Nick Matzke posted Entry 2689 on November 4, 2006 12:36 AM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/2681

The latest from the Pensacola News-Journal is that Kent Hovind is in jail until sentencing in January, and the jury ordered the Hovinds to forfeit over $400k to the government:

‘Dr. Dino’ guilty on all counts
Couple could get more than 200 years

Pensacola evangelist and tax protester Kent Hovind winked at his wife and gave her a reassuring smile as he was led away to jail.

Oblivious as always, I guess… By the way, now is the time to screen-capture the headine for future use.

Hovind is not really going to get 200 years in jail, probably more like six months is my bet, if the sentences of corporate scammers are any guide. So it won’t be long before he’s back on the road doing his thing. But at the very least his prospective fans should be informed before his talks that Hovind isn’t just a scientific joke and a fake “Dr.”, he is also a convicted felon.

The jury also granted the prosecution’s request for the Hovinds to forfeit $430,400. That amount equals the value of the checks signed and cashed by Jo Hovind in the 44 counts.

There’s the real story. For years, Hovind has been claiming that he was offering a $250,000 prize to anyone who could “prove evolution.” Of course, by “prove evolution” Hovind meant:

* NOTE: When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:
1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

That’s right, your friendly neighborhood biologist has to use evolution to answer fundamental cosmological questions, peer into the Planck epoch and solve all the mysteries of existence. And that’s just for step #1 of the challenge. Obviously, getting that $250,000 out of Hovind was impossible.

But now the IRS has gone and done the impossible. Clearly this means that the IRS is omniscient and omnipotent, and has the answers to all the mysteries of existence locked up in the basement, accessible if only you could find the right form to send them…

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 #142483

Posted by Nick (Matzke) on November 4, 2006 1:23 AM (e)

PS: Don’t miss Hard to believe a man with a Ph.D didn’t know of a basic tax law by Mark OBrien.

Comment #142513

Posted by Shalini, BBWAD on November 4, 2006 7:18 AM (e)

He claimed that he was ABOVE the law, not that he was ignorant about it.

Comment #142539

Posted by Rich on November 4, 2006 1:19 PM (e)

Personally, I wonder if why the Hovind’s didn’t offer any defense at the trial to ensure that the exercise would be over and settled out while Pres. chimpy is still in office -– to allow for a pardon.

Ridiculous, of course, but from what I’ve seen, I wouldn’t discount any speculation about Kent’s creative reasoning.

Comment #142551

Posted by JohnS on November 4, 2006 3:26 PM (e)

IIRC, his lawyer was bleating that the prosecution hadn’t proved that he was aware of the law.

Perhaps when you are that far above the law it is hard to discern the details.

Comment #142560

Posted by Steve Reuland on November 4, 2006 4:50 PM (e)

Clearly this means that the IRS is omniscient and omnipotent…

Which is why it’s a really, really bad idea to piss them off.

Comment #142562

Posted by Moses on November 4, 2006 6:14 PM (e)

My best guess is they’ll get between 6 and 10 years with parole in 3. They’ll also get hit with a penalty around $10 million. It’s a lot of counts, but, traditionally, criminal sentences are light and it’s the penalties and fines that do the most damage.

Comment #142563

Posted by Coin on November 4, 2006 6:23 PM (e)

The really interesting thing here is that if Hovind promised $250,000 for answering those five questions, and the IRS got $400,000, then logically the IRS must have answered eight questions, each of them as weighty as “Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves”.

I wonder what questions 6, 7, and 8 were :O

Comment #142566

Posted by Fernmonkey on November 4, 2006 7:11 PM (e)

The whackjob comments under the news articles are so depressing, though.

Comment #142570

Posted by Michael Hopkins on November 4, 2006 8:13 PM (e)

Has anyone made any efforts to get Hovind’s mug shots?

Is the IRS even finished with Hovind? They have not yet charged him with every year that he evaded taxes that they could have. Or is that something they will hold over his head if he fails to behave?

Between legal fees, the fine from the county case, the taxes owed, and over $400K forfeited, the Hovinds owe well over a million dollars. Not to mention not being able to travel cutting back on the revenue. Can their organization even survive that? Of course they can start from scratch after everything has been taken from them.

Comment #142601

Posted by Justin on November 5, 2006 10:01 AM (e)

Popoff is back after being shown to be a complete fake, and on cable TV no less… Hovind will probably survive as well, unfortunately.

Comment #142634

Posted by Michael Hopkins on November 5, 2006 3:56 PM (e)


Kent Hovind’s Mugshot

Comment #142669

Posted by John on November 5, 2006 6:56 PM (e)

Jesus loves you, but it’s upsetting to see you bash Kent Hovind Because he is standing up for the truth.
You may be able the find a flaw in a man, because man is fallible.
The Word of God is infallible.
Thanks
John
P.S. I may not agree with every stand that Dr. Hovind makes
But I think he is trying to spread the gospel of Christ. We should all thank God for him.

Comment #142697

Posted by Henry J on November 5, 2006 9:14 PM (e)

Re “Jesus loves you, but it’s upsetting to see you bash Kent Hovind […]”

Er, not to be picky, but isn’t there a rather big difference between supporting Jesus, versus supporting criminals who claim to support Jesus?

Henry

Comment #142700

Posted by Richard Palmquist on November 5, 2006 9:25 PM (e)

My wife and I have nearly two dozen grand children. We will tell them the Hovind story. “Children. Do not bother to read the US Constitution. Some well meaning people read it and saw the words ‘Congress shall make no law.’ They believed those words. Knowing that their work was dedicated to the Lord Jesus Christ they believed the Constitution’s protection of the expression of religion would mean that they could use ALL THEIR MONEY for the Lord. How could there be a law requiring them to obey a government agency that operates outside the law on a consistent basis? But they were wrong. They were sent to prison. SO, children – do NOT BELIEVE what you read in the US Constitution. You cannot trust it!” Instead, be respectful. Say, “Heil” whenever a government person comes to talk to you. Respect for der Fuhrer: that will keep you safe. Heil!

Comment #142707

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 5, 2006 9:44 PM (e)

The Word of God is infallible.

Maybe Hovind should have read that part about “render unto Caesar” …. . (snicker) (giggle)

Comment #142782

Posted by Craig L on November 6, 2006 12:33 PM (e)

You are correct about the Caesar thing…He was definitely wrong in what he did. But, to all of you out there getting a kick about this, I would lovingly like to share with you the following:

Romans 2:1 ¶ Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.
2 And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things.
3 But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God?

Mt 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

May you come to the realization of the reality of God and go to Him through Jesus Christ, the Lord of heaven and earth. He died so that you would not have to.

Comment #142783

Posted by Craig L on November 6, 2006 12:36 PM (e)

You are correct about the Caesar thing…He was definitely wrong in what he did. But, to all of you out there getting a kick about this, I would lovingly like to share with you the following:

Romans 2:1 ¶ Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.
2 And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things.
3 But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God?

Mt 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

May you come to the realization of the reality of God and go to Him through Jesus Christ, the Lord of heaven and earth. He died so that you would not have to.

Comment #142784

Posted by Craig L on November 6, 2006 12:38 PM (e)

You are correct about the Caesar thing…He was definitely wrong in what he did. But, to all of you out there getting a kick about this, I would lovingly like to share with you the following:

Romans 2:1 ¶ Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.
2 And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things.
3 But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God?

Mt 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

May you come to the realization of the reality of God and go to Him through Jesus Christ, the Lord of heaven and earth. He died so that you would not have to.

Comment #142785

Posted by Craig L on November 6, 2006 12:39 PM (e)

You are correct about the Caesar thing…He was definitely wrong in what he did. But, to all of you out there getting a kick about this, I would lovingly like to share with you the following:

Romans 2:1 ¶ Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.
2 And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things.
3 But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God?

Mt 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

May you come to the realization of the reality of God and go to Him through Jesus Christ, the Lord of heaven and earth. He died so that you would not have to.

Comment #142786

Posted by Craig L on November 6, 2006 12:45 PM (e)

You are correct about the Caesar thing…He was definitely wrong in what he did. But, to all of you out there getting a kick about this, I would lovingly like to share with you the following:

Romans 2:1 ¶ Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.
2 And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things.
3 But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God?

Mt 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

May you come to the realization of the reality of God and go to Him through Jesus Christ, the Lord of heaven and earth. He died so that you would not have to.

Comment #142788

Posted by Craig L on November 6, 2006 12:48 PM (e)

You are correct about the Caesar thing…He was definitely wrong in what he did. But, to all of you out there getting a kick about this, I would lovingly like to share with you the following:

Romans 2:1 ¶ Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.
2 And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things.
3 But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God?

Mt 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

May you come to the realization of the reality of God and go to Him through Jesus Christ, the Lord of heaven and earth. He died so that you would not have to.

Comment #142792

Posted by pough on November 6, 2006 1:21 PM (e)

Some well meaning people read it and saw the words ‘Congress shall make no law.’ They believed those words.

Being a Canadian, I’m not overly familiar with the US Constitution. Is that where the period is or does it show up later, after a few more qualifying words?

Comment #142793

Posted by NJ on November 6, 2006 1:28 PM (e)

Boy, all you have to do is say “Hovind” and the entertaining fruitcakes come out of the woodwork, eh?

Nevermind that he’s a convicted liar, nevermind he has scammed these people out of serious bucks, nevermind that he has no legitmate science training, nevermind that he’s Hoovered down nearly every nutcase idea to come down the pipe. He’s still their hero.

At least they’re all safe from zombies; no brains to be eaten.

Comment #142795

Posted by William E Emba on November 6, 2006 1:37 PM (e)

Michael Hopkins wrote:

Kent Hovind’s Mugshot

Following the link actually gives us KENT HOVIND’s mugshot. BWA HA HA!

Comment #142797

Posted by Raging Bee on November 6, 2006 1:49 PM (e)

Rich: I suspect that Hovind did not mount a defense simply because he rejected the legitimacy of the court, the trial, and the state, altogether, just like many of those militia nutjobs we occasionally hear about.

…But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God?

This isn’t about God’s law, it’s about US tax law – see the difference? And no, we don’t all evade our tax obligations like Holvind did.

Mt 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Um…we’ve already been likewise judged: we all have to pay our taxes, otherwise we go to jail.

Christian forgiveness does not mean refusing to criticize wrongdoing by other people.

PS: So, Craig, what’s your judgement of homosexuals? Any comment on what some of your, ahem, fellow Christians have said in their judgement of gays?

Comment #142821

Posted by Brendan on November 6, 2006 2:37 PM (e)

I thought we wanted prayer in schools and that the separation of church and state was a bad thing (Plus it never says so in the constitution).

I thought we wanted schools to teach religious dogma parallel to normal classroom activities?

I also, at the base of it, fail to see how collecting tax from someone is impeding freedom of religion. It certainly doesn’t say ‘Congress shall make no law taxing churches.’

Here is the complete text of the First amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Comment #142841

Posted by Craig L on November 6, 2006 4:18 PM (e)

Raging Bee,

What I am speaking to is the idea that people get that when a Christian messes up, that exonerates them from the judgment of God. He has sinned and so have you…

Ro 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Whether it be tax issues, etc.

As far as homosexuals are concerned, I will let the Word of God handle that…

1 Cor 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,…

They all need to repent just like the rest of mankind…and bow to Christ as Lord and Savior. No need to single them out. All have sinned.

Comment #142870

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 6, 2006 7:27 PM (e)

What I am speaking to is the idea that people get that when a Christian messes up, that exonerates them from the judgment of God.

Nobody gives a flying fig about Hovind’s judgment from God – that is between Hovind and God. It’s Hovind’s judgment from the IRS that we are laughing over.

That, and the fact that fundies are such chumps that they’ll send money to ANY two-bit liar and deceiver who tells them what they want to hear. (snicker) (giggle)

Comment #142872

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 6, 2006 7:35 PM (e)

Hey Craig, with all due respect (none), my relationship (or lack thereof) with God is between me and God. And neither of us asked YOU to butt in.

So butt out.

Unless and until you produce some certificate from God annointing you as His Holy Spokesman, I strongly suggest that you sit down, shut up, and stop passing judgment upon anyone else’s relationship to God. After all, you don’t walk any closer to God than anyone else, you are not any holier than anyone else, you don’t know any more about God than anyone else does, and your religious opinions are no more holy or authoritative than anyone else’s.

(sigh)

No WONDER everyone thinks fundies are self-righteous arrogant pride-filled holier-than-thou (literally) pricks.

Comment #142898

Posted by Craig L on November 6, 2006 9:44 PM (e)

Lenny,

I am speaking of your judgment, not that of Kent Hovind. Unless you have Christ, you cannot be saved. Repent and trust in Christ as your Lord and your Savior.

Comment #142900

Posted by Craig L on November 6, 2006 9:52 PM (e)

The only holiness that I have comes from Christ. I take no credit for the fact that I am forgiven through the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ…for without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins. Neither do I pass judgment on you…but, the Bible is very clear that those without Christ as Lord and Savior will not be saved. It seems that you have rejected Him, and, in that case, the Bible makes clear your fate. I pray that you will find the grace of God and salvation through Christ.

1 Peter 2:24 KJV 24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

Isaiah 53:5 KJV 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

Comment #142902

Posted by Craig L on November 6, 2006 9:55 PM (e)

God gave himself for you!!! That is how much He loves you.

Comment #142903

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 6, 2006 10:00 PM (e)

I am speaking of your judgment

You are not God, sir. You are no holier than anyone else. You know no more about God or God’s judgment than anyone else. And you have no business speaking of ANYBODY’s “judgment”.

As noted before, judgment is a matter between God and the individual, and neither of them asked YOU to butt in. So butt out.

The only holiness that I have comes from Christ. I take no credit for the fact that I am forgiven through the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ…

How very humble of you.

No WONDER everyone thinks fundies are arrogant, pride-filled, self-righteous, holier-than-thou (literally) pricks.

Comment #142905

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on November 6, 2006 10:08 PM (e)

“God gave himself for you.”

…to whom, pray tell?

Comment #143061

Posted by Darth Robo on November 7, 2006 11:30 AM (e)

Craig L said (5 times in case anyone missed it): “May you come to the realization of the reality of God and go to Him through Jesus Christ, the Lord of heaven and earth. He died so that you would not have to.”

Umm, don’t we have to die anyway? We always here about how Jesus sacrificed himself for us, but it never seems to make me feel better. (Oh, what am I doing? Probably gonna regret saying that…)

Comment #143062

Posted by Craig L on November 7, 2006 11:35 AM (e)

The Bible speaks of eternal death from a spiritual standpoint and not a physical standpoint. Everyone dies physically but only those hoave not been born again or born of God will die eternally while those who believe on Christ will have eternal life.

He gave His life…on the cross. He took the punishment for sin on himself that we might be made righteous. That we might have His righteousness cridited to us by fatith in Christ.

Ro 5:19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one (Jesus) shall many be made righteous.
Ac 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Your sins can be forgiven by repenting from sin and turning to Christ as Lord and Savior. Without His giving of himself, this would not be possible. The holiness of a Christian is the holiness of Christ and not the holiness of the individual (that is a fact). Jesus died, was buried, and three days later rose for you and for me. What love that is! Accept it.

Comment #143063

Posted by Craig L on November 7, 2006 11:37 AM (e)

The Bible speaks of eternal death from a spiritual standpoint and not a physical standpoint. Everyone dies physically but only those have not been born again or born of God (born of the Spirit) will die eternally/spiritually while those who believe on Christ will have eternal life. In actuality, those who are not in Christ now are spirtually dead. That is why we must be born again to have realy spiritual life in Christ. To reamin spirtually dead to the end of life is to be spirtually dead eternally.

Christ gave His life…on the cross. He took the punishment for sin on himself that we might be made righteous. That we might have His righteousness cridited to us by fatith in Christ.

Ro 5:19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one (Jesus) shall many be made righteous.
Ac 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Your sins can be forgiven by repenting from sin and turning to Christ as Lord and Savior. Without His giving of himself, this would not be possible. The holiness of a Christian is the holiness of Christ and not the holiness of the individual (that is a fact). Jesus died, was buried, and three days later rose for you and for me. What love that is! Accept it.

Comment #143065

Posted by Craig L on November 7, 2006 11:40 AM (e)

The Bible speaks of eternal death from a spiritual standpoint and not a physical standpoint. Everyone dies physically but only those have not been born again or born of God (born of the Spirit) will die eternally/spiritually while those who believe on Christ will have eternal life. In actuality, those who are not in Christ now are spirtually dead. That is why we must be born again to have realy spiritual life in Christ. To reamin spirtually dead to the end of life is to be spirtually dead eternally.

Christ gave His life…on the cross. He took the punishment for sin on himself that we might be made righteous. That we might have His righteousness cridited to us by fatith in Christ.

Ro 5:19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one (Jesus) shall many be made righteous.
Ac 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Your sins can be forgiven by repenting from sin and turning to Christ as Lord and Savior. Without His giving of himself, this would not be possible. The holiness of a Christian is the holiness of Christ and not the holiness of the individual (that is a fact). Jesus died, was buried, and three days later rose for you and for me. What love that is! Accept it.

Comment #143066

Posted by Craig L on November 7, 2006 11:41 AM (e)

The Bible speaks of eternal death from a spiritual standpoint and not a physical standpoint. Everyone dies physically but only those have not been born again or born of God (born of the Spirit) will die eternally/spiritually while those who believe on Christ will have eternal life. In actuality, those who are not in Christ now are spirtually dead. That is why we must be born again to have realy spiritual life in Christ. To reamin spirtually dead to the end of life is to be spirtually dead eternally.

Christ gave His life…on the cross. He took the punishment for sin on himself that we might be made righteous. That we might have His righteousness cridited to us by fatith in Christ.

Ro 5:19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one (Jesus) shall many be made righteous.
Ac 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Your sins can be forgiven by repenting from sin and turning to Christ as Lord and Savior. Without His giving of himself, this would not be possible. The holiness of a Christian is the holiness of Christ and not the holiness of the individual (that is a fact). Jesus died, was buried, and three days later rose for you and for me. What love that is! Accept it.

Comment #143067

Posted by Craig L on November 7, 2006 11:43 AM (e)

The Bible speaks of eternal death from a spiritual standpoint and not a physical standpoint. Everyone dies physically but only those have not been born again or born of God (born of the Spirit) will die eternally/spiritually while those who believe on Christ will have eternal life. In actuality, those who are not in Christ now are spirtually dead. That is why we must be born again to have realy spiritual life in Christ. To reamin spirtually dead to the end of life is to be spirtually dead eternally.

Christ gave His life…on the cross. He took the punishment for sin on himself that we might be made righteous. That we might have His righteousness cridited to us by fatith in Christ.

Ro 5:19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one (Jesus) shall many be made righteous.
Ac 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Your sins can be forgiven by repenting from sin and turning to Christ as Lord and Savior. Without His giving of himself, this would not be possible. The holiness of a Christian is the holiness of Christ and not the holiness of the individual (that is a fact). Jesus died, was buried, and three days later rose for you and for me. What love that is! Accept it.

Comment #143076

Posted by minimalist on November 7, 2006 1:02 PM (e)

Mmmmm-nope, I pay my taxes. Most likely everyone else here does, too. So I guess that means we get to judge away, right?

Comment #143103

Posted by Coin on November 7, 2006 2:26 PM (e)

This thread confuses me. So the idea is that Jesus gave his life so that we would not have to pay taxes?

Comment #143128

Posted by Craig L on November 7, 2006 4:03 PM (e)

Sorry about all of the same things being repeated. There seems to be a glitch. Anyway, whether you have paid taxes or not, all of us have sinned…the punishment is eternal death and your loving substitute is Christ. Repent of your sin, turn to Christ as Lord and trust Him as your Savior and you will be saved.

Comment #143129

Posted by Ambassador on November 7, 2006 4:06 PM (e)

I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist!

Comment #143144

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on November 7, 2006 5:09 PM (e)

“I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist”

I don’t have enough hair to be bald.

Comment #143154

Posted by Coin on November 7, 2006 5:55 PM (e)

“I don’t have enough hair to be bald.”

I don’t have enough ethics to be a congressman.

Comment #143171

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 7, 2006 7:15 PM (e)

Craig, thanks for (yet again) sharing your religious opinions with us. Alas, I must point out (yet again) that your religious opinions are just that, your opinions. They are no more holy or divine or infallible or authoritative than anyone else’s religious opinions. No one is obligated in any way, shape, or form to follow your religious opinions, to accept them, or even to pay any attention at all to them. After all, you are not any more holy than anyone else is, you do not know any more about God than anyone else does, and you are no more authoritative than are mine, my next door neighbor’s, my car mechanic’s, my veterinarian’s, or the kid who delivers my pizzas.

You are just a man, Craig.

Just a man.

Comment #143177

Posted by Craig L on November 7, 2006 7:39 PM (e)

I am not sure where you are getting the idea that I am thinking that I am better than anyone else. I boast of Christ and not of myself.

John 14:6 KJV 6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Acts 4:12 KJV 12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
John 10:9 KJV 9 I (Jesus) am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

This is not opionion, friend, this is truth. Not my opinion…truth.

Just a man, BUT - a child of God

Comment #143181

Posted by Ambassador on November 7, 2006 7:48 PM (e)

Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

John 3:16 KJV 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Comment #143182

Posted by Ambassador on November 7, 2006 7:51 PM (e)

Huh…more truth.

Comment #143196

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on November 7, 2006 8:39 PM (e)

Ambassatroll,

why are you calling anyone a “fool”? Remember:

“whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.”
– Matthew 5:22b

The author of that Psalm you quoted must be roasting to a crisp, according to Jesus the Christ (as quoted by Matthew).

Comment #143212

Posted by Ambassador on November 7, 2006 9:46 PM (e)

The author is God…

2 Timothy 3:16 - All scripture is given by inspiration of God (God-breathed), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

So, that author is God.

2…It must be anger without a cause as indicated in Matthew 5:22…Yet,

Psalms 7:11 KJV 11 God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day.

And He has cause to be angry. He is simply saying that it is foolishness to not believe that there is an all-powerful God. What are your beliefs about God’s existence?

By the way, there are no contradictions in God’s Word. It is perfect and in harmony.

Comment #143214

Posted by Wayne Francis on November 7, 2006 9:56 PM (e)

Craig, thanks for pointing out, multiple times, just in case we missed it the first four times, that you believe that most of the world will be either damned to hell or snuffed out eternally. I prefer to believe that children that are born to parents that are not of your particular Christian faith are not damn if they happen to die before they have a chance to “convert”. You are, of course, allowed to believe anything you feel like.

Personally I don’t give 2 hoots what you believe and thankfully the law doesn’t give 2 hoots what you believe either when it comes to someone breaking the law. You go be saved…you may die and find that many people, that the world has deemed evil, are your neighbours because they “repented their sins”. But while people are alive they need to also follow the laws of the societies they live in.

Comment #143222

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 7, 2006 10:34 PM (e)

I am not sure where you are getting the idea that I am thinking that I am better than anyone else.

Indeed, I am very sure that you have no idea at all where I get that idea. (shrug)

Comment #143224

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 7, 2006 10:36 PM (e)

By the way, there are no contradictions in God’s Word. It is perfect and in harmony.

Says you. (shrug)

I’m curious, though — is it your contention that not only is the Bible infallible and inerrant, but *your interpretations* of it are also infallible and inerrant?

Sorry, but I simply don’t believe that you are infallible or inerrant.

Would you mind demonstrating to me why I *should* think you are? Other than your say-so?

Comment #143228

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on November 7, 2006 11:00 PM (e)

Ambassatroll,

my opinions on God are not the subject. Yours are. You are the one who barged here armed with verses of the Bible that I suspect (given the way you wield them like a club) you have not studied in depth but merely memorized.

Again I ask, why are *YOU* calling anyone a fool, if calling anyone a fool puts you at risk of hell fire, according to Jesus? Don’t you believe in His word?

Comment #143232

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 7, 2006 11:09 PM (e)

For our two new fundie friends:

*ahem*

Exodus 22:18 “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.”

(1) do you believe that supernatural witches exist?

(2) if so, do you think they should be killed?

Comment #143300

Posted by Darth Robo on November 8, 2006 6:07 AM (e)

“Probably gonna regret saying that…”

Yup. Sorry.

Comment #143310

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on November 8, 2006 7:35 AM (e)

Chris L, Ambassador, I pray that both of you will accept that Bran died for you before you die unbelievers and are sent to eternal torment in Anwnn. The Bible cannot be right because it contradicts the holy words of the gods found in the Mabinogion.

I await your in depth explanation of why we should think God’s holy word should be found in any book besides the Mabinogion.

Comment #143340

Posted by Craig L on November 8, 2006 11:26 AM (e)

Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.

Mt 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

God created, Man fell, Christ came, died, was buried, and rose three days later - this fact in history changed the world drastically in such a short time period. But you do not want to hear that, do you.

The facts of Christ’s mission were foretold in over 100 specific prophecies in the Old Testament and he came and fulfilled them all…but that does not matter to you and prove to you that God’s Word is infallible and that Christ is truth…but you find any and every excuse to run away from Him. May God open your eyes, and your ears, raise you from spiritual death, make you to be able to walk, heal you in spirit.

Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him (Jesus) the iniquity of us all.
Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

Isa 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

May God Help You.

Comment #143364

Posted by GuyeFaux on November 8, 2006 1:49 PM (e)

Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.

So once again you’re professing to know what God wants. And you opinion on God’s will matters because…

Comment #143365

Posted by Coin on November 8, 2006 1:53 PM (e)

Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.

I do!

Comment #143376

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on November 8, 2006 2:53 PM (e)

Poor Chris L has thrown bible quotes at my completely rational argument about Bran having died to save us. This is silly as the Bible isn’t divinely inspired, unlike the Mabinogion. If he thinks otherwise, it’s going to take more than a few quotes to convince me!

In order to convince him how silly he’s being, I’ll now present some Mabinogion quotes to convert all you heathens:

However long they were on the road, they came to London, and they buried the head [of Bran] in The White Hill.

And that was one of the Three Fortunate concealments when it was buried… since no affliction would ever came to this Island from across the sea, as long as the head was in that concealment.

This clearly shows that England has been protected by the power of Bran’s head, since it has never been conquered since!

Comment #143377

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on November 8, 2006 2:55 PM (e)

Poor Chris L has thrown bible quotes at my completely rational argument about Bran having died to save us. This is silly as the Bible isn’t divinely inspired, unlike the Mabinogion. If he thinks otherwise, it’s going to take more than a few quotes to convince me!

In order to convince him how silly he’s being, I’ll now present some Mabinogion quotes to convert all you heathens:

However long they were on the road, they came to London, and they buried the head [of Bran] in The White Hill.

And that was one of the Three Fortunate concealments when it was buried… since no affliction would ever came to this Island from across the sea, as long as the head was in that concealment.

This clearly shows that England has been protected by the power of Bran’s head, since it has never been conquered since!

Comment #143378

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on November 8, 2006 3:00 PM (e)

The server’s learned a new trick! I punched post once, and got the “This page cannot be displayed” error. So I opened a new window and went to PT to check to see if it had gotten posted anyway and find… two postings! Two minutes apart, no less! I swear I only hit the button once!

Comment #143384

Posted by Henry J on November 8, 2006 3:29 PM (e)

Re “The server’s learned a new trick! “

To err is human, but to really screw up get a computer!

Comment #143390

Posted by Flint on November 8, 2006 4:01 PM (e)

I created a post, previewed it (it showed up), posted it, and eventually the page returned. Went to the bottom - no post. Deleted internet files - no post. Tried the preview trick - no post! Sure enough, there really IS no post. I posted once and got zero instances, you posted once and got two. I guess these things even out.

This server software is truly unique. In many years of wandering around the net, I have never found worse.

Comment #143393

Posted by Henry J on November 8, 2006 4:10 PM (e)

Is this software designed or evolved? ;)

Comment #143405

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 8, 2006 6:33 PM (e)

Hey Craig, you seem not to have answeed my simple questions. So I’ll ask again. And again and again and again and again, every time you post here, as many times as I need to, until you either answer or run away. I’m a very patient man.

*ahem*

Exodus 22:18 “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.”

(1) do you believe that supernatural witches exist?

(2) if so, do you think they should be killed?

Comment #143415

Posted by fnxtr on November 8, 2006 8:07 PM (e)

Y’know, I’ve never understood the hankering for an eternal afterlife. Like, isn’t this enough? Look around, it’s amazing. What more could you want? Nothing else in the universe lasts forever, why should we? When you’re dead, you’re dead, Man. ‘Revel in your time’ (still one of my favourite films).

Craig, you are free to believe any primitive superstition you want. Or not. As are the rest of us. But you know, just throwing chapter and verse at people who don’t believe it isn’t going to convince anyone you’re right. Why should it? Should I believe the supernatural elements of the Iliad? Why not? Troy was real…

Comment #143421

Posted by Craig L on November 8, 2006 8:51 PM (e)

THIS IS WHY IT IS REAL AND NOT SUPERSTITION…YOU NEED TO READ EVERYTHING THERE. THIS BOOK IS DIFFERENT FROM ALL OF THE REST. IT SAYS IT IS FROM GOD AND OVER AND OVER PROVES THAT IT IS IN REALITY.

God created, Man fell, Christ came, died, was buried, and rose three days later - this fact in history changed the world drastically in such a short time period. But you do not want to hear that, do you.

The facts of Christ’s mission were foretold in over 100 specific prophecies in the Old Testament and he came and fulfilled them all…but that does not matter to you and prove to you that God’s Word is infallible and that Christ is truth…but you find any and every excuse to run away from Him. May God open your eyes, and your ears, raise you from spiritual death, make you to be able to walk, heal you in spirit.

Comment #143423

Posted by Craig L on November 8, 2006 8:58 PM (e)

As far as the law given to Israel…

These laws were given to Israel by God as a nation. Not so the neighbor across the street can take out vengeance on those around them for being witches, homosexuals, etc. We have laws here that, if you break them, are punishable by death as well. But, these are national laws…and government is ordained by God. I cannot go and take the law into my own hands and execute people. So, these were laws given to Israel as a nation. The Bibles speaks of divination and witches and you can find them around the world. But if there is no law of the land to prosecute, then, oh well. God will sort things out at the end anyway.

Romans 13:1 ¶ Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;
4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

Comment #143425

Posted by Coin on November 8, 2006 9:04 PM (e)

THIS IS WHY IT IS REAL AND NOT SUPERSTITION…YOU NEED TO READ EVERYTHING THERE. THIS BOOK IS DIFFERENT FROM ALL OF THE REST. IT SAYS IT IS FROM GOD AND OVER AND OVER PROVES THAT IT IS IN REALITY.

So… it’s real and not superstition because it says it is real and not superstition?

That’s a neat trick.

Come to think of it though, doesn’t “Lord of the Rings” do the same thing?

And also, if you think about it, Lord of the Rings also contains many prophesies which characters in the book later fulfill. Hmm.

As far as the law given to Israel…

These laws were given to Israel by God as a nation… We have laws here that, if you break them, are punishable by death as well. But, these are national laws…

Oh. But Israel as a nation exists today, doesn’t it?

Does that mean that “national laws” given to Israel, such as Exodus 22:18, ought to apply today in the nation of Israel?

Comment #143426

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 8, 2006 9:18 PM (e)

Oh. But Israel as a nation exists today, doesn’t it?

Does that mean that “national laws” given to Israel, such as Exodus 22:18, ought to apply today in the nation of Israel?

If xians evolved from jews, how come there are still jews?

:p

Comment #143427

Posted by Craig L on November 8, 2006 9:38 PM (e)

Willingly blind you are…May God open your eyes.

Comment #143428

Posted by Anton Mates on November 8, 2006 9:42 PM (e)

Craig L wrote:

Romans 13:1 ¶ Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.

So Moses, Gandhi, George Washington, Martin Luther King…all sinned, then, by resisting their governing authorities.

Comment #143432

Posted by Ambassador on November 8, 2006 10:07 PM (e)

Christ Rose - another prophecy…a historical fact.

The apostles and those others who followed Him went to their death preaching Christ because they saw the living Christ after watching him die a horrible death.

They died because they saw Him and believed.

Comment #143433

Posted by Ambassador on November 8, 2006 10:08 PM (e)

Consider the bombardier beetle, for example. This remarkable insect is found mainly in the deserts of New Mexico. It was created with a unique defense mechanism that is impossible to explain by the evolutionary theory. The beetle produces two chemicals in separate reservoirs in its abdomen. The two chemicals, hydraquinone and hydrogen peroxide, are harmless by themselves but potentially explosive when combined. When attacked, the beetle releases the chemicals through a movable jet at the rear tip of its abdomen. Catalytic enzymes in a tiny reaction chamber just inside the expulsion valve set the chemical reaction in motion, and at precisely the right moment, the beetle aims his abdominal turret and releases the explosive mixture in the face of his predator. The combined chemicals instantly reach the temperature of boiling water, creating a surprise and a deterrent that is powerful enough to discourage most predators. The beetle can fire up to five shots in rapid succession, and he instinctively knows how to time the explosion so that it occurs a moment after the chemicals are expelled, never in the reaction chamber where it would destroy the beetle. How does the beetle know how to do this? Could such a complex system possibly have developed through some natural evolutionary process? Consider what all the bombardier beetle’s defense system entails: The beetle must be able to produce just the right chemicals, keep them in separate reservoirs, and bring them together at the right time with the necessary catalytic enzymes. He must also possess all the equipment and ability necessary to combine the explosives, aim the mixture accurately, and fire precisely before the moment of explosion. Is it reasonable to think an evolving creature could develop such a system, with so many interdependent parts, through a process of individual, random genetic changes? The answer is clear: The bombardier beetle is the product of intelligent design.

MacArthur, J. 2001. The battle for the beginning : The Bible on creation and the fall of Adam . W Pub. Group: Nashville, TN

Evolution - the lie of lies

Comment #143436

Posted by Martin Wagner on November 8, 2006 10:12 PM (e)

Wow. We really have an active troll in Craig L, don’t we? I wonder why he thinks we’re interested in hearing his preaching here. Not only that, but he’s clearly just following the script; there’s nothing in anything he’s saying that’s any more fresh or original than what I was told in Sunday School when I was ten years old. And I thought it was vacuous bilge then.

Craig, you just don’t recognize that you’re in a scientific forum where people, generally speaking, aren’t the least bit moved by canned sermons, and where they insist that claims be backed up by solid evidence. It’s clear from the posts you’ve made so far that you do not know how to argue, nor do you comprehend what “evidence” even is. You simply quote from scripture and recite your trite dogmas like a trained parrot. Yaaawwwwn. We’ve all outgrown that kind of thing here. You’re fighting well below your weight class, and the only reason anyone here is talking to you at all is because your naivety provides an easy sort of amusement. In a way, you kind of have my sympathies.

Comment #143437

Posted by Craig L on November 8, 2006 10:13 PM (e)

Israel became a nation once again…prophesied in the Old Testament…

Amos 9:15 KJV 15 And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God.

That one wasn’t in the Lord of the Rings was it???

Christ was crucified and died, was buried, and rose…all prophecies that came true. His resurrection is a historical fact.

Christ is prophesied to return - repent and turn to Him as Lord and Savior that you might love that day.

Comment #143439

Posted by Craig L on November 8, 2006 10:16 PM (e)

It takes more faith to be an atheist - You don’t have the evidence nor does anyone else. Faith and more faith needed for you. Hater’s of God? Now that might be more fitting.

Comment #143441

Posted by Ambassador on November 8, 2006 10:19 PM (e)

So the frog became a Prince - is that how I am gathering it??? Fairy tales they are - and you believe them.

Comment #143443

Posted by Martin Wagner on November 8, 2006 10:32 PM (e)

Craig L continues to demonstrate just how dazzlingly lame he is at arguing.

It takes more faith to be an atheist - You don’t have the evidence nor does anyone else. Faith and more faith needed for you. Hater’s of God? Now that might be more fitting.

You really are a pitiful little amateur at this, aren’t you, Craig? What takes more faith: believing in Zeus or not believing in him? Believing in Shiva or not believing in him? Believing in Horus or not believing in him? Believing in Vishnu or not believing in him? Santa Claus? The Tooth Fairy? How is your god any more special than any other mythic being you’d care to name?

If the evidence for your God were strong enough that it wouldbe less rational not to believe in him than to do so, then we would do so. So far, the evidence isn’t there, and none of your flailing, childish attempts at preaching have presented any. There’s literally nothing you’ve said tonight that atheists haven’t heard and laughed at thousands of times in their lives already.

And atheists don’t “hate” God, you doofus, because we don’t believe he exists. Just like Darth Vader. I don’t “hate” Darth Vader, either. Hating something that doesn’t exist is a stupid waste of time. Just like loving it would be.

You’re still just reciting from the script, aren’t you? When you care to back any of your claims, let us know. Otherwise, we’ll continue to treat you with the smirking condescension you’ve so far earned.

Comment #143444

Posted by Martin Wagner on November 8, 2006 10:35 PM (e)

So the frog became a Prince - is that how I am gathering it???

If that is how you’re gathering it, you’re even dumber than you think we think you are.

The frog and the prince, however, do share a common ancestor.

You know, Ambassador, in retrospect, college might not have been such a bad idea after all, eh?

Comment #143445

Posted by Martin Wagner on November 8, 2006 10:39 PM (e)

Ambassador(k) cut and pasted:

Is it reasonable to think an evolving creature could develop such a system, with so many interdependent parts, through a process of individual, random genetic changes? The answer is clear: The bombardier beetle is the product of intelligent design.

Logical fallacy: Argument from incredulity.

Scientific facts about bombardier beetles here.

Gong! – you lose, A. Care to try again?

Comment #143448

Posted by fnxtr on November 8, 2006 11:14 PM (e)

“There to Tydeus’ son Diomedes Pallas Athene granted strength and daring, that he might be conspicuous among all the Argives and win the glory of valour. She made weariless fire blaze from his shield and helmet like that star of the waning summer who beyond all stars rises bathed in the ocean stream to glitter in brilliance. Such was the fire she made blaze from his head and his shoulders and urged him into the middle fighting, where most were struggling.”
- Iliad, book V, trans. Richard Lattimore.

Ergo, Athena is a real goddess. It’s right there in the book. Historical fact.

