Happy 150th of the origin of The Origin!!

I'm a biblical creationist and offer the link to Genesis in the bible.
In it it gives the truth on basic boundaries in creation.
Darwin strove to explain life and its origins and results by a idea.
The origins was not witnessed and only the result.
Taking minor selection deeds whether artificial or natural and expanding it to all iof life is a great conclusion. One needs great evidence, if science is claimed, great testing and not just plausible ideas that actually seem unlikely if one thinks about it.

Darwins great presumptions that he based much conclusions are were themselves non biological ideas. The presumptions behind the origin of fossil layers and biogeography ideas.
He is right to not think piegans were put by a creator on each diffeent island but wrong to ignore a biblical flood which also said this.
Datwins idea was accepted in small high circles because of a existing aggressive anti-protestant/Christian agenda. I also think they wanted a new exciting "law" like newton to explain things and being British didn't hurt.
Darwins ideas have not been greatly attacked by scholars of any number because it was always small circles. Smaller circles with suspicion to begin with upon entering science studies in school.
Only today on all sides is darwin getting close scrunity.
I predict the fall of Darwin and evolution of life from selection on mutation.
From Canada with love.
Happy Birthday. Yuck.

Happy birthday to the Origin of Species! At the Linnean Society meeting in London on Darwin's 200th birthday, at the reception afterwards everyone sang “Happy Birthday” (there was also a big party at the Natural History Museum that evening, but I don't know whether they sang the song there). We can't sing this here as this is a blog, but that's the only reason.

Common descent and natural selection are alive and well, and creationists who will not look at the evidence are still covering their eyes, sticking their fingers in their ears, and predicting the imminent collapse of evolution. That has been going on for a long time, as the excellent and hilarious web site that Nick points to makes clear.

Robert Byers, I love the way you lie and mangle the English language. Liars like you are why I left the church years ago. Keep up the good work.

I think the best thing since Darwin is the birth of the modern synthesis.

Congratulations to the late Darwin

Mr. Byers, you are nothing more (and could be nothing less) than a disgusting example of why Christianity, and religion generally, is a farcical mistake.

May you live to have a single idea that wasn't scared or beaten into you when you were stupid, afraid, and vunerable.

[spit]

Get a job, you bum, you.

Thanks, Mr. Darwin, for a life of work, modesty, and as good a human life as I have heard anyone of having lived.

Anyone else here think that perhaps po' Mr. B. (poe Mr. B.) has a bad case of Toidel envy? Methinks we see sompetition for a niche in our ecology here.

dpr

Robert Byers said: I'm a biblical creationist and offer the link to Genesis in the bible. In it it gives the truth on basic boundaries in creation. ... One needs great evidence, ... great testing and not just plausible ideas that actually seem unlikely if one thinks about it.

Robert Byers said: I'm a biblical creationist and offer the link to Genesis in the bible.

I didn't know I shared a birthday with the publication of the Origin. Cool.

Enjoy.

150 years after the publication of "On the Origin of Species", I think advances in genetics are causing major breakthroughs in our understanding of Darwin's original species theory. While Darwin could not explain the internal mechanisms that the forces of natural selection acted on, he knew they were there. Today, we can find evidence to support Darwin's theory in the genes of every living thing. By turning genes on and off, we can see that really small changes can cause major evolutionary milestones, from the development of jaws or limbs, to the ability to think logically and walk upright.

One of the best Darwin/Origin resources I've found on the web is "The Complete Works of Charles Darwin - Online" website, directed and edited by Dr. John van Wyhe, which can be found at http://darwin-online.org.uk/.

Happy "Origin" Day everyone!

Methinks he is a weasel.

I’m a biblical creationist and offer the link to Genesis in the bible. In it it gives the truth on basic boundaries in creation.

Gotta admit, it's nicely airtight. If God's Word (my chosen interpretation) says so, no testing is required. If it's not, no testing can be sufficient.

My observation has been, this approach is endemic throughout our culture. Since my opinion is correct, it need not be examined. Since yours differs, it cannot be correct (and supporting rationalizations need not be respected).

Perhaps our "here are the facts, memorize them" approach to education is doing us a disservice?

When I first read the comment from Mr. Byers, my first thought was "how pathetic". Here's a grown man (I assume) who can't write a coherent sentence in his native tongue, and whose head is so filled with misconceptions and lies that it's unlikely he'll ever be able to think rationally. But I find it hard to direct my anger at him. Rather, I direct anger -- and it truly is that, anger and frustrated fury -- at the articulate purveyors of those lies, Morris and Gish and Behe and the like. They KNOW they're lying. And it is on the backs of spear-carriers like Mr. Byers that we are being carried to theocracy, because that is the ultimate goal of creationists. They don't really give a damn about Darwin, or biology, or evolution. They see that as the chink in the wall of rationalism, whose overthrow is their stated goal. They really don't give a damn about Mr. Byers, either, or the legions of the misled who they rely on to make their dream come to pass, but hold in contempt as gullible dupes. Sorry, Mr. Byers, I don't hate you, but you are a dupe.

