Evolution Weekend -- 2010

The International Darwin Day Foundation, with which I am not familiar, lists a zillion events in 10 countries and a great many US states.

Elevate the discussion?! By accusing my side as saying we say choose between faith and science?!
We don't say that.
We either say origin subjects are not open to much or any science OR we say we do the same science as anyone on these topics.

As for these evolution thumper clergy WELL if we tripe that number does that make our side right?
It is difficult to see how a Christian can ignore scripture on this but accept it on that. Yet i accept one can because they say do.
Yet its fair to say evolution is a opponent of the bible and what is the truth.
The clergy thing seems to show a problem in the evolution cause. being seen as anti Christian is not good for gaining acceptance.

Evolution is not sound science or science is not that sound on aggresive conclusions ism.
God and genesis is sound on origin subjects.

So the entire genus of creationism is confident and firing away at the crumbling fortress of evolution and company.

Robert Byers, learn how to spell.

Also, if the "genus (sic) of creationism is confident and firing away at the crumbling fortress of evolution," then please to explain why creationists, such as yourself, have not bothered to make any contributions to science in the last century and a half?

Nipissing University is holding its annual Darwin's Birthday Party Thursday Feb. 11 at 100 Georges in the 'major' metropolitan city of North Bay, Ontario (pop. 54,000).

It usually is a pretty good time with profs, students, former students and other folks. I'm not sure but I think this is the 12th year they have had this, and many times the students of the Biology Society organize and run it (including obtaining funding for it).

Those students are the type of people who fill this old pessimist with some hope for the future--we're all doomed in the long run anyway, but at least students like this will ensure there will be some bright spots along the way. :)

Mr. Byers,

Your post does not seem to make any sense at all. I gather you do not accept evolutionary theory for some reason, but could you please elaborate on what the problematic areas are and explain how what you propose is better?

Thanks for any clarification you can provide.

Yeah, Byers, we know what creationists say. It's not hard to pick it, since it always lies somewhere between invincible ignorance and downright lying.

"Crumbling fortress of evolution"? What a laugh! Self-delusion, thy name is Byers.

Fifty years ago, creationism was still required in some state schools. That's gone. Thirty years ago, science and creationism still had to be taught together in some states. That's gone. Twenty years ago, creationism could still sometimes get away with representing itself as science. That's gone. Five years ago, creationism tried calling itself something else and getting that represented as science, and that's gone, too.

It's all gone, Byers. Creationism can't be taught in science classes anywhere in the USA, because it's a religious belief, not science. As a result, creationists have been in retreat for over forty years as actual knowledge succeeds enforced superstition. They will continue to retreat until their dogma is something that only bedrock loons buy into. People like you, Byers.

So fire away as much as you like. Your pitiful ammunition - ignorance, prejudice, folly, unreason and delusion - only serves to strengthen the walls.

Hey Byers,
You've run away from this on about 3 threads now, so let's try again, shall we?

Why did God need a flood to get rid of people, including lots of babies, and why did He have to open windows to do it? Were there windows in the "firmament"? Are they still there? If not, why not?

And why couldn't the Creator of the Universe beat Jacob at wrestling, even after cheating?

If you want anyone to buy into your story, then you need some good answers for silly questions like these (and about 827 more) with some evidence--not just another Just-So story that you made up to patch the holes in your "inerrant" Bible.

Just Bob said: Were there windows in the "firmament"? Are they still there? If not, why not?

Just Bob said: Hey Byers, You've run away from this on about 3 threads now, so let's try again, shall we? Why did God need a flood to get rid of people, including lots of babies, and why did He have to open windows to do it? Were there windows in the "firmament"? Are they still there? If not, why not? And why couldn't the Creator of the Universe beat Jacob at wrestling, even after cheating? If you want anyone to buy into your story, then you need some good answers for silly questions like these (and about 827 more) with some evidence--not just another Just-So story that you made up to patch the holes in your "inerrant" Bible.

Ah, it's a figure of speech, is it? How illuminating. I would never have thought of that. So there are figures of speech in the Bible, are there, henry? What a surprise.

So, if that's a figure of speech, what's to stop the Garden of Eden being a figure of speech, meaning primordial innocence before humans developed a moral sense, or, so to speak, souls?