Comment #143472

Posted by Darth Robo on November 9, 2006 4:18 AM (e)

THE FORCE IS REAL! WITHOUT IT LIFE COULD NOT EXIST AND WE WOULD HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE FORCE! THIS PROVES IT IS REALITY!

Darth Vader was the chosen one! Born not by a natural father but of the mini-chlorines after his mother swam in Yoda’s swimming pool, he fell from grace then redeemed himself to save the galaxy. And it all happened a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away…

The facts of His mission were foretold in over 100 specific prophecies in the Journal Of The Whills and he came and fullfilled them all… but that does not matter to you and prove to you that Yoda’s Word is infallible and that The Force is truth… but you find any and every excuse to run away from Him. May The Force be with you and open your eyes, and your ears, raise you from spiritual death, make you to be able to walk, heal you in spirit.

Darth Vader rocks!!! :)

Comment #143493

Posted by Craig L on November 9, 2006 11:47 AM (e)

I will leave you all to enjoy your “religion”.

Php 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him (Jesus), and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE SHOULD BOW, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 AND THAT EVERY TONGUE SHOULD CONFESS that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

It will happen one day - hopefully it is before your life on earth here ends.

Repent and turn from your sins and trust Christ as your Lord and Savior.

God Bless

Comment #143517

Posted by fnxtr on November 9, 2006 3:10 PM (e)

By the way, Craig, capitalizing is the internet equivalent of shouting and considered extremely rude.

I don’t have a ‘religion’, Craig. The point is, just because it’s in a book doesn’t mean it’s true.

That should be Richmond Lattimore, not Richard. I wonder who the first person was to translate mea culpa as “my bad”.

Comment #143530

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 9, 2006 4:58 PM (e)

Born not by a natural father but of the mini-chlorines after his mother swam in Yoda’s swimming pool

LOL

Comment #143565

Posted by Darth Robo on November 10, 2006 3:19 AM (e)

“It will happen one day - hopefully it is before your life on earth here ends.”

See what I mean? It’s depressing! Lighten up!!

“Forgive me father, for I have sinned. I made out with my sister.” - Luke Skywalker

Comment #143589

Posted by Henry J on November 10, 2006 10:11 AM (e)

Re ““Forgive me father, for I have sinned. I made out with my sister.” - Luke Skywalker”

Never mind Luke, what about Oedipus?

Comment #143603

Posted by Flint on November 10, 2006 12:52 PM (e)

We seem to have a few handles here (implying at least one person) who believes that if he closes his eyes, nobody else can see him. If he hides behind canned scripture, nobody will notice that he can’t think and doesn’t dare try. Topic? You guys are discussing a topic? Just a sec, there must be some scripture saying that’s sinful here somewhere…

Comment #143677

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 10, 2006 6:06 PM (e)

Hey Craig, you seem not to have answeed my simple questions. So I’ll ask again. And again and again and again and again, every time you post here, as many times as I need to, until you either answer or run away. I’m a very patient man.

*ahem*

Exodus 22:18 “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.”

(1) do you believe that supernatural witches exist?

(2) if so, do you think they should be killed?

Comment #143699

Posted by Craig L on November 11, 2006 8:03 AM (e)

Mr. Lenny…I answered your questions up a ways but I will go ahead and report below…

These laws were given to Israel by God as a nation. Not so the neighbor across the street can take out vengeance on those around them for being witches, homosexuals, etc. We have laws here that, if you break them, are punishable by death as well. But, these are national laws…and government is ordained by God. I cannot go and take the law into my own hands and execute people. So, these were laws given to Israel as a nation. The Bibles speaks of divination and witches and you can find them around the world. But if there is no law of the land to prosecute, then, oh well. God will sort things out at the end anyway.

Romans 13:1 ¶ Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;
4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

Comment #143703

Posted by Richard Simons on November 11, 2006 9:45 AM (e)

Craig, I am not clear exactly what you believe. When you say the laws were given to Israel by God as a nation, do you mean the present-day state of Israel, the biblical people or something else?

When you say that government is ordained by God do you mean just the US government (as a non-American, I might object to that) or all governments including, for example, the present North Korean government?

What do you mean by ‘ordained’? Does this mean that God has a hand in formulating the laws of the US (or other countries)?

If God required the killing of witches in Israel, why has he not required it of other governments that he ordains?

Lenny’s question was not whether you are legally able to kill witches, but whether you think they should be killed, which you avoided answering.

Comment #143714

Posted by Creation Rules on November 11, 2006 1:41 PM (e)

I see all of the people who enjoy the fairy tale of evolution are enjoying themselves here.

Comment #143718

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 11, 2006 2:22 PM (e)

One more time, Craig.

*ahem*

(1) do you believe that supernatural witches exist?

(2) if so, do you think they should be killed?

Save all your bloviating and arm-waving, Craig.

All I want is a simple “yes” or no”.

So supernatural witches exist? Either “yes, you do”, or “no, you don’t”.

If so, do you think they should be killed? Either “yes, you do”, or “no, you don’t”.

Which is it? Yes, or no?

Comment #143723

Posted by Coin on November 11, 2006 3:27 PM (e)

Lenny, although I do notice he’s trying very hard to answer the questions he wished you asked (and not the questions you actually asked), he did kind of sort of confusingly hint at answers to your two questions with his last post: “The Bibles speaks of divination and witches and you can find them around the world. But if there is no law of the land to prosecute, then, oh well. God will sort things out at the end anyway.”

A bit vague, though, so it’s hard to tell what he meant by this.

Craig L, could you please clarify and address the questions as Lenny asked them rather than just pasting the bit about Romans 13:1 again? Just to be clear.

For example: when you say “witches… you can find them around the world”, what exactly do you mean? Do you mean that there are people who believe themselves to be witches? Or do you mean witches actually exist and have supernatural abilities?

Also, Craig L, when you say, “if there is no law of the land to prosecute, then, oh well”. Never mind whether there is a law of the land– do you think there should be? If you were in a position to set the law of the land, would there be a law against witches, and what would the punishment be?

Creation Rules wrote:

I see all of the people who enjoy the fairy tale of evolution are enjoying themselves here.

Hm. There seem to be a lot of people with very similar viewpoints who are showing up in this thread and the Ted Haggard thread but no others. Are these just lurkers who only decided to pop up in those two threads, or are these threads being linked from some other forum somewhere? Or does someone just have a bunch of alts?

Comment #143724

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 11, 2006 4:18 PM (e)

“The Bibles speaks of divination and witches and you can find them around the world. But if there is no law of the land to prosecute, then, oh well. God will sort things out at the end anyway.”

or the bumper sticker version:

“Kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out!”

Comment #143726

Posted by Craig L on November 11, 2006 4:26 PM (e)

I will not answer anymore of your questions and aplogize for interrupting you with the message of the Bible. The truth is, you do not care but to debate and talk in circles. Questions lead to answers (which, I admit, are not perfect) - which lead to more questions and a waste of time. I pray that you will repent and turn to Christ - believe God and seek Him.

Jeremiah 29:13 KJV 13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

Comment #143728

Posted by Coin on November 11, 2006 4:38 PM (e)

So the idea is you’re happy to preach your opinions to others, as long as you don’t have to defend them or stand up for them?

Do you think people are going to be impressed by or attracted to a faith that, apparently, only works as long as you don’t bring up certain parts of it in public?

Comment #143729

Posted by fnxtr on November 11, 2006 4:39 PM (e)

“Kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out!”

Which is, as I understand it, is a Readers’ Digest version of the attitude of the Inquisition. Python references may now ensue.

Bye, now, Craig. When you have more than ancient quotations for us, come on back.

Comment #143734

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 11, 2006 4:59 PM (e)

I will not answer anymore of your questions

That, in itself, is of course a quite eloquent answer. (shrug)

Comment #143744

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 11, 2006 5:50 PM (e)

I will not answer anymore of your questions

“Ask me no qestions, and I’ll tell you no lies.”

Comment #144139

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 15, 2006 4:18 PM (e)

Hey guys….wow.

I’ve had to come to terms with 2 new concepts since working for AIG. Its incredible, I now advocate and support Natural Selection and Speciation. The funny part is, while I agree with both of them….Charles Darwin was STILL wrong :).

Dr. Michael Martin
PHD Yale
ThM Thalbot
AIG Ministries
[Enable javascript to see this email address.]

Comment #144140

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 15, 2006 4:21 PM (e)

So I guess the debates over then, right? We can pack it up and call it….….

Dr. Michael Martin
[Enable javascript to see this email address.]

Comment #144141

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 15, 2006 4:24 PM (e)

Oh yeah…Lenny, how many times have I got to tell you, the supernatural witches is goofiness. They had no guns, no electric chair, so when someone committed a crime in Israel, they burned them. You think thats bad? Shoot, look at what the Romans did to people. They CRUCIFIED people for goodness sake!

The Israelite Covenant does NOT apply to today. Every Christian knows this. We follow Jesus’s law. His law applies to both Jew and Gentile. That law just applied to Jews. You’ve got the wrong group here, you may want to save that question for a Jew sometime.

Comment #144142

Posted by Bettinke, Head Nurse, TS&Ph. on November 15, 2006 4:26 PM (e)

Ach, Michael, there you at last are!

My goodness gracious, but you a fast little scooter sure are being!

Comment #144143

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 15, 2006 4:26 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #144144

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 15, 2006 4:28 PM (e)

Hey nurse Bettinke….

SHUT UP!

Dr. Michael Martin :)

Comment #144145

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 15, 2006 4:30 PM (e)

I would appreciate being called Dr. Martin, not Michael.

Comment #144146

Posted by Bettinke, Head Nurse, TS&Ph. on November 15, 2006 4:32 PM (e)

Your anger we feeling are, my poor Michael!

Your feelings out, it is–how you say–HOKAY to let them being…

Now yust hold still there being for one minutes more, Hokay?

Comment #144147

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 15, 2006 4:33 PM (e)

I think I’ve settled the debate here. The Earth is only 10,000 years old. Natural Selection DID happen. Speciation DID happen. Variation DID happen. Evolution DID NOT happen.

Comment #144149

Posted by Bettinke, Head Nurse, TS&Ph. on November 15, 2006 4:35 PM (e)

Your anger we feeling are, my poor Michael!

Your feelings out, it is–how you say–HOKAY to let them being…

Now yust hold still there being for one minutes more, Hokay?

Comment #144150

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 15, 2006 4:35 PM (e)

Dr. Dino as a leading Scientist within our community :). Thats laughable at best. Come on, the guy’s name calls himself Dr. Dino for crying out loud!

Dr. Michael Martin

Comment #144152

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 15, 2006 4:37 PM (e)

Dr. Dino as a leading Scientist within our community :). Thats laughable at best. Come on, the guy’s calls himself Dr. Dino for crying out loud!

Dr. Michael Martin

Comment #144153

Posted by Pizza Woman on November 15, 2006 4:41 PM (e)

Howzabout “Dr. YECk-O,” dahlin’?

Comment #144157

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 15, 2006 4:56 PM (e)

That law just applied to Jews.

So supernatural witches exist… but only for Jews … ?

Is THAT what you are saying … ?

Oh, and about that whole “it’s shameful for women to speak in church” thingie …. . ?

Hey, doc, that brings up another question. Your pal Norm Geisler testified during the 1981 trial that flying saucers come from the devil, and are put there to fool good Christians. I want to know if you agree with him. Do flying saucers come from demons?

Speaking of demons, Doc, give us your divine wisdom on demonology. Do demons really possess people? Can you point to someone today who is possessed by demons? Any action or event anywhere in the world today that, in your opinion, is the result of demons?

Since we already know you believe in witches and witchcraft (snicker) (giggle), I want to see just how nutty you REALLY are, Doc ……

So tell us about the flying saucers. And the demons.

After that, I’ll ask about ghosts, and then about how Bigfoot disproves evolution ……

(snicker) ()giggle) BWA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Comment #144159

Posted by Pizza Woman on November 15, 2006 5:10 PM (e)

Lenny, Ah sweah you have a li’l bit of a mean streak, hun!

But y’all sure do brew up good Vikin’ Piss…so ah’ll forgive ya.

Comment #144160

Posted by Henry J on November 15, 2006 5:12 PM (e)

Re “So supernatural witches exist… but only for Jews … ?”

Willow Rosenburg, maybe?

Comment #144165

Posted by Anton Mates on November 15, 2006 5:40 PM (e)

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:

So supernatural witches exist… but only for Jews … ?

Well, duh. Don’t you know your Roald Dahl? The sheitels are a dead giveaway.

Comment #144168

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 15, 2006 6:05 PM (e)

So I guess the debates over then, right?

For YEC, the “debate” ended 20 years ago, in Lousiana. That’s why nobody pays any attention to AiG. For ID, the “debate” ended last year, in Dover. That’s why nobody pays any attention to DI, either. And for anti-evolutioners of all stripes, there is no “debate” anymore, since their political sugar daddies all got their heads handed to them.

It sure sucks to be a creationist now. (snicker) (giggle)

But then, I suppose that if they’re really skillful liars (and not inept semi-literate ones, like Doc Martin), they can make a good living by selling religious tracts to the gullible. A harmless pastime. (shrug)

Comment #144172

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 15, 2006 6:17 PM (e)

Okay, you want to take me to school there chum, I’d say a likening would be to take this insane idiot to school myself instead. Methinks your brain is like a Tire. Hard on the outside, empty on the inside :).

Dr. Michael Martin

Comment #144173

Posted by Dr. MARTIN on November 15, 2006 6:21 PM (e)

Nobody pays attention to AIG? Wow…this sure is news to me Lenny Flunk. This is why AIG is one of the largest sites on the internet today. I might add, it perhaps exceeds the viewership of Pandas Thumb itself.
It sounds like you are having problems with knowing the thing-in-itself. See, when I make these symbols called words, they have meaning in themselves. Which is why when you read them, you are able to understand what I am writing. Does this makes sense to you?

Dr. Michael Martin

Comment #144174

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 15, 2006 6:23 PM (e)

Sucks to be a Creationist huh? How would you know Lenny? Quite frankly, I don’t see anything wrong with their theories at all. They certainly wipe the floor with the Evolutionistic just-so stories.

Comment #144175

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 15, 2006 6:26 PM (e)

Lenny Flunk

Gee, that certainly is, uh, clever beyond measure.

Thanks for demonstrating that famous fundie love, compassion and brotherhood that I keep hearing so much about …

(snicker) (giggle)

Were you possessed by a demon that made you do that? (snicker)

Or did a witch cast a supernatural spell on you? (giggle)

Comment #144176

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 15, 2006 6:26 PM (e)

Here try a test run. Type in Christianity is self refuting (just google it) and see how many articles you can find. Then, go to Liberal Philosophy is self refuting, and see how many articles you find on that one. Then get back to me…k?

Comment #144177

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 15, 2006 6:28 PM (e)

Nobody pays attention to AIG?

That’s right.

Stop the average guy on the street, ask him who “Ken Ham” is, and he’ll say, “Ken WHO??????????”

You are nobodies. Just another run of the mill fundie outfit that makes its living selling religious tracts to the faithful. (shrug)

Comment #144178

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 15, 2006 6:29 PM (e)

Very true Lenny, I’ll try to avoid the use of harsh wordage in the future :). You’re right there, my mistake.

By the way, I”d love to know what supernatural witches have to do with Christianity at all. The last time I read, Christianity was about a guy who died on a cross and rose from the dead. You might want to reread that thing we call a “B-i-b-l-e” there Lenny :).

Comment #144179

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 15, 2006 6:30 PM (e)

Stop the guy on the side of the street and ask him what Pandas Thumb is and you’ll get the same response. “Panda’s who..?”

Comment #144180

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 15, 2006 6:32 PM (e)

I have to ask here..whats your point? Is the average guy on the street supposed to be an appeal to authority or something?

The last time I heard, they were trying to use Bigfoot to support Evolution, not refute it :).

Comment #144181

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 15, 2006 6:33 PM (e)

Let me just take a second to remind everybody that “Dr” Martin here thinks, in all seriousness, that, uh, witches with, um, supernatural powers actually exist. (snicker)

He hasn’t said yet whether he thinks that, um, demons are, ya know, possessing people. (giggle)

Doc?

But at least he HAS said that he doesn’t agree with other prominent creationists who think that flying saucers come from the Devil. (BWA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!)

So maybe he’s not (yet) as utterly nutty as his compatriots are.

But he’s still new. Give him time.

Comment #144183

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 15, 2006 6:35 PM (e)

Sad part is, I know some ardent Evolutionists (doctoring in Biology at that) personally who do not know what Pandas Thumb or Talk Origin are at all.

Comment #144185

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 15, 2006 6:38 PM (e)

For one…Lenny, you’re going to have to site that section…or that quote to where I agree that supernatural witches exist that have supernatural powers.

I believe I have mentioned that Satan controls evil, and he could possibly be a cause to why we see evil magic within the supernatural realm. But, by no means do I admit that supernatural witches exist at all. Good try playing with my words though.

You’ll also have to site where a prominent Creation Scientist states that UFOs come from the devil. I’m sorry Lenny, I think I might have missed that one.

Comment #144186

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 15, 2006 6:40 PM (e)

I remember seeing something about a Mr. Edward Blythe being the reason why Natural Selection, Variation and Speciation exist today. And why a certain Mr. Charles Darwin happened to steal the work of Edward Blythe (we have documented evidence for this). Need I pull out the big guns here?

Comment #144187

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 15, 2006 6:43 PM (e)

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/446…

There we go, the truth about Science has been uncovered in that one short article. You have believed a fraud my friend :).

Comment #144188

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 15, 2006 6:44 PM (e)

I think those ID idiots are still trying to argue against documented facts though….maybe, ya think, we should knock them around a little bit, whadda ya think Lenny?

Comment #144189

Posted by Pizza Woman on November 15, 2006 6:45 PM (e)

Dr. YECk-O shore does go on…and on…and on.

Lenny, dahlin’, I could really use a bottle o’ Vikin’ Piss, right now: after listenin’ to Preachah Boy drone on…and on…I honest-to-gosh need a headache.

The loudah, the bettah. Foah to drown out thet thar goldarn drone.

Ah, thank yuh kindly, suh. (Slurp!) Gentlemen’re gettin’ hardah ‘n’ hardah tuh find!

Comment #144190

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 15, 2006 6:46 PM (e)

Refuting Evolution
A handbook for students, parents, and teachers countering the latest arguments for evolution

by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M.

Variation and natural selection versus evolution
First published in Refuting Evolution
Chapter 2

This chapter contrasts the evolution and creation models, and refutes faulty understandings of both. A major point is the common practice of Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science to call all change in organisms ‘evolution.’ This enables Teaching about Evolution to claim that evolution is happening today. However, creationists have never disputed that organisms change; the difference is the type of change. A key difference between the two models is whether observed changes are the type to turn particles into people.

Evolution
Evolution, of the fish-to-philosopher type, requires that non-living chemicals organize themselves into a self-reproducing organism. All types of life are alleged to have descended, by natural, ongoing processes, from this ‘simple’ life form. For this to have worked, there must be some process which can generate the genetic information in living things today. Chapter 9 on ‘Design’ shows how encyclopedic this information is.

So how do evolutionists propose that this information arose? The first self-reproducing organism would have made copies of itself. Evolution also requires that the copying is not always completely accurate—errors (mutations) occur. Any mutations which enable an organism to leave more self-reproducing offspring will be passed on through the generations. This ‘differential reproduction’ is called natural selection. In summary, evolutionists believe that the source of new genetic information is mutations sorted by natural selection—the neo-Darwinian theory.

Creation
In contrast, creationists, starting from the Bible, believe that God created different kinds of organisms, which reproduced ‘after their kinds’ (Gen. 1:11–12, 21, 24–25). Each of these kinds was created with a vast amount of information. There was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments.

All (sexually reproducing) organisms contain their genetic information in paired form. Each offspring inherits half its genetic information from its mother, and half from its father. So there are two genes at a given position (locus, plural loci) coding for a particular characteristic. An organism can be heterozygous at a given locus, meaning it carries different forms (alleles) of this gene. For example, one allele can code for blue eyes, while the other one can code for brown eyes; or one can code for the A blood type and the other for the B type. Sometimes two alleles have a combined effect, while at other times only one allele (called dominant) has any effect on the organism, while the other does not (recessive). With humans, both the mother’s and father’s halves have 100,000 genes, the information equivalent to a thousand 500-page books (3 billion base pairs, as Teaching about Evolution correctly states on page 42). The ardent neo-Darwinist Francisco Ayala points out that humans today have an ‘average heterozygosity of 6.7 percent.’1 This means that for every thousand gene pairs coding for any trait, 67 of the pairs have different alleles, meaning 6,700 heterozygous loci overall. Thus, any single human could produce a vast number of different possible sperm or egg cells 26700 or 102017. The number of atoms in the whole known universe is ‘only’ 1080, extremely tiny by comparison. So there is no problem for creationists explaining that the original created kinds could each give rise to many different varieties. In fact, the original created kinds would have had much more heterozygosity than their modern, more specialized descendants. No wonder Ayala pointed out that most of the variation in populations arises from reshuffling of previously existing genes, not from mutations. Many varieties can arise simply by two previously hidden recessive alleles coming together. However, Ayala believes the genetic information came ultimately from mutations, not creation. His belief is contrary to information theory, as shown in chapter 9 on ‘Design’.

Deterioration from perfection
An important aspect of the creationist model is often overlooked, but it is essential for a proper understanding of the issues. This aspect is the deterioration of a once-perfect creation. Creationists believe this because the Bible states that the world was created perfect (Gen. 1:31), and that death and deterioration came into the world because the first human couple sinned (Gen. 3:19, Rom. 5:12, 8:20–22, 1 Cor. 15:21–22, 26) [see The Fall: a cosmic catastrophe]

As the previous chapter showed, all scientists interpret facts according to their assumptions. From this premise of perfection followed by deterioration, it follows that mutations, as would be expected from copying errors, destroyed some of the original genetic information. Many evolutionists point to allegedly imperfect structures as ‘proof’ of evolution, although this is really an argument against perfect design rather than for evolution. But many allegedly imperfect structures can also be interpreted as a deterioration of once-perfect structures, for example, eyes of blind creatures in caves. However, this fails to explain how sight could have arisen in the first place.2

Adaptation and natural selection
Also, the once-perfect environments have deteriorated into harsher ones. Creatures adapted to these new environments, and this adaptation took the form of weeding out some genetic information. This is certainly natural selection—evolutionists don’t have a monopoly on this. In fact, a creationist, Edward Blyth, thought of the concept 25 years before Darwin’s Origin of Species was published. But unlike evolutionists, Blyth regarded it as a conservative process that would remove defective organisms, thus conserving the health of the population as a whole. Only when coupled with hypothetical information-gaining mutations could natural selection be creative.

For example, the original dog/wolf kind probably had the information for a wide variety of fur lengths. The first animals probably had medium-length fur. In the simplified example illustrated below,3 a single gene pair is shown under each dog as coming in two possible forms. One form of the gene (L) carries instructions for long fur, the other (S) for short fur.

In row 1, we start with medium-furred animals (LS) interbreeding. Each of the offspring of these dogs can get one of either gene from each parent to make up their two genes.

In row 2, we see that the resultant offspring can have either short (SS), medium (LS) or long (LL) fur. Now imagine the climate cooling drastically (as in the Ice Age). Only those with long fur survive to give rise to the next generation (line 3). So from then on, all the dogs will be a new, long-furred variety. Note that:

They are now adapted to their environment.

They are now more specialized than their ancestors on row 1.

This has occurred through natural selection.

There have been no new genes added.

In fact, genes have been lost from the population—i.e., there has been a loss of genetic information, the opposite of what microbe-to-man evolution needs in order to be credible.

Now the population is less able to adapt to future environmental changes—were the climate to become hot, there is no genetic information for short fur, so the dogs would probably overheat.

Another information-losing process occurs in sexually reproducing organisms—remember, each organism inherits only half the information carried by each parent. For example, consider a human couple with only one child, where the mother had the AB blood group (meaning that she has both A and B alleles) and the father had the O blood group (both alleles are O and recessive). So the child would have either AO or BO alleles, so either the A or the B allele must be missing from the child’s genetic information. Thus, the child could not have the AB blood group, but would have either the A or the B blood group respectively.4

A large population as a whole is less likely to lose established genes because there are usually many copies of the genes of both parents (for example, in their siblings and cousins). But in a small, isolated population, there is a good chance that information can be lost by random sampling. This is called genetic drift. Since new mutant genes would start off in small numbers, they are quite likely to be eliminated by genetic drift, even if they were beneficial.5

In an extreme case, where a single pregnant animal or a single pair is isolated, e.g., by being blown or washed onto a desert island, it may lack a number of genes of the original population. So when its descendants fill the island, this new population would be different from the old one, with less information. This is called the founder effect.

Loss of information through mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift can sometimes result in different small populations losing such different information that they will no longer interbreed. For example, changes in song or color might result in birds no longer recognizing a mate, so they no longer interbreed. Thus a new ‘species’ is formed.

The Flood
Another aspect of the creationist model is the Bible’s teaching in Genesis chapters 6 to 8 that the whole world was flooded, and that a male and female of every kind of land vertebrate (animals with biblical life in the Hebrew nephesh sense) were saved on Noah’s ark. A few ‘clean’ animals were represented by seven individuals (Gen. 7:2). The Bible also teaches that this ark landed on the mountains of Ararat. From these assumptions, creationists conclude that these kinds multiplied and their descendants spread out over the earth. ‘Founder effects’ would have been common, so many ‘kinds’ would each have given rise to several of today’s ‘species.’

Contrasting the Models
Once biblical creation is properly understood, it is possible to analyze the ‘evidence’ for ‘evolution as a contemporary process’ presented by Teaching about Evolution on pages 16–19. The three diagrams below should help:
Figure 1: The evolutionary ‘tree’ which postulates that all today’s species are descended from the one common ancestor (which itself evolved from non-living chemicals). This is what evolution is really all about.

Figure 2: The alleged creationist ‘lawn’ this represents the caricature of creationism presented by Teaching about Evolution—the Genesis ‘kinds’ were the same as today’s species.

Figure 3: The true creationist ‘orchard’ diversity has occurred with time within the original Genesis ‘kinds’ (creationists often call them baramin, from Hebrew bara = create, and min = kind). Much of the evidence of variation presented by Teaching about Evolution refutes only the straw-man version of creationism in Figure 2, but fits the true creationist ‘orchard’ model perfectly well.

The alleged evidence for evolution in action
This section will deal with some of the examples used by Teaching about Evolution, and show that they fit the creationist model better.
Antibiotic and pesticide resistance
Teaching about Evolution claims on pages 16–17:
The continual evolution of human pathogens has come to pose one of the most serious health problems facing human societies. Many strains of bacteria have become increasingly resistant to antibiotics as natural selection has amplified resistant strains that arose through naturally occurring genetic variation.
Similar episodes of rapid evolution are occurring in many different organisms. Rats have developed resistance to the poison warfarin. Many hundreds of insect species and other agricultural pests have evolved resistance to the pesticides used to combat them—even to chemical defenses genetically engineered into plants.

However, what has this to do with the evolution of new kinds with new genetic information? Precisely nothing. What has happened in many cases is that some bacteria already had the genes for resistance to the antibiotics. In fact, some bacteria obtained by thawing sources which had been frozen before man developed antibiotics have shown to be antibiotic-resistant. When antibiotics are applied to a population of bacteria, those lacking resistance are killed, and any genetic information they carry is eliminated. The survivors carry less information, but they are all resistant. The same principle applies to rats and insects ‘evolving’ resistance to pesticides. Again, the resistance was already there, and creatures without resistance are eliminated.
In other cases, antibiotic resistance is the result of a mutation, but in all known cases, this mutation has destroyed information. It may seem surprising that destruction of information can sometimes help. But one example is resistance to the antibiotic penicillin. Bacteria normally produce an enzyme, penicillinase, which destroys penicillin. The amount of penicillinase is controlled by a gene. There is normally enough produced to handle any penicillin encountered in the wild, but the bacterium is overwhelmed by the amount given to patients. A mutation disabling this controlling gene results in much more penicillinase being produced. This enables the bacterium to resist the antibiotic. But normally, this mutant would be less fit, as it wastes resources by producing unnecessary penicillinase.

Another example of acquired antibiotic resistance is the transfer of pieces of genetic material (called plasmids) between bacteria, even between those of different species. But this is still using pre-existing information, and doesn’t explain its origin.

More information on antibiotic resistance can be found in the article Superbugs Not Super after All.6

Lacewing species
Another example of ‘evolution’ is given on page 17, where Teaching about Evolution states:

The North American lacewing species Chrysoperla carnea and Chrysoperla downesi separated from a common ancestor species recently in evolutionary time and are very similar. But they are different in color, reflecting their different habitats, and they breed at different times of year.

This statement is basically correct, but an evolutionary interpretation of this statement is not the only one possible. A creationist interpretation is that an original Chrysoperla kind was created with genes for a wide variety of colors and mating behavior. This has given rise to more specialized descendants. The specialization means that each has lost the information for certain colors and behaviors. The formation of new species (speciation) without information gain is no problem for creationists.7 Adaptation/variation within Chrysoperla, which involves no addition of complex new genetic information, says nothing about the origin of lacewings themselves, which is what evolution is supposed to explain.

Darwin’s finches
On page 19, Teaching about Evolution claims:

A particularly interesting example of contemporary evolution involves the 13 species of finches studied by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands, now known as Darwin’s finches … . Drought diminishes supplies of easily cracked nuts but permits the survival of plants that produce larger, tougher nuts. Drought thus favors birds with strong, wide beaks that can break these tougher seeds, producing populations of birds with these traits. [Peter and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University] have estimated that if droughts occur about every 10 years on the islands, then a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years.

However, again, an original population of finches had a wide variety of beak sizes. When a drought occurs, the birds with insufficiently strong and wide beaks can’t crack the nuts, so they are eliminated, along with their genetic information. Again, no new information has arisen, so this does not support molecules-to-man evolution.

Also, the rapid speciation (200 years) is good evidence for the biblical creation model. Critics doubt that all of today’s species could have fitted on the ark. However, the ark would have needed only about 8,000 kinds of land vertebrate animals, which would be sufficient to produce the wide variety of species we have today.8 Darwin’s finches show that it need not take very long for new species to arise.9

Breeding versus evolution
On pages 37–38, Teaching about Evolution compares the artificial breeding of pigeons and dogs with evolution. However, all the breeders do is select from the information already present. For example, Chihuahuas were bred by selecting the smallest dogs to breed from over many generations. But this process eliminates the genes for large size.

The opposite process would have bred Great Danes from the same ancestral dog population, by eliminating the genes for small size. So the breeding has sorted out the information mixture into separate lines. All the breeds have less information than the original dog/wolf kind.

Many breeds are also the victims of hereditary conditions due to mutations, for example the ‘squashed’ snout of the bulldog and pug. But their loss of genetic information and their inherited defects mean that purebred dogs are less ‘fit’ in the wild than mongrels, and veterinarians can confirm that purebreds suffer from more diseases.

Actually, breeds of dogs are interfertile, even Great Danes and Chihuahuas, so they are still the same species. Not that speciation is a problem for creationists—see the section on lacewings above. But if Great Danes and Chihuahuas were only known from the fossil record, they would probably have been classified as different species or even different genera. Indeed, without human intervention, Great Danes and Chihuahuas could probably not breed together (hybridize), so they could be considered different species in the wild. Creationists regard the breeds of dogs as showing that God programmed much variability into the original dog/wolf created kind.

Darwin versus a faulty creation model
On pages 35–36, Teaching about Evolution discusses some of Darwin’s observations. For example, living and fossil armadillos are found only in South America. Also, animals on the Galápagos Islands are similar to those in Ecuador, while creatures on islands off Africa’s coast are related to those in Africa. The book then states:

Darwin could not see how these observations could be explained by the prevailing view of his time: that each species had been independently created, with the species that were best suited to each location being created at each particular site.

Actually, this is setting up a straw man, as this is not what biblical creationists believe, because it completely ignores the global flood as stated in Genesis chapters 6–9. The flood wiped out all land vertebrates outside the ark and would have totally re-arranged the earth’s surface. So, there’s no way that anything was created in its present location.

Also, all modern land vertebrates would be descended from those which disembarked from the ark in the mountains of Ararat—over generations, they migrated to their present locations. It should therefore be no surprise to biblical creationists that animals on islands off Africa’s coast should be similar to those in Africa—they migrated to the islands via Africa.

Darwin’s observations were thus easily explainable by the biblical creation/flood model. However, by Darwin’s time, most of his opponents did not believe the biblical creation model, but had ‘re-interpreted’ it to fit into the old-earth beliefs of the day.

A prevalent belief was a series of global floods followed by re-creations, rather than a single flood followed by migration. Darwin found observations which didn’t fit this non-biblical model. This then allowed him to discredit creation and the Bible itself, although it wasn’t actually the true biblical belief he had disproved!

An interesting experiment by Darwin, cited by Teaching about Evolution on page 38, also supports the creation-flood model.

By floating snails on salt water for prolonged periods, Darwin convinced himself that, on rare occasions, snails might have ‘floated in chunks of drifted timber across moderately wide arms of the sea.’ … Prior to Darwin, the existence of land snails and bats, but not typical terrestrial mammals, on the oceanic islands was simply noted and catalogued as a fact. It is unlikely that anyone would have thought to test the snails for their ability to survive for prolonged periods in salt water. Even if they had, such an experiment would have had little impact.

Thus, Darwin helped answer a problem raised by skeptics of the Bible and its account of the flood and ark: ‘How did the animals get to faraway places?’ This also showed that some invertebrates could have survived the flood outside the ark,10 possibly on rafts of pumice or tangled vegetation, or on driftwood as Darwin suggested. Other experiments by Darwin showed that garden seeds could still sprout after 42 days’ immersion in salt water, so they could have traveled 1,400 miles (2,240 km) on a typical ocean current.11 This shows how plants could have survived without being on the ark—again by floating on driftwood, pumice, or vegetation rafts even if they were often soaked. Therefore, the creation-flood-dispersion model could also have led to such experiments, despite what Teaching about Evolution implies.12

References and notes
F.J. Ayala, The Mechanisms of Evolution, Scientific American 239(3):48–61, September 1978, quoted on page 55. Return to text.

Other alleged imperfections are actually examples of excellent design which was falsely interpreted through ignorance, as an imperfection. A good example is the common claim that the eye is wired backwards, when this is an essential design feature. See An Eye for Creation: An Interview with Eye-Disease Researcher Dr George Marshall, University of Glasgow, Scotland, Creation 18(4):19–21, 1996; also P.W.V. Gurney, Our ‘Inverted’ Retina—Is It Really ‘Bad Design’? Journal of Creation 13(1):37–44, 1999. Return to text.
Creation 20(4):31, September–November 1998. Return to text.
For information on how creationists can explain the origin of the different human blood groups from a single pair of human ancestors, see J.D. Sarfati, Blood Types and Their Origin, Journal of Creation 11(2):31–32, 1997. Return to text.
The chance of survival = 2s/(1-e-2sN), where s = selection coefficient and N is the population size. This asymptotically converges down to 2s where sN is large. This means that for a mutation with a selective advantage of 0.1%, considered typical in nature, there is a 99.8% chance that it will be lost. So it is much harder for large populations to substitute beneficial mutations. But smaller populations have their own disadvantages, e.g. they are less likely to produce any good mutations, and are vulnerable to the deleterious effects of inbreeding and genetic drift. See L.M. Spetner, Not By Chance (Brooklyn, NY: The Judaica Press, 1996, 1997), chapters 3 and 4. Return to text.
C. Wieland, Superbugs Not Super after All, Creation Ex Nihilo, 20(1):10–13, June–August 1992. Return to text.
C. Wieland, Speciation Conference Brings Good News for Creationists, Journal of Creation 11(2):136–136, 1997. Return to text.
J.D. Sarfati, How Did all the Animals Fit on Noah’s Ark? Creation 19(2):16–19, March–May 1997; J. Woodmorappe, Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study (Santee, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1996). Return to text.
C. Wieland, Darwin’s Finches: Evidence Supporting Rapid Post-Flood Adaptation, Creation 14(3):22–23, June–August 1992; see also C. Wieland, Review of J. Weiner’s Book: The Beak of the Finch: Evolution in Real Time, Journal of Creation 9(1):21–24, 1995. The book is full of misleading and patronizing attacks on creationists, and is a major propaganda tool used by Teaching about Evolution. Return to text.
Creationists, starting from the Bible, point out that the Hebrew words for the animals taken on the ark do not include invertebrates, and believe that invertebrates probably do not have life in the nephesh sense. From these premises, it follows that they must have survived off the ark somehow. For some plausible solutions to this and other problems people have raised about the ark, see reference 8. Return to text.
J. Weiner, The Beak of the Finch: Evolution in Real Time (London: Random House), page 136. [See review.] Return to text.
As for questions like ‘How Did Koalas Get to Australia?’ there are several possibilities. Land vertebrates could have migrated widely when land bridges were exposed when the sea level was lower during the post-flood Ice Age. Another important factor is introduction by humans. That’s how the rabbit reached Australia, and some of Australia’s animals could have arrived with the Aborigines. See The Answers Book by Don Batten (ed.), Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati and Carl Wieland (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, Inc., 1999), Chapter 17. Return to text.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/383…

Comment #144191

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 15, 2006 6:49 PM (e)

And to that your reply? Lets see an incredible answer now. Come on, somebody just knock me on the ground here in bewilderment.

Comment #144192

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 15, 2006 6:51 PM (e)

Would you like a couple 20 other sources to back this fact up here?

Comment #144193

Posted by Coin on November 15, 2006 6:54 PM (e)

Well, let’s see here; here’s the rankings on alexa.com. Looks like AIG consistently gets about 3x the pageviews of Panda’s Thumb, and scienceblogs.com consistently gets about 3x the pageviews of AIG. Maybe comparing the popularity of an organization’s website as compared to random blogs is not a great method of measuring importance?

The last time I read, Christianity was about a guy who died on a cross and rose from the dead.

Are you sure? As far as I can tell from reading Answers in Genesis, it’s about global floods and bacterial flagella and how the scientific theory of evolution is wrong. Maybe you’re not talking about the same Christianity here as Answers in Genesis uses.