Talkorigins.org, http://www.talkorigins.org is a valuable site for quickly looking up fundie claims and refuting them.

The creos haven't updated most of their lies and fallacies in centuries so talkorigins has most of them with the real information.

I first started paying attention to creationists when I met a wild eyed old guy who claimed that humans couldn't be related to apes because

1. humans have a 4 chambered heart while apes have a 3 chambered heart,...
2. only humans have color vision,...
3. only apes have muscles in their feet.

I knew this was wrong since both apes and humans share the same heart, eyes, and foot muscles but looking it up took me a whole 15 minutes.

byers is the latest example of "lack or" intelligent design.

oops "lack of" intelligent design

"The proportion of the [American] population that can be classified as Christian has declined from 86% in 1990 to 77% in 2001." ARIS Study.

Sorry Byers, but there is much more proof to support the existence of Klingon Cosmology than there is to substantiate your Biblical fairy tale.

Let's all raise a toast to honor Darwin's life and work and of course to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the initial publication of his elegant treatise on behalf of biological evolution and of the Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection, "On the Origin of Species". I am amazed that so much that Darwin thought of in his work has been substantiated by modern evolutionary biology, and that, for these reasons, his book remains quite relevant on this very day.

My observation has been, this approach is endemic throughout our culture. Since my opinion is correct, it need not be examined. Since yours differs, it cannot be correct (and supporting rationalizations need not be respected).

Perhaps our “here are the facts, memorize them” approach to education is doing us a disservice?

"In the next five years, molecular Darwinism -- the idea that Darwinian processes can produce complex molecular structures at the subcellular level -- will be dead. When that happens, evolutionary biology will experience a crisis of confidence because evolutionary biology hinges on the evolution of the right molecules. I therefore foresee a Taliban-style collapse of Darwinism in the next ten years." William Dembski, "The Measure of Design: A conversation about the past, present & future of Darwinism and Design." Touchstone, 17(6), pp. 60-65. July/August 2004. p. 64.

Here's a milestone:
A media report on the evolution/creationism controversy from a reporter that actually studied the situation and quotes knowledgeable people in full. NPR Morning Edition this morning:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120692695

Flint said: Perhaps our "here are the facts, memorize them" approach to education is doing us a disservice?

Now I model them this way - 1) They hold some set of biases. The set of biases may include a view of themselves as a “genius” or special person.

2) They have adopted some suitably vague source of authority - “the Bible” in the case of most ID/Creationists.

3) They argue that the source of authority is unequivocal and literal, while actually indulging in interpretation.

4) Their interpretation always exactly fits their biases.

5) Extremely severe punishment for those who look or behave in a way that is offensive to their biases is an implied or explicit goal. The most severe offense is to question their authority.

6) However, they may and probably often do see themselves as exempt from their own rules, because of their specialness.

7) The only acceptable response from others is praise for them and their system, and scorn for their critics. This is their other implied or explicit goal - that they themselves be praised.

8) They are, obviously, eager to present their system as the “official truth” in schools.

9) They are highly willing to use deception (even seeming to prefer it) and accept incremental results.

10) They are adept at allying themselves with others of similar bent, and will always view the advocate of rational science as the main enemy.

11) They have no interest whatsoever in evidence based critique of elements of their system - in fact, that is the worst thing they can imagine. They will always attempt to suppress, distort, or hide from their followers any such critique. They do not perceive “the truth” as being related to objective evidence - they have a rigid system which reinforces their biases. That is their truth.

12) They project their own traits onto others. They see all evidence presented by science as “interpretation” designed to be consistent with a hidden set of biases. For this reason, it is essentially impossible to “convince” them.

13) They may and perhaps frequently do switch from one authoritarian system to another, but simply are not able to adopt any type of reasoning method that could threaten to interact with their biases in any way other by reinforcing them.

An interesting press summary on the 150th anniversary:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091124/sc_nm/us_darwin_anniversary

And Darwin's orignial manuscripts are being published online:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20091123/sc_livescience/raredarwindraftsgoonline

Some useful resources for the origins of the theory;

The Darwin Publications on line
http://darwin-online.org.uk/

Darwin's correspondence on line
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/

The Huxley Files
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/

Flint said: Perhaps our "here are the facts, memorize them" approach to education is doing us a disservice?