And the six days of creation? Pretty prime figure of speech, I would have thought, meaning that immense spans of time are inconsiderable to God. And then there's the bit about Eve (a figure of speech meaning all women) being made from Adam's rib, (Adam being a figure of speech for all men). That would imply that woman is part of man, bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh, different but the same, his equal, and to be treated alike - indeed, as part of himself. Pretty powerful metaphor, that.

In fact, the more you look at the creation stories as figures of speech, the more beauty and the more power they gain. It gets you thinking.

I mean, henry, could it conceivably be that Genesis and many other Bible stories are figures of speech, and should not be interpreted literally? Gasp! Whatever next?

My pastor has added his name to "The Clergy Letter Project", but has chosen not to do any special "Evolution Weekend" activity or service. His reasoning is that our Episcopal diocese supports Appalachian ministries this weekend, we are located on the industrial fringe of Appalachia, and ministry to this group of people is a major concern. At the same time, we can't find anyone in our church that disgrees with evolution, so that support of evolution in church would be preaching to the choir.

Of course, we are Episcopalian, which probably accounts for this common-sense approach.

Dave Luckett said: Ah, it's a figure of speech, is it? How illuminating. I would never have thought of that. So there are figures of speech in the Bible, are there, henry? What a surprise. So, if that's a figure of speech, what's to stop the Garden of Eden being a figure of speech, meaning primordial innocence before humans developed a moral sense, or, so to speak, souls?... And the six days of creation? Pretty prime figure of speech, I would have thought, ... Pretty powerful metaphor, that. In fact, the more you look at the creation stories as figures of speech, the more beauty and the more power they gain. It gets you thinking. literally? Gasp! Whatever next?

henry said: The "windows of heaven" is a figure of speech. It's obvious that you understand that because you attempt to make it into physical windows.

henry said: The "windows of heaven" is a figure of speech. It's obvious that you understand that because you attempt to make it into physical windows.

Robert Byers said: Elevate the discussion?! By accusing my side as saying we say choose between faith and science?!

The “windows of heaven” is a figure of speech.

genesis 7: In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

henry said:

Just Bob said: Hey Byers, You've run away from this on about 3 threads now, so let's try again, shall we? Why did God need a flood to get rid of people, including lots of babies, and why did He have to open windows to do it? Were there windows in the "firmament"? Are they still there? If not, why not? And why couldn't the Creator of the Universe beat Jacob at wrestling, even after cheating? If you want anyone to buy into your story, then you need some good answers for silly questions like these (and about 827 more) with some evidence--not just another Just-So story that you made up to patch the holes in your "inerrant" Bible.

The "windows of heaven" is a figure of speech. It's obvious that you understand that because you attempt to make it into physical windows.

Not much going on this weekend in Columbus, OH -- so far this is all I'm aware of.

Saskatoon, SK, Canada. Saskatchewan's major metropolitan area. The Darwin Day Party has all the key ingredients-Lecture, cake, video, and drinking at the bar afterward.

Hi all,

Just to get this thread back on topic, I should note that several organizations, including New York City Skeptics, will have this Saturday, a lecture by AMNH physical anthropologist Ian Tattersall on Darwin and human evolution, with a closing discussion with CUNY philosopher (and evolutionary biologist) Massimo Pigliucci. Unfortunately the event is sold out.

Regards,

John

Here I present evidence against abiogenesis!!!

Origins of life on Earth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolut[…]tory_of_life

Biochemists reason that all living organisms on Earth must share a single last universal ancestor, because it would be virtually impossible that two or more separate lineages could have independently developed the many complex biochemical mechanisms shared by all living organisms.[31][32] However the earliest organisms for which fossil evidence is available are bacteria, which are far too complex to have arisen directly from non-living materials.[33] The lack of fossil or geochemical evidence for earlier types of organism has left plenty of scope for hypotheses, which fall into two main groups: that life arose spontaneously on Earth, and that it was “seeded” from elsewhere in the universe.[34]

Did you read this: “many complex biochemical mechanisms shared by all living organisms”

So, all life would have come from one common ancestor, there could only have been one first living organism that all life evolved from right? If life came from two or more different first living organisms then how would they share the same biochemical mechanisms? So abiogenesis would have only happened once in billions of years, don’t you even see a big problem with this? This is evidence that it is highly improbable that abiogenesis ever occurred in the first place. If many complex biochemical mechanisms are shared by all living organisms, then there are only two explanations, 1. all living things came from one and only one living organism, or 2. they would have been created by a creator, who happen included many of the same shared mechanisms with all living organisms that were created.