Comment #144195

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 15, 2006 7:01 PM (e)

And this is why a dichotomy between Science and Religion as Foundational Theories is crucial, however, what it does not imply is that they are mutually exclusive, only distinct in nature.

In the beginning, God created is what we are here to defend as well. God is also Jesus Christ (so lets not forget that he created the heavens and the earth).

Comment #144196

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 15, 2006 7:02 PM (e)

The Bible is all about Jesus Christ. This is one…minorly overlooked fact.

Comment #144198

Posted by Steviepinhead on November 15, 2006 7:07 PM (e)

Enough with the big long Cut-and-Pastes (of complete crapola, but that’s neither here nor there).

LEARN TO USE LINKS, KID!

Be polite, post something, wait for some responses, quote and argue with the responses, wait for a few more, etc.

It’s not your thread, my over-eager youngling; it’s a round-robin discussion.

I know that this is Basic Etiquette 101, but since you don’t seem to be grasping the concept, I may have to keep repeating it from time to time.

Comment #144200

Posted by David B. Benson on November 15, 2006 7:27 PM (e)

Nick — I call shenanigans again, louder this time, on Dr. M&M. He is here posting off-topic again (and again) ((and again)) (((…)))

Comment #144203

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 15, 2006 7:35 PM (e)

Right…as I figured, no answer. Try to just laugh it off like its a big joke (hahaha, like your Charles Darwin being a legitimate figure for Science, right?)
Eh Pinhead, who you calling kid son?

Dr. Michael Martin

Comment #144205

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 15, 2006 7:38 PM (e)

No, I’m addressing false claims and Creation Science regarding illegal shenanigans pulled by Scientists….Only this time, the shenanigan seems to be coming from the other side in the form of Charles Darwin :). This isn’t off topic at all.

Comment #144206

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 15, 2006 7:39 PM (e)

As a matter of fact, I’d say its the nail in the coffin against Evolution.

Comment #144207

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 15, 2006 7:41 PM (e)

Getting rid of the source of the problem. Something Secularists have never done against Jesus Christ, however, it now appears that we have accomplished against Mr. Darwin. Wow, such morality we have in “true” Science after all :).

Comment #144208

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 15, 2006 7:44 PM (e)

http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar7.html

While you’re at it, you can have some fun dealing with that one too :). Cheers.

Comment #144210

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 15, 2006 8:03 PM (e)

Wow guys, I was hoping to at least get some argument against this, not just “Hey…thats crapola” from Steviepinhead. Oh well, wishful thinking I suppose. Game over. Evolution is dead, we have killed it. Evolution is dead, God lives.

Comment #144211

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 15, 2006 8:10 PM (e)

Steve,
Its great that this is not my thread. Just waiting on some “round robin” feedback here.

Dr. Michael Martin

Comment #144213

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 15, 2006 8:51 PM (e)

Ladies and Gentlemen…its been a fantastic run here. Now that I’ve debunked Evolution once and for all, where do we move from here? I didn’t put yall out of a job now did I?

Dr. Michael Martin

Comment #144219

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 15, 2006 9:19 PM (e)

by no means do I admit that supernatural witches exist at all

So the Bible is wrong when it says “suffer not a witch to live”?

Why would the Bible order the execution of something that, uh, doesn’t exist?

What about the demons, Doc. Do they possess people? Can you point to an example?

Comment #144220

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 15, 2006 9:23 PM (e)

You’ll also have to site where a prominent Creation Scientist states that UFOs come from the devil. I’m sorry Lenny, I think I might have missed that one.

I’m not surprised, given your pig-ignorance on … well … anything that isn’t about your religious opinions.

But, as they say, knock, and it shall be opened up unto you:

Ross’s recent book (co-authored with two other fundie kooks) is entitled “Lights In the Sky and Little Green Men: A Rational Christian Look at UFO’s and Extraterrestrials” (NavPress, Colorado Springs CO, 2002).

Over several chapters, Ross dismisses, on scientific and Biblical grounds, the existence of any life other than terrestrial. But, he declares, there are so many reliable UFO reports that they can’t all be mistakes or hoaxes (he calls the remaining reliable reports (Residual UFO’s”). His “rational Christian” conclusion is something he calls the “trans-dimensional hypothesis”—flying sacuers are actually entities that come from “beyond out space and time dimensions” and which, although real entities, are not physical beings. OK, so what ARE the flying saucers, then? Hear the gospel according to Ross: “It can now be determined who is behind the RUFO experiences. Only one kind of being favors the dead of night and lonely roads. Only one is real but nonphysical, animate, powerful, deceptive, ubiquitous throughout human history, culture, and geography, and bent on wreaking psychological and
physical harm. Only one entity selectively approaches those humans involved in cultic, occultic or New Age activities. It seems apparent that residual UFO’s, in one or more ways, must be associated with the activities of demons.” (pages 122-123).

Want to see how Ross’s “UFO’s come from the Devil” hypothesis can be scientifically tested? Well, we flip to page 124 and find: “The conlcusion that demons are behind the residual UFO phenomenon is a testible one.” Ross points out that “according to the Bible” demons only can attack people who dip into the occult and make themsleves vulnerable. Ross declares, “All that is necessary to further prove the conclusions of demonic involvement,
therefore, is to continue surveying people to ascertain who has encounters with residual UFO’s and who does not. If the demonic idenficiation of the RUFO phenomenon is correct, researchers should continue to observe a correlation between the degree of invitations in a person’s life to demonic attacks (for example, participation inseances, Uija games, astrology, spiritualism, witchcraft, palm reading, and psychicreading) and the proximity of their residual UFO encounters.” (Ross of course neglects to mention another possible reason for these “correlations” — people
who believe one goofy thing are more prone to believe other goofy things as well.)

And why is that scientists and other researchers decline to study Ross’s, uh, “theory”? Why, because they’re all ATHEISTS, silly: “One reason why research scientists and others may be reluctant to say that demons exist behind residual UFO’s is because such an answer points too directly to a Christian interpretation of the problem.” (page 125)

(Does this sound familiar to anybody? Is there some other topic that Ross thinks involves the supernatural, but nobody takes seriously because they are all atheists …. ?)

Believe it or not, though, Ross isn’t the first creationut to yammer about flying saucers and the Devil. Creationist theologian Norman Geisler was one of the witnesses at the Arkansas creationism trial back in 1982. During his pre-trial deposition, Geisler was asked if he believed in a real Devil. Yes, he replied, he did, and cited some
Biblical verses as confirmation. The conversation then went:

“Q. Are there, sir, any other evidences for that belief besides certain passages of Scripture?

GEISLER: Oh, yes. I have known personally at least 12 persons who were clearly possessed by the Devil. And then there are the UFOs.

Q. The UFOs? Why are they relevant to the existence of the Devil?

GEISLER: Well, you see, they represent the Devil’s major, in fact, final attack on the earth.

Q. Oh. And sir, may I ask how you know, as you seem to know, that there are UFOs?

GEISLER: I read it in the Readers Digest.”

At trial, Geisler testified under oath (apparently with a straight face) that flying saucers were “Satanic manifestations for the purposes of deception”.

Comment #144226

Posted by fnxtr on November 15, 2006 10:22 PM (e)

Hey, Mikey: the only people who use the word evolution “in the molecules-to-man sense” are fundie Creationist nutjobs.
I leave the rest of the fisking to others.

Comment #144228

Posted by fnxtr on November 15, 2006 10:30 PM (e)

Mikey, this is a joke, right?
You’re, like, a parody of all those Creationist whackos, aren’t you?
Well played, my satiric friend, well played!

Comment #144234

Posted by Coin on November 15, 2006 11:52 PM (e)

And to that your reply? Lets see an incredible answer now. Come on, somebody just knock me on the ground here in bewilderment.

Michael Martin,

If you’re serious about this (and I doubt you are), if all you’re going to do is sling cut and paste links, then all we can do is sling cut and paste links back:

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

Some and possibly all of the claims in your cut and paste are addressed in this index (as you quite possibly already know, since you’ve been here before).

If there are any specific points or claims in your silly cut and pastes which are not addressed to your satisfaction in the talkorigins.org index, if you bring those specific points up here perhaps someone will address them. (Although, if you wish to raise any points involving “information”, please first explain what you believe the word “information” means.) But if you are just going to cut and paste links, do not expect any responses other than cut and paste links.

Oh, and do understand that most everyone will understand that this entire offtopic diversion is just an attempt to draw attention away from the fact that Kent Hovind, a long-time and prominent young earth creationist, has just been convicted of tax fraud under hilarious circumstances.

Comment #144240

Posted by Wayne E Francis on November 16, 2006 12:44 AM (e)

Comment # 144190

Dr. Michael Martin wrote:

Comment #144190
Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 15, 2006 6:46 PM (e)
Refuting Evolution
……

Thank you for posting in bulk the misunderstanding of biology published by AiG.

There is SOOOO much wrong with this….let me just pick out a few false statements.

For example, Chihuahuas were bred by selecting the smallest dogs to breed from over many generations. But this process eliminates the genes for large size.

Chihuahuas are not missing “genes for large size”. You can happily breed Chihuahuas over many generations to be as big as an average dog with out introducing any other breeds of dog.

Many breeds are also the victims of hereditary conditions due to mutations, for example the ‘squashed’ snout of the bulldog and pug. But their loss of genetic information and their inherited defects mean that purebred dogs are less ‘fit’ in the wild than mongrels, and veterinarians can confirm that purebreds suffer from more diseases

These dogs are not victims of hereditary conditions due to mutations….they are victims of inbreeding. In the process of trying to fix a treat in a breed breeders generally have a small genetic stock to work with thus they are more likely to use closely related animals and thus have a more likely chance of having the same condition that in natural conditions would be less likely to effect the offspring. There is no “loss of information”

I’ll note that AiG and many other Creationists point to the fact that if you release dogs into the wild that they revert back to a wolf like form regardless of the breed even without mixing with wolves.

It is well known that the variability we see within the Canis Lupus species, which includes wolves and ALL dog breeds, stems from “loss” or “gain” of genetic information but the expression of the genetic information. Floppy ears, curled up tails, and variations in coat patterns, colours and lengths, is directly connected to the genes expression that effects how docile Canis Lupus is over many generations.

We’ve seen the exact same process in Vulpes Vulpes, the red fox. Domestication and artificial selection for docile traits have produced the same effects. These new breeds of foxes are still foxes genetically. There has been no gain or “loss” of genetic information.

Actually, breeds of dogs are interfertile, even Great Danes and Chihuahuas, so they are still the same species

No duh! This is why they are all classified as Canis Lupus. Creationists are not responsible for this classification. Scientists following the scientific method are responsible for this classification. According to AiG’s interpretation dogs would probably not be the same species because of their misguided idea that there is a huge “loss” of genetic information. But as I’ve said there is no “loss” no matter how much you say there is. DNA sequencing proves your position wrong.

However, the ark would have needed only about 8,000 kinds of land vertebrate animals, which would be sufficient to produce the wide variety of species we have today.

While you can explain differences between breeds of Canis Lupus in a few thousand years you can not explain the vast differences in the living species of Equus. The amount of genetic difference between them is huge.

Grevy’s have 46 chromosomes
Plains Zebra’s have 44 chromosomes
Mountain Zebra’s have 32 chromosomes
Horses have 64 chromosomes
donkeys have 62 chromosomes.

Mountain Zebra and Grevy Zebra are hardly what you would call “genetically” compatible. They have a very low viability rate and a non existent fertility rate.

The amount of genetic changes between just these 2 species of Equus could not have happened in just the last few thousand years. You are talking hundreds to thousands of mutations per generation. If that was the case why is it still not occurring? The fact is these 2 animals had a common ancestor millions of years ago and together with other data it makes senses with the rate of genetic mutation we see. The last 6,000 years have had little effect on these species compared to the 4 million years that has seen all these equids evolve from a common ancestor.

I won’t even get into the whole problem with thermo dynamics and a biblical flood.

Comment #144299

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 1:19 PM (e)

Chihuahuas are not missing “genes for large size”. You can happily breed Chihuahuas over many generations to be as big as an average dog with out introducing any other breeds of dog.

And we’ve observed this where?

Are you sure you want to get into Genetics with me? I wrote my Doctoral Dissertation on Genetics at Yale :).

To Lenny - ROSS IS AN IDIOT! WHO CARES?

Comment #144301

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 1:20 PM (e)

Stop by www.trueorigin.net. That seems to alleviate some confusion there.

Again, what are we debating about now? Oh wait, I guess we’re now into Philosophy right? Naturalism? I think we can demonstrate that to be self defeating simply a forteriori by virtue that Physicalism and Determinism are self defeating.

Comment #144302

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 1:23 PM (e)

Again, Lenny Flank, you don’t seem to have much of a concept of Archaeology and History.

Let me take you back to Leviticus. Leviticus was written in 1400 B.C.

Now lets fast forward 1400 years to the New Testament where JESUS CHANGES THE RULES! We’re not living in the Israelite times anymore. Times change, situations change. Technology expands and grows. So…all I can really say regarding witches, is GET WITH THE TIMES :).

Comment #144303

Posted by Arden Chatfield on November 16, 2006 1:31 PM (e)

I see “Michael Martin” is off his meds again…

Comment #144306

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 1:42 PM (e)

Important to note, Speciation does occur, but it occurs within the kind.

Grevy’s have 46 chromosomes
Plains Zebra’s have 44 chromosomes
Mountain Zebra’s have 32 chromosomes
Horses have 64 chromosomes
donkeys have 62 chromosomes.

All within the kind. You have done nothing to the YECS explanation but just state what we already know to be true.

Comment #144307

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 1:44 PM (e)

It certainly very well could have occurred within the last couple of thousand of years. Where’s your evidence to the contrary?

Comment #144308

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 1:46 PM (e)

I won’t even get into the whole problem with thermo dynamics and a biblical flood.

Nothing to discuss really.

‘The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall’. This law says that the entropy (‘disorder’) of the Universe increases over time, and some have thought that this was the result of the Curse. However, disorder isn’t always harmful. An obvious example is digestion, breaking down large complex food molecules into their simple building blocks. Another is friction, which turns ordered mechanical energy into disordered heat—otherwise Adam and Eve would have slipped as they walked with God in Eden! A less obvious example to laymen might be the sun heating the Earth—to a physical chemist, heat transfer from a hot object to a cold one is the classic case of the Second Law in action. Also, breathing is based on another classic Second Law process, gas moving from a high pressure to low pressure. Finally, all beneficial processes in the world, including the development from embryo to adult, increase the overall disorder of the universe, showing that the Second Law is not inherently a curse.

Death and suffering of nephesh animals before sin are contrary to the Biblical framework above, as are suffering (or ‘groaning in travail’ (Rom. 8:20–22)). It is more likely that God withdrew some of His sustaining power (Col. 1:15–17) at the Fall so that the decay effect of the Second Law was no longer countered.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/299…

Comment #144309

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 1:52 PM (e)

The chihuahua has descended from the wolf, but has less variety than it. Wolves can be bred to give dogs like chihuahuas and Great Danes, but chihuahuas can never be bred into something like a Great Dane because there has been a loss of information.

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/434…

Keep that in mind next time you wish to mention Genetics with me :).

Comment #144310

Posted by fnxtr on November 16, 2006 1:53 PM (e)

A psychologist friend of mine once explained that delusions are usually internally consistent.

Comment #144312

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 1:54 PM (e)

Its also pretty illogical, since to think that a little dog like a chihuahua could somehow give birth to a big panda bear type dog would probably be something that would make it on the National Enquirer somewhere.

Comment #144313

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 16, 2006 1:54 PM (e)

Are you sure you want to get into Genetics with me? I wrote my Doctoral Dissertation on Genetics at Yale :).

why, then you must be aware of the genomic sequencing work that’s been done since you graduated, what, 50 years ago?

You might enjoy reading Francis Collin’s new book. Heck, in the excellent first half of the book, he demolishishes creationism with genetics (as the head of the human genome project, he has a unique perspective), among other things. In the not-so hot second half of the book, he even gives a rambling bit of his own apologetics for you to grab onto.

or has your insanity buried what little sense you managed to gain during your graduate days at Yale?

you wouldn’t be alone; you can claim kinship with others who had carreers in biology that similarly lost their minds, like John Davison.

http://www.crank.net/evolution.html

scroll down to:

An Evolutionary Manifesto

now, I bet hard currency that Davison has far more actual peer reviewed publications than yourself.

didn’t stop him from losing his mind. check his publication record, and you can see the clear break.

when did you lose your mind?

Comment #144314

Posted by Arden Chatfield on November 16, 2006 1:56 PM (e)

Are you sure you want to get into Genetics with me? I wrote my Doctoral Dissertation on Genetics at Yale :).

Don’t worry, I’m sure you did, “Doctor”.

There, there. It’s okay. We understand.

Comment #144315

Posted by Raging Bee on November 16, 2006 1:57 PM (e)

Doc Martin: Wayne gave you a specific refutation of at least some of the speficic points you made in your article. This is exactly the response you demanded with such faux-macho bluster in so many repeated posts. And your response? Just more macho bluster, and not a trace of reasoned response to Wayne’s points.

That sort of argument may work in a crowded smoky bar where you can drink Bud out of a can and shout everyone else down; but this is a blog, where people can read your words at liesure, check the facts, and not be bothered by bluster and appeals to (non-specified) authority.

Your dissertation (on a topic you haven’t specified) and your frantic chest-pounding (as if that’s how science is done) only prove you’re a clueless fraud.

Comment #144316

Posted by Dr. MIchael Martin on November 16, 2006 2:03 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #144318

Posted by Dr. MIchael Martin on November 16, 2006 2:05 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #144320

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 2:09 PM (e)

He does have a point, your author I mean, though a minor one. The point being is that Spontaneous Generation has never been proven, and probably never will be. As a matter of fact, I have some good research material that shows that it has in fact actually been refuted :).

Comment #144321

Posted by Raging Bee on November 16, 2006 2:18 PM (e)

As a matter of fact, I have some good research material that shows that it has in fact actually been refuted :).

“Material” which you don’t share – which is suspicious, given your eagerness to debunk us godless science types. Could this be because your “material” failed to…um…”materialize?”

And while I’m here, can you explain why many major Christian churches, such as the Catholics and Lutherans, explicitly support evolution, and explicitly condemn “creation science” and “ID” as both pseudoscience and bad religion?

Comment #144322

Posted by Raging Bee on November 16, 2006 2:27 PM (e)

Another question, “Doc:” how, exactly, do you define “information?” How do you count or quantify it? How does a bigger dog represent more “information” than a smaller dog, if both have the same number of chromsomes? If you can’t answer these questions with any specificity, than your talk of “more” or “less” “information” is nothing but vacuous drivel.

Comment #144323

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 16, 2006 2:31 PM (e)

Michael -

we are challenging your credentials and your knowledge of genetics, directly.

do you care to pick up the challenge?

I claim your knowledge of genetics is at best, ancient, and at worst, non-existent.

I took it on “faith” (pun intended) that you did receive a PhD from Yale. however, you can’t argue AGAINST evolutionary theory using modern genetic data, if you know anything about genetics to begin with.

so there are only two possibilities I can see:

1. you never really studied genetics, and you are simply lying.

2. you went insane, like Davison, and simply are no longer able to objectively see the information modern genetic studies present to us.

which is it?

would you argue against the support for common descent genome maps provide for us?

how about common broken psuedogenes like vitamin C (heck they knew about that one probably evan as far back as when you were a grad student)?

Think you know more about the issue than the head of the human genome project, do you?

please, go ahead and show us your expertise, “Doctor”.

stop with the bloviating, and stop claiming authority based on a degree from Yale.

admit you have a problem, and get help already.

Comment #144326

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 2:47 PM (e)

It should be coming soon. There really wasn’t much to comment on Wayne’s post, as half of it agreed with the YECS position in the first place.

Comment #144328

Posted by Raging Bee on November 16, 2006 2:53 PM (e)

Typical creationist dodges from the “Doc:” the answers are “coming soon,” and Wayne’s arguments can’t be refuted because they actually agree with the YECs’ in ways to wonderous to actually describe.

So what about my questions, “Doc?” How soon can I expect an answer? Or am I actually in agreement with the YECs?

Comment #144329

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 2:56 PM (e)

Do fossils speak?

Another question, “Doc:” how, exactly, do you define “information?” How do you count or quantify it? How does a bigger dog represent more “information” than a smaller dog, if both have the same number of chromsomes? If you can’t answer these questions with any specificity, than your talk of “more” or “less” “information” is nothing but vacuous drivel.

Alright, information we shall define. Information means is basically inferred to mean genetic information, or mutations in essence. The formal definition is: means information about genes, gene products and inherited characteristics that may derive from an individual or a family member. This includes information regarding carrier status and information derived from laboratory tests that identify mutations in specific genes or chromosomes, physical medical examinations, family histories and direct analysis of genes or chromosomes.

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/302…

Comment #144331

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 16, 2006 2:58 PM (e)

It should be coming soon.

that’s what Nurse Bettinke keeps saying.

now just stand still and they’ll be able to catch up with you.

Comment #144332

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 16, 2006 3:03 PM (e)

Do fossils speak?

in a word, yes.

volumes, in fact.

Moroever, they speak far more eloquently than yourself, there, fraud.

the challenge to your knowledge of genetics still stands.

heck, I’m only a lowly behavioral ecologist and have yet to see you post anything that made sense wrt to genetics and evolution.

you, who supposedly have a PhD in the subject, appear entirely lost.

liar or insane?

which are you, Michael?

I know how most here would vote.

Comment #144335

Posted by Raging Bee on November 16, 2006 3:14 PM (e)

Sorry, “Doc,” your “definition” of “information” fails for three reasons: first, you use the word to be defined in your definition of the word; second, “about genes, gene products and inherited characteristics that may derive from an individual or a family member” is an EXTREMELY vague excuse for a “definition,” having almost no visible link to any physical object or biological system; and third, you still have not specified exactly how “information about genes, gene products and inherited characteristics that may derive from an individual or a family member” is to be counted or quantified – which is kinda important if you want to argue about “loss” of “information.”

Comment #144338

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 3:23 PM (e)

Sorry, “Doc,” your “definition” of “information” fails for three reasons: first, you use the word to be defined in your definition of the word; second, “about genes, gene products and inherited characteristics that may derive from an individual or a family member” is an EXTREMELY vague excuse for a “definition,” having almost no visible link to any physical object or biological system; and third, you still have not specified exactly how “information about genes, gene products and inherited characteristics that may derive from an individual or a family member” is to be counted or quantified – which is kinda important if you want to argue about “loss” of “information.”

You are assuming Physicalism. If Physicalism is the case that all things must link to something exterior in nature, then what in nature has a name? What does the thing nature say to you? This is a reiification fallacy. Can I ask you something? Do you think? If you do think, then why doesn’t thought have anything to do with Physical Objects in nature? What you are in effect arguing against is a standard dictionary definition of the word for Genetic Information. Nice try though :).

Comment #144339

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 3:25 PM (e)

I see it funny that you wish to label me a liar or insane person when it is in fact you who wish to state that fossils speak to you (I hear the voices!!! ARGH BAGHH!).

Comment #144341

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 3:29 PM (e)

I have tried to post that response to Wayne 5 times now, so if you wish to hear my rebuttal to Wayne, e-mail me at [Enable javascript to see this email address.].

Comment #144343

Posted by Raging Bee on November 16, 2006 3:43 PM (e)

“Doc:” After all those halfwitted blustering posts, suddenly you can’t post a factual statement? Who do you think you’re fooling? You made the allegations here, you defend them here.

If Physicalism is the case that all things must link to something exterior in nature, then what in nature has a name? What does the thing nature say to you?

Wow, that’s delightfully incoherent. Where did you get this from – a satire of postmodernist drivelectical somethingorother?

If you do think, then why doesn’t thought have anything to do with Physical Objects in nature?

First, that’s a non-sequitur; second, who said thoughts have nothing to do with physical objects (such as brain cells, neurons, and connections among same)?

What you are in effect arguing against is a standard dictionary definition of the word for Genetic Information.

Where you got your “definition” is irrelevant – it’s still not adequate for purposes of verifying your claims about “loss” of “information.” (Also, is that the definition of “Genetic Information” or “the word (which word?) for Genetic Information?”)

Comment #144346

Posted by GuyeFaux on November 16, 2006 3:44 PM (e)

You are assuming Physicalism.

Nobody’s assuming sh–. Information, as you seem to use it, is some sort of objective property of living things.

Give us a non-recursive definition of information.

And how can you tell if a critter X has more information than critter Y, objectively? Because you’ve been making these claims for a while now, without a working definition.

Comment #144347

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 3:46 PM (e)

Thoughts have to do with the mind. Essentially, the mind is the only thing capable of what functions as we know “truth” claims. To state your case is fine here, but you would have one problem. If our thoughts come from our brain cells, then we have no reason to trust our brain cells, in which case, why are you here debating me in the first place?

Secondly, Postmodernism has nothing to do with that comment at all. Postmodernism is self defeatist.

Comment #144348

Posted by Bettinke, Head Nurse, Tr.Sa.&Ph. on November 16, 2006 3:47 PM (e)

Yes, please to still standing, Michael!

I too old for all this huffink and puffink have been getting.

Comment #144349

Posted by Slash_Gordon on November 16, 2006 3:48 PM (e)

Lenny Flank…

I agree, with the “render to Caesar, what’s Caesar”, but, if our Constitution says for the government to leave the Church alone, then that overrides what the Bible says, since the US Constitution doesn’t require the Church to render unto Caesar.

I’ll just watch my back, for all of the Swastikas when they start popping up (snicker, grunt, be*&lch!). Heil!

Comment #144353

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 4:00 PM (e)

Let me demonstrate why it is not a nonsequitor. You are assuming a false dichotomy of the mind and the brain, which are in fact two separate entities…..but regardless, the brain has yet to be demonstrated to provide what is known as thought. Thought provides us with truth claims. If we have no truth claims, then we have no reason to trust our thinking processes, and that is something that is impossible to do, because, then we’d be thinking to not think (self defeating, and impossible). One can not think about reality that it is unthinkable. If we have no reason to trust our thinking processes, we might as well walk into the window instead of through the door, since that would be the “true” decision to make. Yet, to trust our thinking processes is inevitable, and one can not live without them. The position that thought is not necessary would therefore be destructed by itself, because it would utilize thought in order to think that thought is not necessary (whether explicit or implicit). And further, a process of Noncognitivism should easily be able to be demonstrated false and inconsistent. If there is no truth, that would be a truth, which is self defeating. What the brain in NeuroScience has successfully been demonstrated to do is provide us with the 5 sense that we have in nature that can help give us information to the material world. Dr. Glenn Miller notes that thought has not been successfully demonstrated through Science, and that most Scientists have actually given up on trying to figure it out through Science, concluding that it is impossible.

Comment #144354

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 4:05 PM (e)

Why does the Constitution override the Bible?

Comment #144356

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 4:12 PM (e)

Bottom line is that DNA Sequencing can fit into the Bible perfectly fine. We have no problem, neither does DNA Sequencing do anything to refute the Biblical accounts. Common Design need not refer to a Common Ancestry :).

But the common Designer explanation makes much more sense of the findings of modern geneticists, who have discovered just how different the genetic blueprint can be behind many apparent similarities in the anatomical structures that Darwin saw. Genes are inherited, not structures per se. So one would expect the similarities, if they were the result of evolutionary common ancestry, to be produced by a common genetic program (this may or may not be the case for common design). But in many cases, this is clearly not so. Consider the example of the five digits of both frogs and humans—the human embryo develops a ridge at the limb tip, then material between the digits dissolves; in frogs, the digits grow outward from buds (see diagram below). This argues strongly against the ‘common ancestry’ evolutionary explanation for the similarity.

DNA comparisons—subject to interpretation
Scientific American repeats the common argument that DNA comparisons help scientists to reconstruct the evolutionary development of organisms:

Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related. [SA 80]

DNA comparisons are just a subset of the homology argument, which makes just as much sense in a biblical framework. A common Designer is another interpretation that makes sense of the same data. An architect commonly uses the same building material for different buildings, and a car maker commonly uses the same parts in different cars. So we shouldn’t be surprised if a Designer for life used the same biochemistry and structures in many different creatures. Conversely, if all living organisms were totally different, this might look like there were many designers instead of one.

Since DNA codes for structures and biochemical molecules, we should expect the most similar creatures to have the most similar DNA. Apes and humans are both mammals, with similar shapes, so both have similar DNA. We should expect humans to have more DNA similarities with another mammal like a pig than with a reptile like a rattlesnake. And this is so. Humans are very different from yeast but they have some biochemistry in common, so we should expect human DNA to differ more from yeast DNA than from ape DNA.

So the general pattern of similarities need not be explained by common-ancestry (evolution). Furthermore, there are some puzzling anomalies for an evolutionary explanation—similarities between organisms that evolutionists don’t believe are closely related. For example, hemoglobin, the complex molecule that carries oxygen in blood and results in its red color, is found in vertebrates. But it is also found in some earthworms, starfish, crustaceans, mollusks, and even in some bacteria. An antigen receptor protein has the same unusual single chain structure in camels and nurse sharks, but this cannot be explained by a common ancestor of sharks and camels.6 And there are many other examples of similarities that cannot be due to evolution.

Debunking the ‘molecular clock’
Scientific American repeats the common canard that DNA gives us a ‘molecular clock’ that tells us the history of DNA’s evolution from the simplest life form to mankind:

Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the ‘molecular clock’ that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution. [SA 83]

Actually, the molecular clock has many problems for the evolutionist. Not only are there the anomalies and common Designer arguments I mentioned above, but they actually support a creation of distinct types within ordered groups, not continuous evolution, as non-creationist microbiologist Dr Michael Denton pointed out in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. For example, when comparing the amino acid sequence of cytochrome C of a bacterium (a prokaryote) with such widely diverse eukaryotes as yeast, wheat, silkmoth, pigeon, and horse, all of these have practically the same percentage difference with the bacterium (64 –69%). There is no intermediate cytochrome between prokaryotes and eukaryotes, and no hint that the ‘higher’ organism such as a horse has diverged more than the ‘lower’ organism such as the yeast.

The same sort of pattern is observed when comparing cytochrome C of the invertebrate silkmoth with the vertebrates lamprey, carp, turtle, pigeon, and horse. All the vertebrates are equally divergent from the silkmoth (27–30%). Yet again, comparing globins of a lamprey (a ‘primitive’ cyclostome or jawless fish) with a carp, frog, chicken, kangaroo, and human, they are all about equidistant (73–81%). Cytochrome C’s compared between a carp and a bullfrog, turtle, chicken, rabbit, and horse yield a constant difference of 13–14%. There is no trace of any transitional series of cyclostome → fish → amphibian → reptile → mammal or bird.

Another problem for evolutionists is how the molecular clock could have ticked so evenly in any given protein in so many different organisms (despite some anomalies discussed earlier which present even more problems). For this to work, there must be a constant mutation rate per unit time over most types of organism. But observations show that there is a constant mutation rate per generation, so it should be much faster for organisms with a fast generation time, such as bacteria, and much slower for elephants. In insects, generation times range from weeks in flies to many years in cicadas, and yet there is no evidence that flies are more diverged than cicadas. So evidence is against the theory that the observed patterns are due to mutations accumulating over time as life evolved.

Comment #144357

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 4:14 PM (e)

Second issue here, Inbreeding: One Blood
The biblical answer to racism

by Dr Don Batten, Ken Ham, and Dr Carl Wieland

Chapter 4

One race
There is really only one race—the human race. Scripture distinguishes people by tribal or national groupings, not by skin color or physical appearances. Clearly, though, there are groups of people who have certain features (e.g. skin ‘color’) in common, which distinguish them from other groups. As stated earlier, we prefer to call these ‘people groups’ rather than ‘races.’

All peoples can freely interbreed and produce fertile offspring. This shows that the biological differences between the ‘races’ are not very great at all. In fact, the DNA differences are trivial, as already pointed out (see chapter 3).

Anthropologists generally classify people into a fairly small number of main racial groups, such as the Caucasoid (European or ‘white’1), the Mongoloid (which includes the Chinese and the American Indians), the Negroid (black Africans), and the Australoid (the Australian Aborigines). Within each classification, there may be many different subgroups.

Virtually all evolutionists would now agree that the various people groups did not have separate origins; that is, in the evolutionary belief system, the different people groups did not each evolve from a different group of animals. So they would agree with biblical creationists that all people groups have come from the same original population. Of course, they believe that such groups as the Aborigines and the Chinese have had many tens of thousands of years of separation. Most people believe that there are such vast differences between groups that there had to be many years for these differences to somehow develop.

One reason for this is that many people believe that the observable differences come from some people having unique features in their hereditary makeup which others lack. This is an understandable but incorrect idea. Let’s look at skin color, for instance. It is easy to think that since different groups of people have yellow skin, red skin, black skin, white skin and brown skin, there must be many different skin pigments or colorings. And since different chemicals for coloring would mean a different genetic recipe or code in the hereditary blueprint in each people group, it appears to be a real problem. How could all those differences develop within a short time?

Here’s how. We all have the same coloring pigment in our skin: melanin. This is a dark brownish pigment that is found in special cells in our skin. If we have none (as do people called albinos, who suffer from an inherited mutation-caused defect, so they lack the ability to produce melanin), then we will have a very white or pink skin coloring. If we produce a little melanin, it means that we will be European white. If our skin produces a great deal of melanin, we will be a very deep black. And in between, of course, are all shades of brown. There are no other significant skin pigments.2

In summary, from currently available information, the really important factor in determining skin color is melanin—the amount produced.

Caucasian and Asian eyes differ in the amount of fat around the eye.
This situation is true not only for skin color. Generally, whatever feature we may look at, no people group has anything that is, in its essence, uniquely different from that possessed by another. For example, the Asian, or almond-shaped, eye gets its appearance simply by having an extra fold of fat. Both Asian and Caucasian eyes have fat—the latter simply have less of it.

What does melanin do? It protects the skin against damage by ultraviolet light from the sun. If you have too little in a very sunny environment, you will more easily suffer from sunburn and skin cancer. If you have a great deal of melanin, and you live in a country where there is little sunshine, it is much harder for your body to get adequate amounts of vitamin D (which needs sunshine for its production in your body). You may then suffer from vitamin D deficiency, which could cause a bone disorder such as rickets.

We also need to be aware that one is not born with a genetically fixed amount of melanin, but rather with a genetically fixed potential to produce a certain amount, increasing in response to sunlight. For example, if you are in a Caucasian community, you may have noticed that when your friends headed for the beach at the very beginning of summer, they may, if they spent their time indoors during winter, have all been more or less the same pale white. As the summer went on, however, some became much darker than others.

But how do we explain the formation of many different shades of skin color arising in such a short biblical time scale (a few thousand years)? Let’s look at a few observations that can help us to explain this. From here on, whenever we use such words as ‘different colors,’ we are, strictly speaking, referring to different shades of the one color, melanin.

If a person from a very black people group marries someone from a very white group, their offspring (called ‘mulattos’) are mid-brown. It has long been known that when mulattos marry each other, their offspring may be virtually any ‘color,’ ranging from very black to very white. Understanding this gives us the clues we need for our overall question, so we must first look, in a simple way, at some of the basic facts of heredity.

Heredity
Each of us carries information in our body that describes us similar to the way a blueprint describes a finished building. It determines not only that we will be human beings, rather than cabbages or crocodiles, but also whether we will have blue eyes, short nose, long legs, etc. When a sperm fertilizes an egg, all the information that specifies how the person will be built (ignoring such superimposed factors as exercise and diet) is already present. This information is in coded form in our DNA.3 To illustrate coding, a piece of rope with beads on it can carry a message in Morse code.

Can you see how the piece of rope, by using a simple sequence of short beads, long beads, and spaces (to represent the dots and dashes of Morse code) can carry the same information as the English word ‘help’ typed on a sheet of paper? The entire Bible could be written thus in Morse code on a long enough piece of rope.

In a similar way, the human blueprint is written in a code (or language convention), which is carried on very long chemical strings called DNA. This is by far the most efficient information storage system known, surpassing any foreseeable computer technology.4 This information is copied (and reshuffled) from generation to generation as people reproduce.

The word ‘gene’ refers to a small part of that information which carries the instructions for manufacturing only one enzyme, for example.5 A small portion of the ‘message string,’ with only one specification on it, would be a simple way of understanding this gene concept.

For example, there is a gene that carries the instructions on how to make hemoglobin, the chemical (protein) which carries oxygen in your red blood cells. (Actually, there is more than one gene for hemoglobin, but that does not alter the principles of this necessarily simplified illustration.) If that gene has been damaged by mutation (such as when there are copying mistakes during reproduction), the instructions will be faulty, so it will make a crippled form of hemoglobin, if any. (There are a number of diseases, such as sickle-cell anemia and thalassaemia, which result from such mistakes.)

So, going back to that cell, and that egg which has just been fertilized—where does all of its information, its genes, come from? One-half has come from the father (carried by the sperm), and the other half from the mother (carried in the egg). Genes come in matching pairs, so in the case of hemoglobin, for example, we have two genes, which both contain the code (instruction) for hemoglobin manufacture, one from the mother and one from the father.

This is a very useful arrangement, because if you inherit a gene from one parent that is damaged and can instruct your cells to produce only a defective hemoglobin, you are likely to get a normal one from the other parent which will continue to give the right instructions. Thus, only half the hemoglobin in your body will be defective. (In fact, each of us carries hundreds of mistakes, inherited from one or the other of our parents, which are usually covered up by being matched with a normal gene from the other parent—this was discussed earlier.)

Skin color

We know that skin ‘color’ is governed by more than one gene. For simplicity, let’s assume there are only two,6 A and B, with the correspondingly ‘more silent’ genes a and b. The small letters in this case will code for a small amount of melanin in the skin. So, a very dark group of people which, on intermarriage, kept producing only very dark offspring, would be AABB; the same situation for a very fair-skinned people would be aabb. The illustration, right, shows what combinations would result in a mulatto (the offspring of an AABB and aabb union).