Gary,

I would also add the Darwin Digital Library which is being maintained at the American Museum of Natural History bya small staff, led chiefly by its editor, professor emeritus of the history of science, Drew University, David Kohn, and, to a lesser extent, AMNH curator of invertebrate paleontology Niles Eldredge, as noted here:

http://darwinlibrary.amnh.org/

Sincerely,

John

1) They hold some set of biases. The set of biases may include a view of themselves as a “genius” or special person.

Those I’ve met mostly regard themselves as enlightened, saved, having see the Light. Not special or genius, just fortunate.

2) They have adopted some suitably vague source of authority - “the Bible” in the case of most ID/Creationists.

Our understanding of reality (our authority) is often vague. The difference is, ours changes based on evidence and theirs changes based on cultural needs.

3) They argue that the source of authority is unequivocal and literal, while actually indulging in interpretation.

Much of which consists of very selective reading. Context seems to play little role in their interpretation.

4) Their interpretation always exactly fits their biases.

In all the trillions of prayers, their god has never once to my knowledge told any supplicant that his opinion is wrong. The underlying methodology is consistent with all we see: the emotional needs come first, and “evidence” (whether from self-serving interpretation of carefully selected passages or even from reality) is whatever supports those needs. So interpretation fitting biases is a necessary result of making interpretation fit biases. The biases dictate the interpretation.

5) Extremely severe punishment for those who look or behave in a way that is offensive to their biases is an implied or explicit goal. The most severe offense is to question their authority.

A necessary by-product of the One True Faith. In the business of saving souls, the consequences for the misguided are so catastrophic (eternal damnation) as to justify any means.

6) However, they may and probably often do see themselves as exempt from their own rules, because of their specialness.

Maybe not. If the ends justify any means, use them. Still, for most people short-term goals trump principles. Catholics get as many abortions as anyone else. As I see it, they key is sincerity of faith. Once you truly Believe, the behavioral details become much less important.

7) The only acceptable response from others is praise for them and their system, and scorn for their critics. This is their other implied or explicit goal - that they themselves be praised.

Again, the One True Faith. Also the felt need for cultural homogeneity. Where everyone agrees, there is no conflict. Where everyone agrees and is also pious, the rewards are enormous. The challenge is to eliminate conflict in ways that do not cause conflict.

8) They are, obviously, eager to present their system as the “official truth” in schools.

Well, cultural norms are another form of “official truth” and often as arbitrary. And those norms, from wearing clothes to good table manners, are enforced fairly religiously.

9) They are highly willing to use deception (even seeming to prefer it) and accept incremental results.

Where realty refutes doctrine, deception (even of oneself) is unavoidable. Yet if doctrine is wrong, what is Truth? The way I see it, you’re looking at the far end of a normal curve.

10) They are adept at allying themselves with others of similar bent, and will always view the advocate of rational science as the main enemy.

I think most of them accept most of science, in a way. They are most offended by scientific theory that violates religiously-defined emotional needs. And of course, the methods of science are necessarily incomprehensible to them.

11) They have no interest whatsoever in evidence based critique of elements of their system - in fact, that is the worst thing they can imagine. They will always attempt to suppress, distort, or hide from their followers any such critique. They do not perceive “the truth” as being related to objective evidence - they have a rigid system which reinforces their biases. That is their truth.

Cultural truths are very different from scientific truths. Like ships in the night, we always talk past one another. Scientific evidence is simply irrelevant to cultural truths. Both sides think they are correct on the merits, but what each side regards as a merit is completely incompatible.

12) They project their own traits onto others. They see all evidence presented by science as “interpretation” designed to be consistent with a hidden set of biases. For this reason, it is essentially impossible to “convince” them.

This, again, emerges from the difference between the scientific and the religious/cultural methods. The first draws conclusions from evidence, the second draws evidence from conclusions. We’re always baffled why they can’t change their position in light of overwhelming evidence. But in fact, from their view if it fails to support their beliefs, it simply is not evidence.

13) They may and perhaps frequently do switch from one authoritarian system to another, but simply are not able to adopt any type of reasoning method that could threaten to interact with their biases in any way other by reinforcing them.

This is common beyond a narrow religious perspective. I’ve talked with people who simply can’t understand how scientific research proceeds in principle. If scientists don’t already know the answers, how can they possibly know if their research results are correct? They could be wrong and not know it. The notion of living in a world where everything is tentative, questionable, subject to change without notice is terrifying to them. They “know” that nobody can really do this, so science must be some sort of charade.

