the ur-flagellum contained flagellin and HAP3, these two proteins must have evolved from a common ancestor in a simpler system that contained only one flagellin-HAP3 homologue. Similarly, six proteins from the rod (FlgB, FlgC, FlgF and FlgG), hook (FlgE) and filament (HAP1/FlgK) show sequence similarities indicative of common ancestry. Therefore, the flagellar rod–hook–filament complex has clearly evolved by multiple rounds of gene duplication and subsequent diversification, starting from just two proteins (a proto-flagellin and a proto-rod/hook protein) that were capable of polymerization into an axial arrangement.

4. Only about half of the proteins of the “irreducibly complex” bacterial flagellum are universally required.

5. Most of the required proteins have known homologs to other proteins, in exquisite contradiction to numerous statements from leading ID advocates (See my previous PT post and the included Table 1).

6. The bacterial flagellum is not the only path to motility, and there are many potential “starting points”:

Although the evolution by random mutation and natural selection of something as complex as a contemporary bacterial flagellum might, in retrospect, seem highly improbable, it is important to appreciate that probabilities should be assessed by looking forward not back. For example, from studies on protein design it is clear that creating proteins from scratch that, like flagellin, self-assemble into filaments is not very difficult. Furthermore, it is clear that there are many other filamentous surface structures in bacteria that show no apparent evolutionary relationship to bacterial flagella. In other words, there are plenty of potential starting points for the evolution of a molecular propeller. Evolution of something like the flagellar filament is therefore far less surprising than it might at first seem. In fact, microorganisms have adopted other routes to motility besides the bacterial flagellum. Most strikingly, although archaeal flagella superficially resemble bacterial flagella, in that they too are rotary structures driven by a proton gradient, they are fundamentally distinct from their bacterial counterparts in terms of protein composition and assembly.

7. There are even some examples of potential “intermediate forms” in modern systems (the NF-T3SS filament EspA is used as an example).

One would think that, especially given #4 and #5, the only responsible thing for the Discovery Institute people to do at this point is to issue a correction and admit that many of their previous talking points about the flagellum – their favorite system – were badly wrong and were due to poor research. But no, what we’ve got instead is quote-mining of Pallen and Matzke 2006 – and, I should add, in the very same document the Discovery Institute continues to cite Meyer and Minnich’s 2003 conference proceedings article (which was the original source of the “30 unique proteins” mistake in Minnich’s expert report) as if it is authoritative.

The Second Problem with “[scientists admit] that their own literature has lacked adequate responses to the ID arguments”

Here comes sneaky implication #2: Even if it were true that we thought that “Darwinists” “lacked adequate responses” to arguments about the flagellum, this would not mean, as the DI article implies, that we thought that science lacked “lacked adequate responses” to “the ID arguments” in general. Research on the evolutionary origin of the flagellum has been starting up in the last few years, but the situation is much different for other biochemical systems. Famously, immune system research has been conducted with a clearly evolutionary, comparative framework for a hundred years, and was quite vigorous even in the 1970s. In the Annotated Immune System Evolution Bibliography, I laid out some of the reasons why, out of Behe’s various “irreducibly complex” systems, the Plaintiffs in Kitzmiller put extra emphasis immune system (although we did address blood-clotting and the flagellum also):

As it happens, there is probably more scientific literature directly on the evolution of the immune system than on the other three systems put together (we can chalk this up to (1) the long tradition of evolutionary and comparative studies in immunology; (2) the age of the discipline (going back to the 1800’s); and (3) the massive amount of medical research money available for studies of the immune system, for obvious reasons). So, while Behe makes various mistakes on the other systems, many also discussed at trial, he is most dramatically wrong about the immune system literature.

And better yet, stunning advances have been made in the last 10 years. Behe found this out to his chagrin at trial, and notably, three of us PT posters wrote an essay for Nature Immunology laying all of this out specifically to head off the Discovery Institute folks when they began trying to rehabilitate Behe’s trial performance. Now, the inevitable has just happened, and yet the DI has yet to even acknowledge the existence of the Nature Immunology article, let alone rebut it. Perhaps they are afraid that some of their readers will begin to realize that the ID movement’s confident claims are not all they cracked up to be. But until the ID advocates actually grapple seriously with the evolutionary immunology literature, they are not even attempting to be serious players in a “scientific debate.”

Our actual point

No quote-mine rebuttal is complete without putting the quote in context. There is really no way to stop between the mined quote and the end of the essay, so, without further ado, I quote the end of the article:

However, the flagellar research community has scarcely begun to consider how these systems have evolved. This neglect probably stems from a reluctance to engage in the ‘armchair speculation’ inherent in building evolutionary models, and from a desire to determine how a system works before wondering how it got to be that way. However, there are several good reasons for adopting an evolutionary approach to flagellar biology. Assignments of homology can provide insights into function, and can provide a framework for interpreting the sequence data in the post-genomic era. The abundance of these data indicates that current studies are looking at the ‘tip of an iceberg’. Recently, genome sequencing revealed that Desulfotalea psychrophila, a sulphate-reducing bacterium from permanently cold Arctic sediments, has the largest of all known flagellin genes, but without a ‘bigger-picture’ view of flagellar biology, we have no idea why. Furthermore, an evolutionary comparative approach fits in perfectly with the current zeitgeist, with its emphasis on evolutionary systems biology.

Notwithstanding the good scientific reasons for new forays in this direction, the lack of a scientific literature on flagellar evolution also has another undesirable consequence – it leaves open the suspicion among members of the public that maybe there is some mystery here, that maybe the ID proponents do have a point. Although all experts in this field agree that there is nothing to these claims, as Wilkins has recently pointed out, in these politically charged times, it is no longer enough to say, for example, that bacterial flagella evolved and that is that. Instead, scientific experts have to engage with a sceptical public.

Scott Minnich speculated in his testimony that studies on flagellar evolution need not be restricted to sequence analysis or theoretical models, but that instead this topic could become the subject of laboratory-based experimental studies. But obviously, one cannot model millions of years of evolution in a few weeks or months. So how might such studies be conducted? One option might be to look back in time. It is feasible to use phylogenetic analyses to reconstruct plausible ancestral sequences of modern-day proteins, and then synthesize and investigate these ancestral proteins. Proof of principle for this approach has already been demonstrated on several NF proteins. Similar studies could recreate plausible ancestors for various flagellar components (for example, the common ancestor of flagellins and HAP3 proteins). These proteins could then be reproduced in the laboratory in order to examine their properties (for example, how well they self-assemble into filaments and what those filaments look like). An alternative, more radical, option would be to model flagellar evolution prospectively, for example, by creating random or minimally constrained libraries and then iteratively selecting proteins that assemble into ever more sophisticated artificial analogues of the flagellar filament. Another experimental option might be to investigate the environmental conditions that favour or disfavour bacterial motility. The fundamental physics involved (diffusion due to Brownian motion) is mathematically tractable, and has already been used to predict, for example, that powered motility is useless in very small bacteria.

The final word

Like Darwin, we have found that careful attention to homology, analogy and diversity yields substantial insights into the origin of even the most complex systems. We close with a quotation from the closing chapter of The Origin of Species that applies as well to a bacterial flagellum as to any other evolved entity:

“When we no longer look at an organic being as a savage looks at a ship, as something wholly beyond his comprehension; when we regard every production of nature as one which has had a long history; when we contemplate every complex structure and instinct as the summing up of many contrivances, each useful to the possessor, in the same way as any great mechanical invention is the summing up of the labour, the experience, the reason, and even the blunders of numerous workmen; when we thus view each organic being, how far more interesting – I speak from experience – does the study of natural history become!”

Just to head off another quote-mine, we did debate whether that last Darwin quote gave an opening to the ID guys (They are terribly bad at analogies. “A ship is designed!” Sigh.). But on balance it seems pretty clear what Darwin is getting at, and most people can tell an analogy when they see one. So the more people that see it, the better.

In Conclusion

That about covers the basic points that need to be made. Once again, we have seen the truth of the dictum that it takes pages to rebut a claim that a creationist can fire off in a sentence or two. But I think that in doing so, we may have an interesting result: assuming the print version of the article comes out on October 1, due to Advanced Online Publication, we have a creationist quote-mining the article at T-minus-16-days, and we have the response of the outraged (co)author at T-minus-14. That’s gotta be some kind of record.

Notes

Note: citations omitted from quotes of the NRM essay.

[1] (Founding members: C. Darwin, T. Huxley. Past president: S.J. Gould. Current co-presidents: C. Woese, S. Conway Morris.)

[2] (A very tiny little bit. I am fully aware that I am an ant among giants.)

[3] “Darwinists”, by which the folks at the Discovery Institute mean “nasty atheist-materialists”, but with which they label anyone who accepts modern evolutionary theory, plus judges who rule against them.

[4] I hesitate to say that ID is “disproved”, since that implies that ID is testable. To head off the common half-baked catcall of “You say is both falsified and unfalsifiable, you are contradicting yourself!” I will spell it out: creationist objections to evolution are testable, because evolution is testable – and the data has shown that the creationist/ID objections have no merit, as was elaborately evidenced during the Kitzmiller trial. However, the ID movement’s “positive” arguments for design are untestable, basically because ID advocates invoke an unconstrained supernatural power to explain everything they don’t understand. This is all quite clearly spelled out in black-and-white in the Kitzmiller decision, but the ID guys still have trouble getting it.

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #131083

Posted by Dave Thomas on September 17, 2006 11:26 PM (e)

Great stuff, Nick!

I’m honored to be able to comment on yet another creationist quote-mining scandal a full two weeks before the quoted material even becomes official!

CHEERS, Dave

Comment #131085

Posted by demallien on September 17, 2006 11:58 PM (e)

Dave Thomas’s response shows a lack of imagination. With a bit of effort he could have quote mined the Casey Luskin article, hence being the first person to quote mine a quote mine of unofficial, not yet published material :-)

Oh, and nice work Monsieur Matzke

Comment #131161

Posted by Philip Bruce Heywood on September 18, 2006 5:55 AM (e)

Keep calm there, will you. A passerby might get an impression there’s a terrorist attack.

Comment #131174

Posted by Anuminous on September 18, 2006 6:54 AM (e)

“This page … of … falsehood … could … not be further from the truth.”
–Casey Luskin

(mined from http://www.caseyluskin.com/id.htm)

It is really kinda fun…

Comment #131178

Posted by TLTB on September 18, 2006 7:19 AM (e)

I saw this coming as soon as I read your original post about the article. In a sense you invited it by the parts of your article which allude to the importance of flagella structure in ID arguments - in recognizing their arguments, you give them validity. Now they can say, “Look, serious scientists are arguing with us in serious science journals; serious scientists argue with one another all the time; therefore, what we’re doing must be serious science!” That may not mean much to real scientists since we know there’s good science and bad science, but it does provide more kindling for the cultural ID fire.

An honest question perhaps you have asked yourself: do you think it would have been better to present the research without alluding to ID at all?

Comment #131179

Posted by Shalini, BBWAD on September 18, 2006 7:26 AM (e)

[ A passerby might get an impression there’s a terrorist attack.]

Seems pretty clear to me who the terrorist(s) are….

*snicker*

Comment #131216

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on September 18, 2006 10:10 AM (e)

Philip Bruce Heywood tacitly agrees that the IDers have been naughty, but apparently feels that calling them to account is overblown. For shame that we call liars liars! I don’t know what got into us.

Comment #131234

Posted by David Stanton on September 18, 2006 11:19 AM (e)

TLTB is correct in a way. Specifically mentioning ID in the paper almost begs for a response and what are the odds it would deal fairly with the factual claims made in the paper? However, the converse is not true. Even if ID were not mentioned specifically, a distorted response would still probably have been forthcoming. Notice that nowhwere in the actual quote is there any mention of ID. If they can claim that papers that never mention ID support their cause, they are certainly of this type of nonsense, whether or not they are provoked.

Comment #131241

Posted by Nick ((Matzke)) on September 18, 2006 11:46 AM (e)

Great stuff, Nick!

I’m honored to be able to comment on yet another creationist quote-mining scandal a full two weeks before the quoted material even becomes official!

CHEERS, Dave

Thanks Dave. You might have noticed that I was channeling your “style” a bit.

Comment #131242

Posted by sparc on September 18, 2006 11:50 AM (e)

Is it just coincidential or is WD’s newest post Are wiki-textbooks going to make room for ID? at UD the begin of a new strategy?
It starts

Who needs paper?

his is just quoted from a Nature News article. On the other hand this is one of rare the momments of truth at UD. Finally they do not need papers because everything has already been put down in a thick old book 2000 years ago. Or are they quote mining that one too.

Comment #131245

Posted by Bruce Thompson GQ on September 18, 2006 11:53 AM (e)

Quote mining may be considered foreplay leading to outright pubjacking. The long history of quote mining without proceeding to the next step of pubjacking suggests either a lack of drive, or a misunderstanding of the process. As referenced in the post, notice the many bumbling attempts, false starts, and out right errors in quote mining technique throughout its history. But like all maturing adolescents they have grown in experience with time becoming more adept in their skills relying on the responses of others for feedback. This has finally resulted in the discovery of pubjacking. They have continued to expand their repertoire of quote mining techniques and share the most effective among themselves. The use of current technology to spread their techniques is sign of sophistication that belies the underlying lack of understanding.

Their preferences for long dead authors in many cases is somewhat disturbing and switching to living authors is to be acknowledged as a positive sign of their maturation as is the increased ability to manipulate text to produce responses from others. A major drawback is the inability to create universal positive responses from others. Only a limited group respond positively to their techniques. This group may possess common quantifiable characteristics that would allow further research.

It is unfortunate Nick has become an unwilling partner in their maturation process in this manner. By participating in their growth and maturation through quote mine feedback Nick may have some influence on their future development.

Bruce Thompson
Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Comment #131246

Posted by Chiefley on September 18, 2006 11:55 AM (e)

“Keep calm there, will you. A passerby might get an impression there’s a terrorist attack.”

Actually, this is exactly what it is. Its not true that there has not been terrorist attacks on our our way of life since 9/11. What Nick is referring to is nothing more than terrorism, if you define terrorism as an attack on a social system using minimal resources with the goal in mind to undermine the system. In this case, the IEDs that are being used exploit the general lack of understanding of the public are dishonesty and subtrefuge.

An honorable battle would take place where all science does battle, and that is the time-honored battlefield of professionable peer reviewed scientific literature. A terrorist’s approach, however, is to avoid the open battlefield and instead terrorize the civilian population capriciously so as to create the maximum psychological damage with the least amount of resources.

To use another analogy, instead of participating in the great court of scientific inquiry, the ID proponents are outside in the parking lot and handing out leaflets. Quote mining is the equivalent of terrorizing the courthouse by calling in a bomb scare.

The amazing thing is that the main goal of this terrorism is to tear down a system that has raised the standards of living for billions of people in the matter of only a few hundred years.

Soldiers fight soldiers. Terrorists target civilians.

Have you no decency, Casey Luskin?

Comment #131247

Posted by mark on September 18, 2006 11:58 AM (e)

My first thought after reading the mined quote was “Scientists haven’t bothered rebutting ID because they felt ID was an utterly worthless concept not worth the bother of responses, but having now now realized the havoc it may wreck upon education and society, are beginning to respond to the lies and distortions promulgated by the IDists.”

Has anyone yet determined whether Luskin is a congenital ignoramus or is a habitual bald-faced liar? He certainly doesn’t seem to think his readers are very smart.

Many new flagellar systems have been discovered through genome sequencing – a trend that is likely to increase with time. For example, over three hundred flagellin sequences were obtained in a single sequencing project that focused on samples from the Sargasso Sea. By even the most conservative estimate, there must therefore be thousands of different bacterial flagellar systems, perhaps even millions.

I think an enormous stumbling block for public appreciation of evolution is their unawareness of the extent of biodiversity. Hence, their talk of “kinds” and failure to distinguish the innumerable variations on themes.

Comment #131248

Posted by Nick ((Matzke)) on September 18, 2006 12:03 PM (e)

An honest question perhaps you have asked yourself: do you think it would have been better to present the research without alluding to ID at all?

Eh, well, the piece was conceived as a “Science and Society” piece, explicitly commenting on both the Kitzmiller case and the science.

I know that sometimes quote-mines can be predicted and sometimes avoided, but I am becoming less and less convinced scientists should worry about this (and they mostly don’t anyway, because they are concerned about making points with their peers, not with random outsiders who are basically speaking a different language anyway, and who consider proof-texting a legitimate argument). Why should people have to self-censor their work just to head off misrepresentations by a fringe group of pseudoscientists, who would probably find something to mine and distort anyway?

(Scientists should of course avoid overblown rhetoric and exagerration in their papers, and they shouldn’t pontificate authoritatively on matters outside their own studies – both of these are the source of some quote mines.)

(I do think scientists should respond when the quote-mining becomes sufficiently annoying, and explain what they actually said and how the antievolutionists are getting it wrong.)

Comment #131251

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on September 18, 2006 12:09 PM (e)

We’ve found the WMDs! The DI has the Weapons of Mass Disinformation!

Comment #131253

Posted by Nick ((Matzke)) on September 18, 2006 12:21 PM (e)

I think terrorism comparisons are overwrought (although the analogy of asymmetry is quite useful in understanding ID tactics).

However, I am now all in favor of the new term pubjacking, now that I have figured out that it means “publication hijacking” and not “Stealing a nice pub and carrying it off for the sole use of you and your buddies.”

(However, the latter does bear a suspicious resemblance to a rumor I once heard about the origin of the Panda’s Thumb pub, the structure at the core of the University of Ediacara.)

Comment #131273

Posted by stevaroni on September 18, 2006 12:35 PM (e)

Sparc wrote: Are wiki-textbooks going to make room for ID?

No! Because Wiki-books are not going to be subject to the same economic pressures that paper textbooks are under today.

Paper publishers have to kiss ass with the bible belt states because they’re a huge market. If Texas or Ohio blacklists your book, there goes sales for 200,000 copies.

That economic pressure simply doesn’t exist in the Wiki-world.

So Alabama doesn’t use your book. Big deal.

Yeah, there will always be political pressure for some districts to use a dumbed-down bioligy book, and California will still require a positive picture of an individual from every single minority group - in a wheelchair - playing sports.

So what? Somewhere in America, right now, there’s a christian school teaching biology out of Pandas and People - you can’t win them all, but at least if the reality-based districts have access to reality-based books we can take some stupidity out of the process.

Comment #131299

Posted by Bruce Thompson GQ on September 18, 2006 1:19 PM (e)

However, I am now all in favor of the new term pubjacking, now that I have figured out that it means “publication hijacking” and not “Stealing a nice pub and carrying it off for the sole use of you and your buddies.”

The double-entendre seems appropriate. The latest practice of appropriating publications that have no relation to ID but contain the word design or program deserves attention. Making fun of the practice is one way of discouraging intelligent design theorists of distorting legitimate research and claiming it supports their position. While some may find it mildly offensive it’s just a way of pointing out that real research is much more satisfying than trying to twist others work to support your position.

Bruce Thompson
Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Comment #131311

Posted by Gary Hurd on September 18, 2006 2:00 PM (e)

Congratulations Nick.

There is quite a field of quote nuggets that Casey has plumbed.

Actually his first was by Michael Walker, which was debunked by John Stear when it was used by arch-creationists at Answers in Genesis. This same quote is also popular with ur-creationist Jack Chick. Interesting isn’t it that the IDistas true colors are now out in public- they have little left to lose pretending they aren’t garden variety creationists.

Then there is the notorious Dr. Philip S Skell, who, from the same article mined by Casey, wrote from his background as a chemist that there are no “… credible ancestors to the Cambrian animals.” (“Why Do We Invoke Darwin?: Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology” The Scientist 2005, 19(16):10)

I suggest that the whole list of quotes be carefully examined. For ex. I just emailed Jerry Coyne for a “reprint”/PDF of his book review quoted by Casey.

A further example is the quote Luskin recycled from Dembski by Franklin M. Harold, The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms and the Order of Life, (pg. 205, New York: Oxford University Press 2001) is technically correct, but out of context.

Comment #131312

Posted by Bob King on September 18, 2006 2:05 PM (e)

Nick,

How can you possibly be against ID when you yourself stated in your article, and I quote:

Kenneth Miller, who appeared … for the plaintiffs, elaborated …… the notion that that the flagellum is irreducibly complex

Seriously, you have to be careful what you write - perhaps it would be best to avoid words altogether.

Comment #131315

Posted by Glen Davidson on September 18, 2006 2:12 PM (e)

It’s typical. If you don’t respond, they say “what are you afraid of? Why not just publish the evidence for your ‘theory’.” Then you tire of the whiny know-nothings and comply with their demands, and they say, “Thank you for answering as we desired.” Just kidding, they do the only thing they know how to do, carp, complain, and spin the fact that someone finally had to respond to their IDiocy with this: “Meanwhile, Darwinists feel compelled to respond to ID-claims in scientific journals, admitting that their own literature has lacked adequate responses to the ID arguments.”

Really, isn’t the entire DI just about on the level of DaveScot, that is, essentially using middle school tactics to always make the other person out to be wrong no matter what? Sure, a few might be a little better than the rest, but those people don’t stop Luskin from putting out the most transparent and contradictory rubbish, either whining that they’re not answered, or trying to make up something out of the fact that they are answered.

Attack is all they know. Simply following the rules wouldn’t even occur to them, or, of course, they’d actually be doing some research.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #131330

Posted by Mike Elzinga on September 18, 2006 4:09 PM (e)

There seems to be another trend in the Idiot response to being exposed as frauds. For years they have been cluttering up the public perception of evolution with fraudulent claims and other scams. Now that Dover has take place, and scientists are trying to repair the damage created by these jerks, they are starting to claim that exposing their fraud gives legitimacy to their arguments.

It’s almost like a crook being caught red-handed by the police and then arguing to the judge that his being caught made his crime legal.

Are these IDiots that stupid, or just that devious?

Comment #131334

Posted by stevaroni on September 18, 2006 4:29 PM (e)

Seriously, you have to be careful what you write - perhaps it would be best to avoid words altogether.

I once saw an interview with Richard Dawkins. The interviewer asked some innane question about ID and Dawkins sat there silently trying to sort out how you answer such complete drivel. Of course, in the final edit, there’s a voiceover asking “tick, tick, tick why doesn’t he answer, what’s he afraid of?

Comment #131338

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on September 18, 2006 4:57 PM (e)

I noticed that Nelson claims he has been “lecturing in Sweden” ( http://www.idthefuture.com/2005/10/why_don_t_you_write_an_anti_glacier_book_1.html ). But his own link ( http://www.dagen.se/dagen/Article.aspx?ID=96576 ) doesn’t support that claim.

‘Dagen’ (“The day”) is a paper produced by a publisher jointly owned by some nonconformist churches. That could explain why they present Nelson as ‘a researcher in evolution biology’ (“forskare i evolutionsbiologi”) - or perhaps Nelson forgot to point out that he is a “philosopher of biology, , specializing in evo-devo and developmental biology”.

‘There was big activity at The Swedish Museum of Natural History at the beginning of the week. The phones were ringing and everyone asked where they could register to the seminary by Paul Nelson, a researcher in evolution biology, on Intelligent Design…. The information from radio was erroneous, and there was no seminar by Paul Nelson to register with.
Therefore the arousal at Natural History become large among the personal when Paul Nelson really was at the museum, though not to hold a seminar, but to give interviews to swedish journalists.’

(“Det blev stor aktivitet på Naturhistoriska riksmuséet i början på veckan. Telefonerna gick varma och alla frågade om de kunde anmäla sig till seminariet med Paul Nelson, forskare i evolutionsbiologi, om Intelligent design…. Uppgifterna i radion var felaktig, och således fanns det inget seminarium med Paul Nelson att anmäla sig till.
Därför blir uppståndelsen på Naturhistoriska stor bland personalen då Paul Nelson verkligen finns på museet, dock inte för att hålla föredrag, utan för att ge intervjuer till svenska journalister.”)

“Dagen” cites Nelson on ‘wishing that we continued to have a dialog at our universities’(“önskat att vi fortsatt att föra en dialog på våra universitet”).

But also say that ‘The critics claim that this isn’t science, but a smart way of packaging old theology to circumvent the law from 1987.’ (“Kritikerna hävdar att detta inte är en vetenskap, utan ett smart sätt att förpacka om gammeldags teologi för att kringgå lagen från 1987.”)

I haven’t listened to recordings from the radio show. If people here are curious about ID I hope it is of the freak show curiosity type. There isn’t any public creationism discussion that I’m aware of, which is hopefully a good sign. If creationists really succeeded in managing a lecture, I also hope some from the knowledgebased culture would comment on the politics and the misinformation in the papers.

Comment #131340

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on September 18, 2006 5:00 PM (e)

Uups! “way of packaging” - way of repackaging (“sätt att förpacka om”).

Comment #131349

Posted by Dave Thomas on September 18, 2006 5:30 PM (e)

Nick Matzke wrote:

Thanks Dave. You might have noticed that I was channeling your “style” a bit.

I psychically intuited that you would before you did. Thus, it was no surprise.

I’m quite sensitive to such breaches in the fabric of discourse, having been recently quote-mined mercilessly by Salvador on UD after writing this:

Dave wrote:

Another oddity was that Cordova’s code wouldn’t even compile – it took me a couple of hours to reverse engineer it and figure out what in tarnation he was doing. As an exercise in Smoke and Mirrors, Cordova’s algorithm is remarkable. But, unlike my program, it is definitely looking for one, and only one, Answer.

Here’s what Salvador extracted from that for use as the title of his August 17, 2006 blog:

Salvador wrote:

Dave Thomas says, “Cordova’s algorithm is remarkable”

Quote Mine Haiku

Toiling in the mines
Taking only what suits them
Red-faced Cherry pickers

Cheers, Dave

Comment #131382

Posted by Frank J on September 18, 2006 7:56 PM (e)

Excellent post. I have just a comment on this:

Instead, one is faced with two options: either there were thousands or even millions of individual creation events, which strains Occam’s razor to breaking point, or one has to accept that all the highly diverse contemporary flagellar systems have evolved from a common ancestor.

If one option is “evolved from a common ancestor” then “thousands or even millions of individual creation events” is really two formal alternatives. Actually, if one counts the imagined alternative timelines (YEC, “man-as-old-as-coal,” Last Thursdayism), it’s many formal alternatives, but for simplicity, let’s ignore timing and reduce it to the “big two.” (1) Michael Behe seems to think that the “creation” occurred “in vivo,” which preserves common descent if not “macroevolution.” (2) Paul Nelson seems to think that the “creation” occurred “in vitro,” IOW separate abiogenesis events for some unidentified “kinds.”

Of course IDers rarely make that clear be cause that would call attention to internal differences that are even more profound than the one they collectively have (or more likely “pretend to have”) with mainstream evolution. Yet, ironically internal debating is the least they can do to back up their claim that ID is scientific. But there’s a method to their madness: they know that, as long as one uses some scientific jargon and quote mines scientists, their target audience will think it’s scientific. And when that too fails, they fall back on the trusty old “’Darwinism’ is a religion” line. There too, as a scam, ID can’t lose.

Comment #131460

Posted by Alan Fox on September 19, 2006 2:35 AM (e)

Re Stevaroni’s comment.

This article suggests Dawkins was not thrown by the stupidity of a question, rather he was debating whether to throw the interviewers out of his house or remain polite. You could say he was video-mined.

PS may I add my thanks to Nick Matzke for a great article.

Comment #131647

Posted by Ken on September 19, 2006 6:41 PM (e)

I must admit twas a crafty rhetorical trick by a bold dittohead.

Comment #131774

Posted by THE CHRISTENSEN GANG on September 20, 2006 5:30 AM (e)

As if atheists and other mindless evolutionists don’t quote mine Christians.

Richard Dawkins latest spiel, comoing soon to the LIED Center at KU, will be a CLASSIC of the genre, I assure you.

Comment #131776

Posted by ben on September 20, 2006 5:57 AM (e)

As if atheists and other mindless evolutionists don’t quote mine Christians.

As if you provided any examples.

Comment #131798

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on September 20, 2006 7:12 AM (e)

As if atheists and other mindless evolutionists

Um, I thought ID wasn’t about religion. No siree Bob. not at all.

Or are IDers just, ya know, lying to us when they say that?

Comment #131895

Posted by Jeffrey K McKee on September 20, 2006 4:16 PM (e)

I’ve recently been quote mined too, this time by Dembski.

The problem is that nobody can figure out the purpose of the odd selection of quotes from my book. They certainly skipped over some juicy ones, such as:
“Skepticism was seen by Huxley to be a “duty” of every scientist. Natural selection, despite its explanatory power, is not exempt from the most rigorous scrutiny. Today, we must question it still, despite our comfort with the concept.” (The Riddled Chain, p. 30). Imagine a line like that from a “dogmatic Darwinist.”

Comment #131970

Posted by Henry J on September 20, 2006 9:36 PM (e)

Jeffrey,

Re “They certainly skipped over some juicy ones, such as:”

But of course, now that you’ve pointed out their oversight on a public blog… ;)

Henry

Comment #131976

Posted by Henry J on September 20, 2006 9:47 PM (e)

Jeffrey,

Re “They certainly skipped over some juicy ones, such as:”

But of course, now that you’ve pointed out their oversight on a public blog… ;)

Henry

Comment #131979

Posted by Your Competition on September 20, 2006 9:50 PM (e)

Whats the purpose of this thread? This is really stupid.

I suppose if you truly wish to see how your quote is being misrepresented as a “quote mining” scandal, you should perhaps put the quote into context for us. Otherwise…..why should I believe anything that comes out of your mouth?

Comment #131981

Posted by Your Competition on September 20, 2006 9:55 PM (e)

Whats the purpose of this thread? This is really stupid.

I suppose if you truly wish to see how your quote is being misrepresented as a “quote mining” scandal, you should perhaps put the quote into context for us. Otherwise…..why should I believe anything that comes out of your mouth?

I’m here to spread the truth, and to get rid of this debauchery and the lack of intelligence from you monkey brained silly NeoDarwinists. I’ve sat back and watched this site for too long. The only evidence I see on this site of Evolution are the monkeys like you who love to present your pseudointelligent one sided lousy arguments.

Comment #131982

Posted by Your Competition on September 20, 2006 10:01 PM (e)

For Evolution being proclaimed as such a “fact” I sure didn’t read a whole lot about it in my textbook in Biology classes.

Comment #131987

Posted by Sounder on September 20, 2006 10:13 PM (e)

Your Competition wrote:

I’m here to spread the truth, and to get rid of this debauchery and the lack of intelligence from you monkey brained silly NeoDarwinists. I’ve sat back and watched this site for too long. The only evidence I see on this site of Evolution are the monkeys like you who love to present your pseudointelligent one sided lousy arguments.

Well, at least you’re willing to admit that we’re primates.

Oh, and if you wanted to see the full context of the quote, you could have read the actual content of the post. But thanks for making it obvious that you troubled yourself in no such way.

For Evolution being proclaimed as such a “fact” I sure didn’t read a whole lot about it in my textbook in Biology classes.

A damning disproof of evolution if I ever read one!

I never read a whole lot about Freemasons in my American History classes. That must mean it’s a myth.

Comment #131998

Posted by Jack Last on September 20, 2006 10:20 PM (e)

I suppose if you truly wish to see how your quote is being misrepresented as a “quote mining” scandal, you should perhaps put the quote into context for us. Otherwise…..why should I believe anything that comes out of your mouth?

Yeah… I remember when I was a teenager, I used to get real mad at grownups a lot, too.

Comment #132002

Posted by Your Competition on September 20, 2006 10:27 PM (e)

Well then….shall we begin the debate?

Yeah… I remember when I was a teenager, I used to get real mad at grownups a lot, too.

Your condescending nature really doesn’t impress me in the very least.

Here’s a quarter, call someone who cares.

Well, at least you’re willing to admit that we’re primates.

Well apparently, one has never heard of slang before. I suppose illogical people like you would subject yourself to such silliness here.

Oh, and if you wanted to see the full context of the quote, you could have read the actual content of the post. But thanks for making it obvious that you troubled yourself in no such way.

Where? Why not provide the information to me, because I really see nothing significant provided for your case to stand.

A damning disproof of evolution if I ever read one!

I never read a whole lot about Freemasons in my American History classes. That must mean it’s a myth.

No, its not a disproof of Evolution. Its a reason why this debate needs to be discussed in neutral territory. Your theory is no better than Creation Science, and at that, much worse due to the terrible arguments presented from your side of the camp.

The analogy is a very weak one. For instance, no Creation Scientist doubts that Evolution exists. However, we believe that it exists in false light. As such, it can also be concluded that Freemasons are not a myth, but that they also exist in the Historical context in which you use the term. However, we can also discern that Freemasonry is not true.

Comment #132003

Posted by Your Competition on September 20, 2006 10:29 PM (e)

Got noise?! Thats all I see coming out of your mouths so far.

Comment #132010

Posted by Your Competition on September 20, 2006 10:42 PM (e)

Your articles, while interesting, really tell me nothing new. One I found semi interesting and I saved it. I can find better articles than that any day of the week though. You have only reached the tip of the iceberg as far as Creation Science goes. And scary enough, I’ve been to all of your little Evolution sites here, as well as Les Lane, whom funny enough you did not include. I’m not impressed in the very least.

Comment #132011

Posted by Your Competition on September 20, 2006 10:44 PM (e)

What about Glenn Morton? Yeah, that guy I ripped a new one in an online debate and on my website. Thats the same guy right? The former guy who was proclaiming himself to be a YEC, when it turned out he was just a Uniformitarian who began buying into Evolution and misrepresenting YEC and ID adherents? Is that the same guy? Yeah www.entouch.net right? I think he’s a bit out of touch if you ask me.

Comment #132023

Posted by Jack Last on September 20, 2006 11:25 PM (e)

Let me guess: you’re home schooled, right?

By the way,

For instance, no Creation Scientist doubts that Evolution exists.

This is a lie. So you know.

Read this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/

…get some education, and come back in a few years. You’re acting ridiculous.

Tell your pastor you tried to ‘debate’ the evolutionists and you couldn’t get anyone to take you seriously. He should understand.

Comment #132027

Posted by Sounder on September 20, 2006 11:32 PM (e)

Man, here I was writing this huge “go away until you’re ready to actually talk about things and not wave your dick around” post, and Jack nails it in a dozen sentences. I really need to learn to be more concise.

Comment #132030

Posted by Sounder on September 20, 2006 11:35 PM (e)

Oh, and by the way:

Oh, and if you wanted to see the full context of the quote, you could have read the actual content of the post. But thanks for making it obvious that you troubled yourself in no such way.

Where? Why not provide the information to me, because I really see nothing significant provided for your case to stand.

This little exchange is a hilariously useful microcosm of the entire creationist controversy.

Comment #132035

Posted by Anton Mates on September 20, 2006 11:55 PM (e)

Your Competition wrote:

However, we can also discern that Freemasonry is not true.

Hmm. More or less meaningful than “colorless green ideas sleep furiously?”

Comment #132038

Posted by demallien on September 20, 2006 11:58 PM (e)

Honestly, the quality of trolls on PT is way down. Have a look at Slashdot. Now they have some quality trolls! I’m wondering if we couldn’t implement a troll-training program, so that we could at least get into a debate. The current crop of trolls (I’m looking at you, Your Creation>) are just hopelessly pathetic.

Comment #132059

Posted by Nick (Matzke) on September 21, 2006 1:34 AM (e)

I disagree. YC is a highly entertaining troll, and is there any other measure of quality?

Comment #132100

Posted by demallien on September 21, 2006 5:32 AM (e)

Ahhh, dissension! :-) Ok, I may be wrong in my evaluation of YC’s TQC (Troll Quality Count). Shall we put it to the vote? Who here votes that YC is entertaining, and who finds him rather transparently boring?

Comment #132104

Posted by KL on September 21, 2006 5:55 AM (e)

Boring, definitely. Sounds like my sixteen year old arguing for argument’s sake but not making any sense. Just like my kid, however, pointing out irrational or contradictory statements when his blood is already up is a waste of time. You finally have to be the grown-up and declare the argument over until he calms down and starts making sense.

If it’s she rather than he, I apologize.

Comment #132116

Posted by Popper's ghost on September 21, 2006 6:57 AM (e)

Your Competition

BWAHAHAHA!

It’s like one of those first-week American Idol contestants who actually think they can win despite having no talent whatsoever. The depth of cluelessness is unfathomable.

Comment #132118

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on September 21, 2006 7:07 AM (e)

Well then….shall we begin the debate?

No need. The “debate” already happened. Your side was allowed to present any scientific data they wanted, and to cross-examine all the “evolutionists” and point out any errors or flaws.

That “debate” was called “Kitzmiller v Dover”.

Your side lost.

Crushingly and embarrassingly.

Game over. (shrug)

Comment #132133

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on September 21, 2006 7:31 AM (e)

No Competition wrote:

Your condescending nature really doesn’t impress me in the very least.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Oh, thanks! I needed that!

As for debate, I’d love to hear your non-evolutionary explanation for pseudogenes. You have one, right? Let’s take human vitamin C compared to that found in chimps. You know what I’m talking about, of course, since you’ve done SO much research before making up your mind.

(One wonders if he even sees what’s funny about the quoted passage. Probably not. That’s part of what makes it funny!)

Comment #132200

Posted by demallien on September 21, 2006 10:47 AM (e)

Well, the votes are in. We have Nick, Popper’s Ghost and Michael Suttkus that apparently find YC funny, and myself and KL that find him/her decidedly boring.

I guess I’m looking for a bit more wit in my trolls. YC is funny because s/he is witless.

Comment #132203

Posted by Jack Last on September 21, 2006 11:11 AM (e)

YC just sounds like a shrill, pissy teenager to me.

And I definitely vote for ‘he’.

Comment #132270

Posted by KL on September 21, 2006 2:55 PM (e)

Curses! I’ve been outvoted.

I’ll go back to YC’s messages and see if I can find the hidden jokes. I always miss these things the first time…

Comment #132275

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on September 21, 2006 3:12 PM (e)

Anyone that condescending accusing other people of being condescending is pure hypocritical comedy gold. Hypocracy in the self-appointed defenders of God’s One Truth is always funny. After all, Jesus just loved hypocrites…

Comment #132282

Posted by Steviepinhead on September 21, 2006 3:28 PM (e)

YC’s a he and he has some slight entertainment value only because he’s so WAY full of himself for one so ignorant.

Some may say that this is a defining characteristic of the Trollus troglodytis juvenilis age variant, but it appears in unusual abundance here, perhaps the result of a chromosome duplication…

Comment #132286

Posted by Thought Provoker on September 21, 2006 3:32 PM (e)

Since I probably qualify as a Troll myself (I try to initiate debates), I thought I would throw out my opinion of Your Competition

He/she picked the wrong topic to argue. What was the plan? To argue with Nick that he really meant something he says he didn’t? It was an obvious bellyflop from the start.

I could go on, but I think others have already made the points. My vote? It is kind of like in the play The Producers. Your Competition flops as a serious troll but is a hands down winner for entertainment value and he/she did catch a lot of responses (primary goal of a Troll).

Comment #132293

Posted by stevaroni on September 21, 2006 3:42 PM (e)

YC:

Look, I realize you’re probably new to this whole trolling thing, and your first troll post didn’t work out so well.

But hey, it’s like that way for a lot of guys when, well, oh how should I say this, it’s their first time up at bat.

It’s OK, relax, breathe deep, and look for guidance in the footsteps of all the trolls who came before you.

In the interest of upping the quality of trolling everywhere I offer you this advice, gleaned from watching the some of best trolls out there today (and you guys should be ashamed of yourselves, that it falls on me to help out the newbie. You know who you are).

Anyhow, first, establish your persona.

Lead with your qualifications. It’s especially good if you can project some sort of authority without actually demonstrating any relevance. This really irritates all the people here who actually do understand the topic. AFDave used to be especially good at this. He would constantly remind us that he flew jets in the air force, and therefore was qualified to opine on the information content of the human genome.

Like AFDave, it’s good to pick a confrontational name that telegraphs your intent to argue. Obvious quick study that you are, you’ve already got that. I would, however, point out that “Your Competition” is a bit inelegant.

When, at some point in the future, you surreptitiously switch your screen name to angle a fresh troll, try to pick something abusive, yet witty.

Now, work up your argument.

Start with a fact. This is a good place to begin, since science types like facts and it throws them off;

An Ethiopian-led international team reports the discovery of a juvenile … has features that stand as striking examples of part-way evolution between primitive apes and modern humans.

This is a current fact, well publicized, and a good place to start since it doesn’t require any explanation. As you get better at trolling, you can move onto historical facts, which, while they’re tougher to use, have the advantage of being well refuted, and hence are extra-irritating. Perennial favorites are deathbed recantations, the peppered moth, and developing embryos.

Now, working with your fact, spin an adversarial non-sequiter that references the fact but – and this is important – has nothing to do with it;

Science can’t tell the difference between humans and apes!

See, now you’ve got the audience off it’s logical feet. They are in the mental state of “Whaaaa?”, which is exactly where you want them.

At this instant drag evolution into it, and use a confrontational tone that makes people mad. For extra credit, now is a good time to take one more step away form your original fact, since it makes the logic harder to follow;

How can science say that species evolve when they don’t even know what a species is!?

Depending on the vibe in the room, you can even turn it into a personal attack;

How can you say that species evolve when you don’t even know what a species is!?

But it’s easy to overplay this hand, which can lead to getting everybody really worked up and being banished to the bathroom wall (premature ejection) so you probably want to hold off till you get a better feel for things.

Some trolls like to finish everything with a little flourish of conspiracy theory, like a bit of dessert to the main course of illogic, but I find this a bit of overkill. Still, if you can find someone, anyone to blame, you can try it and see if conspiracy its to your liking.

A good conspiracy theory, by the way, should always be presented in it’s formal version, as an act in 3 parts. It’s just good etiquette and it show’s people you are a cultured troll who wasn’t born in a barrn somewhere.

public point – “Scientists say it may be years before the fossils are fully excavated”

conspiracy counterpoint - “Ha! The Ethiopian Natural History science cabal is obviously hiding this fossil so nobody can examine it!

rant - “Free Peking Man! Free Peking Man!!”

