Where do comets come from?

So...... creationists aren't scientists?
You know... because they pretend to be scientists, these people who claim to represent a higher moral standard, in fact look more like liars and charlatans. Ironic, isn't it?

Hey Ian,

I just published a book "Atheism and Naturalism". Anyway, I just wanted to say that I really benefited from your article debunking creationist claims about the origins of life. It really helped me out when I wrote about the issue in the book. Excerpts from it are available here:

http://godriddance.com/book.php

Sincerely,
Ryan

Mark M said: So...... creationists aren't scientists? You know... because they pretend to be scientists, these people who claim to represent a higher moral standard, in fact look more like liars and charlatans. Ironic, isn't it?

Even if there are two orders of magnitude too few comets to keep the JFC class supplied with the observed numbers and we adjust the age of the solar system downward two orders of magnitude that leaves us with a 45 million year-old solar system which is still 3-4 orders of magnitude older than young earth creationism holds.

Young earth arguments are low hanging fruit.

Nice article on comets until you turned it into a creationist hate. I look at the post here thus far - the first one is pure creationist hate and is incorrect when it claims creationist are not scientist - some are - but no one jumps up and down bad mouthing the poster for ignoring obvious facts. The second post is by no means promotion of such hate, but it is an outright promotion of atheism - yet no one mentions that pushing and promoting a religion is something science does not do. I find that interesting, for the people who do that exact same thing, only who say "I believe God is", are lambasted as morons - thus it looks very much like we are at a web site that promotes a religious belief system at the expense of all other.

The third post is pure creationist hate. The forth post is not pure hate or promotion of a belief system. It does not reflect the outright bigots of some earlier post in that it does not speak of the "creationist" but instead narrows the field to "young earth creationism" which seems very fair as a great many who believe in God, and believe God created the universe, do not go for the argument the earth is young, a matter which is easy to demonstrate.

Why is it that we see all this hate being promoted here? Why is it that we find the religion of atheism being promoted here? What is the connection between the promotion of hate, the elevation of atheism, and those who push "evolution", such as, for example, this web site?

Excellent summary, Ian. Thanks.

And when their estimates seemed problematical, did they hide them? No, they are published in open forums so that people can understand and work on the problem.

— Ian Musgrave

Tell us what creationists have done recently to deserve any respect, Troy.

Tell us why we should respect a group of people who use their faith as an aegis for their stupidity, and often money, as well as use their faith as a license to lie, cheat and slander people, in order to please God. And then there's the fact that creationists want their interpretation of the Bible taught in place of science in science classes, and have been resorting to underhanded and despicable, if not illegal backroom deals with like-minded political cronies in order to do this, to the detriment of students everywhere in the US.

Troy said: Nice article on comets until you turned it into a creationist hate. I look at the post here thus far - the first one is pure creationist hate and is incorrect when it claims creationist are not scientist - some are - but no one jumps up and down bad mouthing the poster for ignoring obvious facts. ... Why is it that we see all this hate being promoted here? Why is it that we find the religion of atheism being promoted here? What is the connection between the promotion of hate, the elevation of atheism, and those who push "evolution", such as, for example, this web site?

The authors are people associated with the virtual University of Ediacara (and thus the talk.origins newsgroup), and various web sites critical of the antievolution movement, such as the TalkOrigins Archive, TalkDesign, and Antievolution.org.

Troy wrote:

"Nice article on comets until you turned it into a creationist hate. I look at the post here thus far - the first one is pure creationist hate and is incorrect when it claims creationist are not scientist - some are..."

I don't see any hate here at all, except coming from you. If you are not a creationist, why do you care what others think of them? Can you defend their position in regards to these matters? If so, why have you not tried? Do you admit that the earth and the solar system are much older than any YEC will admit to or not? If not, why?

You ran away without answering any of my questions last time. You tried to claim that biology textbooks promoted atheism, but you never provided even one example of one textbook that even used the term. Your only "evidence" was that you thought that some book written before 1945 made some claim or other. If you cannot provide any evidence for your claim then an impartial observer would have to conclude that you were incorrect.

Now you claim that "creationist" are "scientist". Got an example of that? Let me help you out. Real scientists form hypotheses, obtain grants, conduct experiments, publish the results in peer reviewed literature and eventually get accepted into mainstream textbooks. Creationists do not do this. As far as anyone can tell, they don't even read the scientific literature. Now if you can give an example, then I am sure that everyone will be forced to agree with you, if not, then go peddle your hatred for real science elsewhere.

@ Troy:

Because people have opinions that don't agree with yours? Is the website supposed to remove comments because they don't agree with you and express irritation?

I think you're misusing the word "Hate", and unfairly tying it to atheism, which you are also unfairly tying to evolution. As you mention, some scientists believe in a universe created by God, which, at this point in time, would necessitate also thinking evolution is the best biological theory, as it's the theory with the most support.

DS said: Troy wrote: "Nice article on comets until you turned it into a creationist hate. I look at the post here thus far - the first one is pure creationist hate and is incorrect when it claims creationist are not scientist - some are..." I don't see any hate here at all, except coming from you. If you are not a creationist, why do you care what others think of them? Can you defend their position in regards to these matters? If so, why have you not tried? Do you admit that the earth and the solar system are much older than any YEC will admit to or not? If not, why? You ran away without answering any of my questions last time. You tried to claim that biology textbooks promoted atheism, but you never provided even one example of one textbook that even used the term. Your only "evidence" was that you thought that some book written before 1945 made some claim or other. If you cannot provide any evidence for your claim then an impartial observer would have to conclude that you were incorrect. Now you claim that "creationist" are "scientist". Got an example of that? Let me help you out. Real scientists form hypotheses, obtain grants, conduct experiments, publish the results in peer reviewed literature and eventually get accepted into mainstream textbooks. Creationists do not do this. As far as anyone can tell, they don't even read the scientific literature. Now if you can give an example, then I am sure that everyone will be forced to agree with you, if not, then go peddle your hatred for real science elsewhere.

Troy, you're wasting your time. No matter how many holes you shoot through evolutionary theory, they refuse to listen.

It reminds me of the bacterial flagellum that Behe described and used to argue his thoughts on irreducible complexity.

Regardless of which side you're on, there's two facts that NO ONE can deny and evolutionists just brush over:

1. The locomotion device is a nano-machine. It's a marvel of nano-engineering.

How can you honestly look at this molecular motor, which includes a propeller and motor complete with gears, stator, etc, and think it got there by natural selection? Just LOOK AT IT. Go Google Image it to see what I'm talking about if you're not familiar with it.

2. This locomotion device has unique proteins. Also, if you take any one away (borne out by experiments), it stops working. Evolutionists have NO ANSWER for the UNIQUE PROTEINS. The best they can come up with is "well, it's not out of the realm of possibility that maybe we'll find them some day".

Matthew,

You are sadly mistaken. Perhaps you have been listening to too much creationist propaganda.

First, a flagellum is not a nano machine. Just look at it. It looks nothing like a nano machine to me. You see if you think that your opinion is evidence of anything, them my opinion counts just as much as yours and I say you are wrong.

Second, the flagellum is not irreducibly complex. You can take away lots of parts and it still functions, for locomotion and for other functions as well. This is what we have learned from the comparative evidence. How do you explain the homologies between flagellar proteins and other genes?

You see Matthew, you are not goiing to get anywhere in exactly the same way that Troy is not going to get anywhere and for exactly the same reason. You have no evidence to substantiate any of your claims. Why should anyone care what you believe if you have no evidence?