It's not many ideas in science that have anniversary parties a century and a half after-the-fact.

Robert Byers said: I'm a biblical creationist and offer the link to Genesis in the bible. In it it gives the truth on basic boundaries in creation.

Wheels said: It's not many ideas in science that have anniversary parties a century and a half after-the-fact.

Wheels said: It's not many ideas in science that have anniversary parties a century and a half after-the-fact.

Attack of the triple post! My bad.

Not much difference, a few points where we differ.

To put it very clearly, I don’t think you should lump all people who have religious beliefs or strong emotional attachment to certain cultural values with creationists.

rdk: Not many ideas in science have hordes of anti-intellectual goon fanatics fighting to erase them from public relevance.

Flint said: Somewhat discouragingly, belief-types seem to be in the clear majority. Why, I don't know.

From the British Council, some facts about On the Origin of Species, first published 150 years ago today:

All 1,250 copies of the first edition sold out in one day, and 21,500 copies were sold in Darwin’s lifetime. Six editions were published before Darwin’s death in 1882.

It’s the 2nd most translated science book ever, available in 31 languages.

It was written for the general reader, not just scientists.

Darwin was not confident about the success of the book, writing to John Murray, “I have done my best, but whether it will succeed I cannot say.”

The Rev. Whitwell Elwin, having read the manuscript, adopted geologist Sir Charles Lyell’s view that Darwin should complete his work on pigeons and put On the Origin of Species on hold—“Everybody is interested in pigeons,” he wrote to Murray.

No mention was made of evolution, or God, or the origins of man in the first edition of the book; “originally breathed by the creator into few forms” was added into the second edition. In the fifth, edition “survival of the fittest” appeared. Only in the sixth edition in 1872 did “evolution” appear.

If you haven't done so, please join the Darwin Facebook Project for a worldwide celebration of The Origin's 150th!

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=53320310123

So I’ve found that discussions with believer-types, about nearly anything from housework to classwork, rapidly devolve into a right/wrong dichotomy. My (projected) “beliefs” are regarded as either correct or not, and if not, no amount of explanation for how I got there really registers. It’s either rejected as specious manipulation, or tuned out as mere blather.

Somewhat discouragingly, belief-types seem to be in the clear majority. Why, I don’t know.

Dan said:

Robert Byers said: I'm a biblical creationist and offer the link to Genesis in the bible.

Ahh, but which Genesis account? In the "six-days" story of Genesis 1, first the earth formed animals, and then God formed men and women. In the "Adam and Eve" story of Genesis 2, first God formed man, then God formed animals, and then God formed women. These stories differ not only in sequence, but in who did the forming.

When I talk about “creationists”, I am talking about a subset of what you refer to as “believer types”.

— harold

Good grief! Stephen Meyer (DI Director) has been given a platform by CNN:

http://tinyurl.com/yznd75p

What a nice way to celebrate OOS - more whining about how ID really is science. There IS something there by Dawkins, but it's yet another example of pandering to the "let's hear from both sides" crowd.

CNN, and Time Magazine.

I'm not at all surprised that the liberal media would sell out.

The problem is not the existence of belief-based decision making per se - it can be very evolutionarily useful - the problem is that we often use it in situations where we shouldn’t.

It’s not just using a belief-oriented cognitive style, but the obsession with one’s own superiority and with imposing exactly one’s own beliefs on everyone else, in a concrete, political way, that I have a real problem with.

One minor caveat with Harold's point 10) "They are adept at allying themselves with others of similar bent, and will always view the advocate of rational science as the main enemy."

This is for the nonce only. Yes, living as they do in a black-and-white world, they view science as the Enemy now. If ever science were to be vanquished (not going to happen, but still) they would turn on each other with even greater enthusiasm. Heathens are one thing, but heretics...mmm, juicy.

Frank J said: CNN, and Time Magazine. I'm not at all surprised that the liberal media would sell out.

Yes, living as they do in a black-and-white world, they view science as the Enemy now.

Flint said: (snip) So I don't think they (creationists) believe science is bad, but rather they believe that evolution is bad science. This distinction may be important.

That's the general impression I get as well. Noticed that the main page of Ray Comfort's blog includes the quote: "Evolutionists have done to science, what hypocrites have done to religion".

Sorry, referring to Flint's comment.