What would happen, using the Punnett square, if two such mid-brown mulatto people were to marry (the shading of the squares roughly indicates the resultant skin color)?

Surprisingly, we find that an entire range of ‘colors,’ from very white to very black, can result in only one generation, beginning with this particular type of mid-brown parents.

Those children born with AABB [or MAMAMBMB in the following illustration], who are pure black (in the sense of consistently having no other types of offspring), have no genes for lightness at all. If they were to marry and migrate to a place where their offspring could not intermarry with people of lighter color, all their children would be black—a pure ‘black line’ would result.

Those with aabb [or mAmAmBmB] are white. If they marry other whites and migrate to a place where their offspring cannot marry darker people, a pure (in the same sense) ‘white line’ will result—they have lost genes that give them the ability to be black, that is, to produce a large amount of melanin.

So you can see how it is easily possible, beginning with two middle-brown parents, to get not only all the ‘colors,’ but also people groups with stable coloring. But what about people groups that are permanently middle-brown, such as we have today? Again, this is easily explained. Those of aaBB or AAbb, if they no longer interact with others, will be able to produce only mid-brown colored offspring. (You may want to work this out with your own Punnett square.)

If these lines were to interbreed again with other such lines, the process would be reversed. In a short time, their descendants would show a whole range of ‘colors,’ often in the same family. The photo below shows what were called Britain’s ‘most amazing twins.’ One is obviously light, the other obviously darker-skinned.

Of course, this is not amazing at all when you do the exercise on paper, based on what we have discussed. (A clue if you want to do it yourself: mother cannot be AABB.) Also, the twins are obviously not identical twins (monozygous), which are derived from the same egg.

If all the humans on earth were to intermarry freely and then break into random groups that kept to themselves, a whole new set of combinations could emerge. It may be possible to have almond eyes with black skin, blue eyes with black, tightly curled hair, etc. We need to remember, of course, that the way in which genes express themselves is turning out to be much more complex than this simplified picture. Sometimes certain genes are linked together. However, the basic point is unaffected.

Even today, close observation shows that within a particular people group you will often see a feature normally associated with another group. For instance, you will occasionally see a European with a broad flat nose, or a Chinese person with very pale skin, or Caucasian eyes. As pointed out previously, most biologists now agree that among modern humans, ‘race’ has little or no biological meaning. This also argues strongly against the idea that the people groups have been evolving separately for long periods.

What really happened?
We can now reconstruct the true history of the ‘people groups’ using:

The information given by the Creator himself in the book of Genesis

The background information given above

Some consideration of the effect of the environment

The first man, Adam, from whom all other humans are descended, was created with the best possible combination of genes—for skin ‘color,’ for example. A long time after creation, a worldwide flood destroyed all humans except a man called Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their wives. This flood greatly changed the environment. Afterwards, God commanded the survivors to multiply and cover the earth (Gen. 9:1). A few hundred years later, men chose to disobey God and to remain united in building a great city, with the Tower of Babel as the focal point of rebellious worship.

From Genesis 11, we understand that up to this time there was only one language. God judged the people’s disobedience by imposing different languages on man, so that they could not work together against God, and so that they were forced to scatter over the earth as God intended.

So all the ‘people groups’—‘black’ Africans, Indo-Europeans, Mongols and others—have come into existence since that time. Some people sadly have promoted the false idea that dark skin is related to the so-called but nonexistent curse of Ham. See chapter 6 for details on this topic.

Noah and his family were probably mid-brown, with genes for both dark and light skin, because a medium skin ‘color’ would seem to be the most generally suitable (dark enough to protect against skin cancer, yet light enough to allow vitamin D production). As all the factors for skin ‘color’ were present in Adam and Eve, they would most likely have been mid-brown as well. In fact, most of the world’s population today is still mid-brown.

After the flood, for the few centuries until Babel, there was only one language and one culture group. Thus, there were no barriers to marriage within this group. This would tend to keep the skin ‘color’ of the population away from the extremes. Very dark and very light skin would appear, of course, but people tending in either direction would be free to marry someone less dark or less light than themselves, ensuring that the average ‘color’ stayed roughly the same.

The same would be true of other characteristics, not just skin ‘color.’ Under these sorts of circumstances, distinct, ‘constant’ differences in appearance will never emerge. This is true for animals as well as human populations, as every biologist knows. To obtain such separate lines, you would need to break a large breeding group into smaller groups and keep them separate; that is, not interbreeding any more.

The effects of Babel
This is exactly what happened at Babel. Once separate languages were imposed, there would have been instantaneous barriers. Not only would people tend not to marry someone they couldn’t understand, but entire groups which spoke the same language would have difficulty relating to and trusting those which did not. They would tend to move away or be forced away from each other, into different environments. This latter, of course, is what God intended. But this intention could not have included keeping ‘different races’ apart —there were no such recognizable groups yet!

It is unlikely that each small group would carry the same broad range of skin ‘colors’ as the original, larger group. So one group might have more ‘dark’ genes, on average, while another might have more ‘light’ genes. The same thing would happen to other characteristics: nose shape, eye shape, etc. And since they would interbreed only within their own language group, this tendency would no longer be averaged out as before.

As these groups migrated away from Babel, they encountered new and different climate zones. This would also have affected the balance of inherited factors in the population, although the effects of the environment are not nearly as important as the genetic mix with which each group began. As an example, let us look at people who moved to cold areas with little sunlight. In those areas, the dark-skinned members of any group would not be able to produce enough vitamin D, and thus would be less healthy and have fewer children.

So, in time, the light-skinned members would predominate. If several different groups went to such an area, and if one group happened to be carrying few genes for lightness, this particular group could in time die out. This natural selection acts on the characteristics already present, and does not evolve new ones.

It is interesting to note that in the Neandertals of Europe (an extinct variety of man now recognized as fully human7), many showed evidence of vitamin D deficiency in their bones. In fact it was this, plus a large dose of evolutionary prejudice, which helped cause them to be classified as apemen for a long time. It is thus quite plausible to suggest that they were a dark-skinned people group who were unfit for the environment into which they moved because of the skin-color genes they began with. Notice that this natural selection, as it is called, does not produce skin ‘colors,’ but only acts on the created ‘colors’ that are already there.

Conversely, fair-skinned people in very sunny regions could easily be affected by skin cancer, in which case dark-skinned people would more readily survive.

So we see that the pressure of the environment can (a) affect the balance of genes within a group, and (b) even eliminate entire groups. This is why we see, to a large extent, a fit of characteristics to their environment (e.g. Nordic people with pale skin, equatorial people with dark skin, etc.).

But this is not always so. An Inuit (Eskimo) has brown skin, yet lives where there is not much sun. Presumably they have a genetic makeup such as AAbb which would not be able to produce lighter skin. On the other hand, native South Americans living on the equator do not have black skin. These examples show that natural selection does not create new information—if the genetic makeup of a group of people does not allow variation in ‘color’ toward the desirable, natural selection cannot create such variation.

African Pygmies live in a hot area, but rarely experience strong sunshine in their dense jungle environment, yet they have dark skin.

Pygmies may be a good example of another factor that has affected the racial history of man: discrimination. If a variation from the normal occurs (e.g., a very light person among a dark people), then historically it has been usual for that person to be regarded as abnormal and unacceptable. Thus, such a person would find it hard to get a marriage partner. People could also recognize the poor fitness of certain characteristics in their environment, and so these become incorporated into the selection criteria for marriage partners. This would further tend to eliminate light genes from a dark people near the equator, and dark genes from light people at high latitudes. In this way, groups have tended to ‘purify’ themselves.

Also, in some instances, inbreeding in a small group can highlight any commonly occurring unusual features that would previously have been swamped by continual intermarriage. There is a tribe in Africa whose members all have grossly deformed feet as a result of this inbreeding.

To return to Pygmies, if people possessing genes for short stature were discriminated against, and a small group of them sought refuge in the deepest forest, their marrying only each other would ensure a Pygmy ‘race’ from then on. The fact that Pygmy tribes have never been observed to have their own languages, but instead speak dialects of neighboring non-Pygmy languages, is good evidence in support of this.

The effects of choice
People groups that were already equipped with certain characteristics may have made deliberate (or semi-deliberate) choices concerning the environments to which they migrated. For instance, people with gene combinations for a thicker, more insulating layer of fat under their skin would tend to leave areas that were uncomfortably hot.

Other evidence
The evidence for the Bible’s account of human origins is more than just biological and genetic. Since all peoples descended from Noah’s family after the Flood a relatively short time ago, we would be surprised if, in the stories and legends of many of the groups, there was not some memory, albeit distorted by time and retelling, of such a catastrophic event. In fact, an overwhelming number of cultures do have such an account of a world-destroying flood. Often these have startling parallels to the true, original account (eight people saved in a boat, a rainbow, the sending of the birds and more).8

The following very brief excerpt is from just one of the many Australian Aboriginal dreamtime legends that are no doubt changed records of the Flood account as given in Genesis:

Long, long ago, before the great flood … . Then came the flood … tops of the mountains standing up above it like islands. The water kept on rising, and finally even the mountain peaks disappeared. The world was one vast, flat sheet of water, and there was no place for the Nurrumbunguttias to live … . Slowly the flood waters receded. The mountaintops appeared again, and the spear heads of trees showed above the water. The sea went back into its own place, and the land steamed under the hot sun … . Animals, birds, insects, and reptiles appeared once more and made their homes on the quickly-drying plains.9

Some legends even mention three brothers (possibly the three sons of Noah?):

Unlike the majority of ancestors, who were products of the land they occupied, Yahberri, Mahmoon, and Birrum came from a distant land. The three brothers, together with their grandmother, arrived in a canoe made from the bark of the hoop pine tree, goondool.10

In summary, the dispersion at Babel, breaking a large interbreeding group into small, inbreeding groups, ensured that the resultant groups would have different mixes of genes for various physical features. By itself, this would ensure, in a short time, that there would be certain fixed differences in some of these groups, commonly called ‘races.’ In addition, the selection pressure of the environment would modify the existing combinations of genes, causing a tendency for characteristics to suit their environment.

There has been no simple-to-complex evolution of any genes, for the genes were present already. The dominant features of the various people groups result from different combinations of previously existing created genes, plus some minor changes in the direction of degeneration, resulting from mutation (accidental changes which can be inherited). The originally created (genetic) information has been either reshuffled or has degenerated, not been added to.

As one researcher put it, ‘It’s kind of like if all of us are recipes. We have the same ingredients, maybe in different amounts, no matter what kind of cake we turn out to be.’11 In other words, just as someone can take a cake mix and make a number of different cakes, all with the same basic recipe, but slight variations—so we can think of Adam and Eve as having the original DNA recipe if you like, and all their descendants have the same basic ‘recipe’ with slight variations.

Consequences of false beliefs about the origin of ‘races’
Rejection of the gospel
The accuracy of the historical details of Genesis is crucial to the trustworthiness of the Bible and to the whole gospel message.12 So the popular belief that people groups evolved their different features, and could not all have come from Noah’s family (contrary to the Bible), has eroded belief in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Racism
One of the biggest justifications for racial discrimination in modern times is the belief that, because people groups have allegedly evolved separately, they are at different stages of evolution, and some people groups are less evolved. Thus, the other person may not be as fully human as you. This sort of thinking inspired Hitler in his quest to eliminate Jews and Gypsies and to establish the ‘master race.’ Sadly, some Christians have been infected with racist thinking through the effects on our culture of evolutionary indoctrination, that people of a different ‘color’ are inferior because they are supposedly closer to the animals.13

For instance, consider the way in which people in America were indoctrinated in ideas that fueled prejudice and racism towards certain groups of people.

In 1907, a Scientific American article stated:

The personal appearance, characteristics, and traits of the Congo Pygmies … [conclude they are] small, apelike, elfish creatures … . They live in dense tangled forest in absolute savagery, and while they exhibit many ape-like features in their bodies … .14

Books such as The History of Creation by Ernst Haeckel were studied in the universities in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Students read such things as:

Nothing, however, is perhaps more remarkable in this respect, than that some of the wildest tribes in southern Asia and eastern Africa have no trace whatever of the first foundations of all human civilization, of family life, and marriage. They live together in herds, like apes, generally climbing on trees and eating fruits; they do not know of fire, and use stones and clubs as weapons, just like the higher apes … . At the lowest stage of human mental development are the Australians, some tribes of the Polynesians, and the Bushmen, Hottentots, and some of the Negro tribes.15

And in 1924, the then New York Tribune newspaper carried an article about the Tasmanian Aboriginals, declaring: ‘Missing Links With Mankind in Early Dawn of History.’16

Imagine what the people of England thought when they read an article in the New Lloyd’s Evening Post about two Australian Aboriginals who were brought back to England:

They appear to be a race totally incapable of civilization … these people are from a lower order of the human race.17

No wonder racist attitudes abound throughout countries like America and other nations.

Influence on missionary outreach
Historically, the spread of evolutionary belief was associated with a slackening of fervor by Christians to reach the lost in faraway countries. The idea of savage, half-evolved inferior peoples somehow does not give rise to the same missionary urgency as the notion that our ‘cousins,’ closely linked to us in time and heredity, have yet to hear the gospel. Even many of the finest of today’s missionary organizations have been influenced, often unconsciously, by this deeply ingrained belief in the evolutionary view of how other peoples and their religions came about.

All tribes and nations are descendants of Noah’s family!
The Bible makes it clear that any newly ‘discovered’ tribe is not a group of people who have never had any superior technology or knowledge of God in their culture. Rather, their culture began with (a) a knowledge of God, and (b) technology at least sufficient to build a boat of ocean liner size. In looking for the reasons for some of this technological loss and cultural degeneration (see chapter 9), Romans 1 suggests that it is linked to the deliberate rejection by their ancestors of the worship of the living God.

A full appreciation of this would mean that, for such a group, we would not see the need to educate several generations and give them technical aid as a first priority, but would see their real and urgent need for the gospel as first and foremost.

In fact, most ‘primitive’ tribes still have a memory, in their folklore and religion, of the fact that their ancestors turned away from the living God, the Creator. Don Richardson, missionary of Peace Child fame, has shown that a missionary approach, unblinded by evolutionary bias, and thus looking for this link and utilizing it, has borne a bountiful and blessed harvest on many occasions.18

For instance, consider the following excerpt from a book on Australian Aborigine dreamtime legends. Notice the similarity to the account of the forbidden fruit and the Fall in Genesis. It can bring tears to one’s eyes to realize these people once had the truth of the Genesis account:

The first man ever to live in Australia was Ber-rook-boorn. He had been made by Baiame. After establishing Ber-rook-boorn and his wife in a place that was good to live in, he put his sacred mark on a yarran tree nearby, which was the home of a swarm of bees. ‘This is my tree,’ he told them, ‘and these are my bees. You can take food anywhere you like in the land I have given you, but this tree, the bees, and the honey they make, you must never touch. If you do, much evil will befall you and all the people who will come after you.’ … But one day, when the woman was gathering firewood, her search carried her to Baiame’s tree. … A brooding presence seemed to hover above her, and she raised her eyes once more. Now that she was closer to the tree she saw the bees hovering round the trunk, and drops of honey glittering on the bark. She stared at them, fascinated by the sight. She had tasted the sweet excretion only once before, but here was food for many meals. She could not resist the lure of the shining drops. Letting her sticks fall to the ground, she began to climb the tree. Suddenly there was a rush of air and a dark shape with huge black wings enveloped her. It was Narahdarn the bat, whom Baiame had put there to guard his yarran tree. Ber-rook-boorn’s wife scrambled down and rushed to her gunyah, where she hid in the darkest corner. The evil she had done could never be remedied. She had released Narahdarn into the world, and from that day onwards he became the symbol of the death that afflicts all the descendants of Ber-rook-boorn. It was the end of the golden age for Ber-rook-boorn and his wife.19

Jesus Christ, God’s reconciliation in the face of man’s rejection of the Creator, is the only truth that can set men and women of every culture, technology, people group or ‘color,’ truly free (John 8:32; 14:6).

Thus, the answer to racism is to believe and apply the history of the human race as given in Scripture. If every person were to accept that:

They are all equal before God,
All humans are descendants of Adam,
All people are sinners in need of salvation,
Everyone needs to receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord of their life,
Each person must build his or her thinking on God’s Word,
All behaviors, attitudes, beliefs, etc. should be judged against the absolutes of God’s Word, no matter what culture one is from—

then the problem of racism would be solved.

People without souls?
Sadly, though, once again the progressive creationists have to resort to anti-biblical explanations for the differences in the human race, because of their compromise with billions of years. For instance, once one accepts the notion of billions of years of earth’s history, then that idea somehow has to be fitted into the Bible’s time frame of history.

Progressive creationists recognize that they can’t put millions of years into the genealogies from Adam to Christ, or they would make nonsense of them. The genealogies are there to show us that Christ can be traced back to the first Adam—after all, He is the ‘last Adam.’ Therefore, they have to place these millions of years before Adam.

Now the problem is this: these same dating methods they accept as absolute, ‘date’ human skeletons back nearly two million years. Because of this compromise, they have to account for numerous human beings before Adam. Hugh Ross therefore proposes:

Starting about two to four million years ago, God began creating man-like mammals or ‘hominids.’ These creatures stood on two feet, had large brains, and used tools. Some even buried their dead and painted on cave walls. However, they were very different from us. They had no spirit. They did not have a conscience like we do. They did not worship God or establish religious practices. In time, all these man-like creatures went extinct. Then, about 10 to 25 thousand years ago, God replaced them with Adam and Eve.20

If this is true, however, then think through the implications. According to the same types of dating methods the progressive creationists accept as absolute, the Australian Aborigines and American Indians are dated back 40,000 to 60,000 or more years ago. Thus, to be consistent, Ross would have to label these people as not being descendants of Adam and Eve (thus, they would have no souls).

Again, when someone adds man’s opinions (e.g., millions of years) to the Bible, then one has to distort biblical truth and come up with fanciful stories to account for their compromise.

Comment #144358

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 4:21 PM (e)

Lenny Flank, you love taking Apologists out of context don’t you. I’d not be shocked if you truly believed this non-sensical stories. Where did you read that Norman Geisler said these things?

Comment #144359

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 4:22 PM (e)

Anybody have some good stuff on the age of the earth? I think I can knock a few people down to size around here on that too :).

Comment #144362

Posted by GuyeFaux on November 16, 2006 4:27 PM (e)

By all means, continue galloping. But in the meanwhile some questions:

What’s information?

And is this a yes or no:

So…all I can really say regarding witches, is GET WITH THE TIMES :).

Comment #144364

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 4:27 PM (e)

You do understand that as Creation Scientists, we view the Bible and Science as mutually exclusive, do you not?

Comment #144366

Posted by Henry J on November 16, 2006 4:29 PM (e)

I’m wondering if this guy might be related to afdave…?

Comment #144368

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 16, 2006 4:30 PM (e)

We have no problem, neither does DNA Sequencing do anything to refute the Biblical accounts. Common Design need not refer to a Common Ancestry :).

batshit insane.

got it.

you have yet to indicate any knowledge beyond the ridiculous claims of the inane creobots at AIG. in fact, you basically just cut and paste their oft and completely refuted lameass arguments.

I expected better of someone who claims to have a PhD from Yale in genetics.

but then, you are batshit insane, so i guess that shouldn’t surprise me after all.

are you lying about getting a PhD in genetics from Yale?

if we checked, what would they say?

jebus, how can you mention “the flud” and claim knowledge of genetics in the same post?

Comment #144375

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 4:33 PM (e)

The answer is a self evident, no I do not believe there are witches in the world as you are asking, in the sense that they are actually believing anything more than a delusional thought process. There are people who are classified as witches however even today, so…..there’s no issue here today, and neither was there any issue in Israel at the time. The only powers that could be attributed to them would be an evil power provided by Satan himself. However, I personally do not believe that Satan is responsible for all supernatural acts in the very least that happen on this earth. Satan is simply the father of deception, and the reason that people believe in lies…i.e. “smoke and mirrors” today.

I have already defined what Information is, and I stand by that definition. I can site where I got the definition from, but its from the dictionary, so its baseless and nonsensical to actually argue against this:
Genetic Information: means information about genes, gene products and inherited characteristics that may derive from an individual or a family member. This includes information regarding carrier status and information derived from laboratory tests that identify mutations in specific genes or chromosomes, physical medical examinations, family histories and direct analysis of genes or chromosomes.
www.healthinsure.com/glossary.html

means information about a gene, gene product, or inherited characteristic of an individual derived from the individual’s family history or a genetic history.
www.state.mi.us/mdcs/Rules2002/crule9.htm

A DNA sequence (sometimes genetic sequence) is a succession of letters representing the primary structure of a real or hypothetical DNA molecule or strand, The possible letters are A, C, G, and T, representing the four nucleotide subunits of a DNA strand (adenine, cytosine, guanine, thymine), and typically these are printed abutting one another without gaps, as in the sequence AAAGTCTGAC. This coded sequence is sometimes referred to as genetic information….
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_information

That, I will use as an appropriate appeal to authority.

Comment #144376

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 16, 2006 4:36 PM (e)

I take that back, having gotten my graduate degree at Berkeley right along with Wells (same school - biology, different depts (MCB vs. Zoology), even the batshit insane can get a PhD if they have the right backing.

so I’m going to take back any assumption you are lying on that end, though your singular lack of knowledge about actual research in genetics does leave one wondering at what point your insantity forced you to dump every bit of knowledge from your head.

Comment #144377

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 16, 2006 4:38 PM (e)

I have already defined what Information is, and I stand by that definition

well, i define information as the stuff that collects between my toes after a 20 mile hike.

I stand by that definition.

Comment #144378

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 4:39 PM (e)

Lenny, regarding the YECS debate, and how they “lost” in court, let me ask that you keep a judge’s opinion out of the scope of Science. This is an improper appeal to Authority. The judge may be great in certain instances, but Science is outside of the scope of a judge.

Comment #144379

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 16, 2006 4:42 PM (e)

but Science is outside of the scope of a judge.

wrong again, professor. that’s why judges rely on expert testimony to adjucate cases regarding science on a daily basis. You can spend an afternoon in a law library examining posted cases, if you don’t beleive me.

you’d know that if you were as knowledgeable about court cases as you are about genetics

*snicker*

Comment #144381

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 4:43 PM (e)

Well, if they’re refuted…you should easily be able to point out where these arguments have been refuted, should you not? Its much easier to assume than to review evidence isn’t it?

are you lying about getting a PhD in genetics from Yale?
No.
if we checked, what would they say?
You can….I wouldn’t mind. They’d obviously say yes.
jebus, how can you mention “the flud” and claim knowledge of genetics in the same post?
:). They’re interrelated to the species on Noah’s ARK! :). The flood itself has only to do with certain Geological structures and such that we have from the past.

Comment #144384

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 4:44 PM (e)

Well, if they’re refuted…you should easily be able to point out where these arguments have been refuted, should you not? Its much easier to assume than to review evidence isn’t it?

are you lying about getting a PhD in genetics from Yale?
No.
if we checked, what would they say?
You can….I wouldn’t mind. They’d obviously say yes.
jebus, how can you mention “the flud” and claim knowledge of genetics in the same post?
:). They’re interrelated to the species on Noah’s ARK! :). The flood itself has only to do with certain Geological structures and such that we have from the past. Genetics has to do with the species. Ever heard of the principle of sufficient reasoning? If it looks like a bat, and it smells like a bat, its a bat.

Comment #144385

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 16, 2006 4:56 PM (e)

Hey Doc, thanks for once again demonstrating to everyone that, years ago, when creation “scientists” were claiming in court that their crap is all SCIENCE and is NOT religious doctrine, they were just lying to us under oath.

I suspected as much at the time, but thanks for confirming it for us.

As you have been so kind as to show, creation “science” consists of nothing but “blah blah blah God blah blah blah Bible blah blah blah God.”

As for why someone with a doctorate from Yale is hanging around with kooks who think that witches are real, that demons actually possess people, that flying saucers come from the Devil, that craters on the moon come from a battle between Satan and angels, that the theory of evolution was given to Nimrod the Hunter atop the Tower of Babel, that the earth is only 6,000 years old, and that fossils are the drowned remains from Noah’s Flood (snicker, giggle, BWA HA HA HA !!!!) I leave that to others with more experience in clinical psychology than I.

All I can conclude is that, apparently, having a doctorate from Yale is no prevention against being nutty as squirrel poop.

But then, nobody takes AiG, or indeed YECers of any type, seriously anyway (except the pig-ignorant nutters who buy up all their religious tracts), so in the end, Doc’s silly rantings don’t mean diddley doo anyway. (shrug)

Comment #144386

Posted by GuyeFaux on November 16, 2006 4:57 PM (e)

This coded sequence is sometimes referred to as genetic information….

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_information

That, I will use as an appropriate appeal to authority.

I second the verdict of batshit insane.

Did they regularly use Wikipedia at Yale when you were getting your PhD?

Under this definition, anything with DNA has information, so it couldn’t possibly the sense of the word you were using when you said

For this to have worked, there must be some process which can generate the genetic information in living things today.

So you’re talking about increasing information, critters with more or less information. Nothing to do with your cut-and-pasted drivel.

So, to repeat:

What’s information?

And how can you tell if a critter X has more information than critter Y, objectively?

Comment #144387

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 4:58 PM (e)

wrong again, professor. that’s why judges rely on expert testimony to adjucate cases regarding science on a daily basis. You can spend an afternoon in a law library examining posted cases, if you don’t beleive me.

you’d know that if you were as knowledgeable about court cases as you are about genetics

*snicker*

no, I’ve researched a few. Its just that most of the cases I’ve researched, including Louisiana and such do not allow for Creation Scientists to state their case. For instance, do YECS publish in refereed notable peer reviewed journals? Absolutely we do: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/348…

I think modern Science, and the Science you’re referring to are very different in this case :).

What exactly is the case with these states and courts however is not exactly what you might expect. For instance, what we actually note is explanations from the United States Supreme Court such as: The U.S. Supreme Court stated in the Edwards vs. Aguillard case, “If the Louisiana legislature’s purpose was solely to maximize the comprehensiveness and effectiveness of science instruction, it would have encouraged the teaching of all scientific theories about the origins of humankind.” From the True Origins website.

Comment #144391

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 5:08 PM (e)

Okay, but here’s the thing Lenny. We can have a God, and no religious base to support God. Look at Deism for example. Antony Flew is an example of a Deist, who went from being an Atheist to a Theist with no basis for the God in question. The further problem we get into here is that it has some severely false Religious implications. So claiming that a Designer was necessitated for Science is not a problem at all. This just follows cause and effect (a Scientific principle). There is absolutely nothing at all wrong with stating that Science and Religion are mutually exclusive. However, you do realize that all we are doing is going with a Christian Philosophy that is well supported by Scientific facts (the same exact ones that Atheists use). This is the only purpose we have for citing the Bible where we do in these instances. Its just as much evidential support as anything else, and considering its reliability in the area of religion, I’d say more so than anything else. We will not use the Bible as a source for Science, since it was not meant to actually be of use in Science exactly per se.

In regards to your false appeal to your own authority on the subject of what Normal Geisler believes concerning Religion…heh, I think you might want to reconsider that one Lenny. Just lay off of them if you have nothing true to claim, or if you have no sources to back up your information. This sounds like the work of a 3rd grade punk, and considering that you are a prominent Atheistic Apologist, I think you might want to a) reconsider your profession, as you don’t make a good Apologist, but may make for a good Politician somewhere or b) learn to get facts for your statements when backing them up so it would be wise for people to take your claims seriously. That choice is up to you though Lenny. I will not take you seriously unless you do back up your claims with facts, and thats just a fact in itself. Likewise, I do not expect anyone here to take me seriously unless I can back up my claims with support of some sort (which I can not think of anytime that I have failed to do so here).

Comment #144393

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 5:16 PM (e)

I second the verdict of batshit insane.

Did they regularly use Wikipedia at Yale when you were getting your PhD?

Under this definition, anything with DNA has information, so it couldn’t possibly the sense of the word you were using when you said

Nice ad hominem here I’ll add first.

Anything could, except for, whatever does not conform to the definition :).

Comment #144394

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 5:18 PM (e)

We definitely used things similar to the gar-ba-je found on Wikipedia thats for sure.

Comment #144395

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 5:22 PM (e)

We definitely used things similar to the gar-ba-je found on Wikipedia thats for sure.

Comment #144396

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 5:38 PM (e)

I will leave you all with a thorough refutation of (well, I don’t like the authors separation of Macro and Micro here, but that can be attributed to the Evolutionist side here) what Evolution is. From Talk Origins 29 Evidences of Macro Evolution, a clear refutation can be found here:
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp

Cheers to all, thanks for a wonderful debate. You can find me over at the Eye Designed by Evolution thread.

Dr. Michael Martin
PHD Yale, ThM Talbot
AIG Ministries

Comment #144397

Posted by Bill Gascoyne on November 16, 2006 5:39 PM (e)

And we’re wondering why we need more bandwitdth and a bigger server….

Comment #144398

Posted by Coin on November 16, 2006 5:42 PM (e)

Lenny Flank wrote:

All I can conclude is that, apparently, having a doctorate from Yale is no prevention against being nutty as squirrel poop.

One would think, though, that a doctorate from Yale would at least guarantee a basic mastery of the English language. :(

Comment #144404

Posted by Glen Davidson on November 16, 2006 5:55 PM (e)

As one who has fed trolls in the past, and no doubt will in the future, I cannot say that this one ought not to be fed (Lenny and Sir TJ have both chided me for feeding trolls in the past, but I rather suspected that it was more a swipe at the respective trolls).

What I think can be said is that the troll oughtn’t be overfed, or fed for too long. Nothing other than a rabid C & P-ing, and cliches, come from him, by which he means only to prevent intelligent discussion of his supposed “points”, a standard YEC tactic (does he work for AIG?).

Has he said anything in any subject that indicates any connection of his to intellectual fare? I have yet to see it.

JAD was restrained compared with this yahoo. While JAD could do nothing but malign those who answered him well, he still didn’t filibuster with reams of PRATTs taken straight from the darkest dungeons of YECism.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #144405

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 6:02 PM (e)

Got Ad Hominems?

Yup, plenty flying my way now. The only thing I may conclude from this rude behavior is that I somehow got under your skin somehow. Why may I ask is this? Why are you attacking “this yahoo” instead of the arguments that I present?

Why not attack the position instead of the person. It may just help your position look a bit more intellectually honest there.

Dr. Michael Martin

Comment #144406

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 6:06 PM (e)

Why do you have to commit the genetic fallacy of, “well, he’s a YEC, therefore, anything he says is wrong?” This is an ancient one. Can’t you come up with something more coherent and intelligent of your own to debunk my position? I’m copying and pasting, I invite you to do the same. Check out the facts sometime, see how much evidence you can come up with to combat my position. I’m definitely not afraid, been there, done that, over it :). And yes, I work for AIG.

Dr. Michael Martin

Comment #144407

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 6:07 PM (e)

Or is Intellectual Honesty no longer allowed in Science either?

Comment #144408

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 6:13 PM (e)

If I could prove that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, would you then think about the Christian position as being true from a religious standpoint?

Comment #144411

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 16, 2006 6:17 PM (e)

The answer is a self evident, no I do not believe there are witches in the world as you are asking,

I see. So when the Bible says “suffer not a witch to live”, it was just yammering stupidly about something that doesn’t even exist.

Got it.

Thanks for cleareing that up for me.

Now how about that “demon possession” thingie ….?

Comment #144413

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 6:21 PM (e)

Or maybe you can do an Exegetical study before you actually have a conversation with me about the Bible Lenny…sounds like you could touch up on that just a little bit. Your Hermeneutics are completely out of whack (might be destroying your ability to see Metaphysics a little bit).

Comment #144414

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 16, 2006 6:22 PM (e)

Lenny, regarding the YECS debate, and how they “lost” in court, let me ask that you keep a judge’s opinion out of the scope of Science. This is an improper appeal to Authority. The judge may be great in certain instances, but Science is outside of the scope of a judge.

What “science”? All I’ve seen from you is “blah blah blah God blah blah blah Bible”. (shrug)

Let’s be clear about that court case, though. Your YEC pals testified, in court, under oath, that creationism should be taught in SCIENCE CLASSROOMS because it is SCIENCE and NOT, repeat NOT, as in N-O-T, religion.

And they lied when they said that.

Lied.

As in “not true”. as in “fibbed”. As in “deceptive, dishonest, and deceiptful”.

They lied.

Under oath.

What happens to Christians who lie? And why should we believe anything else they say?

Comment #144415

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 6:23 PM (e)

But I think this shows very clearly how you are taking author’s positions out of context and trying to use it to benefit your own position. And you think Creation Scientists take things out of context? HEH…thats a laugh.

Comment #144417

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 6:25 PM (e)

Thanks for demonstrating how you take things out of context and then mislead your readers though Lenny. Clearcut example. I think you may want to read the ENTIRE quote before just taking one piece and then expanding upon that. We like to refer to people like this as Intellectually Dishonest in the real world Lenny :).

Comment #144418

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 16, 2006 6:26 PM (e)

I wrote my Doctoral Dissertation on Genetics at Yale :).

Good, then maybe you can answer a question for me that AiG wasn’t able to:

*ahem*

According to the creationists, all humans alive today are descended from 8 people who got off a Really Big Boat. Anyone who understands junior high genetics will know that 8 people have between them a maximum possible of 16 different alleles for each genetic locus (in reality, the 8 people on the Big Boat would have had even FEWER, since some of them were descended from others and thus shared alleles, but for the sake of argument we will give the creationists every possible benefit of the doubt and assume that they were ALL heterozygous and shared no alleles at all in common). That means, if the creationists are correct that “most mutations are deleterious” and that “no new genetic information can appear through mutation”, there can not be any human genetic locus anywhere today with more than 16 alleles, since that is the MAXIMUM that could have gotten off the Big Boat.

But wait ———- today we find human genetic loci (such as hemoglobin or the HLA complex) that have well over *400* different alleles (indeed some have over *700* different alleles). Hmmmm. Since there could have only been 16 possible on the Big Boat, and since there are over 400 now, and since 400 is more than 16, that means that somehow the GENETIC INFORMATION INCREASED from the time they got off the Big Boat until now.

That raises a few questions —– (1) if genetic mutations always produce a LOSS in information, like the creationists keep telling us, then how did we go from 16 alleles to over 400 alleles (perhaps in creationist mathematics, 400 is not larger than 16). (2) if these new alleles did not appear through mutations, then how DID they get here.

But wait – there’s more:

Not only, according to creationists, must these new alleles have appeared after the Big Boat, but, according to their, uh, “theory”, all of these mutations must have appeared in the space of just *4,000 years* – the period of time since the Big Flood. That gives a rate of BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS, which add NEW GENETIC INFORMATION, of one every 10 years, or roughly two every generation ——- a much higher rate of beneficial mutation than has ever been recorded anywhere in nature. Nowhere today do we see such a rate anywhere near so high. So not only would I like to know (1) what produced this
extraordinarily high rate of non-deleterious mutations, but (2) what stopped it (indeed, what stopped it conveniently right before the very time when we first developed the technological means to study it).

But wait — we’re not done YET ……

Since less than 1% of observed mutations are beneficial (the vast majority of mutations are indeed deleterious or neutral and have no effect), that means for every beneficial mutation which added a new allele, there should have been roughly 99 others which did not. So to give us roughly 400 beneficial mutations would require somewhere around 40,000 total mutations, a rate of approximately 100 mutations in each locus EVERY YEAR, or 2,000 mutations per locus for EACH GENERATION. Do you know what we call people who experience mutation rates that high? We call them “cancer victims”. The only people
with mutation rates even remotely comparable were victims of Chernobyl.

But wait, we’re STILL not finished ……

In order for any of those mutations to be passed on to the next generation to produce new alleles, they MUST occur in the germ cells - - sperm or egg. And since any such high rate of mutation in a somatic cell (non-sperm or egg) would have quickly produced a fatal case of cancer, if the creationists are right this mutation rate could ONLY have occurred in the germ cells and could NOT have occurred in any of the somatic cells.

If one of our resident creationists can propose a mechanism for me which produces a hugely high rate of mutation in the germ cells while excluding it from any other cells, a Nobel Prize in medicine surely awaits — such information would be critically valuable to cancer researchers. But alas, no such mechanism exists. The rate of mutations made necessary by creationist “arguments” would certainly have killed all of Noah’s children before they even had time to have
any kids of their own. In order to produce 400 beneficial alleles in just 4,000 years, humanity would have been beset with cancers at a rate that would have wiped them all out millenia ago.

Explain, please …. . ?

Comment #144420

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 6:27 PM (e)

Its very clear that your only purpose here is to try and hurt the credibility of Christians by lying about what they state. How then can we trust anything that you say as a result?

Comment #144421

Posted by Steviepinhead on November 16, 2006 6:29 PM (e)

Michael, I have personally told you how to quote. Without quoting, your comments are not only unreadable, they are plagiarism. If you can’t be bothered to be courteous enough to quote, kindly take your discourteous self away.

Michael, I have personally requested that you not post eight or ten comments in a row. You affected to understand this, the whole “round-robin” thing, remember. But now you’re doing it again. Is your attention span really that tiny?

Make a point. WAIT for the responses, don’t waste our time and bandwidth posting seventeen more things while waiting. (Get a frickin’ clue, guy!) THEN deal with the points in the responses.

And, while you’re at it, one long post, with a bunch of stuff you’ve C’n’P’d from somebody else (that you usually don’t identify–more plagiarism) is just as much an abuse of bandwidth as seventeen short soliloquies (I know, I know, but just look it up). Rule of thumb: if the published comment doesn’t fit–top to bottom–in your browser screen, it was too long. USE LINKS!

People already think you’re a psuedoscientific religious-apologetical rube.

There’s really no need to convince them you’re a RUDE rube on top of it.

Comment #144422

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 16, 2006 6:31 PM (e)

Now lets fast forward 1400 years to the New Testament where JESUS CHANGES THE RULES!

(flipping through Bible)(

Um, where does it say this, again …. ?

Perhaps you are reading a different Bible. Mine says:

*ahem*

[17] Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
[18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Curiously, though, you seem to want us to NOT have to follow the Old Testament law against witchcraft, but you DO want us to follow the Old Testament law against homosexuals…. Odd, isn’t it …. . And heck, I won’t even ASK you about that NEW TESTAMENT LAW that says women shouldn’t speak in church …. .