Anyhow, voila’ there it is, trolling for dummies. Hope this helps.

Comment #132304

Posted by Thought Provoker on September 21, 2006 4:15 PM (e)

To Stevaroni,

VERY WELL DONE!

You actually started to make me feel embarrassed that I wasn’t more helpful.

At least until I remembered trolls don’t want competition.

However, you have to admit that if this is really his/her first attempt, Your Competition has pegged the needle in getting people to react.

Comment #132330

Posted by Your Competition on September 21, 2006 5:50 PM (e)

Thanks for misinterpreting everything I said. This shows the underlying debate of the real “trolls” that lie (and I do mean that literally) within our community. I might add that, what I mean that Evolution exists does not follow that it is a fact. Evolution exists as an abstractual idea that is simply not true. It is impossible to occur. Your belief in Evolution however, makes it so that it follows that it exists, but rather from the correct perspective as a fallacious claim innovated by limited capability of thought discernment.

Thanks for clarifying what I meant concerning the Freemasonry bit. It is completely irrelevant to what I was trying to put forth in the first place :).

So…once again, I see you resorting to your little political games and ad hominem attacks (yawn). And this is supposed to impress me why?

Comment #132332

Posted by Your Competition on September 21, 2006 5:54 PM (e)

Oh no…see, there’s a difference between my condescension and yours. I refute your claims, THEN I condescend, because its at that point justified. In regards to the Jesus mention, might I also remark that Jesus had to set those Pharisees straight a few times too. I in turn, am following his example as such.

Comment #132336

Posted by Your Competition on September 21, 2006 5:59 PM (e)

Trolling for dummies eh?

Why don’t we try LOGIC for dummies instead. Ever heard of deductive reasoning? I suppose you have no idea what it is. Perhaps I should give you a grand illustration of what it is.

1. Law of Contradiction - one can not say of something that it is and is not in the same sense and at the same time

2. Law of Excluded Middle - it is either a or non-a. It may not be both.

3. Law of Identity - what is necessarily true is necessarily true.

4. Cause and Effect - the effect must be less substantiating than the cause

5. Finality - one must draw a rational conclusion

Okay….so now that you are aware of the laws of logic, try USING them! :).

Then we can work on your formal logic skills, and we’ll get to those tough and pesky logical fallacies that seem to pervade your conversations.

Comment #132339

Posted by Steviepinhead on September 21, 2006 6:05 PM (e)

Your Incomprehension:

Evolution exists as an abstractual idea that is simply not true.

With advance apologies to all the non-males out there, maybe I was premature in designating YC a “he.”

Despite “his” competition throwdown (sorry, YC, for our delay in explicitly acknowledging the clever Darwinian pun), “his” ability to articulate has clearly been affected by “his” place in “his” abstractual cycle.

Maybe still a “he,” but possibly now one raised in a non-English speaking culture, with subtly-different modes of expressing machismo.

But still a juvenile specimen.

Comment #132352

Posted by Jack Last on September 21, 2006 6:17 PM (e)

Thanks for misinterpreting everything I said.

No, I think we understood you fine.

This shows the underlying debate of the real “trolls” that lie (and I do mean that literally)

That is not the correct use of ‘literally’. ‘Lie’ as in recline and ‘lie’ as in tell an untruth are simply homophones.

within our community.

What community would that be?

I might add that, what I mean that Evolution exists does not follow that it is a fact.

That is a very bizarre sentence.

Evolution exists as an abstractual idea

I think you just mean ‘abstract’. This is why I think you sound like a home schooled teenager. For your sake, I hope you are. That means the situation could still be rectified.

that is simply not true. It is impossible to occur.

Science has shown otherwise. It’s your job to ‘prove’ science is wrong.

If you’re as ignorant as I think you are, start here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/

…so you can see from the get go what the problems are with the ideas you’re about to regurgitate.

Your belief in Evolution however, makes it so that it follows that it exists, but rather from the correct perspective as a fallacious claim innovated by limited capability of thought discernment.

This sentence is extremely garbled, no matter what you’re trying to express. You really need to learn to write much better if you’re going to convince anyone of anything.

It also means nothing since you simply fatuously state we lack ‘ thought discernment’ without saying what that is supposed to mean, or why your ‘thought discernment’ is superior.

And this is supposed to impress me why?

No one here is concerned with ‘impressing’ you. If you have the slightest intention of ever impressing any of us, and it looks like you do want to, get some education and don’t just rant and rave with childish, ignorant generalities. Learn to communicate like a grown up.

Comment #132356

Posted by stevaroni on September 21, 2006 6:27 PM (e)

YC wrote

Thanks for misinterpreting everything I said.

Sigh.

But you didn’t say anything.

I refute your claims

But you didn’t refute anything.

You dropped in, said you were right and science was wrong (about something or other, I’m still confused on that one), dropped a couple of ad hominems, cut and pasted some logical terms and vanished.

Frankly, I’m a little worried about the list of logic terms, since there are a couple of contributors that tend to go into fits of palsy over the misapplication of set theory, but as long as they were able to sit down in time, I figure they’ll be OK.

Anyhow just what the hell is your point?

Comment #132359

Posted by Jack Last on September 21, 2006 6:34 PM (e)

Anyhow just what the hell is your point?

Perhaps I can guess.

Scientists are all atheist liberals, and even though he doesn’t understand it, evolution is horrible and totally untrue, he’s really mad that we think we’re so smart, we all suck, and Jesus saves.

Does that sum it up?

Comment #132360

Posted by stevaroni on September 21, 2006 6:35 PM (e)

Your belief in Evolution however, makes it so that it follows that it exists, but rather from the correct perspective as a fallacious claim innovated by limited capability of thought discernment.

This sentence is extremely garbled, no matter what you’re trying to express. You really need to learn to write much better if you’re going to convince anyone of anything.

Jack!

Be nice, English may not be his primary language. Don’t they live under bridges or something? Where is Troll-ville, anyhow? Do they teach ID in the schools?

Anyhow, YC. Breathe deep, place yourself squarely behind the keyboard, and calmly, slowly, try to type out a cogent paragraph.

Start small, just complete this sentence…

“My point is…..”

Comment #132364

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on September 21, 2006 6:47 PM (e)

1. Law of Contradiction - one can not say of something that it is and is not in the same sense and at the same time

2. Law of Excluded Middle - it is either a or non-a. It may not be both.

3. Law of Identity - what is necessarily true is necessarily true.

4. Cause and Effect - the effect must be less substantiating than the cause

5. Finality - one must draw a rational conclusion

You forgot the most important law of all ——- Kiri-Kin-Tha’s First Law of Metaphysics:

“Nothing unreal exists”.

Comment #132365

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on September 21, 2006 6:50 PM (e)

it is either a or non-a. It may not be both.

Hmm, I wonder —– is an electron a particle, or it is wave …?

Sorry, youngster. I do realize that you haven’t the slightest idea what I’m talking about. It’s some humor aimed at the scientifically-literate people in the audience. So, you see, I don’t expect you to understand it.

But I sure do wish that I were still young enough to know everything.

Comment #132367

Posted by Steviepinhead on September 21, 2006 6:54 PM (e)

My aims are more modest.

I just wish I were still young enough to eat all the pizza I used to could eat.

Comment #132373

Posted by KL on September 21, 2006 7:11 PM (e)

You know, I like being in my mid-forties, but after a hike through the Grand Canyon last spring I wish I still had 18 year old knees.

Comment #132374

Posted by Arden Chatfield on September 21, 2006 7:12 PM (e)

I’d settle for being young enough to remember what I meant to do when I went from one room to another. And young enough to drink two beers without getting an instant headache.

Comment #132378

Posted by Steviepinhead on September 21, 2006 7:26 PM (e)

Let’s just roll ‘em all together:

Young enough to be able to remember that you hiked all the way from the living room to the kitchen (without your knees aching like you just made it from the Colorado to the North Rim) to eat as much pizza as you wanted (without getting fat) and drink as much beer as you wanted (without getting fat or getting an instant headache).

Comment #132381

Posted by Arden Chatfield on September 21, 2006 7:36 PM (e)

Young enough to be able to remember that you hiked all the way from the living room to the kitchen (without your knees aching like you just made it from the Colorado to the North Rim) to eat as much pizza as you wanted (without getting fat) and drink as much beer as you wanted (without getting fat or getting an instant headache).

I was never that young.

Comment #132385

Posted by KL on September 21, 2006 7:52 PM (e)

When I was young I didn’t want to do all those things. Youth really IS wasted on the young…(sigh)…

Comment #132404

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on September 21, 2006 9:06 PM (e)

“This shows the underlying debate of the real “trolls” that lie (and I do mean that literally) within our community.”

Stating a ‘fact’.

“I might add that, what I mean that Evolution exists does not follow that it is a fact.”

Spin an adversarial non-sequiter that references the fact.

“Evolution exists as an abstractual idea that is simply not true.”

Take one more step away form your original fact, since it makes the logic harder to follow.

“Your belief in Evolution however, makes it so that it follows that it exists, but rather from the correct perspective as a fallacious claim innovated by limited capability of thought discernment.”

Even turn it into a personal attack.

“I see you resorting to your little political games and ad hominem attacks”

Rant.

You know stevaroni, I think he got your trolling guide for dummies down pat. At least the dummy part.

I guess we still wait for any substantial claim. It couldn’t be that (gasp!) the science of evolution is wrong, could it? Perhaps evolution is too complicated for scientists, so 150 years history of perhaps 100’s of 1000’s of manyears work is wasted? Perhaps theories contrary to what scientists think isn’t proved by prediction and experimental testing but by deduction? How could 400 year of solid science miss that? Perhaps YC is on to something new here?

Comment #132405

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on September 21, 2006 9:17 PM (e)

stevaroni wrote:

Start small, just complete this sentence…

“My point is…..”

I’d also suggest YC right some sentences that start with:

“My evidence is…”

and, just to confirm that he’s not lying:

“I refuted you in post #…”

I mean, you did refute us somewhere, right, YC?

Arden Chatfield wrote:

I’d settle for being young enough to remember what I meant to do when I went from one room to another.

I’ve never been able to do that!

Comment #132441

Posted by stevaroni on September 21, 2006 10:54 PM (e)

You know stevaroni, I think he got your trolling guide for dummies down pat. At least the dummy part.

Just happy to be able to do my part to help make the world a more colorful place, one incoherant rant at a time.

Comment #132501

Posted by guthrie on September 22, 2006 6:32 AM (e)

Law of excluded middle?
A or not-A?

Can I refer you to “Science and Sanity”, Alfred Korzybskis 1930’s tome on General Semantics. I found it quite useful.

Comment #132530

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on September 22, 2006 8:12 AM (e)

“Law of excluded middle?”

guthrie, thank you for the tip. I’m trying to grasp the logic of facts in theories *before* they get established answers and can be treated naturally by classical logic. (I guess the later is naturally a correspondence theory of truth BTW. But I’m looking for a model or theory of facts, so to speak. Truths are stronger than facts in theories, I am looking for a possibly more useful weak formulation.)

Intuitionistic and linear logic (in which at least the former drop the excluded middle AFAIK) is good for algorithmic constructions and modelling (program logic respectively resource logic), so they get closer to model the “we don’t know” state of facts. I hope Korzybski says something useful here.

(I guess one can go further and model the full state space of “we don’t know the question” - “we don’t know the answer” - “yes/no”, but the first state seems like ontology, or at least expecting the improbable full knowledge of a closed and possibly ungödelian universe, while the second state definitely is part of even accepted theories.)

Now, after this uncalled for break, back to the usual quote mining of creationists.

Comment #132540

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on September 22, 2006 8:35 AM (e)

“the full state space of “we don’t know the question” - “we don’t know the answer” - “yes/no””

Ahem! That is not a state space. The states are [“we don’t know the question”,“we don’t know the answer”,“yes”, “no”] for idealised or transformed facts. (Or tagged “yes”, “no” after hypotheses testing. Whatever.) And the transitions are possibly all over the place.

Okay, *now* back to the quote mine. “Hey ho, hey ho!”

Comment #132628

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 4:19 PM (e)

This is interesting. Where do I say ALL scientists are Atheistic liberals? No….I even understand that Theistic Evolutionists exist (i.e. Glenn Morton!) and even Progressive Creationists. I’ve been to their sites. Some are conservative, some are liberal. All are false, however. This is simply a genetic fallacy that has been committed by the one who accused me committing it, and since invoked upon me, it also follows that it is ad hominem.

The fact you don’t understand the statement that “Evolution exists as a mental construct” by no means follows that this is not a true statement. I’m proclaiming that just because you believe it, does not make it true. It is an existing subject of an evil concept that is simply untrue.

You seem to beg the question with the lying comment. I don’t follow.

Oh, the Kitzmiller vs. Dover comment infers that I believe in Intelligent Design. In fact, I actually do NOT agree with Intelligent Design. I find it to be fallacious and unable to stand as a concept on its own. It is well behind the times. I am a Young Earth Creation Scientist, and there is a big distinguishment that must be made between the two. Not all YECs are ID adherents and vice versa. Sweeping generalization here.

Oh, thats nice that you think you understood me just fine.

Your conclusion still does not follow however.

In relevance to the abstractual comment, I think that abstractual would generally work better here, though I can see abstract being used as well. We are both right.

The electron particle or wave idea does not mean that the law of excluded middle is false. That would assume my logic to be a bifurcation, which it is not. In this case, this is fine, since there is more than one option. What we can not have is an electron-particle, a particle-wave, an electron-wave and so forth. That becomes absurd.

The kiri whatever law no way infers a logical law, though I do agree with it.
Nothing unreal exists, this is true. It does not exist in nature, which is a Metaphysical law for sure. Evolution exists as an abstract, or an unreal idea. The idea of Evolution is real as it pertains as a mental construct within the minds of humans. However, the nature of the idea as it pertains to reality is not real. It is simply ideology.

“the full state space of “we don’t know the question” - “we don’t know the answer” - “yes/no””

Ahem! That is not a state space. The states are [“we don’t know the question”,“we don’t know the answer”,“yes”, “no”] for idealised or transformed facts. (Or tagged “yes”, “no” after hypotheses testing. Whatever.) And the transitions are possibly all over the place.
Problem here is this infers that you do know a question, and you have the answer to it here. You have not proven otherwise. The implicit message is, what is a disproof of logic? You take this to mean, this is a disproof of the 2nd law of noncontradiction. However, you used logic to attempt to deduce this. As such, your example is self defeating. The question is implied, the answer is given. Your example does not refute the laws of logic, and is self refuting by nature. If this were not the case, how would you know to provide this answer? You know the answer, so to say we do not know the answer would be false. Obviously you knew the question too, because you provided an answer to something that was in question as well. In other words, you use logic here to try to again refute logic.
Nice try though, you’re not the first one to try something silly like this.

Lets hypothetical state, for kicks and giggles, that this claim was used to refute logic. You’d be using inductive logic to try to refute deductive logic, and that’s irrational. Your belief that this refutes logic could not follow. Essentially, since logic is such an ambiguous term and must used in day to day life BY EVERYONE, an objective reality of sorts is established. The other types of logic are actually in effect derived from the Greek word Logos, to where we get, word, logic, science, reason, etc. It logically follows you must refute all of these things associated with Logos in order for it to become worthless, something that in fact your example has failed to do.

(Thank God for Plato :)). Without Plato’s awesome knowledge, we would have transitions all over the place. His laws of forms provide that we do not need to have this problem.

Comment #132629

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 4:21 PM (e)

I’ll be happy to look over Science and Sanity. Thanks for the recommendation.

Comment #132630

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 4:24 PM (e)

Also…we would have a problem without logic. Think about this. All of our math concepts come from logic. Without logic, we have no math. Without math, we have no conceptual way of putting together Science. Without Science, we are not in this argument right now.

Comment #132631

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 4:29 PM (e)

I’m sorry I am wrong on the abstractual idea of Evolution. My statement there was actually self refuting.

Alright, moving back to that previous quotation, what we have here is that Nothing Unreal Exists. If this is the case Metaphysical, I must take back that Evolution exists. It simply does not exist by this law. And as such, I accept it as Ideology.

Comment #132632

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 4:31 PM (e)

If anybody out there is actually interested in taking a look at hardcore facts for Christianity itself, they are found on www.christian-thinktank.com.

I invite you to look at it. In turn, I will read the material you have presented for me to read.

Mutual agreement we might say here eh?

Comment #132633

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 4:36 PM (e)

And I am very knowledgeable on Scientific areas as well. You are probably going to laugh at me being a YEC, but I do have legitimate reasons for accepting it as fact. Its not just because I don’t like Evolutionists (though I can say thats the reason many Christians deny Evolution). It is more that it makes no comprehensive sense, and I must reject it as unreal consequently. I have a firm understanding of Evolution however, and I accept Variation as fact. Natural Selection on the other hand is a completely different story. This part is simply untrue.

Comment #132635

Posted by Steviepinhead on September 22, 2006 4:40 PM (e)

Odd.

I don’t normally feel sea-sick just reading English words. But, oddly, these chopped-up extrusions of YC’s are leaving me feeling a mite peaked.

Comment #132636

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 4:51 PM (e)

And please no longer refer me to Talk Origins. I am very familiar with that site. I have gone there so many times I can not even remember. However, the fact of the matter is, I made a decision between Talk Origins and True Origins, and on the whole, True Origins made more sense.

Mind you concerning Kiri Kan Tha, I would have to say, its great he thinks this way! And honestly, I thank you for mentioning this, because this is a WAYYYY cool study of the laws of Metaphysics (and it gives me something new to learn as well).

I have always taken Objective Reality for granted, but, now I see it has already been proven. Great job all and again much appreciated :).

Comment #132643

Posted by David B. Benson on September 22, 2006 5:22 PM (e)

The original trolls are from Norway, in the fjord country, dwelling in Trollheim, a glacial-cut, desolate valley just below the Trollheim Mountains.

I dunno about web site trolls. They’re only virtual anyway…

Comment #132644

Posted by Steviepinhead on September 22, 2006 5:22 PM (e)

Young Creationist:

I can not even remember

the laws of Metaphysics

because this

Objective Reality

it gives me something new

I thank you for mentioning

that site

Talk Origins

I have gone there so many times

now I see

its great

WAYYYY cool

:)

Hmm, reading that from the “creationist” perspectiver does make me feel much better.

Maybe I won’t need those Tums after all.

Comment #132646

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 5:24 PM (e)

This is because I’m approaching it from the perspective of a YEC, which focuses on Origin Science. The Greeks have a lot to teach regarding Science. The fact you are sick is probably due to the fact you are not used to hearing people talk in such a way that I do. This is one distinguishable fact between YEC and Evolutionists.

Comment #132647

Posted by Your Copmetition on September 22, 2006 5:26 PM (e)

Thats nice you like taking bits and pieces and once again, creating a heap of Etymology as you have here. Its humorous and entertaining.

Young Creationist I am. If you mean by that Young Earth Creation Scientist.

I don’t see the need for all of this Cynicism folks. Whats the need for all of the condescending behavior here?

Comment #132648

Posted by Steviepinhead on September 22, 2006 5:27 PM (e)

Nah, I think it’s because you keep trying to type English words with that kicky Trollheim accent…

Comment #132649

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 5:28 PM (e)

I am acting in a civil manner towards you. The least you could do is grant me the same. Its not like I hate anybody here, and likewise, I would hope nobody hates me. I may disagree with your viewpoints, but it does not follow that I hate anybody here.

Comment #132653

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 5:35 PM (e)

I have found no convincing evidence of Evolution. So what? Right? Should you be concerned with this? Or does it bother you that I might know something you do not know? What is really the issue here?

You instead resort to calling me troll, and other silly goofy names in the sort instead of considering me to be a rational human being like the rest of you guys here.

Now, while I am definitely not here to agree with your viewpoints, I will say, that I’m not here to make enemies either. I do respect each of you as individuals, and would appreciate the same being granted to me.

Comment #132654

Posted by jeffw on September 22, 2006 5:35 PM (e)

YC: I do not like evolution with a fox in a box. I do not like it with a mouse in a house. I do not like it I-am-that-I-am.

Comment #132656

Posted by CJ O'Brien on September 22, 2006 5:40 PM (e)

Young Creationist I am. If you mean by that Young Earth Creation Scientist.

I don’t see the need for all of this Cynicism folks. Whats the need for all of the condescending behavior here?

Uh, I think you answered your own question, right before you asked it.

You do understand, don’t you, that in order to reach the conclusion that the universe is on the order of thousands of years old, one has to discard or discount most of twentieth-century science, and the very notion of consilience in the sciences to boot?

Anyone ignorant/arrogant enough to do so solely on the basis of private convictions deserves more condescention than you have received here.

Comment #132658

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 5:40 PM (e)

How do you know I don’t like Evolution? Maybe I do like Evolution, but just don’t see any reasonable evidence to accept it by.

I will say I’m an open minded thinker. I am not however, empty minded. So do not infer that in the very least. I know some Christian friends who I think are cool guys, but are completely stupid when it comes to Science. They deny Evolution without looking honestly at evidence. The difference you will see with me is I do not! I consider the evidence, and if I disagree with it, or as such, validly and soundly see it as untrue, I reject it as false.

Now, I am a Philosopher of sorts, but that should not follow a disrespectful attitude from the people here on Panda’s Thumb as constitutional to the matter at hand. It is really unnecessary.

I value Philosophy, Theology, Science, Religion, History, Linguistics, Logic, etc very highly. If you don’t, I understand I can’t make you. BUT, the type of behavior you are exhibiting towards me is rather uncalled for I’d say. I will not resort to a similar behavior.

Comment #132669

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 5:49 PM (e)

I am highly unimpressed with 20th century anything to be honest with you. There are some 20th century things I accept as true, but just because its new does not follow that it is of truth value (at least using the line of reasoning from the Evolution side), neither does it mean that you are right on the matter as well. I think Creation Science is often undermined and belittled without even considering the actual evidence for the model. I saw that the other night when arguing with a Physicist, to which his only response was, “You’re wrong because you’re wrong.” Therefore, I have no reason to accept your conclusion that an Old Earth is necessary based on the “advances in modern technology” because I disagree with Radiometric Dating, and I think Carbon Dating is accurate insofar as it goes back to several thousand years, and thats the end of it. Do I think I’m living in the ancient times? Not at all. I think the Young Earth Model deserves some serious attention.

Again, Variation as it refers to Evolution I accept.

Natural Selection as it refers to Evolution I reject. There is no substantive evidential support of it.

Creation Science actually has made more Scientific advances than most people give it credit for. The evidence for it is convincing, and the line of reasoning used here by you guys is quite dangerous and rather closed minded and ignorant/arrogant yourself.

So “You’re either an Evolutionist or you’re stupid” model is quite ignorant in itself.

Now, what I can say is this. You do not know my experience on the matter. Ergo, your prejudgmental stereotypical behavior is what I think needs to be removed from the conversation before we continue.

Comment #132673

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 5:52 PM (e)

Its not about “being in the know” for me. Its about, “what is true.”

Comment #132680

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 5:57 PM (e)

So at least grant me the credit of which is due that I am here, and willing to open mindedly debate with each and all of you in a civil and humanistic manner that is worthy to be “de-trolled.”

At this point, we’ll just say, I know what I know, and you know what you know. Thats all I will say on the matter. I’m not going to be condescending to you in the least at all.

Comment #132681

Posted by Arden Chatfield on September 22, 2006 5:57 PM (e)

I am highly unimpressed with 20th century anything to be honest with you.

.

And yet here you are, babbling into a computer and probably receiving modern medical care.

Comment #132682

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 5:58 PM (e)

So at least grant me the credit of which is due that I am here, and willing to open mindedly debate with each and all of you in a civil and humanistic manner that is worthy to be “de-trolled.”

At this point, we’ll just say, I know what I know, and you know what you know. Thats all I will say on the matter. I’m not going to be condescending to you in the least at all.

Comment #132683

Posted by CJ O'Brien on September 22, 2006 6:01 PM (e)

You do not know my experience on the matter.
Awesome.
“I’m arguing from authority.”

“Well, okay. That’s not always bad. Who’s the authority?”

“I am.”

“Uh… okay, well, what are your credentials?”

“…”

Care to fill in that ellipsis, big guy?

As for natural selection, which you understand so well, yet reject, and logic, of which you are a self-styled master, put the two together, please, and see that natural selection is a logical necessity, quite independent of the staggering evidentiary support it enjoys.

Comment #132685

Posted by David B. Benson on September 22, 2006 6:02 PM (e)

Young Creationist — You state that you value logic highly. I suggest that you attempt using in to help you to understand radioactivity, natural or otherwise. Then use it to understand what aspects of natural radioactivity explain and require the great age of the earth.

Similarly, use it elsewhere. Use logic to figure out where you should use the ideas you claim to value highly…

Comment #132686

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 6:03 PM (e)

Again, what truth value is contained in what we know from the 20th century? Not much. Computers and medical care are great! But, how does this support Evolution? It simply does not. As such, I find no truth in Evolution, and I find much truth in Creation Science.

I believe we are equivocating Evolution with MicroBiology. MicroBiology is the necessary cornerstone of Biology, NOT Evolution.

Comment #132691

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 6:06 PM (e)

The inference is not that I”m arguing anything there. I am making a statement.

You can not interpret my experience. My experience is what it is.

You would have to have a grander understanding of Metaphysics to know in which that experience truly is. Without this knowledge, it is meaningless to you.

I am defending that which is true, and not necessarily arguing anything, much less from my authority at all.

Comment #132692

Posted by Steviepinhead on September 22, 2006 6:07 PM (e)

Ah, hold on there, YC.

I think you misunderstand us. Just because we have deemed you a “troll,” purely for analytical purposes during this intensely-intellectual discussion we are engaged in, does not mean that we “hate” you.

Far from it! We love you trolls! To paraphrase Clint Eastwood, you “make our day!”

I mean, otherwise we’d just be talking among ourselves, fall into fussin’ and fightin’ and feudin’, or over-eat and over-drink until all the virtual pub grub was gang aft agley, and be totally bored.

Not to mention that it’s so much easier–and more effective–to convey a point by way of live demonstration, as opposed to a bunch of erudite yackin’, ya follow what I’m sayin’?

I mean, didn’t you find it to be the case, during your home-schooling, that it was WAAYYY cooler when your Mom actually burned the pan black to show you how the apparently white sugar actually contained a substantial portion of black ooky carbon?

Instead of her just sayin’ it was so, like she expected you would swallow such counterintuitive nonsense?

So, in that same way, we find that the many silent fence-sitters and onlookers–some of whom almost certainly fall into your same age range and have enjoyed the benefits of similar intellectual, um, seclusion–find the proponents of evolution EVER so much persuasive when they can compare OUR claims, evidence, and ethics to those of the trolls’.

Like, um, yourself…

So go ‘head on, son. Take some more rope. All you need. We got lots of the stuff.

Comment #132693

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 6:11 PM (e)

I suggest that you attempt using in to help you to understand radioactivity, natural or otherwise. Then use it to understand what aspects of natural radioactivity explain and require the great age of the earth.

Thanks for the advice. I’ve already taken careful consideration into all of this, and believe it or not, it worked against the Evolutionary model. The Natural Sciences I found to be more convincing of the Young Earth model than anything else I had seen. The interpretation of the Young Earth Model as it pertained to these areas of Science was, I found it to be, much more convincing, seeing as though I did not need Evolution to find these things within Science.

Similarly, use it elsewhere. Use logic to figure out where you should use the ideas you claim to value highly…

I use it EVERYWHERE! Logic is the primary basis for all thinking, whether it be linguistic, hermeneutic, philosophical, Scientific, Mathematical, Metaphysical Realism, and etc. and so forth.

Comment #132694

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 6:14 PM (e)

If and only if you are willing to open your minds to the evidence and not just laugh it away, I will speak on which I know. Until then, you will not hear what I have to say.

Again, this condescending behavior is simply unwarranted. Why not try acting civilly for a change here, instead of ad hominizing me to death. You might find it pays off in the long run.

Comment #132695

Posted by CJ O'Brien on September 22, 2006 6:16 PM (e)

*looks nervously at rapidly dwindling supply of rope*

Hey, Stevie, you sure we don’t need to get more? This ‘un’s hungry!

Comment #132696

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 6:17 PM (e)

One area you guys and I are going to get along really well in is the debunking of Intelligent Design :). I will go on record as saying, provide ALL of the ID propaganda you want, I’ll be happy to sing along with you on that one.

Heck, I enjoy heckling them myself.

Comment #132697

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 6:19 PM (e)

One area you guys and I are going to get along really well in is the debunking of Intelligent Design :). I will go on record as saying, provide ALL of the ID propaganda you want, I’ll be happy to sing along with you on that one.

Heck, I enjoy heckling them myself.

Comment #132698

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 6:24 PM (e)

ID is so far behind the times its ridiculous guys…I mean seriously. Its laughable at best. Dembski is a semi-smart man, and Behe’s alright himself, but the only reason I’d like to see it taught is basically to get Creation Science in the door. Other than that, its just a useless propaganda of baseless research having nothing to do with anything of much worth.

Oh, and by the way, you are all aware it is being taught in schools. The Dover area judgment is SOLELY applicable to the Dover Pennsylvania district, and not necessarily to adherents outside of that district. This result means that the battle is not over yet in the classrooms.

Cornell has embraced it within summer seminars, as Biology 467, Design vs. Evolution.

Allen MacNeill was the popular professor who taught it against his will, and against his even trying to hush the public response in regards to it, within the very confines of the classroom. It was a summer course that was taught between the dates of 6/27 to 8/3. It can be found on Design Paradigm’s website if you are interested in looking at it.

Comment #132699

Posted by Gary Hurd on September 22, 2006 6:28 PM (e)

Jerry Coyne never provided a “reprint/PDF” of his book review quoted by Casey. Nature, just sent me a 50% off deal for a 2 year subscription. I guess I’ll do it the old fasioned way- pay for it! ;-}

Comment #132700

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 6:31 PM (e)

I will also mention that school administrators that I talked to over at William & Mary agree declare the same. It is being taught in Introductory Biology courses, and I have seen it within their textbooks. Students actually declare the same at the university, that they do go over it in the classroom. It is not a big enough deal to actually state it within their curriculums yet however. They are testing to see how it will be embraced. Oddly, William & Mary is a highly liberal university within its own right.

Christopher Newport University also teaches it as confirmed from professors and other students.

Comment #132701

Posted by Steviepinhead on September 22, 2006 6:32 PM (e)

Stevie to CJ(after nervously phoning manila, then emailing the “buds” up in B.C.):

Wheew! I was starting to worry there for a minute, too!

But I think we’re gonna be okay. The rope factories in the Philippines report plenty of sisal on hand and, just for backup, our *um* factors north of the border also advise that there’s no shortage of hemp fiber, either.

Comment #132702

Posted by David B. Benson on September 22, 2006 6:32 PM (e)

“I use it EVERYWHERE!” Oh me, oh my. It must be that Young Creationist Trolls use a special trollistic logic.

More rope, steviepinhead, more rope!

Comment #132703

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 6:35 PM (e)

Okay guys had enough.

Its evidence time:

“Detailed Syllabus for Cornell Evolution/Design Course

BioEE 467/B&Soc 447/Hist 415/S&TS 447: Seminar in History of Biology

Summer 2006 - Syllabus

PREREQUISITES: None (introductory course in evolutionary biology recommended, but not required)

CREDIT HOURS: 4 (does not count toward evolution distribution requirement in biological sciences)

CLASS TIMES: Tuesdays and Thursdays 6-9 PM

CLASS LOCATION: Whittaker Seminar Room, 409 Corson-Mudd Hall.

COURSE FORMAT: The format for each class will be a 90 minute interactive discussion/seminar, in which all participants present their interpretations and opinions of the concepts and readings under consideration. Participants will also have the opportunity to make presentations of their original work. Grades will be based on the quality of a term research paper, due at the end of the course, plus attendance and class participation.

GRADE BASED ON: Attendance and participation in seminar discussions, plus a letter grade on the final research paper (maximum length = 20 pages), for a total of 100 points (electronic/email submission encouraged, but not required):

Course Grade Components….….….….Due On

Proposal for final research paper…….Fri07Jul06
Draft/outline of research paper….…..Thu20Jul06
Final research Paper:= 75 points…….Thu03Aug06
Attendance….….……= 10 points….….overall
Participation….….….= 15 points….….overall

COURSE TITLE: Evolution and Design: Is There Purpose in Nature?

COURSE DESCRIPTION: This seminar addresses, in historical perspective, controversies about the cultural implications of evolutionary biology. Discussions focus upon questions about gods, free will, foundations for ethics, meaning in life, and life after death. Readings range from Charles Darwin to the present (see reading list, below).

The current debate over “intelligent design theory” is only the latest phase in the perennial debate over the question of design in nature. Beginning with Aristotle’s “final cause,” this idea was the dominant explanation for biological adaptation in nature until the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species. Darwin’s work united the biological sciences with the other natural sciences by providing a non-teleological explanation for the origin of adaptation. However, Darwin’s theory has been repeatedly challenged by theories invoking design in nature.

The latest challenge to the neo-darwinian theory of evolution has come from the “intelligent design movement,” spearheaded by the Discovery Institute in Seattle, WA. In this course, we will read extensively from authors on both sides of this debate, including Francisco Ayala, Michael Behe, Richard Dawkins, William Dembski, Phillip Johnson, Ernst Mayr, and Michael Ruse. Our intent will be to sort out the various issues at play, and to come to clarity on how those issues can be integrated into the perspective of the natural sciences as a whole.

In addition to in-class discussions, course participants will have the opportunity to participate in online debates and discussions via the instructor’s weblog at http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/. Students registered for the course will also have an opportunity to present their original research paper(s) to the class and to the general public via publication on the course weblog and via THE EVOLUTION LIST.

INTENDED AUDIENCE: This course is intended primarily for students in biology, biology and society, history, philosophy, and science & technology studies. The approach will be interdisciplinary, and the format will consist of in-depth readings across the disciplines and discussion of the issues raised by such readings. Although there are no prerequisites, a knowledge of evolutionary biology (equivalent to BioEE 207 and/or BioEE 278) is highly recommended. In addition to registered students, course participants will also include invited guests from the Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, the Paleontological Research Institute, and the Cornell IDEA Club. Members of the general public may only attend class discussions with prior permission of the instructor.”

http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/06/detailed-syllabus-for-cornell_05.html

Anymore questions?

Comment #132704

Posted by Steviepinhead on September 22, 2006 6:38 PM (e)

YC:

Cornell has embraced it within summer seminars, as Biology 467, Design vs. Evolution.

Allen MacNeill was the popular professor who taught it against his will, and against his even trying to hush the public response in regards to it, within the very confines of the classroom. It was a summer course that was taught between the dates of 6/27 to 8/3. It can be found on Design Paradigm’s website if you are interested in looking at it.

OK, ha ha. Very funny, though the set-up perhaps went on just a little too long. Timing is everything (not to mention that the Supply staff really was beginning to get nervous about the rope situation).

But it’s just one of the regulars after all, donning a sock puppet to flog per Prof. MacNeill’s dead seminar one last time.

OK, we get it. Nice job! But the guy’s in Supply really would appreciate it if you’d lay off now–they’re starting to get rope burns!

Comment #132705

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 6:38 PM (e)

Or did you miss that part?

Comment #132706

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 6:40 PM (e)

Doesn’t seem to dead to me.

Only thing that seems to be dying is Evolution.

Comment #132707

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 6:41 PM (e)

Doesn’t seem too dead to me.

Only thing that seems to be dying is Evolution.

I expected this nature from you however. Please tell me how your “ignorant snobbery” should impress me in the very least?

Comment #132708

Posted by CJ O'Brien on September 22, 2006 6:42 PM (e)

That course was the subject of intense discussion right here not but a month ago. Anything to add?

Stevie: awright. sounds like the logistics are covered. Let it not be said that the CBEB chapter of DPG is lacking in um, supply-chain solutions.

Comment #132710

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 6:44 PM (e)

This little “groupthink” seems to be decaying faster than the Chaos Theory’s credibility to me.

Comment #132711

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 6:45 PM (e)

This little “groupthink” seems to be decaying faster than the Chaos Theory’s credibility to me.

Care to discuss Genetics anyone?

Comment #132713

Posted by David B. Benson on September 22, 2006 6:47 PM (e)

Young Creationist — There are at least two previous threads devoted to aspects of Allen’s seminar.

Maybe I am allowed to suggest that you go find them in the PT archives and apply your special brand of logic to both of these, including ALL the comments?

Comment #132714

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 6:47 PM (e)

Yeah I read your little blog messages on it, and I really wasn’t too impressed with it. It didn’t tell me anything new. It was redundant, “No sir..I don’t like it” babble.

Comment #132715

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 6:49 PM (e)

Yeah I read your little blog messages on it, and I really wasn’t too impressed with it. It didn’t tell me anything new. It was redundant, “No sir..I don’t like it” babble.

The messages presented could hardly be worthy of opinion status in the least.

This isn’t my first trip here. I’ve been watching you guys carefully.

I really think this site is just plain propagating an aura of superiority more than anything else. Its certainly not telling us anything new thats going on in Science.

Comment #132716

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on September 22, 2006 6:50 PM (e)

I asked you about pseudogenes, no competition. Is there a problem? You don’t seem to have put up a creationist explanation of them yet.

But let’s try something simpler. Here’s an article, largely written by me, on creationist problems with fossil sorting. Do give it a look over and tell me how you explain the various examples of fossil sorting contained therein.

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Fossil_Sorting

Comment #132717

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 6:51 PM (e)

May I repeat, I’ve seen them both, and am not impressed. Its highly opinionated, and thats about all it is. Nothing more except, “Hey guys I don’t like this being taught” or “Hahahaha funny.”

Comment #132718

Posted by CJ O'Brien on September 22, 2006 6:52 PM (e)

YC, this is really not the venue. You are rapidly going to wear out your welcome with our hosts here.

If you would like a place where you can entertain the masses on topics various and sundry, may I suggest After the Bar Closes?
afdave’s kind of a hog, but there’s still plenty of rope to go around.

Comment #132722

Posted by David B. Benson on September 22, 2006 6:59 PM (e)

Yes, yes! afdave vs YC! Calico cat and gingham dog! All for it…

Comment #132723

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 6:59 PM (e)

Pseudogenes look like genes but do not express any RNA or protein. They are often regarded as “junk DNA.” To put it in a nut shell, we are finding more and more purposes for the junk DNA. I can tell you in regards to them that the inability to code for a protein useful to an organism hardly exhausts other possible functions pseudogenes may have. Its important to remember that molecular and morphological phylogenies have major contradictions, and that the pseudogenes themselves need to be interpreted and are not self evident in themselves. Ergo, it does not follow that humans descended from an ape ancestry of sorts.

Lets also consider that insertion hotspots are now considered more and more as intelligent data that does serve for a useful purpose as well. Evolutionists are invalidated from using them as phylogenetic studies that would benefit them now.

Comment #132724

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 7:02 PM (e)

I’m game…lets go for it!

Comment #132725

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on September 22, 2006 7:03 PM (e)

I am here, and willing to open mindedly debate with each and all of you

(yawn)

And just who the hell might you be, again …. . ?

Comment #132726

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 7:06 PM (e)

Hey my purpose for coming to this site was to help in beating down ID a little bit. The debating is an added benefit, but we do not necessarily have to go this route.

I am Competition to Evolution, however, that doesn’t mean that I’m not against the ID movement. If you want support there, why not see it from a YEC perspective? Could be of benefit to the site, who knows?

Comment #132729

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 7:12 PM (e)

I will address myself as Your Competition, “interchangeably Young Earth Creation Scientist” if you will. I am well studied with a doctorate in the school of Molecular Biology and have studied the recent debate between ID advocates and Evolutionists. After I received my doctorate, oddly enough at Cornell, I started noticing some things that were incomplete about Evolution. This made me start doing research. More and more, I found Evolution simply didn’t add up, and this forced me to focus on Young Earth Creation Science. As such, I started buying into the evidence, and became a Christian.

Politically, I am an Independent if you will. I am not pro conservative, or anti liberal. I am right smack in the middle, and choose to vote for the better candidate in all matters (though politics certainly is not my game in the very least).

It is my privilege to join such a wonderful site as Panda’s Thumb. I look forward to helping you beat the tar out of, if you will, the ID movement.

Comment #132730

Posted by David B. Benson on September 22, 2006 7:14 PM (e)

YC — I assure you that your opinions are of no benefit to this site. I strongly encourage you to go to

After the Bar Closes

and get hung over there…

Comment #132732

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 7:16 PM (e)

My position, while confusing, may be of benefit to the site. I wish to contribute as I may be able to.

Comment #132733

Posted by Steviepinhead on September 22, 2006 7:16 PM (e)

The Supply dudes have done quit. It’s not that we don’t have plenty of rope for the new kid to, er, suspend himself from.

But they’ve run out of bandaids and antiseptic from all the unexpected rope burn. I mean, the place is supposed to be a pub, not a climbing gym!

And the reel busted because it overheated from spinning too fast. And the smoke from the spinning reel set off the basement sprinklers.

Life around this place is just one darned thing after another.

Kind of like–evolution!

Oh, kid! Could you at least stop double-posting everything?

Rope we got, but we’re not exactly rollin’ in pixels, know what I mean?

Comment #132735

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 7:18 PM (e)

Wouldn’t you like to see how stupid the ID side is from my perspective?

Hey, I agree with some of what you say….just certainly not all of it.

Comment #132738

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 7:25 PM (e)

This could be worth your while after all. Its not kid. The name’s Dr. Michael Martin.

Comment #132742

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 7:30 PM (e)

The informal leadership of the IDM has more or less come to rest on Phillip Johnson, a distinguished retired (emeritus) Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley who is a Presbyterian. Philosophically and theologically, the leading lights of the ID movement form an eclectic group. For example, Dr Jonathan Wells is not only a scientist but also an ordained cleric in the Unification Church (the ‘Moonie’ sect) and Dr Michael Denton is a former agnostic anti-evolutionist (with respect to biological transformism), who now professes a vague form of theism. However, he now seems to have embraced evolutionary (though somehow ‘guided’) transformism. Dr Michael Behe, author of Darwin’s Black Box, is a Roman Catholic who says he has no problem with the idea that all organisms, including man, descended from a common ancestor.