Flint and Dave Luckett:

See my comment of 11/42 4:42 about "creationists." I can't disagree with any of your comments about what "creationists" think of science, because different "kinds" of creationists believe (and know) radically different things. The only common feature these days is that they think "Darwinism" is evil, and specifically the "kinds" of evil particularly offensive to fundamentalists. And they can't even get straight on whether it is the process itself or acceptance of it that is the basis of that evil. Those who think "acceptance" is the culprit can't even agree on which parts. When they blame it for eugenics/genocide they focus on natural selection, then concede that it occurs within a "kind" - just like eugenics/genocide! Others seem obsessed with being related to "monkeys" (why is it always monkeys and never dogs or cats?) then "look the other way" when some of their fellow anti-evolution activists plainly concede common descent.

...different “kinds” of creationists believe (and know) radically different things. The only common feature these days is that they think “Darwinism” is evil, and specifically the “kinds” of evil particularly offensive to fundamentalists.

Flint said: I think we're dealing with a case of institutionally organized pride.

A recent article in Time magazine discusses the impact of Darwin on society, emphasizing the "darker" side of Darwin. Tsk.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091125/hl_time/08599194248300

Frank J said: Flint and Dave Luckett: See my comment of 11/42 4:42 about "creationists." I can't disagree with any of your comments about what "creationists" think of science, because different "kinds" of creationists believe (and know) radically different things. The only common feature these days is that they think "Darwinism" is evil, and specifically the "kinds" of evil particularly offensive to fundamentalists. And they can't even get straight on whether it is the process itself or acceptance of it that is the basis of that evil.

DavidK said: A recent article in Time magazine discusses the impact of Darwin on society, emphasizing the "darker" side of Darwin. Tsk. http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091125/hl_time/08599194248300

Mike Elzinga said:

Frank J said: Flint and Dave Luckett: See my comment of 11/42 4:42 about "creationists." I can't disagree with any of your comments about what "creationists" think of science, because different "kinds" of creationists believe (and know) radically different things. The only common feature these days is that they think "Darwinism" is evil, and specifically the "kinds" of evil particularly offensive to fundamentalists. And they can't even get straight on whether it is the process itself or acceptance of it that is the basis of that evil.

On another thread (All hat and no cattle) I and a couple of other PTers recently slogged through a published paper by David Abel. Earlier I, along with others here, went through the Dembski and Marks paper. Some of us here have read Alvin Plantinga’s apologetics for ID. If these “intellectuals” of anti-evolution have any finger on what the anti-evolution community believes in general, then it would appear they are attacking the whole “mindset” of science and the template it provides for all skepticism and investigation. If that is the case, then all of fundamentalism has this beef against science. The average vocal fundamentalist, whether YEC, OEC, or anything else, is very likely getting validation indirectly from these “thinkers” at the top of their food chain. However clumsily they may attack evolution, they seem to believe that they are simply saying what these leaders and “intellectuals” of their sects have “proven.” As an analogy, we felt that the young female student at UCLA did a good job putting Kirk Cameron on the defensive, or at least causing him to reveal his ignorance. But the young UCLA student was understandably quite inarticulate herself, yet grasped the main points of evolution and Darwin’s struggle. She too is depending on what the intellectuals in her science community are saying. Thus, many laypersons are arguing from authority on both sides. The main difference however – and this is something the anti-evolutionists don’t seem to grasp – is that science has the evidence. The concept of evidence doesn’t appear to have any meaning whatsoever for anti-evolutionists.

Nick (Matzke) said: Hi Mike! Do you have links to those discussions? It would be handy to have something to refer people to on those guys' stuff...

Frank J said: CNN, and Time Magazine. I'm not at all surprised that the liberal media would sell out.

Frank J -

I agreed with almost everything you said on this thread, but...

It is somewhat naive to refer to CNN and Time Magazine as the "liberal" media.

(*I've pointed out which political party is associated with virtually all legislative and legal efforts to deny evolution, and also human contribution to climate change (and also the health effects of smoking and air pollution, if we look back a few years) many times. I don't want to get into that discussion again today.*)

Mike Elzinga said:

Nick (Matzke) said: Hi Mike! Do you have links to those discussions? It would be handy to have something to refer people to on those guys' stuff...

Oops; sorry, Nick. I need to start keeping a record of these discussions; it is getting harder to go back and find them. The beginning of the discussion of Abel starts here with a question by jerrym on that All hat and no cattle thread.

raven said: Talkorigins.org, http://www.talkorigins.org is a valuable site for quickly looking up fundie claims and refuting them. The creos haven't updated most of their lies and fallacies in centuries so talkorigins has most of them with the real information. I first started paying attention to creationists when I met a wild eyed old guy who claimed that humans couldn't be related to apes because 1. humans have a 4 chambered heart while apes have a 3 chambered heart,... 2. only humans have color vision,... 3. only apes have muscles in their feet. I knew this was wrong since both apes and humans share the same heart, eyes, and foot muscles but looking it up took me a whole 15 minutes.