This evidence reveals how improbable abiogenesis really is, we are asked to accept that abiogeneis happened once in 4 billion years, and was so successful in that one event, that all life that we see today came from that one single abiogenesis event. What are the odds of that first life living for very long, much less being so successful at reproducing?

CHECK MATE!!!

IBelieve, you are an idiot.

Do you honestly think quotemining from Wikipedia will provide you the deathblow to abiogenesis? Why don't you discuss this with the Nobel Prize Committee and see what they have to say about your screechy inanity?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life

here is the link to the wiki, I noticed it didn't work in the previous post, hopefully it will work this time.

If we are to believe that evolution is true, then how would all living organisms have many shared complex biochemical mechanisms, if they didn't evolve from one last common ancestor?

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said: IBelieve, you are an idiot. Do you honestly think quotemining from Wikipedia will provide you the deathblow to abiogenesis? Why don't you discuss this with the Nobel Prize Committee and see what they have to say about your screechy inanity?

Logical fallacy - appeal to authority just because someone in authority says something is true does not make it true.

IBelieveInGod said: do you dispute that all life came from one common ancestor?

Stanton said: And you're also a hypocrite, IBelieve, especially since you've lambasted other people for allegedly putting words in your mouth, but here you are, trying to put words into my mouth.

Please do not feed the IBelieveInGod troll. I doubt it has the capacity to learn, and surely you have better things to do. I know I do.

IBelieveInGod said: If we are to believe that evolution is true, then how would all living organisms have many shared complex biochemical mechanisms, if they didn't evolve from one last common ancestor?

Matt Young said: Please do not feed the IBelieveInGod troll. I doubt it has the capacity to learn, and surely you have better things to do. I know I do.

C’mon guys; don’t you see what this troll is doing?

Ignore it and let the monitors flush it to the Bathroom Wall.

I agree. Feed it on the bathroom wall if you must, but don't allow it to infest any more threads.

Thanks to Matt for bouncing the troll once again. My prayers have been answered twice in one day.

I vote for bouncing any troll after, say, 3 posts, who has absolutely NO scientific credentials, yet has the arrogance to tell all professional biologists that they're wrong about the very basics of biology (and in the case of YECs, virtually all the rest of modern science).

Just Bob said: I vote for bouncing any troll after, say, 3 posts, who has absolutely NO scientific credentials, yet has the arrogance to tell all professional biologists that they're wrong about the very basics of biology (and in the case of YECs, virtually all the rest of modern science).

IBIG,

This thread is about Evolution Weekend. If you have any events that you want to publicize just come out and say so. If not, take your crap to the bathroom wall where it belongs. No one is going to respond to your twisted logic about abiogenesis here. Why should they?

To Matt Young:

Matt, this troll is very fruitbat crazy and has already destroyed one thread, the Primordial Soup one.

Don't let him destroy this one as well.

Not going to read trolled to destruction threads. Life is too short.

IBelieveInGod said: Here are biochemical mechanisms shared by all living organisms correct me if this information is wrong: 1. Proteins are constructed from the same set of 20 amino acids. 2. DNA stores the "instructions" for making proteins in the same "language" 3. RNA is used to "read" the DNA instructions and assemble proteins. 4. The use of "left-handed" forms of proteins that have both forms. 5. complex, multi-stage chemical reactions occur with all living organisms. My point is that all organisms, if they truly evolved would have come from one Last Universal Common Ancestor. All life would have come from one single abiogenesis event. This is evidence right? If true, successful abiogenesis only occurred once in 4 billion years.

IBelieveInGod said: Here are biochemical mechanisms shared by all living organisms correct me if this information is wrong: 1. Proteins are constructed from the same set of 20 amino acids. 2. DNA stores the "instructions" for making proteins in the same "language" 3. RNA is used to "read" the DNA instructions and assemble proteins. 4. The use of "left-handed" forms of proteins that have both forms. 5. complex, multi-stage chemical reactions occur with all living organisms.