This sums some of it up for you. How much confusion can you get out of a theory than this? This looks like some kind of doo hickey dumb farm family of some sorts.

Comment #132743

Posted by David B. Benson on September 22, 2006 7:33 PM (e)

YC — No, we do not want to see how stupid ID is from your perspective, HERE!

Go duke it out with afdave on After the Bar Closes.

Comment #132744

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 7:37 PM (e)

The circus act goes on, as YEC seems to somehow be associated with these stupid ID jerks, yet somehow, the ID movement proclaims and swears up and down that the earth is millions and billions of years old. I disagree with that of course.

But you wouldn’t care about that.

They also seem to be pretty publicy neutral about the Bible. I have a problem with that, state your position or get out of the way.

I like the fact that it takes the flack moreso than the YEC position, which helps the YEC position a bit so I do like it for that reason.

But yeah, no good reason to really accept it.

Comment #132745

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 7:40 PM (e)

My purpose for being here is twofold.

One, to help anybody who would be seeking Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. I’m always willing to help there.

Two, to help in the battle of getting rid of the ID propagandists that plague our society. It is a philosophical and does not belong in Science.

Comment #132747

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 7:41 PM (e)

My purpose for being here is twofold.

One, to help anybody who would be seeking Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. I’m always willing to help there.

Two, to help in the battle of getting rid of the ID propagandists that plague our society. It is philosophical and does not belong in Science.

I agree with your term on the bottom there for ID’s movement. Its a pseudoScience.

Comment #132748

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on September 22, 2006 7:43 PM (e)

This could be worth your while after all. Its not kid. The name’s Dr. Michael Martin.

Who?

Never heard of you. (shrug)

Unless you’re the polygraph guy with the phony degree. That, of course, certainly WOULD be in character for a YEC.

Comment #132749

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on September 22, 2006 7:45 PM (e)

My purpose for being here is twofold.

One, to help anybody who would be seeking Christ as their personal Lord and Savior

I see. So all those YEC’s who testified in Arkansas and Louisiana that creation “science” had nothing to do with religious apologetics, no siree Bob, nothing at all, were all just lying to us, under oath.

I thought so.

Thanks for confirming it for us.

Sorry, I prefer not to learn about Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior from a group of people who are demonstrated liars.

Thanks anyway.

Comment #132752

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on September 22, 2006 7:48 PM (e)

It is a philosophical and does not belong in Science.

Um, do the names “Maclean v Arkansas” and “Edwards v Aguillard” ring any bells for you …. ?

Geez. If you are the best that young-earth creationism has to offer, it’s no wonder that nobody pays any attention to the YECs anymore. (shrug)

Comment #132754

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 7:54 PM (e)

You’re going to have to link me to that exact testimony given by those people. I’m not seeing it there. Where again, do they swear up and down that CS is not Apologetics?

Oh, poligraph test huh?

What do I need to prove my legitimacy? Yeah, I’m not very well known. I’m brand new on the staff over at AIG actually. Actually just coming from an Evolutionist site not too long ago. But its likely you’ll never hear anything about me. We have a large enough staff that my name is never heard. I used to be a writer at the Evolutionist site, and now I’m simply a behind the scenes of sorts editor.

How would you know us anyways? A freaking poor family in China has more funding than we do.

Comment #132756

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 7:56 PM (e)

Just more smoke in mirrors here. Genetic fallacies. “Golly gee, such and such acted in such and such a way, so that means you must be JUST LIKE THEM TOO!”

Guys Creation Science has come a long way since then. Much like the Dover case though, CS was greatly misrepresented in that case.

Its amazing what the media and a little bit of politics can do for a case, isn’t it? Just get an Activist judge in there an voila.

Comment #132757

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 7:58 PM (e)

I am in no way impressed with either of those court decisions. I will not let a judge decide for me what is and what is not Science. I am an independent thinker.

Comment #132758

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 8:00 PM (e)

You don’t see me coming in here saying, “Wow, look at Piltdown man. 300 Evolutionist PHDs lied about that. That means, you must be liars too.”

Comment #132759

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 8:04 PM (e)

BUT, I think the ID movement is nothing more than a circus act myself personally. So I’m on your side in that regard.

I can respect your views, as long as you respect mine here. Lets attack this ID thing and get rid of this monster once and for all shall we?

Comment #132760

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 8:08 PM (e)

Capische?

Comment #132765

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on September 22, 2006 8:22 PM (e)

Yeah, I’m not very well known. I’m brand new on the staff over at AIG actually

No need to bother with you then, is there. (shrug)

Bye.

Comment #132766

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on September 22, 2006 8:25 PM (e)

Guys Creation Science has come a long way since then. Much like the Dover case though, CS was greatly misrepresented in that case.

(sniffle) (sob) Boo hoo hoo hoo.

In case you haven’t noticed, nobody CARES any more what YEC’s think. (shrug)

So run along back to your, uh, ministry.

Bye.

Comment #132768

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 8:27 PM (e)

Oh the article you wrote FYI…I stopped reading after liberal use of terms. That usually implies revisionism and postmodernism….so I spared myself the trouble.

Comment #132770

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 8:29 PM (e)

Let me ask you something…you like to sit there and laugh and say Creation web sites are “useless.” What makes them useless? I would like an intelligent answer to this.

Comment #132771

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 8:30 PM (e)

Lets here something a bit more than, “Well thats what my Biology teacher told me.”

Comment #132774

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 8:32 PM (e)

Nobody cares? Hmmm….

Thats not what I’ve been reading.

Someone’s been lying to you haven’t they?

Comment #132787

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 8:54 PM (e)

OH WAIT no, I know what you mean by that now. YOu mean nobody on this little groupthink site cares about it now!

OOOOOOHHHH!

So the views of the cult prevail then right? Try thinking on your own for a bit here.

Comment #132789

Posted by CJ O'Brien on September 22, 2006 8:57 PM (e)

Since the supply guys have quit, it’s definitely time to exploit the overstock, fuelled by afdave’s insatiable demand, on hand over at Wesley’s place. This is an excellent heading for a thread over there. steve would be thrilled if you could drop by.

Let me ask you something…you like to sit there and laugh and say Creation web sites are “useless.” What makes them useless? I would like an intelligent answer to this.

Link to follow

Comment #132790

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 8:57 PM (e)

I suppose this means we are out of rational arguments to present?

Comment #132794

Posted by stevaroni on September 22, 2006 9:00 PM (e)

YC;

Ahh, progress!

See, we’re all talking in complete sentences now, and almost nobody is calling anyone else names.

Isn’t this nice for a change?

And I do appreciate the fact that you’ve de-trolled yourself.

But is still don’t get where you’re going with your voluminous posts.

Some points seem to come through…

First, you’re religious, probably somewhat evangelical, based on the web sites you point to.

So what?

As far as I’m concerned - and I know I’m not alone here in my – you can believe in any God you want to believe in, and I’ll be happy for you.

In fact, I’ll aggressively support your right to believe in anything you want, be it Jehovah, Vishnu or animate plates of supernatural ravioli.

Many people who contribute here are religious in some degree. In fact, many of the best discussions revolve around the dichotomy between the ephemeral soul, and the animal shell, as it were.

So I don’t know where you’re going with that. Faith, per se, is just not an issue here.

Secondly, you seem to argue that understanding science debases faith. Maybe your faith feels that way, I don’t know. I grew up in a Roman Catholic family, and at some point, it became clear to me that that Christianity focused strongly on the metaphysical and seldom addressed the physical world, except in passing. Lots of “thou shall not bear false witness” and not so much “thou shall know how to pair the 4 DNA bases”

Yes, I know that there are an endless stream of name-brand religious personalities that claim science is the antithesis of belief, and knowledge will inevitably undermine faith, but they said that about Galileo and the sun-centric universe.

Now, 500 years later, the sun still comes up in the morning, and the pealing church bells still greet it on Sunday, and two camps are comfortable with each other and the world spins on.

The fact is, that outside your window, right now, at this very moment, something is happening. There’s a spider eating a fly, a bird cleaving the air, a cat feeding her kittens.

The world goes on, religion or no, and man tries to understand it.

Understanding is good. It allows us to feed ourselves, shelter ourselves, fix ourselves when we break so much better than our ancestors ever could, and while we’re at it, it allows us to explore our physical world.

But our physical world is not the province of faith, it is a mechanical thing, with interlocking parts and processes, and this is the realm of science. Things that can be touched.

Maybe your version is different, but my Bible doesn’t have anything at all to say about electricity, hydraulics, microwave ovens or indoor flush toilets, yet we have to use them every day. They are of obvious import to our lives, and understanding their principals is required to run the civilized world.

I assume, since you are using a computer to talk to people spread all over the world, that science itself is not the enemy to you. Just the tiny slice of biology called evolution.

Somehow, you seem to accept that science can master the technical world at large, but knows nothing about this one little piece of the world.

What can I say? You believe this despite mounds of physical evidence available to you to examine yourself. Just a few days ago, our family tree grew a new branch, and she’ll be available for inspection, coming soon to a natural history museum near you.

You describe yourself as scientifically literate, but you believe this despite the convergence of evidence from many diverse branches of the scientific world.

You describe yourself as well-read, yet you believe this despite a complete dearth of any evidence at all to the contrary.

Again, you’re free to believe anything you want, but if your only response to anything we say is going to be “I don’t see this so-called evidence” then, well, there’s not all that much we can talk about.

It’s like standing in a busy airport, with someone who’s trying to argue that heavier-than-air flight is impossible.

Sooner or later, you just shrug and walk away.

Comment #132795

Posted by Steviepinhead on September 22, 2006 9:01 PM (e)

Hmmm. The only Dr. Michael Martin that comes up in association with creationism on Google is an academic atheist!

Same thing if you search Answers in Genesis’s entire site!

Either some 14-year-old is up past his curfew.

Or the academic atheist got stood up by his date this Friday night and has nothing better to do than come “confuse” us gullible evil-utionists.

Those darn atheists!

Anyway, kid, have fun talking to yourself. The grown-ups have better things to do.

Comment #132796

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 9:01 PM (e)

Whats the thread? Steve who? He wants to debate me? I’m all for it!

Comment #132799

Posted by Steviepinhead on September 22, 2006 9:08 PM (e)

Debaters make points with evidence.

So far, your entire analysis of the evidence is, “I don’t believe this,” and “I don’t believe that.”

That’s not presentation or refutation of evidence=based points.

That’s childish, and not in a good way.

Either make a point with evidence, or entertain yourself playing patty-cake baby.

Yawns. Stretches. Checks pizza. Starts packing for camping trip.

Comment #132801

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on September 22, 2006 9:09 PM (e)

A freaking poor family in China has more funding than we do.

Awww, did the Australians take all your money when they dumped you?

(snicker) (giggle)

Comment #132805

Posted by CJ O'Brien on September 22, 2006 9:11 PM (e)

Your wish is my command.
Go easy on ‘em, tiger.

Comment #132808

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 9:15 PM (e)

Only insomuch as we are not debating for debate’s sake though.

Comment #132810

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on September 22, 2006 9:19 PM (e)

Thanks for getting rid of the annoying little child.

Comment #132811

Posted by Arden Chatfield on September 22, 2006 9:25 PM (e)

Tell you what YC, why don’t you just make an exhaustive list right now of all the things you’re ‘not impressed with’, and get that over with. That way you don’t have to be constantly telling us what you’re not impressed with. This should eliminate 75% of your sentences right there.

Anyway, I think YC just made up the name ‘Dr. Michael Martin’. YC is either a homeschooled 14-year-old, or an evolutionist smart aleck pretending to be a YEC fundamentalist dingbat as a practical joke.

Comment #132813

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 9:34 PM (e)

YC;

Ahh, progress!

See, we’re all talking in complete sentences now, and almost nobody is calling anyone else names.

Isn’t this nice for a change?

And I do appreciate the fact that you’ve de-trolled yourself.

But is still don’t get where you’re going with your voluminous posts.

Some points seem to come through…

First, you’re religious, probably somewhat evangelical, based on the web sites you point to. Yes I am.

So what? Well in regards to Science, Religion while mutually compatible is separate.

As far as I’m concerned - and I know I’m not alone here in my – you can believe in any God you want to believe in, and I’ll be happy for you. Well, it doesn’t matter that I believe in God, but rather that God is true.

In fact, I’ll aggressively support your right to believe in anything you want, be it Jehovah, Vishnu or animate plates of supernatural ravioli. Thats nice, though I’ve refuted those in my review of roughly 50 different religious views (including FSMism).

Many people who contribute here are religious in some degree. In fact, many of the best discussions revolve around the dichotomy between the ephemeral soul, and the animal shell, as it were.

Very well aware of that. And I understand many are probably Evolutionists. However, I hope you do not just deny me for not being an Evolutionist, as I think thats a bit unfair.

So I don’t know where you’re going with that. Faith, per se, is just not an issue here. Faith is an issue, as it pertains to how the Greeks saw the word. It meant “forensic evidence” and few would deny this is important today.

Secondly, you seem to argue that understanding science debases faith. Maybe your faith feels that way, I don’t know. I grew up in a Roman Catholic family, and at some point, it became clear to me that that Christianity focused strongly on the metaphysical and seldom addressed the physical world, except in passing. Lots of “thou shall not bear false witness” and not so much “thou shall know how to pair the 4 DNA bases”

My faith is not based on feeling. My faith is based on rational thought processes concluded through deductive reasoning abilities.

Yes, I know that there are an endless stream of name-brand religious personalities that claim science is the antithesis of belief, and knowledge will inevitably undermine faith, but they said that about Galileo and the sun-centric universe.

I disagree. I agree with Creation Science not because “God tells me to” or sorts, but because it is more valid and seemingly plausible than Evolution. With all due respect, if Evolution were true, I’d believe it now.

Now, 500 years later, the sun still comes up in the morning, and the pealing church bells still greet it on Sunday, and two camps are comfortable with each other and the world spins on.

Most of that was from the Catholic faith and deals with something that I do not condone, which was the early Church politics. I am not a Catholic however, so that really does not concern my position Scientifically or Religiously.

The fact is, that outside your window, right now, at this very moment, something is happening. There’s a spider eating a fly, a bird cleaving the air, a cat feeding her kittens.

Sure. No doubt about it. Naturalistic Science is fine. Supernaturalistic Science should not be rejected in the process however.

The world goes on, religion or no, and man tries to understand it.

This implies an existential philosophy. The world is without meaning, and man must do his best to try to understand it. We can discuss this viewpoint if you’d like, but there are many reasons I do not agree with it.

Understanding is good. It allows us to feed ourselves, shelter ourselves, fix ourselves when we break so much better than our ancestors ever could, and while we’re at it, it allows us to explore our physical world.

Yes, and our metaphysical world as well.

But our physical world is not the province of faith, it is a mechanical thing, with interlocking parts and processes, and this is the realm of science. Things that can be touched.

Sure. Agreed.

Maybe your version is different, but my Bible doesn’t have anything at all to say about electricity, hydraulics, microwave ovens or indoor flush toilets, yet we have to use them every day. They are of obvious import to our lives, and understanding their principals is required to run the civilized world.

Bibles are generally all the same. This has nothing to do with anything more than modern day Technology, something we all use. I don’t live in the Dark Ages Steve, lol.

I assume, since you are using a computer to talk to people spread all over the world, that science itself is not the enemy to you. Just the tiny slice of biology called evolution.

Not all Evolution. Again, Variation is okay. Natural Selection is what I disagree with.

Somehow, you seem to accept that science can master the technical world at large, but knows nothing about this one little piece of the world.

I never claimed that.

What can I say? You believe this despite mounds of physical evidence available to you to examine yourself. Just a few days ago, our family tree grew a new branch, and she’ll be available for inspection, coming soon to a natural history museum near you.

Okay? So I’ve observed it and drawn an inference, just as any Scientist should.

You describe yourself as scientifically literate, but you believe this despite the convergence of evidence from many diverse branches of the scientific world.

I’m not following what you mean here. I do look into all of the branches of Science.

You describe yourself as well-read, yet you believe this despite a complete dearth of any evidence at all to the contrary.

There seems to be no conclusive evidence in any way shape or form to conclude Natural Selection as Scientifically plausible in the least.

Again, you’re free to believe anything you want, but if your only response to anything we say is going to be “I don’t see this so-called evidence” then, well, there’s not all that much we can talk about.

I’m willing to look at it. Show me if you will.

It’s like standing in a busy airport, with someone who’s trying to argue that heavier-than-air flight is impossible.

Sooner or later, you just shrug and walk away.

Well I hope you know that I believe in what I believe because its true and not because its just “a simple minded belief that some silly preacher told me one day.”

Well Steve you are the first one to address me with common courtesy on this site, and that is much appreciated. Now, I would like for you to understand that Metaphysics has much more to do than just understanding a few verses out of the Bible, though that is part of it. In my pursuit of truth, I studied the Theodicy of God, which means, what type of God is in fact the truth. I studied Epistemology, and in regards to whether or not an Objective Truth was knowable or not. I had to see if there was actually any tangible evidence for Creation Science, as well as for the resurrection of Jesus Christ that would imply the supernatural world that I lived in.

Now I know its easy to walk away from the faith, but I think this term is misunderstood in our Revisionistic society today. People often misinterpret the meaning of the Bible because they do not wish to go back and learn a little bit of Greek in the process to see exactly how it translates from the earliest stages of the Bible. When we actually look at this, then and only then do we get an accurate measure of what the Bible actually means. The confusion wears away and all of a sudden, it begins to become clear. Knowing how accurate the Bible’s message has been translated is truly remarkable and then also understanding the prophetic message behind is overwhelmingly convincing as well. We also have Objective Reality, which is what Metaphysics sets out to do as well. When we apply the laws of Metaphysics, this Objective Reality simply can not be escaped except through ignorance.

Intellectual honesty is where I went with. It wasn’t about who had the most Naturalistic or Supernaturalistic evidence. I eliminated my Presupposition of Anti-Supernaturalism and started looking at things with an open mind. This began the start of an incredible 10 month journey that somehow led me to finding Christ in my life. Granted, its not provable 100%, but I’d say 95% would be accurate, and if we look at a confidence curve in Statistics, we can then further conclude it to be 100% accurate off of that measure.

Believe it or not, we actually have some great proofs of God’s existence, meaning that the statement, “You can’t prove or disprove God’s existence, its all taken on faith” really backfires. An FYI, the Greeks did not regard faith as a belief that you feel in your heart. Thats Americanized. The Greeks saw faith as forensic evidence. When we honestly take a look at this sort of thing, we realize its not about interpretations, but whether what is absolutely true in life.

I’ll be happy to help you out

Comment #132814

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 9:37 PM (e)

Give me something to refute and I’ll look at it.

Comment #132815

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 9:38 PM (e)

I’m interested in knowing why you are looking for me online when I just told you you would not find me online.

Comment #132816

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 9:40 PM (e)

Another guy who thinks ID is Creation Science. Thats uhhhh fascinating? Didn’t I just tell you I didn’t approve of ID as Science?

Another of those conspiracist theories.

Comment #132818

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 9:45 PM (e)

I unlike many could never say I made an a priori justification. Many times it is warranted to make them, but I literally had to prove everything piece by piece and step by step to come to the conclusion I did.

Comment #132821

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on September 22, 2006 10:00 PM (e)

YC:
“Problem here is this infers that you do know a question”

Yes and no. Look, I’m trying to see if someone has described a natural logic that maps to the states of facts in theories. It isn’t easy to interpret states without a working model and semantics.

For example, through our observable Hubble space there will go a finite amount of world lines, see the works of Vilenkin et al. Looking back, as Hawking et al, one can possibly use the ‘final knowledge base’ to define “we don’t know the question” yet. Following (some) world lines is done (in one interpretation :-) in what seems to be robust proposals to define probabilities for the multiverse ( http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602264.pdf).

But that speculation isn’t necessary, since we observe theories and hypotheses cycle between these states. Sometimes we happen to do an observation first, and the larger question (not necessarily the narrow experimental “question”) that predicts that answer is known to be theory laden. We go back and forth between the states, and no theory is certain.

But in fact I did exclude the first state to start with in my earlier comments. I’m not sure if I’m speculating about trying to describe theories as we will make them (word lines, observed facts) or theories as they could be (incompleteness, possible processes). “the first state seems like ontology”. The final three possible states are enough to try to find a natural description for as a start, methods of science seem messy enough to describe as it is.

Thank you for your input!

“The implicit message is, what is a disproof of logic?”

I can’t make much sense of the initial and concluding part of your comment. I think you are describing your own reasoning from here on.

Comment #132827

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on September 22, 2006 10:14 PM (e)

Didn’t I just tell you I didn’t approve of ID as Science?

No one cares what you “approve of”, junior. (shrug)

Comment #132828

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 10:18 PM (e)

Its not my reasoning per se because I’m taking an objective approach to it.

Again, everything is subjugated to the 2nd law of noncontradiction. There is no disproof of logic. You would essentially end up trying to disprove logic with the use of another type of logic, or perhaps reasoning ability of your own.

This is not to state that Scientifically, we can not use inductive logic to infer conclusions (and often this is necessary). When looking for truth value claims, deductive logic must be used. You are referencing inductive logic here. What I’m stating is that logic is a necessity to life and thought. It is impossible to argue against Logic because it is a universal.

The implicit question means, you assume a priori a question here. This was Plato’s laws of forms that I was discussing here a bit. You must have an assumed position in order to make a position. Therefore, your position is to create an answer in regards to a certain question, whatever that question may be because it is not made explicit.

Now, the problem with trying to use logic to eliminate logic occurs at the Fallacy Files. It is known as a fallacy. “Formal logic fails us because of its assumptions. The postulates from which the mechanism springs are normally abstractions of a high order, words rather than things. The finest of automobiles will not run on a road of air; it must have solid ground under the wheels. The Greeks, with their assumption that words were real things, naturally enough soared into rarefied regions. Human thinking has been short of oxygen ever since. … “Logos” is Greek for “word”; “logic” is the manipulation of words.”

Easy to state here. Unprovable though.

Perhaps this even sounds good to you. But its an Etymological fallacy.

“The etymology of a word is an account of its historical derivation from older words often from a different language. An older, usually archaic, word from which a current word is historically derived is called its “etymon”. The term “etymological fallacy” is applied to two types of error:

Semantic: The etymological fallacy as a semantic error is the mistake of confusing the current meaning of a word with the meaning of one of its etymons, or of considering the meaning of the etymon to be the “real” or “true” meaning of the current word. If one’s goal is to communicate, then the “real” or “true” meaning of a word is its current meaning. Since the meanings of words change over time, often considerably, the meaning of an etymon may be very different from the current meaning of the word derived from it. The fact that a word historically derives from an etymon may be interesting, but it cannot tell us the current meaning of the word.
Logical:The etymological fallacy as a logical mistake results when one reasons about the etymon as if the conclusion applied to the current word. This is a logical error similar to equivocation, which involves confusing two meanings of the same word; but it differs from equivocation in that the etymological fallacy involves the meanings of two different words, though those words are historically connected.”
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/etymolog.html

This makes it impossible for you to argue against either form of logic without presenting that form of logic to argue against the other logic in the first place.

Comment #132831

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 10:22 PM (e)

The answer to your question, as I have found, is a definite no. In fact, the Naturalistic fallacy does not allow for this as well.

The reason is Logos transcends mankind. With that in mind, we are unable to argue against something that is larger than mankind in the first place. Again, its a universal that MUST exist.

Logos must be assumed a priori in order to attempt to refute logic in the first place. Its a serious issue of begging the question when we attempt this.

Comment #132840

Posted by Your Competition on September 22, 2006 10:59 PM (e)

Say we are to argue that all things are natural. Well this presupposes that there is nothing unnatural or supernatural. So, its similar to a bifurcation fallacy. The supernatural must exist, and this is the key!

The next question is of course, what is supernatural? Well of course, words and thought are of supernatural level, since thought is not composed of material, as has been Scientifically documented, especially founded through Psychology.

We also will find if we attempt to look far enough that God is the philosophically default position. All along, God’s vagueness means that what we were trying to argue against is actually God’s presence in the first place. This requires a degree of understanding of logic before one can reach this level, and believe me, from personal experience IT IS NOT EASY!

Comment #132848

Posted by Anton Mates on September 22, 2006 11:10 PM (e)

You’ve gotta be John A. Davison. Who else spends entire threads in a discussion with himself?

And don’t say Berlinski. Berlinski does interviews with himself. Different thing.

Comment #132849

Posted by argystokes on September 22, 2006 11:12 PM (e)

YC,

As this discussion has clearly gone off-topic, I think it would be better to take the subject to “After the Bar Closes,” the friendly forum where all the funny stuff happens. This will be to your advantage, as threads tend to go on in perpetuity there, whereas this thread will be forgotten by Sunday. As a matter of fact, CJ O’Brien has been kind enough to start up the topic for you:
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=45145ea77b866b4e;act=ST;f=14;t=3134
Or you could join in on AFDave’s Updated Creator God Hypothesis. He could use your help.

Comment #133052

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 23, 2006 11:52 AM (e)

My intention, for ye of much ignorance, is to help the gentleman in question understand a bit more about logic. He seems to wish to figure out how to correlate logic with Science, and I’m showing him that inductive logic is used in regards to Science. This is how Newton derived the laws of Physics, and how Einstein derived the Big Bang Theory (which believe it or not, I’m not necessarily opposed to).
We also use it when we look to observe evidence in nature.
My purpose I feel has not gone off topic, since I’m addressing the questions. If you wish to come back to the topic of the thread, which is the Creation quote mining, by all means. I can tell you, I see no problem with what Creation Science does to the quotes of Evolutionist, because most of the time they are taken within context, and not within pretext.

I will be responding to the Anti-Evolution blog, though I see no viable reason to consider much of what has said on the blog to be of accurate use at all.

As far as me leaving the site, that is a no go. Thats my third option by the way, I can stay at the site and continue posting. I wish to participate in debates within the forum of an Evolution site, and that is my prerogative. I will do this. As for what you seem to be afraid of, I don’t really understand why you seem to be afraid of what I believe in. I mean, I’m here to address issues that Evolution as a paradigm actually has because of my former association with Evolution, but I’m certainly in no way afraid to share my beliefs, my feelings, my thoughts, or my rationale with you guys. What is the Evolution community afraid of here? I mean, why not try to convince me of the Evolution paradigm’s truth? I’m an intellectual honest seeker, so if I see evidence for it, I’ll believe in it. However, I really don’t see how I could see evidence in it at all, with what I have seen through the counter sides to Evolution. I’m very familiar with the paradigm.

Now, as far as the name calling and accusations, no I don’t see a reason to follow, whatever you were trying to get at there. I’m not even sure what the accusations were delivered for. I’m clearly interested in why you see these quotes taken out of context, because I see no reason why to believe it at all. I see it as generally for the most part accurate.

Comment #133068

Posted by KL on September 23, 2006 12:32 PM (e)

“I mean, I’m here to address issues that Evolution as a paradigm actually has because of my former association with Evolution, but I’m certainly in no way afraid to share my beliefs, my feelings, my thoughts, or my rationale with you guys.”

The science of evolution has nothing to do with beliefs or feelings. It has to do with explanations that fit a vast amount of evidence from several scientific disciplines, including geology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. Thoughts and rationale are fine, as long as they fit the evidence.

“What is the Evolution community afraid of here? I mean, why not try to convince me of the Evolution paradigm’s truth?”

There is no “truth”. Unless you have an explanation that fits the evidence better (all of the evidence, not just selected bits), the current paradigm stands. THAT is the nature of scientific discourse.

Comment #133073

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 23, 2006 12:49 PM (e)

“I mean, I’m here to address issues that Evolution as a paradigm actually has because of my former association with Evolution, but I’m certainly in no way afraid to share my beliefs, my feelings, my thoughts, or my rationale with you guys.”

The science of evolution has nothing to do with beliefs or feelings. It has to do with explanations that fit a vast amount of evidence from several scientific disciplines, including geology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. Thoughts and rationale are fine, as long as they fit the evidence.

BINGO! And guess what? Thats why I’m a Creation Scientist, and have abandoned my former Evolution Presuppositions.

“What is the Evolution community afraid of here? I mean, why not try to convince me of the Evolution paradigm’s truth?”

There is no “truth”. Unless you have an explanation that fits the evidence better (all of the evidence, not just selected bits), the current paradigm stands. THAT is the nature of scientific discourse.

Is that a truth claim? If it is, you have established a truth. If your statement is not a truth claim, then truth still exists as a possibility, and your claim is false. The statement is self destructive.

Please by all means, do not give me this garba-je. I’m really familiar with it. You are using inductive logic, when deductive logic is necessary to use here. You are just jumping the gun.

Comment #133074

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 23, 2006 12:51 PM (e)

If its neither a true or false claim, you have failed to establish the validity of your point, and your reasoning is bad. For that reason, there is no reason to accept your claim as truth, and we are justified in rejecting it.

Comment #133075

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 23, 2006 12:56 PM (e)

Even Science, which is derived from Logos in Greek meaning logic can not be differentiated, as simply an “abstract” term, since Science deals with the concrete and not the abstract, is subjected to Logic. Meaning, words must precede and be given more value than Science itself. Science can not explain itself without the use of words. To say that something is stupid because, “its just words” is silly reasoning, and is an abuse of etymology because the words themselves have meaning, and your attempt to discredit the meaning fails.

The laws of logic are a necessity. You can not get around them, without of course using logic in the first place to attempt to discredit the logic. You are just simply going to fall into a vicious circular process if you attempt.

I suggest you accept the premise and lets move on here.

Comment #133076

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 23, 2006 1:04 PM (e)

Again, and absolute truth is necessary when deriving an argument of any sort. If you say, “There is no absolute truth.” You are making an absolute claim about truth, and that is self refuting.

If you say, “I don’t believe in absolute truth” well you are entitled to that opinion, even though its false but just because you don’t believe in it, doesn’t mean that a) the statement itself is not an absolute claim and b) it implies a belief, and since you believe the statement, you believe an absolute truth.

It is intellectually dishonest to believe claims like this. If one chooses to do so, of course, I can’t stop them, but it leads to a simple state of denial.

Why the attack on absolute truth? Of course, if there is absolute truth, it implies a fixed and inalterable fact, meaning a nature of supernatural existing above the natural world itself. This is the error in much of the reasoning behind Science today, which leaves many Scientists to “special pleading” fallacies in reasoning, as well as wishful thinking summations like, “Maybe tomorrow such and such will happen.” This has also led me to abandon my once prevalent futurist point of view that I held. I found the err in logic behind it.

To see a good summation of rules underlying logic, you can check out www.fallacyfiles.org. I recommend all view it. Its much better than the Les Lane silly logic overview, derived out of a Nietzsche Philosophy that self implodes within itself. This is not to say that Les Lane is totally wrong, but all he deals with is propositional logic, and there is much more to logic than just that alone.

Comment #133077

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 23, 2006 1:16 PM (e)

Its not hard to establish these premises. They are self evident within themselves.

Sure, some people would argue that not everyone has an understanding of them, but this in no way implies that logic is not universal. It implies people are ignorant to logic.

Logic must be understood to transcend the world, as do the laws of Science. They must be understood to have been discovered and not created. They are of truth value. If they are created, they are not true essentially is what this boils down to.

Of course we have another absurdity here. Say we were to argue that truth was created. Someone had to have discovered that. Therefore, truth is not created, and that doesn’t work. If we are to say to truth is discovered, we are falling into absurd conclusions when stating that truth is created, because we somehow must have discovered the previous point that it was created.

This means, as such, that truth is discovered passes logical tests, and we must understand that the Existentialist claim that laws are created is false, for that law in itself must be discovered in order to be true.

Truth is not fabricated as such.

To state who created discovery is a legitimate question. Again, discovery transcends mankind, and as such if its a discovery, the Anthropic principle can be used to derive it is a nature of a higher being, and that being is God.

Now this is one proof of many of God’s existence. What it does not prove however that it is the God of the Bible. It leaves us open to 3 books, the Talmud, the Koran and the Bible. The Bible was written first, and the other two attempt to attack the Bible. The burden of proof is against the Talmud and the Koran, so in other words, the Jews and the Muslims have the burden of proof. Since the Talmud and the Koran both contradict the Bible’s claims, we can state that they are not of truth values. Another problem is when using the laws within the Bible, we must also concede that no special revelations are possible. This leaves a problem because now, the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and other religious viewpoints are false.

Some would point to Hinduism or Zoroastrianism as possible conclusions. However, Ockham’s Razor does away with Hinduism and Zoroastrianism’s text, the Avesta, was discovered to have been potentially written in 1300 A.D., so they make some absurd conclusions about the religious beginning being 6000 B.C. No evidential support can trace the religious beginning back that far, so its really goofy to assume this a priori.

I can show you others if you’d like.

Comment #133078

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 23, 2006 1:19 PM (e)

And of course we have that one minor problem that no other religious text can be supported by Archaeological evidence. I’m still waiting to see a Muslim, or other religious cite provide me information on this. Yet seeing as the Bible has more Archaeological support than the Origin of Species itself, I’d be willing to accept the validity of the truth claims made within it anyday.

Comment #133080

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 23, 2006 1:22 PM (e)

To say Christianity is strictly a Theological or Religious matter is really far from the truth.

Comment #133082

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 23, 2006 1:27 PM (e)

What we can say it is not is a political matter. This smells of the conspiracy fallacy.

Any more questions?

Now granted, I’m a former writer on Evolutionary matters, but I also have other credentials behind me. I used to be a Biology Professor at a university and did some other useful research for the Evolutionary community, and was involved in working around several people who had peer reviewed materials. I now am working as a Creation Scientist and hope to eventually have some of my own work peer reviewed in the future.

Comment #133084

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 23, 2006 1:32 PM (e)

A mild perception is going out seemingly that Creation Scientists always use the Bible and then do Scientific research. To say the least, its actually the other way around. We do not base our conclusions on the Bible until we find Scientific research that would support it. Of course this means that Creation Scientists are more rationally objective than people give them credit for.

This does not mean that we are Psychologically neutral on the matter though. We do believe in God and always put him first in the matter, but what we do not do is necessarily draw conclusions that are based on the Bible until our research states it is possible to do so, with accurate evidential support that supports the Bible directly.

Comment #133086

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 23, 2006 1:39 PM (e)

When working for the Evolution community, I found many were claiming the Richard Lewontin type quotes. Of course some Evolutionists I have been in correspondence with just write them off as being bad for Evolution, but if we do that we have no reason to not reject their entire works, and why should we trust the Evolutionist who have far less credentials on the matter than the experts in Evolution themselves?

I found myself also having the attitude, “We must not let a divine foot in the door.” Until I found that something was missing in the evidence and I was like..oh well time to see both sides of the coin. Being raised in an Agnostic environment all the while made things no less easy in accepting Christ. My family was in no way shape or form supportive of my decision and this made things much harder on me personally. My wife eventually left me and proclaimed I had joined a cult. Life was not so great there I must admit for a while, but I had enough confidence in my self to be intellectually honest with the evidence. In the while, I have gained far greater joy from God than imagineable, and have been provided the best wife I could ever dream of. So all in all, I’d say it was worth it in the end.

Comment #133089

Posted by Pastor Bentonit, FCD on September 23, 2006 1:49 PM (e)

Please feed the troll some of whatever medication he´s clearly gone off.

Comment #133110

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 23, 2006 2:42 PM (e)

Hey troll love hugger, I think now is a good time to say..”Eh, just shut up would ya.”

And if I’m such a “troll” why do you keep giving me so much attention.

Comment #133130

Posted by KL on September 23, 2006 3:52 PM (e)

I’m signing off. Nowhere in any of those rambling posts did you ever get to any physical evidence. I have better things to do (like grading papers, cleaning house, patting the dog, feeding the snake…) You might try those meds again…

Comment #133137

Posted by Trollheim Pharmacia und Sanatorium on September 23, 2006 4:22 PM (e)

Phone ringing, with more than the usual static on the line.

“Ja, Trollheim… Was? You are English? Yes, I good speak and, ja, much static today–they new cable by der Bifrost Bridge are laying, we hear.

“Michael Martin? Goodness! In America? OK, I go check now.”

A short time passes, with various rustlings, rummagings, and clunkings of file cabinets being slid opened and closed. Murmurs of background conversations in a Scandanavian language, though it doesn’t sound quite like any of the modern ones.

“Ach, my goodness! No, he doesn’t seem to be here. Again he has escaped, that boy!”

“On American computer site. Ja, I know of ‘blogs,’ very up-to-date are we here, you know!

“He is calling himself ‘Doctor’ again? Sigh! And also, what, ‘Your Competition’? Ach, not the ‘Logos’ thing again, too? We really thought we’d got a, what you call? Hand? A handle on that one.

“Well, all right. We appreciate the notice. We will alert Security.

“And, yes, certain you can be, we will be adjusting his medications once he returns ‘home.’ And maybe some more of that anti-brainrinsing–ah, you say what? braincleansing? Oh, washing, yes! Anyway, more of the cult-deprogramming therapy would seem to be in order, to be sure.

“Well, okay then, and thank you for your concern. We will from here take it, ja?”

Hangs up phone.

Comment #133157

Posted by ScottN on September 23, 2006 5:12 PM (e)

So, I have a question for the PT veterans here regarding this “Dr. Michael Martin” dude: Is his long string of comments what a “Gish Gallop” would look like if were committed to text?

Comment #133234

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on September 23, 2006 10:11 PM (e)

Umm… A certain commenter has problematized my commenting. I come back since my latest comment, much a brain fart, had some errors, and I also happened to find a blog comment that lead further on that topic.

Now I want to answer the new comments too. So I will look even more stupid and bloviating than before. I looked at redirect to the suggested AtBC but it seems OT there. If this thread owner wants to move what will likely become a very long tangential post and my earlier comments I see no problem with that.

YC/Michael:
I can’t interpret much of the above commenters, but it seems the above identity is likely.

“You’d be using inductive logic to try to refute deductive logic … I’m showing him that inductive logic is used in regards to Science.”

As I said, I can’t interpret what you are trying to say.

My claim is that science uses several types of logics to make theories, but use primary prediction and experiment to verify or falsify theories among other methods.

If you are discussing the internal logic in theories, in my uninformed opinion several logics seem to apply. Philosophers mention deduction, induction and abduction. Math and computer science (CS) have several other models, some of which I will mention later in this comment. For example, CS computational complexity theory has descriptive complexity which “seeks to characterize complexity classes by the type of logic needed to express the languages in them”, progressing from predicate calculus beyond. It is also said that intuitionistic logic is good for Turing complete software (efficient computing systems).

If you are discussing how theories work, you are triggering one of my pet peeves. It is often said that science can be reduced to induction. But in my naiveté I can’t find an account that explains how that reduction is made. Induction seems naively to use an unquantified amount of observations to produce a qualified guess instead of a quantified certainty, perhaps using some sort of undefined limit process. For example, how is hypothesis testing reduced from a decisive method of finite measurements and quantified certainty to the seemingly arbitrarily concept of induction? I’m not much interested in this discussion at the time, but if you want to proceed with me on this line of discussion you have to answer that question.

My errors:
“ through our observable Hubble space there will go a finite amount of world lines”

Sure, but the probabilities of Vilenkin et al is about arriving at a terminal vacuum bubble. There will still be a possible infinite amount of events.

Only by restriction between bubble inflation and the final state of diluting observers the interesting events will be limited. But that seems to be an attempt with a different definition of probability than what Vilenkin discuss. It may or may not be robust.

“ I’m not sure if I’m speculating about trying to describe theories as we will make them (word lines, observed facts) or theories as they could be (incompleteness, possible processes).”

The primary observations and their facts are basis for the formal model with its eventual incompleteness. So this description doesn’t make sense.

However, I believe my simple observation of the use of “we don’t know the answer” is still valid.

The continuation:
I don’t want to set the cart before the horse as it were, even if it perhaps seemed so. I just have a hard time finding feasible models of basic scientific methods, as hinted above.

On another blog I happened on to a paper that modelled topology with a S4 modal logic interpretation (http://www.pitt.edu/~kok6/work/pdf/060520.pdf ). By wikipedia it seems several S4/S5 schema interpretations are used for similar purposes.

The ubiquitous wikipedia describes modal logic as representing modalities using operators instead of states. I’m sure I’ve seen it before, but I was not conversant with the CS popular lambda calculus at the time. Lambda calculus uses functions to represent states and logical operators (http://goodmath.blogspot.com/2006/05/booleans-and-choice-in-lambda-calculus.html ). (And of course there is a tie to intuitionistic logic, being CS.)

I note that the state concept instead is necessary to keep intensionality. “we can give the semantics of a modal logic by structural induction, if we use stateful models, also called coalgebraic models. … The truth value of a formula is defined over models that are not sets, but transition systems.” Perhaps I in my naiveté stumbled on an analogous idea. I also like the tie to multiworld descriptions, which is an active topic now.

Modal logics are many, and they are one of many logics used in CS. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_in_computer_science ). Different CS logics are so many that they have systematised them by the notion of institutions. And being CS, institutions is a categorification of logics, used to compare them! My cup overfloweth.

Comment #133235

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on September 23, 2006 10:15 PM (e)

“If you are discussing the internal logic in theories”

I meant: If you are discussing the internal logic in developing theories”

Comment #133240

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on September 23, 2006 10:26 PM (e)

Oh, I forgot to say why some type of modal logic seems to mo to be close to what I was looking for in describing facts as they behave in theories. “Epistemic logic is a subfield of modal logic that is concerned with reasoning about knowledge…. Its epistemic version,

K \phi \rightarrow \phi,

states that whatever is known is true, which seems equally correct; this is frequently referred to as the truth axiom.” It seem to even handle agents with different knowledge (or theories).

Comment #133330

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on September 24, 2006 1:36 AM (e)

Why do fundies always have so much fun talking to themselves?