Ohhhhhhh, I get it —– it wasn’t JESUS that changed the law, it was the FUNDIES who did. On their own, uh, religious authority…. .

Comment #144424

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 6:34 PM (e)

Look familiar?

Dear D.W.,

Thanks for sending along that link. One despairs when one sees the many times that anti-creationists wax eloquent without ever having really read or carefully considered what the creationist arguments in question actually are. And we unfortunately know of this Flank person as one of the most abusive and ill-informed anticreationists and antiChristians on the Internet (for example, see Left Flank: Another Skeptic With the Same Old Canards).

I would believe that the various alleles of hemoglobin, for instance, could easily have arisen by mutation. But this is without any increase in information. The confusion in the critic’s mind comes because he clearly believes that ‘lots of varying copies’ means ‘lots of information’. That is as erroneous as the other commonly heard evolutionist claim that if you have doubling of chromosomes (polyploidy), that represents ‘more information’ (it would be like buying two copies of the same textbook and expecting to be able to learn twice as much!).

Information in the sense of ‘specified complexity’ is at stake. The specification involves function. No new functions have arisen for the hemoglobin alleles. The molecule in question actually has a part which is relatively fixed or invariant. This is the part that directly affects function (oxygen binding and release, primarily) and the variations that do not cause obvious disease all seem to take place in less critical portions, where quite a few changes can occur without impeding function. All these variant molecules function as either normal Hb (hemoglobin), or as defective Hb. Many blood diseases have been linked to mutations in the hemoglobin alleles.

Perhaps a simple analogy would help. Imagine you have a set of instructions in the form of a book for assembling an airplane. Imagine that in the set of instructions is a page specifying airline logos to be painted on the fuselage and tail. Now changes to this would be important to the airline, but it would not affect the airworthiness of the airplane. These are somewhat analogous to changes in a virus’s protein coat. They don’t alter any of the function of the virus, but like a change in an airplane’s logo, they might make it harder for the host immune system to recognize them. See Has AIDS evolved?.

In the course of copying, errors on this page of information would also not affect the airworthiness of the resulting airplanes. Many copies of the plans could end up in circulation, varying in their livery, but all having the same functionality. Copies of the instructions with changes to the core information would of course result in defective aircraft and would be discarded.

However, by using the logic of this critic, one would say that this shows that the original information in the assembly instructions for an airplane could easily have arisen by an accidental process whereby information gradually increases. I.e., he argues as if the random process that produced inconsequential variants of this airplane manual are the same processes that wrote the manual in the first place! This is not a perfect analogy, but I hope you get the picture.

Refute attacks against Noah’s Ark and the global Flood
Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study
John Woodmorappe

An in-depth study that provides detailed answers to the major criticisms of Noah’s Ark. How could Noah and his family have cared for 16,000 animals? How did they all survive for a year on the Ark? What did the carnivorous animals eat during and after the Flood? This book provides answers!

ORDER YOUR COPY TODAY

Visit our Q&A page on Noah’s Ark

The critic would do well to read Dr Lee Spetner’s book Not by Chance (top right). Spetner is a biophysicist well versed in the whole issue of signal-noise relationships in DNA, and he explains the information issue carefully.

Also, John Woodmorappe’s book Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study specifically addresses the question of multiple alleles generated after the Flood (right). Furthermore, Dr Jonathan Sarfati’s book Refuting Evolution 2 goes further into gene duplication, beneficial information-losing mutations etc. Actually, there is nothing in Flank’s diatribe that isn’t covered in our Q&A pages on mutations and information theory.

Regards,
Carl Wieland

Comment #144425

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 16, 2006 6:38 PM (e)

Hey Doc, another simple question (since you are, ya know, an expert in genetics and all):

*ahem*

What exactly is the genetic borderline between one “created kind” and another, and what genetic mechanism allows “microevolution”(*) to produce new genetics within a “created kind” but prevents genetic change from crossing the border (whatever the hell that border is) into a different “created kind”.

Feel free to use as many big words as you like in your explanation, my dear Mr Scientist.

Oh, and hey, about that whole “flood geology” thingie, I’d loike to know (1) what happened to the cities that humans were living in before the Flood — did the stones run for the high ground too? and (2) why is the modern leatherback turtle found ONLY in the top layers of the geological column, and NOT in the middle or lower layers —- after all, it (1) lives in the open sea, (2) sinks like a rock when it’s dead, and (3) can’t crawl on land, so by every one of the idiotic “hydraulic sorting” “explanations” I’ve seen from YECs, they should be at the very BOTOOM of the fossil column. Why aren’t they?

And I’d very much like to hear how the willow trees managed to outrun the velociraptors to the top of the geological column ……

(*) NOTE TO AUDIENCE – I am using the word “microevolution” in its creationist sense, not in its accepted scientific sense. I feel it necessary to point this out since creationists, dishonestly, use the words “microevolution” and “macroevolution” according to their own private definitions (evolution within a “kind” and evolution outside a “kind”), and without exception fail to make it clear that they are NOT using these words in their accepted scientific sense. It’s just another example of creationist deception, dishonesty, and lack of intellectual rigor.

Comment #144427

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 16, 2006 6:39 PM (e)

Actually, there is nothing in Flank’s diatribe that isn’t covered in our Q&A pages on mutations and information theory.

Actually, there is.

And I’ve already pointed it out.

Comment #144428

Posted by Glen Davidson on November 16, 2006 6:40 PM (e)

Of course I’m feeding the troll now, but I want to underline the dishonesty of this bozo:

Why do you have to commit the genetic fallacy of, “well, he’s a YEC, therefore, anything he says is wrong?” This is an ancient one.

The ancient lie is that we actually commit that genetic fallacy. Your stupid cut and paste lies have been answered repeatedly, here, on AtBC, and at TalkOrigins. If you showed one whit of intellect you’d be responding to the answers your side has been given, instead of repeating the same worthless lies that the cretins have conjured up.

Even better, you would just once back up your claims with some evidence, instead of repeating the same tired lies, like the one that no new information comes from mutations. The fact is that there is no reason to respond to claims made without any evidence, though such nonsense has been refuted using both historical evidence and in the lab (don’t stupidly demand this evidence—you claim great knowledge of genetics, you ought to know it. You probably don’t, but even if you are incapable of discovering it in the literature, Talkorigins covers it well, answering your rabid chihuahua-like comments).

Something like the claim that only “degeneration” has happened since the fall, or that the Second Law of Thermodynamics only operated since the fall, is too mindless even to begin to discuss. It’s a cliche, but the fact is that the claims you make which aren’t blatantly wrong are even worse, they’re not even theoretically capable of being wrong. You demand that we start out using your idiotic “theology”, and you have not the intelligence and/or learning to begin at the level of questioning. What you do is to demand that we question what has already been questioned to the ground (philosophically and scientifically), while you are unwilling to even begin to question the prejudices that have been soundly refuted via science, historical studies, and philosophy.

Talk about intellectual dishonesty! It isn’t the fact that you’re YEC that makes us recognize your trollish qualities (not Loki-troll, in my working hypothesis), it is that you demand a theological basis for discussion, not a scientific one. Indeed, you only disparage science as “self-refuting”, which I suspect you don’t understand any better than you understand genetics.

And yes, we know how thoroughly dishonest AIG is. There are honest YECs with whom I would discuss matters (you lie like a dog when you say that I commit the genetic fallacy, demonstrating how well I pegged your dishonesty), but not somebody who puts out AIG lies.

Enough pearls before swine (not a promise that I’ll never respond to his lies in this thread, but it is my present intention). I have answered you better than you deserve, and no one here (except maybe Pim, though I hope he’s wised up to you since he sided with you against me) believes any of your lying words.

Your primary value to us and to all of honest humanity (including some honest YECs) is to demonstrate to the world what a dishonest organization AIG is.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #144431

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 6:52 PM (e)

Right…THE NO TRUE SCOTSMAN FALLACY PUSHED AGAINST THE CREATION SCIENCE SIDE.

All Scientists classify Evolution as Macro and Micro. Yup…All except (wait minute, where has Lenny Flunk been ladies and gentlemen? AIG DOESN’T!)

In fact, CMI, our sister company, states on Arguments we think that Creation Scientists should not use: ‘Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.’ (the claim that is wrongly made so often times) These terms, which focus on ‘small’ v. ‘large’ changes, distract from the key issue of information. That is, particles-to-people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information, but all we observe is sorting and loss of information. We have yet to see even a ‘micro’ increase in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true. Conversely, we do observe quite ‘macro’ changes that involve no new information, e.g. when a control gene is switched on or off.

Created Kinds right here: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/271…

Try…very basic forms that are used in Science.

Comment #144432

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 6:53 PM (e)

Right…THE NO TRUE SCOTSMAN FALLACY PUSHED AGAINST THE CREATION SCIENCE SIDE.

All Scientists classify Evolution as Macro and Micro. Yup…All except (wait a minute, where has Lenny Flunk been ladies and gentlemen? AIG DOESN’T!)

In fact, CMI, our sister company, states on Arguments we think that Creation Scientists should not use: ‘Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.’ (the claim that is wrongly made so often times) These terms, which focus on ‘small’ v. ‘large’ changes, distract from the key issue of information. That is, particles-to-people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information, but all we observe is sorting and loss of information. We have yet to see even a ‘micro’ increase in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true. Conversely, we do observe quite ‘macro’ changes that involve no new information, e.g. when a control gene is switched on or off.

Created kinds…Try…very basic forms that are used in Science.

Comment #144433

Posted by Pizza Woman on November 16, 2006 6:53 PM (e)

Well, goll’, guys, ah’m just a pizza delivery grrl, but even ah can tell that Dr. YECh-O’s “definition” of “genetic information” is coming from medical records disclosure verbiage.

It ain’t in the slightest a “scientific” definition of anything–it’s record-keepin’ bureaucratese, fo’ goodness gracious sakes!

I mean, sheesh!

Yale genetics degree, LOL!

But let’s not be impolite, y’all. Let’s not just call “Doctah” Martin a moron.

Let’s be shuah and call him Dr. Moron.

Comment #144435

Posted by Coin on November 16, 2006 6:57 PM (e)

Michael Martin:

Okay, so wait– you’re saying that 400 distinct and different molecules contain no more information than one single molecule?

What is “information”?

Comment #144444

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 7:05 PM (e)

Talk about intellectual dishonesty! It isn’t the fact that you’re YEC that makes us recognize your trollish qualities (not Loki-troll, in my working hypothesis), it is that you demand a theological basis for discussion, not a scientific one. Indeed, you only disparage science as “self-refuting”, which I suspect you don’t understand any better than you understand genetics.

And yes, we know how thoroughly dishonest AIG is. There are honest YECs with whom I would discuss matters (you lie like a dog when you say that I commit the genetic fallacy, demonstrating how well I pegged your dishonesty), but not somebody who puts out AIG lies.

Enough pearls before swine (not a promise that I’ll never respond to his lies in this thread, but it is my present intention). I have answered you better than you deserve, and no one here (except maybe Pim, though I hope he’s wised up to you since he sided with you against me) believes any of your lying words.

Your primary value to us and to all of honest humanity (including some honest YECs) is to demonstrate to the world what a dishonest organization AIG is.

Well, the last time I heard, Atheism was a Theological position in itself. I think there was a court case in fact who stated that Atheism is a RELIGION! Guess what that means guys? Religion = God. So Atheism, notinsofar as we may claim that it is a Philosophy, but more than that a RELIGION! can not be excluded from a Theological discussion in itself. Now, our main objective here is Science when we are dealing with Science. But our website also deals with Theological issues, and we don’t intend on hiding those intentions (neither do you intend on hiding the fact that you believe AIG to be a PseudoScience). So both of our intentions are made perfectly clear here Mr. Davidson. There should be no one side thought better than the other here. We should judge them on mutual territory.

I do not refute Science. I refute Naturalism. Naturalism/Empiricism is not excluded from a Philosophical debate. Empiricism is a Philosophy in itself, and yes, it happens to be self defeating. Science on the other hand is mutually excluded from a Philosophical debate. We can think of them as interrelated, but not the same. As such, we make room for both Deductive and Inductive Logic in like manner. If your question is, does Philosophy take precedence OVER Science, then the answer is of course yes it does. Thats why its called Metaphysics, because its beyond Physics. Metaphysics and Physics happen not to be mutually exclusive however. Perhaps understanding the structure behind Epistemology would help your cause a little better.

If you know how dishonest AIG is, why not mention some of these lies? Or are you just going on the hunch factor? It doesn’t sound like you’ve thought up too much in reply to my responses. In fact, this appears more of an argument from outrage more than anything else. Come on…lay the conspiracy down as it is. This “we all know” junk needs to be thrown out the window, cause…quite frankly its obvious, we don’t all know.

Comment #144446

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 7:11 PM (e)

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?t…

As goofy as this sounds, this article is entitled, “Godless Theology” So we’re studying a God who doesn’t exist?

Sounds kinda….SELF DEFEATING, doesn’t it?

Comment #144448

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 16, 2006 7:12 PM (e)

Lenny Flunk

My, that is clever beyond measure. (snicker)

Thanks once again for that display of of that famous fundie love, compassion and brotherhood that I keep hearing so much about.

“Love thine enemies”.

“Do good to those who harm you.”

Just words to you, huh.

But if you’re finished calling me names (and please feel free to continue to do so — it doesn’t bother me a bit, and it DOES show everyone out there just what kind of person you actually are under your holier-than-thou bullshit), I would like you to show us your mastery of genetics in action, and answer the simple questions that Weiland refused to answer. Such as:

(1) If, as AiG keeps yammering, mutations only produce a LOSS of genetic information, then, uh, how did the number of human alleles INCREASE from a maximum of 8 to over 400? (or, in creationist math, is 400 a LOSS from 8?)

(2) where can I see a natural mutation rate high enough to produce 400 beneficial mutations in the sapce of 4-6,000 years?

(3) what mechanism allows these mutations to appear ONLY in the germ cells, and not in the somatic cells where they would kill the human race with cancers?

Any time you’re ready. Show us all what Yale did with your money.

Comment #144450

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 16, 2006 7:17 PM (e)

I think there was a court case in fact who stated that Atheism is a RELIGION!

You’re wrong. (shrug)

But now I’m curious —— so far, all we’ve heard from you is “blah blah blah God blah blah blah Bible”. What hte hell does your PhD in genetics from Yale have to do with that? Does your genetics degree make your relig8ious opinions more authoritative than, say, mine or my next door neighbor’s or the kid who delivers my pizzas?

If so, please explain how it does.

If not, then, uh, why the hell should anyone care about your Yale degree?

Comment #144452

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 16, 2006 7:22 PM (e)

Try…very basic forms that are used in Science.

try … answering my goddamn questions.

I’ll ask again. And again and again and again and again and again, every time you post here, as many times as I need to, until I either get an answer or until you run away.

*ahem*

(1) If, as AiG keeps yammering, mutations only produce a LOSS of genetic information, then, uh, how did the number of human alleles INCREASE from a maximum of 8 to over 400? (or, in creationist math, is 400 a LOSS from 8?)

(2) where can I see a natural mutation rate high enough to produce 400 beneficial mutations in the sapce of 4-6,000 years?

(3) what mechanism allows these mutations to appear ONLY in the germ cells, and not in the somatic cells where they would kill the human race with cancers?

(4) what exactly is the genetic barrier between “created kinds”? What genetic mechanism, specifically, allows “microevolution” within a “created kind”, but prevents that “microevolution” from straying outside the “created kind”?

Comment #144454

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 16, 2006 7:28 PM (e)

In fact, CMI, our sister company

Wow, you glossed right over THAT sordid little story, didn’t you …

Why don’t you go ahead and tell us all just why Creation Ministries International broke away from Answers in Genesis. From what I’ve heard, it somehow involves a scam concerning creationist authors being asked to pay for reviews of their books – with those who refuse to pay getting UN-favorable reviews….

Comment #144455

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 7:35 PM (e)

No doubt, I do love my enemies. But even Jesus had to set the Pharisees straight a few times and I’m not afraid to do the same here Lenny.

In regards to the court case that Atheism is a Theology: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?AR…

http://www.neuralgourmet.com/2005/08/19/court_ru…

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/court36.htm

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1467120/posts…

http://www.goofigure.com/UserGoofigureDetail.asp…

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t…

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showthread.php…

http://www.reclaimamerica.org/Pages/News/news.as…

http://changingworldviews.blogspot.com/2005/08/c…

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=43625

There we have it. Atheism IS A RELIGION!

Secondly, treat others the way you want to be treated. The purpose is not to hold a grudge towards Atheists/Evolutionists/OtherReligious groups at all. Its to show them that what they are trying to do doesn’t work, and then to show why the Christian way does work. In this case, I’m a very analogical person, so I tend to like to prove God through Logical and Scientific means.

Now Lenny, I do not intend on treating you any differently than you treat me. If you do treat me with respect, in like form, I’ll return the favor. However, do note that we as Christians, though the popular media likes to demonstrate otherwise, are to judge people, but rather judge people fairly. This means, judge their worldview against their worldview. Just like any practical Logician would advocate in other words. My intentions are not to hate anybody. As a matter of fact, I can firmly state that I personally feel like you can be somewhat of a good person deep down, but for some reason you seem to want to hold that back from all of us here. I think though, if you were to treat people with respect, just as kindly as you would want to be treated, then in like favor, the favor would be returned to you. Just keep that in mind. I may hold a different view than you Lenny, but it does not mean that I hate you as a person. In fact, I would hope the best for you, and actually do encourage you to at least give God a chance here.

Comment #144456

Posted by David B. Benson on November 16, 2006 7:37 PM (e)

Steviepinhead — I question Dr. M&M’s sanity. Is there any way for you to get the call for shenanigans through to Nick?

Comment #144460

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 16, 2006 7:45 PM (e)

However, do note that we as Christians, though the popular media likes to demonstrate otherwise, are to judge people, but rather judge people fairly.

planck/eye/you/first.

Comment #144461

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 16, 2006 7:47 PM (e)

Now Lenny, I do not intend on treating you any differently than you treat me.

How Christian of you.

I, of course, don’t give a flying fig HOW you treat me. (shrug) I just want you to answer my goddamn questions.

Or TRY to.

Put up, or shut up. Fish, or cut bait. Shit, or get off the toilet.

Comment #144462

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 16, 2006 7:50 PM (e)

But even Jesus had to set the Pharisees straight a few times and I’m not afraid to do the same here Lenny.

Um, so now you are comparing yourself to … uh … JESUS ???????????????????????

(sigh)

Dude, you’re nuts. Absolutely stark raving bonkers. You need Thorazine and a padded room.

No point wasting any more time on you. (shrug)

Comment #144463

Posted by Lenny's Pizza Guy on November 16, 2006 7:53 PM (e)

Gack!

Lenny, really, I’m just as much for Creationist-busting as the next guy. I mean, in my book, they’re the next thing to child-abusers: they lie, they know they lie and, worst of all, they’re deliberately lying to children.

But what, I ask you, did I ever do to you–other than, you know, tiplessly delivering you good pizza, evening in and evening out, hot out of the oven?–to suggest that I would welcome your dragging my name into your, heh, “debate” with “Dr.” Michael Moron, here?

Egad, sir! Have you no shame! Is there a troll so low that, in your effort to eviscerate them, you won’t invoke my name?

I mean, could we work a deal here? Like, you could just ask me first? I mean, I am pretty easy, most of the time.

Or maybe on alternate Thursdays (note that this, um, IS a Thursday…) you could give my name a break?

Just asking.

But.

I mean.

Michael Frickin’ Moron?

Ugh.

Comment #144464

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 16, 2006 7:55 PM (e)

Spetner is a biophysicist well versed in the whole issue of signal-noise relationships in DNA

He’s also one of the first creationuts to start blathering about the whole “Arxchaeopteryx is a fake!!!!!!” thingie.

For some odd reason, too, the fundie YECers never seem to mention the fact that Spetner is not a Christian, and therefore is going straight to hell.

Apparently fundies don’t mind basing their spiritual health upon the words of someone who is going straight to hell, as long as that person tells them what they want to hear anyway.

Ya know, kind of like Wells.

Or Behe.

Comment #144465

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 16, 2006 7:56 PM (e)

But what, I ask you, did I ever do to you–other than, you know, tiplessly delivering you good pizza, evening in and evening out, hot out of the oven?–to suggest that I would welcome your dragging my name into your, heh, “debate” with “Dr.” Michael Moron, here?

Well heck, I *did* tell him that your religious opinions are infallible …… or at least more infallible than HIS are.

Comment #144468

Posted by Bettinke, Head Nurse, Tr.Sa.&Ph. on November 16, 2006 7:59 PM (e)

Herr Doktor Flank:

Dude, you’re nuts. Absolutely stark raving bonkers. You need Thorazine and a padded room.

Sniff.

Is not what I been saying exactly, all these weeks agone?

All these weeks, has taken all you so-smart gentlemens and, eh, Pizza Ladies, to this out have figured?

Maybe now you stop on your hands sitting while my little Michael all over the place dodges?

Maybe now you starting to helping me with, eh, how you say, the little scamp corraling, hokay?

Hmmph!

Comment #144469

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 8:02 PM (e)

Right, I’m answering your questions - plank/eye/removed/first.

You respond by hating the Christian - now its time to take action and set someone straight for acting in an offensive manner.

I don’t feel as if I’m being too unfair here. I think I’m providing sound arguments. However, in the process you are attacking me as a person, instead of addressing the statements that I make. Please keep the comments totally situationed to what is being stated, not, HEY THERES A YECS, LETS BE MEAN TO HIM FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER.

Lenny, I have answered your questions 30-40 times, and its all the same one over and over again. How many times do you want me to beat a dead horse?

Comment #144470

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 8:05 PM (e)

Lenny, can I ask you a question? It seems to me that you feel like life has no meaning to it. If life has no meaning, then I’m sure that somewhere deep down you yearn for some sort of meaning to a dark and vacuous world. Did you know that there’s answer to this dark and vacuous lifestyle you’re leading? You do not have to face a world alone after all. Hope exists in this world of despair. Just consider my statements as I am honestly willing to help you with any problem you may be facing. Trust me.

Comment #144471

Posted by Steviepinhead on November 16, 2006 8:05 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #144472

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 8:09 PM (e)

You know Lenny, in the end, its not about my religious opinions. Life doesn’t revolve around me. Its about the truth of the matter, and thats Jesus Christ. Its more of a mountain that needs to be climbed than anything else. All I can say is that I value people enough to be here right now and take this heat in order to stand up for what I believe in, not because I simply believe it to be true, but because it is true being the fact that IT IS THE TRUTH IN ITSELF.

Comment #144473

Posted by Wayne E Francis on November 16, 2006 8:12 PM (e)

Comment # 144299

Dr. Michael Martin wrote:

Comment #144299
Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 1:19 PM (e)
Chihuahuas are not missing “genes for large size”. You can happily breed Chihuahuas over many generations to be as big as an average dog with out introducing any other breeds of dog.
And we’ve observed this where?
Are you sure you want to get into Genetics with me? I wrote my Doctoral Dissertation on Genetics at Yale :).
To Lenny - ROSS IS AN IDIOT! WHO CARES?

Wow your doctoral dissertation genetics. Am I supposed to be more impressed because you capitalised doctoral, dissertation and genetics? Genetics is a pretty large field. Your dissertation must be huge.

We’ve observed this in a few studies to include fine works by Belyaev et al in long term studies on canid domestication.

Seeing how you can only cut and paste grossly inaccurate statements about genetics from sites like AiG I highly doubt you are who you claim you are.

If there was a “loss” of genetic information that could never be retrieved then you would not have to breed in a trait, like size, over many generations. The “loss” would cause the trait to instantly be expressed. Are you trying to tell us that there is genetic information for every size of dog that can be lost? Your cut and paste quotes basically claim there distinct genetic information for every size of dog. Much like a deck of playing cards and to get breed a big or small dog is to find the one card for that size and eventually through inbreeding the rest of the deck is lost leaving you with only that one card and no way to get anything but that card. That, my friend, is absurd in the highest degree.

You my are, as Lenny so eloquently puts it, “A bare, bald-faced, deceptive, deceitful, deliberate liar, with malice aforethought.”

Comment #144474

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 8:12 PM (e)

I could not compare myself to Jesus, but I do try to live the example of Jesus. If anything, I’m humble enough to state that Jesus Christ is God and deserves to be worshipped.

Comment #144475

Posted by Steviepinhead on November 16, 2006 8:13 PM (e)

Frickin’ degas!

David B. Benson:

Steviepinhead — I question Dr. M&M’s sanity. Is there any way for you to get the call for shenanigans through to Nick?

Er, thanks for the vote of confidence, but I’m just as much a spearchucker in the anti-IDiot skirmishes here as the next guy.

Heck–though they say better times are coming, after the weekend–most days I have a hard enough time even getting the site to open, much less getting a comment to post (or to not post multiple times…).

So, no, I’ve got no better way than any other poster to try to let Nick know that Mikey-Troll is baaack, and infecting Nick’s thread.

But I’ll try:

Knock, knock! “Nick! Oh, Nick! Mr. Matzke! Hello! Nora? Asta? Anyone?”

Rarf! Rarf!

Comment #144478

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 16, 2006 8:16 PM (e)

Right, I’m answering your questions - plank/eye/removed/first.

I’m sure in your insanity, you simply are incapable of seeing it, but no, you haven’t answered any substantive questions posed to you since your very first post, when you first started posting here.

I challenged you on your genetics knowledge, and instead of exhibiting any direct knowledge of genomic relationships, data on specific genes, or even a comprehensible view of genetic information in general, you simply post creationist claptrap from AIG.

they teach you that at Yale, did they?

are you absolutely sure you can’t somehow hold up a mirror and see how nutty you are?

Comment #144480

Posted by Dr. Michael martin on November 16, 2006 8:18 PM (e)

He’s also one of the first creationuts to start blathering about the whole “Arxchaeopteryx is a fake!!!!!!” thingie.

For some odd reason, too, the fundie YECers never seem to mention the fact that Spetner is not a Christian, and therefore is going straight to hell.

Apparently fundies don’t mind basing their spiritual health upon the words of someone who is going straight to hell, as long as that person tells them what they want to hear anyway.

Ya know, kind of like Wells.

Or Behe.

And here again lies your misunderstanding on our position. I in fact actually agree with some things that Evolutionists state, some Atheists state and etc. What is true is true, no doubt what their background is. Also, I disagree with certain Christians. Do I claim they are going to hell, no. All I can state is that the Bible states this very claim. Now, I’ll to admit, if I didn’t have enough evidence to back me up, you can definitely call me insane on that one. But I can assure you, any question you’ve got, I can answer with hardcore facts. ANY question.

Comment #144481

Posted by Lenny's Pizza Guy on November 16, 2006 8:18 PM (e)

Ah, now there’s my cue:

Bubba, if you’ve been feeling lately like there’s nothing more to life than a vacuous-as-ID darkness, nothing more than a gaping, yawning, reeking empty-as-Creationism cavity–

–then have I got a deal for you!

Yessiree, Bob! Get the news! Chase your existential blues! We got: Scrumptious Pizza, Fresh From The Oven, Delivered Hot To Your Door, Quicker’n Jiff, Only A Phone Call Away!!!

Comment #144482

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 16, 2006 8:19 PM (e)

Rarf! Rarf!

Lassie! go tell uncle Nick Mikey fell down the well again!

hurry girl!

Comment #144483

Posted by Pizza Woman on November 16, 2006 8:21 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'i'

Comment #144484

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 16, 2006 8:21 PM (e)

What is true is true

funny, i never hear any real scientists saying shit like that.

only nutters.

Comment #144485

Posted by Pizza Woman on November 16, 2006 8:24 PM (e)

Well, goll’ y’all, I was gonna add a few existenshull remarks about the b-b-benefits of Vikin’ Piss, mah own self……but the dern thingy wouldn’t post all my wunnerful wise, uh, wise-ass–

Hic!

Giggle!

Comment #144486

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 8:25 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #144487

Posted by Wayne E Francis on November 16, 2006 8:26 PM (e)

Comment # 144308

Dr. Michael Martin wrote:

Comment #144308
Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 1:46 PM (e)
Blah blah blah blah

Ummm I’m not talking about the 2nd law of thermodynamics but the simple fact that the amount of energy unleashed by such an event would be enough to fry every thing on the planet.

Comment # 144309

Dr. Michael Martin wrote:

Comment #144309
Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 1:52 PM (e)
The chihuahua has descended from the wolf, but has less variety than it. Wolves can be bred to give dogs like chihuahuas and Great Danes, but chihuahuas can never be bred into something like a Great Dane because there has been a loss of information.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/434…
Keep that in mind next time you wish to mention Genetics with me :).

To use your statement “And we’ve observed this where?”
You are making a statement for which you yourself say you have no proof.

Comment # 144312

Dr. Michael Martin wrote:

Comment #144312
Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 1:54 PM (e)
Its also pretty illogical, since to think that a little dog like a chihuahua could somehow give birth to a big panda bear type dog would probably be something that would make it on the National Enquirer somewhere.

Ummm again you show your misunderstanding of general breeding let alone genetics. Chihuahua’s didn’t get their size in 1 generation but over many generations each generation the smallest males breed with the smallest females. This process is easily reversed over many generations by picking the largest from each generation and breeding them together until you get the size you want and then, again using selective breeding, you use the average offspring to hold that trait. You still get variations with every generation.

Comment #144489

Posted by Wayne E Francis on November 16, 2006 8:29 PM (e)

test before reposting

Comment #144491

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 8:30 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #144498

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 8:32 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #144499

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 16, 2006 8:33 PM (e)

But I can assure you, any question you’ve got, I can answer with hardcore facts. ANY question.

ok:

are you insane?

don’t forget, you have to back up any response to that question with facts.

so far, most here agree with me that the evidence supports the contention that you are, in fact, insane.

so the ball’s in your court to prove you are not.

tick-tock, doc.

if that question is too hard for you, why not adress the vitamin C psuedogene issue for kicks, eh?

if you need pointers, you can check out the thread AFDave created in the ATBC area:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/i…

uh, you’ll need some patience to wade through it, but your creationist arguments for the vitamin C complex issue are in there, presented by AFDave straight from AIG’s mouth.

good luck, “genetecist”

when you’re done with that, you can read Francis Collin’s book (Yeah, he’s a christian), and explain how his analysis of the human genome supports the idea the earth is a mere thousands of years old.

use facts… or are you like Homer Simpson:

“Facts are meaningless, you can use facts to prove anything that’s remotely true!”

Comment #144500

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 8:33 PM (e)

No, one is an inductive claim about the situation, in which case I’m asking, where have we observed this in nature. The other is a logical claim that states, No, this is logically impossible to occur. So, in effect, I have dodged the self refutation here.

Comment #144501

Posted by Richard Simons on November 16, 2006 8:34 PM (e)

Doc Martin:

If the zebras, wild asses, the donkey and the horse are all the same horse kind, which one was on the ark? Presumably if all mutations result in a loss of information, you can measure the amount of information in each species and the one with the most will be the one that was on the ark. Is this how you figure it out?

I noticed that in your posts you cut and paste from various other sources such as Answers in Genesis and Alexander Smith’s Australian Aborigines web page, all without acknowledgment. I’m sure you were not permitted to do something as immoral as this at Yale when you got your Ph.D. Is this one of the things you learned at theological college?

Comment #144502

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 8:35 PM (e)

“Facts are meaningless, you can use facts to prove anything that’s remotely true!”

No, in fact, facts are not meaningless, but THEY ARE NOT SELF INTERPRETING! Facts do not speak for themselves. This is Philosophically impossible.

Comment #144503

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 16, 2006 8:36 PM (e)

Lenny, can I ask you a question? It seems to me that you feel like life has no meaning to it.

(sigh) Idiot.

Quit waving your arms and answer my goddamn questions.

(1) If, as AiG keeps yammering, mutations only produce a LOSS of genetic information, then, uh, how did the number of human alleles INCREASE from a maximum of 8 to over 400? (or, in creationist math, is 400 a LOSS from 8?)

(2) where can I see a natural mutation rate high enough to produce 400 beneficial mutations in the sapce of 4-6,000 years?

(3) what mechanism allows these mutations to appear ONLY in the germ cells, and not in the somatic cells where they would kill the human race with cancers?

(4) what exactly is the genetic barrier between “created kinds”? What genetic mechanism, specifically, allows “microevolution” within a “created kind”, but prevents that “microevolution” from straying outside the “created kind”?

(5) what happened to the cities that humans were living in before the Flood — did the stones and buildings run for the high ground too? Oh, and what about the people who died before the Flood happened — did the fleeing people stop long enough to dig up all the buried corpses of their ancestors and carry them to the high ground, too?

(6) why is the modern leatherback turtle found ONLY in the top layers of the geological column, and NOT in the middle or lower layers —- after all, it (1) lives in the open sea, (2) sinks like a rock when it’s dead, and (3) can’t crawl on land, so by every one of the idiotic “hydraulic sorting” “explanations” I’ve seen from YECs, they should be at the very BOTTOM of the fossil column. Why aren’t they?

(7) And I’d very much like to hear how the willow trees managed to outrun the velociraptors to the top of the geological column ……?

Comment #144505

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 16, 2006 8:37 PM (e)

wayne:

the only consistent way i have found to check and see if your post made it through is to put a letter in the comment box, and then hit the “preview” button.

that should show any posts that appear “invisible” under normal circumstances.

*sigh*

Comment #144506

Posted by Wayne E Francis on November 16, 2006 8:37 PM (e)

Comment # 144326

Dr. Michael Martin wrote:

Comment #144326
Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 2:47 PM (e)
It should be coming soon. There really wasn’t much to comment on Wayne’s post, as half of it agreed with the YECS position in the first place.

Please tell me how YECs can explain the thousands of mutations per generations to produce the variation within the genus of Equus that we see if they all came from a set of one “kind” on the ark? Please explain why we do not observe the same rate of mutation today. Please explain the cause of such rapid mutation rates. Please explain how this rapid mutation rate avoided the huge amount of deleterious mutations one would expect with the given mutation rate. Please explain when such a mutation rate slowed to the present rate. Remember the further back you push this change in mutation rate the higher the mutation rate must have been from the time of the “ark”

Comment #144507

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 8:38 PM (e)

Think about this for a minute, try to follow me. You are looking at a computer screen right now? How do we know this is a computer screen? We use a logical statement in order to actually note that its a computer screen. Now, erase logic here. Whats there now? Your natural inclination is again, a computer screen, but can you prove that statement through induction? No, you can’t. In fact, induction can not be proven through induction. It must be interpreted using LOGIC! Thats my point here guys.

Comment #144508

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 16, 2006 8:39 PM (e)

I’m humble enough

BWA HA HA AH AHA HA AH AHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AHA HA HA HA HA HA AH AH AHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH AH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dude, there’s not a “humble” bone anywhere in your entire body. You are, like every other fundie I’ve ever met, just another self-righteous arrogant pride-filled prick who thinks (quite literally) that he’s holier than everyone else.

Comment #144509

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 16, 2006 8:39 PM (e)

this “loss of information with mutation” argument is absolutely pathetic, coming from anybody, let alone someone claiming to have a background in genetics.

ever heard of polyploidy there, doc?

not only insane, but pathetic too.

you really should visit that thread i linked to and give AFDave some company.

I bet he would appreciate it, and you certainly don’t belong here.

Comment #144510

Posted by fnxtr on November 16, 2006 8:40 PM (e)

So, um… creatures with more DNA have more information? And subsequent generations can maybe have as much DNA as their parents, but not more? And sometimes they have less?

Just askin’.

Comment #144511

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 16, 2006 8:43 PM (e)

Well, I’m done with the nutter. Until he answers my simple questions (and I will continue to ask them every time he posts here, no matter how long it takes, until he answers), there simply is no point in “conversing” with him. (shrug)

Comment #144512

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 16, 2006 8:43 PM (e)

No, in fact, facts are not meaningless, but THEY ARE NOT SELF INTERPRETING! Facts do not speak for themselves. This is Philosophically impossible.

ROFLMAO!

uh, you’re arguing with Homer Simpson there, pal….you were supposed to be providing evidence you AREN’T insane, remember?

Comment #144513

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 8:45 PM (e)

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/316…

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/561…

For the one talking about Genetics, I mentioned, PLEASE SEND ME AN E-MAIL AT [Enable javascript to see this email address.]! You are also playing a logical fallacy of one-sidedness. You are simply cardstacking here.

This is all I can provide you for now.

Comment #144514

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 8:47 PM (e)

uh, you’re arguing with Homer Simpson there, pal….you were supposed to be providing evidence you AREN’T insane, remember?

Prove that statement.

Comment #144515

Posted by fnxtr on November 16, 2006 8:48 PM (e)

Mikey says:

Empiricism is a Philosophy in itself, and yes, it happens to be self defeating. Science on the other hand is mutually excluded from a Philosophical debate.

Help me out, here. Please explain why empiricism is self-defeating. In detail. What does this mean?

Science is mutually excluded from a philosophical debate?

How can one thing be “mutually excluded”?

Do you mean science and philosophy are mutually exclusive? What does this mean, exactly?

Why do you capitalize these words?

Is English even your first language?

Just askin’.

Comment #144516

Posted by Wayne E Francis on November 16, 2006 8:49 PM (e)

Comment # 144335

Raging Bee wrote:

Comment #144335
Posted by Raging Bee on November 16, 2006 3:14 PM (e)
Sorry, “Doc,” your “definition” of “information” fails for three reasons: first, you use the word to be defined in your definition of the word; second, “about genes, gene products and inherited characteristics that may derive from an individual or a family member” is an EXTREMELY vague excuse for a “definition,” having almost no visible link to any physical object or biological system; and third, you still have not specified exactly how “information about genes, gene products and inherited characteristics that may derive from an individual or a family member” is to be counted or quantified – which is kinda important if you want to argue about “loss” of “information.”

Kind of like bush trying to define “sovereign”
http://www.whatdaphuk.com/?view=plink&id=480…

Comment #144517

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 8:51 PM (e)

There in lies the inherent problem to inductive reasoning. It can’t be proven :).