Matt G said:

Robert Byers said: I'm a biblical creationist and offer the link to Genesis in the bible. In it it gives the truth on basic boundaries in creation.

I have two questions. To which of the Genesis stories do you subscribe, the first or the second? This is a very straightforward question, and there are only two possible answers since the two stories are mutually exclusive. Do you maintain that humans were created before animals, or the other way around? My second question is WHY do you accept that story and not the other?

Mike Elzinga said:

Frank J said: Flint and Dave Luckett: See my comment of 11/42 4:42 about "creationists." I can't disagree with any of your comments about what "creationists" think of science, because different "kinds" of creationists believe (and know) radically different things. The only common feature these days is that they think "Darwinism" is evil, and specifically the "kinds" of evil particularly offensive to fundamentalists. And they can't even get straight on whether it is the process itself or acceptance of it that is the basis of that evil.

On another thread (All hat and no cattle) I and a couple of other PTers recently slogged through a published paper by David Abel. Earlier I, along with others here, went through the Dembski and Marks paper. Some of us here have read Alvin Plantinga’s apologetics for ID. If these “intellectuals” of anti-evolution have any finger on what the anti-evolution community believes in general, then it would appear they are attacking the whole “mindset” of science and the template it provides for all skepticism and investigation. If that is the case, then all of fundamentalism has this beef against science. The average vocal fundamentalist, whether YEC, OEC, or anything else, is very likely getting validation indirectly from these “thinkers” at the top of their food chain. However clumsily they may attack evolution, they seem to believe that they are simply saying what these leaders and “intellectuals” of their sects have “proven.” As an analogy, we felt that the young female student at UCLA did a good job putting Kirk Cameron on the defensive, or at least causing him to reveal his ignorance. But the young UCLA student was understandably quite inarticulate herself, yet grasped the main points of evolution and Darwin’s struggle. She too is depending on what the intellectuals in her science community are saying. Thus, many laypersons are arguing from authority on both sides. The main difference however – and this is something the anti-evolutionists don’t seem to grasp – is that science has the evidence. The concept of evidence doesn’t appear to have any meaning whatsoever for anti-evolutionists.

Robert Byers said: It does seem to me general critics of evolution know more, and most, then the general defenders of evolution and so are more effective before open minded audiences. Yet it still must come down to the merits of the case and not to authority on details.

Mike Elzinga said:

Robert Byers said: It does seem to me general critics of evolution know more, and most, then the general defenders of evolution and so are more effective before open minded audiences. Yet it still must come down to the merits of the case and not to authority on details.

Really? So, do you think Abel understands any science? How about Dembski? Maybe you can clarify the science that Abel and Dembski and all the ID/creationist “experts” have obfuscated for at least the last 40 years.

Stanton said: Do you honestly think that a raging idiot like Robert Byers, who, among other things, claims that the 1st Amendment forbids the teaching of science in science classrooms because science conflicts with his own bigoted interpretation of the Book of Genesis, actually knows what he's talking about?

Robert wrote:

"It does seem to me general critics of evolution know more, and most, then the general defenders of evolution and so are more effective before open minded audiences. Yet it still must come down to the merits of the case and not to authority on details."

Really? My experience is exactly the opposite. Perhaps you are mistaking agreement with your own views for knowledge. That is not a valid assumption for anyone, let alone you Robert.

In my experience evolution deniers are almost always completely ignorant of nearly all of modern Biology, and some willfully so. They never understand terms. They never have read, and usually refuse to read, the scientific literature. They never present any evidence, but always rely completely on arguments from personal incredulity or authority. They are also often deificent in reasoning skills and seem to lack even the most general concept of hypothesis testing.

For a prime example of all of the above, you can go on over to the Seventh Day Adventist thread and look at the postings by Steve P. He refuses to accept the endosymbiosis theory, even though he can not explain any of the evidence, or give any palusible alternative. But then again, he dosen't seem to understand the basic concepts of competition or selection, so no one is really surprised.

Have you started teaching creationism in science class in US public schools yet Robert? Why not?

Robert,

You say you are a YEC.

Go to any map and you will notice the two sides of the Atlantic Ocean fit nicely together like puzzle pieces.

The width of the North Atlantic is ~180,000,000 inches.

The spreading rate of the North Atlantic has been recently measured as ~1 inch per year by the Global Positioning System (GPS).

How old is the North Atlantic?

GPS is used by car navigators, planes, surveyors, etc. No radioisotopes are required for the answer.

Rob

Robert Byers said: It does seem to me general critics of evolution know more, and most, then the general defenders of evolution and so are more effective before open minded audiences.