Comment #133331

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on September 24, 2006 1:38 AM (e)

Now granted, I’m a former writer on Evolutionary matters, but I also have other credentials behind me. I used to be a Biology Professor at a university and did some other useful research for the Evolutionary community

Liar.

Comment #133496

Posted by Arden Chatfield on September 24, 2006 11:55 AM (e)

Now granted, I’m a former writer on Evolutionary matters, but I also have other credentials behind me. I used to be a Biology Professor at a university and did some other useful research for the Evolutionary community, and was involved in working around several people who had peer reviewed materials.

Agreed, you’re lying. If you’ve published actual articles on ‘evolutionary matters’ you should have no problem identifying yourself, showing us proof of where you were a professor, and directing us to your published articles.

If not we can only conclude you’re a pompous 14 year old with a rich fantasy life.

I now am working as a Creation Scientist and hope to eventually have some of my own work peer reviewed in the future.

a) Creation ‘scientists’ don’t ‘work’ and (b) they don’t publish anything peer reviewed. Might wanna know that for when you grow up.

Comment #133520

Posted by stevaroni on September 24, 2006 1:45 PM (e)

YC says….

There seems to be no conclusive evidence in any way shape or form to conclude Natural Selection as Scientifically plausible in the least.

I’m quite surprised that of all the diverse elements of evolution as we currently understand it, it’s one of the most straightforward bits, natural selection, that’s the sticking point for you.

Because, frankly, natural selection is probably the most directly accessible and observable part of evolution in everyday life.

Unlike DNA or genetics, you don’t need a microscope or a garden full of pea pods to see it happening. You don’t have to take anybody’s word on how base pairs attach, or what transitional dinosaurs looked like.

Natural selection (or more properly, variation with natural selection) is part of our common experience, we see it every day.

It’s pretty obvious to even the casual observer that the offspring of a pair of animals will differ slightly.

Who among us hasn’t reached into a litter of puppies or kittens and said “This one is special”?

Who among us hasn’t noticed differences between ourselves and our siblings, or our friends and their siblings?

The offspring of a given pair just vary a little. That’s uncontestable.

It’s also pretty obvious that most animals produce many more young than will actually survive long enough to be breeding adults.

I shudder to think of what the world would look like if all the maggots I see in my garbage actually lived to become flies.

And lastly, even the most casual observer of nature realizes that usually, the weakest and most exposed die first. The slowest gazelle, the less-insulated arctic hare, the insect that calls too much attention to itself, these are natures low-hanging fruit.

Oh, and the low-hanging fruit. Can’t forget the plant kingdom.

Put the three steps together, and the outcome does not bode well for survival of the weakest, and on a basic level, most of us can easily understand this.

If there’s any one piece of evolution that should be accessible and familiar to just about everyone, natural selection certainly fills the bill.

What don’t you like about it?

Comment #133536

Posted by Anton Mates on September 24, 2006 2:17 PM (e)

stevaroni wrote:

Because, frankly, natural selection is probably the most directly accessible and observable part of evolution in everyday life.

It’s also the part whose truth is so incredibly obvious that creationists call it a “tautology.”

Comment #133548

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 24, 2006 3:00 PM (e)

Offspring differing slightly does not grant Natural Selection. What you would have to find is a genetic mutation with benefit that would provide new information, and this has yet to be derived. By now, if Natural Selection were to be true, we would have found plenty of these examples, but not one provided. The 2nd example provides evidence for Variation, but in no way can it be deduced that there is a necessity for Natural Selection to be true based on this. Thats a jump in logic. The 1st 2 examples imply Variation, and thats already been concluded to be true.
The third example, regarding the Survival of the Fittest does not work either. This is a major problem, because we also do observe the Survival of the Weakest and the Survival of the Luckiest. Again, no evidential support of Natural Selection.
A final problem is that this Science fails to look at the Historical Epistemology, which we can most definitely be certain of, behind the Origin Science of Species. Natural Selection has a problem right off the bat. My friend JP Holding one time pointed out a significant problem. This was: “I never argue it, but it seems to me natural selection has a serious problem: If a mutation is too small, how will it help the thing that gets it survive better than others? If its too big, how will the thing know how to use it properly (even assuming megamutations happen)? If it is “just right” (whatever that might mean) how do we know it will definitely help the thing outstrip others – did we do a test? And why should we believe this stuff when we only have at best evidence for .000000001% of all the mutations that ever happened? If I had to change my mind it would be to periodic special creation on an older earth.”
To this, I conclude Natural Selection to be unfalsifiable and vacuous of evidence. Sorry guys, I just don’t have enough faith to be an Evolutionist.
To the comment about thoughts and rationale, the Scientific laws are built off of the laws of logic. They come first, then your Scientific laws come next. The laws of logic are indemonstrable, and since not all knowledge is demonstrable, this is fine. They are the foundation that we build the rest of our knowledge off of. You mentioned how you thought these laws were ontological? No they are not, in fact they are epistemic. They are so unique that they are not even assumed a priori. They are instead, self evident principles that need no explanation, no demonstration, no proof, no foundation. Heisenberg’s principle of uncertainty is what you would probably want to argue here, but since they are ontological and not epistemological, the argument is halted on the spot.

Science could not exist without Philosophy. Philosophy could not exist without these principles. Accurate Philosophies can not exist without the laws of logic. Likewise it follows, accurate Science can not exist without an accurate Philosophy deriving it in the first place, since Philosophy entails Metaphysics. In other words, Philosophy founds out what is real. Science could not be real, or have any truth behind it without Philosophy. I have found when evaluating the evidence in this concise manner, Creation Science can not be afforded to be denied. This is where Creation Science has you beat. Yes the United States and other nations may accept Evolution, but the fact of the matter is, they are simply wrong for doing so. Their worldview is based around Materialism and Naturalism for the most part, undercut by Josh McDowell’s excellently written book, “The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict.” This is a good place to evaluate the accuracy of miracles, as well as Metaphysical Realism as a whole. It simply makes sense. Evolution on the other hand, is nothing more than senselessness.

Comment #133552

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 24, 2006 3:13 PM (e)

Oh might I add, nothing with certain Tautologies. Did you happen to read over that text that I gave you? The fallacy files? Lets try this again in retrospect.

So no, we are not invoking the “one-sidedness” if you will.

Here’s a good overview for what a Tautology is. Mind you, without Tautology, math is unable to be. Yet, math is necessarily true.

“Begging the Question
Alias:
Circular Argument
Circulus in Probando
Petitio Principii
Vicious Circle
Etymology:
The phrase “begging the question”, or “petitio principii” in Latin, refers to the “question” in a formal debate—that is, the issue being debated. In such a debate, one side may ask the other side to concede certain points in order to speed up the proceedings. To “beg” the question is to ask that the very point at issue be conceded, which is of course illegitimate.

Type: Informal Fallacy

Form:
Any form of argument in which the conclusion occurs as one of the premisses, or a chain of arguments in which the final conclusion is a premiss of one of the earlier arguments in the chain. More generally, an argument begs the question when it assumes any controversial point not conceded by the other side.

Example:
To cast abortion as a solely private moral question,…is to lose touch with common sense: How human beings treat one another is practically the definition of a public moral matter. Of course, there are many private aspects of human relations, but the question whether one human being should be allowed fatally to harm another is not one of them. Abortion is an inescapably public matter.
Source: Helen M. Alvaré, The Abortion Controversy, Greenhaven, 1995, p. 23.

Analysis

Exposition:
Unlike most informal fallacies, Begging the Question is a validating form of argument. Moreover, if the premisses of an instance of Begging the Question happen to be true, then the argument is sound. What is wrong, then, with Begging the Question?

First of all, not all circular reasoning is fallacious. Suppose, for instance, that we argue that a number of propositions, p1, p2,…, pn are equivalent by arguing as follows (where “p => q” means that p implies q):

p1 => p2 => … => pn => p1

Then we have clearly argued in a circle, but this is a standard form of argument in mathematics to show that a set of propositions are all equivalent to each other. So, when is it fallacious to argue in a circle?

For an argument to have any epistemological or dialectical force, it must start from premisses already known or believed by its audience, and proceed to infer a conclusion not known or believed. This, of course, rules out the worst cases of Begging the Question, when the conclusion is the very same proposition as the premiss, since one cannot both believe and not believe the same thing. Any viciously circular argument is one which attempts to infer a conclusion based ultimately upon that conclusion itself. Such arguments can never advance our knowledge.

Exposure:
The phrase “begs the question” has come to be used to mean “raises the question” or “suggests the question”, as in “that begs the question” followed by the question supposedly begged. The following headlines are examples:

Warm Weather Begs the Question:
To Water or Not to Water Yard Plants
Latest Internet Fracas Begs the Question:
Who’s Driving the Internet Bus?
Hot Holiday Begs Big Question:
Can the Party Continue?
This is a confusing usage which is apparently based upon a literal misreading of the phrase “begs the question”. It should be avoided, and must be distinguished from its use to refer to the fallacy.

Subfallacies:

Question-Begging Analogy
Loaded Words
Source:
S. Morris Engel, With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies (Fifth Edition) (St. Martin’s, 1994), pp. 144-149

Resources:
Julian Baggini, “Begging the Question”, Bad Moves, 7/13/2004
Robert Todd Carroll, “Begging the Question”, Skeptic’s Dictionary
Douglas N. Walton, “The Essential Ingredients of the Fallacy of Begging the Question”, in Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings, edited by Hans V. Hanson and Robert C. Pinto (Penn State Press, 1995), pp. 229-239
Acknowledgements:
Thanks to Christopher Mork for a criticism which led me to revise the Form and add the Etymology. The M.C. Escher art print is available from AllPosters.

——————————————————————————–

Analysis of the Example:
This argument begs the question because it assumes that abortion involves one human being fatally harming another. However, those who argue that abortion is a private matter reject this very premiss. In contrast, they believe that only one human being is involved in abortion—the woman—and it is, therefore, her private decision.”

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html

Okay, as I explained before, if I were to say, “this evidence supports the Bible” thats fine, as long as it conclusively supports the Bible, which in most cases within Archaeological studies, it does. This would be linear reasoning, as such a tautology may be linear.

What can not be is begging the question or circular reasoning. If I were to say that the premises behind the content of Natural Selection would be of course survival of the fittest, and I ask, “who were the survival” the only answer that could be given would be “the fittest.” Who were the fittest, is the next question I’d ask and then by saying, “the ones who survived” THIS establishes the fallacy of begging the question. The difference is obvious. If you need help understanding it, I’m happy to explain.

Comment #133555

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 24, 2006 3:20 PM (e)

Oh might I add, nothing with certain Tautologies. Did you happen to read over that text that I gave you? The fallacy files? Lets try this again in retrospect.

So no, we are not invoking the “one-sidedness” if you will.

Here’s a good overview for what a Tautology is. Mind you, without Tautology, math is unable to be. Yet, math is necessarily true.

“Begging the Question
Alias:
Circular Argument
Circulus in Probando
Petitio Principii
Vicious Circle
Etymology:
The phrase “begging the question”, or “petitio principii” in Latin, refers to the “question” in a formal debate—that is, the issue being debated. In such a debate, one side may ask the other side to concede certain points in order to speed up the proceedings. To “beg” the question is to ask that the very point at issue be conceded, which is of course illegitimate.

Type: Informal Fallacy

Form:
Any form of argument in which the conclusion occurs as one of the premisses, or a chain of arguments in which the final conclusion is a premiss of one of the earlier arguments in the chain. More generally, an argument begs the question when it assumes any controversial point not conceded by the other side.

Example:
To cast abortion as a solely private moral question,…is to lose touch with common sense: How human beings treat one another is practically the definition of a public moral matter. Of course, there are many private aspects of human relations, but the question whether one human being should be allowed fatally to harm another is not one of them. Abortion is an inescapably public matter.
Source: Helen M. Alvaré, The Abortion Controversy, Greenhaven, 1995, p. 23.

Analysis

Exposition:
Unlike most informal fallacies, Begging the Question is a validating form of argument. Moreover, if the premisses of an instance of Begging the Question happen to be true, then the argument is sound. What is wrong, then, with Begging the Question?

First of all, not all circular reasoning is fallacious. Suppose, for instance, that we argue that a number of propositions, p1, p2,…, pn are equivalent by arguing as follows (where “p => q” means that p implies q):

p1 => p2 => … => pn => p1

Then we have clearly argued in a circle, but this is a standard form of argument in mathematics to show that a set of propositions are all equivalent to each other. So, when is it fallacious to argue in a circle?

For an argument to have any epistemological or dialectical force, it must start from premisses already known or believed by its audience, and proceed to infer a conclusion not known or believed. This, of course, rules out the worst cases of Begging the Question, when the conclusion is the very same proposition as the premiss, since one cannot both believe and not believe the same thing. Any viciously circular argument is one which attempts to infer a conclusion based ultimately upon that conclusion itself. Such arguments can never advance our knowledge.

Exposure:
The phrase “begs the question” has come to be used to mean “raises the question” or “suggests the question”, as in “that begs the question” followed by the question supposedly begged. The following headlines are examples:

Warm Weather Begs the Question:
To Water or Not to Water Yard Plants
Latest Internet Fracas Begs the Question:
Who’s Driving the Internet Bus?
Hot Holiday Begs Big Question:
Can the Party Continue?
This is a confusing usage which is apparently based upon a literal misreading of the phrase “begs the question”. It should be avoided, and must be distinguished from its use to refer to the fallacy.

Subfallacies:

Question-Begging Analogy
Loaded Words
Source:
S. Morris Engel, With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies (Fifth Edition) (St. Martin’s, 1994), pp. 144-149

Resources:
Julian Baggini, “Begging the Question”, Bad Moves, 7/13/2004
Robert Todd Carroll, “Begging the Question”, Skeptic’s Dictionary
Douglas N. Walton, “The Essential Ingredients of the Fallacy of Begging the Question”, in Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings, edited by Hans V. Hanson and Robert C. Pinto (Penn State Press, 1995), pp. 229-239
Acknowledgements:
Thanks to Christopher Mork for a criticism which led me to revise the Form and add the Etymology. The M.C. Escher art print is available from AllPosters.

——————————————————————————–

Analysis of the Example:
This argument begs the question because it assumes that abortion involves one human being fatally harming another. However, those who argue that abortion is a private matter reject this very premiss. In contrast, they believe that only one human being is involved in abortion—the woman—and it is, therefore, her private decision.”

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html

Okay, as I explained before, if I were to say, “this evidence supports the Bible” thats fine, as long as it conclusively supports the Bible, which in most cases within Archaeological studies, it does. This would be linear reasoning, as such a tautology may be linear.

What can not be is begging the question or circular reasoning. If I were to say that the premises behind the content of Natural Selection would be of course survival of the fittest, and I ask, “who were the survival” the only answer that could be given would be “the fittest.” Who were the fittest, is the next question I’d ask and then by saying, “the ones who survived” THIS establishes the fallacy of begging the question. The difference is obvious. If you need help understanding it, I’m happy to explain.

If I were to say, “How can we prove God?” I can state, The Bible proves God, then I’d have to go through Metaphysical proofs to show you how to get there, but that analysis is possible.

If you were to say, “How do we prove Natural Selection” you’d probably come up with an answer like, “Darwin termed Natural Selection as ‘survival of the fittest.’” Thats fine, so the premise for the survival of the fittest is nowhere! And thats the problematic scenario, and difference between point A, and point B. We can find plenty of evidence for point A, but point B is a different scenario, and the premise is that of the Philosophically default position that MUST be seen as self evident, even beyond the laws of logic. That position is Theism!

This is the reason no one has been able to, and no one will be able to refute Christianity, without of course providing a strawman argument for it. You would actually have to BE God, or something greater than God, and not based on a presupposition you might have, but something even stronger than that, in order to soundly refute God. I have discovered recently that we have actual proof of God’s Metaphysical nature, at least at he exists within our nature through a subject called Theodicy. This is problematic to the Skeptic, and as such, can be determined to be an irrefutable fact of God.

Basically, I’m trying to say, one must be ignorant in order to reject Christianity! And I mean that literally so.

But at any rate, thats Philosophical and Theological, so lets keep this at the Creation Science level. Many people have a hard time actually being able to distinguish between the two, which results in abuses of Etymology, and we have the problems of thinking Creation Science is itself a Philosophy.

No, Creation Science is Science. It is indeed an observation of how things interract with each other, as well as a closer look at the Origins of Science and how in fact we got here in the first place.

Comment #133556

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 24, 2006 3:24 PM (e)

We can argue Jesus = God, since his supernatural ability to rise from the dead implies his deity. It puts his position within the realm of Metaphysics, and God alone can overcome death, so as it infers, Jesus Christ is God.

Thats tautology, but necessarily true in this case.

With Evolution, we have a bit of a problem. The Natural Selection case is not a case in which the tautology is necessarily true. That is senseless babble and tells us nothing new.

Comment #133559

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 24, 2006 3:36 PM (e)

Okay then wise guys.

With physical evidence, prove the statements you are making to me!

I’d love to see that one :).

It’d be interested in a world without language if I was to show you what I can express linguistically as a “garbage can” and you would have no idea what it was. Do you see the absurdity of your proposition?

Physical evidence does not entail everything. Knowledge can be entailed without physical evidence. This is why logic comes before Science!

Comment #133564

Posted by Anton Mates on September 24, 2006 3:51 PM (e)

Dr. Michael Martin wrote:

What you would have to find is a genetic mutation with benefit that would provide new information, and this has yet to be derived.

Sigh…you just said you conceded the existence of variation. That’s all natural selection requires. It doesn’t care whether you think some of those variations “have benefit” or “provide new information.” If there’s variation, natural selection will select some variants over others. Even if, as you claim, all new variations were harmful, we’d still have stablizing selection.

With Evolution, we have a bit of a problem. The Natural Selection case is not a case in which the tautology is necessarily true.

Tautologies are true by definition. Sheesh.

Comment #133574

Posted by jeffw on September 24, 2006 4:12 PM (e)

With physical evidence, prove the statements you are making to me!

See www.talkorigins.org. If that doesn’t help, than nothing will.

Physical evidence does not entail everything. Knowledge can be entailed without physical evidence. This is why logic comes before Science!

You just asked for physical evidence and now you say that it’s irrelevant?

No, consistency comes before science, not logic. Science assumes only two things: 1) that the world can be observed, and 2) that it is consistent (repeatable observation).

There are all kinds of imaginary mathematics and logics that are consistent, but have no basis in reality. Observation is required to tie things down to the real world.

Comment #133583

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on September 24, 2006 4:45 PM (e)

Dudes, why on earth are y’all paying any attention whatever to this long-winded lying blowhard?

“Dr”, my ass.

Comment #133586

Posted by Trollheim Pharm. & San., S.A. on September 24, 2006 4:51 PM (e)

Ach, please to excuse our English. But we have eine, a small kind of problem.

The one who makes all this “logic” talking here, this “Dr. Michael Martin”–also he has named himself as “Your Competitior”–our Martin, he has a slight problem of, how you say, maintaining individuation? Individual identity, ja?.

This young person is, ah, how you say, a client of our institution? Facility? Is a kind of, eh, school or place of therapy, yes? For the troubled young ones–the youth?–where we have been helping Martin, just to get a better, eh, handle on himself.

Martin’s family and fruende–friends!–have placed him in, ah, that is, have entrusted us with his care. Every moment that Martin misses his therapy–and his medication–his mind, his, um, mental fuctioning, is at risk.

So, please to stop getting in the way of the men in the white clinical garments with the, ah, butterfliegende, ah, butterfly nets–our employees–with the, eh, restraint devices! You would say–client security operators? Client comfort attendants? Ja, that is them!

We vor–er, understand that you just to befriend young Martin are seeking. But please now, we beg you, to allow the Trollheim client comfort attendants to recapt–eh, gently escort Martin back to our, eh, school.

We thank you–Martin and his family thank you–for your most kind assistance!

Nurse Bettinke

Comment #133588

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 24, 2006 4:56 PM (e)

You act as if Natural Selection is a thinking process here. A distinction is necessary in seeing the difference.

Variation = Evolution within an organism

Natural Selection entails Evolution outside of an organism.

Consistency is discovered through logic (rolls eyes). Do you think that it just magically appeared from somewhere? Did Evolution cause it?

In the case for a Logically consistent Tautology, it is necessarily true by definition.

In the form of rhetoric or logical fallacy, it is something that provides no new necessary information, and is NOT necessarily true by nature. This is so because it is redundant, which causes an error in reasoning.

The Law of Identity is an example of a Tautology. A=A or A is A. This would be necessarily true.

Begging the question is not necessarily true. Its redundant and may be false. Regardless, it can not be used to argue because of its flaw in reasoning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology

For more info, see above.

You have it mixed up here guys. Sorry.

I made no mention as well that evidence was not NECESSARY! It helps support the logic behind statements.

Evidence without logic is absurd however, because Evidence itself is not SELF INTERPRETING!

Comment #133591

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 24, 2006 4:59 PM (e)

Very cute. Sounds like an ignorant nurse to me if you will.

I love your David Hume logic btw. We’ve refuted that about 50 years ago. Keep beating the same dead horse.

Comment #133593

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 24, 2006 5:00 PM (e)

Very cute. Sounds like an ignorant nurse to me if you will.

I love your David Hume logic btw. We’ve refuted that about 50 years ago. Keep beating the same dead horse.

I see, typical Evolution tactic. Can’t refute the Creation Scientist argument, so duck and run.

Comment #133597

Posted by Trollheim Pharm. & San., S.A. on September 24, 2006 5:06 PM (e)

Ach! Schade!

I hope you can now better see in what a sad way is our poor Martin! The sooner he gets help, the better…!

Please to help the nice men! Please stop talking to und distracting our poor Martin!

Please! Just step to one side. Oh, we thank you so, we do!

Nurse Bettinke, sounding distraught!

Comment #133598

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 24, 2006 5:06 PM (e)

If you SAY Evolution caused FYI, you commit a Reification fallacy. If I say God caused logic, I can get away with it because of the nature of God. If we were dealing with finite instances, in some cases, this would be a double standard, but since I can show the validity of my position and your invalidity, it is not in this case.

Comment #133600

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 24, 2006 5:07 PM (e)

If you SAY Evolution caused logical consistency FYI, you commit a Reification fallacy. If I say God caused logic, I can get away with it because of the nature of God. If we were dealing with finite instances, in some cases, this would be a double standard, but since I can show the validity of my position and your invalidity, it is not in this case.

Comment #133602

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 24, 2006 5:09 PM (e)

Do you think this impresses me in the least? Come on, if anybody is acting like a 14 year old, you hold the burden of evidence here. You are acting very immature.

Comment #133603

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 24, 2006 5:10 PM (e)

If you think I’m such a nut case, you should easily be able to argue against what I am telling you right now. Go ahead hot shot.

Comment #133605

Posted by Trollheim Pharm. & San., S.A. on September 24, 2006 5:15 PM (e)

Ach! Nurse Bettinke again, sounding increasingly desperate, her Scandanavian accent now quite heavy.

You see in what a state he is!

–Martin, please to calm yourself!–

O! He ban, been, stutterink–eh, what you call, doppel-posting–and now he to babble is starting!

Always at the dark of the moon, he his worst is becoming! We should have him more carefully ge-watched!

Und now he is loose on der Internet! O!

Comment #133606

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 24, 2006 5:18 PM (e)

I might add, the Greeks beat Kiri Kara Tan or whoever that Star Trek guy was to the punch!

Nothing Unreal Exists is a real concept discovered by the Greeks.

The laws of Metaphysics are NOT real.

Although I do like them, insofar as what they show, such as that Nothing Changeless Persists, since Change was actually derived from a Greek word that meant repent back to Jesus Christ.

Comment #133607

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 24, 2006 5:20 PM (e)

Guess I won the debate. Thanks guys :).

Its been fun, but as usual, Creation Scientists have the better arguments (as Evolutionists have admitted).

Now why on earth do you suppose that is true?

Comment #133608

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 24, 2006 5:22 PM (e)

Quote collecting by the right guys I suppose, right?

Is that what you mean by quote mining by the right?

Comment #133609

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 24, 2006 5:23 PM (e)

Quote collecting by the right guys I suppose, right?

Is that what you mean by quote mining by the right?

Wouldn’t that make you wrong?

Comment #133611

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 24, 2006 5:25 PM (e)

You have not provided me a single piece of evidence to refute that I have NOT yet refuted yet.

To this I conclude there must be absolutely no evidence for Evolution. By your own standards, your arguments fail.

Makes me feel pretty good about the position I’m at right now.

Comment #133613

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 24, 2006 5:27 PM (e)

Leaning back in reclining chair>

Ho Hum :).

Comment #133614

Posted by Henry J on September 24, 2006 5:33 PM (e)

Re “It’s also the part whose truth is so incredibly obvious that creationists call it a “tautology.””

And in a constant environment, it would be one. But, environments change over time.

The irony there is of course that if it were a tautology, it’d be true regardless of evidence or lack thereof, and isn’t that the exact opposite of what antievolutionists want?

Henry

Comment #133617

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 24, 2006 5:39 PM (e)

Eugenie Scott: “In my opinion, using creation and evolution as topics for critical-thinking exercises in primary and secondary schools is virtually guaranteed to confuse students about evolution and may lead them to reject one of the major themes in science.”

Has Evolution been observed?

Richard Darwkins: ‘Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.’

FYI: this is called FAITH, by the American terminology, and by the Christian terminology “BLIND” faith.

Is Evolution based around philosophy? Oddly enough:

James Hutton: ‘the past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now … No powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle’

Materialism anybody?

Comment #133618

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 24, 2006 5:45 PM (e)

The problem with your example is you are relating Naturalistic laws to the Supernatural properties that Creation Scientists go by. This leads to bizarre and absurd conclusions.

The Evolution community does not want the laws of logic to be true (and heck, who could blame them, they imply the supernatural in and within themselves). When I was an Evolutionist myself, our goal was to always try to say, “well maybe tomorrow the evidence will lead us to believe this” without invoking a “god of the gaps” as we called it. However, I noticed something very peculiar within the Evolution community. The evidence wasn’t changing or growing. This led me to question some of whether this stuff would be ‘proven’ tomorrow or not, and now I realize why it will not. Thats the point here, you have no way of counterbalancing the arguments, and the evidence that has been provided has been shown by the Creation Science community to be primarily moot within the Evolution side of the coin. Creation Science in turn has provided evidence of its own to conclude their own position as valid and true. Unfortunately, it seems to have been largely ignored by many on the ID side and the Evolution side.

Comment #133621

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 24, 2006 5:49 PM (e)

It turns out many arguments for God are not invoked via ‘god of the gaps’ arguments. This has long since been gotten around by the best of Christian Philosophers in our community.

Comment #133625

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 24, 2006 6:07 PM (e)

I respect you guys and your rights to have opinions, however, there are things that are much bigger in life than just opinions on the matter, and this is what I’m trying to open your minds up to the possibility of. Truth exists. Facts can help back this truth up. However, Evolution itself is NOT truth! That one belongs to Christ alone.

Again, if you’re interested in doing some hardcore study, study up on www.christian-thinktank.com. Its very insightful. The gentleman who runs the site, Dr. Glenn Miller, has a PHD in Computer Science and another PHD in Theology. He is a very well educated man and surpasses much (if not perhaps all) of any type of critique you can find on the web today.

I also have access to a ton of Creation Science resources and can probably get any type of answer that you are skeptical of regarding Creation Science. You may want to check out the Teleological, Cosmological and Ontological arguments for the existence of God. They are quite incredible proofs!

And no, I’m not talking about your basic AIG articles and ICR. AIG is fine, but thats a locally run site, which really doesn’t provide as many answers as the Big Boys do. We most definitely think that the universally run Creation Science sites are much better, even though we do not discredit our own articles as being generally accurate.

Comment #133629

Posted by Steviepinhead on September 24, 2006 6:25 PM (e)

New Moon Loon:

Dr. Glenn Miller, has a PHD in Computer Science and another PHD in Theology.

Ah, but where’s that all-important degree
That starts with a “B”
And rhymes with Mycology?

Oh, oops, how silly of me
Glenn has a degree
That starts with a “B”

Big-Band-Ology!

Hey, dang! Watch where you’re waving that net!

Comment #133639

Posted by jeffw on September 24, 2006 6:45 PM (e)

“Dr Martin” - thanks for your site recommendation! We have one for you too, which I think you will find very interesting: http://www.venganza.org/. It’s a brand new religion, and it could change your life! I know it’s changed mine.

Oh, and on a personal note - you wouldn’t happen to be related to a guy named davison, would you? How about fafarman?

Comment #133645

Posted by Nurse Bettinke on September 24, 2006 7:01 PM (e)

Oh, it makes me so sad to hear little Larry’s name again! Little Larry was one of ours, too (“Fafarman” is a Scandanavian name, you know)–but we never have gotten him back!

O! He got some nasty American lawyer (oh, indeed, I know that all Americans are not nasty; maybe even all lawyers aren’t nasty, too!)…

But this one turned over (is that how you say it?) the, eh, “commitment.” You have such funny laws in your states! And don’t even about California get me to talking!

And so–alas and alack!–Little Larry was lost to us.

He was no relation to our Little Martin, no, but they do share some of the same problem, ja? I think anyone could see that, yes?

So, when you see what has to Little Larry happened, then you can see how important it will be for us to catch, eh, to bring our jungen Martin back to his home, ja?

Before he worse becomes! Or, Odin forfend, before he meets up with some lawyer…!

Sound of tearful sobbing.

Comment #133648

Posted by Steviepinhead on September 24, 2006 7:08 PM (e)

I know this is a little off-topic, but do troll-nurses really talk like Yoda?

Is there some interdimensional portal that gives access from a galaxy long ago and far away to Asgard?

Could there be, um, gene-flow between the two?

And now, we return to todays exciting tape of Prof. Martin’s latest lecture in “Current Issues in Troll Apoplectics (Ab. Psych. 447)”…

Comment #133649

Posted by Nurse Bettinke on September 24, 2006 7:16 PM (e)

From just off-stage, sotto voce, but still sniffling quietly:

“But how come these mortals to know of Head Therapist Yotta?”

Comment #133680

Posted by stevaroni on September 24, 2006 9:41 PM (e)

YC/Dr.MM writes…
Offspring differing slightly does not grant Natural Selection.

Survival of the Fittest does not work either. This is a major problem, because we also do observe the Survival of the Weakest and the Survival of the Luckiest. Again, no evidential support of Natural Selection.Hmmm.

So there’s no significant physical, mental, or adaptational difference between, say, you and your siblings?

If we were to drop you on the African savanna right now, in front of a pride of hungry lions, all of you would be just as statistically likely as the others to be eaten?

It isn’t conceivable that one of you just might have a slight advantage over the others? One that might make you a little more likely to survive? Each of you can run exactly as fast as the others? Each of you can climb trees and build shelters and out-think predators just as well as the rest?

There isn’t any difference between you that gives one of you survival odds just a teeny bit better, or worse, than the rest?

No difference at all you say?

You come from a truly unique family, methinks.

That, and you probably don’t watch “Survivor” very much.

But I think for most of us, there’s be some kind of variation, and when the rubber meets the road (or the soles met the savanna, as it were) some of us might be a little better suited to survive than others.

Especially since even a very slight difference is an extremely significant when run for a few generations.

After all, if I and my descendants are only 1% better than you and yours at surviving and breeding, the odds of you being around at the end of 1000 generations is about .003%

Comment #133686

Posted by Sounder on September 24, 2006 10:17 PM (e)

Man, I wish I had the stamina to post every two minutes….’Course, if my posts were all three sentences long, it wouldn’t be so bad. Then i could clutter up pages with worthless dick-waving posts all I wanted.

Saaaaay…..

Comment #133688

Posted by Sounder on September 24, 2006 10:19 PM (e)

Oh, and the good doctor’s irrefutable logic has compelled me. Quick, where’s the nearest baptismal font?

Comment #133693

Posted by Sir_Toejam on September 24, 2006 10:41 PM (e)

The gentleman who runs the site, Dr. Glenn Miller(and his orchestra), has a PHD in Computer Science and another PHD in Theology (and another in big band musicology). He is a very well educated man(and leads a great orchestra) and surpasses much (if not perhaps all) of any type of critiqueother band leaders you can find on the web today.

yes I’m sure he will play us all a very common tune, which will be as far from “truth” as any other bit of make believe you can spout.

Comment #133694

Posted by Sir_Toejam on September 24, 2006 10:44 PM (e)

When I was an Evolutionist myself…

I gotta call shenanigans on that one.

Comment #133707

Posted by stevaroni on September 24, 2006 11:48 PM (e)

Dr MM/TC rhetorically asked

Has Evolution been observed?

Actually - and it’s important to remember this - it has been observed, and it has been documented.

I think the latest count of well documented speciation events (where a species diverges to the point where the two branches no longer interbreed with each other) is up to about 17 well documented examples.

This is important, because once you demonstrate that nature can get to that threshold, the game is over. If you admit that “microevolution” exists (as most of the more serious creation types have had to do in the face of overwhelming evidence) then demonstrate that speciation happens, there are no thresholds left to cross.

Microevolution repeated endlessly becomes macroevolution, there’s no mechanism to fight divergence.

(I’ll leave it to others to direct you to the full documented speciation list, since I don’t have it handy, but it’s not at all hard to find).

Comment #133735

Posted by peter miesler on September 25, 2006 1:36 AM (e)

Allow me to share the following:

Recently, I had the opportunity to discuss Creationism with a bright young student. She challenged me with remarks about Earth’s true short age; Grand Canyon being evidence of Noah’s Flood; even that coal can be produced in a matter of months under proper pressure and heat. She went on to explain God’s plan included an imminent Armageddon - that is, destroying his own creation ala End Days hype. When I countered with facts debunking these notions she became defensive, saying that to attack someone’s faith was a horrible thing to do.

It caused me to wonder why so many feel compelled to embrace willful ignorance. By that, I mean a willful ignoring of masses of real, verifiable and available evidence simply because it conflicts with one’s own preconceptions and challenges one’s fears. With this in mind, I would like to share the following with those who believe the truth can only be found within a single mind set, or book.

What is science? Real scientists - especially the great ones - started out as kids totally amazed at the world they saw (discovered) around themselves. What’s out there? How it works? Why it works the way it does? What it all means? At its core science is that natural awe and curiosity at god’s creation all grown up.

What is science’s sin? Science established straight-forward rules and guidelines in order to organize our inborn desire to pursue an understanding of the miraculous creation we witness around us. These rules are solid and won’t be bent for those who have convinced themselves they are gifted with superior insights. If those “superior insights” can’t pass the scientifically established hurdles they are not allowed within the arena of science. It is fitting and proper that agenda driven unsupported opinions remain outside this venue of science. There are other realms these beliefs belong to such as politics, philosophy, religion.

The best thing about science’s rules aren’t what they reject but rather all they are open to. Science’s guidelines are organized in such a way that any member of humanity, from any point on our globe, has the opportunity to participate, even to revolutionize long held beliefs. As long as they are thoughtful enough to adhere to the rules while presenting convincing and verifiable arguments.

Too many ignore what’s written in the Holy Book: “God surpasses all human understanding.” Not one of us has either the authority, nor the justification, to tag God with certitude. We should be clear and appreciative that science is one of humanity’s paths toward an inkling of understanding, or truth if you want. Always remembering that other paths such as those provided by the religions that abound are also relevant. Like the solid and void of a picture frame we need them both.

Comment #133853

Posted by stevaroni on September 25, 2006 8:22 AM (e)

I know this is a little off-topic, but do troll-nurses really talk like Yoda?

Blaspheme the Great Green One thou should not, young Pinhead.

Comment #133882

Posted by stevearoni on September 25, 2006 9:39 AM (e)

Peter wrote

Recently, I had the opportunity to discuss Creationism with a bright young student. She challenged me with … Earth’s true short age … Noah’s Flood. When I countered with facts debunking these notions she became defensive, saying that to attack someone’s faith was a horrible thing to do.

Don’t forget, it was only about her faith because she made it about her faith. There’s nothing religious about plate tektonics or hydrology. A demonstrable fact of nature is a demonstrable fact of nature whether God exists or not.

If her religion insists that she pretend that simple, easy to prove laws of physics don’t exist, well, I don’t see how you’re responsible for that.

When people open their mouths and say “this is what I believe”, then that’s about faith, and they should be left alone.

When people open their mouths and say “this is a fact” then that’s about science and it’s perfectly acceptable to demand objective truth.

Comment #133898

Posted by Anton Mates on September 25, 2006 10:48 AM (e)

stevaroni wrote:

(I’ll leave it to others to direct you to the full documented speciation list, since I don’t have it handy, but it’s not at all hard to find).

Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events

Neither of these mentions the two cases of “living cancers,” Helacyton gartleri in humans and Sticker’s sarcoma in dogs, which are really spectacular speciation examples and blow the reflexive Creationist “Well, they may have changed a little but they’re still just [x]” argument out of the water.

Comment #133912

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on September 25, 2006 11:28 AM (e)

NB/TP:
““Fafarman” is a Scandanavian [sic!] name, you know”

Not any I recognise, not even close. The closest I can think of in my own language is “färdman”, which is a mostly disused, perhaps dialectal, term for travelling person, and quite a reach (but not impossible) as a name.

But the real problem is the stuttering in front, it doesn’t seem like a pervertation of anything recognisable, really.

Actually, the only feasible stuttering production it could be from, and that it is close to, is “farfar”, ‘fathers-father’ or grandpa. But how in @#%!, if you excuse my french, do you put that in front of ‘man’ and make it a name without having people from earlier generations constantly laugh at you? Even a sloppy ‘fa-far’ would be still be recognisable. If not someone nonscandinavian thought it was a name. That would have been both funny and laughable! I would like to know the ethymology of that name if it’s a real one, especially if it has scandinavian roots.

Actually what it naturally sounds to me (since ‘farfarsman’ is an ‘impossible’ interpretation it doesn’t activate any neurons) is not scandinavian: ‘Babar-man’, “small plushy elephant man”.

Though I don’t think that anyone using germanic names like “Bettinke” or germaniced sentences with “ach”, “ja”, “der”, “eine”, “stutterink”, et cetera, instead of scandinavian words and affectations would be an expert here…

Comment #133915

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on September 25, 2006 11:42 AM (e)

“(since ‘farfarsman’ is an ‘impossible’ interpretation it doesn’t activate any neurons)”

Actually, I think it is suppressed, as a mistaken concatenation. It took me a while to think of “farfar”, while “Babar” is immediate and what I now associate with Fafarman. I guess Babar-man is what you would think of a Babar-like person, while a farfars-like person would be a person “lik farfar” instead.

Comment #133916

Posted by Anton Mates on September 25, 2006 11:43 AM (e)

Torbjörn Larsson wrote:

NB/TP:
““Fafarman” is a Scandanavian [sic!] name, you know”

Not any I recognise, not even close. The closest I can think of in my own language is “färdman”, which is a mostly disused, perhaps dialectal, term for travelling person, and quite a reach (but not impossible) as a name.

But the real problem is the stuttering in front, it doesn’t seem like a pervertation of anything recognisable, really.

Perhaps it was distorted at Ellis Island?

Comment #133918

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on September 25, 2006 11:50 AM (e)

Umm, and since active suppression rules from implicit concatenation rules likely differ between languages: the above analysis is in swedish.

Feel free to think that possibly other scandinavians doesn’t have fun when they hear “Fafarman”. :-)

Comment #133919

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on September 25, 2006 11:57 AM (e)

Anton:

Yes, that could be it! Sorry, I forgot that yesterdays immigration happened with non-standard 8if any) documentation and that the immigration waves of swedes were mostly poor farmers without english.

So perhaps it wasn’t funny then, and perhaps I shouldn’t laugh at it now. Ah well, laugh somehow fits Fafarman.

I will continue with the ‘Babar-man’ mind picture anyway, it isn’t as if my language processor give me much choice here. ;-)

Comment #133940

Posted by Nurse Bettinke on September 25, 2006 1:16 PM (e)

Eck! The folk in the Records Department now telling me are that Little Larry was from the Deep South. I had thought by that was meant Southern Scandanavia–maybe Oslo or Danemark (you say what now, Denmarch?). But they are telling me “Deep South” is from same part of America as cute little colonel with white pointy beardlet…

Point is–let’s not have to our little Marty what to our little Larry happened has.

And apologies also for my not fingering–typink, you say now?–English very good: other things uppermost in my mind I been having! Und when last we spent much time in Midgard realm, the Gothic, Germanic, and Norse languages sounded more closer than now they are doing…! No offenses are being intended to speakers of modern Scandanavian!

I don’t mean to impatient-sounding be, but would all you nice people stop crowding around little Martin: you are making the great difficulty for the clinical-garbed assistance persons, yes!

Bettinke, R.N. (Jottunheim Institute for the Study of the Physicking of Bodily and Mental Trauma, “Valkyrie” Award for Care of Battlefield Injuries, 884 C.E.; current with all CNE requirements.)

Comment #133944

Posted by Steviepinhead on September 25, 2006 1:20 PM (e)

Me, Master Yoda insult? Nay, I say thee, nay!

(Boy, probably a good thing I’m not the one trying to do the transliteration for Nurse B. of the Trollheim Gymnasium–or whatever the place is that, ahem, managed to misplace “our” little Martin…)

Comment #133952

Posted by Raging Bee on September 25, 2006 1:50 PM (e)

Doc Martin wrote:

However, I noticed something very peculiar within the Evolution community. The evidence wasn’t changing or growing.

The evidence was changing and growing every day, and still is. The only reason you saw no change, is that you weren’t looking.

What, exactly, are you a “doctor” of? Shoes? I guess that shouldn’t surprise anyone here, since we’ve already got lots of creationist drivel from “eye doctors.” (Are human feet “irreducibly complex?”)

Oh, and didn’t you get the memo? Intelligent Design is NOT Creationism! There’s more growth and change you haven’t been astute enough to notice.

Comment #133969

Posted by Stevaroni on September 25, 2006 2:56 PM (e)

Bee - go easy on the guy. OK, so he doesn’t argue really well, but he makes a really good shoe.