The bacterial flagellum? Seriously? You're still on that? Wow, you have some catching up to do, Matthew.

Matthew said: Troy, you're wasting your time. No matter how many holes you shoot through evolutionary theory, they refuse to listen. It reminds me of the bacterial flagellum that Behe described and used to argue his thoughts on irreducible complexity. Regardless of which side you're on, there's two facts that NO ONE can deny and evolutionists just brush over: 1. The locomotion device is a nano-machine. It's a marvel of nano-engineering. How can you honestly look at this molecular motor, which includes a propeller and motor complete with gears, stator, etc, and think it got there by natural selection? Just LOOK AT IT. Go Google Image it to see what I'm talking about if you're not familiar with it. 2. This locomotion device has unique proteins. Also, if you take any one away (borne out by experiments), it stops working. Evolutionists have NO ANSWER for the UNIQUE PROTEINS. The best they can come up with is "well, it's not out of the realm of possibility that maybe we'll find them some day".

Would that be the same bacterial flagellum that was done to death at the Dover trial, at which the assertion by Behe that it was "irreducibly complex" was absolutely destroyed by competent scientists who referred only to the evidence? That bacterial flagellum?

No, seriously. Here we see the genesis (now there's the word) of another creationist argument-zombie, like the Second Law of Thermodynamics schtick they've been resurrecting for a generation or more now. No matter how many times it's killed, it won't die. Twenty, thirty years from now, they'll still be chanting "the bacterial flagellum" in chorus, while everyone who actually knows anything about it groans aloud.

Again, still not answering the questions. No answers for the unique proteins by itself is enough, but that coupled with taking 1 away and it stops working = no way it could've evolved by Natural Selection.

By the way, I am not arguing for irreducible complexity, or arguing against micro-evolution (which I believe in). Micro-evolution explains why we have all the great variation and adaptability we see today. If God had not made creatures this way, we'd have a lot more extinct species and a lot less variety today.

MACRO-evolution, and the origin of life, is where I disagree with evolutionists. For example, you can have all kinds of types of dogs (doberman, golden retriever, chihuahua, etc) - but you'll never see a dog change into a chicken, for example.

Item # 3 which people who don't believe in a God have no answer for. Quote:

3. "As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life.

Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry – and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning.

So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far.

It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance.

And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area."

- Edward Peltzer
Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry
September 2, 2008

John Kwok, that argument is a joke (no offense).

So the flagellum also contains within it a structure similar to a microsyringe found in some bacteria. That's nice.

But having found this sub-structure, Ken Miller merrily concludes that the
microsyringe must have evolved into the flagellum.

Such pathetic lapses in logic are everywhere in the evolutionary literature.

John, what exactly had to happen to that microsyringe to transform it into a flagellum?

To see what’s at stake, consider what exactly has to happen to a motor to
transform it into a motorcycle.

Sure, there are a number of steps that can transform a motor into a motorcycle.

And there probably are a number of steps that can transform a microsyringe into a flagellum.

But what are those steps? How gradual is the progression? And is it reasonable to think that those steps could be taken apart from design?

Not having a clue about how these systems did or might have evolved, evolutionists never answer such questions.

Matthew,

We do know where genes and proteins come from. They come from gene duplication followed by mutational divergence. In fact, we know where many of the flagellum proteins come from. We don't know specifically where every protein comes from. Where do you think they come from? Got any evidence?

It has already been demonstrated that your nonsense about taking away a protein and the flagellun will stop working is fallacious. Stop making that falsified claim if you want anyone to take you seriously.

The physical laws of the universe would be the same, it's true. The conditions that effect chemical reactions would not be the same, however. Earth was a different place when life began to emerge than it is after life has emerged and has effected the chemistry of the environment, which in turn effected the chemistry of life, etc.

The thing is, all arguments that claim the complexity is the issue are inherently unscientific. If the universe is irreducibly complex, then why are we even trying to understand it? While the universe is complex, we've made headway into understanding that complexity and codifying it. Pointing to the complexity is a philosophical rehash of Paley, and something to be mindful of when attempting to understand the universe, but not a refutation of evolution.

Arguments of this nature could have been used against Newton -- he had several problems to work out in his physics, and the physical universe is clearly complex. Still, scientists carried on, and while Newton's theory isn't the end-all of physics, it's still used today, just with a deeper understanding of some of the assumptions you have to make in using it. One could have pointed to the complexity of the universe, and stated "Obviously, Aristotle had it right. Objects want to stop. Just look at them. I push this rock, and it stops. So, objects must be acted upon in order to move", but they would still be wrong.

DS,

This is what bothers me so much about evolutionists.

And I'm sure Evolutionists and Creationists look at each other the same way - they think the others are morons.

It's as if all evolutionists have intelligence but no wisdom (common sense).

DS how can you honestly believe in evolution as the reason we're here. Ever seen a sunset? Smelled a flower? Listened to a bird?

One HUGE problem I have always had with Natural Selection being the reason of us being here is this - Nature without a God has no power to choose, and is incapable of looking to the future.

It acts on the spur of the moment based on its current environment.

And yet, this limited process is supposed to produce marvels of biological complexity and diversity that far exceed the capacities of the best human designers, such as the bacterial flagellum?

How can you honestly believe that these things (including the flagellum, just ONE example) are here by random chance?

Intelligence but no common sense...

Matthew comes from the world of creationism, where facts are fabricated to fit, allegations cannot be dislodged by evidence, and false claims become wrong not on their merits, but when so many people become aware the're wrong that they lose effectiveness.

Ultimately, he falls back on argument by incredulity (colored somewhat by "argument by copying other creationists' incredulity"). However, he DOES seem to have learned the Behe Technique: Demand infinite evidence for current theories regardless of existing evidence, while proposing no alternatives whatsoever, much less testable alternatives. And when infinite evidence is not forthcoming, dismiss the entire structure as unsupported.

An analogy would be, if your religion says boats don't float, ignore all the floating boats while demanding an exact specification of every water molecule in the ocean. See, "floatists" really DO NOT know what they're talking about!

Remember, I'm not arguing for irreducible complexity. I see both sides of that argument.

My point is, there are a lot of UNANSWERED questions about evolution being the reason we'rre here. Again, I agree with natural selection and micro-evolution.

All I'm saying is, if you look at all the questions, (which, in fairness, if you haven't looked into, how would you know of them?) - across ALL the sciences, there are some BIG holes in evolution as the origin of life...

Sigh. Once again, we have the "post facto miracle" argument. In an infinite universe an infinite number of infinitely unlikely things is guaranteed to happen. Pick any one, express amazement that anyone could possibly believe it happened "by accident", and claim it's a miracle. No matter how often they deny that every bridge hand is a miracle, they keep claiming that each bridge hand is so unique only a moron could think it happened by chance.

there are some BIG holes in evolution as the origin of life

See, that's the problem with Evolutionists ;). They always invent a rescuing device.

Even Talk Origins has no answer for the unique proteins. They're best shot is this (look it up on their own site if you don't believe me, under 30 unique proteins article, which they also twist and LIE about, they weren't talking about just one, across ALL the bacteria):

"It is at least plausible that homologies for those will be discovered later. "

Uh...great. Not an answer though. Talk about faith-based belief ;)

Here, I'll give you another huge hole:

4. Red blood cells discovered in T-Rex bones = NOT THAT OLD

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7195

(by the way, that article is old, they did do the chemistry, and they ARE RED BLOOD CELLS).