Dan said:

Robert Byers said: It does seem to me general critics of evolution know more, and most, then the general defenders of evolution and so are more effective before open minded audiences.

As always: "It does seem to me ...". No evidence, no argument, no facts -- simple assertion.

Mike Elzinga said:

Robert Byers said: It does seem to me general critics of evolution know more, and most, then the general defenders of evolution and so are more effective before open minded audiences. Yet it still must come down to the merits of the case and not to authority on details.

Really? So, do you think Abel understands any science? How about Dembski? Maybe you can clarify the science that Abel and Dembski and all the ID/creationist “experts” have obfuscated for at least the last 40 years.

Stanton said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Robert Byers said: It does seem to me general critics of evolution know more, and most, then the general defenders of evolution and so are more effective before open minded audiences. Yet it still must come down to the merits of the case and not to authority on details.

Really? So, do you think Abel understands any science? How about Dembski? Maybe you can clarify the science that Abel and Dembski and all the ID/creationist “experts” have obfuscated for at least the last 40 years.

Do you honestly think that a raging idiot like Robert Byers, who, among other things, claims that the 1st Amendment forbids the teaching of science in science classrooms because science conflicts with his own bigoted interpretation of the Book of Genesis, actually knows what he's talking about?

DS said: Robert wrote: "It does seem to me general critics of evolution know more, and most, then the general defenders of evolution and so are more effective before open minded audiences. Yet it still must come down to the merits of the case and not to authority on details." Really? My experience is exactly the opposite. Perhaps you are mistaking agreement with your own views for knowledge. That is not a valid assumption for anyone, let alone you Robert. In my experience evolution deniers are almost always completely ignorant of nearly all of modern Biology, and some willfully so. They never understand terms. They never have read, and usually refuse to read, the scientific literature. They never present any evidence, but always rely completely on arguments from personal incredulity or authority. They are also often deificent in reasoning skills and seem to lack even the most general concept of hypothesis testing. For a prime example of all of the above, you can go on over to the Seventh Day Adventist thread and look at the postings by Steve P. He refuses to accept the endosymbiosis theory, even though he can not explain any of the evidence, or give any palusible alternative. But then again, he dosen't seem to understand the basic concepts of competition or selection, so no one is really surprised. Have you started teaching creationism in science class in US public schools yet Robert? Why not?

Rob said: Robert, You say you are a YEC. Go to any map and you will notice the two sides of the Atlantic Ocean fit nicely together like puzzle pieces. The width of the North Atlantic is ~180,000,000 inches. The spreading rate of the North Atlantic has been recently measured as ~1 inch per year by the Global Positioning System (GPS). How old is the North Atlantic? GPS is used by car navigators, planes, surveyors, etc. No radioisotopes are required for the answer. Rob

"we are the outsiders trying to overcome."

Yep. Just like Atilla's Huns were. And maybe you'll break down the gates and destroy civilisation yet.

But I don't think so.

Robert Byers said: As i said most people and even most people who get involved in these issues are not very knowledgable. these are large and weighty issues. Of the very few however I do find my side a little sharper because we are the outsiders trying to overcome.

Robert wrote:

"Plate tectonics is one of the best things to come for creationism It showed a better idea of how the land was pre-flood. Being united makes more sense. The breakup of the land was also origin for the great water pressure that is needed to explain the great sediment collections and their instant creation into rock."

Thanks for making my point for me Robert. While every real scientist has concluded exactly the opposite, Robert persists in his vain assertations. No evidence, no logic, and almost complete ignorance of the science.

That approach may indeed be better for fooling the uninformed, but no knowledgable person, when confronted with the evidence for plate tectonics, would conclude that it was, in some vague and undefined way, somehow consistent wth creationism.

Just to be clear, plate tectonics has absolutely nothing to do with water pressure. The magic flood did not cause the continents to move. There is no such thing as "instant creation into rock" and even if there were, no flood scenario would adequately account for the pattern of repeated cycles of sedimentation and erosion that are observed all over the world. So much for creationists being more knowledgable.

Robert Byers, disgrace to Canada, said: As i said most people and even most people who get involved in these issues are not very knowledgable. these are large and weighty issues. Of the very few however I do find my side a little sharper because we are the outsiders trying to overcome.