Comment #133977

Posted by Henry J on September 25, 2006 3:40 PM (e)

But does the shoe fit?

Comment #133979

Posted by Steviepinhead on September 25, 2006 4:00 PM (e)

“Doc” Martin, eh?

That would definitely explain his whole fascination with “soles.”

Comment #134287

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 4:32 PM (e)

Okay, you are repeating what I just said. Creation Science is not Intelligent Design. I am against Intelligent Design. Once again, please give me some of this “fascinating” evidence “all around us” that I apparently keep missing for some reason (that, through 10 months of rigorous trial, I somehow failed to come upon).

Oh, and lets see what your “hero” Charles Darwin had to say about the eye here guys:

“To suppose,” he admitted, “that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances … could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree” (Origin of Species, p. 146).

Absurd indeed, and I suppose we sense a hint of honesty here.

And this is the same guy that everybody in the Evolution community kept referencing me back to concerning the human eye. Charles Darwin admitted freely that his theory had no explanation for this wonder in nature.

Now, I think its quite ironic that you think I “can’t argue very well” when you have given me absolutely not a single badda badda bing thinga to argue against. If you wish to not look like a couple of monkeys yourselves, I’d recommend presenting some of this “hidden” evidence for Evolution I somehow keep missing.

Comment #134288

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 4:39 PM (e)

Venganza and the FSM?

We are talking about mixing apples and oranges. The FSM is a contingent being, contingent based on the fact that it is a material being, whether invisible or not, due to the fact that it is flying and made of spaghetti. God is not contingent and is immaterial.

Funny stuff, but try again.

Why don’t you get your heads out of the sand….and just for a single second, consider the other side of the equation (oh my goodness there’s actually two sides?).

Dr. Glenn Miller doesn’t research Biology, and Biology is not truth.

I invite anyone to actually argue legitimately, without of course using a strawman of any sort, against a God who doesn’t matter whether or not you believe in him or not, because he’s real regardless of your belief period!

Yeah, thats a bit a difficult task I’d say.

Might I add, impossible?

Comment #134289

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 4:42 PM (e)

Please let me know why I should accept your position a priori that Natural Selection is true?

Comment #134290

Posted by Sir_Toejam on September 26, 2006 4:43 PM (e)

“To suppose,” he admitted, “that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances … could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree” (Origin of Species, p. 146).

nice quote mine there. did you need a lesson on why misphrasing and taking quotes out of context is a bad thing?

here’s the actual passage from origins that is so often either misquoted or quotemined by dishonest creationists:

http://darwiniana.org/eyes.htm#Eyes

Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.

You sir, are either a rube who has been misled by your creation science “heroes”, or a dishonest charlatan in your own right.

Please tell us which one you are:

rube or liar.

the evidence only supports one or the other.

Comment #134291

Posted by Steviepinhead on September 26, 2006 4:52 PM (e)

Ah, “Doc,” your deliberate quote-mining of Darwin’s eye discussion immediately shows you to be an unethical liar, instead of any kind of honest Christian.

It also immediately shows you to be a moron, completely clueless to what this thread was even about in the first place (duh, quote mining, you dishonest quote-mining moron!).

You clearly haven’t engaged the material any deeper than a vanishingly superficial skim, despite your claims to have put in ten months–or whatever, now that we now you’re simply another lying moron, we truly don’t give a fig for anything further you might say–but, in the infinitisemal hope that you still have two neurons close enough together for the odd neurotransmitter molecule to leap the gap, here’s your latest moronic claim debunked:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part8.html.

Kinda fell right into that one with your eyes wide shut, didn’t ya, kid?

Stick to the shoes. At this site, you’ve been nailed, you’re all laced up, your act looks about as good as old shoe leather, you smell about as good as jock shoes left seven years in the locker…

Shouts off-stage: “Oh, Nurse Bettinke, over here…!”

Comment #134292

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 4:56 PM (e)

You seem to misunderstand what taking things out of context means. That would be, when one takes a small piece of the passage, and misrepresents it by proclaiming that the entire passage represents this one small piece that makes it support that individual’s side, even though the original author did not intend for the article’s passage to be presented and misappropriated in the light that it is shed. Its like taking one verse out of the Bible and saying, “well I can have slaves now, the Bible tells me so” when in fact it really refers to the Israel Convenant law. THATS taking something out of context. Not, “well…it seems that I disagree with the Creation side, so….blah blah blah blah.”

Thats interesting, this author argues against Darwinism. But if the author argues against his own position that he’s attempting to support, what does that make the author here? This is really silly, if you ask me.

This gives me further confidence after reading the quote that is now placed in context by this author…seeing as though it actually represents the intent of Darwin and how the Creation side presents its quote about Darwin as well.

Thats just sharing his opinion about it, and to that, I really say, who cares!

Lets take the quotes presented in the first site to the 2nd site: “To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”

This is what is presented on the Evolution side.

Now the Creation side:

“To suppose,” he admitted, “that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances … could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree” (Origin of Species, p. 146).

Same quote. NOT taken out of context. Just cut for brevity purposes. All that is left out here is the reasons Darwin questions the eye here. Darwin’s intent is left in tact here.

Would anyone like to explain to me how the bombardier beetle’s defense system, bird migrations (you know, how they gained this innate ability to know to migrate in the first place), the salmon’s amazing cycle, the decoy fish from the Hawaiian islands and gradual adaptations are supported by Evolution?

Comment #134295

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 5:03 PM (e)

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei [“the voice of the people = the voice of God “], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.”

When looking at this quote, we see nothing new really, except, If we can find these things, then great, it works. But I just can’t see it happening.

Not to mention, your founder self contradicts himself here. He states, no we can’t, then yes we can.

Might I also mention, Stephen J. Gould goes on to create a strawman in the Talk Origins site. Creation Scientists NEVER state that Darwin threw in the towel. What they state is that Darwin at times questions his own theory. He also misquotes Darwin’s intent here, as it is clear that Darwin’s true intention is to actually state the same old, “maybe tomorrow, we’ll find the answer” hyperbole.

Comment #134296

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 5:07 PM (e)

What is the intent here?

Darwin is stating that Natural Selection does not explain the human eye. This neither changes in quote no. 1,2 or 3. The only difference in no. 3 is that he states, well if we can figure out these things…perhaps, but…still questionable.

Comment #134297

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 5:16 PM (e)

Creation Science sites say:
“Charles Darwin described the eye as one of the greatest challenges to his theory.”

Yes…he did.

Got a few more if you need them.

Comment #134301

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 5:23 PM (e)

Did Charles Darwin have a death bed recant?

Anybody wanna find that one for me?

Comment #134302

Posted by Sir_Toejam on September 26, 2006 5:23 PM (e)

That would be, when one takes a small piece of the passage, and misrepresents it by proclaiming that the entire passage represents this one small piece that makes it support that individual’s side

…uh which is EXACTLY what you did with your mis-attempt at quoting darwin.

are you an idiot, or just insane?

Comment #134303

Posted by ben on September 26, 2006 5:23 PM (e)

God is not contingent and is immaterial

Says you.

Please let me know why I should accept your position a priori that Natural Selection is true?

Please let us know why we should accept your position a priori that god is not contingent and is immaterial?

Comment #134306

Posted by Sir_Toejam on September 26, 2006 5:30 PM (e)

Darwin is stating that Natural Selection does not explain the human eye. This neither changes in quote no. 1,2 or 3. The only difference in no. 3 is that he states, well if we can figure out these things…perhaps, but…still questionable.

ahhh, liar it is then.

blind too.

Comment #134307

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 5:31 PM (e)

Because its not contingent on what I say. Thats why.

But I have a few other proofs if you wish for me to derive them for you.

They are called the Ontological, Teleological, Cosmological and Design proofs. These prove God beyond a shadow of a doubt.

To the other gentleman who thinks I’m an “idiot”, did I misrepresent the quote?

No…I didn’t. I just pointed out what Charles Darwin stated about Evolution. Thats all.

It says the same thing, no matter which way we look at it. A, B and C are all the same, just a little different twist.

And even worse, YOUR article provides a blatant strawman attack against Creation Science sites, which makes Talk Origins look like….well, basically just Talk.

Comment #134308

Posted by Sir_Toejam on September 26, 2006 5:32 PM (e)

God is immaterial

yup. and irrelevant.

so are you.

Comment #134309

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 5:34 PM (e)

At this point, the burden of proof is against you. You say I’m a liar, tell me why I’m lying. How am I “misrepresenting” this quote?

Even better, tell me how Gould does not attack the Creation Science side falsely.

Comment #134310

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 5:36 PM (e)

But, to the gentleman who thinks God is irrelevant, not irrelevant to the point that you just don’t bother to mention him. Apparently he serves some type of relevance to you personally, not to mention how it would affect your life if you chose not to accept him.

Yeah, I’d say thats pretty self defeating.

Anything else to add?

Why not stay on topic and lets discuss the Darwin quote here.

Comment #134312

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 5:38 PM (e)

Natural Selection: Strictly Local

“If deterministic constraints exist, then certain regularities or trends in the large scale pattern of evolution should be evident. Yet very few studies have addressed this problem.
One main reason is that natural selection is strictly a local mechanism and hence inherently unable to account for any global trend or pattern. Another reason is that evolutionary pattern itself is the product of inference from available data.
Where inference is habitually made under certain presumptions, the resulting pattern becomes correspondingly biased. A case in point is the phylogenetic classification of organisms.” Mae-Wan Ho and Peter T. Saunders,
Biologist, The Open University, UK & Mathematician, University of London (respectively). Eds., “Beyond Neo-Darwinism: An Introduction to the New Evolutionary Paradigm,” Academic Press: London, 1984, p.7).

Comment #134314

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 5:40 PM (e)

Need me to mine a few more?

Comment #134315

Posted by Sir_Toejam on September 26, 2006 5:41 PM (e)

No…I didn’t. I just pointed out what Charles Darwin stated about Evolution. Thats all.

look, idiot, all you did was misrepresent what he was saying.

What he was saying, as is very clear from the exact passage i referenced, is that the current level of knowledge at the time could not explain the evolution of the eye, but he recognized it was a limitation of the time, and evidence of how the eye actually evolved would eventually be garnered….and guess what?

he was right.

He in fact made many such predictions, most of which essentially were correct. Remarkable given that he hadn’t a clue what genetics even were at the time.

none so blind as those that refuse to open their eyes.

for those that actually care to see, check out the site i referenced, or the talk origins site, there’s plenty of links there to get anyone who is actually interested started to see the actual research done to elucidate how eyes evolved.

you sir, are simply an idiot who lies to himself, then to cover it, tries to convince everyone around him that the lies are accurate.

give it up already. you’re arguments are so wrong and so simplistic as to only be worthy of scorn.

Comment #134316

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 5:42 PM (e)

The Disappointing Gulf
“Instead of revealing a multitude of transitional forms through which the evolution of the cell might have occurred, molecular biology has served only to emphasize the enormity of the gap. We now know not only of the existence of a break between the living and non-living world, but also that it represents the most dramatic and fundamental of all the discontinuities of nature. Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive….

Molecular biology has also shown that the basic design of the cell system is essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. In all organisms the roles of DNA, mRNA and protein are identical. The meaning of the genetic code is also virtually identical in all cells. The size, structure and component design of the protein synthetic machinery is practically the same in all cells.

In terms of the basic biochemical design, therefore no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth. For those who hoped that molecular biology might bridge the gulf between chemistry and biochemistry, the revelation was profoundly disappointing.”

Email this quote to a friend! Dr. Denton, Ph.D (Molecular Biology),
An evolutionist currently doing biological research in Sydney, Australia

hmm, that one’s an interesting one isn’t it?

Say…lets take it a little closer to home shall we?

Rarity of Transitional Forms
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.…
Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.”

Email this quote to a friend! Professor Stephen Jay Gould,
The Panda’s Thumb,

But yet…its a Scientifically proven fact.

smack forehead> of course! Now that makes sense!

Comment #134318

Posted by Sir_Toejam on September 26, 2006 5:46 PM (e)

Even better, tell me how Gould does not attack the Creation Science side falsely.

and Creation Science is a deliberate oxymoron.

moron.

any attack on creationism as “science” is justified. or do you think your “religion” constitutes science somehow?

oh, do show me all the wonderful peer reviewed bullcrap you folks like to call “science”, so i can simultaneously feel nausea and extreme humor at the same time, like the hundreds of idiots before you that have done the same.

you’re barking up the wrong tree here, “doctor”.

Comment #134319

Posted by jeffw on September 26, 2006 5:48 PM (e)

Hey “Doc” Martin:

Here are some questions to start things off. Should be easy for a “Doctor” such yourself. Don’t come back until you have the answers:

The Flood:

Where did the water come from and where did it go?

After the flood, how did the kangaroos get from Mt Ararat to australia? How did so many unique species get to remote islands? What did they eat along they way (everything dead after 10 months of flood). Why are there no fossil trails showing the mass migration?

What did the predators eat when they got off the ark?

How did any plants survive after being submerged for 10 months? How did some of the oldest trees in the world (4700yrs +) survive the flood?

How did herbivorous animals survive after disembarking from the ark, as all plant life would have been dead?

God’s intent was to remove the wicked people from the earth. Did it work?

How did human parasitic worms survive the great deluge? Were Noah and his family very sickly through the entire flood, so as to maintain those species?

How did animals that must kill a specific host to reproduce survive, since they would have killed their only hosts very quickly after leaving the ark, and then had no other hosts?

How did God control the fruit fly, tick, cockroach, rat, lawyer, etc. population in the Garden of Eden when there was no death, yet everyone was being fruitful for supposedly thousands of years?

If you don’t have Noah carrying lots of aquariums on the ark, how did marine life survive the deluge? Specifically, how did any coral and sponges survive? How did both fresh and salt water fish survive?

Why is there absolutely no geological evidence for a world flood?

Maya civilization began around 2600 b.c., how did people get to south america so quickly?

There are over a hundred thousand separate and distinct species of present day birds and land animals. It would be physically impossible for eight persons (Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives) to provide for the care and feeding of all the flies, termites, worms, snails, fleas, bats, frogs, spiders, bark beetles, intestinal parasites, etc, etc

The creationist claim that diversification has resulted in present-day species being far more numerous than the number of species in the ark contradicts their claim that evolution of species could not, and did not, ever take place.

The pyramids date from before the flood. How did they survive?

History: (2200 b.c.) Knowledge of history during this time period would show it was a time of prosperity with civilizations such as Egyptian’s Eleventh Dynasty and Babylonia’s Third Dynasty at Ur in which we know for certain there were no breaks in these civilizations. Therefore to make such a claim that everything on earth was destroyed as the Bible claims (Genesis 7:21) is unsupported.

God gave us a rainbow as an apology for wiping us out. Presumably rainbows didn’t exist before the Flood. Were the laws of light diffraction different back then?

Astronomy:

How can we see galaxies 2 billion light years aways if the universe is 6k years old?

Comment #134321

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 5:50 PM (e)

look, idiot, all you did was misrepresent what he was saying.

What he was saying, as is very clear from the exact passage i referenced, is that the current level of knowledge at the time could not explain the evolution of the eye, but he recognized it was a limitation of the time, and evidence of how the eye actually evolved would eventually be garnered….and guess what?

he was right.

He in fact made many such predictions, most of which essentially were correct. Remarkable given that he hadn’t a clue what genetics even were at the time.

none so blind as those that refuse to open their eyes.

for those that actually care to see, check out the site i referenced, or the talk origins site, there’s plenty of links there to get anyone who is actually interested started to see the actual research done to elucidate how eyes evolved.

you sir, are simply an idiot who lies to himself, then to cover it, tries to convince everyone around him that the lies are accurate.

give it up already. you’re arguments are so wrong and so simplistic as to only be worthy of scorn.

Wow…that clears EVERYTHING up.

So I’m an idiot, cause…yeah and I told you so…and wa wa wa I want my mommy? Stop ranting at me and provide evidence, since thats what you guys seem so bent about here.

Are you willing to discuss the evidence here? You keep repeating what I say. Please try to handle this with a bit more maturity.

Darwin stated this was a challenge to his theory. Then he states, “well maybe tomorrow we’ll figure it out.”

Where’s your evidence? Why should I accept your proposition that we have figured it out?

Now its interesting because YOU are going against what Darwin states here. Lets try this out: “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

Now where in this passage does Darwin state that modern Science of today can not figure it out, but tomorrow’s Science will? No I read very clearly, Natural Selection, I freely confess, is an absurd way of explaining the human eye to the “HIGHEST DEGREE!”

Comment #134322

Posted by Sir_Toejam on September 26, 2006 5:50 PM (e)

oh, i can see from your latest post that you are simply lost in your own little world.

no point in continuing discussion with you, you’re just a God-bothering Tub-thumper.

revel in your insanity there doc.

Comment #134323

Posted by Sir_Toejam on September 26, 2006 5:54 PM (e)

Where’s your evidence? Why should I accept your proposition that we have figured it out?

last comment:

because it’s already been researched and hundreds of scientific articles have been published elucidating eye pathways in the last 50 years plus?

You are either too lazy or too disingenuous to even bother to take a gander at ANY of those published articles, so why should I even bother?

Comment #134329

Posted by David B. Benson on September 26, 2006 6:02 PM (e)

Sir TJ, he’s the biggest troll from Trollheim ever. I view it as pointless to even attempt to try…

Comment #134330

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on September 26, 2006 6:06 PM (e)

Dudes, why on earth are you paying any attention at all to this lying blowhard?

Comment #134332

Posted by Sir_Toejam on September 26, 2006 6:08 PM (e)

Dudes, why on earth are you paying any attention at all to this lying blowhard?

I felt the need. every once in a while you have to vent on the likes of the AFDaves of the world.

Comment #134334

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 6:19 PM (e)

Here are some questions to start things off. Should be easy for a “Doctor” such yourself. Don’t come back until you have the answers:

The Flood:

Where did the water come from and where did it go?

After the flood, how did the kangaroos get from Mt Ararat to australia? How did so many unique species get to remote islands? What did they eat along they way (everything dead after 10 months of flood). Why are there no fossil trails showing the mass migration?

What did the predators eat when they got off the ark?

How did any plants survive after being submerged for 10 months? How did some of the oldest trees in the world (4700yrs +) survive the flood? Thats an easy one. Recall the olive branch that the dove brought back? 40 days and 40 nights does not equal 10 months.

How did herbivorous animals survive after disembarking from the ark, as all plant life would have been dead? This question is hilarious because the previous one implies the plant life did NOT die. But I’ll give an answer: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/281

God’s intent was to remove the wicked people from the earth. Did it work? At first yes. Noah and his family basically were the only ones left. Afterwords, man fell into his own evil nature again. But it did for that time being, and it seems the earth is heading for the same destruction during the time of Noah, this time though, with fire.

How did human parasitic worms survive the great deluge? Were Noah and his family very sickly through the entire flood, so as to maintain those species?

How did animals that must kill a specific host to reproduce survive, since they would have killed their only hosts very quickly after leaving the ark, and then had no other hosts? Well, this sounds like the question already has the answer, so I’m going to call this circular. No need to answer this one.

How did God control the fruit fly, tick, cockroach, rat, lawyer, etc. population in the Garden of Eden when there was no death, yet everyone was being fruitful for supposedly thousands of years? What? He is referring to human beings here, not animals. Thats a goofy question, no comment on this one.

If you don’t have Noah carrying lots of aquariums on the ark, how did marine life survive the deluge? Specifically, how did any coral and sponges survive? How did both fresh and salt water fish survive?

Why is there absolutely no geological evidence for a world flood? Thats blatantly false, we have plenty.

Maya civilization began around 2600 b.c., how did people get to south america so quickly?

There are over a hundred thousand separate and distinct species of present day birds and land animals. It would be physically impossible for eight persons (Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives) to provide for the care and feeding of all the flies, termites, worms, snails, fleas, bats, frogs, spiders, bark beetles, intestinal parasites, etc, etc I covered this in the flood area.

The creationist claim that diversification has resulted in present-day species being far more numerous than the number of species in the ark contradicts their claim that evolution of species could not, and did not, ever take place. http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3275 Though, I really don’t see how this could be the case anyways. This doesn’t contradict at all.

The pyramids date from before the flood. How did they survive?

History: (2200 b.c.) Knowledge of history during this time period would show it was a time of prosperity with civilizations such as Egyptian’s Eleventh Dynasty and Babylonia’s Third Dynasty at Ur in which we know for certain there were no breaks in these civilizations. Therefore to make such a claim that everything on earth was destroyed as the Bible claims (Genesis 7:21) is unsupported. No….we don’t know when Genesis was written, and the events this refers to take place in Exodus. No problem here at all, just another rant.

God gave us a rainbow as an apology for wiping us out. Presumably rainbows didn’t exist before the Flood. Were the laws of light diffraction different back then?

Astronomy:

How can we see galaxies 2 billion light years aways if the universe is 6k years old? Just a conjectural view of the galaxy in truth. In fact, Creation Science has determined that the Big Bang Theory is not even plausible to explain the origins of the earth.

For most of this, I would recommend reading: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2774

Rainbows is explained: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3671

Maya and pyramids explained: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/705/

Geological evidence of a flood: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3000/

The two billion light year thing is explained here:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1570/

If that doesn’t help, I have other sources on that too.

How did the animals fit on Noah’s ark?

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3672

Kangaroos and the eating of predators are explained here: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3027/

Where did all the water come from?

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3671

Deluge questions: http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/creationontheweb?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=the+deluge&btnG=Search

On the Marine life question: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3104

For a good review on Plimer, see: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4129/

That would be light work.

Comment #134335

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 6:22 PM (e)

because it’s already been researched and hundreds of scientific articles have been published elucidating eye pathways in the last 50 years plus?

You are either too lazy or too disingenuous to even bother to take a gander at ANY of those published articles, so why should I even bother?

Well then you should easily be able to point it out to me then. I have seen nothing more than opinions unworthy of attention from the Evolution side.

Comment #134336

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 6:29 PM (e)

Have I got your attention yet?

Comment #134338

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 6:31 PM (e)

You are either too lazy or too disingenuous to even bother to take a gander at ANY of those published articles, so why should I even bother?

I would also mention that I’ve taken much time to read your side of the coin. It seems that it is your side that is ignorant to the other side of the coin. Why not give it the attention it deserves, and open your mind to the evidence that we have.

Comment #134339

Posted by jeffw on September 26, 2006 6:32 PM (e)

Doc: Are you serious? That stuff is a joke! “God” created the starlight on it’s way here, just to deceive us, so we’d think the universe was 13 billion years old? “vapor canapy?”. Where’s the evidence?

And you call you call yourself a doctor? I’m very disappointed. I was really expecting more from you.

I still want *you personally* to answer my questions. Unless of course, you are not capable.

Comment #134342

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 6:37 PM (e)

How did fish and plants survive the flood?

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4108

Sorry missed that one.

God gave us a rainbow as an apology for wiping us out. Presumably rainbows didn’t exist before the Flood. Were the laws of light diffraction different back then?

If this guy knew anything about the Bible, he would know that God did not give us a rainbow as an apology, but yet as a covenant that he would not destroy the world again until of course mankind screwed up, as we are on the verge of doing once again. This guy obviously has the knowledge about the Bible of a 10 year old.

I have no reason to comment on his “arguments” against the Creation Science side, but I did just for clarity purposes anyhow.

Comment #134344

Posted by jeffw on September 26, 2006 6:42 PM (e)

God gave us a rainbow as an apology for wiping us out. Presumably rainbows didn’t exist before the Flood. Were the laws of light diffraction different back then?

If this guy knew anything about the Bible, he would know that God did not give us a rainbow as an apology, but yet as a covenant that he would not destroy the world again until of course mankind screwed up, as we are on the verge of doing once again. This guy obviously has the knowledge about the Bible of a 10 year old.

And if you had an IQ above 80, would realize that isn’t the point. So I’ll ask again: Were the laws of light diffraction different before the Flood?

Comment #134346

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 6:54 PM (e)

I’m capable. I just don’t have more than 80 years to live, so I figured I’d cut it a little short there. Let me explain the 13 billion years story a little bit better. When we look at the behavior of a very distant object, what we see happening never happened at all. For instance, say we see an object a million light-years away which appears to be rotating; that is, the light we receive in our telescopes carries this information “recording” this behavior. However, according to the YECS explanation, the light we are now receiving did not come from the star, but was created “en route,” so to speak.

How did this happen? God created light on its way so Adam could see the stars immediately without having to wait years for the light from even the closest ones to reach the earth.

To explain the problem with a Big Bang further, consider an exploding star (supernova) at, say, an accurately measured 100,000 light-years away. As the astronomer on earth watches this exploding star, the astronomer is not just receiving a beam of light. If that were all, then it would be no problem at all to say that God created a whole chain of photons (light particles/waves) already on their way.

Say, for instance, an astronomer is receiving a particular, or a very specific pattern of variation within the light through a telescope when viewing a star, showing the changes that one would expect out of the predictable sequence of events involving neutrinos, X-rays and gamma-rays. The light would carry some information recording an apparently real event. The astronomer interprets this “message” as representing an actual reality and that there really was such an object, which exploded according to the laws of physics, brightened, emitted X-rays and dimmed all in accord with those same physical laws.

Everything the astronomer would see is consistent with this, including the spectral patterns in the light from the star giving out a “chemical signature” of the elements contained in it. The “light created en route” explanation means that this recorded message of events, transmitted through space, had to be contained within the light beam at the very moment of its creation, or that it was planted into the light beam at a later date, without having originated from that distant point. If it had started from the star it would still be 90,000 light years away from earth.

This would therefore explain a 10000 year old Earth.

Thats similar to the model I know about the YECS model. It does go a bit further than just that, involving white matter and such as the probable cause of the universe.

Comment #134348

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 7:03 PM (e)

And if you had an IQ above 80, would realize that isn’t the point. So I’ll ask again: Were the laws of light diffraction different before the Flood?

Why would they have to be any different?
I don’t see a reason to consider this. The rainbow was the not assumed to be the first rainbow we had in the history of mankind. That is actually a fallacy that I would advise any YECS with any kind of sense not to use period.

Comment #134350

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 7:05 PM (e)

And if you had an IQ above 80, would realize that isn’t the point. So I’ll ask again: Were the laws of light diffraction different before the Flood?

Why would they have to be any different?
I don’t see a reason to consider this. The rainbow was not assumed to be the first rainbow we had in the history of mankind. That is actually a fallacy that I would advise any YECS with any kind of sense not to use period.

This is why its important to first understand the Bible before questioning it.

Comment #134351

Posted by jeffw on September 26, 2006 7:05 PM (e)

To explain the problem with a Big Bang further, consider an exploding star (supernova) at, say, an accurately measured 100,000 light-years away.

So god faked an explosion that never happened? I assume he had some reason for that. Perhaps a test for true believers? Clever dude, this god of yours.

Comment #134353

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 7:08 PM (e)

So god faked an explosion that never happened? I assume he had some reason for that. Perhaps a test for true believers? Clever dude, this god of yours.

Ever heard of the Russell Humphrey’s model? It follows Einstein’s principle of relavity and all related Scientific principles associated with it to a tee!

What we are trying to say is that the “Bang” is nothing more than Science Fiction.

Comment #134354

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 7:14 PM (e)

Its a white hole theory where the universe is known to expand. It has already passed peer review and has challenged many Scientists in regards to the Big Bang Theory, in which it has survived strict scrutiny.

Comment #134357

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 7:17 PM (e)

To be frank, it actually challenges the traditional YECS model, but at the same time provides for an excellent explanation for the origins of the Earth.

Comment #134359

Posted by jeffw on September 26, 2006 7:20 PM (e)

Ever heard of the Russell Humphrey’s model? It follows Einstein’s principle of relavity and all related Scientific principles associated with it to a tee!

Yeah, it’s a joke that only creationist nutcases would consider. So the universe is too old to fit the bible? No problem, we’ll just change the speed of light until it fits! Any evidence for it? Of course not. No reputable scientists believe in that garbage.

Comment #134360

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 7:20 PM (e)

Anything else?

Comment #134363

Posted by stevaroni on September 26, 2006 7:25 PM (e)

Doc Martin;

Out of a painful sense of masochism, I actually went and checked out some of the slew of pages in support of Noah’s flood you listed

They were, um, interesting. Long on biblical quotations, flowery in speech, creative in coming up with interesting scenarios.

Kinda light on any kind of fact that we might actually go and verify, though.

I was, however, struck by one page ( http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/595 ) which attempts to explain how the ark could possibly be large enough to hold all the various species of animals.

About halfway down the page we get into phrases like this

For example, horses, zebras and donkeys are probably descended from an equine (horse-like) kind

If you read the answer closely, it seems to imply that Noah would only have to take along certain ancestral precursor species, because after they got off the ark they would evolve into the modern species we see today.

I had to read that several times to make sure I got it right.

Which, I did. Noah takes some precursor aurochs, for example, then those animals evolve into all the cattle, buffalo, and suchlike that we have wandering around today.

And they seem to have evolved pretty fast, since other pages put the flood at about 2300 BC, and we know there are pictures of things like buffalo and horses on Egyptian walls dating to the time of the pyramids (1300BC), so that’s what, 200 generations or so? Makes punctuated equilibrium look downright slovely.

But that’s what creation-on-the-web says, so I guess it must be true.

The next few paragraphs, by the way, explain how Noah took the dinosaurs onto the ark, which was might nice of him, since cleaning up dinosaur-doo must be a thankless job. But I guess they didn’t evolve so well, since they were probably gone by the time the Egyptians got there, or I assume there might be a drawing or two.

If I had a dinosaur in the yard, maybe a big T-rex snacking on my sheep, I know I might be inclined to write that kind of thing down.

Anyhow, check this out, about halfway down another page ( http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/271 ) there’s a detailed illustration showing just how cats evolved. There’s simply no other word for the drawing, it’s a real Darwinian-style, common-ancestor evolutionary tree.

Wow, so I guess that creation-on-the-web and I have something in common, we both agree that evolution exists. Thanks for the confirmation, guys.

Comment #134364

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 7:29 PM (e)

Yeah, it’s a joke that only creationist nutcases would consider. So the universe is too old to fit the bible? No problem, we’ll just change the speed of light until it fits! Any evidence for it? Of course not. No reputable scientists believe in that garbage.

The no true scotsman fallacy invoked.

Did we change the speed of light?

Please read this, and try to make sense out of it:

First off, for the secular side of the coin:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/big-bang.html

We haven’t had to change anything. Einstein himself stated that if the speed of light has remained untouched in the equation, of course t=d/s, then the one thing that remains untouched would be time. Einstein stated that time is not a constant! The relativity theory distorts time through speed and gravity. Gravity is a strong indicator of something which changes time. This experiment has been tested through Science, and consequently, we have not had to change anything. Einstein laid the basis for us.

Oh, if Ken Ham and Tom Henderson are not reputable, as well as Jonathan Sarfati among others, then I think you’d have a bone to pick with some of the top YECS’s with some heavy degrees and qualifications there. What qualifications do you have for picking such a bone?

Comment #134365

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 7:33 PM (e)

I’ve really gotta watch you guys, you love to distort facts, don’t you?

“Possible history of cats since Creation. Speciation (based on pre-existing created genetic information) probably occurred faster after the Flood due to greater environmental pressures, isolation due to migration of small populations, and many unoccupied ecological niches.”

And of course: “Lions and tigers belong to the same genus, Panthera, along with the jaguar, leopard and snow leopard, in the subfamily Felinae. This subfamily also contains the genus Felis, which includes the mountain lion and numerous species of smaller cats, including the domestic cat. The cheetah, genus Acinonyx, belongs to a different subfamily.6 Thus the genera Panthera, Felis and Acinonyx may represent descendants of three original created cat kinds, or maybe two: Panthera-Felis and Acinonyx, or even one cat kind. The extinct sabre-tooth tiger may have been a different created kind (see diagram at right).

The Panthera cats lack a hyoid bone at the back of the tongue, compared to Felis. Acinonyx has the hyoid, but lacks the ability to retract its claws. So the differences between the cats could have arisen through loss of genetic information due to mutations (loss of the bone; loss of claw retraction). Note that this has nothing to do with molecules-to-man evolution, which requires the addition of new information, not loss of information (which is to be expected in a fallen world as things tend to ‘fall apart’).”
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/271

Reading closely helps!

:) (smacks head) dope!

Comment #134366

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 7:35 PM (e)

I see a lackage of Evolution mentioned here.

Comment #134367

Posted by Steviepinhead on September 26, 2006 7:38 PM (e)

If the guy was just a YEC, we could continue to expose his ignorance.

If he was simply a maroon, we could likewise continue to have some gentle fun with him, primarily for the purpose of exposing his evidence-free inconsistencies for the lurkers out there in ‘net land.

But with the eye quote-mining, the Darwin deathbed recantation (which even premier YEC sites like AIG advise against using), and utter rubbish like this hokum

It has already passed peer review and has challenged many Scientists in regards to the Big Bang Theory, in which it has survived strict scrutiny.

little Sir Shoemaker has unmasked himself as an unapologetic liar, one who is not merely able but eager to bear false witness, the opposite of Christian honesty and candor.

See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Humphreys (and note that Humphreys has been thoroughly debunked by, among others, Panda’s own Dave Thomas–uh and its “Humphreys,” maroon, no apostrophe before the “s”). How these despicable little trolls imagine they can walk in here spouting all this retarded recycled bull puckey that we’ve all retched at a thousand times before, in full lunatic confidence that they’re revealing to us something brand new and earth-shattering will never cease to amaze!

Having any more to do with little Marty Maroon is pointless. Let’s leave him to Nurse Bettinke’s butterfly-net boys and trust that he’ll receive exactly what he has earned when the day arrives that he has to justify his mendacity before his Creator.

Comment #134369

Posted by jeffw on September 26, 2006 7:43 PM (e)

First you tell us that that universe was created with the appearance of age, then russell humpreys. Which the right answer? Make up your mind.

Oh, if Ken Ham and Tom Henderson are not reputable, as well as Jonathan Sarfati among others

Have they contributed anything to society besides spreading falsehoods and distortions? Has creationist research been applied productively anywhere? Has it produced anything? Cured any diseases? How many creationist geologists work for oil companies?

Oh I’m sure they’re quite reputable in for YEC’s. Unfortuately, YEC’s have no standing in the real world, which is where most people spend their time.

Comment #134370

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 7:44 PM (e)

Wickedpedia? You mean that little catalogue of information where any 14 year old can get on there and write random messages regarding anything?

Oh, and please show me where this theory has been “duhbunked” please.

Comment #134373

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 7:48 PM (e)

Have they contributed anything to society besides spreading falsehoods and distortions? Has creationist research been applied productively anywhere? Has it produced anything? Cured any diseases? How many creationist geologists work for oil companies?

Oh I’m sure they’re quite reputable in for YEC’s. Unfortuately, YEC’s have no standing in the real world, which is where most people spend their time.

And YECS are the ones who are accused of politics?

Hmm, I don’t see how this one works.

No real standing eh? No peer reviewed literature by the YEC community? Oh..I mean no YEC reviewed literature by the Evolution community right? No, even thats not right. I can point you out to a several dozen if you’d like.

So, the real world would be what? The Materialistic bigotrous paradigm that you live in?

Yeah, I definitely wanna live in that one. Sounds much better than having a Lord and Savior who actually cares about me. Please spare me with the Evolutionistic Scientists only mythology. I’ve been around both long enough to know who the liars are.

Comment #134377

Posted by Steviepinhead on September 26, 2006 7:56 PM (e)

Dave Thomas’s debunking of Humphreys, for the curious:
http://www.cesame-nm.org/Viewpoint/contributions/Hump.html
Note that Humphreys’ waywardness with data is alarmingly similar to that of his acolyte here…

Comment #134379

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 7:58 PM (e)

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3256

Here’s something good on the Hovind vs. Ross debate: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2992

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/383

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3855/

Who’s really pushing the Bad Science:

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2891
Contributions made to the community by the Creation Science: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3568

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1940/

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/868/

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/786

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/864/

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/405

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4128/

I have so many, its ridiculous.

Creation Scientists from the past:

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2084

AND finally, why Biology does not rely on Evolution in the first place:

http://www.trueorigin.org/biologymyth.asp

Comment #134383

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 8:03 PM (e)

Humphreys creates a slick, scientific-sounding argument for a “young” Earth, but in the process seriously misrepresents modern consensus. All serious dating methods (radiometric age dating, dendrochronology, ice core analysis, varve deposition, and more) yield ages far older than Humphreys’ methods.

D. Russell Humphreys breaks all the rules of science. He uses flawed logic, overly simple models, and twisted data to sell his young Earth. Caveat Emptor!

Gee, I wonder what side this guy’s on.

I have been through the radiometric age dating, dendrochronology, ice core, varve, etc for a long time now. None of them prove the old age of the earth. I see a lot of accusations here, but none of them are substantiated enough for me to accept as more than bald assertions.

He hasn’t sold me on this at all. What flawed logic, what simple models, and what twisted data? The guy has done nothing to really address the Humphreys model of origin at all! Lot of ducking and running though.

Comment #134386

Posted by stevaroni on September 26, 2006 8:07 PM (e)

Doc Martin wrote

I’ve really gotta watch you guys, you love to distort facts, don’t you?

“Possible history of cats since Creation. Speciation (based on pre-existing created genetic information) probably occurred faster after the Flood due to greater environmental pressures, isolation due to migration of small populations, and many unoccupied ecological niches.”

Um, Doc, we actually have a name for “speciation due to environmental pressures”.

The traditional term for this is “Darwinian evolution”

That when an organism (oh, say, the cat) changes enough to be called a different species (speciation) based on it’s need to survive in response to environmental pressures or to exploit an open niche.

I dunno, maybe there ought to be a term for the survival of a slightly-varied animal that, compared to the others is… oh… what’s the word I’m looking for? I dunno, maybe… fittest?

I’ll work on that and get back to you.

Anyhow, what exactly is “pre-created information” anyhow? Since change implies genetic mutation, and I though mutation destroys information (as conclusively demonstrated by the second law of thermo-informational-dynamics) wouldn’t that “common” information would be be wiped out in the process?

Comment #134388

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 8:10 PM (e)

And…uh, guys. We kind of have a problem here. That article is from 1998. I have information from 2004 at least. Care to view anything that Mr. Thomas may have missed?

Comment #134389

Posted by jeffw on September 26, 2006 8:10 PM (e)

So, the real world would be what? The Materialistic bigotrous paradigm that you live in?

Yeah, I definitely wanna live in that one. Sounds much better than having a Lord and Savior who actually cares about me. Please spare me with the Evolutionistic Scientists only mythology. I’ve been around both long enough to know who the liars are.

My world has the advantage of being real.

And, yes you’ve demonstrated very clearly to everyone who the liars are.

Comment #134390

Posted by David B. Benson on September 26, 2006 8:11 PM (e)

One of the more humorous threads. I chuckle, therefore …

Comment #134391

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 8:12 PM (e)

http://www.icr.org/article/3000/

How about this enlightening debate from 2003?

Comment #134396

Posted by jeffw on September 26, 2006 8:23 PM (e)

I said show me what creation science has contributed and you dig up historical figures? Pascal from the 1600’s?

I’m talking about your blessed Sarfarti and Ken Ham. What have they accomplished with the stuff they’ve fabricated and polluted the net with? Has Flood geology helped to discover new mineral reserves somewhere? Has the vapor canopy advanced atmospheric science in any way?

No, of course not. Why? Cuz it’s retarded nonsense, designed to keep the faithful in the fold.

Comment #134398

Posted by stevaroni on September 26, 2006 8:29 PM (e)

And…uh, guys. We kind of have a problem here. That article is from 1998. I have information from 2004 at least. Care to view anything that Mr. Thomas may have missed?

Doc;

Which article? There were quite a few referenced in the last couple dozen posts.

Comment #134400

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 8:31 PM (e)

Um, Doc, we actually have a name for “speciation due to environmental pressures”.

The traditional term for this is “Darwinian evolution” This along with everything else, I’m sure.

That when an organism (oh, say, the cat) changes enough to be called a different species (speciation) based on it’s need to survive in response to environmental pressures or to exploit an open niche.

I dunno, maybe there ought to be a term for the survival of a slightly-varied animal that, compared to the others is… oh… what’s the word I’m looking for? I dunno, maybe… fittest?

I’ll work on that and get back to you.

Anyhow, what exactly is “pre-created information” anyhow? Since change implies genetic mutation, and I though mutation destroys information (as conclusively demonstrated by the second law of thermo-informational-dynamics) wouldn’t that “common” information would be be wiped out in the process?

And to the liar, if you infer yourself, well absolutely then! :).

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3831/

Once again, lies and distortions. Beautiful work here playing with words.

Evolution states: “evolutionary science predicts that speciation due to environmental pressures will give us changes in species that move to different environs.” http://community-2.webtv.net/tales_of_the_western_world/RINGSPECIES/

Where on earth do you get Evolution from this? You are equivocating what Evolution predicts with what it actually is. We are stating that what Evolution predicts is WRONG, and that changes in species that move to different environs is an incorrect prediction.

The survival of the fittest concept was explained away at the very bottom of the writing. Again, close attention to detail is a necessity!

That when an organism (oh, say, the cat) changes enough to be called a different species (speciation) based on it’s need to survive in response to environmental pressures or to exploit an open niche.

Simple, this is a strawman argument. We don’t say this at all. We are saying that a loss of genetic information explains why this scenario took place.

From these kinds came many ‘daughter species’, which generally each have less information (and are thus more specialized) than the parent population on the Ark. Properly understood, adaptation by natural selection (which gets rid of information) does not involve the addition of new complex DNA information. Thus, students should not be taught that it demonstrates ‘evolution happening’, as if it showed the process by which fish could eventually turn into people.

So the differences between the cats could have arisen through loss of genetic information due to mutations (loss of the bone; loss of claw retraction). Note that this has nothing to do with molecules-to-man evolution, which requires the addition of new information, not loss of information (which is to be expected in a fallen world as things tend to ‘fall apart’).
That part is highly important here.