But wait, because Evolutionists refuse to accept any other evidence other than "the Earth is a bazillion years old", instead of re-thinking their theory based on this new evidence, what do they do?

"Uh....well...I guess soft tissue CAN survive for millions and millions of years!"

Riiiggghhhttt.... =o)

Matthew said: John Kwok, that argument is a joke (no offense). So the flagellum also contains within it a structure similar to a microsyringe found in some bacteria. That's nice. But having found this sub-structure, Ken Miller merrily concludes that the microsyringe must have evolved into the flagellum. Such pathetic lapses in logic are everywhere in the evolutionary literature. John, what exactly had to happen to that microsyringe to transform it into a flagellum? To see what’s at stake, consider what exactly has to happen to a motor to transform it into a motorcycle. Sure, there are a number of steps that can transform a motor into a motorcycle. And there probably are a number of steps that can transform a microsyringe into a flagellum. But what are those steps? How gradual is the progression? And is it reasonable to think that those steps could be taken apart from design? Not having a clue about how these systems did or might have evolved, evolutionists never answer such questions.

Matthew said: John Kwok, that argument is a joke (no offense). So the flagellum also contains within it a structure similar to a microsyringe found in some bacteria. That's nice. But having found this sub-structure, Ken Miller merrily concludes that the microsyringe must have evolved into the flagellum. Such pathetic lapses in logic are everywhere in the evolutionary literature. John, what exactly had to happen to that microsyringe to transform it into a flagellum? To see what’s at stake, consider what exactly has to happen to a motor to transform it into a motorcycle. Sure, there are a number of steps that can transform a motor into a motorcycle. And there probably are a number of steps that can transform a microsyringe into a flagellum. But what are those steps? How gradual is the progression? And is it reasonable to think that those steps could be taken apart from design? Not having a clue about how these systems did or might have evolved, evolutionists never answer such questions.

The usual nonsense. Dogs don't change into chickens, so evolution doesn't happen. Speaking of chickens, why not ask which came first, the chicken or the egg? That's always a good one.

The origin of life is an unsolved mystery. Happy now?

Nobody knows how it happened. Many people are trying to find out, and some progress has been made, but the problem, and most of the argument, revolves around just exactly what conditions existed on the early earth, 3.5 billion years ago. Not much about that is known for sure. If that isn't known, then finding the right conditions for the first self-replicating molecules to appear is a stab in the dark. Not being able to specify in rigorous detail what these molecules were doesn't help, either.

But once the first cellular life appears, the rest is known in general principle, and in many cases in a fine level of detail. Over those 3.5 billion years, life diversified into its current vast array of species via the processes of biological evolution, driven by natural selection. This means that all life has common ancestry and that there was no separate creation of the species.

That's what happened. The evidence is impossible to ignore within reason. Deal with it.

Matthew said: Remember, I'm not arguing for irreducible complexity. I see both sides of that argument. My point is, there are a lot of UNANSWERED questions about evolution being the reason we'rre here. Again, I agree with natural selection and micro-evolution. All I'm saying is, if you look at all the questions, (which, in fairness, if you haven't looked into, how would you know of them?) - across ALL the sciences, there are some BIG holes in evolution as the origin of life...

SWT, no NOT WRONG. Again, same tired argument. First link's basis is the microsyringe (Type 3 secretion system). See my original comment on the microsyringe above. It's a joke.

2nd link: Because there are some proteins shared means that's how it evolved? Come on, another weak argument. Plus it still doesn't explain the UNIQUE proteins. You don't think a common DESIGNER would want to use something over again?

Matthew said: SWT, no NOT WRONG. Again, same tired argument. First link's basis is the microsyringe (Type 3 secretion system). See my original comment on the microsyringe above. It's a joke. 2nd link: Because there are some proteins shared means that's how it evolved? Come on, another weak argument. Plus it still doesn't explain the UNIQUE proteins. You don't think a common DESIGNER would want to use something over again?

So no one wants to comment on the T-Rex red blood cells? Or are you going to use a classic Evolutionary rescuing device when confronted with conflicting evidence?

By the way, here's another huge hole:

# 5. In June of 1990, Hugh Miller submitted two dinosaur bone fragments to the Department of Geosciences at the University in Tucson, Arizona for carbon-14 analysis. One fragment was from an unidentified dinosaur. The other was from an Allosaurus excavated by James Hall near Grand Junction, Colorado in 1989. Miller submitted the samples without disclosing the identity of the bones. (Had the scientists known the samples actually were from dinosaurs, they would not have bothered dating them, since it is assumed dinosaurs lived millions of years ago—outside the limits of radiocarbon dating.) Interestingly, the C-14 analysis indicated that the bones were from 10,000-16,000 years old—a far cry from their alleged 60-million-year-old age (see Dahmer, et al., 1990, pp. 371-374).

I already know what Evolutionists will say "only an idiot would carbon date dinosaur bones", right? Because we all know that just won't work because we THINK they're too old. Sigh.

That's it John, resort to name-calling. That's another M.O. of Evolutionists when they can't explain conflicting evidence.

# 6 - So I guess it's just a huge random chance that our position in the universe and solar system is such that all the variables are in-line to support our life on this planet?

Isn't it interesting that if you change one thing a little (such as the size of the Earth, distance from the sun, etc), life can no longer be supported?

You think that's just random chance? Just a big crap shoot then huh? =o)

Intelligence, but no common sense...

Cripes, Matthew, what cheese.

What are you saying? "I appreciate Bach, or flowers, or sunsets, or whatever, so this means I have a reason for being, and that means that evolution didn't happen"? (Or slot any human quality you like into the first half of that - "I have a sense of justice"; "I act altruistically"; "I have an ethical sense"; "I am complex beyond all measure". Whatever.)

Surely it must be obvious to anyone that the two halves of this don't connect at all.

Dave come on man. I know you are intelligent. You really think we're here by blind luck?

Have you Google'd the bacterial flagellum Dave? I know it's bad to use because of Behe and his irreducible complexity argument but I don't use it for that. Just look at the thing. It's a motor and propeller Dave! If you would just take your blinders off, you'd agree, yes, that's an amazing machine.

What's a motor and propeller doing on the back of a bacteria Dave? Come on...

God did leave evidence for us that He exists.

Matthew,

You can keep quoting creationist nonsense and keep demanding more and more details all you want. The fact reamins that the consensus view in science is firmly established based on evidence. Unless you can expalin the preponderance of the evidence then no amount of "see you can't explain every little detail" is going to convince anyone of anything.

By the way, carbon dating of dinosaur bones is inappropriate. Tricking a scientist into using an inappropriate method is evidence of nothing but your duplicitious nature.

There are good evolutionary explanations for the origin of the flagellum There will be more detailed explanations when we have more data. Until then, would you care to enlighten us with your alternative hypothesis? Does it involve POOF by any chance?

And Dave what about the T-Rex red blood cells? Or the dinosaur bones carbon dating?

I could go on and on. If you actually just LOOKED INTO it for yourself, instead of blindly believing things, you'd found there's actually quite a bit of evidence AGAINST evolution as the origin of life.

That's all I'm saying.

DS why is carbon dating dinosaur bones inappropriate? Because the results that come back don't fit your pre-conceived notion of how we're how?

That's how the majority of people respond. They toss out the results, name call, or simply ignore the facts.