My point is that all organisms, if they truly evolved would have come from one Last Universal Common Ancestor.

All life would have come from one single abiogenesis event.

If true, successful abiogenesis only occurred once in 4 billion years.

Ben sez... Your whole line of thinking seems predicated on the idea that if nobody directly observes something occurring, there is no possible way of assigning any probability whatsoever to whether it did, regardless of how much indirect evidence is found. Which I guess isn't strange, for someone who believes a great many things for which there is no evidence at all.

stevaroni said:

Ben sez... Your whole line of thinking seems predicated on the idea that if nobody directly observes something occurring, there is no possible way of assigning any probability whatsoever to whether it did, regardless of how much indirect evidence is found. Which I guess isn't strange, for someone who believes a great many things for which there is no evidence at all.

It is truly amazing how some people will adamantly believe things for which there is no evidence at all, yet reject simpler things which they can easily investigate themselves.

Stanton said: Was it in the Bible that was said about certain people who can swallow camels, but strain at gnats?

Take Jesus' advice, henry.

Here we go folks. Now all pretense at discussing science is out the window. Now the bible thumping and preaching start. Ban this fool to the bathroom wall forever. Anyone who responds to him here gets what they deserve.

Matt,

Clean up on aisle four.

DS said: Here we go folks. Now all pretense at discussing science is out the window. Now the bible thumping and preaching start. Ban this fool to the bathroom wall forever. Anyone who responds to him here gets what they deserve.

IBelieveInGod said: I don't know who henry is, but to call someone moronic is not very civilized, and again this demonstrates your religious fervor for your belief.

IBelieveInGod said: When I see that all life have many shared biochemical mechanisms, that to me is evidence of a creator.

IBIG:

I have addressed your moronic comments on the bathroom wall, which is where they belong. If you want a discussion have it there. If not, piss off moron.

IBelieveInGod said: I don't know who henry is, but to call someone moronic is not very civilized,

So, is abiogenesis really science? You would say that it is, because it is a hypothesis to explain how things may have occurred, but creation is an belief of how things may have occurred. No difference!!!

One thing I should point out, as long as we're talking about the "last Common Ancestor"...

It's easy to slip and imagine this as one individual organism, after all, we usually speak of it that way.

But it was actually the last common ancestral species from which we were all descended, before all the irretrievable branching started.

Even then, because simple bacteria are somewhat promiscuous with their DNA horizontal gene transfer can still happen (when two blobs of jelly try to eat each other sometimes neither wins, and both go home with some new parts ). So there's still some slight possibility for genes to "swim upstream" and get into other branches.

As someone pointed out last night, some investigators even imagine two common ancestor species, which mixed and matched in an incestuous stew to produce the 4 basic branches of bacterial fauna ( gram+ / gram- / eukarya / archaea ).

IBelieveInGod said:

Dan said:

IBelieveInGod said: I don't know who henry is, but to call someone moronic is not very civilized,

henry behaves in a moronic fashion, and the only civilized thing to do is to call it what it is. To do otherwise is to lie, and it is never civil to lie.

No one ever has a right to call someone names. Name calling is so childish!

DS said: Here we go folks. Now all pretense at discussing science is out the window. Now the bible thumping and preaching start. Ban this fool to the bathroom wall forever. Anyone who responds to him here gets what they deserve.

stevaroni said: Even then, because simple bacteria are somewhat promiscuous with their DNA horizontal gene transfer can still happen (when two blobs of jelly try to eat each other sometimes neither wins, and both go home with some new parts ). So there's still some slight possibility for genes to "swim upstream" and get into other branches.

stevaroni said: One thing I should point out, as long as we're talking about the "last Common Ancestor"... It's easy to slip and imagine this as one individual organism, after all, we usually speak of it that way. But it was actually the last common ancestral species from which we were all descended, before all the irretrievable branching started. Even then, because simple bacteria are somewhat promiscuous with their DNA horizontal gene transfer can still happen (when two blobs of jelly try to eat each other sometimes neither wins, and both go home with some new parts ). So there's still some slight possibility for genes to "swim upstream" and get into other branches. As someone pointed out last night, some investigators even imagine two common ancestor species, which mixed and matched in an incestuous stew to produce the 4 basic branches of bacterial fauna ( gram+ / gram- / eukarya / archaea ).