Comment #144519

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 16, 2006 9:00 PM (e)

For the one talking about Genetics, I mentioned, PLEASE SEND ME AN E-MAIL AT [Enable javascript to see this email address.]! You are also playing a logical fallacy of one-sidedness. You are simply cardstacking here.

This is all I can provide you for now.

lost track of who that was already, eh?

it was me, and you just proved my point. you don’t remember any of your teaching in genetics, do you? Otherwise, you could address my questions right here and now. No doubt you are frantically scouring AIG for the answers you seek.

otherwise, you could easily address the simple arguments i posed to you.

can’t you see how this supports my contention you are mentally handicapped at this point?

combine that with your stream of consciousness cut-and-paste jobs from AIG, and your inability, after all this time, to even learn how to do a simple quotation in the markup language used on this site (fuck, man, it’s right above the damn comment box!), along with an apparently serious attempt to argue with a quotation from Homer Simpson, and I rest my case.

anybody disagree that poor Mikey is completely fubar?

I feel sorry for you, Michael, that if you once were a proud possesor of a PhD in genetics, that your cognitive dissonance has completely obliterated your capacity to reason.

I felt sorry for Davison, too.

but it only goes so far.

a schizophrenic who fails to get treatment after having his delusions repeatedly pointed out by those around him rarely gets much sympathy.

Comment #144521

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 9:02 PM (e)

Help me out, here. Please explain why empiricism is self-defeating. In detail. What does this mean? Empiricism is a David Hume approach in which he claims in order for anything to have any kind of worth, that it must be proven through Science, Math, or some sort of Sciences. In other words he uses the claim, “Make no Assumptions” as a starting axiom of sorts. There exists a problem when he assumes this however, as when he states that we should make no assumptions, he is making an assumptive claim. Right off the bat, its self defeating to claim this. Secondly, his claim that everything must be proven through Science and math would be self defeating, because the very claim can not be proven through Science or Math. Thirdly, Hume is regarded as a Skeptic. However, the position of Skepticism requires that one be skeptical of Skepticism, in which case, there is at least that one thing he can be absolutely certain of. In other words, the issue of Absolute Certainty exists in fact, and can not be proven through Scientific claims. Inductive reasoning is in regards to any statement that makes claims that infer effects to a cause, and deductive reasoning is in regards to any statement that would make a claim that infers causes to its effects. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Again, we understand that right as soon as thats presented to the intellect. What this type of knowledge is called is A Priori knowledge. We don’t have to think about it, its just naturally knowable as soon as we know about it. 2+2 = 4 is another claim. We can try to substitute units, but the units are invariably unnecessary for the claim to be true, and we can actually distinguish an abstractual 2 and 2 which equals 4. To note however, while complete skepticism is not healthy, it is good to be skeptical of anything that does not have facts to back it up, or logic to back it up. If something is illogical, it obviously should be rejected.

Science is mutually excluded from a philosophical debate? - no, thats not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying they exist universally as mutually exclusive, but Science is dependent upon logic, and the counter would invoke a false cause and effect. In other words, we can talk about Science in a Philosophical debate. The debate we are having is in fact, a logical debate. This can not be denied, as any debate would be logical in context.

How can one thing be “mutually excluded”?

Two things are mutually excluded. Remember now, Philosophy and Science are two radically different areas of study. One can not be derived from the other, but when used in a proper context, one can infer the other to be true.

Do you mean science and philosophy are mutually exclusive? What does this mean, exactly? Again, they are two different universals, mutually exclusive from each other in the sense that different universals are possible to exist.

Why do you capitalize these words?

Is English even your first language?

Just askin’.

Comment #144523

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 9:03 PM (e)

Help me out, here. Please explain why empiricism is self-defeating. In detail. What does this mean? Empiricism is a David Hume approach to Philosophy in which he claims in order for anything to have any kind of worth, that it must be proven through Science, Math, or some sort of Sciences. In other words he uses the claim, “Make no Assumptions” as a starting axiom of sorts. There exists a problem when he assumes this however, as when he states that we should make no assumptions, he is making an assumptive claim, or rather assuming an axiom that can not be assumed. Right off the bat, its self defeating to claim this. Secondly, his claim that everything must be proven through Science and math would be self defeating, because the very claim can not be proven through Science or Math. Thirdly, Hume is regarded as a Skeptic. However, the position of Skepticism requires that one be skeptical of Skepticism, in which case, there is at least that one thing he can be absolutely certain of. In other words, the issue of Absolute Certainty exists in fact, and can not be proven through Scientific claims. Inductive reasoning is in regards to any statement that makes claims that infer effects to a cause, and deductive reasoning is in regards to any statement that would make a claim that infers causes to its effects. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Again, we understand that right as soon as thats presented to the intellect. What this type of knowledge is called is A Priori knowledge. We don’t have to think about it, its just naturally knowable as soon as we know about it. 2+2 = 4 is another claim. We can try to substitute units, but the units are invariably unnecessary for the claim to be true, and we can actually distinguish an abstractual 2 and 2 which equals 4. To note however, while complete skepticism is not healthy, it is good to be skeptical of anything that does not have facts to back it up, or logic to back it up. If something is illogical, it obviously should be rejected.

Science is mutually excluded from a philosophical debate? - no, thats not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying they exist universally as mutually exclusive, but Science is dependent upon logic, and the counter would invoke a false cause and effect. In other words, we can talk about Science in a Philosophical debate. The debate we are having is in fact, a logical debate. This can not be denied, as any debate would be logical in context.

How can one thing be “mutually excluded”?

Two things are mutually excluded. Remember now, Philosophy and Science are two radically different areas of study. One can not be derived from the other, but when used in a proper context, one can infer the other to be true.

Do you mean science and philosophy are mutually exclusive? What does this mean, exactly? Again, they are two different universals, mutually exclusive from each other in the sense that different universals are possible to exist. Both are governed by logic.

Why do you capitalize these words?

Is English even your first language?

Just askin’.

Comment #144524

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 9:09 PM (e)

I feel sorry for you, Michael, that if you once were a proud possesor of a PhD in genetics, that your cognitive dissonance has completely obliterated your capacity to reason.

Nice strategy, but I seriously don’t have time. E-mail me the comment and I’ll answer it.

Comment #144525

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 9:11 PM (e)

Lenny, why do you have no regard for anybody here but yourself? I think Sociopath/Schizophrenic should actually be asserted towards you. You seem to not even care about anybody or anything but yourself. Whats the deal with this?

Comment #144526

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 16, 2006 9:12 PM (e)

Empiricism is a David Hume approach in which he claims in order for anything to have any kind of worth, that it must be proven through Science, Math, or some sort of Sciences.

a complete strawman of Hume’s argument.

hence, you using it to further your own arguments is:

insane.

There exists a problem when he assumes this however, as when he states that we should make no assumptions, he is making an assumptive claim, or rather assuming an axiom that can not be assumed.

whee!

how can you write that with a straight face?

insane.

have i provided enough evidence to answer my own question i actually posed to YOU, Doc Fubar?

to everyone else:

have you ever tried to convince a schizophrenic of the extreme variety that there AREN’T blue bugs crawling up the walls behind him?

it simply isn’t possible to convince the insane of their own delusions.

it isn’t possible to convince AFDave of his delusions (400 pages of attempts to do so prove my point), and it is just as readily obvious that poor Mikey suffers the same delusional state of being.

It’s fun, but pointless, to try to debate the insane.

Comment #144527

Posted by Wayne E Francis on November 16, 2006 9:14 PM (e)

Comment # 144405

Dr. Michael Martin wrote:

Comment #144405
Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 6:02 PM (e)
Got Ad Hominems?
Yup, plenty flying my way now. The only thing I may conclude from this rude behavior is that I somehow got under your skin somehow. Why may I ask is this? Why are you attacking “this yahoo” instead of the arguments that I present?
Why not attack the position instead of the person. It may just help your position look a bit more intellectually honest there.
Dr. Michael Martin

I did attack your arguments and you just hand waved it away saying that it supports the YEC position.

Do you get under our skin? About as much as some stranger yelling “THE SUN IS PURPLE “ over and over in a mall would when you are shopping.

Why don’t you just go “La la la la NOT LISTENING la la la” any time someone provides a refutation to one of your claims. It would end up being as relevant as the HUGE cut and pastes you do from AiG and us from skipping over dribble that many of us have read before.

Comment #144529

Posted by Dr. MIchael Martin on November 16, 2006 9:16 PM (e)

funny, i never hear any real scientists saying shit like that.

only nutters.

Okay, by this comment, you mean Real Scientists are Evolutionists only. Are you trying to then justify the fact that Evolutionists lie by making this claim? Is that even remotely right?

Comment #144530

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 16, 2006 9:17 PM (e)

Lenny, why do you have no regard for anybody here but yourself?

Michael, just answer my goddamn questions. Until you do, there’s simply no point in talking with you. (shrug)

(1) If, as AiG keeps yammering, mutations only produce a LOSS of genetic information, then, uh, how did the number of human alleles INCREASE from a maximum of 8 to over 400? (or, in creationist math, is 400 a LOSS from 8?)

(2) where can I see a natural mutation rate high enough to produce 400 beneficial mutations in the sapce of 4-6,000 years?

(3) what mechanism allows these mutations to appear ONLY in the germ cells, and not in the somatic cells where they would kill the human race with cancers?

(4) what exactly is the genetic barrier between “created kinds”? What genetic mechanism, specifically, allows “microevolution” within a “created kind”, but prevents that “microevolution” from straying outside the “created kind”?

(5) what happened to the cities that humans were living in before the Flood — did the stones and buildings run for the high ground too? Oh, and what about the people who died before the Flood happened — did the fleeing people stop long enough to dig up all the buried corpses of their ancestors and carry them to the high ground, too?

(6) why is the modern leatherback turtle found ONLY in the top layers of the geological column, and NOT in the middle or lower layers —- after all, it (1) lives in the open sea, (2) sinks like a rock when it’s dead, and (3) can’t crawl on land, so by every one of the idiotic “hydraulic sorting” “explanations” I’ve seen from YECs, they should be at the very BOTTOM of the fossil column. Why aren’t they?

(7) And I’d very much like to hear how the willow trees managed to outrun the velociraptors to the top of the geological column ……?

Comment #144531

Posted by Wayne E Francis on November 16, 2006 9:19 PM (e)

Comment # 144406

Dr. Michael Martin wrote:

Comment #144406
Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 6:06 PM (e)
Why do you have to commit the genetic fallacy of, “well, he’s a YEC, therefore, anything he says is wrong?” This is an ancient one. Can’t you come up with something more coherent and intelligent of your own to debunk my position? I’m copying and pasting, I invite you to do the same. Check out the facts sometime, see how much evidence you can come up with to combat my position. I’m definitely not afraid, been there, done that, over it :). And yes, I work for AIG.
Dr. Michael Martin

It is not polite to cut and paste vast tracts like that. Provide links by all means. Put it into your own words if you feel it is so important. But what you are doing is plagiarism. Did you do this when you got your “PHD” or like the sudden reduction in mutation rates you are claiming did it just suddenly change with out any reason?

This isn’t the first time you’ve been asked not to bulk copy and paste. But people like you have never been ones to care about politeness and standards in society.

Comment #144532

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 16, 2006 9:20 PM (e)

Okay, by this comment, you mean Real Scientists are Evolutionists only.

strawman.

Comment #144533

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 9:21 PM (e)

I did attack your arguments and you just hand waved it away saying that it supports the YEC position.

Do you get under our skin? About as much as some stranger yelling “THE SUN IS PURPLE “ over and over in a mall would when you are shopping.

Why don’t you just go “La la la la NOT LISTENING la la la” any time someone provides a refutation to one of your claims. It would end up being as relevant as the HUGE cut and pastes you do from AiG and us from skipping over dribble that many of us have read before.

Nope, it’d be nice if you had refuted my claims. But….for one…I honestly have to ask, what claims are you refuting of mine, when you state that you do refute them, and how do you refute them. To me, this tells me you have not refuted the claim.

To the Hume fanatic, (and by the way, self defeating people are the ones who are insane, since they follow smoke and mirrors) Hume’s exact words are, “All Knowledge is Derived Through Sense or Relfection on Ideas.” In other words, as Ravi Zechariah states, “Hume’s contention that, in order to be meaningful, all statements should either be a relation to ideas, i.e., mathematical or quantity, or lese should be of experimental reasoning based on questions of facts is itself based neither on mathematical fact nor on experimentally established fact. Therefore, his very definition of a meaningful statement is meaningless.” (Zacharias, CMLWG, 200).

Comment #144534

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 9:24 PM (e)

Okay, by this comment, you mean Real Scientists are Evolutionists only.

strawman.

Okay, so its okay for me to state that Creationists are Scientists as well then :). Glad we can agree on that.

Comment #144535

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 9:25 PM (e)

Ask any Creation Scientist if what is necessarily true is necessarily true would be appropriate to say okay to. Guarantee not one will deny that claim. Who’s the nut then?

Comment #144536

Posted by A Mathematicsician on November 16, 2006 9:25 PM (e)

Hello friends I am genuine mathematicican and I bring you mathematical proof that transfinite ordinal numbers are just an atheistic conspiracy to lure men away from god

I did my PHD dissertation on “numbers” at Harvard College

Heck, I can even define what an “integer” is if you give me ten seconds with Google! Surely that is enough to convince you all that I am a cutting-edge mathehematician!

If you wish to ask me any questions I will respond with HARDCORE FACTS but only if you email me at [Enable javascript to see this email address.]

Otherwise here is 25 pages of stuff I cut and pasted from the premier anti-ordinal site on the intarweb:

DUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH(ad nauseam)

Comment #144537

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 9:31 PM (e)

Hume and Locke were also the first to claim that our minds were a Tabula Rasa, which has demonstratively been proven false through Science and Logic, as well as the Principle of Consciousness which states that the mind is conscious of consciousness at all times. Henceforth, we could never learn through a Tabula Rasa. No one would ever know anything. Everything would be A Priori assumed, but then, how can one not escape reason we must ask?

Comment #144539

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 9:33 PM (e)

To the Mathematician…quit your nonsense. You think life is a game? Well, obviously this isn’t lived out consistently when a family member dies, is it?

Comment #144540

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 16, 2006 9:36 PM (e)

it is just as readily obvious that poor Mikey suffers the same delusional state of being.

It’s not his fault — he’s possessed by a demon. His job is to make all Christians look silly, stupid, medieval, and pig-ignorant. I mean come on, he seriously thinks that if you want to be a Christian, you have to believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old (snicker) and that fossils come from Noah’s Flood (giggle). I have no objection to being a Christian. I do, however, have objections to being an idiot.

If people like Doc are going to be in Heaven, I’d very much prefer to be in Hell. The mere THOUGHT of spending eternity with an arrogant asshole like him is enough to make my stomach do backflips. Geez.

Comment #144541

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 16, 2006 9:37 PM (e)

Hey Doc, why oh why why why won’t you just answer my goddamn questions?

Why why why?

Comment #144542

Posted by minimalist on November 16, 2006 9:38 PM (e)

Mr Mikey wrote:

You think life is a game?

No, I think you’re dumber than a bag of hair.

Did you just threaten my family, or was that just one of your patented out-of-left-field Transmissions From Planet Batsh*t?

Comment #144546

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 9:45 PM (e)

Do you realize once again that Materialism is impossible to exist as the one true Philosophically default position?

Comment #144548

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 9:50 PM (e)

No, I think you’re dumber than a bag of hair.

Did you just threaten my family, or was that just one of your patented out-of-left-field Transmissions From Planet Batsh*t?

Well, obviously you’re proving my point here :). But no, I am not threatening your family, just trying to establish a point is all. The point being that we all have inherent morals. Now, where did these morals come from? This is the next question. An objective set of morals is only explainable through a Creator by the way.

Comment #144549

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 9:57 PM (e)

Minimalism is refuted very easily by the way. It still uses the Corresponding theory of truth. The minimalist position simply does not prevent itself from utilizing the Correspondence Theory of Truth, and as such, it demonstrates the necessity of the Correspondence Theory of Truth in itself. Which is why it epistomizes itself in fact. Read: Is this arrogant and insulting “intellectual” really so blind or ignorant that he cannot see that he is epitomising the minimalist position, and not refuting it. Minimalists say precisely that “the narrative cannot be taken at face value for the recovery of ancient Israelite history”, and precisely that the Jewish scriptures are indeed only valid “when a variety of sources from the ancient Near East” confirms them. Quite frankly, there is only one conclusion from this astonishing example of McGill and Cornell “scholarly” debate. The man is so emotionally entangled in an irrational hatred that he has lost his marbles. Is it the function of prestigious universities and their publications to give a platform for such manic hate and unreason? http://www.askwhy.co.uk/judaism/0100Scriptures.h…

Comment #144554

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 10:10 PM (e)

Think about it. Axiomatic truth is the only truth possible. Wittgenstein’s Net proves this by the way.

I think a study in Axiology, i.e. the Science of Morality and Values would do one good here.

Comment #144556

Posted by Richard Simons on November 16, 2006 10:15 PM (e)

MM said:

But I can assure you, any question you’ve got, I can answer with hardcore facts. ANY question.

So:
If the zebras, wild asses, the donkey and the horse are all the same horse kind, which one was on the ark? Presumably if all mutations result in a loss of information, you can measure the amount of information in each species and the one with the most will be the one that was on the ark. Is this how you figure it out?

Also let’s see you have a stab at Lenny’s questions.

Comment #144557

Posted by minimalist on November 16, 2006 10:17 PM (e)

So have you dropped all pretense of being a “geneticist” then and are going for the “failed philosophy major” angle?

Or are you ever going to put that “PHD dissertation on genetics” (snicker) to work and answer Lenny’s questions?

Comment #144559

Posted by Wayne E Francis on November 16, 2006 10:22 PM (e)

Comment # 144500

Dr. Michael Martin wrote:

Comment #144500
Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 8:33 PM (e)
No, one is an inductive claim about the situation, in which case I’m asking, where have we observed this in nature. The other is a logical claim that states, No, this is logically impossible to occur. So, in effect, I have dodged the self refutation here.

If you are referring to the Chihuahua’s issue you won’t see it in nature. You will see it in similar studies on various species around the world like the long term study of domestication of Vulpes Vulpes in Russia where not only did they breed red foxes into breed like domesticated dogs but back to the wild phenotype. You have dodge nothing my friend.

That said we do see in nature many dogs return to the wild phenotype when return to a natural setting. This, of course, happens over many generations but the dogs gradually get more aggressive, larger brains, their coats loose the distinctive colours and patterns etc.

Your lack of knowledge in the fields you spout $#!t about doesn’t really effect the field. All it does is show to those that do follow said fields is that you like to make false claims about things you know SFA about.

Comment #144563

Posted by Wayne E Francis on November 16, 2006 10:25 PM (e)

Comment # 144505

Sir_Toejam wrote:

Comment #144505
Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 16, 2006 8:37 PM (e)
wayne:
the only consistent way i have found to check and see if your post made it through is to put a letter in the comment box, and then hit the “preview” button.
that should show any posts that appear “invisible” under normal circumstances.
*sigh*

Thanks I’ll try that …. I even opened PT in both IE and FF and still didn’t see it but I was still weary :)

Comment #144564

Posted by GuyeFaux on November 16, 2006 10:28 PM (e)

Pick a question. Quote it. Anwswer it.

Comment #144565

Posted by Wayne E Francis on November 16, 2006 10:30 PM (e)

Comment # 144513

Dr. Michael Martin wrote:

Comment #144513
Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 8:45 PM (e)
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/316…
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/561…
For the one talking about Genetics, I mentioned, PLEASE SEND ME AN E-MAIL AT [Enable javascript to see this email address.]! You are also playing a logical fallacy of one-sidedness. You are simply cardstacking here.
This is all I can provide you for now.

Proof he has a PHD from Yale. How else would he get a email like [Enable javascript to see this email address.]

*rolls eyes*

Comment #144567

Posted by Wayne E Francis on November 16, 2006 10:38 PM (e)

Comment # 144521

Dr. Michael Martin wrote:

Comment #144521
Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 9:02 PM (e)
Blah blah blah blah
Why do you capitalize these words?
Is English even your first language?
Just askin’.

We capitalize words when they are a proper noun or they are the first word in a sentence. You seem to like to capitalise words in the middle of a sentence for no reason.

When I see someone write “I had a Peanut Butter Sandwich today for lunch.” I have to ask why they feel the need to capitalize “Peanut Butter Sandwich”.

Comment #144569

Posted by Henry J on November 16, 2006 10:42 PM (e)

Sir_Toejam,

Re “the only consistent way i have found to check and see if your post made it through is to put a letter in the comment box, and then hit the “preview” button.”

I’ve noticed that you don’t even need to put a letter - just clicking the button suffices.

=========================

Hey A Mathematicsician -

Are there any cardinal numbers between aleph-null and the cardinal number of the set of real numbers? ;)

=========================

Lenny,

Re “Why why why?”

Because, Because, Because! That’s why! (Just thought I’d try to help out here. :) )

Henry

Comment #144573

Posted by MarkP on November 16, 2006 10:54 PM (e)

Thank you gentlemen. I have laughed til I cried.

I once had an exchange with someone like our UnDoc Martin here. He wanted to debate me on the existence of God, went to his trusty Defending God website, and cutted and pasted aplenty, and with much vigor and confidence.

Until I refuted every one of them.

He obviously was surprised, and proceeded to sputter and spurt a wide array of nonsense, not in Martin’s league, but they definitely play the same sport. In particular:

1) They confuse “ad hominem” attacks with plain ol’ name callin’, and trust me, you will never make anyone like that understand the difference.

2) They describe any lengthy back and forth as “arguing in circles”, especially the variety that would more accurately be described as “being backed into a corner”. They also can’t ever connect the conversation’s circularity with their stubborn refusal to answer direct questions, and logically deal with the answers to their’s.

3) They seem incapable of debating without ascribing some sort of psychological pathology to their opposition, and fire out shit like “you seem like you think life is meaningless” out of thin air.

There are others, but I’m too tired to go through them. And I do in all seriousness hope something can be done to keep someone like them from wasting so much bandwidth. You all could have made him look as foolish as any audience peeking in would need, with 1/4 the space.

And thank you Dr. Loon. There is no better champion of science and reason than those who oppose it publicly and irrationally.

Comment #144576

Posted by A Mathematicsician on November 16, 2006 10:59 PM (e)

Henry J wrote:

Are there any cardinal numbers between aleph-null and the cardinal number of the set of real numbers? ;)

I know the game you are playing, you can’t fool me! Email me at [Enable javascript to see this email address.] if you really want the answer and some hardcore facts!

Here is a sneak preview though: 2+2=5! Are you impressed with my intellect now?

But this is just like what Kierkegaard was saying, submission to God requires a “teleological suspension of the ethical”. In other words, give up your horrible secular ethics (like “honesty”) and submit to God: lie, lie, lie!

Comment #144577

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 16, 2006 11:04 PM (e)

To the Mathematician…quit your nonsense. You think life is a game? Well, obviously this isn’t lived out consistently when a family member dies, is it?

ahh, doc fubar gives us a clue as to where his break from reality started.

so tell us, which family member was it whose death drove you over the edge, doc?

You wouldn’t be the first.

again, I hearken back to John Davison, who apparently lost a close family member in the mid 80’s, started drinking heavily, and then became a creationist.

yes, it’s torture, I know, but really, you leave so little option to even begin a rational conversation.

Comment #144578

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 16, 2006 11:10 PM (e)

If people like Doc are going to be in Heaven, I’d very much prefer to be in Hell.

somehow i got assigned to running the endless Mystery Science Theater 3000 marathon when I get there. I have some doozies lined up… Crawling Eye, Day of the Triffids, the original Blob…

it’s up to you to decide if that’s endless bliss or endless torture.

bring lots of homebrew, as i hear it gets hot there.

Comment #144579

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 16, 2006 11:14 PM (e)

And thank you Dr. Loon. There is no better champion of science and reason than those who oppose it publicly and irrationally.

If you enjoyed that, you REALLY would enjoy the thread from AFDave I linked to earlier over at the ATBC area.

that guy’s even more intractable (though usually more coherent) than Doc Fubar.

400 pages of fine, fine humor.

Comment #144580

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 16, 2006 11:16 PM (e)

earlier, quotes from the looney bin wrote:

African Pygmies live in a hot area, but rarely experience strong sunshine in their dense jungle environment, yet they have dark skin.

I just can’t resist…

PYGMIES AND DWARVES!!!!!

sorry.

:p

Comment #144582

Posted by Coin on November 16, 2006 11:30 PM (e)

MarkP wrote:

And I do in all seriousness hope something can be done to keep someone like them from wasting so much bandwidth. You all could have made him look as foolish as any audience peeking in would need, with 1/4 the space.

I propose the creation of a compression algorithm specifically designed to compress net.kook rambling. Net.kook rambling is highly regular, and contains a large amount of redundancy because so much of it is copied and pasted from web pages or based on proof through repetition. This makes it a prime candidate for compression.

The only downside is that some net.kooks may prove to produce incompressible output because so much of their ranting is random; whether any given kook is a good candidate for our compression algorithm will likely be tied to the ratio of non sequiturs to mantras within their text. (This, of course, ceases to be a problem if we decide to consider lossy compression acceptable.)

Comment #144614

Posted by Darth Robo on November 17, 2006 6:53 AM (e)

Jesus, what the hell happened in this thread? I vote Doc Fubar, worst troll ever.

Lenny, would I be able to borrow your paragraph about Noah’s big boat as a cut & paste? I recently debated some fundie at the Dawkins forum arguing FOR the Ark and that wee comment would be a nice blow to him. :)

I mean, ANOTHER nice blow.

Comment #144616

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 7:18 AM (e)

Wow, we’ve been getting some attention here I see :). Not bad out of a guy who’s an “incredibly stupid idiot” with a PHD eh?

Comment #144624

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 7:23 AM (e)

So have you dropped all pretense of being a “geneticist” then and are going for the “failed philosophy major” angle?

Well, if you noticed, I also have a Masters degree in Theology from Talbot Seminary. You may remember this as the very same school that Josh McDowell attended.

Or are you ever going to put that “PHD dissertation on genetics” (snicker) to work and answer Lenny’s questions?

I have answered Lenny’s questions about 8 times. How many times do I need to give the same answer over and over again before you get the big picture here? CMI has already addressed Lenny Flanks questions (the same exact ones I might add), and I have posted their responses accordingly.

Comment #144625

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 7:26 AM (e)

You guys love shifting the burden of proof don’t you? Yeah, I think David Hume was good at doing that too by the way :).

Comment #144626

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 17, 2006 7:38 AM (e)

CMI has already addressed Lenny Flanks questions (the same exact ones I might add), and I have posted their responses accordingly.

learn how to quote, you dumbass. It’s so bloody irritating that someone who claims a graduate degree from Yale can’t even manage to learn how to figure out something that is LITERALLY given explicit instructions right at the top of each comment box.

sad.

now, onto your “answers”

the problem is, moron, that these aren’t YOUR answers. the drivel you responded with is old creationist talking points from ages ago (all refuted btw), and does not demonstrate one iota of your own thinking on the issues at hand.

this is why we think you a disingenuous, batshit insane, mofo.

get it?

you can’t answer ONE question directly using your own knowledge. even simple questions an undergrad in biology could answer about genetics.

pathetic.

Is this what you do for fun? post the fact that you are completely clueless over and over again?

and you don’t think that’s completely insane?

yikes.

Comment #144630

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 7:52 AM (e)

Got Ad Hominems?

the problem is, moron, that these aren’t YOUR answers. the drivel you responded with is old creationist talking points from ages ago (all refuted btw), and does not demonstrate one iota of your own thinking on the issues at hand.

Wait….I’m using a valid appeal to authority within a sister organization of AIG, this should be representative of me enough. And if its been refuted…well by all means, you should easily be able to point out this refutation now, shouldn’t you?

Comment #144631

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 7:53 AM (e)

Got Ad Hominems?

the problem is, moron, that these aren’t YOUR answers. the drivel you responded with is old creationist talking points from ages ago (all refuted btw), and does not demonstrate one iota of your own thinking on the issues at hand.

Wait….I’m using a valid appeal to authority within a sister organization of AIG, this should be representative of me enough. And if its been refuted…well by all means, you should easily be able to point out this refutation now, shouldn’t you? I’ll be happy to address this alleged “refutation” if you so desire. But don’t push off the burden of proof on me here. I’ve done my due diligence here, its time for you to give me some answers.

Just remember guys: Thomas Chandler Haliburton’s comment may be applicable here. He said, ‘When a man is wrong and won’t admit it, he always gets angry.’ ;)

Comment #144632

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 17, 2006 7:58 AM (e)

I’m using a valid appeal to authority within a sister organization of AIG

hey, you’re the one with the PhD in genetics. the guys at AIG couldn’t punch their way out of a paper bag with the word “genetics” written on it in pencil.

YOU should be the valid authority on the issue, yet you refer to AIG???

again, you think that’s not evidence of your own insanity?

Comment #144633

Posted by Raging Bee on November 17, 2006 8:00 AM (e)

Let’s see…over 300 posts, most of them in the last 48 hrs, and mostly from a creationist spewing an almost random barrage of non-sequiturs and “clearly you’ve never heard of this guy named Jesus” talking-points. I think we’re seeing the next phase of the ongoing creationist con-game: creationist spam.

What’s next? Emails with titles like “[Enable javascript to see this email address.] yr P3n1s with pr0ven ID $cience”?

Comment #144634

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 17, 2006 8:04 AM (e)

as to refutations, we’ve been down this road before, Dr. Fubar.

you refused to gander at the links we posted to the index of creationist claims, where all of the drivel put out by AIG is indexed, categorized, and easily refuted en masse.

did you need me to post the link again?

or will you do as you did before and claim all the evidence is “biased and evil”?

you yourself have made no specific claims, except for constant referals to AIG.

one would think someone with a degree in genetics would have published something wrt to his thinking on these issues, at least in your thesis at Yale, right?

at this point, there is nobody here who thinks you aren’t compeletely nutters, so prove you’re not.

you said YOU would answer any question posed to you, and yet whenever one is, you duck and dodge and kowtow to AIG or CMI.

so, you have no real answers yourself, do you?

or is that a question you also can’t answer without checking with AIG first?

ROFLMAO.

Comment #144635

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 17, 2006 8:07 AM (e)

‘When a man is wrong and won’t admit it, he always gets angry.’

then you should be steaming mad by this point, and i mean in the angry way, not in the mad-as-a-hatter way you exhibit as your normal persona.

Comment #144636

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 8:11 AM (e)

A final question is, why should logic work at all? Not only can unbelievers not make a sound case against Christianity, but an atheistic world-view attacks the very basis of reasoning itself. This was realised by the famous Communist evolutionist biologist, J.B.S. Haldane:

‘If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true … and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.’33

Comment #144637

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 8:13 AM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #144638

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 8:15 AM (e)

The famous Marxist paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould claimed that the mind was an illusion produced by the brain.36 So why should we trust anything Gould says, if his thoughts are illusions?

Comment #144639

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 8:16 AM (e)

The famous Marxist paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould claimed that the mind was an illusion produced by the brain.36 So why should we trust anything Gould says, if his thoughts are illusions?

Ever heard Truth is perception? If all truth is perception, and this is objectively true, then all truth is not perception, and this is objectively false.
What a golden oldy we’ve got here guys. Excellent question I might add as well.

Comment #144641

Posted by Richard Simons on November 17, 2006 8:27 AM (e)

MM said:

But I can assure you, any question you’ve got, I can answer with hardcore facts. ANY question.

So why don’t you? :
If the zebras, wild asses, the donkey and the horse are all the same horse kind, which one was on the ark? Presumably if all mutations result in a loss of information, you can measure the amount of information in each species and the one with the most will be the one that was on the ark. Is this how you figure it out?

Also let’s see you have a stab at Lenny’s questions.

BTW why do you stress the ‘Doctor’ bit? I was tickled by the ‘Yale’ part of your e-mail address too. It may impress the rubes but it carries little weight here, where probably half the people writing have a PhD. I’ve noticed that, of my colleagues, the only ones who habitually use ‘Doctor’ are those who have an unjustifiably high opinion of their intellectual capacity.

Comment #144642

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 17, 2006 8:33 AM (e)

I’ve noticed that, of my colleagues, the only ones who habitually use ‘Doctor’ are those who have an unjustifiably high opinion of their intellectual capacity.

..or take it all tongue in cheek, like Lenny.

Comment #144643

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 8:34 AM (e)

It is not polite to cut and paste vast tracts like that. Provide links by all means. Put it into your own words if you feel it is so important. But what you are doing is plagiarism. Did you do this when you got your “PHD” or like the sudden reduction in mutation rates you are claiming did it just suddenly change with out any reason?

My response:

No, Plagiarism is when I do not cite my material or give credit to the author. All of my material here has either come from True Origin or Creation on the Web (credit given to the author). I am mostly cutting and pasting because this way, I’m assured that you will read the material. I have already told you my e-mail address. If you have serious questions that you want me to put my personal time into answering, e-mail me. It would be wise to learn what an accusation is before you assert it here though. What I am actually doing, through the use of correct terminology here, is appealing to authority. This is perfectly legitimate so long as I do not site Michael Jordan, an expert in Basketball, as a source for Evolution or something bizarrely insane like siting a Jesus myth supporter with pseudoscholarship (i.e. G.A. Wells, Earl Doherty, and anyone mentioned on Wikipedia’s site as a Jesus myth supporter) as an expert in Biblical authority. On the other hand, siting Dr. Jonathan Safarti in the area of Creation Science is perfectly legitimate.

Comment #144644

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 17, 2006 8:41 AM (e)

This is perfectly legitimate so long as I do not site Michael Jordan, an expert in Basketball, as a source for Evolution

but, as a supposed expert on genetics, that is exactly what you ARE doing, Dr. Fubar.

you refered to sources who’s authority on genomic evolution, and genetics in general, is very much equivalent to referring us to the opinions of Mr. Jordan on the same issues.

we know you are simply unable at this point of your life of seeing that for yourself, but then that’s why you’re batshit insane.

Comment #144645

Posted by Richard Simons on November 17, 2006 8:47 AM (e)

… Gould claimed that the mind was an illusion produced by the brain.36 So why should . .

So what’s with the 36 in the middle? Oh! I get it. You’ve cut and pasted from Safarti at Creation Ministries International (or did he just copy it from Answers in Genesis?) without attribution. What does he think of you stealing his writings? BTW in real academic circles, publishing the same thing in multiple locations without clearly indicating what you’ve done is considered extremely bad form.

Comment #144651

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 9:02 AM (e)

If the zebras, wild asses, the donkey and the horse are all the same horse kind, which one was on the ark? Presumably if all mutations result in a loss of information, you can measure the amount of information in each species and the one with the most will be the one that was on the ark. Is this how you figure it out?

Actually, the source we would have to go back to is the Bible. I am not really sure we can accurately give an answer to this from the Historical context of the Bible, common sense or: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/176…

Most of our answers regarding Speciation concerns are found here: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/303…

Oh, and to the question asked regarding Alleles to Lenny Flank, think of it like this. The first beings that God created were Adam and Eve, correct? Does this mean that other humans were not created in the process? No, it does not clarify this. All we know is that the first were Adam and Eve. The rest is a matter of opinion. So Lenny’s argument really does nothing to the Creation Science perspective based around a solid Christian foundation.

Now, if we’d like to take this to a more secular level, what we now state is that we are dealing with specified complexity, in which no new fuctions have arisen for these alleles. The molecule in question actually does have a part that is relatively fixed or invariant, so that this part is what directly affects function (i.e. oxygen binding and release). Now those variations that do not cause an obvious disease seem to take place in less critical portions. Further, I think the question demonstrates an ignorance to genetics in the first place. Every person has two copies of their DNA. The 2 alleles thing really makes no sense, because of recombinations, which means that each human genome was 30,000 genes or 60,000 alleles. Now, if DNA works like Lenny Flank demonstrates, then every person need look the same. But here again, Lenny Flank is assuming common ancestry from the get go, as he assumes that all alleles must be derived from two people, but this is not necessarily the case at all. If Genetics works like this, then humans would look identically the same. So in essence, you’re attacking a strawman of our position (fire away there Lenny). I think he’s into a more mystified non-exegetical form of what the Bible actually proclaims here.

Comment #144652

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 9:06 AM (e)

Richard Simons,
That doesn’t really matter, because in essence, the thing thats important is that I’m giving the person who gave the quote (Stephen Jay Gould) the credit for making the claim. Thats good enough in itself in this case. However, if you wish for me to retrieve where I got the quote, its here: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/186…

Comment #144653

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 9:15 AM (e)

Ignorance spreads lies toejam. Look in the mirror sometime.

BTW why do you stress the ‘Doctor’ bit? I was tickled by the ‘Yale’ part of your e-mail address too. It may impress the rubes but it carries little weight here, where probably half the people writing have a PhD. I’ve noticed that, of my colleagues, the only ones who habitually use ‘Doctor’ are those who have an unjustifiably high opinion of their intellectual capacity.

Well, actually…its because I’m a doctor. I like to make my credentials known as a source, just to let everybody know at least where my experience lies in the area of Science, and I feel this is simply upholding intellectual honesty with others. In like manner, when I am a dunce on a topic, I will be sure to let someone either a) know about it or b) not participate in the discussion at all. In this respect, humility is an important aspect. Know what you do know, shut up about what you don’t know. By all means however, it has nothing to do with the opinion I hold of myself. Its just to at least let everyone know what my credentials are. I do like to be referred to as Dr. Martin, but thats only because that the distinguishment that comes along with the doctorate itself is due the fact that its an incredibly prestigious achievement, and very difficult in fact to earn. But if people don’t call me Dr. Martin, heck…I don’t really mind too much. I’m actually rather laid back. Its simply a preference of mine and has no further bearing than that. Thanks for asking however :). Call me Michael if you wish.

Comment #144654

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 17, 2006 9:15 AM (e)

All we know is that the first were Adam and Eve. The rest is a matter of opinion. So Lenny’s argument really does nothing to the Creation Science perspective based around a solid Christian foundation.