I meant to say "how we're here" in that comment above, first paragraph, sorry, typing to fast ;)

On the T-rex "blood". From Talk Origin's "List of Creationist claims".

1. Schweitzer et al. did not find hemoglobin or red blood cells. Rather, they found evidence of degraded hemoglobin fragments and structures that might represent altered blood remnants. They emphasizd repeatedly that even those results were tentative, that the chemicals and structures may be from geological processes and contamination (Schweitzer and Horner 1999; Schweitzer and Staedter 1997; Schweitzer et al. 1997a, 1997b). The bone is exceptionally well preserved, so much so that it may contain some organic material from the original dinosaur, but the preservation should not be exaggerated.

2. The bone that Schweitzer and her colleagues studied was fossilized, but it was not altered by "permineralization or other diagenetic effects" (Schweitzer et al. 1997b). Permineralization is the filling of the bone's open parts with minerals; diagenetic effects include alterations like cracking. Schweitzer commented that the bone was "not completely fossilized" (Schweitzer and Staedter 1997, 35), but lack of permineralization does not mean unfossilized.

3. An ancient age of the bone is supported by the (nonradiometric) amino racemization dating technique.

4. Soft tissues have been found on fossils tens of thousands of years old, and DNA has been recovered from samples more than 300,000 years old (Stokstad 2003; Willerslev et al. 2003). If dinosaur fossils were as young as creationists claim, recovering DNA and non-bone tissues from them should be routine enough that it would not be news.

By the way, the Bible is backed up by archaeological evidence, here is just ONE example:

The Caiaphas family tomb was accidentally discovered by workers constructing a road in a park just south of the Old City of Jerusalem. Archaeologists were hastily called to the scene. When they examined the tomb they found 12 ossuaries (limestone bone boxes) containing the remains of 63 individuals. The most beautifully decorated of the ossuaries was inscribed with the name "Joseph son of (or, of the family of) Caiaphas." That was the full name of the high priest who arrested Jesus, as described in the Bible and documented by Josephus (Antiquities 18: 2, 2; 4, 3). Inside were the remains of a 60-year-old male, almost certainly those of the Caiaphas of the New Testament. This remarkable discovery has, for the first time, provided us with the physical remains of an individual named in the Bible.

NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/1992/08/16/weekinreview/august-9-15-the-tomb-of-caiaphas-unearthed.html

Matthew wrote:

"I could go on and on. If you actually just LOOKED INTO it for yourself, instead of blindly believing things, you’d found there’s actually quite a bit of evidence AGAINST evolution as the origin of life."

Yes, I believe you, you could go on and on, who cares?

You have no idea who your are talking to or what they know, try to remember that and try to be a llittle less arrogant.

There is evidence against the origin of life? Pray tell?

What exactly is the T-Rex article supposed to support? I read it... but I don't understand the point you're trying to make with it.

I do not think that these systems, however delicate, are evidence of the existence of God. In fact, I do not think God can be proven to exist by observing the physical universe, as God is not a physical being (Well, I guess that can vary with definitions, but if he is, then he certainly follows the laws of the universe, which would be a philosophical problem unto itself). Just to drive the point home, I do not think evolution says anything with regards to the existence of God. It has everything to say about how life works -- and that's it.

Dave, careful with Talk Origins, they sometimes lie to support their theories. And that article is old.

It is my understanding that they WERE tested and they WERE RED BLOOD CELLS and were NOT the result of geological processes and contamination. I believe you can contact the woman who actually found them and verify that. I'll see if I can find the recent article which says this.

Again, how do you know they were 300,000 years old Dave? See what I'm saying? That's scientists' preconceived notion, which skews everything.

The latest issue of Science has some good stuff. Mary Schweitzer is back with evidence of hadrosaur collagen. I know lots of creationists that get charged up by this sort of thing, since this is supposed to be evidence that the fossils must be younger than conventional claims by millions of years. I've never been very excited about this, mainly because the Flood throws a real monkey wrench into these arguments. A major source of degradation of biomolecules is water. So anything that died in the Flood and floated in water for a year shouldn't really have many biomolecules left, right? Seems like if you believe fossils are millions of years old or are the remains of carcasses from the Flood, the outcome is the same: very little preservation of biomolecules. In this case, Schweitzer is finding collagen, which is pretty tough, so I guess it makes sense that it might be preserved in some extraordinary cases. In any case, finding the rare, hardy biomolecule from dinosaurs is nothing to get excited about, since the conventional model and the Flood model both predict the same thing: this should be very, very unusual.

Here's another problem with evolution for you to think about:

7. Until the 1930's, scientists had been saying that the coelecanth had been extinct for about 60 million years. Then in the 1930's, they realized these extinct fish were being caught alive in the Indian Ocean (and still live there today).

The interesting thing about this is two-fold: One, that this fish was proclaimed to be prehistoric, millions of years old, and as it turns out, it is neither of these things. Two, there is no difference between the fossil and the living versions of the species.

Matthew said: So no one wants to comment on the T-Rex red blood cells? Or are you going to use a classic Evolutionary rescuing device when confronted with conflicting evidence? By the way, here's another huge hole: # 5. In June of 1990, Hugh Miller submitted two dinosaur bone fragments to the Department of Geosciences at the University in Tucson, Arizona for carbon-14 analysis. One fragment was from an unidentified dinosaur. The other was from an Allosaurus excavated by James Hall near Grand Junction, Colorado in 1989. Miller submitted the samples without disclosing the identity of the bones. (Had the scientists known the samples actually were from dinosaurs, they would not have bothered dating them, since it is assumed dinosaurs lived millions of years ago—outside the limits of radiocarbon dating.) Interestingly, the C-14 analysis indicated that the bones were from 10,000-16,000 years old—a far cry from their alleged 60-million-year-old age (see Dahmer, et al., 1990, pp. 371-374). I already know what Evolutionists will say "only an idiot would carbon date dinosaur bones", right? Because we all know that just won't work because we THINK they're too old. Sigh.

Matthew said: SWT, no NOT WRONG. Again, same tired argument. First link's basis is the microsyringe (Type 3 secretion system). See my original comment on the microsyringe above. It's a joke. 2nd link: Because there are some proteins shared means that's how it evolved? Come on, another weak argument. Plus it still doesn't explain the UNIQUE proteins. You don't think a common DESIGNER would want to use something over again?

But what are those steps? How gradual is the progression? And is it reasonable to think that those steps could be taken apart from design? Not having a clue about how these systems did or might have evolved, evolutionists never answer such questions.

Matthew wrote:

"DS why is carbon dating dinosaur bones inappropriate? Because the results that come back don’t fit your pre-conceived notion of how we’re how?"

Quite frankly, if you don't know why it is inappropriate you shouldn't be trying to discuss the issue with anyone.

What if I told you to get a six inch ruler and to come over right away, there is something I want you to measure. When you arrived I said that I wanted you to measure the distance from Los Angeles to New York. What would be your response?

Radio carbon dating has been reliably calibrated back about 35,000 years and has a maximum theoretical range of about 50,00 years. After that the method is unreliable. That is why it is not used for remains thought to be older than that. There are other methods that can be used to date older strata. The results are always consistent between methods. In any event contamination would be a significant problem for the scenario you describe. Do try to become more educated before lecturing anyone again.

Steve,

Thanks for providing an article proving they're red blood cells, although disagree with an atheists's version of the flood model. Thanks though.