Again, we say that mutations have given us no new information. Thats all we have stated. Not, no new beneficial mutations, but no new beneficial mutations that would provide us with any new information whatsoever!

They all come from the same created kind is what we try to state here. You are equivocating the position here.

Comment #134401

Posted by Steviepinhead on September 26, 2006 8:32 PM (e)

And, for the lurkers who are still with us through all of Michael Maroon’s blatherings, note that all this creationist “research” nonsense is hardly news here, that MM needs to slather up an entire thread with. Nor is it being “repressed.”

Go to the main page, scroll down the right hand side of the menu. Panda’s Thumb links to all this kinda crap under the heading of Psuedoscience Resources or some such. Read it and weep, if you have a high tolerance for kookiness.

There’s a reason dust bunnies collect under the furniture, in the dim and undisturbed eddies, overlooked and neglected.

There’s a reason that these kooky “theories” collect in the distal crannies of the internet–they are to real science what dust bunnies are to your mother’s cherished and proudly-displayed china set.

Comment #134402

Posted by stevaroni on September 26, 2006 8:33 PM (e)

Oops, nevermind, I sorted it out. Don’t mind me.

Comment #134403

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 8:33 PM (e)

Read the true origins article. Evolution is not required within the Scientific community at all. It would have done the same no matter what there. Microbiology is the issue, and Microbiology more or less supports Creation Science here.

Comment #134404

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 8:36 PM (e)

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/194

Never at a shortage for information there either.

So, what have YOU contributed to Science there?

Comment #134410

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 8:41 PM (e)

And, for the lurkers who are still with us through all of Michael Maroon’s blatherings, note that all this creationist “research” nonsense is hardly news here, that MM needs to slather up an entire thread with. Nor is it being “repressed.”

Go to the main page, scroll down the right hand side of the menu. Panda’s Thumb links to all this kinda crap under the heading of Psuedoscience Resources or some such. Read it and weep, if you have a high tolerance for kookiness.

There’s a reason dust bunnies collect under the furniture, in the dim and undisturbed eddies, overlooked and neglected.

There’s a reason that these kooky “theories” collect in the distal crannies of the internet–they are to real science what dust bunnies are to your mother’s cherished and proudly-displayed china set.

Been there, done that. And yes, a lot of those are very weak as far as providing evidential support and at times accurate measures of what the Creation Science community has to offer. On the other hand, the sources I have used within this debate have not been anything short of accurate. The only theories that are anything near kooky would be the theories promoted by Evolution.

You seem to not understand what Creation Science’s primary purpose is. Its to provide a good overview of Origin Science, not Operational Science, though it does involve frequently with that as well.

To be honest though, I have yet to see anything short of kooky from this site. Care to show me something I haven’t seen yet?

Comment #134411

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 8:46 PM (e)

I love how you, totally disregard my evidence, but yet, proclaim you have all of this evidence, but then, don’t seem to want to provide YOUR evidence when I ask you for yours.

Something seems to be wrong with this picture.

So lets see here. PT has gotten an F in logic here. I give you another F in interpreting evidence accurately and not creating strawman arguments and other sloppy and senseless arguments. I give you a D for providing up to date information regarding Creation Science information (it was from 1998, better than 1952 I suppose).

And of course, you get an A in Ad hominem attacks.

Nothing new here. Why don’t you show me something to wow my socks off?

Comment #134414

Posted by Steviepinhead on September 26, 2006 8:48 PM (e)

Kookaboora:

Care to show me something I haven’t seen yet?

An honest intelligent gaze in the mirror?

Comment #134420

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 8:49 PM (e)

The only thing I seem to be getting here is the old, nose in air and away I go attitude. Well I’m used to that, I used to be an Evolution Scientist myself.

Wow, the ways of folly sure make sense don’t they? Good thing I’m no longer involved with this garbage.

Comment #134421

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 8:50 PM (e)

“Steviepinhead”

The name fits…really!

Comment #134422

Posted by jeffw on September 26, 2006 8:52 PM (e)

So lets see here. PT has gotten an F in logic here. I give you another F in interpreting evidence accurately and not creating strawman arguments and other sloppy and senseless arguments. I give you a D for providing up to date information regarding Creation Science information (it was from 1998, better than 1952 I suppose).

And we should care what you think, because…?

Comment #134423

Posted by Steviepinhead on September 26, 2006 8:56 PM (e)

Marty “Kookie” Shoemaker:

“Steviepinhead”

The name fits…really!

Ah, ya got me that time, young feller! Pierced me right to the core, ya did!

And how many posts did it take the maroon to come up with that stirring witticism?

Comment #134425

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 8:58 PM (e)

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4416/

And you may want to get with the times with your white hole theory there:

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1662/

Yeah, we’re way up to date on this thing. By the way, Dave who?

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1616/

There ya go Davey boy, take a look at that, expand your knowledge and get a bit up to date on us would ya?

Comment #134427

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on September 26, 2006 9:02 PM (e)

“Und when last we spent much time in Midgard realm, the Gothic, Germanic, and Norse languages sounded more closer than now they are doing…!”

The rythms and sentence structure differs some, but sure, they are germanic languages with some later german influences as well.

“No offenses are being intended to speakers of modern Scandanavian!”

None taken. To speaka swenglish can be hårdt job!

Comment #134440

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 9:19 PM (e)

This is pure ignorance. By the way, my information far surpasses the information on the front pages of your little Intelligent Design sites there. I have nothing to do with them, and like I said, I agree with you that they are pseudoscientific. So what? Your site is no different.

Comment #134445

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 9:22 PM (e)

Grow a brain, learn how to critical evaluate ideas, actually read what your little “pseudoscientific” cites have to say before you actually debate with someone, get your nose out of your butts and then come back and talk to me when you wish to be civil human beings.

Until then, you need to get rid of your little sick-minded Charles Darwin Agorophobic silliness and get with the ACTUAL real world, that being the one created by Jesus Christ himself.

Comment #134447

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 9:25 PM (e)

I mean, come on. One of your features here involves a guy by the name of Dr. Dino!

Please! By all means, lets represent him as the major leader within the Creation Science world. No, we wouldn’t dare put up some cites that have actual competence to them. Wouldn’t want to make Evolution look bad, would we now?

Comment #134449

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 9:29 PM (e)

Kent Hovind is certainly not one of the top Scientists within our country. He is highly opinionated and never involves any bit of research or evidence. I appreciate what he does, but he really doesn’t cut it much as a Scientist, to be quite honest.

Comment #134450

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on September 26, 2006 9:32 PM (e)

Dudes, why on earth do you waste your time with this lying blowhard?

“Dr”, my ass.

Comment #134451

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 9:33 PM (e)

As I stated, AIG is decent. I am certainly not one of the top Scientists myself, though I do hope to work for CMI eventually someday (and potentially this looks good). ICR is the only one of those cites thats halfway decent on the Creation Science side of the coin. And thats halfway at best.

So I’m asking you guys again, whats your evidence of Evolution? Something, say, better than (duh look all around you).

Comment #134453

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 9:35 PM (e)

I’m beginning to wonder why I’m wasting my time with you. I’m trying to get your evidence and all I’m getting is ignorance and this whole “groupthink” mentality.

Comment #134455

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 9:39 PM (e)

You guys wouldn’t last 2 minutes against Jonathan Sarfati. Funny though, its easy to talk about him behind his back. I’ve gotten the privilege to meet him, and he’s a whole lot more competent than anybody on this cite, thats for sure.

Comment #134461

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 9:50 PM (e)

I forgot to mention the silly Wikipedia source. Strawmen like nuts. And what a stupid analogy about the 48 hour things. Is this really what you guys propose?

The Oort cloud: “The Kuiper belt is named after Gerard Kuiper who proposed its existence in 1951. Return to text.
In evolutionary thinking, a spherical ‘Oort cloud’ is supposed to explain the existence of long-period comets. Creationists would not be surprised to find some objects at that distance, but (as with the Kuiper Belt) we would question whether there are enough objects to explain the origin of long-period comets. Currently, there is no evidence whatsoever of a massive Oort cloud. Moreover, there is tremendous difficulty in forming an Oort cloud of sufficient mass (through natural processes) in the first place! Hence, long-period comets also present a serious challenge to a multi-billion year old solar system.” http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1558

Yup, we’ve got our P’s and Q’s covered there.

Comment #134467

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 26, 2006 10:01 PM (e)

“Humphreys dismisses one of the modern theories of spiral formation, “density wave theory,” as too complex, but it’s really his ideas that are far too simple. Humphreys’ strawman galaxy does not prove that galaxies are young.” Why? I’m interested in knowing why you’re just shifting the burden of evidence arbitrarily here. You’re the accuser, you have the burden, give us the answer why here.

“If anything, it is the Kuiper Belt that supplies the more remote Oort Cloud, as some icy chunks are occasionally flung far away by interactions with large planets. There is a source for new comets, and the fact that we still see comets does not prove the solar system is young.” I don’t see your point here, but CMI has already neutralized this anyways.

“Neither erosion nor subduction are expected to be constant processes over millions of years, and they are simply not very good clocks. Humphreys’ strawman ocean floor does not prove the Earth is young.” Again, what is your point here? You address nothing! How is his ocean floor a strawman? You are giving us nothing to go by. They were not good clocks, well thats your opinion. The facts measure otherwise. Tell us why!

“It’s like someone noticing that (A) it’s snowing at an inch per hour, (B) the snow outside is 4 feet deep, and then concluding that © the Earth is just 48 hours, or two days, in age. Snowfall is erratic; some snow can melt; and so on. The Earth is older than 2 days, so there must be a flaw with the “snow” dating method, just as there is with the “salt” method. (Several other creationist “proofs” of a young Earth involve similar extrapolations.)” False or weak analogy, take your pick.

“He provides no justification for his model of grave discovery rates as a “clock.” Perhaps, in a thousand centuries, some of those burial sites might just have been eroded away, or covered with tons of soil or debris. Predators or vandals might have disturbed some of the graves, and subsequent generations of cavemen may have even re-used some of the same traditional burial sites. In any event, it is clear that the number of discovered Stone Age graves does not provide a very accurate “clock” for finding the age of the Earth.” You conjure this out of thin air! This is purely an argumentum ad ignorantum. Once again, you avoid the issue.

Thats your critique on Dave Thomas’s “patented” argument. What have you shown here? Absolutely nothing!

The Creation side clearly has the upperhand if this is the best you have to come up with. This is clearly weak, and stinkeths much!

Comment #134473

Posted by Richard Simons on September 26, 2006 10:12 PM (e)

Doc Martin says:

“How did any plants survive after being submerged for 10 months? How did some of the oldest trees in the world (4700yrs +) survive the flood? Thats an easy one. Recall the olive branch that the dove brought back? 40 days and 40 nights does not equal 10 months.”

Notice how he carefully implies that the flood lasted just 40 days and nights rather than this being just the period of rainfall, thus avoiding lying while also avoiding answering the question. By the way, I had quite a struggle to remove a small twig from an olive tree; how did the dove manage a branch? Perhaps it wasn’t just the men who were giants in those days but also the pigeons. No doubt due to all that loss of information from the rapid evolution involved, modern doves are but sickly shadows of their former glory.

I suspect none of the other points were addressed either, but frankly I find Doc Martin’s posts to be a mass of verbiage with duplications and reduplications of paragraphs so I skim most of what he writes.

Comment #134480

Posted by stevaroni on September 26, 2006 10:32 PM (e)

Perhaps it wasn’t just the men who were giants in those days but also the pigeons. No doubt due to all that loss of information from the rapid evolution involved, modern doves are but sickly shadows of their former glory.

Well, birds do seem to be descended from dinosaurs.

And according to some of Doc Martins’ links, Noah had dinosaurs on the ark.

So maybe those were some really badass pigeons.

Comment #134486

Posted by argystokes on September 26, 2006 10:53 PM (e)

So, Mike, what kind of doctor are you anyway?

Comment #134491

Posted by Henry J on September 26, 2006 11:13 PM (e)

Velocipigeons?

Comment #134506

Posted by stevaroni on September 26, 2006 11:58 PM (e)

Trafalgar square musta been one tough place back in the day.

No wonder the Romans had such a tough time in Britain

Comment #134512

Posted by stevaroni on September 27, 2006 12:13 AM (e)

Doc Martin, I’m still confused all to hell about your cats.

According to the sites you’ve referred to, all the modern variants of cats, from snow leopards to my dumbass house mutt, all descended from one common ancestor that trotted off the ark.

This was because they responded to environmental pressures. They changed over time, splitting into various, related species, in order to fully exploit all the available niches.

Apparently, the surviving multitudes of species are now fitter than the original stock, so their genes have changed.

But somehow, this was not evolution.

Actually, even if I buy your take on the information content of their genes, it still doesn’t matter. Using some method, completely unknown to modern genetic science which does not increase the information content of their genes, they have still evolved

I simply don’t understand.

So Doc, if you’re out there, slowly, calmly, without referring me to white dwarfs and gravity dilation, please tell me what exactly the cats in question did that looks exactly like evolution, but isn’t

Comment #134587

Posted by demallien on September 27, 2006 5:48 AM (e)

Hah! My creation passes the Turing Test! You’ve all been conversing with my Digital Troll (tm pending). That’s how such volumous posts are able to be generated, and why the grammar is so lousy!

Want to know how it was done? I used a GA to evolve a neural network, which was trained on creationist posts from a large number of websites. All done in Ruby On Rails. Neat huh?

[/sarcasm]

In all seriousness, I wish MMs posts were more readable, or at least remotely grammatically correct. I just can’t bear wading through all of the jumbled sentences to figure out what he’s going on about…. I have read some of the shorter posts (the post where he claims the materialistic existence of the FSM nearly made me wet my pants), and I have followed along by reading his stuff that has been quoted by our foot soldiers (nice work guys!), but I would have loved to be able to read all of the posts.

PS: Actually, I’m wondering if we really could create an AI to troll creationist sites… Shouldn’t be too hard - look for keywords in their responses, correlate against the TalkOrigins answers, and voilà. I wonder how long they would last before getting banned over at UD….

Comment #134708

Posted by stevaroni on September 27, 2006 11:50 AM (e)

Hi Guys; Hi Doc;

It’s me again.

I’m still trying to figure out the cats.

[For those who haven’t been following my chat with Doc, probably because they have lives to live, Doc posted a whole bunch of websites with, um, evidence, about Noah’s flood.

Some of them tried to explain how Noah could get all the needed animals onto an ark that simply could not have been big enough. The consensus answer, I think (there were a lot of theories thrown out) is that Noah took some precursor animals (kinds) which, upon release from the ark then split into the species we see today in response to environmental pressures in a process exactly like, but somehow legally distinct from, evolution. ]

This fascinates me, since I had never seen this particular argument before. I’d remember if I did, because I’d remember thinking “The ID crowd is using evolution to disprove evolution?!”. Anyhow, two of the pages, ( http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/595… and http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/271… ) particularly stick out for me, since they contain what to my untrained eye are Darwinian-style, common-ancestor trees.

I think the “out” here, from the creationist side, is that there was no evolution since the precursor “kind” had a genome that contained all possible cat variants, and unused features were selectively “switched off” to make the various species.

How this isn’t evolution, I don’t know. But the distinction seems to matter to the creation-on-the-web guys. It fulfills the “no new information” archetype that seems to be a rising touchstone in the creationist camp, now that the Altar of the Holy Flagellum isn’t so holy anymore.

Ahhh, serendipity is a wonderful thing.

Just this morning, I found myself working on some assembly language for a piece of electrical equipment. It’s a stand-alone, but it interfaces to some outside hardware, which can come from three different manufacturers, and they all have slightly different interface specifications.

That is, it’s the same unit, but its environment differs. To this end, it carries code to work with all three environments, but only uses that which is appropriate.

Guess what? It still needs information from the environment before it can work! You still have to load constants and mode information before the unit knows which code to ignore.

All that data is stored in eeprom, so it’s available at the next power up. The information content of the memory has actually increased! All the original program code is there, even the stuff that won’t be used, and now there’s a new block of constants and flag bits to steer the program away form the unused stuff!

Now maybe I’m just dense, but saving this data in memory so the unit matches the environment on the next power up seems exactly analogous to the proto-cats saving flag bits in their genome so their offspring can match their environment.

(Doc, we know, by the way that this information is hard-coded and not derived on each new instance because zoo animals, transported around the world to new environments, still give birth to their own species rather than a more appropriate local variant)

Now, yes, before anybody yells at me, I know all about Shannon theory and that an eeprom full of 00’s really has just as much information as an eeprom full of useful numbers, but I wanted to do an example using “information” as defined by the ID camp.

Anyhow, even if I’m totally wrong here Doc, it still seems the precursor cat theory still fails the can’t-add-features test.

You tell me that all current species of cat are descended from Noah’s proto cat, via a proscess that selectively removes features (because adding features would be adding information).

But there are modern cat populations that have features that their ancestors never had – and apparently got them without human intervention. I point you to the Hemmingway Estate, in Key West, Florida.

About half of the population of semi-feral cats that live on the estate have an (apparently stable) mutation that – get this - addes a sixth toe! An extra toe must require extra information, that’s a whole freakin’ toe we’re talking about. That’s complicated!

Where did this extra information to build this extra toe come from if it wasn’t on the ark?

Now, the evolutionary-inclined (those damned pesky Darwinists again) would say it’s no big deal, a point mutation in the toe-counting genes of a tabby Ernest kept as a pet 50 years ago. With no particular selection pressure either way (the cats lead a pretty sheltered life there), this gene naturally spread through the pool. That’s just what genes do, no information argument is needed.

But hey, that’s the atheist Darwin answer; I’m curious to see what you think.

By the way, the shop mascot, Mitchell, is anxious to find out the answer, he’d like to get himself one of those new claws. (at least I think he’s anxious, he’s only managed to sleep six hours so far this morning)

Comment #134739

Posted by Steviepinhead on September 27, 2006 1:44 PM (e)

As I’ve argued on one of the “Pharyngula” threads, and vis-a-vis Carol on one of PT’s current threads, there’re some additional problems with the “evolution/devolution” of the cat “kind” post-Ark:

1. There’s internal evidence in the Bible that there were already several differentiated “cat” species before, at, or right after the time of the “Flood.” The Bible already has lions (Daniel? den?), etc., and not just some sort of generalized, pre-pregrammed, information-rich super-felid.

2. It’s unassailable, from the historical evidence, for example, that there were already cheetahs at the time of the Flood. Yet the cheetah genome shows signs of a severe “founder” event–and resulting constrained contrained genetic diversity–while the genomes of the lion, the house cat (domesticated by the Egyptians well before Flood times), etc., show no such anamoly. If all these cat sub-kinds were busy niche-adapting, diversifying, degenerating, whatever-ing in the wake of the Flood, then their genomes should all show comparable diversity or loss of same. But, of course, they don’t.

3. Likewise, one could go back through the early chapters of the Bible and pick out other “kinds” which clearly already had multiple representatives at or around the time of the flood–sheep and goats, horses,zebras, and donkeys, etc. (not to mention dinos and birds, good grief, as some have already noted!). Creationists would need to deal with which of these “ancestral” kinds were already present in multiple variants at the time of the Flood, which of the modern “descendant” species can be specifically traced back to which of the existing ancestral variants (do Creationists claim that ocelots, for instance, descend from lions, cheetahs, or housecats, and what would Creation “science” predict about the phenotype and the genotype of the ocelot once said “science” has committed to such a prediction?).

4. Of course, no such commitments or predictions will be made–nor could they possibly be consistently sustained, even if Creation “scientists” were foolish enough to make them–because these people are arrant frauds, whose only “science” is deception. (Some of them may be pig-ignorant frauds, in Lenny’s phrase, some of them may be secondary dupes of primary frauds, and some may be out-and-out lying maroons, like our current “guest,” but they are all frauds, and I see little reason to distinguish among them–though some are kinder than me.)

Comment #134764

Posted by stevaroni on September 27, 2006 3:11 PM (e)

there’re some additional problems with the “evolution/devolution” of the cat “kind” post-Ark

I’m just fascinated that an anti-evolution website makes an argument based on - well, evolution.

I also notice that they take extreme pains to justify it as not-evolution by arguing the no-new-information super-genome.

I see this “no new information” argument more and more. Has this become the new flagellum?

Comment #134769

Posted by Henry J on September 27, 2006 3:24 PM (e)

Re “I see this “no new information” argument more and more. Has this become the new flagellum?”

Answering that would require producing new information. (And probably violate the SLoT, as well.) ;)

Comment #134771

Posted by jeffw on September 27, 2006 3:34 PM (e)

I see this “no new information” argument more and more. Has this become the new flagellum?

It’s been around for a while, I think. Front-loading and all that other nonsense. Supposedly everything was completely “heterozygous” or something before the “fall”. Hmmm, cats are predators, so supposedly they were given big teeth and carnivore characteristics after the fall (everything was all peaceful and honky-dory beforehand). Yet we find such a lot of diversity in cats (sabertooth, etc). So all this carnivorous diversity must have been front-loaded before the “fall”. I guess god knew right from the start that he would end up cursing the whole shebang.

Comment #134777

Posted by Steviepinhead on September 27, 2006 3:59 PM (e)

As usual–insert quote from Lenny about recycling of outdated Creationist claims–the “no new information” claim is nothing new.

It’s been dealt with at TalkOrigins,
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html,
and probably a number of other places (likeswise, its sibling claims based on the SLoT–conflated into the “Second Law of Thermo-Information-Dynamics, or something like that, in this thread by our latest maroon–have been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked…).

But, in their desperation and cognitive dissonance, whenever the IDiots’ latest fetchingly-labelled scam-mobile runs into a brick wall, they rummage around in the junkbin, pull out a few rusty old parts, slap them together with chewing gum and baling wire, spit on the resulting wheezing pile, polish it up with a greasy old rag, and proudly display it like it’s the newest sports car off the assembly line.

Tedious, really, but like any other job of Whack-A-Mole, ya gotta keep at it.

Comment #134815

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on September 27, 2006 6:31 PM (e)

I am certainly not one of the top Scientists myself

No shit.

Comment #134816

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on September 27, 2006 6:34 PM (e)

I see this “no new information” argument more and more. Has this become the new flagellum?

Nothing new about it. Standard ICR boilerplate from forty years ago.

ID/creationists haven’t come up with anything new in decades. All they do is keep recycling the same ole crap, worded a little differently each time.

Comment #134952

Posted by Andrew McClure on September 28, 2006 12:03 AM (e)

I see this “no new information” argument more and more. Has this become the new flagellum?

Nothing new about it. Standard ICR boilerplate from forty years ago.

ID/creationists haven’t come up with anything new in decades. All they do is keep recycling the same ole crap, worded a little differently each time.

Really I wish they’d stick to that particular line more, because it’s one of the easiest creationist lines to refute. (I may just be imagining this, but it seems like the “information theory” creationists have gone a little bit more quiet since Dembski ran away from Dover and went and hid behind his blog.)

Like, during the entire line of posts on Dave Thomas’ evolutionary steiner solver, there were creationists coming in and trying to dispute exactly what it was Thomas’ program had proven– usually by playing with the definitions of certain basic terms and moving some goalposts as they went.

I kept kind of wishing the information issue would come up, because I was thinking it would be much easier to make clear statements about the information content of Thomas’ steiner solutions than to demonstrate something like “Irreducible complexity”. (I never got around to bringing it up myself.) The reason for this is that terms like “irreducible complexity” or “purpose” or “the solution is embedded in the problem” don’t have clear unambiguous definitions, but we have precise and accepted-in-practice mathematical definitions of “information”.

Comment #135305

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 28, 2006 8:10 PM (e)

“How did any plants survive after being submerged for 10 months? How did some of the oldest trees in the world (4700yrs +) survive the flood? Thats an easy one. Recall the olive branch that the dove brought back? 40 days and 40 nights does not equal 10 months.”

Notice how he carefully implies that the flood lasted just 40 days and nights rather than this being just the period of rainfall, thus avoiding lying while also avoiding answering the question. By the way, I had quite a struggle to remove a small twig from an olive tree; how did the dove manage a branch? Perhaps it wasn’t just the men who were giants in those days but also the pigeons. No doubt due to all that loss of information from the rapid evolution involved, modern doves are but sickly shadows of their former glory. Again, loss of information does not infer Evolution, only Variation within a species, which CMI does not deny occurs. We do deny changes from one organism into another since no new information has occurred from genetic mutations. CMI states that it is only 7 months really. http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2655 Most plants could have survived the soaking, but many did not during the flood.

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/697/

I suspect none of the other points were addressed either, but frankly I find Doc Martin’s posts to be a mass of verbiage with duplications and reduplications of paragraphs so I skim most of what he writes.

Well, birds do seem to be descended from dinosaurs.

And according to some of Doc Martins’ links, Noah had dinosaurs on the ark.

So maybe those were some really badass pigeons.

Doc Martin, I’m still confused all to hell about your cats.

According to the sites you’ve referred to, all the modern variants of cats, from snow leopards to my dumbass house mutt, all descended from one common ancestor that trotted off the ark.

This was because they responded to environmental pressures. They changed over time, splitting into various, related species, in order to fully exploit all the available niches.

Apparently, the surviving multitudes of species are now fitter than the original stock, so their genes have changed. Where does the author infer this at all? The author is very explicit when he states no Natural Selection.

But somehow, this was not evolution. No, it was Variation.

Actually, even if I buy your take on the information content of their genes, it still doesn’t matter. Using some method, completely unknown to modern genetic science which does not increase the information content of their genes, they have still evolved The methods are the same. Its just your take that’s different.

I simply don’t understand.

So Doc, if you’re out there, slowly, calmly, without referring me to white dwarfs and gravity dilation, please tell me what exactly the cats in question did that looks exactly like evolution, but isn’t I will try this again. Variation does not imply Natural Selection. The difference is Variation is: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1762/ It is within the limits of the created kind, and does not even infer MicroEvolution. That is what this article is trying to get at here.

Natural Selection is change from one species into another. This is what CMI does NOT imply. Theres your dichotomy.

Comment #134587
Posted by demallien on September 27, 2006 05:48 AM (e)

Hah! My creation passes the Turing Test! You’ve all been conversing with my Digital Troll (tm pending). That’s how such volumous posts are able to be generated, and why the grammar is so lousy!

Want to know how it was done? I used a GA to evolve a neural network, which was trained on creationist posts from a large number of websites. All done in Ruby On Rails. Neat huh? Please show me where the grammar is lousy. I’m really shocked you would say this since the fact is, you seem to create a Strawman position against your own position, that being Evolution.

[/sarcasm]

In all seriousness, I wish MMs posts were more readable, or at least remotely grammatically correct. (eh, shut up, your posts haven’t been much better at all. Content of information is more important than just “eh, he made a grammatical error here and there.” I’m sure I can point a few out on your side too. Who said anything about being perfect?). I just can’t bear wading through all of the jumbled sentences to figure out what he’s going on about…. I have read some of the shorter posts (the post where he claims the materialistic existence of the FSM nearly made me wet my pants), and I have followed along by reading his stuff that has been quoted by our foot soldiers (nice work guys!), but I would have loved to be able to read all of the posts. (I make myself very clear here. Pay close attention to wording. I am very good at not equivocating words, so if you would just pay a little bit more attention instead of going on with your mouths, and start listening and reading for just a bit, maybe you’d get the message).

PS: Actually, I’m wondering if we really could create an AI to troll creationist sites… Shouldn’t be too hard - look for keywords in their responses, correlate against the TalkOrigins answers, and voilà. I wonder how long they would last before getting banned over at UD….

What kind of argument is this? Obviously this would be a genetic fallacy. Poor reasoning here. Where do they state that they copy off of Talk Origins at all? I find their information not only does NOT copy off of Talk Origins, but also provides more information than Talk Origins could ever dream of providing in the first place. That’s not to say it does not address Talk Origin articles, but I’d say that’s more of the job for True Origin anyways. You are referring to one of the 2 largest Creation Science websites available on the web today FYI. CMI is much larger than True Origin or any other Creation Science site available today. Apparently Talk Origin seems to be the standard, and quite frankly, I see nothing impressive about that site (and believe me, after debating against the likes of you, I am very familiar with even the most current articles on Talk Origin, more than I’d like to be for sure). We have access to the same information, the same methods, the same laws, the same EVERYTHING, the only difference is the interpretation is more accurate and less equivocated from the Creation perspective. How many times has Creation Science had to change their origin model? Well, from the work I’ve seen, none. They’ve certainly expanded on it. How many times has Evolution changed ITS model? Didn’t the Big Bang move back 2 billion years? What about Piltdown man? Archaeopteryx anyone? Why do NeoDarwinists argue against Darwin’s original model? If it’s a change in Science, what changes have allowed for this position? What actual discoveries should allow for the change? Which of these discoveries have we found to be true and how?

Comment #135311

Posted by Steviepinhead on September 28, 2006 8:21 PM (e)

Ah, “Doc” Martin!

Just the troll, er, shoemaker, er, asylum escapee, er, science-conversant young feller-me-lad I was hoping would stop by (and, really, we are sorry that dodging all those butterfly nets of Nurse Bettinke’s boys is limiting your time here, but there’s really nothing we can do, it’s a public site…)!

Since you undoubtedly have access to segments of the, er, science establishment, not to mention the Genesis-believing public, that we do not, I’m hoping you can help us with our latest charitable endeavor–

Spread the word: End A War! Save A Gerbil!

Comment #135317

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 28, 2006 8:45 PM (e)

First off:

“How did any plants survive after being submerged for 10 months? How did some of the oldest trees in the world (4700yrs +) survive the flood? Thats an easy one. Recall the olive branch that the dove brought back? 40 days and 40 nights does not equal 10 months.”

Notice how he carefully implies that the flood lasted just 40 days and nights rather than this being just the period of rainfall, thus avoiding lying while also avoiding answering the question. By the way, I had quite a struggle to remove a small twig from an olive tree; how did the dove manage a branch? Perhaps it wasn’t just the men who were giants in those days but also the pigeons. No doubt due to all that loss of information from the rapid evolution involved, modern doves are but sickly shadows of their former glory. Again, loss of information does not infer Evolution, only Variation within a species, which CMI does not deny occurs. We do deny changes from one organism into another since no new information has occurred from genetic mutations. CMI states that it is only 7 months really. http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2655 Most plants could have survived the soaking, but many did not during the flood.

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/697/

I suspect none of the other points were addressed either, but frankly I find Doc Martin’s posts to be a mass of verbiage with duplications and reduplications of paragraphs so I skim most of what he writes.

Well, birds do seem to be descended from dinosaurs.

And according to some of Doc Martins’ links, Noah had dinosaurs on the ark.

So maybe those were some really badass pigeons.

Doc Martin, I’m still confused all to hell about your cats.

According to the sites you’ve referred to, all the modern variants of cats, from snow leopards to my dumbass house mutt, all descended from one common ancestor that trotted off the ark.

This was because they responded to environmental pressures. They changed over time, splitting into various, related species, in order to fully exploit all the available niches.

Apparently, the surviving multitudes of species are now fitter than the original stock, so their genes have changed. Where does the author infer this at all? The author is very explicit when he states no Natural Selection.

But somehow, this was not evolution. No, it was Variation.

Actually, even if I buy your take on the information content of their genes, it still doesn’t matter. Using some method, completely unknown to modern genetic science which does not increase the information content of their genes, they have still evolved The methods are the same. Its just your take that’s different.

I simply don’t understand.

So Doc, if you’re out there, slowly, calmly, without referring me to white dwarfs and gravity dilation, please tell me what exactly the cats in question did that looks exactly like evolution, but isn’t I will try this again. Variation does not imply Natural Selection. The difference is Variation is: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1762/ It is within the limits of the created kind, and does not even infer MicroEvolution. That is what this article is trying to get at here.

Natural Selection is change from one species into another. This is what CMI does NOT imply. Theres your dichotomy.

Comment #134587
Posted by demallien on September 27, 2006 05:48 AM (e)

Hah! My creation passes the Turing Test! You’ve all been conversing with my Digital Troll (tm pending). That’s how such volumous posts are able to be generated, and why the grammar is so lousy!

Want to know how it was done? I used a GA to evolve a neural network, which was trained on creationist posts from a large number of websites. All done in Ruby On Rails. Neat huh? Please show me where the grammar is lousy. I’m really shocked you would say this since the fact is, you seem to create a Strawman position against your own position, that being Evolution.

[/sarcasm]

In all seriousness, I wish MMs posts were more readable, or at least remotely grammatically correct. (eh, shut up, your posts haven’t been much better at all. Content of information is more important than just “eh, he made a grammatical error here and there.” I’m sure I can point a few out on your side too. Who said anything about being perfect?). I just can’t bear wading through all of the jumbled sentences to figure out what he’s going on about…. I have read some of the shorter posts (the post where he claims the materialistic existence of the FSM nearly made me wet my pants), and I have followed along by reading his stuff that has been quoted by our foot soldiers (nice work guys!), but I would have loved to be able to read all of the posts. (I make myself very clear here. Pay close attention to wording. I am very good at not equivocating words, so if you would just pay a little bit more attention instead of going on with your mouths, and start listening and reading for just a bit, maybe you’d get the message).

PS: Actually, I’m wondering if we really could create an AI to troll creationist sites… Shouldn’t be too hard - look for keywords in their responses, correlate against the TalkOrigins answers, and voilà. I wonder how long they would last before getting banned over at UD….

What kind of argument is this? Obviously this would be a genetic fallacy. Poor reasoning here. Where do they state that they copy off of Talk Origins at all? I find their information not only does NOT copy off of Talk Origins, but also provides more information than Talk Origins could ever dream of providing in the first place. That’s not to say it does not address Talk Origin articles, but I’d say that’s more of the job for True Origin anyways. You are referring to one of the 2 largest Creation Science websites available on the web today FYI. CMI is much larger than True Origin or any other Creation Science site available today. Apparently Talk Origin seems to be the standard, and quite frankly, I see nothing impressive about that site (and believe me, after debating against the likes of you, I am very familiar with even the most current articles on Talk Origin, more than I’d like to be for sure). We have access to the same information, the same methods, the same laws, the same EVERYTHING, the only difference is the interpretation is more accurate and less equivocated from the Creation perspective. How many times has Creation Science had to change their origin model? Well, from the work I’ve seen, none. They’ve certainly expanded on it. How many times has Evolution changed ITS model? Didn’t the Big Bang move back 2 billion years? What about Piltdown man? Archaeopteryx anyone? Why do NeoDarwinists argue against Darwin’s original model? If it’s a change in Science, what changes have allowed for this position? What actual discoveries should allow for the change? Which of these discoveries have we found to be true and how?

Now I’ll address your other silly argument on Talk Origin, while you’re busy tangling those questions.

Comment #135330

Posted by Sir_Toejam on September 28, 2006 9:13 PM (e)

give yourself a prescription for some meds there doc, and STAY ON EM!

Comment #135334

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on September 28, 2006 9:24 PM (e)

Does *anyone* out there actually read any of the religious tracts that “Doc Martin” posts …. ?

Comment #135336

Posted by stevaroni on September 28, 2006 9:26 PM (e)

Doc Writes…

How many times has Creation Science had to change their origin model? Well, from the work I’ve seen, none. They’ve certainly expanded on it.

How many times has Evolution changed ITS model? Didn’t the Big Bang move back 2 billion years? What about Piltdown man? Archaeopteryx anyone? Why do NeoDarwinists argue against Darwin’s original model?

Arrgh! But Doc, that’s the whole point!

Science is constantly refining their model based on all the new information they’re out there actively digging up (sometimes in the literal sense).

Of course it’s going to change. It’s supposed to change, as the data gets better and better.

Science always says “No, wait, we can get even closer“.

Creationism, on the other hand, never changes, regardless of what new information comes though the door. The model always stays the same, no matter what new evidence to the contrary shows up.

I put it to you, respectfully even, because I’m not a bitter man, that only one of these approaches is likely to converge on the actual truth of the matter.

Comment #135338

Posted by stevaroni on September 28, 2006 9:29 PM (e)

Doc Writes…

How many times has Creation Science had to change their origin model? Well, from the work I’ve seen, none. They’ve certainly expanded on it.

How many times has Evolution changed ITS model? Didn’t the Big Bang move back 2 billion years? What about Piltdown man? Archaeopteryx anyone? Why do NeoDarwinists argue against Darwin’s original model?

Arrgh! But Doc, that’s the whole point!

Science is constantly refining their model based on all the new information they’re out there actively digging up (sometimes in the literal sense).

Of course it’s going to change. It’s supposed to change, as the data gets better and better.

Science always says “No, wait, we can get even closer“.

Creationism, on the other hand, never changes, regardless of what new information comes though the door. The model always stays the same, no matter what new evidence to the contrary shows up.

I put it to you, respectfully even, because I’m not a bitter man, that only one of these approaches is likely to converge on the actual truth of the matter.

Comment #135340

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 28, 2006 9:36 PM (e)

You might be wrong, after all. Unless you study the other side of a controversial issue, how will you ever know that you’re right? You might learn something, change your mind, or at least adjust your position. For example, “Get the government out of the art business and eliminate the NEA.” What arguments are there for the NEA? It supports traveling symphonies to small towns. Should that be eliminated, too?

Ignoring an argument strengthens it. There is a psychological problem with self-censoring ideas: they take on a power they otherwise would not have. As Robert Cialdini notes in his book, Influence, “Almost invariably, our response to banned information is to want to receive that information to a greater extend and to become more favorable toward it than before the ban” (239). In an experiment, when a group of college students learned that a speech opposing coed dorms would be banned, they became more opposed to the idea of coed dorms. “Thus,” says Cialdini, “without ever hearing the speech, the students became more sympathetic to its argument” (240).

This means that if you refuse to listen to an argument against a position you hold, you may subconsciously be undermining your own position and giving the opposition position more power than it otherwise would have. You’re thinking, “There is some argument, which I won’t hear, that disproves my position.” How firmly can you then hold your position?

Here’s the danger of holding any belief with the attitude that all further thought about it is closed. It loses its suppleness, its strength, its health, and becomes stiff and cold and frozen, and ultimately, easier to conquer.

Supporters of a position who cannot discuss the objections to their position are either ignorant or dishonest. When I was an undergraduate, an anthropology faculty member told me, “There is no opposition to evolution.” Having just read more than 30 books opposing the theory, I knew at once that he was either ignorant or dishonest–neither of which reflected very favorably on him or his belief.

Proponents of an idea who know of no objections show that they are not fully informed and they weaken the belief of those they persuade by not preparing them to respond to the objections. “Why I’ve never even heard that objection.” Did no one who taught you the idea think of the objection? Or did they hide it dishonestly? How strong is the objection? If the proponent of the idea knew of this objection, would he have changed his mind? For example, when we teach about Christianity, we should discuss the problem of pain and the responses that have been made to it, so that those we teach will have thoughtful responses if ever asked about it.

An acquaintance with many different viewpoints lessens our worship of authority. The appeal to authority is weak; appealing to reason or data is better. When we discover that there is virtually no position–however bizarre or ridiculous–that some articulate intellectual hasn’t held and promoted vigorously, then we will be less likely to accept some specious argument for some position. For example, the Marxists are fond of comparing Marxism in the abstract or theoretical to capitalism as practiced. Theory always looks better than practice, so theoretical Marxism sounds more humane than practical capitalism.

New ideas, by their nature appear strange and threatening, but lots of new ideas are good. We should get used to examining new ideas.
http://www.virtualsalt.com/wares.htm

Now, why on earth do we say that Christian articles are not objective when we see information like this being presented in them? Can people possibly be that dumb? Don’t you think people might think your site might be a bit more credible if you didn’t have to address ID and Creation Science sites as “pseudo” scientific?

Comment #135345

Posted by jeffw on September 28, 2006 9:42 PM (e)

Does *anyone* out there actually read any of the religious tracts that “Doc Martin” posts …. ?

I tried, but became quite ill after several paragraphs. It may be harmful to the nervous system and could cause permanent damage. I would estimate that one page is equivalent to two beers, so go easy on it. And of course, don’t drive afterwards.

Comment #135346

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 28, 2006 9:45 PM (e)

Arrgh! But Doc, that’s the whole point!

Science is constantly refining their model based on all the new information they’re out there actively digging up (sometimes in the literal sense).

Of course it’s going to change. It’s supposed to change, as the data gets better and better.

Science always says “No, wait, we can get even closer“.

Creationism, on the other hand, never changes, regardless of what new information comes though the door. The model always stays the same, no matter what new evidence to the contrary shows up.

I put it to you, respectfully even, because I’m not a bitter man, that only one of these approaches is likely to converge on the actual truth of the matter.

I question the credibility of the model because all of a sudden, “Science is changing rapidly” just like 100s of years ago, “the Age of Enlightenment changed things rapidly” and now we realize, at least anyone with an IQ over 70, that these wonderful philosophical ideas were clearly false. Science does get closer and closer. Evolution seems to be getting further and further away from what Science states. Creation Science does not change because it doesn’t have to. Science should grow and expand, building upon the great ideas of yesterday. Science is defined as: systematized knowledge derived from observation or observed results of experimentation, (observable or experimentally repeatable). In no way does this imply the change that Evolution or Naturalism proposes. New discoveries however, do occur within the Creation Science model, have helped its core grow. God is the centerfold of Creation Science, and as such, we are subject to his laws and the Bible itself as the primary core values within the world. As such, we can’t change God, because God is above us. I have a great Theodicy outline on this if need be. So, as we are discovering God’s creation, we are realizing more and more how Creation Science is the truth. Truth does not change. Truth does not conform. Truth is constant and fixed. As such, it would follow by your definition of Science that a) Evolution is not truth or b) Science is not truth. You can pick on that one.

Comment #135348

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 28, 2006 9:49 PM (e)

I tried, but became quite ill after several paragraphs. It may be harmful to the nervous system and could cause permanent damage. I would estimate that one page is equivalent to two beers, so go easy on it. And of course, don’t drive afterwards.

Dif being, beer is temporary satisfaction. Heh, I remember going out every weekend getting drunk with the guys in my mid 20’s…and you know what? I don’t miss them a bit. Cause Jesus Christ is the permanent satisfaction in life. Open your mind to looking at all religious viewpoints. Go with the evidence, and then see where you end up. You might be surprised.