Lenny was more likely thinking “ahead” to Noah and his incestuous relationships with his family members after the flood, rather than the mythical adam and steve.

quite a genetic bottleneck you would have to account for there, eh, doc?

Bat-shit-insane.

Comment #144655

Posted by Raging Bee on November 17, 2006 9:18 AM (e)

“Doc” Martin dodged thusly:

I have already told you my e-mail address. If you have serious questions that you want me to put my personal time into answering, e-mail me.

You’ve already put LOTS of personal time into posting hundreds of nonsensical non-sequiturs here, but now you won’t put personal time into answering serious questions on this blog, which is where the questions have been asked. But you’re quite willing to put personal time into answering serious questions in private emails. Why the distinction? Don’t you want all of us God-haters to know you HAVE answers to our questions? Or are you trying to pretend you’ve answered the questions elsewhere, without proving anything to anyone where we can see it?

Or…let me guess…you can’t answer the questions in public without exposing yourself to PERSECUTION by the DARWINIST ESTABLISHMENT, right? You’re only clinging to life and liberty by pretending to be a clueless wingnut, and if your cover is blown, the Antichrist will know where to send the Black Helicopters?

Comment #144656

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 9:24 AM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #144657

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 9:29 AM (e)

Sorry guys, didn’t realize you wanted it to be solely concerned with EVOLUTIONISM GENETICS. Why if thats what you’re looking for, we might as well try to find an Evolutionist who agrees with Creation Scientist, right? That would make a whole lot of sense. For that matter, let me find a Creation Scientist who agrees with Evolution. Your logic here is plain silly.

If you wish to talk about non-sequitors, instead of creating your sweeping generalization of “all of your posts have been non-sequitors” why not point these out to me, so I may correct these “nonsequitors” in the future. Mind you, two wrongs don’t make a right here. For you to refer to me as you are is simply more ad hominem related material, and is simply goofy bigotry.

Comment #144658

Posted by Richard Simons on November 17, 2006 9:32 AM (e)

That doesn’t really matter, because in essence, the thing thats important is that I’m giving the person who gave the quote (Stephen Jay Gould) the credit for making the claim. Thats good enough in itself in this case.

No it isn’t. You stole from Safarti’s writings. You also failed to give a reference to Gould’s writings so we could check that you hadn’t put words in his mouth (after all, if you are not above stealing, you are probably also not above lying).

Your ‘answer’ about the horses failed to address the question. All I gathered from it was that if the answer is not in the Bible it is unknowable.

In your response to Lenny’s questions (presumably his first, about alleles increasing from 8 to over 400), you referred to Adam and Eve. The crucial part is not Adam and Eve, but the genetic bottleneck resulting from the flood.

You referred to people as having about 30,000 genes or 60,000 alleles. Do you actually know what an allele is? The way you’ve expressed it suggests you do not.

Comment #144659

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 9:36 AM (e)

THIS IS WHY IT IS REAL AND NOT SUPERSTITION…YOU NEED TO READ EVERYTHING THERE. THIS BOOK IS DIFFERENT FROM ALL OF THE REST. IT SAYS IT IS FROM GOD AND OVER AND OVER PROVES THAT IT IS IN REALITY.

God created, Man fell, Christ came, died, was buried, and rose three days later - this fact in history changed the world drastically in such a short time period. But you do not want to hear that, do you.

The facts of Christ’s mission were foretold in over 100 specific prophecies in the Old Testament and he came and fulfilled them all…but that does not matter to you and prove to you that God’s Word is infallible and that Christ is truth…but you find any and every excuse to run away from Him. May God open your eyes, and your ears, raise you from spiritual death, make you to be able to walk, heal you in spirit.

Craig, I appreciate your passion for serving Christ, and as it is unjustly being disacknowledged here, I have to admit, with all honesty, I think you’re jumping ahead here and creating a hasty generalization. We need to argue from our opponent’s presuppositions as the laws of logic firmly dictate we do so, and that we must have an answer for everybody. I believe in a forum such as this, the material relevant to the matter is that of Science. Though your passion is in the right direction, I’d recommend that you first touch up on some Science before coming to this forum. If you e-mail me at [Enable javascript to see this email address.] I will be happy to provide you some material. Keep digging there my man, but just remember, don’t shove the Scripture down people’s throats unless it is warranted. The Scripture is final authority in all matters, but what good is the final authority when it is not properly understood in its proper light?

God bless,

Dr. Michael Martin
AIG Ministries

Comment #144660

Posted by fnxtr on November 17, 2006 9:41 AM (e)

That’s not self-defeating, that’s just a conundrum. Life’s full of ‘em. Suck it up, princess.

How do you think your mechanic fixes your car, divine revelation?

Duh.

Comment #144661

Posted by minimalist on November 17, 2006 9:45 AM (e)

Mr. Mike wrote:

Sorry guys, didn’t realize you wanted it to be solely concerned with EVOLUTIONISM GENETICS.

HAHAHAHA oh man, you are a prize. You swan in here claiming to have a PhD in genetics and now act all huffy because Lenny asks you a few easy questions about genetics.

We ARE asking you about “creation genetics” (as if there were such a thing), dope. Creationists should surely have something very specific and technical to say about the incredibly fast rate of mutation, or about the genetic mechanisms that present barriers to “macroevolution”.

Yet all you do is wave your hands, talk in generalities or irrelevancies, and cut-‘n’-paste from sites just as clueless as yourself.

You don’t evince even the tiniest grasp of terminology. Not even at a high school level. You cannot discuss genetics at any level.

Yet you still pathetically insist you have an advanced degree in genetics. You are not fooling anybody, except maybe yourself, nuttykins. Why do this to yourself?

Comment #144662

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 9:47 AM (e)

No it isn’t. You stole from Safarti’s writings. You also failed to give a reference to Gould’s writings so we could check that you hadn’t put words in his mouth (after all, if you are not above stealing, you are probably also not above lying). No I obviously did not need to, since you demonstrate that you know where I got the source from :). So if its that apparent, its not necessary for me to really source the material is it? (or do I still need to play by the Materialistic Bigotrous Rules). Ah, Gould’s material is from his Gould, S.J., The Darwinian Revolution in Thought. Lecture, June 6, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, 1990. Return to text. I was simply trying to make a point about what Gould stated, but if you really wish to take this more seriously than the fact that I was just demonstrating the falsehood of Materialism.

Your ‘answer’ about the horses failed to address the question. All I gathered from it was that if the answer is not in the Bible it is unknowable.

In your response to Lenny’s questions (presumably his first, about alleles increasing from 8 to over 400), you referred to Adam and Eve. The crucial part is not Adam and Eve, but the genetic bottleneck resulting from the flood. Again, irrelevant because how many people were taken onto the ark? Do we actually know? Noah and his family? How many people was that?

You referred to people as having about 30,000 genes or 60,000 alleles. Do you actually know what an allele is? The way you’ve expressed it suggests you do not.

Hmm, well, I give a definition of an allele in context as its relation to genes is concerned, therefore it follows I know what an allele is.

If we wish to pursue this further, an allele is simply an alternative form to a genetic locus (specific position) or in greater detail, it is any of two or more alternative forms of a gene that occupy the same locus (specific position) on a specific chromosome. I think thats a good enough description of what an allele in fact is.

Comment #144663

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 9:53 AM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #144665

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 10:03 AM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #144666

Posted by Raging Bee on November 17, 2006 10:04 AM (e)

May God open your eyes, and your ears, raise you from spiritual death, make you to be able to walk, heal you in spirit.

I think God should do you first, since you seem to need it a LOT more than we do. As I said before, many of us are Christians, and even the Pagans and atheists among us are more familiar with the words of Jesus, and the marvels of all Creation, than you are. We’ve had more time to study all this. Tend to your own path, and your own vision, and don’t worry your empty little head about us – we’re already on the case, so to speak, and we have better guides than you.

Comment #144669

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 10:06 AM (e)

Style over content right guys? Whats “in the new today?” Lets “be cool and party all day long” right guys? Lets…”hang 10 and be aight yo.” I guess if I were trying to be cool and trendy, this would impress you? Right, like Christians can’t be cool and trendy. Christians are probably the “coolest” people you’d ever want to know, and thats the sad truth here because you don’t seem willing to know this.

Comment #144672

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 10:08 AM (e)

HAHAHAHA oh man, you are a prize. You swan in here claiming to have a PhD in genetics and now act all huffy because Lenny asks you a few easy questions about genetics. Me: I’ve answered his bickering, thank you very much.

We ARE asking you about “creation genetics” (as if there were such a thing), dope. Creationists should surely have something very specific and technical to say about the incredibly fast rate of mutation, or about the genetic mechanisms that present barriers to “macroevolution”. Me: You’re missing my point. The author confused the fact that I am supporting my position with Creation Science material, and therefore this must mean it is not Genetically based because in his own words, “You are doing an invalid appeal to authority because you site authors who do not appeal to Evolutionistic Genetics.” What do you think this might imply? I’ll give you a hint, can we say…one sided argument? I then proceed to demonstrate his faulty logic in this area.

Yet all you do is wave your hands, talk in generalities or irrelevancies, and cut-‘n’-paste from sites just as clueless as yourself. Me: Would you please be so kind as to show me where I’m waving my hands and talking in generalities? I’m being very specific here, and I would expect the same out of you. All you want me to do is side with Evolution and argue from Evolutionistic terminology, which is mind you as my studies have indicated EXTREMELY FLAWED IN ITS INTERPRETATION! Well thats not going to happen. I’m not an Evolutionist, I’m a Young Earth Creation Scientist. If you wish to use subjective standards to determine the quality of the work you are using here, then you’re simply demonstrating intellectual vacuity, and its not our position that is fabricated, but rather yours. I use standard definitions from standard dictionaries, and value the dictionary’s definition over my own interpretation of the words. I would think that you’d be intellectually honest enough to do the same, but perhaps I’m just wrong about that.

You don’t evince even the tiniest grasp of terminology. Not even at a high school level. You cannot discuss genetics at any level. Me: I have a Masters degree in Theology, with a concentration in Exegetical Studies and Hermeneutics, which are both Linguistically based. Where’s yours?

Yet you still pathetically insist you have an advanced degree in genetics. You are not fooling anybody, except maybe yourself, nuttykins. Why do this to yourself? Me: Wow, speaking of nonsequitors, how on earth does this follow from your previous examples here? I guess I should expect this from a David Hume advocate who believes that there is no proof for proofs, right? This would be nonsense, since you’re using a proof to come up with this. By the way, thanks for reading my mind. I’m not fooling anybody at all, I’m glad you see this :). The fact of the matter is, I’m being 100% honest with my demonstrations in formulating my argument. I wish to see the same from the other side, but it doesn’t appear like this is happening. So much for honest Science, right guys?

Comment #144675

Posted by Richard Simons on November 17, 2006 10:12 AM (e)

I found out you had stolen from Safarti by using Google. In most reputable universities, plagiarism would get you a zero on an assignment the first time it was done, if not kicked out of the course, with a possibility with being ejected from the university on the second offence, yet you seem to think it’s no big deal.

I asked about alleles because referring to them only makes sense in the context of a particular locus (as is clear from your definition) yet you are referring to them en masse.

Comment #144678

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 10:14 AM (e)

May God open your eyes, and your ears, raise you from spiritual death, make you to be able to walk, heal you in spirit. - out of context, but thanks for the little side note. This is truly a disgrace, I’m an Exegesis major, you should be smarter than this to try to mention this when Jesus is trying to raise Lazarus from the dead. It doesn’t apply here.

Comment #144682

Posted by minimalist on November 17, 2006 10:18 AM (e)

Mikey, and all the other creobots who pretend to be scientists on anonymous forums, remind me of the retarded aliens that kidnapped Geordi LaForge in the first season of ST:TNG.

By brute force, they bully him into upgrading their ships. He does all the hard work for them, and bamboozles them with nonsensical bafflegab (which really isn’t distinguishable from Trek’s usual “science”, but that’s beside the point).

Once he’s finished, talking up how awesomely superior the ship is now, the aliens turn to each other and proudly drawl, “Now we are smarrrt!”

Similarly, Mikey and other creos immerse themselves in creationist literature (written at a remedial grade-school level). Since creationism is obviously correct, anything the creationists tell them is automagically smarter than anything an evolutionist could tell them.

So now that they are “smart”, they think they can go onto anonymous forums and impress people with their biological knowledge, and credibly impersonate a scientist.

What’s amazing is that Mikey still thinks he can fool anyone after being depantsed repeatedly for his manglings of even basic highschool-level terminology.

Comment #144688

Posted by minimalist on November 17, 2006 10:37 AM (e)

Mr. Mike wrote:

Me: I have a Masters degree in Theology, with a concentration in Exegetical Studies and Hermeneutics, which are both Linguistically based. Where’s yours?

So you’ve dropped the claim of having a PhD in genetics from Yale, then? Good, but it doesn’t really reflect well on you that you’d lie about it in the first place.

Comment #144694

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 10:42 AM (e)

Perhaps someone would like to know why I quit my job in the field of Genetics? Anybody like to know? I can give you three guesses now……

1) I lost my mind - well, seems like if I’d lost my mind, I’d be living an illusion, in which case, it’d be very easy for you to demonstrate why my conclusion is false. Instead, I give an answer, you and continue to push the burden of evidence on me after I’ve explained away your 5 billion answers. Don’t you think its about time for you to come up with some answers that AT LEAST address my points? And then, after I address your points, you assume that your addressing my points incorrectly constitutes as the solution to the problem? And you believe this against the evidence, then call me insane? Psshhht.

2). I became a Young Earth Creation Scientist and they booted me out of the field of Science - well, in part this had something to do with it. I told them that my biases would not get in the way of my job, but they kept continuously abusing me and attacking me after I became a YECS as if I was some sort of disease in the process. This was quite unruly behavior of my colleagues, and because of these problems, I choose not to give out my former colleague’s names on this matter.

3). I eventually got fed up with Evolution bigotrous behavior and their one sided nature, and moved on to bigger and better things at AIG. - Well, if you guess this one, you’re right on the mark here (as a matter of fact, it’d be like missing the shot of the fish in a barrel to miss this one). I know exactly how to deal with you guys, and unfortunately, this was the same exact type of behavior I met up with in my former years as a Genetic Scientist. (My PHD is actually in Molecular and Cell Biology, but my Doctoral Dissertation was on Genetics, in case anybody wished to know this). My conduct was virtuous and honest with the highest degree of integrity that could probably have been found when I was an Evolutionist. I was truly passionate about Darwinian Evolution. And of course you know the rest of the story as I’ve already documented here. I found something wrong with the Genetic Mutations (basically, there were not enough of them. Only 1% of them were beneficial, and I started noticing some weird things oddly enough when I was doing a research project on the Bacterial Flagellum coincidentally enough. I started to notice that there were in fact certain aspects of this thing that were in practice literally impossible to break down any further. Believe me, I tried every way I knew how, but it was a no go.) This was only one of the problems underlying Evolution that I noticed, and continued to dig in and do some research. And of course Intelligent Design was the 2nd Science I tapped into, but this simply didn’t add up, as I saw some of its parts as good, but it wasn’t enough to actually make sense of certain Sciences, and it seemed to be too much of a cross breed between Evolution and Creation Science, so obviously, I knew this had to be nonsense. Then of course, Progressive Creationism, Theistic Evolution were the next 2, but again, while appealing, the speed of light issue could not be counted on as I discovered, and I found that the YECS was the best out of the big 5 as I call them that was out there for review.

Thats my story, and I’m sticking to it.

Dr. Michael Martin

Comment #144695

Posted by minimalist on November 17, 2006 10:42 AM (e)

Mr. Mike wrote:

Me: I have a Masters degree in Theology, with a concentration in Exegetical Studies and Hermeneutics, which are both Linguistically based. Where’s yours?

So you’ve dropped the claim of having a PhD in genetics from Yale, then? Good, but it doesn’t really reflect well on you that you’d lie about it in the first place.

Comment #144696

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 10:46 AM (e)

Alright, here’s the deal. The comment I present to you is no different than someone standing up in class and saying, “Hey, Socrates said that the truth is within you. And this was a true statement.” There’s absolutely nothing intellectually dishonest about me doing this. It was no different from the little comment there. Say someone was to pass this on as not my statement verbally to someone else now? Would this be plagiarizing? No, its simply repeating what someone else said thats meant to be commonly known. No different from what I was doing there.

And regarding the en masse part, just keep in mind, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, so my explanation is adequate here. If you’d like for me to get into more technical details, I’d be glad to, but this enough is good enough to do away with Evolution as you know it, but most of the rest of the Science is just a repeat of what is already commonly known within our Scientific community anyways.

Comment #144698

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 10:49 AM (e)

So you’ve dropped the claim of having a PhD in genetics from Yale, then? Good, but it doesn’t really reflect well on you that you’d lie about it in the first place.

Lets try this again.

PHD Yale - Molecular and Cell Biology
No Genetic PHD, my doctoral dissertation was based around Genetics!

ThM Talbot University - Theology - concentration in Exegetical and Hermeneutical studies

Comment #144699

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 10:52 AM (e)

You need to get a little closer to home there on this wrong claim here. Your affirming the disjunct. I have a PHD from Yale, therefore, I can not also have a Masters degree from Talbot.

Comment #144700

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 10:53 AM (e)

You need to get a little closer to home there on the false claim here. You’re affirming the disjunct. I have a PHD from Yale, therefore, I can not also have a Masters degree from Talbot. Thats senseless. I have both.

Comment #144701

Posted by minimalist on November 17, 2006 10:55 AM (e)

Mr. Mike wrote:

Thats my story, and I’m sticking to it.

I bet.

Who was your advisor?

What was your thesis on?

Where did you work before you were booted out of the field of Science? What research did you do? What did you find?

Why does your manner of speaking remind me of Dr. Science, who was always quick to note that he had “A Master’s Degree… in SCIENCE!”?

Comment #144704

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 11:03 AM (e)

Is all truth relative? If all truth is relative/subjective and this is absolutely true, all truth is not relative/subjective and this is absolutely false.

Comment #144742

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 11:13 AM (e)

I bet.

Who was your advisor?

What was your thesis on? My Thesis was on how DNA packaged into chromosomes must replicate and how these chromosomes and organelles migrate to opposite ends of these cells, the process to which these replication of red and white blood cells occur, and how Alleles (A, B, O) respond to a Posttraumatic lymphocytic patient when these cells replicate in a nut shell. Interestingly enough, exactly what Lenny was addressing with me here, in a similar manner.

Where did you work before you were booted out of the field of Science? What research did you do? What did you find? That is what I can not tell you (the company/people I am not in good standing with because of my conversion to AIG). I did most of my research in regards to White and Red Blood Cells, how they interract in stable and nonstable environments, mostly of that nature (research Scientist). I found a lot of things, could you be more specific?

Why does your manner of speaking remind me of Dr. Science, who was always quick to note that he had “A Master’s Degree… in SCIENCE!”? Coincidence? No idea who that is.

Comment #144744

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 11:19 AM (e)

Who was your advisor? Sorry missed that one. My advisor at Yale? Do you mean my Thesis Advisory Committee?

Comment #144745

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 11:21 AM (e)

Who was your advisor? Sorry missed that one. My advisor at Yale? Do you mean from my Thesis Advisory Committee? I don’t even know if he’s still there to be honest. Argh, hold on and let me pull out my dissertation, I’m not exactly sure on this.

Comment #144746

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 11:22 AM (e)

Who was your advisor? Sorry missed that one. My advisor at Yale? Do you mean from my Thesis Advisory Committee? I don’t even know if he’s still there to be honest. Argh, hold on and let me pull out my dissertation paper, I’m not exactly sure on this.

Comment #144747

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 11:29 AM (e)

Andrew Miranker? Does he sound familiar to anybody?

Yeah, there he is!
http://www.mbb.yale.edu/fl/fl_a_miranker.htm

He probably doesn’t even remember me, its been so long, heh.

Comment #144748

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 11:31 AM (e)

My advisor was Dr. Andrew Miranker, PHD Harvard University? Does he sound familiar to anybody?

He probably doesn’t even remember me, its been so long, heh.

Comment #144749

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 11:35 AM (e)

Doctorate from Harvard, yup :). He was the man when it came to anything in Molecular and Cell Biology. The man flat out knew his stuff. He made a good professor too. I had him for a couple of courses, really interesting personality. He really had an incredibly dry sense of humor, but made for a bit of a humorous class time thats for sure.

Comment #144750

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 11:39 AM (e)

We used to joke on him about his Harvard background all the time (being that we’re from Yale). He’d always put in a joke about Harvard being a better University here and there, as you might imagine.

Comment #144751

Posted by Dr. Michael Martn on November 17, 2006 11:41 AM (e)

And then we’d respond with “yeah Hahvawd” with our best fake Bostonian accents.

Comment #144753

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 11:44 AM (e)

Anymore Questions I can help you with here?

Comment #144754

Posted by minimalist on November 17, 2006 11:51 AM (e)

Mr. MM wrote:

My Thesis was on how DNA packaged into chromosomes must replicate and how these chromosomes and organelles migrate to opposite ends of these cells, the process to which these replication of red and white blood cells occur, and how Alleles (A, B, O) respond to a Posttraumatic lymphocytic patient when these cells replicate in a nut shell.

Quite the word-salad you’ve slapped together up there. I mean, how does “the process to which these replication of red and white blood cells occur” even follow from the first bit? I can’t even begin to untangle the threads of illogic you’ve snarled up. Let’s start with the fact that red blood cells don’t have nuclei, and… oh, forget it.

Alright, one more question: what in the everliving name of Fudd is a “Posttraumatic lymphocytic patient”? It has me in stitches, it’s so ridiculous.

Not to mention the fact that your supposed “advisor”, whose earliest work at Yale was in protein folding and chaperonins (and has since moved on to proteomics) gave you the leeway to work on a project incredibly far out of his field, and might as well have been in the Immunology department.

Really, you could have done better than to simply copy-paste the first biologist you could find on Yale’s website. And maybe you should have copy-pasted an entire dissertation abstract from someone else, rather than patching together words you don’t understand into a nonsensical Frankenstein monster.

You’re amazing, I hope you stick around a bit longer. You can’t buy comedy this good!

Comment #144756

Posted by minimalist on November 17, 2006 12:02 PM (e)

Also, he must have a really bad memory if he doesn’t remember you, seeing as how he got his PhD in 1992, did a postdoctoral stint in Oxford (yes, England), and only joined Yale around 1997-1998.

Given the average turnover time for grad students (5 years), this would put you at a 2002-3 graduation date at the earliest.

And you even had to look up his name to “remind yourself”. Wow, that lab sure attracted people with lousy memories!

Comment #144761

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 12:14 PM (e)

Quite the word-salad you’ve slapped together up there. I mean, how does “the process to which these replication of red and white blood cells occur” even follow from the first bit? I can’t even begin to untangle the threads of illogic you’ve snarled up. Let’s start with the fact that red blood cells don’t have nuclei, and… oh, forget it. Me: Yes, I’m firmly aware of this, and this was in fact covered in my paper. So whats your issue here? The first bit more or less entails that of the white blood cells, not the red blood cells (but the red blood cells were also inclusive to my dissertation as well in so far as to their function in the healing process of the lymphocytic patient we were dealing with), which actually lack a nuclei and as well lack organelles. Yes yes, all familiar, we’re in the same boat here. Red blood cells do not replicate, we have no problem here. You need to follow Linguistical structure. My first bit is the overall reach of the paper, and the second bit is an account of what parts of this overall reach were included within the dissertation. Clearly critical analysis is not your strong point :). But thats okay, we all have our flaws.

Alright, one more question: what in the everliving name of Fudd is a “Posttraumatic lymphocytic patient”? It has me in stitches, it’s so ridiculous. Posttraumatic Lymphocytis (sometimes used within the medical community)? You’ve never heard of this. Its a medical condition usually referred to as Acute Lympocytis Leukemia or Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia synonymously, as you may commonly know it as, among other things, but…roughly translated for the layperson - CANCER! In this process, its basically the posttraumatic splenectomy and abdominal trauma associated that basically precedes the condition of the acute lymphocytic leukemia.

Not to mention the fact that your supposed “advisor”, whose earliest work at Yale was in protein folding and chaperonins (and has since moved on to proteomics) gave you the leeway to work on a project incredibly far out of his field, and might as well have been in the Immunology department. Immunology, okay. This is fine. Its reaches his scope, so yeah, he had no problem being an advisor for this one. The study of all aspects of the immune system including its structure and function, disorders of the immune system, blood banking, immunization and organ transplantation. This isn’t entirely related to my project, but it is somewhat related to my dissertation. Sure his work was in Protein, but also, since my project was mainly focused around the functions and the process of these blood alleles, why should you have a problem with him being involved with Protein folding and my advisor? Protein folding was in fact related to the dissertation at hand, since protein folding deals with diseases. Microbiology, Molecular and Cell Biology as well as Immunology are very interrelated fields in fact. My project entailed a bit of each one of them.

Really, you could have done better than to simply copy-paste the first biologist you could find on Yale’s website. And maybe you should have copy-pasted an entire dissertation abstract from someone else, rather than patching together words you don’t understand into a nonsensical Frankenstein monster. Me: Really, you could have done better to think before you speak on an issue.

You’re amazing, I hope you stick around a bit longer. You can’t buy comedy this good! Me: You’re amazing, you continue to make false accusations no matter how accurate they might be.

Comment #144764

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 12:21 PM (e)

Quite the word-salad you’ve slapped together up there. I mean, how does “the process to which these replication of red and white blood cells occur” even follow from the first bit? I can’t even begin to untangle the threads of illogic you’ve snarled up. Let’s start with the fact that red blood cells don’t have nuclei, and… oh, forget it. Me: Yes, I’m firmly aware of this, and this was in fact covered in my paper. So whats your issue here? The first bit more or less entails that of the white blood cells, not the red blood cells (but the red blood cells were also inclusive to my dissertation as well in so far as to their function in the healing process of the lymphocytic patient we were dealing with), which actually lack a nuclei and as well lack organelles. Yes yes, all familiar, we’re in the same boat here. Red blood cells do not self-replicate, we have no problem here. But I am talking about the process in which they have to be replicated, and how they ulimately are used, as my paper came to a conclusion, in their functions as to their assistance, along with white blood cells in fighting against cancer cells. You need to follow Linguistical structure. My first bit is the overall reach of the paper, and the second bit is an account of what parts of this overall reach were included within the dissertation. Clearly critical analysis is not your strong point :). But thats okay, we all have our flaws.

Alright, one more question: what in the everliving name of Fudd is a “Posttraumatic lymphocytic patient”? It has me in stitches, it’s so ridiculous. Posttraumatic Lymphocytis (sometimes used within the medical community)? You’ve never heard of this. Its a medical condition usually referred to as Acute Lympocytis Leukemia or Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia synonymously, as you may commonly know it as, among other things, but…roughly translated for the layperson - CANCER! In this process, its basically the posttraumatic splenectomy and abdominal trauma associated that basically precedes the condition of the acute lymphocytic leukemia.

Not to mention the fact that your supposed “advisor”, whose earliest work at Yale was in protein folding and chaperonins (and has since moved on to proteomics) gave you the leeway to work on a project incredibly far out of his field, and might as well have been in the Immunology department. Immunology, okay. This is fine. Its reaches his scope, so yeah, he had no problem being an advisor for this one. The study of all aspects of the immune system including its structure and function, disorders of the immune system, blood banking, immunization and organ transplantation. This isn’t entirely related to my project, but it is somewhat related to my dissertation. Sure his work was in Protein, but also, since my project was mainly focused around the functions and the process of these blood alleles, why should you have a problem with him being involved with Protein folding and my advisor? Protein folding was in fact related to the dissertation at hand, since protein folding deals with diseases. Microbiology, Molecular and Cell Biology as well as Immunology are very interrelated fields in fact. My project entailed a bit of each one of them.

Really, you could have done better than to simply copy-paste the first biologist you could find on Yale’s website. And maybe you should have copy-pasted an entire dissertation abstract from someone else, rather than patching together words you don’t understand into a nonsensical Frankenstein monster. Me: Really, you could have done better to think before you speak on an issue.

You’re amazing, I hope you stick around a bit longer. You can’t buy comedy this good! Me: You’re amazing, you continue to make false accusations no matter how accurate they might be.

Comment #144765

Posted by Dr. Michae Martin on November 17, 2006 12:27 PM (e)

Also, he must have a really bad memory if he doesn’t remember you, seeing as how he got his PhD in 1992, did a postdoctoral stint in Oxford (yes, England), and only joined Yale around 1997-1998.

Given the average turnover time for grad students (5 years), this would put you at a 2002-3 graduation date at the earliest. This would make sense…except for one ittie bitty problem here. I got my doctorate in 1998 :). So, whats wrong with this? I took classes with him while getting my dissertation goofy!

And you even had to look up his name to “remind yourself”. Wow, that lab sure attracted people with lousy memories!

Well, lets see here. Yeah, I had to look his name up and I actually was able to find my dissertation in the process, so I’m actually glad you brought this up :). Okay, so I couldn’t place the guy’s name? Have you ever had an experience in which perhaps you might have forgotten your, I don’t know, 1st grade teacher, perhaps, “OH yeah, wait I remember that college professor, whats his name?” moments? If you say no to that, you’re only lying to the entire crew at Pandas Thumb here, no significant biggie though.

Comment #144766

Posted by minimalist on November 17, 2006 12:33 PM (e)

Keep digging that hole, Mr. Mike. You blither worse than PBH. This is great though, I particularly love this quote:

Me: You’re amazing, you continue to make false accusations no matter how accurate they might be.

Or am I just not following your unique, uh, “linguistic structure” here? (snicker)

Or is it just atrocious grammar combined with a complete lack of understanding of biology (or anything)?

But I’m happy to hear that you have a paper! Could you supply a PubMed citation for that? I just can’t seem to find any papers by “Miranker A” that also have the name “Martin M”. Or have anything to do with leukemia. Or mitosis. Or red blood cells with nuclei. LOL.

Comment #144767

Posted by Raging Bee on November 17, 2006 12:36 PM (e)

That is what I can not tell you (the company/people I am not in good standing with because of my conversion to AIG).

Right – another creationist who can’t prove his “theory” correct due to (unspecified) “persecution” by (unspecified) “Darwinists.”

How did I see that one coming? I must be physic! Or maybe the creationists are just predictable…

Comment #144769

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 12:39 PM (e)

Let me rephrase the question. Does anybody have any INTELLIGENT questions to ask me?

Comment #144770

Posted by minimalist on November 17, 2006 12:40 PM (e)

You took classes with him in Oxford (where he was between 1992 and 1998) while you were getting your degree at Yale (1998)? Wow, the cost of all those plane tickets must have been IMMENSE.

But color me surprised that your ignorance is so profound that you don’t even know what a PhD advisor is or the structure of graduate degree-granting programs in science.

I repeat: this is AWESOME.

Comment #144771

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 12:48 PM (e)

You took classes with him in Oxford (where he was between 1992 and 1998) while you were getting your degree at Yale (1998)? Wow, the cost of all those plane tickets must have been IMMENSE.

But color m

No, my dissertation paper was completed in 1998! He was the guy I was assigned during the process of writing my DISSERTATION PAPER!….I figured you might know what a dictorial dissertation was, but I guess I really have to spell it out for you don’t I?

That is what I can not tell you (the company/people I am not in good standing with because of my conversion to AIG).

Right – another creationist who can’t prove his “theory” correct due to (unspecified) “persecution” by (unspecified) “Darwinists.”

Time out and hold the phone here. The bottom line is, you don’t want to believe its true. I know, its your wishful thinking powers at work here, and really now, who would want for it to be true, right? I mean, if I heard that Creation Scientists were doing this to an Evolutionist, I’d have a hard time standing up for him no doubt. But the bottom line is, the truth is the truth. And guess what guys, contrary to your misconceptions on what the Scientific world is all about, THAT is the way that Science works when the Creationist is exposed to it. No matter how enthused I was about Molecular Biology, and no matter how hard I worked at it, it never seemed to matter because I was just following my, “Creation Science biases.” Even when I actually tried to conform to their biases when performing my research, it was always overlooked, or laughed at just because I was “one of those crazy YECS guys.” So what else could I do? My boss thought I was a disgrace just for that very reason, I had to find another job somewhere. I don’t think I’d be doing a justice of any kind if I were to reveal the name of the organization, and quite frankly, I think it’d be morally wrong for me to do so. So we’ll leave it at that.

How did I see that one coming? I must be physic! Or maybe the creationists are just predictable…

You certainly aren’t Psychic, thats for sure.

Comment #144774

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 1:15 PM (e)

Well, of course, being that you haven’t had the pleasure of going to Yale, the final course deals with a dictorial dissertation of a GREAT BIG PAPER (trying to use small words here) over the course of a year in which we are assigned one Advisor from our board to grade our progress (and Dr. Milander was there in my 2nd to last year). I suppose this is where you are getting mixed up. Typically Yale students take 3-4 years to finish off their Ph.D 3-4 after their qualifying exam. It actually took me 3 years to complete my dissertation. Some people it took a bit longer.

Now, Dr. Miranker was the gentleman who actually signed off and graded my dissertation as it was in its entirety.

After that, I had to defend my dissertation before a committee.

I chose Dr. Miranker as my advisor I guess it was in my 2nd year, and he decided my research project would be a good idea to pursue. And the rest as they say is history.

Comment #144775

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 1:18 PM (e)

Let me guess, now you want to question whether I really have a Theological Masters from Talbot right?

Comment #144776

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 1:20 PM (e)

Gosh, where’s Nurse Buttinske when you need her guys?

Comment #144777

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 1:24 PM (e)

Finished that up in the Spring Semester of 2004. Not that long ago as a matter of fact. That was about…I don’t know, what, 6 years after the prior job from hell..oops, I mean, from the MicroBiology field?

Comment #144778

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 1:25 PM (e)

Finished that up in the Spring Semester of 2004. Not that long ago as a matter of fact. That was about…I don’t know, what, 6 years after the prior job from hell..oops, I mean, from the Molecular Biology field?

Comment #144794

Posted by MarkP on November 17, 2006 2:03 PM (e)

Come on guys, the man bragged about attending the same school that produced Josh McDowell. It wouldn’t surprise me if they flunked Logic 101 together.

Comment #144795

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 2:07 PM (e)

Come on guys, the man bragged about attending the same school that produced Josh McDowell. It wouldn’t surprise me if they flunked Logic 101 together.

No, McDowell was well before my time, but nice try there. Heh, big words from a big mouth. Lets see, AD HOMINEM! Would you seriously like to get into a logical debate with me Mark?

Comment #144796

Posted by minimalist on November 17, 2006 2:08 PM (e)

You’re right that I don’t know what a “doctorial dissertation” is, or a “dictorial dissertation.”

I do know what a doctoral dissertation is. Wrote one myself about 2 and a half years ago.

I guess the biggest difference between my doctoral dissertation and your “dictorial” is that I was in my advisor’s lab for about 4 years. Doing research directly related to his projects. The way everyone else does who has ever gotten a doctoral degree in biology for a long, long time now (and certainly since 1998).

But I see I should have gone for a dictoriate instead! It sounds great, you apparently get your own lab and can do whatever the hell you want, and you only get an advisor to look over your shoulder in the last year – and he’s not even remotely in your field!

Man, that sounds sweet. My advisor would have totally killed me if I pursued a project outside of his field, seeing as how I was on his grant (like any other doctoral candidate would be), and I would have been totally spiking his chances of getting his grant renewed if he didn’t make measurable progress.

Most of all, getting your “dictoriate” means you get the privilege of just making things up.

Comment #144797

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 2:08 PM (e)

Come on guys, the man bragged about attending the same school that produced Josh McDowell. It wouldn’t surprise me if they flunked Logic 101 together.

No, McDowell was well before my time, but nice try there. Heh, big words from a big mouth. Lets see, AD HOMINEM! Would you seriously like to get into a logical debate with me Mark? McDowell is not the uber scholar on the Apologetic side, but he is most certainly not a dunce either.

Comment #144798

Posted by minimalist on November 17, 2006 2:09 PM (e)

You’re right that I don’t know what a “doctorial dissertation” is, or a “dictorial dissertation.”

I do know what a doctoral dissertation is. Wrote one myself about 2 and a half years ago.

I guess the biggest difference between my doctoral dissertation and your “dictorial” is that I was in my advisor’s lab for about 4 years. Doing research directly related to his projects. The way everyone else does who has ever gotten a doctoral degree in biology for a long, long time now (and certainly since 1998).

But I see I should have gone for a dictoriate instead! It sounds great, you apparently get your own lab and can do whatever the hell you want, and you only get an advisor to look over your shoulder in the last year – and he’s not even remotely in your field! I bet you can get away with all sorts of things when your advisor has no expertise in the field you’re working in. Bet you did, too.

Man, that sounds sweet. My advisor would have totally killed me if I pursued a project outside of his field, seeing as how I was on his grant (like any other doctoral candidate would be), and I would have been totally spiking his chances of getting his grant renewed if he didn’t make measurable progress.

Most of all, getting your “dictoriate” means you get the privilege of just making things up.

Comment #144799

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 2:24 PM (e)

You’re right that I don’t know what a “doctorial dissertation” is, or a “dictorial dissertation.”

I do know what a doctoral dissertation is. Wrote one myself about 2 and a half years ago. Thats great, mine was a bit earlier than yours, hey no biggie.

I guess the biggest difference between my doctoral dissertation and your “dictorial” is that I was in my advisor’s lab for about 4 years. Doing research directly related to his projects. The way everyone else does who has ever gotten a doctoral degree in biology for a long, long time now (and certainly since 1998).

But I see I should have gone for a dictoriate instead! It sounds great, you apparently get your own lab and can do whatever the hell you want, and you only get an advisor to look over your shoulder in the last year – and he’s not even remotely in your field! Would be sweet if thats how it really worked, but of course you and I both know this is not the case. I’m not trying to sugarcoat my case here. My dissertation had a lot to do with protein folding believe it or not.

Man, that sounds sweet. My advisor would have totally killed me if I pursued a project outside of his field, seeing as how I was on his grant (like any other doctoral candidate would be), and I would have been totally spiking his chances of getting his grant renewed if he didn’t make measurable progress.