Here's a more recent (and unbiased) article I was able to find, can't find the current one I'm think of though, perhaps someone can find and post:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html

Matthew said: Here's another problem with evolution for you to think about: 7. Until the 1930's, scientists had been saying that the coelecanth had been extinct for about 60 million years. Then in the 1930's, they realized these extinct fish were being caught alive in the Indian Ocean (and still live there today). The interesting thing about this is two-fold: One, that this fish was proclaimed to be prehistoric, millions of years old, and as it turns out, it is neither of these things. Two, there is no difference between the fossil and the living versions of the species.

Matthew said: Dave come on man. I know you are intelligent. You really think we're here by blind luck? Have you Google'd the bacterial flagellum Dave? I know it's bad to use because of Behe and his irreducible complexity argument but I don't use it for that. Just look at the thing. It's a motor and propeller Dave! If you would just take your blinders off, you'd agree, yes, that's an amazing machine. What's a motor and propeller doing on the back of a bacteria Dave? Come on... God did leave evidence for us that He exists.

SWT - The problem with that argument is ONE, it's a HYPOTHESIS, TWO, it's never been OBSERVED to happen, and THREE, his hypothesis is using the secretion system (the microsyringe) NOT the flagellum!!

DS - again, you know it's not reliable because you were able to test it back 35,000 years, etc?

It doesn't matter how much evidence I provide, you are going to invent a rescuing device.

If you were walking along in a forest and came across a painting hanging on a tree, you know there was a painter. Even though you weren't there to see the painting made, you know someone painted, or created it. It doesn't mean it evolved!

If each distinct layer of rock is separate ages of the earth separated by millions of years, why have petrified trees been found standing up intersecting multiple layers of rock?

Matthew said: Steve, Thanks for providing an article proving they're red blood cells, although disagree with an atheists's version of the flood model. Thanks though. Here's a more recent (and unbiased) article I was able to find, can't find the current one I'm think of though, perhaps someone can find and post: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html

John, you do realize you're proving the Bible correct with your own words don't you? And they will come back to haunt you:

(2Pe 3:3) knowing this first, that in the last days mockers shall come with mockery, walking after their own lusts,

(2Pe 3:4) and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for, from the day that the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

(2Pe 3:5) For this they willfully forget, that there were heavens from of old, and an earth compacted out of water and amidst water, by the word of God;

Matthew wrote:

"DS - again, you know it’s not reliable because you were able to test it back 35,000 years, etc?"

Please read for comprehension. It has been reliably calibrated usiing independent methods back at least 35,000 years. After 50,000 years there is too little radioactive carbon left to be measured acurately. Please become educated before spouting nonsense about things that are well understood.

Do you disagree? Were you there?

Steve, you're missing the big picture. You have to look at everything, in all the sciences. Just one piece of evidence wouldn't be enough. But you start adding everything up, and you eventually come to the point where you realize evolution being the reason we're here is incorrect.

It's not just the soft tissue and DNA (explain that away) that was extracted, or the radiocarbon dating of dinosaur bones that come back as thousands, not millions of years old. But you add that with EVERYTHING else (only a FRACTION of which I've posted here) and you come to that conclusion.

Matthew said: That's it John, resort to name-calling. That's another M.O. of Evolutionists when they can't explain conflicting evidence.

Matthew said: See, that's the problem with Evolutionists ;). They always invent a rescuing device. Even Talk Origins has no answer for the unique proteins. They're best shot is this (look it up on their own site if you don't believe me, under 30 unique proteins article, which they also twist and LIE about, they weren't talking about just one, across ALL the bacteria): "It is at least plausible that homologies for those will be discovered later. " Uh...great. Not an answer though. Talk about faith-based belief ;) Here, I'll give you another huge hole: 4. Red blood cells discovered in T-Rex bones = NOT THAT OLD http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7195 (by the way, that article is old, they did do the chemistry, and they ARE RED BLOOD CELLS). But wait, because Evolutionists refuse to accept any other evidence other than "the Earth is a bazillion years old", instead of re-thinking their theory based on this new evidence, what do they do? "Uh....well...I guess soft tissue CAN survive for millions and millions of years!" Riiiggghhhttt.... =o)

Oh, yes, and I remember the allosaur bone fiasco. The sample, a nineteenth century specimen from a museum, was contaminated with shellac - often used as a preservative in those days. Shellac is organic. Of course the date was wrong. The T-rex bone didn't have any blood cells still extant, and the discoverers were at pains to say so. Their original papers are cited in the Talk Origins reponse. You want to call them liars, too, over a find you've never seen yourself? Go right ahead.

And you're telling me I have to look into things more closely? Take a good hard look at yourself. Somebody said something once about motes in another's eye, and how you should take the plank out of your own eye first. Good advice. Carpenters know about that stuff.

Do I know why we're here? No. Haven't a clue. But here's a stab at it: we seem to be the only life form that uses reason, at least in its more elaborate forms. Perhaps we are here to use it. Well, it works for me.

DS the problem here is our paradigms. My paradigm says we've only been here thousands, not millions of years. Yours is different.

You look at the same evidence with your evolutionary glasses on and it tells you one thing. I look at the same evidence and see how it clearly supports creation and a designer and orderliness to the universe.

I call Poe.

Dave, you're not investigating for yourself again! There was DNA left. Go look it up. Try and explain that away! And yes Talk Origins lies. And a convenient excuse is the shellac. That's nice.

They were RED BLOOD CELLS. Of course they're going to be dead, you expect them to be moving around? When they die they leave the structures. That doesn't change the fact that they were not millions of years old!

Talk Origins will invent as many rescuing devices as they can. Here's another example, look on their own site about trying to explain away clay figures created by man that look like dinosaurs:

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

You can't have dinosaurs and man together Dave, that blows the whole evolutionary theory out of the water...

Ham, rather. That last was a paraphrase of him, more or less. And now Matthew's come right out with it. He's not admitting any evidence unless it fits his "paradigm", which is what he sees with his Bible glasses on.

Matthew said: Here's another problem with evolution for you to think about: 7. Until the 1930's, scientists had been saying that the coelecanth had been extinct for about 60 million years. Then in the 1930's, they realized these extinct fish were being caught alive in the Indian Ocean (and still live there today).

The interesting thing about this is two-fold: One, that this fish was proclaimed to be prehistoric, millions of years old, and as it turns out, it is neither of these things. Two, there is no difference between the fossil and the living versions of the species.

Matthew said: You can't have dinosaurs and man together Dave, that blows the whole evolutionary theory out of the water...

I call Poe.

See? It's always the same, there is always a rescuing device. It doesn't matter what I say.

Whether it's soft tissue in dinosaur bones, the molecular machine on the back of a bacteria, short period comets (let me guess...Kuiper belt), C14 found in diamonds, etc.

And the same thing with the clay figures, ICA stones, aboriginal paintings of a plesiosaur (spelling?)- type creature, etc. They're either fakes or something else.

Coelacanth, Wollemi Pine, all the same. You refuse to see the truth. Evolutionists are so stubborn! You always resist the Holy Spirit!

Here is another person's view, PHD from Ohio State:

"As a biochemist and software developer who works in genetic and metabolic screening, I am continually amazed by the incredible complexity of life. For example, each of us has a vast ‘computer program’ of six billion DNA bases in every cell that guided our development from a fertilized egg, specifies how to make more than 200 tissue types, and ties all this together in numerous highly functional organ systems.