Comment #135350

Posted by Steviepinhead on September 28, 2006 9:51 PM (e)

OK, “Doc,” we’ve certainly reeled out plenty of rope for you to spiel out your credo here.

Now, in return, all I ask is that you help us out with our latest project–

Spread the word far and wide, to your concregation of “scientists,” to your flock of literalists: End A War! Save A Gerbil!

You’ll thank yourself in the morning!

Comment #135351

Posted by stevaroni on September 28, 2006 9:52 PM (e)

You might be wrong, after all. Unless you study the other side of a controversial issue, how will you ever know that you’re right? You might learn something, change your mind, or at least adjust your position.

But Doc;

You’re still missing my point.

Science does constantly study all the available sides. Te history of scientific advance is simply full of controversial ideas which fly in the face of conventional wisdom. Ideas that have earned their place because the evidence proved them right.

Yes, science insisted that Galileo prove a solar-centric universe before they’d accept it as established fact, but it was the Church that wanted to kill him for it.

Comment #135353

Posted by jeffw on September 28, 2006 9:58 PM (e)

Dif being, beer is temporary satisfaction. Heh, I remember going out every weekend getting drunk with the guys in my mid 20’s…

Are you sure there were no permanent effects?

Cause Jesus Christ is the permanent satisfaction in life.

Jesus Christ, assuming he ever existed, is long dead and gone.

Open your mind to looking at all religious viewpoints.

Be careful you don’t open it too much. There many folks out there who want tp dump their garbage in it.

Go with the evidence, and then see where you end up.

We already have. You should do the same.

[where’s nurse bettinke when you her?]

Comment #135371

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 28, 2006 11:03 PM (e)

Jesus Christ is based around a true hypostasis, meaning he is the underlying reason for reality. Now, God is the default Philosophical position. From there, through deductive and inductive reasoning, we can derive that Jesus Christ is actually risen from the dead, especially given through the extremely accurate and much well documtented evidence from the New Testament Gospels, as well as from Flavius Josephus’s testimony, as well as other testimonies from people who had absolutely no reason to lie on the subject matter. Check out Sir William Ramsay’s quest to find Christ through his Archaeological discoveries from the books of Luke and Acts. Quite amazing discoveries. He found not one single contradiction of information, after spending 15 years checking out the areas around the middle east where Christ ministered. He is quoted as stating, “Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense…in short, this author should be placed along with the greatest of historians.1” http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/saint-luke.htm. Now, generally when we find a writer of such amazing credibility, we find that the entire text should be claimed as true, everything that is written within it. So, Luke, as he carefully states within Luke 1 “1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.” He carefully analyzes these things so that this Roman Governor, who would have his head for lying, would basically be happy about the statements he makes. So Luke writes this book, perhaps while following Christ’s ministry with Paul and the rest of the Disciples and the like.

So, if Christ has not risen, my faith is in vain. But, my faith is not in vain because it is based on forensic evidence, actual sound proof of occurence. Since anyone who could conquer death in the sense that Christ did would be considered God, since traditionally in the Jewish time period, God was the only one able to conquer death, we would assume Jesus Christ is exactly what the 300 prophecies throughout the Bible claimed him to be: The MESSIAH!

What does this mean for your life today? Well, like I stated, Truth is absolute and objective. It, as its definition implies, conforms to reality. When Jesus Christ states, “I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father (God) except through me” he is not just mincing words. He is claiming to be the Absolute truth, fixed and unchanged in nature. This is why a personal relationship with God, who, mind you Christianity is the only faith in which God seeks out mankind and not vice versa (even more incredible in itself) and is actually the only religion that states that we should look at all evidence (which I have) and draw sound conclusions based on looking at all evidence, I’d state is quite a bold for a religion itself. With all of the evidence we’ve been able to uncover for Christianity and Creation Science, I’d venture to state that it is nothing short than what it claims to be; the truth!

Comment #135372

Posted by k.e. on September 28, 2006 11:09 PM (e)

Blog doc martin sez:

….I question the credibility of the model because all of a sudden, “Science is changing rapidly” just like 100s of years ago, “the Age of Enlightenment changed things rapidly” and now we realize, at least anyone with an IQ over 70, that these wonderful philosophical ideas were clearly false……

I see where your problem is there herr dokter….you haven’t considered what anyone with an IQ over 71 might think.

Comment #135384

Posted by stevaroni on September 28, 2006 11:57 PM (e)

Doc; wrote

Jesus Christ is based around a true hypostasis, meaning he is the underlying reason for reality. Now, God is the default Philosophical position. From there, through deductive and inductive reasoning, we can derive that Jesus Christ is actually risen from the dead

Doc;

First, God is not the default position. The default position is that most things in nature happen independently of supernatural intervention. We seem to have established that God does not have to actually supervise the fall of each and every sparrow, they accomplish that just fine on their own.

The argument we’re having now is simply the question of whether evolution plays by natural laws, like everything else, or is it a special case?

But Let’s move on to the crux of your post, the resurrection.

I agree wholeheartedly with you that if it happened, it is, in fact, the defining moment for mankind.

But seeing that it’s the most extraordinary event in the whole human history of history ( with the virgin birth in the running for close second ), I think it’s reasonable to ask for some modicum of substantiation.

So please, lay out 5 reasonably verifiable items of evidence that this, the most extraordinary episode in all civilization, left behind.

(And please, only one reference to the bible. Yes, it’s a contemporary record, more or less, so it should appear in the list, but since it was written from memory thirty years after the fact, by unknown persons with obvious conflicts of interest, it’s hardly an authorative document in and of itself)

Comment #135388

Posted by Sir_Toejam on September 29, 2006 12:30 AM (e)

So, if Christ has not risen, my faith is in vain.

beware of setting up deliberate challenges to your faith.

you might just get what you ask for.

what then?

oops.

Comment #135402

Posted by jeffw on September 29, 2006 12:37 AM (e)

“Doc” martin:

Examine the personal motivations for your belief system. Would you still be a christian without the perceived reward of eternal life? How many other christians do you think there would be if they were not promised immortality? Maybe three? I think we all know that christianity would attract few followers without it.

And what is the most *selfish* thing anyone could possible wish for? A mansion? Fame? A billion dollars? No, immortality trumps everything. So, your religion is based on extreme selfishness - “MY immortality”, “MY savior”, “MY personal relationship with Jesus.” Me, Me, Me, Me.

And what is the fundamental difference between your desire for immortality and the implicit desire for every animal on this planet to continue it’s existence - the survival instinct that is selected for in all animals, including you? Not much of a difference, is there? Isn’t your faith in god therefore simply a pyschological manifestation of the primal darwinistic instinct to continue your own existence? Your “faith” seems to have a rather simple Darwinistic explanation.

Comment #135634

Posted by Steviepinhead on September 29, 2006 1:05 PM (e)

“Doc,” we could go round and round all year over whether or not you are an open-minded, enlightened, and faithful guy, or a dishonest, lying, crazed obsessive. The crushing weight of evidence appears to lie in favor of the second proposition but, hey, don’t let mere reality get you down, dude.

In the meantime, however, there is something worthwhile that even you may be capable of accomplishing. Something that your belief in Jesus is perfectly compatible with: advancing the cause of peace, while saving little innocent furry animals! Think “Prince of Peace”! Think “St. Francis”!

So, please feel perfectly free to continue trying to pound the round stake of your private lunacies into the square hole of consensual, evidence-based reality.

But, in the meantime, dude, please get with the peace/fuzzy l’il critter program–

Spread the word: End A War! Save A Gerbil!

Comment #135649

Posted by Steviepinhead on September 29, 2006 1:19 PM (e)

“Doc,” we could go round and round all year over whether or not you are an open-minded, enlightened, and faithful guy, or a dishonest, lying, crazed obsessive. The crushing weight of evidence appears to lie in favor of the second proposition but, hey, don’t let mere reality get you down, dude.

In the meantime, however, there is something worthwhile that even you may be capable of accomplishing. Something that your belief in Jesus is perfectly compatible with: advancing the cause of peace, while saving little innocent furry animals! Think “Prince of Peace”! Think “St. Francis”!

So, please feel perfectly free to continue trying to pound the round stake of your private lunacies into the square hole of consensual, evidence-based reality.

But, in the meantime, dude, please get with the peace/fuzzy l’il critter program–

Spread the word: End A War! Save A Gerbil!

Comment #135650

Posted by Steviepinhead on September 29, 2006 1:24 PM (e)

Oops, excuse the double-post: the usual Degas runaround; not intentional.

Of course, “Doc” shouldn’t be bothered, as endless respooling redundancy is his forte.

Comment #135743

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 29, 2006 4:47 PM (e)

Well again, regardless of what I say, since Essence precedes existence, and God is the essence that precedes existence (since being can not bring itself into existence), then I have no right to deny his existence, and neither do you. I can sit here and try to prove my existence all day long, and it really doesn’t matter. At the end of the day, God is still the truth. So, in other words, this means, we don’t even have to prove God. In order for me to refute your presuppositional statement here though, since as a Christian, I should give a response to each truth claim presented, I’ll say this: The default position is that most things in nature happen independently of supernatural intervention. Really? How did this “nature” begin in the first place? Created itself? Nope, that doesn’t work. I guess God must have created it with a purpose in mind. The sparrow example is weak, because it avoids the issue in the Bible, that God created man with soul, and animal without soul. The burden of evidence remains with you. Though, if you and I both denied his existence together, he would still be there regardless. So is he the philosophically default position? I’d venture to say based on your answer that you should familiarize yourself more with Philosophy. That was clearly a strawman attack against God, and since you were accusing, the burden lied against you there.

So please, lay out 5 reasonably verifiable items of evidence that this, the most extraordinary episode in all civilization, left behind.

Be happy to. Thats an easy one. Flavius Josephus was firmly convinced. His testimony is one piece of evidence in and of itself. He states in The Antiquities of the Jews: “About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.” This was important. Why? Basically the fact of the matter was that Josephus wrote this in 64 A.D. (about the time of the New Testament) and the bottom line fact of the matter here is that he had no reason to lie about this. If anything, this was a Pharisee who would have loved nothing better than to stick a fork into this religion and be done with it. Something compelled this man to do otherwise. He writes several other passages about Jesus, but this is the most popular. Cornelius Tacitus’s testimony is another evidence: But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. This means, that Jesus Christ left behind a church. No other religious leader in the history of mankind had a church that rose as rapidly as Jesus Christ of Nazareth’s church did. As a matter of fact, this leads me into the 3rd point: The Gospel writings were so closely written to the time of Jesus Christ that the resurrection could no doubt be disspelled as anything less than true, and certainly not a myth. Every other religious figure in the history of mankind had something written about him 200 years or so after his life. Jesus Christ had something written about him roughly 30 years after his resurrection, and given the fact that Paul exclaims within the Bible that, “Hey, there are still 500 people alive who witnessed Jesus Christ ascend into heaven” all it would take was one single source to state that this did not happen. One person out of those 500. The Roman Emperor Nero would have been more than happy to disspell this myth. Surely, he would have had one of his guys go out and attempt to get ahold of one of these 500 people. Again, not one trace left behind. An argument for silence HERE is truly tremendous, because the Roman Emperor hated Christians and was responsible for torturing and killing them. The 4th piece of evidence is the death of the Disciples. They were all willing to die. We have had people in the past crash planes into buildings for something they believed to be the truth, but had no first hand experience of. We also have the Jim Jones catastrophe. The difference between those are twofold. The Disciples were able to witness the event. This means that 11 men were willing to see the event happen. Not one recanted afterwards, all 11 Disciples were willing to die for something they had seen. Psychiatrists alike agree that people are willing to die for what they know to be true, but not after experiencing it. No one would die for a known lie! And the shame factor actually lends credibility here. This was not a high and mighty event. Their religious leader, as perceived by them at the time, was shamefully beaten, brutallized and crucified. A shameful display like this would turn anyone off from dealing with the individual afterwards in Jewish time. It was seriously dishonorable to actually follow through with an event like this, and lying on top of that? Thats a disgrace to Jews. All 11 men involved, as well as 1000s of other Christians, were willing to die for this one man (if it be lawful to call him a man).

beware of setting up deliberate challenges to your faith.

you might just get what you ask for.

what then? Well, then I’d have to change my presuppositions to conform to the truth, whatever that may be in order to be intellectually honest. Its unfortunate however, that even through investigating all sides, nothing even touches Christianity. I mean, I’m seriously at the point in my search where I’m trying to find something to touch it, and I simply can not. Gets kind of boring and repetitive after a while, so I accept it as the truth.

oops.

Comment #135402
Posted by jeffw on September 29, 2006 12:37 AM (e)

“Doc” martin:

Examine the personal motivations for your belief system. Would you still be a christian without the perceived reward of eternal life? Yes. This is beside the issue. I would follow through with it because it is the truth. The I want to get to heaven thing is an added benefit, but due to the fact that this did happen, means that Christians should put more emphasis on the resurrection of Christ than actually going to heaven someday. How many other christians do you think there would be if they were not promised immortality? This is irrelevant. Is it true is the issue at hand here, not how many people agree with it. Maybe three? I think we all know that christianity would attract few followers without it. I have no clue how it would affect Christianity. All I can tell you is that having a personal relationship with Christ is great enough in itself.

And what is the most *selfish* thing anyone could possible wish for? A mansion? Fame? A billion dollars? No, immortality trumps everything. Well, absolutely, and manipulating the relationship with Christ, as it follows is an absolutely abominable thing to do. Christianity involves total submission to God, not God’s total submission to you. So in fact, Christianity is a very selfless act to pursue. So, your religion is based on extreme selfishness - “MY immortality”, “MY savior”, “MY personal relationship with Jesus.” Me, Me, Me, Me. NO NO NO, wrong, thats the wrong motivation to be a Christian.

And what is the fundamental difference between your desire for immortality and the implicit desire for every animal on this planet to continue it’s existence - the survival instinct that is selected for in all animals, including you? Not much of a difference, is there? Isn’t your faith in god therefore simply a pyschological manifestation of the primal darwinistic instinct to continue your own existence? Your “faith” seems to have a rather simple Darwinistic explanation. No, it has nothing to do with Charles Darwin, this is a genetic fallacy. Don’t confuse the issue.

Comment #135751

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 29, 2006 4:54 PM (e)

Oh just to be fair, more evidence for the credibility of the resurrection of Jesus Christ can be found in the Babylonian Talmud, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius (again, these are all pagan sources, not Christian). If I can name one from the Bible, its the empty tomb. Consider this: You are here: The Journey >> Empty Tomb
Empty Tomb

Finally, I took a look at some of the academic scholarship regarding the empty tomb of Jesus. I was truly surprised to find that a large majority of scholars today agree that Christ’s tomb was found empty.

Consider…

The Jerusalem Factor. Since Jesus was publicly executed and buried in Jerusalem, it would have been impossible for Christianity to begin in Jerusalem while the body was still in the tomb. Christ’s enemies in the Jewish leadership and Roman government would only have to exhume the corpse and publicly display it for the hoax of the empty tomb to be shattered.

The Jewish Response. Rather than point to an occupied tomb, the Jewish leadership accused Christ’s disciples of stealing his body. Wouldn’t this strategy seem to establish that there was, in fact, an empty tomb and a missing body?1

The Women’s Testimony. In all four Gospel accounts of the empty tomb, women are listed as the primary witnesses. This would be an odd invention, since in both Jewish and Roman cultures women were not esteemed and their testimony was not admissible.

When you understand the role of women in first-century Jewish society, what’s really extraordinary is that this empty tomb story should feature women as the discoverers of the empty tomb in the first place. Women were on a very low rung of the social ladder in first-century Palestine. There are old rabbinical sayings that said, ‘Let the words of Law be burned rather than delivered to women’ and ‘blessed is he whose children are male, but woe to him whose children are female.’ Women’s testimony was regarded as so worthless that they weren’t even allowed to serve as legal witnesses in a Jewish court of Law. In light of this, it’s absolutely remarkable that the chief witnesses to the empty tomb are these women… Any later legendary account would have certainly portrayed male disciples as discovering the tomb – Peter or John, for example. The fact that women are the first witnesses to the empty tomb is most plausibly explained by the reality that – like it or not – they were the discoverers of the empty tomb! This shows that the Gospel writers faithfully recorded what happened, even if it was embarrassing. This bespeaks the historicity of this tradition rather than its legendary status. 2 http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/empty-tomb.htm

Of course the shroud of turin is another important item, and its also been confirmed that inscriptions have been left behind bearing Jesus’s name, as well as Pontius Pilate, and the tomb’s inscription perhaps as well. The cross of Jesus Christ is also a confirmed find I believe.

Again, mind you, the relationship with Christ is a privilege, not a self centered event. If my heart is full of pride, I am not a Christian. Only the meek and humble are worthy of respect from Christ. Christianity requires three of the hardest words to admit to believe it or not. “I’m a sinner.” This means, I’m wrong, by my very nature, I’m fallible. I’m responsible for what happened on the cross to Jesus Christ. The survival of the fittest factor ABSOLUTELY does not work here, because it is the weakest who are the holiest in the presence of Christ. Christ is the one who makes Christians better, and the great people who serve the community today. Not to mention, how else could a reformed drug dealer become a prize citizen without the help of Christ over night? That in itself proves miracles are still possible today.

Comment #135781

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 29, 2006 5:22 PM (e)

Its better to think of Christianity not as a religion persay, but as a relationship. It is how we grow spiritually with a communication with God, in whom we are proud of for forgiving our souls yes, but as well, it largely means, we must give up our desires, give up our “survival of the fittest” motives that are built within us, rely instead upon Jesus Christ for a spiritually whole life. It is in our desires as humans to maintain control of our lives, but funny enough it is when we relinquish this control and let “Jesus take the wheel” if you will that our lives are truly and spiritually fulfilled (ironic, but true here).

Morals are of the highest multitude here. The Bible itself is meant to be used as a book of moral codes to live by, as was such it was used by the older Jewish society. It is not meant to be used as a book of Science or anything else except the holy word of God himself, but this does not mean that it does not have Scientific features mentioned within it. I think a comparison of the start of religions will enlighten you to actually how important this religion’s origins are to proving it to be true. I direct you now to JP Holding: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html.

Lets compare that to other religious origins: Muslims: http://www.tektonics.org/uz/yeswayjose3.html

Mormonism: http://www.tektonics.org/uz/yeswayjose2.html

Mithraism: http://www.tektonics.org/uz/yeswayjose1.html

Creation Science is a theory that ties closely within the Bible however, but it would be an injustice to totally proclaim that the Christians are the only ones who adhere to Creation Science, as Jews and Muslims also do the same here. However, thats irrelevant, as the origin question is answered very strictly and affirmatively within the Christian faith. I hope you will venture to check out each religious claim as I have. I truly wish you the BEST and absolute best in determining the truth here, and if you truly seek with an open heart, I know you will find it. God bless, and oh by the way, feel free to e-mail me any questions at mmartinyale@yahoo.com.

Comment #135793

Posted by Steviepinhead on September 29, 2006 5:46 PM (e)

Just as a humorous aside, “Doc,” you need to display some minimal blogging competence. Your posts are almost unreadable–not due simply to their unceasingly moronic content, but also due to your abysmal refusal to learn even the simplest HTML.

Let’s start, okay? When you are in the “Comments” pane, look up and left, right under “Post a Comment,” and click on the phrase in blue: “KwickXML formatting.” You’ll get a reasonably short simple tutorial.

Even quicker–don’t think, just do as I say (this should be pretty familiar from your Biblical approach to, well, just about everything*): to separate someone else’s remarks you are quoting from your own response to those remarks–

well, you could start by attributing the quoted material to the author, then just open each of their paragraphs with the good ol’ double-quotes (“) and conclude their final paragraph or sentence with the same, then you could hit “Enter” and start your own remarks–

but since, ironically enough on a “quote-mining” thread, you seem incapable of this simple courtesty, let’s try something a wee bit more sophisticated:

after blocking and copying the material you intend to quote, type exactly the following, but substituting “arrow”/angle brackets for the squared-off brackets I’ll use into the Comments pane: [quote][/quote]. Set your cursor in between the two middle (][) “arrows”/angle brackets, then paste your quoted material in.

Then just hit “Enter” and type your usual moronic ramblings in. Once you Post your comment, the quoted material will magically appear in its own little mini-pane.

See, if I wanted to quote “Doc” Martin saying, oh, “Stuff moron said up above,” then I’d follow the procedure above and get:

Stuff moron said up above

Voila! Nifty, huh?

There are slightly more-complicated ways to do it that allow you to automatically attribute the quote to the author, date, time, etc., but I suspect I’ve strained your brain enough for now.

Try it! Like I said, it’s not going to improve your miniscule powers of reasoning or mishandling/avoidance of evidence, but it will at least render your posts more readable.

__________
*Before Raging Bee–deservedly–buzzes me, let me apologize to my Christian friends who actually read their Bibles exactingly and critically (and, therefore, not as literal scientific almanacs).

Comment #135802

Posted by Steviepinhead on September 29, 2006 5:56 PM (e)

Now, Michael, let’s get back to the real issue, which in your cowardice you seem determined to evade:

Where do you stand on the key question of Noah’s Gerbil?

Are you pro-gerbil? Or anti-God? There’s no third option, so don’t try to duck or dodge these simple, straightforward questions.

You’re either for Noah’s Gerbil. Or you’re against a literal God-of-Genesis. It’s that simple and, no, don’t even try to claim that you are pro-God but anti-gerbil. Again, for reasons that are simple enough for even you to understand (the gerbil is the unique key to a scientific proof of a Noachian Flood some 5,000 years ago, and thus to validating all of Creation Science), you can’t be pro-God and anti-gerbil.

So, buckle it up, youngster: be a man and take a stand! Are you or are you not going to–

Spread the word: End A War! Save A Gerbil!

Comment #136282

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 30, 2006 6:11 PM (e)

I don’t even begin to understand your pro-gerbil thing. If you are implying that Creation Science is meant as a Propaganda technique used to influence the opinions of others, think again. We have actually had numerous Christians e-mail AIG, or at least me personally with questions and we have had to explain even ourselves regarding complaints about it, and “setting the facts straight!” We regard Creation Science as our top priority when at AIG, but AIG also deals with Apologetics in our case, and again, not primarily used to sway opinions, but rather to actually factually display evidence of concern.

At any rate, I see more evidence and support for Creation Science, and that is the reason I have put my stamp of approval on Creation Science over Evolution and Intelligent Design. I think they are fair with their evidence, and not into political gain in the very least. Most Christians I have encountered do not CARE about politics, and believe politics to be evil, since its is empowerment of the opinions of people controlled by mankind. Now without a view on Metaphysical Realism, its hard (I know I’ve been there) for you to understand where I”m coming from there, but Christians who are truly Christians are not self serving and self seeking jerks, but rather are all about helping people come to Christ. I can speak for myself and state that I am all about winning a soul for Christ, and thats it. I care more about that than the paycheck I get at the end of my 2 weeks period. If I win one soul to Christ, then I feel I have done my duty for God. Thats what its all about folks. Not about selfish ambitions, or political clout, but rather, for leading people to the truth behind Jesus Christ, and knowing that he is out there, and he cares for his creation. This is also why you do not see Creation Scientists rioting and bickering about Creation Science not being taught in schools. Instead, we are just simply irked about distortions of truth, and honestly, from a Creation Scientist point of view here, it is not our top priority at all, though it would still be nice to see it taught in schools most definitely. If it happens, it happens, but I have faith in the general public enough to know that someone who wishes to seek all of the evidence will look outside of the classroom to seek it, and thats what AIG is here to represent. Its not even about the age of the earth. If a Christian believes in the literal 6 day Creation of the Bible and they also believe that the earth is about several 100s of millions of years old or even billions or trillions of years, we can’t stop them, nor would we argue with them about it. We simply acknowledge that we have enough facts to prove that it is not, and in this case, its best to agree to disagree.

At any rate, I’m getting kind of sick of reading some of the ID shmack from Mike Gene and others that I’ve been reading today. Quite frankly, some of his stuff was decent, but he really likes to blast Creation Scientists for some reason. I think he really needs to get a grip there. What do you guys think of Mike Gene?

Comment #136283

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on September 30, 2006 6:12 PM (e)

Doc Martin wrote . . uh . . some big long sermon that … uh …

ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz ……

Comment #136286

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 30, 2006 6:14 PM (e)

www.idthink.net (or lack of think thereof if you will).

Comment #136292

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 30, 2006 6:17 PM (e)

www.idthink.net (or lack of think thereof if you will).

What possible clarity does the term “Intelligent Design Creationism” bring to the table? As stated, “Intelligent Design” acts as an adjective that modifies the noun “Creationism.” Yet as far as I know, all “Creationists” accept some kind of Intelligent Design, as all Creationists believe God is both “Intelligent” and the “Designer.” So what use is the redundant adjective? Creationists accept ID. Is this significant? Are there Creationists who reject ID? Who are they?

Yet the inverse is not true. That is, not all Intelligent Design proponents are Creationists. Of course, this all turns on how we define “Creationist.” One may attempt to define “Creationist” as anyone who believes Nature or Life or some form of Life was “created” rather than emerging from non-intelligent forces. If one waters down the definition in this way, they end up ensnaring various theistic evolutionists and proponents of directed panspermy (such as Francis Crick) in the category of “Creationist.”

This is a reductio ad absurdem, and a clear strawman on the Theistic Evolutionist issue at that (smacks head). What is wrong with this guy?

Comment #136297

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 30, 2006 6:23 PM (e)

To Lenny Flank there.

Well, I’m not into sermonizing the public myself. I’m more keen on Evidential Apologetics, so the word of God is great, but I know people are looking for evidence (as was I as a skeptic). So outside evidence of the Bible is what its all about.

May I ask you what it would take for you to believe that the Bible is truly the one and only truth within the world there “Rev Dr. Lenny Flank”? I can provide just about any evidential support you need, or any Philosophical rebuttal that you need as well. Heck if you want, I’ll just cut to the chase and prove God’s existence for you if you want too (though I really see it as redundant and unnecessary). Its important to avoid card stacking however, because this is illogical and eventually begins a justification for rejecting the truth behind Christ, and there are imminent consequences for doing this. Why not just be open to this for, eh, 5 minutes in your life at least. It could be worth your while, who knows?

Comment #136301

Posted by David B. Benson on September 30, 2006 6:31 PM (e)

steviepinhead — I am always pro-gerbil. Today I am agnostic. What do you think of that?

Comment #136311

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 30, 2006 6:57 PM (e)

Agnosticism is self refuting. It proclaims confusion about God’s existence. The problematic scheme is that Agnosticism proclaims in fashion, “I do not know anything about the existence of God.” This actually professes the thing that it claims it does not do, which states some sort of knowledge about the existence of God. This equates to “I know one thing about God; that I do not know anything about the existence of God.” Right off the back, Agnosticism fails as a Philosophical paradigm.

Comment #136314

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 30, 2006 7:08 PM (e)

The Design argument is rather significant:

1. The universe began to exist

2. The universe has complexity, order and fine-tuning

3. Complexity, order and fine-tuning imply design

4. Design that began to exist implies a designer

5. Therefore, the universe has a designer

http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/theistic_apologetics/kreeft-arguments.html

There are about 20 arguments for the existence of God there, not even touched with a 10 foot pole by any CRITIC I have ever entertained.

Comment #136330

Posted by stevaroni on September 30, 2006 8:31 PM (e)

Awww, gack.

Doc, It’s always the same.

First, I did do you the courtesy of looking at your referenced page with “The 20 proofs of God.”

I hate to break this to you, but there are no actual proofs on that page.

Proof is something that you can measure. Proof is something you can quantify.

Proof is not something you philosophise about. That’s the classical method, how the Greeks did it 2500 years ago.

The Greeks didn’t believe in experiments, since the physical world was base, and thought was pure.

But you know what, the Greeks ended up being wrong about all kinds of stuff, and their method,s set human technical progress back for 1500 years until the Renaissance thinkers overthrew it in search of real information.

Anyhow, for “proof” you’ve basically got 19 versions of Jeff Foxworthy’s shtick slightly modified to “You must be a god because…”, and then you have Pascals Gamble.

All but the last boil down to “well, of course there’s a God, I simply can’t imagine any other option”.

All of them are just polemics with no backup at all.

Lets take your strongest argument.

The Design argument is rather significant:

1. The universe began to exist

Says who? What is “began” in a universe where there is no time? What is time? Why does time start? Maybe it’s always been that way. Maybe time is just a local dimension. Besides, why must the universe have a beginning, while God requires none? How does he do that? How can I answer any of these questions to establish the truth of your first point?

(By the way, that whole “how do I establish the first point thing” was a reoccurring theme of the other 18 points)

2. The universe has complexity, order and fine-tuning

This statement is true. The serial numbers on the bills in my wallet have complexity. a salt crystal has order. Delicate Arch in Utah is finely tuned.

3. Complexity, order and fine-tuning imply design

No. None of these things has any need of a designer.

4. Design that began to exist implies a designer

Again, No. Nobody has ever convincingly demonstrated an effect that has no apparent natural cause.

5. Therefore, the universe has a designer

Sorry, can’t get there from here, Doc. You can’t require a designer till you demonstrate design.

I do have to admit, though, I appreciate how exhaustively whoever compiled that list worked to make something out of nothing ( which is, I believe part of argument #16, the Argument from Desire, which seems to boil down to “I really, really want there to be a god, so therefore there is one).

Perhaps the most pernicious though is #20, Pascal’s Wager, which boils down to “Hey, there might be a God, there might not be a God, so err on the side of caution, and just believe he exists, waddya got to loose” Which sounds just fine till you look at the damage it does in the hands of some school board moron who decides that there’s no harm to teaching kids ID instead of evolution just in case.

So, back to Stevepinhead’s little challenge (By the way, Doc, you really seem to be suffering the plague of Steve’s here) Please give us some tiny, little, minuscule scrap of evidence that I can actually examine to show me that something supernatural is going on, because #5, “The argument from Design” just isn’t cutting it.

Now, I do have to admit that in some perverse way, it’s been vaguely satisfying spending 30 minutes of my precious Saturday evening arguing with a computer screen, but I have to stop now because I have to go drink heavily. See ya’ next week.

Comment #136339

Posted by jeffw on September 30, 2006 8:55 PM (e)

The Women’s Testimony. In all four Gospel accounts of the empty tomb, women are listed as the primary witnesses. This would be an odd invention, since in both Jewish and Roman cultures women were not esteemed and their testimony was not admissible.

There are many witnesses for UFO’s abductions too. Have you ever been abducted? - wait, don’t answer that.

Of course the shroud of turin is another important item, and its also been confirmed that inscriptions have been left behind bearing Jesus’s name, as well as Pontius Pilate, and the tomb’s inscription perhaps as well. The cross of Jesus Christ is also a confirmed find I believe.

You may be the biggest nutcase ever to grace these boards. Not even die hard yec’s would use the shroud of turin. Where do you get this stuff? national inquirer? creationontheweb? “Dr”, my ass.

it is the weakest who are the holiest in the presence of Christ.

I think you mean the weakest-minded.

Most Christians I have encountered do not CARE about politics,

Bwah! I guess the christian right is just a figment of everyone’s imagination then.

There’s a saying that goes, “a creationist is either ignorant, insane, or a liar”. But in you, we have all three in one. Just keeping up with your endless drivel is a full-time job. Diarrhea of the mind.

p.s. I ask you again, would you be a christian without the reward of immortality?

Comment #136360

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on September 30, 2006 10:36 PM (e)

I’ll just cut to the chase and prove God’s existence for you

(yawn)

What are you, his front man or something? Why on earth does the Creator of the Universe need an incoherent insignificant little nobody of a nothing like YOU to speak on his behalf?

Dude, I don’t give a flying fig about your religious opinions. They are, after all, just that – your opinions. You are no more holy or divine than anyone else is, you don’t know any more about god than anyone else does, and your religious opinions are not more authoritative than mine, my next door neighbor’s, my car mechanic’s, or the kid who delivers my pizzas.

Why oh why why why do fundies ALWAYS turn out to be arrogant self-righteous prideful pricks who think, quite literally, that they are holier than thou?

Comment #136362

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on September 30, 2006 10:53 PM (e)

I have put my stamp of approval

And, uh, who the hell are you, again …. . ?

(snicker) (giggle)

Comment #136374

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 30, 2006 11:24 PM (e)

The Design argument is rather significant:

1. The universe began to exist

Says who? What is “began” in a universe where there is no time? What is time? Why does time start? Maybe it’s always been that way. Maybe time is just a local dimension. Besides, why must the universe have a beginning, while God requires none? How does he do that? How can I answer any of these questions to establish the truth of your first point? Albert Einstein…ever heard of him by chance?

(By the way, that whole “how do I establish the first point thing” was a reoccurring theme of the other 18 points)

Premise one! You are being really redundant with this. Premise one is where we start, we move to the next point. The how is not necessary to be answered here.

2. The universe has complexity, order and fine-tuning

This statement is true. The serial numbers on the bills in my wallet have complexity. a salt crystal has order. Delicate Arch in Utah is finely tuned. I think you miss the point (shooo) over your head it goes.

3. Complexity, order and fine-tuning imply design

No. None of these things has any need of a designer. Prove it! You accuse, you bear the burden of proof.

4. Design that began to exist implies a designer

Again, No. Nobody has ever convincingly demonstrated an effect that has no apparent natural cause. Where have you been?

5. Therefore, the universe has a designer

Sorry, can’t get there from here, Doc. You can’t require a designer till you demonstrate design.

Okay it sounds like you must be at the beginning of time in order to actually prove that the universe had a beginning. Apparently you disagree with Albert Einstein on this one then?

Comment #136377

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 30, 2006 11:27 PM (e)

Bwah! I guess the christian right is just a figment of everyone’s imagination then.

There’s a saying that goes, “a creationist is either ignorant, insane, or a liar”. But in you, we have all three in one. Just keeping up with your endless drivel is a full-time job. Diarrhea of the mind.

p.s. I ask you again, would you be a christian without the reward of immortality?

Wow, sounds like I’m really ignorant, insane and lying. I give you a response, and you ask me the same question again. These are not responses to my questions.

The Christian Right is irrelevant to the point. That is a “political position” established by some crazy liberals who don’t have anything better to do than stick their feet in their mouth! Yes, it is an imaginary and I’ll add strawman position.

Comment #136378

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 30, 2006 11:31 PM (e)

To Lenny Flank, I’m Dr. Michael Martin, PHD grad from Yale in Molecular and Cell Biology. Also graduate from Talbot Theological Seminary (Josh McDowell’s school) with a Masters in Theological studies. Who might you be?

Eh….some guy who runs a blog somewhere right?

Comment #136379

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 30, 2006 11:35 PM (e)

Dude, I don’t give a flying fig about your religious opinions. They are, after all, just that – your opinions. You are no more holy or divine than anyone else is, you don’t know any more about god than anyone else does, and your religious opinions are not more authoritative than mine, my next door neighbor’s, my car mechanic’s, or the kid who delivers my pizzas.

rolls eyes> whatever you say, Lenny Fluke. I go with the evidence and facts when it comes to Religions. There is a right answer, but….it appears that you are too afraid to be open to it for the “five minutes” that I requested from you.

Well, as Psychological research has determined, the one thing that man seems to fear most is having a God be in control over his/her life. You obviously qualify as one of these people. Oh no, don’t worry about being intellectually honest with the evidence, just go and boldly make a bald assertion of the like above. Write it all off as opinion, but of course, if its all opinion, and thats a fact, then its not opinion, and your point is of course moot.

Comment #136381

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 30, 2006 11:39 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #136384

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 30, 2006 11:44 PM (e)

Christians are weak minded?

Heh….read Glenn Miller’s cite www.christian-thinktank.com for a thorough review of that. Look no further than his front page “Critically Analyze Everything hold on to the good.” Now, why on earth is that there? Oh wait, cause its in the Bible! The Bible is the only holy book that tells us to do this. Why not take 2 years of your time studying every single available cite and research EVERYTHING available to make up your minds and come to a conclusion on this? Then you can come back and talk to me about how “crazy and stupid and ignorant and dumb” Christians are. Until then, open mouth, insert foot.

Again, don’t use this card stacking (which I stated was unfair and intellectually dishonest to invoke in the first place) against the evidence I provided. If you were really fair and honest, you’d open your minds to the evidence and at least consider it.

Comment #136385

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 30, 2006 11:49 PM (e)

On the religious right issue, go to church some Sunday morning and see how many people are “just so proud that the Christian right could be here this morning.” Yeah, don’t think you’ll see that one anytime soon.

Where does the minister stand up and say, “We must oppress those Liberal Lefties, we must not allow them to let Evolution take over our school rooms. We must force them to hear the Creation Science side!”

No, in fact, I don’t even see Creation Science sites promote that behavior. All they want is a fair and equal treatment if anything within schools. They don’t want children completely indoctrinated with Neo-Darwinism. Is that too much to ask?

Comment #136386

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on September 30, 2006 11:50 PM (e)

And please spare me the Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson fluff. I’m not in the least impressed with those clowns at all.

Comment #136388

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 1, 2006 12:03 AM (e)

As far as how we start in the premises, its very simple. Whats wrong with these premises? Nothing unreasonable to start here. If they were talking about blue kangaroos or something, then we’d have a beef. Nothing wrong with these at all though.

The question of heaven among other mythological beliefs about Christianity can be addressed here: http://www.tektonics.org/af/christianmyths.html

Self centeredness here: http://www.tektonics.org/qt/selfesteem.html

Comment #136393

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 1, 2006 12:18 AM (e)

Immortality is not a reward either I might finally add. It is either a reward, or it is a curse. You are on one end of the stick or the other. So we have heaven or hell to choose from. No brainer to me. I’ll be happy to meet my God someday in heaven. But, why serve a God for selfish motives if he’s not really true? Seriously, what good would that do? I suggest anyone truly go where the evidence leads, with an open and intellectually honest mind. The evidence has led me, Josh McDowell, Lee Stroebel, JP Holding, I might add Jonathan Sarfarti to become Christians among millions of others. I have read no other story of a Christian becoming an Atheist, Agnostic or counter to this position, unless they had some Psychological barrier, and blamed God for something in their past. What should this tell you?

When are you going to answer my questions on Evolution? You keep dodging MY questions, and then asking more of me, while flaming me, without even taking the responsibility to answer any one of the questions I ask in the process.

Oh yeah, “If there is a God, we can not know anything about him.”

Whats wrong with that Lenny?

Problem is here. We are stating that we know something about God; that we can not know anything about him. The strong Skeptical position fails, and is self contradictory as such.

Comment #136489

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 1, 2006 9:32 AM (e)

To Lenny Flank, I’m Dr. Michael Martin, PHD grad from Yale in Molecular and Cell Biology. Also graduate from Talbot Theological Seminary (Josh McDowell’s school) with a Masters in Theological studies.

Well then, since you’re such a divinely-sanctioned scholar who has the ear of God and the, uh, divine authority to pronounce upon matters of religion for us poor unwashed masses, I have just one simple question for you. Think very carefully while answering it.

*ahem*

Exodus 22:18 “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”.

I simply want to know (1) whether or not you think supernatural witchcraft and witches really exist, and (2) if so, should they be killed.

You have the floor, Your Holiness.

I want to see how truly nutty you really are.

Comment #136491

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 1, 2006 9:45 AM (e)

whatever you say, Lenny Fluke

My, THAT was clever beyond measure. (snicker) (giggle)

I notice, though, that you didn’t actually explain to me why, ya know, your religious opinions are any better or more authoritative than, say, mine or my next door neighbor’s or my car mechanic’s or my veterinarian’s or the kid who delivers my pizzas.

Do you think you are the only person in human history who has ever graduated from a Bible college with a degree in theology? Was your particular degree signed by God, but nobody else’s was? Is God Himself a professor at your particular Bible college? Are all the textbooks you used marked with a big stamp that says “Approved by God”? Does God love you best? Are you the most brilliant Biblical scholar in human history? Do you walk more closely to God than the rest of us mere humans? Is your pipeline to God more direct than the rest of us? Do you have your very own special 1-800 number or something? Are you more holy than the rest of us?

There are thousands of people in the world with ThM’s, Junior – and most of them think you’re full of crap. (shrug) And you have given me no reason at all to think that your opinion is any better or more authoritative than theirs, or anyone else’s. Or do you just want me to take it that you are right, and they are all wrong, just on your holy say-so, based on your, uh, divine holy authority …. ?

You seem to fervently believe that not only is the Bible inerrant and infallible, but your interpretations of it are also inerrant and infallible. Sorry, Doctor Martin, but I simply do not believe that you are infallible, ThM or no ThM.

Would you mind explaining to me why I *should* think you are infallible, and why your religious opinions and Biblical interpretations are any more authoritative than anyone else’s?

Other than your say-so?

Comment #136492

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 1, 2006 9:52 AM (e)

There is a right answer

Wait, wait, let me guess —- YOURS is the right answer … right?

Isn’t it odd that every religious preacher in history makes that very same claim – even though none of them can agree with each other and all say different things?

You think you’re infallibly right. They think THEY are infallibly right. You have a piece of paper from a Bible college. THEY have their piece of paper from a Bible college. You claim to talk to God. THEY claim to talk to God. You claim to be “correctly interpreting the Bible”. THEY claim to be “correctly interpreting the Bible”. You have a long list of scholars who agree with you. THEY have a long list of scholars who agree with THEM. (shrug) So what makes your claim any different from theirs? Other than your say-so?

Comment #136510

Posted by jeffw on October 1, 2006 10:45 AM (e)

Wow, sounds like I’m really ignorant, insane and lying. I give you a response, and you ask me the same question again.

You answered nothing. All you do is babble incoherently.

I’m Dr. Michael Martin, PHD grad from Yale in Molecular and Cell Biology

We don’t believe you. We think you’re lying. Show us something on the web to verify it.

Well, as Psychological research has determined, the one thing that man seems to fear most is having a God be in control over his/her life.

No, the one thing he fears most is that his silly god fantasy isn’t real, and that he’s on his own in this world.