Still harping on this “outside of his field” thing aren’t we, after I showed the necessity of protein folding within my paper. Very sharp.

Most of all, getting your “dictoriate” means you get the privilege of just making things up.

Ha, yeah…well, again, you and I both know (if we’re dealing with the same situation) that we have to present a topic for acceptance first. It has to be accepted by the Advisors before proceeding further.

Well, thats great, just keep ignoring my ideas, and attack the fact I misspelled the word doctoral there. Really makes no difference to me. By the way, like I said, it was not outside of his field, but actually DIRECTLY in his field. Protein folding was definitely not excluded from the scope of my paper in the FOGGIEST bit. As a matter of fact, it was a necessary part. But I’m glad to see you’ve also done some research within the field of Biology. I guess the difference between you and I, is that I guess I feel the need for some reason to trust your story (unlike what you wished to put me through). Thanks for pointing out that linguistic error, but of course I meant my claims in that sentence, not your claims. My apologies. In regards to the spelling error, it was also a mistake on my part and I take the heat for spelling doctoral, “dictatorial” or however I spelled it. I just overlooked that :). Thats not what really matters here though. And, yes, I see my paper is not published, but again, no biggie, not everybody from Yale really had their papers published on this website anyways. So, all that proves is…well nothing really.

Comment #144801

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 2:30 PM (e)

What if I may be so kind to ask was your doctoral dissertation on?

Comment #144802

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 2:31 PM (e)

I have a great deal of respect for anyone who has a PHD as I know it is very difficult to earn.

Comment #144806

Posted by minimalist on November 17, 2006 3:12 PM (e)

By your standards, nearly EVERY biology project involves “protein folding” since every protein needs to be properly folded. Did you study chaperone complexes or heat-shock proteins or any of the stuff your supposed advisor was an expert in?

If so, how did you fit it all in with your study of the cell cycle/chromatid separation, leukemia, and immunology? That’s a LOT of ground to cover in three years of research!

Your supposed dissertation is just a mishmash of very broad topics with very little direct relation to one another. You haven’t integrated them in any meaningful sense. It just looks like you put all the sciencey words you knew into a blender and hit “liquefy.”

But since you’ve found it, can you copy-paste the title and abstract? Surely that, at least, would have to make more sense than your ramblings.

Did you publish in any scientific journals? That’s pretty much a requirement for a science PhD, you know.

Comment #144812

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 3:53 PM (e)

By your standards, nearly EVERY biology project involves “protein folding” since every protein needs to be properly folded. Did you study chaperone complexes or heat-shock proteins or any of the stuff your supposed advisor was an expert in? More or less, chaperone complexes were involved, but not in a direct fashion by any means. On the other hand, heat-shock proteins were quintessential to the process.

If so, how did you fit it all in with your study of the cell cycle/chromatid separation, leukemia, and immunology? That’s a LOT of ground to cover in three years of research! Very simple concept. In a nutshell, how cancer kills off blood alleles, and how the body can restore these alleles and repair the DNA structure in order for them to overcome the cancer within the individual. It is a lot of ground, but its doable.

Your supposed dissertation is just a mishmash of very broad topics with very little direct relation to one another. You haven’t integrated them in any meaningful sense. It just looks like you put all the sciencey words you knew into a blender and hit “liquefy.”

Well, this is nice, of course I’m sure, if I were an Evolutionist, you’d probably have no problem with me claiming the title Dr. at all, would you now? Who knows, you may be different though, all I’m going on is my experience in the past here. No its not a mishmash of broad topics at all. It has to do more or less with blood cells and cancer, and the process that blood cells (the way in which replication assists in, as well as the alleles involved through the DNA sequencing (i.e. protein folding as essential here as well as other processes) utilize in killing off cancer cells in essence. In a sentence, thats basically what my dissertation is about. Its not a very basic topic at all, and certainly goes into extreme depth, but yes, thats what my dissertation deals with. Well, it’d be nice if it were that easy to just hit liquify on this one, but…..it definitely requires more than a simple press of a button.

But since you’ve found it, can you copy-paste the title and abstract? Surely that, at least, would have to make more sense than your ramblings.

Sir, very cute. I have no abstract here. All of these things are my own thoughts on my own subject. I would appreciate a little bit more respect than that, at least as equal respect as I am showing you on the matter.

Did you publish in any scientific journals? That’s pretty much a requirement for a science PhD, you know.

If I answer your last question, this is going to reveal the company I used to work for. I will do this on one condition. You keep this restricted to Pandas Thumb’s forum ONLY!

Comment #144813

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 3:57 PM (e)

When you agree to that condition, I’ll post it up here. Until then, thats a no go.

Comment #144814

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 3:59 PM (e)

Thank you gentlemen. I have laughed til I cried.

I once had an exchange with someone like our UnDoc Martin here. He wanted to debate me on the existence of God, went to his trusty Defending God website, and cutted and pasted aplenty, and with much vigor and confidence.

Until I refuted every one of them.

He obviously was surprised, and proceeded to sputter and spurt a wide array of nonsense, not in Martin’s league, but they definitely play the same sport. In particular:

1) They confuse “ad hominem” attacks with plain ol’ name callin’, and trust me, you will never make anyone like that understand the difference.

2) They describe any lengthy back and forth as “arguing in circles”, especially the variety that would more accurately be described as “being backed into a corner”. They also can’t ever connect the conversation’s circularity with their stubborn refusal to answer direct questions, and logically deal with the answers to their’s.

3) They seem incapable of debating without ascribing some sort of psychological pathology to their opposition, and fire out shit like “you seem like you think life is meaningless” out of thin air.

There are others, but I’m too tired to go through them. And I do in all seriousness hope something can be done to keep someone like them from wasting so much bandwidth. You all could have made him look as foolish as any audience peeking in would need, with 1/4 the space.

And thank you Dr. Loon. There is no better champion of science and reason than those who oppose it publicly and irrationally.

Oh the irony…..:).

Comment #144815

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 4:00 PM (e)

But to answer your question, I do have some peer review work out there.

Comment #144816

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 4:04 PM (e)

None since I’ve become a Creation Scientist, but, I do know that Dr. Jonathan Safarti and Dr. Russell Humphreys among MANY others have peer reviewed work. As a matter of fact, that was part of the Humphrey’s conference that I went to about a month ago. He shared his experiences with us and how he became the first person to discover an effective method to the Big Bang Theory. He also unveiled a myriad of tactics used by various other Scientists to attack his model of the beginnings of Cosmology and presented some of the rebuttals he has used to soundly refute them. It was a very interesting conference to say the least. It was kind of a “How I became a Scientist” conferences of sorts.

Comment #144818

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 4:07 PM (e)

I have published in several Scientific Journals to directly answer your question.

Comment #144821

Posted by MarkP on November 17, 2006 4:16 PM (e)

Undoc Martin bloviated:

No, McDowell was well before my time, but nice try there. Heh, big words from a big mouth. Lets see, AD HOMINEM! Would you seriously like to get into a logical debate with me Mark? .

You don’t even know what an ad hominem is, and you are challenging me to a debate? Ah, the rapier-like thrust of an armless D’artagnan.

And again:

McDowell is not the uber scholar on the Apologetic side, but he is most certainly not a dunce either.

Uh, yeah he is. He, like you, uses arguments that are the sort of thing we were given in Logic 101 class as examples of poor reasoning, and are the sort of thing that offer a serious challenge only to children, which is why no one here takes you seriously.

But you are fun to kick around.

Comment #144823

Posted by minimalist on November 17, 2006 4:19 PM (e)

You have no abstract? But I thought you found your dissertation “paper”! It has to have an abstract.

Or can it be that you don’t know what an abstract IS, and thought I was insulting you with that term…?

And I am showing you the same amount of respect you’ve been showing us. When you lie so transparently and incompetently, and still insist your lies are truth, you insult anyone with even a passing familiarity with biology.

Comment #144832

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 4:37 PM (e)

Uh, yeah he is. He, like you, uses arguments that are the sort of thing we were given in Logic 101 class as examples of poor reasoning, and are the sort of thing that offer a serious challenge only to children, which is why no one here takes you seriously.

But you are fun to kick around.

WOW Nice refutation…*cough* ad hominem
Why not try a different method of reasoning? By the way, you seem like you think you’re an expert in logic. What did YOU get in Logic 101? I’m pretty sure if you used that line of reasoning, you didn’t fare too well there.

You have no abstract? But I thought you found your dissertation “paper”! It has to have an abstract.

Or can it be that you don’t know what an abstract IS, and thought I was insulting you with that term…?

And I am showing you the same amount of respect you’ve been showing us. When you lie so transparently and incompetently, and still insist your lies are truth, you insult anyone with even a passing familiarity with biology.

Where have I lied?

If you can’t point out the lie, then open mouth insert foot my friend :). Secondly, if anybody says anything accurate without insult on this thread, I’d be quite surprised because I have yet to see it. Most of what I see are direct attacks on my character in some fashion or another, and dodges to my arguments and evidence in order not to reason through them. If this is what you call critical thinking, then…wow, I really think you should reconsider. I might not have said everything perfectly in a correct grammatical structure like I should, but at least I am getting my points across to you. On the other hand, it seems like when you run out of things to write about, you resort to name calling.

Secondly, the abstract wasn’t what I found on the internet, I had actually found a copy in its written form at my house. I haven’t even searched it on the internet before, guess I just never bothered to do that, but I’ll see if I can’t find whether or not the abstract is even on the internet or not. I’ve honestly never bothered to look.

Comment #144833

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 4:40 PM (e)

That’s not self-defeating, that’s just a conundrum. Life’s full of ‘em. Suck it up, princess.

How do you think your mechanic fixes your car, divine revelation?

Duh.

Gee, lets apply logic to this shall we. Whats not self defeating first of all. Ambiguity fallacy. Life’s full of what, conundrums? Okay, it’d be nice to know what you’re talking about, sounds like a bit of a red herring here. How do I think my mechanic fixes my car? He uses thought. Where did the thought come from? First cause, the unmoved mover, which is God.

Comment #144834

Posted by Steviepinhead on November 17, 2006 4:42 PM (e)

Funny how neither PubMed or Google Scholar are picking up any of your, koff koff, journal articles, there, “Dr.” Mikey-Troll.

Citations? Links?

Or just, “liar.”

Comment #144878

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 17, 2006 5:39 PM (e)

Actually, Doc, Weiland ran in terror from my questions. Just like you.

If you disagree, please feel free to underline the parts that answer these questions for me:

*ahem*

(1) If, as AiG keeps yammering, mutations only produce a LOSS of genetic information, then, uh, how did the number of human alleles INCREASE from a maximum of 8 to over 400? (or, in creationist math, is 400 a LOSS from 8?)

(2) where can I see a natural mutation rate high enough to produce 400 beneficial mutations in the sapce of 4-6,000 years?

(3) what mechanism allows these mutations to appear ONLY in the germ cells, and not in the somatic cells where they would kill the human race with cancers?

(4) what exactly is the genetic barrier between “created kinds”? What genetic mechanism, specifically, allows “microevolution” within a “created kind”, but prevents that “microevolution” from straying outside the “created kind”?

(5) what happened to the cities that humans were living in before the Flood — did the stones and buildings run for the high ground too? Oh, and what about the people who died before the Flood happened — did the fleeing people stop long enough to dig up all the buried corpses of their ancestors and carry them to the high ground, too?

(6) why is the modern leatherback turtle found ONLY in the top layers of the geological column, and NOT in the middle or lower layers —- after all, it (1) lives in the open sea, (2) sinks like a rock when it’s dead, and (3) can’t crawl on land, so by every one of the idiotic “hydraulic sorting” “explanations” I’ve seen from YECs, they should be at the very BOTTOM of the fossil column. Why aren’t they?

(7) And I’d very much like to hear how the willow trees managed to outrun the velociraptors to the top of the geological column ……?

Comment #144882

Posted by Steviepinhead on November 17, 2006 5:46 PM (e)

Let’s see, “Dr.” Marty was asked for his advisor’s name at 10:55 am. By 11:29, he’d coughed up a name, Dr. Andrew Miranker, but at 11:31 am was careful to protect himself by claiming that, “He probably doesn’t remember me, it’s been so long.” So, that little fib took “Doc” all of 35 minutes to concoct.

Later, “Doc” Martin claims to have found the paper copy of his dissertation. At 3:12 pm, he’s asked to provide the abstract. At sometime past 5:44 pm, though, a good long two-and-a-half hours, we’re, uh, … still waiting.

On the peer review thread, he’s been asked to provide the exact title of his thesis (hint, “Doc,” it should be right on the, uh, title page) and the other members of the thesis committee (hint, “Doc,” their signatures should be right there on that piece of paper you claim to have found). And, uh, once again, we’re … still waiting.

He was also asked above to link us–even to the abstracts, “Doc”–of any of his peer-reviewed, journal-published papers. (The ones that searches of PubMed and Google Scholar don’t turn up…) Guess what–we’re still waiting.

Time to depart in shame, liar.

But that’s OK. There’s someone who’ll still take you back with open arms. Oh, Nurse Bettinke!

Comment #144885

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 5:57 PM (e)

Keep spamming the threads Lenny, you know the stipulation there.

To Pinhead:

Let’s see, “Dr.” Marty was asked for his advisor’s name at 10:55 am. By 11:29, he’d coughed up a name, Dr. Andrew Miranker, but at 11:31 am was careful to protect himself by claiming that, “He probably doesn’t remember me, it’s been so long.” So, that little fib took “Doc” all of 35 minutes to concoct.

Later, “Doc” Martin claims to have found the paper copy of his dissertation. At 3:12 pm, he’s asked to provide the abstract. At sometime past 5:44 pm, though, a good long two-and-a-half hours, we’re, uh, … still waiting.

On the peer review thread, he’s been asked to provide the exact title of his thesis (hint, “Doc,” it should be right on the, uh, title page) and the other members of the thesis committee (hint, “Doc,” their signatures should be right there on that piece of paper you claim to have found). And, uh, once again, we’re … still waiting. I told you, if I reveal my peer review, it will reveal my company. Until I get consensus of my terms, that it will not be released from this very forum, then I will give you a copy of some of my Peer Review from the internet. Actually, better idea, why not e-mail me, and I’ll e-mail you personally the work so it does not leak out so long as AFTER I do this, you will then provide the fact that I have in fact published in peer reviewed journals. You know my e-mail, so have at it if you really want the information.

He was also asked above to link us–even to the abstracts, “Doc”–of any of his peer-reviewed, journal-published papers. (The ones that searches of PubMed and Google Scholar don’t turn up…) Guess what–we’re still waiting. - Guess what, I found my own personal copy of my dissertation. I’m sorry if you didn’t understand what I meant by that, but….oh well. Quite frankly, I don’t see many of my peers writings on Google Scholar or PubMed either. Does that mean they didn’t receive doctorates either? DERRRR!

Time to depart in shame, liar. Oh what grounds do you call me a liar? Thats a pretty serious offense without any proof I’d say.

But that’s OK. There’s someone who’ll still take you back with open arms. Oh, Nurse Bettinke!

Righttttt!

Comment #144886

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 5:58 PM (e)

Here we go with, “its allll a conspiracy.” By the logic of the Evolutionist, I’d say this fits the poisoning of the well pretty well. What about this for some logic, Evolution…ITS ALL A CONSPIRACY! See the Edward Blythe story above :).

Comment #144889

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 17, 2006 5:59 PM (e)

Once again, Doc Martin, who proudly crows to all and sundry about the vast scientific knowledge he gained from his Genuine Doctoral Degree From Yale WooHoo!, (“ask me ANY question, go on and ask me !!!!”) tells us all about the wonderful scientific insights given to us by creationism:

“Blah blah blah God blah blah blah Bible blah blah blah God.”

And there you have creation ‘science’ in a nut-shell.

A VERY nut-shell.

(shrug)

Alas, if being a “Christian” means I have to believe idiotic things like “the earth is only 6,000 years old”, or “fossils are the drowned bodies from Noah’s Flood”, then I’d prefer to be Zen. At least Zen doesn’t make anyone believe idiotic things like that. (shrug)

Comment #144890

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 17, 2006 6:00 PM (e)

Keep spamming the threads Lenny,

Keep avoiding my questions, Doc. Please.

Comment #144892

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 17, 2006 6:05 PM (e)

Take notice that Doc *still* has not given such basic information as, say the TITLE OF HIS DISSERTATION. Or indeed ANY of the things he was asked about it.

I can only think of three possible reasons why Doc consistently refuses to answer these simple questions about his, uh, doctoral dissertation:

(1) there isn’t any dissertation, and Doc is just lying to us when he claims there is

(2) there is a dissertation, but Doc is too dumb to remember anything about it, or

(3) there is a dissertation and Doc does remember it, but for some unfathomable reason, he wants to keep it all a big secret from everyone (which, of course, doesn’t seem to prevent him from crowing continuously about his much-vaunted PhD to anyone and everyone, whether they want to hear about it or not).

My money, of course, is on reason number One.

Comment #144896

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 6:18 PM (e)

Take notice that Doc *still* has not given such basic information as, say the TITLE OF HIS DISSERTATION. Or indeed ANY of the things he was asked about it.

I can only think of three possible reasons why Doc consistently refuses to answer these simple questions about his, uh, doctoral dissertation:

(1) there isn’t any dissertation, and Doc is just lying to us when he claims there is

(2) there is a dissertation, but Doc is too dumb to remember anything about it, or

(3) there is a dissertation and Doc does remember it, but for some unfathomable reason, he wants to keep it all a big secret from everyone (which, of course, doesn’t seem to prevent him from crowing continuously about his much-vaunted PhD to anyone and everyone, whether they want to hear about it or not).

My money, of course, is on reason number One.

Wow, more spam. I think we can start calling Lenny Flunk the TROLL KING! (ala Plato’s Philosopher King, only something dumb instead of smart). What do yall think of that?

Comment #144897

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 6:20 PM (e)

Love those loaded questions don’t cha Troll King. By the way, until you can actually comprehend what I am actually saying in my answer instead of writing blah blah blah blah God..(for that matter, I can just start writing blah blah blah blah Evolution and that should be perfectly legitimate as a response to your answer), I’m going to call you Troll King.

Comment #144898

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 6:22 PM (e)

I think I’m beginning to follow your logic here. No matter what I say, I’m wrong.

Okay, then I will follow with, no matter what YOU say, YOU’RE wrong.

Comment #144902

Posted by Steviepinhead on November 17, 2006 6:30 PM (e)

Hello, “Doc,” we already knew you were good at dodging and weaving and skittering all over the place.

Heck, watching the antics of Nurse Bettinke and her butterfly net-waving minions taught us that much…

So you don’t have to keep demonstrating how well you evade the hard questions (heck, even the easy questions). We’ve pretty much got that part figured out.

We’re trying for something even more basic now. You know, more moral, more ethical, more “Christian.”

Are you lying about your claimed credentials, or aren’t you?

Seems simple enough.

Put up. Or shut up.

Comment #144905

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 6:39 PM (e)

Hello, “Doc,” we already knew you were good at dodging and weaving and skittering all over the place. (OH THE IRONY HERE).

Heck, watching the antics of Nurse Bettinke and her butterfly net-waving minions taught us that much…
(WOW THATS RELEVANT rolls eyes>)
So you don’t have to keep demonstrating how well you evade the hard questions (heck, even the easy questions). We’ve pretty much got that part figured out. (No, I’ve answered them very soundly as a matter of fact, I just get tired of repeating myself and Lenny Flunk’s Argument ad Repetitions).

We’re trying for something even more basic now. You know, more moral, more ethical, more “Christian.”
(As if you’d know something about that? I’d be willing to bet you have a 10 year old’s understanding on Axiological standards in itself).
Are you lying about your claimed credentials, or aren’t you? (No, I’m not lying about my credentials.)

Seems simple enough. (It is simple enough and I’ve demonstrated it enough too.)

Put up. Or shut up. (I done put up already.)

You really like those empty slogans don’t you?

Comment #144906

Posted by Dr. MIchael Martin on November 17, 2006 6:40 PM (e)

Any sane and rational person could be able to tell that I have demonstratively proven or at the bare minimum inferred enough that my credentials are warranted. I think my 10 year old nephew little Billy could pick up on this by now.

Comment #144907

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 6:43 PM (e)

I think the monkeys you claim ancestry to could pick up on this by now.

Comment #144937

Posted by minimalist on November 17, 2006 8:24 PM (e)

Hahaha, you haven’t even come close to “proving” anything about your credentials, Mikey.

You make a bunch of stupid claims you refuse to back up. Not even the title of your dissertation.

Never mind your lack of understanding of genetics, you don’t even have a clue about the basics of grad school structure.

When pressed for the name of your advisor, after showing puzzlement as what an advisor was (see above) you named a guy who wasn’t even teaching there until your final year.

Who, in fact, was in another country. Amazing how he ran labs on two continents – and apparently he ran one on the sly at Yale before they even knew they were employing him! What a sneaky guy.

You’re a grade A dope, Mikeykins. I hope you never change, though I do hope you post a little less. Your spam is starting to get annoying.

Comment #144964

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 17, 2006 9:00 PM (e)

Lenny Flunk

Please Doc, by all means feel free to call me whatever names you like. May I suggest that you try “Looney Flank”,too? Or how about “Mr Poopie-Head”?

Please, by all means, continue to show everyone just what sort of person you really are, under all that “I’m so godly” bullshit.

Just answer my goddamn questions. (shrug)

Comment #145026

Posted by fnxtr on November 18, 2006 12:38 AM (e)

I now remember who Mikey reminds me of: Martin Smith of Vancouver. Claimed to know the president of Sony.

Last time I saw him he was just getting off a bus, said he’d just come back from visiting Arthur C. Clarke in Sri Lanka. This was a few years back, when ACC was still actually alive.

Turns out the guy was just a pathological liar who still lived in his mom’s basement.

Comment #145150

Posted by Brian on November 19, 2006 11:49 AM (e)

Matter of perspective. Maybe someone could help me out with this….failure to pay $845,000 in employee-related taxes. He faces a maximum of 288 years in prison…
Okay, so works out to be 1 year per $2934.03 not paid to Uncle Sam.
This does not factor in the penalty the jury also granted for the prosecution’s request for the Hovinds to forfeit $430,400.
In 2005 in Florida, the average jail time server for murder/manslaughter is 9.4 years.
In 2005 in Florida, the average jail time server for sexual battery 5.7.

So the sentence for committing murder/manslaughter could be the equivalent of not paying the Federal Government $27579.88, and for sexual assault, $16723.91.
Now put aside your religious biases, be they creationism or evolutionism, and ask yourself, “Does this seem right?”

Now I realize that many hate Hovind and his beliefs. This is commonplace for any person who takes any strong stance for or against any particular faith, since most religions are vehemently intolerant of other religions, evolutionism included, but try to put that aside for a second. Hovind’s crime could earn him the equivalent sentencing of someone who murdered and/or raped everyone who posted on this forum, granted half of you think that wouldn’t be a bad thing to happen to the other half.

So before you rejoice for Hovind going to jail, or start crying “Outrage!” or “Conspiracy!”, realize that it is not a good state of affairs when the Federal Government considers its funding more important than its citizens’ well being.

Comment #145163

Posted by David B. Benson on November 19, 2006 2:26 PM (e)

Brian — You are confusing the Federal law with the Florida state practice. And no, I do not agree completely with either, but then, I don’t live in Florida…

Comment #145245

Posted by Brian on November 19, 2006 4:26 PM (e)

David,
You are correct. Those figures are based on Florida as opposed to Federal. Here is some average sentence lengths for various crimes, provided by the US Sentencing Commission for the fiscal year of 2003.
Murder 20.6 years
Manslaughter 2.8 years
Sexual Abuse 6.1 years
Kidnapping 13.3 years.

I will agree that the numbers will vary depending on which findings you use, none the less, does Federal Tax fraud deserve a punishment that would greatly exceed that of violent crimes?

Comment #145249

Posted by David B. Benson on November 19, 2006 4:38 PM (e)

Brian — If you read the comments oon this thread, I believe you will find rather expert opinion that he will, in fact, end up doing 6 months time.

So the whole system needs some rationalizing, IMHO.

Comment #145257

Posted by Steviepinhead on November 19, 2006 5:00 PM (e)

Arthur C. Clarke is still alive, I think.

He’ll be 89 this December.

Comment #145264

Posted by Coin on November 19, 2006 5:07 PM (e)

Brian, you’re comparing the MAXIMUM STATUTORY jail time penalty Kent Hovind faces for the combined total from about fifty offenses, to the average SERVED jail time for a single offense.

In other words, your math is imaginary.

Comment #145313

Posted by Wayne E Francis on November 19, 2006 6:54 PM (e)

Comment # 144694

Dr. Michael Martin wrote:

Comment #144694
Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 10:42 AM (e)
Perhaps someone would like to know why I quit my job in the field of Genetics? Anybody like to know? I can give you three guesses now……
1) I lost my mind …
2). I became a Young Earth Creation Scientist and they …
3). I eventually got fed up with Evolution bigotrous behavior and …
Dr. Michael Martin

WOW just WOW.

Ok let us address a few things that have been lightly addressed here already and probably are addressed in posts after this one but to make it nice and clear for you DR Martin I’ll spell it out for you.

From
Comment # 144651

Dr. Michael Martin wrote:

Comment #144651
Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 9:02 AM (e)
..
Every person has two copies of their DNA. The 2 alleles thing really makes no sense, because of recombinations, which means that each human genome was 30,000 genes or 60,000 alleles. Now, if DNA works like Lenny Flank demonstrates, then every person need look the same…..

This is your reply to
Comment # 144418

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:

Comment #144418
Posted by ‘Rev Dr’ Lenny Flank on November 16, 2006 6:26 PM (e)

I wrote my Doctoral Dissertation on Genetics at Yale :).

Good, then maybe you can answer a question for me that AiG wasn’t able to:
*ahem*
According to the creationists, …

Now the relevant info is

Anyone who understands junior high genetics will know that 8 people have between them a maximum possible of 16 different alleles for each genetic locus

Notice the

16 different alleles for each genetic locus

Lenny is saying that a person has 2 alleles at each locus. 8 people x 2 alleles at each location would be 16 different alleles MAX.

Lenny also is generous in that 16 different alleles because Noah’s 3 sons would share in his and his wife’s alleles reducing that 16 different alleles down to just 10 unique alleles, i.e. the 6 alleles, at any given locus of the sons would match one of their parents alleles at the same position.

When we look at a given locus in today’s society we see that it is not uncommon to have 400 or more different alleles at that location and some have over 700 different alleles.

Now the 400 and 700 refer to the number of different alleles at ONE location within the DNA of humans. We are not talking about the 30,000 different allele locations. Your number of 30,000 = 1 in the terms we are talking about. Any 10th grade student that took biology should understand this. Yet you with your PHD in “Genetics”, with a capital “G” either
A) Didn’t understand the concept and made an error in your reply
Or
B) Wilfully lied with an intention to deceive the few people that read this blog that might not understand basic genetics.

Neither you, nor the idiotic AiG tracks you’ve cut and pasted, have addressed how we can go from 10 alleles at any given location to up to 700 in the course of just 3,300-3,600 years. This is a rate, orders of magnitude, greater then what we see today.

Creation science should have something to say about why mutation rates over the last 3,300 years are hundreds and even thousands of times faster then what we observe and they should also have something to say why, just when we have the ability to see these drastic mutation rates as they happen, we don’t see them now.

So many creationist use the “Only 1% of them mutations are beneficial” line but ignore the fact that their own model requires that that 1% rate be inflated to 100% and that the overall mutation rate also be increased to by 500x-1500x or more. that is 50,000%-150,000%

Oh and look you use the same claim!
Comment # 144694

Dr. Michael Martin wrote:

Comment #144694
Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 10:42 AM (e)
…Only 1% of them were beneficial, …

As for the bacterial flagellum, with a small “b” and “f” as they are not proper nouns and need not be capitalised in mid sentence, perhaps you should read all the great research that is going on that shows these “certain aspects” that where “literally impossible to break down” might just have been explained. Some how I think you’d, literally, wave them away with your hand just as it was done in the Dover trial. notice I capitalised “D” in Dover because it is a proper noun

In fact please tell us just one of these “certain aspects” you found. Let us see if there is any explanation which you might have missed.

Believe me, I tried every way I knew how, but it was a no go

Good thing good scientists don’t follow your lead.

the speed of light issue could not be counted on as I discovered

BAW HA HA HA HA. You are of course referring to the finding that the speed of light may be slowing down. Gee wiz. The speed of light over the last 14 billion odd years seems to have slowed down by a few percent. Einstein “C” having a slight change over 14 billion years doesn’t bring down General Theory of Relativity, I capitalised the “G” “T” and “R” because it is a proper noun, or the Special Theory of Relativity. The equations work just fine even with a changing “C”. If you mean to use this change in the speed of light to explain a 6,000 year old universe then you are many orders of magnitude off in your assumption on how much the speed of light has slowed down. You might as well say that the expansion rate of the universe can’t be counted on because it is getting faster, which actually explains light getting slower, The fact is we don’t yet know why it is happening but unlike you the real scientists aren’t ready to throw up their hands and say “Oh well, can’t explain it. God must be doing it” and go home and retire.

Comment #145337

Posted by Wayne E Francis on November 19, 2006 8:01 PM (e)

Comment # 144761

Dr. Michael Martin wrote:

Comment #144761
Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 12:14 PM (e)
…Clearly critical analysis is not your strong point :). But thats okay, we all have our flaws.

Yes and yours include, but are not limited to,
1) Inability to use quotes. Regular quotes “” or the KwickXML form.
2) Inability to recognise when to use proper case.
3) Inability to recognise when you plagiarise.
4) Inability to use punctuation within a sentence properly or even at all.
5) Inability to spell words right like “palaeontologist” or difficult words like “sitting”, “functions” and “Interact”
6) Creates words like “disacknowledged”
7) Does not know how to use “that’s” or “that is” and insists on using “thats” or “what’s” or “what is” instead of “whats”

And I’m still waiting on you to correct your flaw of not answering Lenny’s or my question about the drastic mutation rate that the YEC position would require. Before you try to say it again your huge cut and paste jobs do not address the issue any more then you cutting and pasting “5” as the answer to “what is 2+2” and the numerous clarification of the questions shows you wrong. Remember 30,000 only = 1 in YECers books.

Comment # 144761

Dr. Michael Martin wrote:

Comment #144761
Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 12:14 PM (e)

Posttraumatic Lymphocytis (sometimes used within the medical community)? You’ve never heard of this. Its a medical condition usually referred to as Acute Lympocytis Leukemia or Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia synonymously, as you may commonly know it as, among other things, but…roughly translated for the layperson - CANCER! …

Funny that…you seem to be the only person in the word to use this term. Google’s count of the term? 1. Yours. Pubmed? 0. That is zero

Let us add that to the words you create like “disacknowledged”

Please learn to atleast use quotes around peoples statements It helps to show what is your statements and what you are replying to.

Comment #145349

Posted by Wayne E Francis on November 19, 2006 8:17 PM (e)

Comment # 144812

Dr. Michael Martin wrote:

Comment #144812
Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 3:53 PM (e)

Sir, very cute. I have no abstract here. All of these things are my own thoughts on my own subject. I would appreciate a little bit more respect than that, at least as equal respect as I am showing you on the matter…

*bangs my head against the desk*

You wrote a paper without an abstract? WOW … just WOW.

Comment #145562

Posted by Brian on November 20, 2006 9:40 PM (e)

Gentlemen,
I apologize for the inaccuracies in my example comparing his maximum possible sentence for his multiple offenses to that of average sentences served for violent offenses. I have “seen” many people who are very excited about this situation and would be extremely pleased if he did indeed receive and serve the maximum statutory, albeit extremely unlikely.
What I was trying to point out with this example of “imaginary numbers” was how it seems that people enjoy the punishment, or failing, of those with whom they have a religious bias against much more so than that of fair and unbiased justice. I believe this accurately depicts the intolerance that both of these religions have toward one another.

Comment #146474

Posted by Brian on November 25, 2006 10:57 PM (e)

Why do you say Hovind has a fake Doctorate?? He’s got a real doctorate. Whats the problem? What kind of doctorate would make him real? You don’t need a to be a doctor of anything to understand that no one can prove how old the earth is. So, you villify someone because you don’t agree with his view on science or the IRS? Which is it?

By and large, people believe evolution because they never stop to question the information they recieve. It is presented to them as fact and is believed by the majority, so therefore, it must be true. I used to believe it too till I started asking questions about it. By the way, Scientists DO NOT like to be questioned about problems with evolution.

One should wonder why the science of evolution refuses to be questioned or made to answer for its claims.

Those that dare challenge evolution as science are considdered idots and that their science is fake with no real challenge of specifics, just a wild claim and no proof. Just a war of words.

Kent Hovind’s unbiblical false views on the IRS got him in big trouble (and rightly so) does not make his sciece bad nor him evil. It is unfortunate that he brought reproach not only to himself, but to his cause, Christians, and his family for his stance on the IRS.

I don’t know where he lied at all. He admitted that he didn’t pay taxes. He just felt he didn’t owe it.

Also, where is anyone’s proof that Hovind rips people off. That’s slander. His seminars are free but sells videos that are not copywrited (you can view them on YouTube or google videos).
The taxpayer is getting ripped off when a sudent cannot graduate unless he believes a theory as a fact of science.

Hovind brings out that PS science text books still print stuff that was proven wrong 150 years ago. Why doesn’t anyone get after the textbook publishers? What do you say to that? That doesn’t bother you???

Comment #146680

Posted by Wayne E Francis on November 26, 2006 7:22 PM (e)

Comment # 146474

Brian wrote:

Comment #146474
Posted by Brian on November 25, 2006 10:57 PM (e)
Why do you say Hovind has a fake Doctorate?? He’s got a real doctorate. Whats the problem? What kind of doctorate would make him real? You don’t need a to be a doctor of anything to understand that no one can prove how old the earth is. So, you villify someone because you don’t agree with his view on science or the IRS? Which is it?

1) We say Hovind has a fake Doctorate because his doctorate is from “Patriot University” a well known diploma mill.
2) He does NOT have a real doctorate. Patriot University is not a properly accredited university. In fact the accrediting body of PU is also a phony organization.
3) Just because you don’t like the evidence doesn’t make it not true. What exactly is your problem with the age of the earth and the many different lines of evidence pointing to a 4 billion year old earth?
4) We will make it clear when someone is dishonest and in this case criminal. The negative information that is presented about Hovind is accurate.

Comment # 146474

Brian wrote:

Comment #146474
Posted by Brian on November 25, 2006 10:57 PM (e)

By and large, people believe evolution because they never stop to question the information they recieve. It is presented to them as fact and is believed by the majority, so therefore, it must be true. I used to believe it too till I started asking questions about it. By the way, Scientists DO NOT like to be questioned about problems with evolution.

Funny you should use the term “By and large”. You, yourself, point out that your statement is an imprecise statement.

Evolution maybe believed by masses because they don’t question the information they receive but the same can be said about gravity and many mundane things. Hell many people believe the seasons are due to the earth’s orbit being closer to sun. What the common people believe isn’t the issue. Evolution is true because of the multiple lines of independent evidence that support it.

Scientists don’t like to be 2nd guessed about evolution from ignorant fools that don’t care to learn about the topic they are criticizing. Most arguments have been refuted and these refutations are easily accessible over the net at sites like talkorigins. Please tell us your “questions” about evolution or are you afraid to expose yourself as someone who has not researched their own complaint?

Comment # 146474

Brian wrote:

Comment #146474
Posted by Brian on November 25, 2006 10:57 PM (e)

One should wonder why the science of evolution refuses to be questioned or made to answer for its claims.

Science always questions itself. It is what science is about. What science doesn’t do is question itself over and over about issue that have answers that fit the data very well. Where the data is lacking or in question science investigates and refines its understanding. This includes evolution.

Comment # 146474

Brian wrote:

Comment #146474
Posted by Brian on November 25, 2006 10:57 PM (e)

Those that dare challenge evolution as science are considdered idots and that their science is fake with no real challenge of specifics, just a wild claim and no proof. Just a war of words.

Those that dare challenge evolution as science using the bible as a science text book are considered idiots (note spell check your posts it makes you look smarter then you are if you do). Please give us some of your evidence that evolution is false. Seems you are making the wild claim with no proof here.

Comment # 146474

Brian wrote:

Comment #146474
Posted by Brian on November 25, 2006 10:57 PM (e)

Kent Hovind’s unbiblical false views on the IRS got him in big trouble (and rightly so) does not make his sciece bad nor him evil. It is unfortunate that he brought reproach not only to himself, but to his cause, Christians, and his family for his stance on the IRS.

Tell Kent that. He believes his not paying taxes is supported by the bible and god. What makes his “science” (again please use spell check) bad is that it is grossly inaccurate at best and most likely a known lie by him.

Comment # 146474

Brian wrote:

Comment #146474
Posted by Brian on November 25, 2006 10:57 PM (e)

I don’t know where he lied at all. He admitted that he didn’t pay taxes. He just felt he didn’t owe it.

Are you referring to his case or his ministry and museum?

Comment # 146474

Brian wrote:

Comment #146474
Posted by Brian on November 25, 2006 10:57 PM (e)

Also, where is anyone’s proof that Hovind rips people off. That’s slander. His seminars are free but sells videos that are not copywrited (you can view them on YouTube or google videos).
The taxpayer is getting ripped off when a sudent cannot graduate unless he believes a theory as a fact of science.

He rips off his employees by not paying their proper entitlements. His seminars may be free sometimes but he’s charged organisations, including churches, before and refused to provide them with a invoice so they can claim them as expenses.

Comment # 146474

Brian wrote:

Comment #146474
Posted by Brian on November 25, 2006 10:57 PM (e)

Hovind brings out that PS science text books still print stuff that was proven wrong 150 years ago. Why doesn’t anyone get after the textbook publishers? What do you say to that? That doesn’t bother you???

Please show us this “stuff” that was proven wrong 150 years ago. Please say what text books are saying it and why you think it is “proven wrong”

You are just making wild claim with no proof. Seeing you complained that is what scientists are doing it make you a little hypocritical even if your statements where true.