Few people outside of genetics or biochemistry realize that evolutionists still can provide no substantive details at all about the origin of life, and particularly the origin of genetic information in the first self-replicating organism.

What genes did it require – or did it even have genes? How much DNA and RNA did it have – or did it even have nucleic acids? How did huge information-rich molecules arise before natural selection? Exactly how did the genetic code linking nucleic acids to amino acid sequence originate? Clearly the origin of life – the foundation of evolution - is still virtually all speculation, and little if no fact.

- Chris Williams
Ph.D., Biochemistry Ohio State University
August 11, 2008

Matthew said: SWT - The problem with that argument is ONE, it's a HYPOTHESIS, TWO, it's never been OBSERVED to happen, and THREE, his hypothesis is using the secretion system (the microsyringe) NOT the flagellum!!

But what are those steps? How gradual is the progression? And is it reasonable to think that those steps could be taken apart from design? Not having a clue about how these systems did or might have evolved, evolutionists never answer such questions.

Desperate stuff. Talk Origins lied. The original discoverers lied in their papers describing the find. Shellac is "a convenient excuse", rather than the evidence that sank a particularly clumsy attempt at a creationist gotcha.

The Acambaro figures must be real, despite the lack of provenance, the eyewitness account of them being found in fresh backfill, and their impossibly good condition. What's next, the Ica stones? If not, why not? Surely there must be greater depths you can plumb?

Actually Chris Williams has a good point.

8. There is no demonstrable process that describes how non-living objects come to life. Life always comes from something already alive.

This is a good analogy: Imagine all life on earth disappeared. There are no trees, plants or animals. All we have is rocks, dust, and lifeless matter. So how does the earth get populated with living things?

Let's say we have the big bang at the beginning of time, a massive explosion of non-living matter. Same concept.

How on earth does that create life??

It reminds me of the bacterial flagellum that Behe described and used to argue his thoughts on irreducible complexity.

Evolutionists have NO ANSWER for the UNIQUE PROTEINS.

MACRO-evolution, and the origin of life, is where I disagree with evolutionists. For example, you can have all kinds of types of dogs (doberman, golden retriever, chihuahua, etc) - but you’ll never see a dog change into a chicken, for example.

I call Poe.

SWT perhaps you should read more carefully as well, that argument has been refuted:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/nick-matzkes-ttss-to-flagellum-evolutionary-narrative-refuted/

Again, this goes back to our paradigms.

Dave, come on. I feel as though you almost want to believe. That at least is the first step. Did you investigate the other items? Again, lots and lots of issues, if you would just look more into everything. Don't believe me, go look at ALL the evidence before you make your final decision. I encourage everyone to do this actually, because a LOT is riding on your choice!

But the bottom line is, there is no proof of us being here by chance. Either way (big ban or Creation) requires faith.

Richard I am not arguing for irreducible complexity. I am simply saying that when you look at the big picture (and I haven't yet touched on the statistical probability of us being here by chance), the Evolutionary view of the origin of life doesn't make sense.

Matthew said: SWT perhaps you should read more carefully as well, that argument has been refuted: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/nick-matzkes-ttss-to-flagellum-evolutionary-narrative-refuted/ Again, this goes back to our paradigms.

See? It’s always the same, there is always a rescuing device. It doesn’t matter what I say.

I haven’t yet touched on the statistical probability of us being here by chance

9. Where did new genetic information come from?

Has anyone thought this through for themselves?

To show that all life evolved from a single cell, which itself came from some type of chemical soup and requires faith rivaling religion, there would have had to be massive genetic information gains.

Where did the information come from for the first bristles, stomachs, spines, intestines, complex blood circulation systems, intricate mouthpieces to strain special foods out of the water, etc, when these were not present in the ancestral species?

Wait, I already know what you're going to say! "It must have happened by mutations and natural selection!". WRONG ANSWER.

Mutations and natural selection do not show gains in information, just rearrangement or loss of what is already there. Now there may be beneficial mutations (although that's hardly the norm - usually mutations as BAD), but that does not increase the genetic information.

Mutations overwhelmingly destroy genetic information and produce creatures more handicapped than the parents.

SWT - That's a good point, perhaps I should restate and say that instead of never providing answers, they eventually come up with a rescuing device or some hypothesis that can never be proven and that I either disagree with or that doesn't make sense once you delve into it.

Richard - Apologies for coming across that way, I just don't want to see you or anyone else make the wrong choice. And actually if you would research some of the supposed bad arguments from times past you would see there are other arguments besides those, which is why I was hesitant to bring up the flagellum in the first place because I knew people would instantly jump to "Irreducible Complexity? Oh that's already been argued about".

And regarding your next post, yes if you go by the 5 year old (or older) arguments that some creationists have used in the past.

I think SteveF is right about the Poe thing. Matthew is just too stereotypical to be the real deal. Amusing, though.

Again, there are other points I brought up that no one has responded to. Here's another thing to make you think and use your common sense:

10. The statistical probability of us being here by chance is absurd.

Let’s look at the Hemoglobin molecule.

It consists of 574 elements from an alphabet of 20.

These are:

Glycine 36
Alanine 68
Serine 31
Tyrosine 30
Proline 25
Valine 56
Isoleucine 1
Leucine 69
Phenylalanine 28
Threonine 14
Tryptophan 4
Cysteine 5
Methionine 6
Asparagine 47
Glutamine 29
Arganine 12
Histidine 32
Lysine 43
Amide N* 38

*Includes Aspartic & Glutamic acides

Total = 574

The formula for linear arrangements is N=n!/(p! x q! x r!...)

There are 10 to the 650th possibilities. Only ONE of them is Hemoglobin. If you change just one, you get Hemoglobin Opathy.

Anything below 10 to the 50th is defined as absurd. 10 to the 650th is roughly the equivalent of winnng the lottery every day for 90 days IN A ROW.

To put this in perspective, it's like placing a monkey at a keyboard and give him the evolutionists’ perception of the age of the earth length of time to type. What are the chances the monkey will type out the entire works of the Encyclopedia Britannica A-Z with no spelling or grammar errors? The chances of that happening are actually BETTER than us being as a result of evolution.

Chance is too inefficient in time and material.

Matthew,

You have just proven that a hemoglobin molecule could not spontaneously arise from nothing. a creationist hypothesis not an evolutioinary one. Please bleieve me when I tell you that greater minds than yours have ponereded these issues for far longer than you have been alive. All you have succeeded in doiing in spouting creationist nonsense mindlessly. You have utterly failed to convince anyone that you even know what you are talking about. Please stop before someone starts to get really nasty with you. Please, just go away.

Fine I will leave.

But at the end of time when you're standing with me at the judgement you can't say I didn't try to save you guys.

Goodbye.

Matthew said: Fine I will leave. But at the end of time when you're standing with me at the judgement you can't say I didn't try to save you guys. Goodbye.

Matthew,

WRONG ANSWER.

I never said one word about any of my religious beleifs. You have no idea what I believe so don't presume to tell me who will be saved and who will not. I don't care if you go away mad, just go away.

Matthew, nice troll :D

Matthew, nice troll :D

Mathew rants... How can you honestly look at this molecular motor, which includes a propeller and motor complete with gears, stator, etc, and think it got there by natural selection? Just LOOK AT IT.

Matthew said: DS the problem here is our paradigms. My paradigm says we've only been here thousands, not millions of years. Yours is different. You look at the same evidence with your evolutionary glasses on and it tells you one thing. I look at the same evidence and see how it clearly supports creation and a designer and orderliness to the universe.