Robert Byers said:

Rob said: Robert, ... The width of the North Atlantic is ~180,000,000 inches. The spreading rate of the North Atlantic has been recently measured as ~1 inch per year by the Global Positioning System (GPS). How old is the North Atlantic? GPS is used by car navigators, planes, surveyors, etc. No radioisotopes are required for the answer. Rob

Plate tectonics is one of the best things to come for creationism It showed a better idea of how the land was pre-flood. Being united makes more sense. The breakup of the land was also origin for the great water pressure that is needed to explain the great sediment collections and their instant creation into rock. First there was a great separation event and then the present minor movement or rocking back and forth. It should be seen like many streams in Canada that run in great valleys. First there was a quick excavation by ice age melt waters and then the present little streams that actually are immigrants and not the creation of the valleys. No reason to see the minor movement of today as indicative of the past. One must think bigger.

Robert,

If you go to Google Maps and select satellite view and look at the Atlantic Ocean you will see an underwater mountain range down the center. Submarines have visited the mountain range and found volcanoes that are erupting new ocean sea floor. The volcanoes of Iceland are part of this mountain range. You will notice the slopes of mountains drop smoothly to the west and east. They drop smoothly because the rock cools as it moves away from the active volcanic zone and contracts. (1) The east and west slopes of these mountains confirms the growth of the Atlantic has been smooth and continuous at about 1 inch per year for ~180,000,000 years. (2) In addition, the thickness of the ocean sediment increases smoothly away from the center of the Atlantic and is consistent with a continuous slow expansion. (3) Finally only young fossils are found in the thin sediments near the center of the Atlantic, while away from the center older and older fossils are found at the base of the sediments. All off this evidence is consistent with the modern GPS measurements of the growth of the Atlantic Ocean by ~1 inch per year and an old Earth.

Rob

Robert Byers said: It does seem to me general critics of evolution know more, and most, then the general defenders of evolution and so are more effective before open minded audiences.

Robert wrote: The breakup of the land was also origin for the great water pressure that is needed to explain the great sediment collections and their instant creation into rock.

Rob said: Robert, If you go to Google Maps and select satellite view and look at the Atlantic Ocean you will see an underwater mountain range down the center. Submarines have visited the mountain range and found volcanoes that are erupting new ocean sea floor. The volcanoes of Iceland are part of this mountain range. You will notice the slopes of mountains drop smoothly to the west and east. They drop smoothly because the rock cools as it moves away from the active volcanic zone and contracts. (1) The east and west slopes of these mountains confirms the growth of the Atlantic has been smooth and continuous at about 1 inch per year for ~180,000,000 years. (2) In addition, the thickness of the ocean sediment increases smoothly away from the center of the Atlantic and is consistent with a continuous slow expansion. (3) Finally only young fossils are found in the thin sediments near the center of the Atlantic, while away from the center older and older fossils are found at the base of the sediments. All off this evidence is consistent with the modern GPS measurements of the growth of the Atlantic Ocean by ~1 inch per year and an old Earth. Rob

Lots of emotion here.... I didn't think there was a place for emotion in science... it might skew the results.... wouldn't it be a "tragedy" if the results didn't match your theory (with apologies to the CRU)

headliner said: Lots of emotion here.... I didn't think there was a place for emotion in science... it might skew the results.... wouldn't it be a "tragedy" if the results didn't match your theory (with apologies to the CRU)

Rob said: Robert, If you go to Google Maps and select satellite view and look at the Atlantic Ocean you will see an underwater mountain range down the center. Submarines have visited the mountain range and found volcanoes that are erupting new ocean sea floor. The volcanoes of Iceland are part of this mountain range. You will notice the slopes of mountains drop smoothly to the west and east. They drop smoothly because the rock cools as it moves away from the active volcanic zone and contracts. (1) The east and west slopes of these mountains confirms the growth of the Atlantic has been smooth and continuous at about 1 inch per year for ~180,000,000 years. (2) In addition, the thickness of the ocean sediment increases smoothly away from the center of the Atlantic and is consistent with a continuous slow expansion. (3) Finally only young fossils are found in the thin sediments near the center of the Atlantic, while away from the center older and older fossils are found at the base of the sediments. All off this evidence is consistent with the modern GPS measurements of the growth of the Atlantic Ocean by ~1 inch per year and an old Earth. Rob

Richard Simons said:

Robert Byers said: It does seem to me general critics of evolution know more, and most, then the general defenders of evolution and so are more effective before open minded audiences.

I've never yet met a critic of the theory of evolution who could actually describe the theory. I've never met a critic of the theory of evolution who could clearly describe their alternative theory. Would you care to prove me wrong on either account (remember, at a minimum you need to specify which of the two Genesis versions you prefer)?

You're one to talk, Robert Byers.

Oh, wait, did I say "talk," I mean babble and drone incoherently.

You idiotically demonstrate that you don't know the basics of biology, geology, or any other science, or even US history and law.

bubba likes them boiled goatherders

christ this guy is still around? he and chunkdz should get a room.