Why not take 2 years of your time studying every single available cite and research EVERYTHING available to make up your minds and come to a conclusion on this?

For the same reason that you don’t spend 2 years of your time studying the flying spaghetti monster.

On the religious right issue, go to church some Sunday morning and see how many people are “just so proud that the Christian right could be here this morning.” Yeah, don’t think you’ll see that one anytime soon.
Where does the minister stand up and say, “We must oppress those Liberal Lefties, we must not allow them to let Evolution take over our school rooms. We must force them to hear the Creation Science side!”
No, in fact, I don’t even see Creation Science sites promote that behavior.

Then you’re a liar. You buddy Ken Ham and others have always promoted it.

Self centeredness here: http://www.tektonics.org/qt/selfesteem.html

That still doesn’t answer my question. You have slithered and squirmed like a slimey little creationist worm, but you don’t seem to be able to answer any direct questions. All you do is post links to irrelevant nutcase websites.

Immortality is not a reward either I might finally add. It is either a reward, or it is a curse.

Reward or punishment, what’s the difference? It motivates you to believe what you believe. Evolutionists have no such motivations for their belief systems, other than a genuine curiosity to discover scientific truth. We don’t go to heaven or hell if we get it wrong.

I suggest anyone truly go where the evidence leads, with an open and intellectually honest mind.

We already have, so stop wasting our time.

Comment #136511

Posted by k.e. on October 1, 2006 10:49 AM (e)

To Lenny Flank, I’m Dr. Michael Martin, PHD grad from Yale in Molecular and Cell Biology. Also graduate from Talbot Theological Seminary (Josh McDowell’s school) with a Masters in Theological studies. Who might you be?

If that is the order Dr.MM got those caps then obviously it’s been a win for science when he went off to find god, and a win for Xianity to have such slavish convert.

It should happen more often.

The more that incoherent and clearly insane PHD grads from Yale in Molecular and Cell Biology are kept away from the general public the better.

But seriously, I think we are being spammed; if there was such a person would he actually TELL everyone? Surely the voices (no not the ones INSIDE his head) of those around him would give him a clue?

Comment #136514

Posted by k.e. on October 1, 2006 11:14 AM (e)

Lenny said:

Do you think you are the only person in human history who has ever graduated from a Bible college with a degree in theology? Was your particular degree signed by God, but nobody else’s was? Is God Himself a professor at your particular Bible college?….

Well Dr.MM seems to be so sure about that, he can get God himself to sign on to PT and just put us all straight…right Dr.MM?

He must have broadband or at least dial up..how about it?

One thing you could answer for me Dr.MM since it is self evident that Intelligence created the universe and since Intelligence can only produce thought are you saying the universe is just a thought?

Or are you saying thought produced the universe and everything in it including your god.

BTW is Mary the mother of god?

Comment #136545

Posted by stevaroni on October 1, 2006 3:36 PM (e)

Doc martin sez..
Okay it sounds like you must be at the beginning of time in order to actually prove that the universe had a beginning. Apparently you disagree with Albert Einstein on this one then?

If I were a petty man, Doc, I’d point out that that is the exact, unrealistic standard that Creationists hold science to every day with their little “How do you know? Were you there?” chant.

But I’m not petty, Doc, and I fully realize that since we can’t go back in time both of us will have to answer the questions based on the indirect evidence we can observe today.

But Doc, the problem is that none of us has much of an idea of what was around “in the beginning”.

Science tells us that if you take the current expansion of the universe, and run the data backwards, it converges at a point.

That’s pretty much all science tells us at the moment.

Nobody has a very good concept of what dimensions like “time” actually mean in a universe the size of a tennis ball, and nobody can really say what the universe expanded “into” if there’s no space outside. We currently lack any conceptual framework at all to describe any of these things, since they are so far removed from any tangible human experience.

As far as Einstein was concerned, I’m no expert (and I suspect, neither are you, or you’d have done more than just name -drop) but I don’t see how either general relativity or special relativity is germane to the question of “what came before ever”. Einstein spent the last years of his life in pursuit of a unified theory of everything, and never did make any headway.

But stay tuned, science is still working on it.

Meanwhile, religion tells us… nothing. Which is why I don’t turn to religion to answer technical questions about the nature of the universe.

Anyhow, how does any of this have anything to do with God? How do you know that God didn’t “poof” in at the same time? What aspect of God proves that he was here “before”?

Comment #136556

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 1, 2006 4:33 PM (e)

Einstein….lets see, OH he discovered that time and space had a beginning thats right dope!>.

Religion tells us…….well more than Science does. Can I ask you to please prove the statement “Science is truth” through Empirical means please?

I’d like to see….well any actual proof that that statement exists. If you disagree that it exists then, you’re up a creek because you don’t belong on this Evolution cite. You’d have no reason to be here, Evolution is not even a term that can be proven.

Comment #136557

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 1, 2006 4:46 PM (e)

The where and when about God creates an argument that is a strawman. Easy to burn that one right?

God is transcendant, above and beyond space and time. He is immaterial. No eye has ever seen, no ear has heard. No, perception alone can not determine God’s existence.

However, this does not presume that no immaterial items exist. For instance, we can’t see the wind, but we know it exists. We see its purpose for existing. In the same sense, we can not see God, but we know he exists because we can see his ultimate purpose of the complexity of creatures in nature. Not to mention, according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics (you knew I was going to bring this one up, huh?)

Giving an overview on Albert Einstein, I have no real problem with his model except that I believe it to be Science Fiction and Russell Humphrey’s model to be more accurate. His general principle of relativity proves the time and space had a beginning. What we do know are the first five words of the Bible that state, “In the beginning, God created.” This is how we know where God lies on your view of whether he existed before space and time. Of course he did. God existed before space and time. Now, this is interesting that such a book has been written, when there is absolutely none other like it. 1600 years over the course of time, and this books flows with near perfection! 99.5% accurately transmitted with 24,000 copies found (more accuracy than any other book on the face of the earth, the Iliad of Homer being the 2nd). At any rate, the Big Bang theory actually originated as a joke. Thats right. Einstein decided to attempt to use this model to disprove that the universe had a beginning. When he came upon the general principle of relativity, the first 2 words out of his mouth were “uh oh.” He attempted to fudge his results, but other Scientists at the time had already reached the same conclusion that the universe had a beginning. Einstein accordingly was forced to concede the position. Thats what the general purpose of the model was for. Now, the Big Bang theory was a joke on words presented from Europeans of his day. Here’s a good overview of the actual model however: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb2.html. Like I stated before, if the Big Bang happened 10,000 years ago, so be it. I’d have no problem with that. But I disagree with it, because I don’t see how it could come together with matter and atoms as it states that it does. So I view it as Science fiction. I see the Russell Humphrey’s model, which also corresponds to General Relativity as being a more reliable model as to how it happened.

Please don’t give me that, “Science will solve it in the future” special pleading crap either. Thats irrational. Especially when truth can only be found through logic and Philosophy. That will lead you to religion, which ultimately will lead you to Christ if you follow it correctly.

Comment #136560

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 1, 2006 5:00 PM (e)

Well then, since you’re such a divinely-sanctioned scholar who has the ear of God and the, uh, divine authority to pronounce upon matters of religion for us poor unwashed masses, I have just one simple question for you. Think very carefully while answering it.

*ahem*

Exodus 22:18 “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”.

I simply want to know (1) whether or not you think supernatural witchcraft and witches really exist, and (2) if so, should they be killed.

You have the floor, Your Holiness.

I want to see how truly nutty you really are.

Okay. Exodus 22:14-19 - 14 “If a man borrows an animal from his neighbor and it is injured or dies while the owner is not present, he must make restitution. 15 But if the owner is with the animal, the borrower will not have to pay. If the animal was hired, the money paid for the hire covers the loss.

Social Responsibility
16 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.
18 “Do not allow a sorceress to live.

19 “Anyone who has sexual relations with an animal must be put to death.

What then does this passage mean when taken in context? It is a passage that is discussing the Israelite Covenant. When you sign it, get back to me on that one. I don’t think that one applies to our modern world (thank God for the New Testament).

What does JP Holding have to state on this? “Of this, our subject says, “One can readily understand why this rule is not quoted, since the time of day would have little relevance to whether or not a killing was manslaughter. Justice and Old Testament teachings are often at odds.” [424] Yea, so says our subject, a man in the age of flashlights, personal handguns, 911 service, and home security systems: But let his chauvinistic mind imagine now an age in which none of these things existed, and he will read a different story. If the OT is at odds with justice, then so likewise were other ancient law codes that distinguished between crimes committed in the daylight and at night, including the Code of Hammurabi and the Roman law of Twelve Tables. Perhaps it is our subject who is out of touch, rather than the law codes!”

Could this be a passage having to do with capital punishment? Eh perhaps so.

Do I think magic and witchcraft can occur? I believe in a secondary evil power known as Satan, who still exists, but is not as strong a figure as God. You can only succumb to him out of ignorance, and self deception, so if you were to fall into one of these two categories, as anything other than, “Knowledge begins with God,” then you would be following him. Jesus actually states in the Bible, “If you are not for me, then you are against me!” This religious pluralism stuff can not be taken seriously if we are to be a Christian, which is why I am in no way an advocate of religious pluralism (plus it in itself is self defeating and illogical).

http://www.tektonics.org/TK-EXOD.html Go here for any other discrepancies you might see regarding the Old Testament or New Testament. I think if you are really interested in learning about the Bible, do NOT start with Exodus. Start rather with the New Testament Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and perhaps maybe Daniel and the prophecies there (written 700 years before the life of Christ) and of course Isaiah 40 would be good too.

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/morgand03.html Where are our magnificent Biblical contradictions? Right here folks! Come and see how credible these alleged charges are! :)

Comment #136561

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 1, 2006 5:12 PM (e)

Wait, wait, let me guess —- YOURS is the right answer … right?

Isn’t it odd that every religious preacher in history makes that very same claim – even though none of them can agree with each other and all say different things?

You think you’re infallibly right. They think THEY are infallibly right. You have a piece of paper from a Bible college. THEY have their piece of paper from a Bible college. You claim to talk to God. THEY claim to talk to God. You claim to be “correctly interpreting the Bible”. THEY claim to be “correctly interpreting the Bible”. You have a long list of scholars who agree with you. THEY have a long list of scholars who agree with THEM. (shrug) So what makes your claim any different from theirs? Other than your say-so?

Who doesn’t agree? Orthodox Christians all agree. I have not seen any significant disagreement among the deity of Christ, the trinity, the Baptism as necessity, the Bible as divine authority. Yeah, that all agrees. What you are probably trying to do is compare apples and oranges. There are a such thing as HERETICAL doctrines, as well as CULTS! My claim is that anybody can proclaim to hold the truth. Its not a matter of what people claim is the truth, its a matter of what IS the truth. That does not mean that we subject it to one man’s opinion. It doesn’t matter here. If Jesus Christ states, “I am the way the truth and the life, no man comes to the father except through me.” then it does not follow that a Unitarian Universalist who also proclaims to hold the truth is correct (who by the way happens to believe that everyone can go to heaven). Either Jesus is the only way, or the Unitarian Universalists or right, we can’t both be right here. What it boils down to is the credibility of the sources, not just the authorities who interpret them, but the reliability of the sources in general. The Bible is the only source that meets the criteria for truth. The criteria from an objective perspective would be, does it cohere? Is it liveable? Is it logical? Try those three questions out on any other religious book in the world, and you will see that it just doesn’t measure up. Thats why I hold the truth, and the others are wrong, not because I’m an egomaniac, uberegocentric power hungry minister who wants your money, but because I am preaching the Orthodox Christian religion. http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=191

This will give you a more thorough answer. I was initially under that same skeptical question. There are so many religious claims available, how do we know which one is right? Are any of them right? The answer is, because the reliability of evidence ONLY favors Christianity, the Christian religion is also the only one that actually states that we are allowed to check through every other religious group and see the types of claims that they make. Talking to Muslims, they generally have no idea whatsoever what the Christians believe at all. When I go to www.answeringislam.org however, its very apparent that the Christian side is right on the mark when it comes to the Muslims.

By the way, how much archaeological proof does the Koran have?

Haha, not any at all. Read that site to find out more.

Comment #136563

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 1, 2006 5:15 PM (e)

http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=100&TopicID=1&CategoryID=2

This is pretty accurate as well.

Comment #136564

Posted by stevaroni on October 1, 2006 5:17 PM (e)

God is transcendant, above and beyond space and time. He is immaterial. No eye has ever seen, no ear has heard. No, perception alone can not determine God’s existence.

However, this does not presume that no immaterial items exist. For instance, we can’t see the wind, but we know it exists.

Doc;

But this is the point. Enlighten me, how do we tell that the wind exists?

BTW,

God is transcendant

What does this mean?

Comment #136567

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 1, 2006 5:49 PM (e)

God is transcendant, above and beyond space and time. He is immaterial. No eye has ever seen, no ear has heard. No, perception alone can not determine God’s existence.

However, this does not presume that no immaterial items exist. For instance, we can’t see the wind, but we know it exists.

Doc;

But this is the point. Enlighten me, how do we tell that the wind exists? It is felt. We can hear it, but then again, we also have accounts of people being able to hear God in even today’s modern age. What would be the difference here? .

BTW,

God is transcendant

What does this mean?

Transcendent:

The first meaning, as part of the concept pair transcendence/immanence, is used primarily with reference to God’s relation to the world and is particularly important in theology. Here transcendent means that God is completely outside of and beyond the world, as contrasted with the notion that God is manifested in the world. This meaning originates both in the Aristotelian view of God as the prime mover, a non-material self-consciousness that is outside of the world, and in the Jewish and Christian idea of God as a being outside of the world who created the world out of nothingness (creatio ex nihilo). In contrast, philosophies of immanence such as stoicism, Spinoza, Deleuze or pantheism maintains that God is manifested in and fully present in the world and the things in the world. (these Gods are the ones that Atheists are typically good at refuting as well) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendence_(philosophy)

Comment #136568

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 1, 2006 5:53 PM (e)

The wind is no more or less self evident than God himself!

The conjectural just so stories do not impress me at all either. Like the suppose this, and suppose that stuff. Nominalism if you will, is simply infeasible as a position.

Comment #136580

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 1, 2006 6:44 PM (e)

If I were a petty man, Doc, I’d point out that that is the exact, unrealistic standard that Creationists hold science to every day with their little “How do you know? Were you there?” chant. No, we were not there, and neither were you. We are trying to state that neither model is entirely provable, but that Creation Science seems to be more on the right track.

But I’m not petty, Doc, and I fully realize that since we can’t go back in time both of us will have to answer the questions based on the indirect evidence we can observe today. YES! And thats why your Origin of Species book bears the burden of evidence. It was written in 1850, and the Bible over the course of 1600 years, by 40 different authors in 3 different languages, which comes together as I mentioned before a fluently awesome book. As such, the Bible was also written conjecturely over the course of 1600 years (maybe earlier), but we are certain that it is in its entirety at this time. See www.biblegateway.com for an accurate translation of every book in its entirety, as well as several translations. You’ll notice that they all say the same things in generally the same exact wording!

How are we certain? See: http://www.tektonics.org/uz/zindler02.html for the answer to why this is the case.

But Doc, the problem is that none of us has much of an idea of what was around “in the beginning”. You and I, no. The first man on the face of the earth, of course. Again, the burden of evidence against the Skeptic.

Science tells us that if you take the current expansion of the universe, and run the data backwards, it converges at a point.

That’s pretty much all science tells us at the moment.

Nobody has a very good concept of what dimensions like “time” actually mean in a universe the size of a tennis ball, and nobody can really say what the universe expanded “into” if there’s no space outside. We currently lack any conceptual framework at all to describe any of these things, since they are so far removed from any tangible human experience. We have more of an idea than you think:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/sh1college.html for Space and http://www.christian-thinktank.com/eyesopen.html for spiritual dimension evidence as well as evidence for the soul http://www.christian-thinktank.com/hmosoul.html (those two are your added bonuses). Try this one, where both are explained a bit: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/phil0615a.html I think Wittgenstein’s Net prevents you from going into this unchartered territory. This is also not a necessary thing for us to completely understand: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4043/. Our job is not to rely on a Naturalistic explanation. Christians did not say that they have all of the answers. Nor do we claim we have to prove the Bible at all. I’d say, we can pretty well prove it 90%, but the other 10% is based around faith, and pure faith alone. Whatever the case, its 100% true, and therefore, makes it 100% divine.
As far as Einstein was concerned, I’m no expert (and I suspect, neither are you, or you’d have done more than just name -drop) but I don’t see how either general relativity or special relativity is germane to the question of “what came before ever”. Einstein spent the last years of his life in pursuit of a unified theory of everything, and never did make any headway.

But stay tuned, science is still working on it.

Meanwhile, religion tells us… nothing. Which is why I don’t turn to religion to answer technical questions about the nature of the universe.

Anyhow, how does any of this have anything to do with God? How do you know that God didn’t “poof” in at the same time? What aspect of God proves that he was here “before”?
See the Big Bang model and Anthropic principle model for more detail on this. Now I’m assuming that the Big Bang is truely how it came to be.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/345/#aside1 I like this reply a bit better though. Especially on the bottom of the Russell Humphrey’s model. Good stuff on the counter to critics too. “GR involves many counter-intuitive notions, such as black holes—regions of space with so much mass that even light rays cannot escape. Another of its implications is that gravity distorts time itself, so there is no such thing as ‘absolute time’.” http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/345/#aside1 I found a bit more on God and space: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4412/ http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/586
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4043/
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1998 (notice that Atheism is logically impossible to prove, this leaves us with the only alternative, Theism, erego, backing up Scripture when it says, “The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.”)
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1860
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/240
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3659
God’s nature in the Bible is described as the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. He is eternal, as is the implication mentioned through this wording.

Comment #136583

Posted by stevaroni on October 1, 2006 7:00 PM (e)

Bear with us here campers, the thread is about to expire into archive oblivion, but one last post.

Out story this far…

Doc sez;
However, this does not presume that no immaterial items exist. For instance, we can’t see the wind, but we know it exists.

I reply;
But this is the point Doc. Enlighten me, how do we tell that the wind exists?

Doc ponders a bit and bounces back;
It is felt. We can hear it, but then again, we also have accounts of people being able to hear God in even today’s modern age. What would be the difference here?

The wind is no more or less self evident than God himself!

No Doc; Bad student! No star for you!

The difference doc is that we can measure the wind.

You remember measurement, it probably figured prominently in that ‘PHD in molecular microbiology’ of yours.

I feel rather confident that, given a bag of polystyrene packing peanuts and a stopwatch, I could produce more empirical information about the wind in one long afternoon than all the worlds philosophers have produced about God in the whole history of the whole history.

And ya’ know what, you wouldn’t have to believe a word I say about it. I bet if I took good notes, I could walk you through the process so that you could demonstrate it yourself.

We call this particular bit of magic “science”.

Comment #136585

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 1, 2006 7:06 PM (e)

But I think your point rings clear here. How can your Scientific explanation prove anything could get started here? No, the Big Bang theory and Evolution just don’t explain enough and that is our point. Lose the Bible and we have chaotic madness. Enter Russell Humphrey’s model:

The Answers Book
Updated & Expanded
by Dr Don Batten (editor), Ken Ham,
Dr Jonathan Sarfati and Dr Carl Wieland

How can we see distant stars in a young universe?
First published in The Answers Book - Updated & Expanded

Chapter 5
If the universe is young and it takes millions of years for light to get to us from many stars, how can we see them? Did God create light in transit? Was the speed of light faster in the past? What about the big bang’s own problem with light travel time?

——————————————————————————–
Recommended Resources:
The Answers Book - Updated & Expanded
Refuting Evolution
Refuting Compromise
Creation Astronomy (DVD)
What does the Bible say about Astronomy? (booklet)

Some stars are millions of light-years away. Since a light-year is the distance traveled by light in one year, does this mean that the universe is very old?

Despite all the biblical and scientific evidence for a young earth/universe, this has long been a problem. However, any scientific understanding of origins will always have opportunities for research—problems that need to be solved. We can never have complete knowledge and so there will always be things to learn.

[Ed. note: it’s important to note that the big-bangers have a problem of their own with light travel, called the horizon problem. They have resorted to hypothetical fudge factors such faster-than-light ‘inflation’, but currently lack a mechanism to start or stop this. So they cannot rightly point the finger at biblical creationists for the problem, because three fingers are pointing right back at them. See the Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang]

One explanation used in the past involved light travelling along Riemannian surfaces (a mathematical description of curved space). Such a model cannot be valid because if space were sufficiently curved to explain light travel, then our universe would be impossibly dense and small, which observations contradict.

Created light?
Perhaps the most commonly used explanation is that God created light ‘on its way,’ so that Adam could see the stars immediately without having to wait years for the light from even the closest ones to reach the earth. While we should not limit the power of God, this has some rather immense difficulties.

It would mean that whenever we look at the behavior of a very distant object, what we see happening never happened at all. For instance, say we see an object a million light-years away which appears to be rotating; that is, the light we receive in our telescopes carries this information ‘recording’ this behavior. However, according to this explanation, the light we are now receiving did not come from the star, but was created ‘en route,’ so to speak.

This would mean that for a 10,000-year-old universe, that anything we see happening beyond about 10,000 light-years away is actually part of a gigantic picture show of things that have not actually happened, showing us objects which may not even exist.

To explain this problem further, consider an exploding star (supernova) at, say, an accurately measured 100,000 light-years away. Remember we are using this explanation in a 10,000-year-old universe. As the astronomer on earth watches this exploding star, he is not just receiving a beam of light. If that were all, then it would be no problem at all to say that God could have created a whole chain of photons (light particles/waves) already on their way.

However, what the astronomer receives is also a particular, very specific pattern of variation within the light, showing him/her the changes that one would expect to accompany such an explosion—a predictable sequence of events involving neutrinos, visible light, X-rays and gamma-rays. The light carries information recording an apparently real event. The astronomer is perfectly justified in interpreting this ‘message’ as representing an actual reality—that there really was such an object, which exploded according to the laws of physics, brightened, emitted X-rays, dimmed, and so on, all in accord with those same physical laws.

Everything he sees is consistent with this, including the spectral patterns in the light from the star giving us a ‘chemical signature’ of the elements contained in it. Yet the ‘light created en route’ explanation means that this recorded message of events, transmitted through space, had to be contained within the light beam from the moment of its creation, or planted into the light beam at a later date, without ever having originated from that distant point. (If it had started from the star—assuming that there really was such a star—it would still be 90,000 light years away from earth.)

To create such a detailed series of signals in light beams reaching earth, signals which seem to have come from a series of real events but in fact did not, has no conceivable purpose. Worse, it is like saying that God created fossils in rocks to fool us, or even test our faith, and that they don’t represent anything real (a real animal or plant that lived and died in the past). This would be a strange deception.

Did light always travel at the same speed?
An obvious solution would be a higher speed of light in the past, allowing the light to cover the same distance more quickly. This seemed at first glance a too-convenient ad hoc explanation. Then some years ago, Australian Barry Setterfield raised the possibility to a high profile by showing that there seemed to be a decreasing trend in the historical observations of the speed of light © over the past 300 years or so. Setterfield (and his later co-author Trevor Norman) produced much evidence in favor of this theory.1 They believed that it would have affected radiometric dating results, and even have caused the red-shifting of light from distant galaxies, although this idea was later overturned, and other modifications were also made.

Much debate has raged to and fro among equally capable people within creationist circles about whether the statistical evidence really supports c decay (‘cdk’) or not.

The biggest difficulty, however, is with certain physical consequences of the theory. If c has declined the way Setterfield proposed, these consequences should still be discernible in the light from distant galaxies but they are apparently not. In short, none of the theory’s defenders have been able to answer all the questions raised.

A new creationist cosmology
Nevertheless, the c-decay theory stimulated much thinking about the issues. Creationist physicist Dr Russell Humphreys says that he spent a year on and off trying to get the declining c theory to work, but without success. However, in the process, he was inspired to develop a new creationist cosmology which appears to solve the problem of the apparent conflict with the Bible’s clear, authoritative teaching of a recent creation.

This new cosmology is proposed as a creationist alternative to the big bang theory. It passed peer review, by qualifying reviewers, for the 1994 Pittsburgh International Conference on Creationism.2 Young-earth creationists have been cautious about the model,3 which is not surprising with such an apparently radical departure from orthodoxy, but Humphreys has addressed the problems raised.4 Believers in an old universe and the big bang have vigorously opposed the new cosmology and claim to have found flaws in it.5 However, Humphreys has been able to defend his model, as well as develop it further.6 The debate will no doubt continue.

This sort of development, in which one creationist theory, c-decay, is overtaken by another, is a healthy aspect of science. The basic biblical framework is non-negotiable, as opposed to the changing views and models of fallible people seeking to understand the data within that framework (evolutionists also often change their ideas on exactly how things have made themselves, but never whether they did).

A clue
Let us briefly give a hint as to how the new cosmology seems to solve the starlight problem before explaining some preliminary items in a little more detail. Consider that the time taken for something to travel a given distance is the distance divided by the speed it is traveling. That is:

Time = Distance / Speed
When this is applied to light from distant stars, the time calculates out to be millions of years. Some have sought to challenge the distances, but this is a very unlikely answer.7

Astronomers use many different methods to measure the distances, and no informed creationist astronomer would claim that any errors would be so vast that billions of light-years could be reduced to thousands, for example. There is good evidence that our own Milky Way galaxy is 100,000 light years across!

If the speed of light © has not changed, the only thing left untouched in the equation is time itself. In fact, Einstein’s relativity theories have been telling the world for decades that time is not a constant.

Two things are believed (with experimental support) to distort time in relativity theory—one is speed and the other is gravity. Einstein’s general theory of relativity, the best theory of gravity we have at present, indicates that gravity distorts time.

This effect has been measured experimentally, many times. Clocks at the top of tall buildings, where gravity is slightly less, run faster than those at the bottom, just as predicted by the equations of general relativity (GR).8

When the concentration of matter is very large or dense enough, the gravitational distortion can be so immense that even light cannot escape.9 The equations of GR show that at the invisible boundary surrounding such a concentration of matter (called the event horizon, the point at which light rays trying to escape the enormous pull of gravity bend back on themselves), time literally stands still.

Using different assumptions …
Dr Humphreys’ new creationist cosmology literally ‘falls out’ of the equations of GR, so long as one assumes that the universe has a boundary. In other words, that it has a center and an edge—that if you were to travel off into space, you would eventually come to a place beyond which there was no more matter. In this cosmology, the earth is near the center, as it appears to be as we look out into space.

This might sound like common sense, as indeed it is, but all modern secular (big bang) cosmologies deny this. That is, they make arbitrary assumption (without any scientific necessity) that the universe has no boundaries—no edge and no center. In this assumed universe, every galaxy would be surrounded by galaxies spread evenly in all directions (on a large enough scale), and so, therefore, all the net gravitational forces cancel out.

However, if the universe has boundaries, then there is a net gravitational effect toward the center. Clocks at the edge would be running at different rates to clocks on the earth. In other words, it is no longer enough to say God made the universe in six days. He certainly did, but six days by which clock? (If we say ‘God’s time’ we miss the point that He is outside of time, seeing the end from the beginning.)10

There appears to be observational evidence that the universe has expanded in the past, supported by the many phrases God uses in the Bible to tell us that at creation he ‘stretched out’11 (other verses say ‘spread out’) the heavens.

If the universe is not much bigger than we can observe, and if it was only 50 times smaller in the past than it is now, then scientific deduction based on GR means it has to have expanded out of a previous state in which it was surrounded by an event horizon (a condition known technically as a ‘white hole’—a black hole running in reverse, something permitted by the equations of GR).

As matter passed out of this event horizon, the horizon itself had to shrink—eventually to nothing. Therefore, at one point this earth (relative to a point far away from it) would have been virtually frozen. An observer on earth would not in any way ‘feel different.’ ‘Billions of years’ would be available (in the frame of reference within which it is traveling in deep space) for light to reach the earth, for stars to age, etc.—while less than one ordinary day is passing on earth. This massive gravitational time dilation would seem to be a scientific inevitability if a bounded universe expanded significantly.

In one sense, if observers on earth at that particular time could have looked out and ‘seen’ the speed with which light was moving toward them out in space, it would have appeared as if it were traveling many times faster than c. (Galaxies would also appear to be rotating faster.) However, if an observer in deep space was out there measuring the speed of light, to him it would still only be traveling at c.

There is more detail of this new cosmology, at layman’s level, in the book by Dr Humphreys, Starlight and Time, which also includes reprints of his technical papers showing the equations.12

It is fortunate that creationists did not invent such concepts such as gravitational time dilation, black and white holes, event horizons and so on, or we would likely be accused of manipulating the data to solve the problem. The interesting thing about this cosmology is that it is based upon mathematics and physics totally accepted by all cosmologists (general relativity), and it accepts (along with virtually all physicists) that there has been expansion in the past (though not from some imaginary tiny point). It requires no ‘massaging’—the results ‘fall out’ so long as one abandons the arbitrary starting point which the big bangers use (the unbounded cosmos idea, which could be called ‘what the experts don’t tell you about the “big bang”’).

Caution
While this is exciting news, all theories of fallible men, no matter how well they seem to fit the data, are subject to revision or abandonment in the light of future discoveries. What we can say is that at this point a plausible mechanism has been demonstrated, with considerable observational and theoretical support.

What if no one had ever thought of the possibility of gravitational time dilation? Many might have felt forced to agree with those scientists (including some Christians) that there was no possible solution —the vast ages are fact, and the Bible must be ‘reinterpreted’ (massaged) or increasingly rejected. Many have in fact been urging Christians to abandon the Bible’s clear teaching of a recent creation [see Q&A: Genesis] because of these ‘undeniable facts.’ This reinterpretation also means having to accept that there were billions of years of death, disease, and bloodshed before Adam, thus eroding the creation/Fall/restoration framework within which the gospel is presented in the Bible.

However, even without this new idea, such an approach would still have been wrong-headed. The authority of the Bible should never be compromised as mankind’s ‘scientific’ proposals. One little previously unknown fact, or one change in a starting assumption, can drastically alter the whole picture so that what was ‘fact’ is no longer so.

This is worth remembering when dealing with those other areas of difficulty which, despite the substantial evidence for Genesis creation, still remain. Only God possesses infinite knowledge. By basing our scientific research on the assumption that His Word is true (instead of the assumption that it is wrong or irrelevant) our scientific theories are much more likely, in the long run, to come to accurately represent reality. http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3664

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/309/ - read this for information concerning Time and Space according to how the Bible measures them.

And you also prove CMI’s point here: Physicists had looked to string theory as ‘the great hope’, but they now admit it does not even describe observed reality let alone explain where space and time came from. see: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4451/ for more details.

Oh, and that gain of new information from the “it must be so” article you provided from Talk Origins…already done away with: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4331/ This even provides more detail and information, as well as sound evidence for the position established. Once again, a thumbs up in the Creation Science category.

Comment #136586

Posted by David B. Benson on October 1, 2006 7:06 PM (e)

stevaroni – There are trolls and then there are WINDY trolls…

Comment #136591

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 1, 2006 7:12 PM (e)

No Doc; Bad student! No star for you!

The difference doc is that we can measure the wind.

You remember measurement, it probably figured prominently in that ‘PHD in molecular microbiology’ of yours.

I feel rather confident that, given a bag of polystyrene packing peanuts and a stopwatch, I could produce more empirical information about the wind in one long afternoon than all the worlds philosophers have produced about God in the whole history of the whole history.

And ya’ know what, you wouldn’t have to believe a word I say about it. I bet if I took good notes, I could walk you through the process so that you could demonstrate it yourself.

We call this particular bit of magic “science”.

I beg to differ. Please, by all means, present your evidence.

Sorry if I’m…”making you look bad” here. By all means, we can measure God too. Look how many people accept God’s existence around the world. That is about as easily detectable as the wind itself, wouldn’t you say? Except, we have some “wonder” machine that gives us second hand knowledge about it of course, instead of taking a first person’s actual experience with God into account. HMMM, which one would be more believable?

Comment #136592

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 1, 2006 7:15 PM (e)

stevaroni – There are trolls and then there are WINDY trolls…

And even still, “trolls” who actually know what they’re talking about too! :)

Comment #136593

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 1, 2006 7:17 PM (e)

Computer error is much greater than human error. So why trust a computer’s account over a human’s account?

Comment #136594

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 1, 2006 7:22 PM (e)

Want me to help you in your attack on Intelligent Design, the “not-so intelligent movement?” I’ll be happy to throw in my 2 cents in regards to that one. Believe me, I’m well studied there as well :). I can bust Behe and Dumbski (yes the ever popular Bill Dumbski himself) a little bit too ya know.

Comment #136596

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 1, 2006 7:36 PM (e)

And even that other whats his name…..

from idthink! who keeps trying to push the “propaganda” label on Creation Science!

Mike Geneticallydumbski!

Theres (ID) your propaganda movement folks!

Comment #136600

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 1, 2006 7:45 PM (e)

I’ll be happy to rip up Hugh Ross a little bit too :). On his “Reasons to Not Believe” Pseudosite :) (by the way, thanks for putting his site up on your Pseudosite wall thumbs up>)

Comment #136602

Posted by Caledonian on October 1, 2006 7:49 PM (e)

Is Martin actually suggesting that wind is an immaterial phenomenon?

(snicker)

Comment #136603

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 1, 2006 7:49 PM (e)

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1665/

:) Hugh Ross debunked!

Comment #136605

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 1, 2006 8:08 PM (e)

Want me to help you in your attack on Intelligent Design, the “not-so intelligent movement?”

absolutely….and here’s the best way for you to contribute:

support ID over on UD, with the same argument style you use here.

I can’t think of any better way for you to contribute than just being youself.

you’re simply posting in the wrong blog - go over to Uncommonly Dense and post there.

Comment #136607

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 1, 2006 8:17 PM (e)

What is the meaning of pneuma? This word “primarily denotes ‘the wind’ (akin to pneo, ‘to breathe, blow’); also ‘breath’; then, especially ‘the spirit,’ which, like the wind, is invisible, immaterial and powerful” (ibid., p. 593). It is used 385 times in the King James Version and is usually translated “Spirit” or “spirit.” http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn10/poweratwork.htm

For the Aeolists, in the beginning there was the wind; everything, corporeal and immaterial, originated from it and resolved into it. http://enculturation.gmu.edu/1_1/dipiazza.html

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/presoc/pythagor.htm

First causes are immaterial. YES! :). And the Greeks agree.

Comment #136608

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 1, 2006 8:19 PM (e)

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_jadms.html

Just for the record here Gould, this letter is quite honestly the biggest sham I have ever seen. Jefferson’s bald assertion is simply silly and ridiculous here (and really beside the point, these are just politicians here, not Theologians).

Comment #136610

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 1, 2006 8:34 PM (e)

Well, I see your “religious neutrality” is obviously shining through here.

Comment #136611

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 1, 2006 8:35 PM (e)

Well, I see your “religious neutrality” is obviously shining through here. Aren’t my 1st amendment rights being violated here?

Comment #136614

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 1, 2006 8:45 PM (e)

absolutely….and here’s the best way for you to contribute:

support ID over on UD, with the same argument style you use here. On Dumbski’s Blog? I’ll pass on that one.

I can’t think of any better way for you to contribute than just being youself. Oh you guys really do love me :).

you’re simply posting in the wrong blog - go over to Uncommonly Dense and post there. No thanks, though I do like that…Uncommonly Dense, I’ll have to share that with the guys over at AIG sometime :).

Comment #136618

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 1, 2006 8:49 PM (e)

I meant..”on Gould” not Gould….just in case you might think I was talking to some dead person there.

But I would like to share:

Goodnight, poor hahvahd
hahvahd, goodnight
Oh, we’ve got your number
You’re high as a kite
Oh, goodnight, poor hahvahd
You’re tucked in tight
When the big blue
Team gets after you
hahvahd, goodnight!

Comment #136619

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 1, 2006 8:53 PM (e)

An old traditional classic from us Yale Bulldogs there :).

Comment #136620

Posted by stevaroni on October 1, 2006 9:11 PM (e)

Sorry if I’m…”making you look bad” here. By all means, we can measure God too.

I appreciate your concern, but it’s OK, Doc, you go ahead and fire away at my reputation. I’ll be OK.

But back to the central theme;

Measure God, you say. I’m intrigued. Praytell, let me know how to do that. I have all kinds of meters, rulers, even a transit. Where do I go?

Look how many people accept God’s existence around the world. That is about as easily detectable as the wind itself, wouldn’t you say?

Yup. And as late as 1800, nearly every single human being on earth though it was flat, heavier than air flight was impossible, and starting a land war in eastern Europe in the fall was a good idea.

They were wrong.

Stacks and stacks of people can stand in line and swear that the sun goes around the earth, and they would still be wrong. In fact, they did, and they were.

To this day, there are large numbers of Frenchmen who think Jerry Lewis was funny. They too are wrong, but seeing as that statement is an opinion, not a fact, we will respect that.

If you want to believe. there is a God, hey - good for you. Go ahead, and science will not bother you.

But if you want to use the public schools to teach that evolution is bunk and the God of Abraham whipped us up one Saturday evening out of mud and spare-ribs, I expect you to be able to show me some proof.

Comment #136628

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 1, 2006 9:44 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #136632

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 1, 2006 9:49 PM (e)

Stacks and stacks of people can stand in line and swear that the sun goes around the earth, and they would still be wrong. In fact, they did, and they were.

…and they are.

depending on which poll data you gander at, as much as 20% of americans think that the sun revolves around the earth.

that’s up from 11% only about 18 years ago.

go figure.

Comment #136633

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 1, 2006 9:52 PM (e)

There’s not much to respond to on this last post. The first few examples were all false analogies that had nothing at all to do with a transcendant and infinite God. The Catholic Pope issue was based around politics, which are not what Orthodox Protestant Christians truly care about in the first place. That doesn’t concern us at all.

The opinion thing, heck, don’t care about Jerry Lewis, but he’s open to that opinion.

The evidence issue, heck, I have provided so much evidence here its ridiculous. I have asked you for evidence, and you have provided none for your side. Granted, I think this warrants more than just a little speech from you. At least consider the evidence I provide as legitimate and as fairly as you would Evolution’s evidence.

As far as Science, heck no, Creation Science is not opposed to God at all. Science will not stop me from believing in God, and I’m thankful for that.

And I’m also glad that you seem to also believe that Evolution will not stop me from believing in God either. Granted, I am appreciative of at least that respect :).

As far as the school systems, I have made my position known on that. Its not about winning the polls, or getting it in schools at all. Its about winning souls for Christ, and establishing the truth on the evidence within Science and providing it with integrity and honesty. Thats all, at least from the Editor’s perspective, I care about at all. So I will be praying for each of you, and I hope you do consider my evidence for God’s existence and for the Bible and Christ. God bless each and all of you.

Now lets go pummel those ID idiots :). I’ve got a few bones to pick with them if you can’t tell from my Wells bashing.

Comment #136636

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 1, 2006 9:54 PM (e)

I really question that poll (and hope that its wayyyy off there) :).

Comment #136640

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 1, 2006 10:02 PM (e)

I really question that poll (and hope that its wayyyy off there) :).

well, you can search gallup polls yourself.

the numbers are dead on.

up from 18% in 1999.

why do you find this so unusual, i wonder?

these folks observe the sun rising and setting, and make the natural conclusion that the sun spins around a stationary earth.

Isn’t that how you make your observations to support your rejection of evolutionary theory?

it’s just a gut reaction; you have no evidence to suggest otherwise, and no alternative that fits the data any better, so how is your rejection of the ToE any different than these folks rejection of heliocentric theory?

yes, your position really is just the same. The fact you are unable to see this for yourself says volumes about your mental state (er, along with the endless stream of consciousness posts you make).

Comment #136642

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 1, 2006 10:12 PM (e)

Well I’ve clearly demonstrated the differences. I’ve documented evidences. I’ve even gotten several debaters into corners they were not able to get out of. So at this point, I really have nothing more to say. I have successfully defended the side of Creation Science, and at this point, you are just providing false analogies against the position, as such, creating positions of ad hominems, and I’m through with the debate. This has come to a dead end, and a really dreary end at that. Our position is significantly different from the analogy you present, whether you wish to believe this or not, and once again, I have clearly demonstrated this. Ignorance is no excuse. Its that one itty bitty piece of evidence that we have, that the sun worshippers do not. You know what that is? Its the Bible! The most historically significant, Scientifically significant, etc. significant piece of literature, as well as the only book that has successfully been able to keep all of its divine prophecies, and proven them true at that. The only religious book that encourages people to actually worship God, and where God seeks us out, instead of us seeking him out. It has all of the answers. If this so frustrates you, I can only deduce that it is the Holy Spirit making you realize follies that you may want to address. This has just moved into a state of redundancy, and should be closed with this final statement. Once again, I have provided tons of evidential support for my position, while asking you for just one shred of evidence from your side, and you have failed to provide me ANY at all, while instead just providing me with accusatory and flaming statements, no need to give them attention at all. Thanks for not answering a single one of my questions. It has provided quite useless use of my time. The only thing I can say is I hope I at least reached out to one person on this site so that they may consider Christ as their Lord and Savior. Faith is not blind, when its based on evidence. Christianity is based on a solid foundation of evidence. If you do not believe me, by all means, check out the 20 sites or so I have provided on your forum here.

Comment #136646

Posted by Sir_Toejam on October 1, 2006 10:18 PM (e)

So at this point, I really have nothing more to say

???

PRAISE BE!

you have everybody here’s permission to depart with all due speed.

I rather suspect you are lying, however, and won’t actually depart until you get back on your meds.

Comment #136650

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on October 1, 2006 10:40 PM (e)

Oh, I’m going to post on Panda’s Thumb, just not on this thread. I’ve moved onto the Wells site thread. You can find me there if you so desire (though I’m sure we’ll both agree on that issue).

Comment #136709

Posted by Darth Robo on October 2, 2006 3:33 AM (e)

“Doc” Martin sed:

“No eye has ever seen, no ear has heard.”

Didn’t Moses see his backside?