Matthew:

This is what bothers me so much about creationists. And I’m sure Evolutionary biologists and Creationists look at each other the same way - they think the others are morons. It’s as if all creationists have intelligence but no wisdom (common sense) and no need for evidence. Matthew, how can you honestly believe in creation as the reason we’re here. Ever seen a sunset? Smelled a flower? Listened to a bird? Ever looked at the way a bird wing is constructed? Ever looked at the developmental genetics of flowers? Ever looked at the genetic similarities between birds and between angiosperms? One HUGE problem I have always had with creation being the reason of us being here is this - God did a very poor job, it was almost as if she had no power to choose, and was incapable of looking to the future. She seems to have acted on the spur of the moment based on its current environment, just as one would expect of natural selection. And yet, this supposed unlimited God is supposed to have produced marvels of biological complexity and diversity that far exceed the capacities of the best human designers, such as the bacterial flagellum? Well then why did she reuse most of the genes? How can you honestly believe that these things (including the flagellum, just ONE example) are here because some omnipotent being wanted them to be? Intelligence but no evidence and common sense.

See Matthew, the thing is that your own personal conclusions are compeltely worthless. And if you argue that they are not, then my personal conclusions are just a valid as yours. I have made a careful study of all of the evidence for the past forty years. Why do you think that your personal conclusions will convince anyone?

Matthew wrote:

"DS the problem here is our paradigms. My paradigm says we’ve only been here thousands, not millions of years. Yours is different."

No. The earth is billions of years old. This is the consensus view of science based on many independent data sets. It has nothing to do with my paradigm or what glasses I wear.

You on the other hand have presented nothing of any value to challenge this view. You have merely presented a few thing that you think are problematic and tried to claim "got ya". Well I knwo we're in a Burger King, there's no "got ya" here. You must account for all of the evidnence in order to convince anyone. Now you will pardon me for saying so, but I really don't think that anyone who thinks that carbon dating should be used on dinosaurs should be trusted on the subject of evolution.

Matthew:

If you want to argue for a young earth you have to address the evidence. How about starting with the actual topic this thread:

"No. Making the solar system young does not solve this (non)issue. Apart from requiring physics (the kind that allows our digital watches to run, mobile phones and car GPS’s to work) to be badly broken (we would have notice d by now if physics was that badly wrong), it explains nothing about comets that we would like to know. Why is the median age of Jupiter family comets 300,000 years, (not possible in a 6-10,000 year old solar system) and where do the nearly exhausted comets come from if the solar system is much younger than the median comet lifetime? Why are there 2:3 and other resonances in the Kuiper belt, resonances that will take millions of years to form? If the solar syetm is only 6-10,000 years old, why are comets in the inner solar system at all (and why do comets have the chemical composition of Kuiper Belt objects?)."

Now if you can address this evidence, maybe someone will take you seriously. Maybe not.

Matthew said: See? It's always the same, there is always a rescuing device. It doesn't matter what I say. Whether it's soft tissue in dinosaur bones, the molecular machine on the back of a bacteria, short period comets (let me guess...Kuiper belt), C14 found in diamonds, etc. And the same thing with the clay figures, ICA stones, aboriginal paintings of a plesiosaur (spelling?)- type creature, etc. They're either fakes or something else. Coelacanth, Wollemi Pine, all the same. You refuse to see the truth. Evolutionists are so stubborn! You always resist the Holy Spirit! Here is another person's view, PHD from Ohio State: "As a biochemist and software developer who works in genetic and metabolic screening, I am continually amazed by the incredible complexity of life. For example, each of us has a vast ‘computer program’ of six billion DNA bases in every cell that guided our development from a fertilized egg, specifies how to make more than 200 tissue types, and ties all this together in numerous highly functional organ systems. Few people outside of genetics or biochemistry realize that evolutionists still can provide no substantive details at all about the origin of life, and particularly the origin of genetic information in the first self-replicating organism. What genes did it require – or did it even have genes? How much DNA and RNA did it have – or did it even have nucleic acids? How did huge information-rich molecules arise before natural selection? Exactly how did the genetic code linking nucleic acids to amino acid sequence originate? Clearly the origin of life – the foundation of evolution - is still virtually all speculation, and little if no fact. - Chris Williams Ph.D., Biochemistry Ohio State University August 11, 2008

Matthew said: Fine I will leave. But at the end of time when you're standing with me at the judgement you can't say I didn't try to save you guys. Goodbye.

stevaroni said:

Mathew rants... How can you honestly look at this molecular motor, which includes a propeller and motor complete with gears, stator, etc, and think it got there by natural selection? Just LOOK AT IT.

Well, apparently Behe himself now does. Or at least that's the impression I got after all his pummeling on the stand in Dover. But I think you're onto a powerful new angle for science, no need to actually measure anything, JUST LOOK! The Earth is obviously flat - after all, can you see the curve? - JUST LOOK! The Earth is at the center of a revolving heavenly sphere - doubt me? Just go outside tonight AND LOOK! Wow, Matthew, this is fun! It's so much easier than actually testing things!

Matthews non arguments are just the tired old fallacies, arguments from ignorance and incredulity.

"I can't see how my foot evolved, therefore god exists."

Or maybe you are just ignorant. Or don't have the ability to reason from data using logic.

If it is later discovered how the foot evolved, does that mean that god doesn't exist? FWIW, we do know how the foot evolved. It used to be part of a fish's fin.

The creos got this one covered. They just move the goal posts and stuff god in some other gap in our knowledge. For the brighter among them, god has been stuffed all the way back to before the Big Bang.

Matthew said: Fine I will leave. But at the end of time when you’re standing with me at the judgement you can’t say I didn’t try to save you guys. Goodbye.

“I can’t see how my foot evolved, therefore god exists.”

"God created the foot, therefore there is no other explanation."

That is the AIG version. Other creationists have more sophisticated denials of reality.

Other creationists have more sophisticated denials of reality.

Dave, careful with Talk Origins, they sometimes lie to support their theories. And that article is old. It is my understanding that they WERE tested and they WERE RED BLOOD CELLS and were NOT the result of geological processes and contamination.

Flint said: People are curious animals, and tend to prefer a wrong explanation to none at all.

A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep. Saul Bellow

the Evolutionary view of the origin of life doesn't make sense.

since you've been talking about speciation and trait evolution, I'll take it you really mean origin of species instead of life itself, otherwise you're talking abiogenesis, not evolution. That Evolution theory explains our observations of evolution and speciation is incredibly obvious to anyone who understands the evidence underlying it. Your problem is that you simply refuse to accept what the evidence says.

How do you know the world isn't flat?

How do you know the sun doesn't revolve around the earth?

If you're ignorant of the facts that provide "sense" to these concepts, wouldn't you also think they didn't make sense?

people did.

some still do.

why waive your flag of ignorance so bloody proudly?

mind-bogglingly stupid.

Ichthyic said: why waive your flag of ignorance so bloody proudly? mind-bogglingly stupid.

Gary Hurd: You are accusing me of lying. You ignorant asshole. Your “understanding”....

the Evolutionary view of the origin of life doesn’t make sense.

Matthew said: Matthew's yadda yadda, then this: Item # 3 which people who don't believe in a God have no answer for. Quote: 3. "As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry – and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. This is an absurd statement, no? Atoms combine to make molecules, molecules combine to make amino acids, etc., etc. So what the hell is his problem (other than just being a creationist). - Edward Peltzer Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute) Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry September 2, 2008

Ravilyn Sanders said:

Mark M said: So...... creationists aren't scientists? You know... because they pretend to be scientists, these people who claim to represent a higher moral standard, in fact look more like liars and charlatans. Ironic, isn't it?

When the military airbases in the Pacific Islands were abandoned at the end of WW-II, many Cargo Cults ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult )developed among the indigenous populations. The Creationists are doing science almost exactly in the same way Pacific Island tribes did airfields. Cargo cults: Wooden control and aerial towers erected? Check. Jungle vines strung between them? check. Long rectangle cleared? Check. Oil lamps lit on either side? Check. Seat for the high priest etected? Check? Coconut shells fashioned into head phones? Check. Recite prayers. "Come in Flight 21" "Come in flight 21" "Flight 101 cleared for landing" "Roger! Flight 72 cleared for take off" Why no cargo is appearing out of the sky? Our ancestor Gods must have beeen miffed. Order ritual sacrifices. Creation science: White coats? check. Big horn rimmed glasses? Check. Define complex terms that nobody can understand? Check. Print periodicals filled with difficult to understand text? check. Why discoveries and inventions are not pouring out of our labs? The dupes in our congregation are not giving enough donations. Order more fund raising.

Sheesh! I take a day off for Mothers Day (that's what it is here in Australia), and you mob fall to bickering.

Look, it's very simple. Do not feed the Trolls!. Follow that rule and all will be well.

And guy's? This is the Panda's Thumb right, we have huge archives of articles that expose the emptiness of so called "intelligent design". SO if you are going to have an argument, use the multitudinous resources available here.

See "The Open Letters File". Behe and the not so "irreducibly complex" clotting system.

Nick Matzke on Flagella and the Immune system, etc. The archive button is just over there, use it freely.

Scott Hatfield said: This is a brilliant analogy that has the added benefit of ridicule. May I have your permission to pass this on to others? Thanks....Scott Hatfield

Matthew said: You can't have dinosaurs and man together Dave, that blows the whole evolutionary theory out of the water...

I've been trying (unsuccessfully) to find the transitional post which got us from comets to bacteria. Is it because they both have tails?

ravilyn sanders said: The oral traditions of the Old Testament could have been formed when the people of the fertile crescent were stepping out of stone age. Their earliest story, that of Cain and Abel is essentially fossilized folk memory of the fights between herders (Abel) and farmers (Cain). Homologues of this story is found in Egyptian and Mesapotamian mythologies. Studying the Cargo cults could provide us some insights about the formation of Old Testament itself!

Flint quoted somebody else as saying:

“I can’t see how my foot evolved, therefore god exists.”

Ian Musgrave said: Sheesh! I take a day off for Mothers Day (that's what it is here in Australia), and you mob fall to bickering. Look, it's very simple. Do not feed the Trolls!. Follow that rule and all will be well.

Matt G,

I think that what you are looking is the post by Matthew of May 9, 11:01 AM, it's near the beginning of the thread. That is where the topic of flagella came up for the first time and it kind of degraded from there.

This guy never even tried to discuss comets or the data in this thread. All he wanted to do was present his dirty laundry list of "got ya" creationist claims and try to argue that all answers were "jokes" or contrived "devices". For some reason he seemed to feel that his personal conclusions were valid arguments, even if they were completely baseless. Unfortunately he seems completely ignorant of real science, although he refused to admit it even when that fact was pointed out to him.

I agree with Ian. Why waste time on these charlatans? Just point them to the proper links where all of their nonsense has already been debunked adnauseum. If they can't or won't read the links, who cares? Let them wallow in ignorance. At least Matthew will pray for us.

I don't see why you're bothering to continue replying to Matthew: he left when we made it clear that we didn't appreciate him trying to save our souls by lying and bullshitting us into rejecting reality, because Jesus apparently doesn't like it when His followers accept the facts of reality

Dave Luckett said: At a time when the average industrial or agricultural worker in Europe or America was working 50-60 hours a week, hunter-gatherers were working an average of 25, and using the leisure to create a rich cultural life.

Matthew said: There are 10 to the 650th possibilities. Only ONE of them is Hemoglobin. If you change just one, you get Hemoglobin Opathy. Anything below 10 to the 50th is defined as absurd. 10 to the 650th is roughly the equivalent of winnng the lottery every day for 90 days IN A ROW.

I see you've given up trying to post at Pharyngula, again, Troy. What's the matter? Did they hurt your sensitive feelings over there, so you decided to come back here where you can antagonize people with your hypocritically hate-filled rantings about hate without interference?

That, and you never did explain why science should respect a perniciously anti-science movement like Creationism, or explain what you want taught as a religion-friendly alternative to science in science classes.

Troy said: I understand this is a hate promoting blog, of that there is no mistaking.

Troy said: I understand this is a hate promoting blog, of that there is no mistaking.

Matthew wrote:

"There are 10 to the 650th possibilities. Only ONE of them is Hemoglobin. If you change just one, you get Hemoglobin Opathy."

Which one? Are all of the human hemoglobin subunits the same? Are all of the primate hemoglobins the same? Are all of the animal hemoglobins the same? Apparently, you have no idea what you are talking about again.

By the way Matthew, how do you explain the nested hierarchy of genetic similarity between the vertebrate hemoglobins? Why does it correlate precisely with the time of appearance of the vertebrate lineage in the fossil record? I can provide a link with all of the relevant information if you like.

Matthew said: Fine I will leave. But at the end of time when you're standing with me at the judgement you can't say I didn't try to save you guys. Goodbye.

Keelyn wrote:

"Why do I always have the feeling whenever someone says something like this, that they will end up as one of the official greeters should any of the rest of us ever arrive?"

Why do I get the feeling that whenever someone who doesn't know what they are talking about loses an argument they threaten you with hell fire as if that will win them the argument?

Seriously, I would never want to belong to any club where this guy was a greeter.

Update

I should have clarified in my last post - Official Greeter 'down there.' Where ever the hell (and hellfire) 'down there' is. Seriously, DS, I would not want to belong to his club, either.

I should have clarified in my last post - Official Greeter ‘down there.’

stevaroni said:

I should have clarified in my last post - Official Greeter ‘down there.’

I knew this girl once... Anyhow, I digress.

SWT said: And for the record, I'm a practicing member of a mainstream Christian denomination. The atheists and agnostics on PT have been quite courteous to me. The people who have consistently shown the worst behavior toward me (insults, derision, and attacks on my faith) have been creationists.

What did I say about trolls, the feeding of? I've just moved (spottily, it's hard to correlate what I see in the editing mode with what is in post mode) a whole bunch of Troy related comments to the Bathroom Wall, those interested can play there.

Stanton said:

Ian Musgrave said: Sheesh! I take a day off for Mothers Day (that's what it is here in Australia), and you mob fall to bickering. Look, it's very simple. Do not feed the Trolls!. Follow that rule and all will be well.

Perhaps if there was some effort made to demonstrate that trolling wasn't appreciated here, people would be less inclined to feed the trolls. As far as I can tell, trolls at Panda's Thumb are free to troll thread after thread after thread with complete impunity.

Ian Musgrave said: We tend to err on the "non-censorship" side in these things. Would you rather we be like Uncommon Dissent where dissenting voices are quashed? The price we pay is some trolling, but if the Trolls are ignored, they tend not to be too much of a problem.