WRT lurkers, I don't believe there can be many of them as stupid as IBIG or R. Byers. Which in my opinion means the we need not worry much about what effect a lack of response to such guys might have on lurkers.

OTOH if a lurker already is in that league he is beyond redemption anyway.

As a true creationist conceive acceptance of science as a pact with the devil there isn't anything we can do to help with his predicament.

Enlightenment doesn't strike like lightning from a blue sky; it is a reward bestowed on the diligent seeker of truth.

http://www.discovery.org/v/1781

I would be very surprised if this stays here, but I would think if this were a true science site you would be open to discussion on ID. I'm sorry this is only the audio.

Should a "true science site...be open to discussion on" the "science" of necromancy? Or palm reading? Or astrology? How about phrenology? Or is the only thing you want PT to be "open to" American fundamentalist creationism? How about Islamic creationism, or Hindu? How much time should we spend being "open to" them?

PS: ID's calling itself a science doesn't make it one.

Just Bob said: Should a "true science site...be open to discussion on" the "science" of necromancy? Or palm reading? Or astrology? How about phrenology? Or is the only thing you want PT to be "open to" American fundamentalist creationism? How about Islamic creationism, or Hindu? How much time should we spend being "open to" them? PS: ID's calling itself a science doesn't make it one.

eric said: Stevearoni's right and IBIG is wrong in this; a single pool of genetically exchanging organisms is all that is needed, and there are modern organisms such as Cilia to serve as examples of why and how a pool of organisms could serve as an "ancestor."

IBelieveInGod said: http://www.discovery.org/v/1781 I would be very surprised if this stays here, but I would think if this were a true science site you would be open to discussion on ID. I'm sorry this is only the audio.

Phillip Johnson admits: I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world.

IBelieveInGod said:

How many posts are there on this site about ID? So, why don't you even listen to the entire audio and then discuss? Are you afraid?

Afraid? NOPE!! Tired? Yup!!!! Been there, done that, got the mug, t-shirt and souvenir hat....... unfortunately, it STILL garbage out from the ID dipsticks...

@ February 11, 2010 11:14 AM Rolf Aalberg said: I first read this thread today, March 11th at 16:30 GMT...

D. P. Robin said:

IBelieveInGod said: http://www.discovery.org/v/1781 I would be very surprised if this stays here, but I would think if this were a true science site you would be open to discussion on ID. I'm sorry this is only the audio.

This is a true science site. Unfortunately for you, ID is not science,

Phillip Johnson admits: I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world.

http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolution I believe that Behe has said something similar at the Dover trial, but I don't have the citation(perhaps someone can remedy the lack). Johnson has not proclaimed a "theory" of ID since. In the 19 years since Darwin on trial no scientific research on ID has been done and submitted for peer review. There can be no scientific dialog when one side has no science. dpr

IBelieveInGod said:

Just Bob said: Should a "true science site...be open to discussion on" the "science" of necromancy? Or palm reading? Or astrology? How about phrenology? Or is the only thing you want PT to be "open to" American fundamentalist creationism? How about Islamic creationism, or Hindu? How much time should we spend being "open to" them? PS: ID's calling itself a science doesn't make it one.

How many posts are there on this site about ID? So, why don't you even listen to the entire audio and then discuss? Are you afraid?

John Kwok said: Philip Johnson made that "confession" months after Kitzmiller vs. Dover. Unfortunately for Behe, I believe that he was trying to insist at the trial itself that ID could be a valid scientific theory (If I remember his cross-examinations with lead plaintiff attorney Eric Rothschild.):

IBelieveInGod said: So, why don't you even listen to the entire audio and then discuss? Are you afraid?

D. P. Robin said: I believe that Behe has said something similar at the Dover trial, but I don't have the citation(perhaps someone can remedy the lack).

Q [Rothschild] Now, you claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory. A [Behe] Yes. Q But when you call it a scientific theory, you're not defining that term the same way that the National Academy of Sciences does. A Yes, that s correct.

John, Stanton, eric, my thanks to you all for correcting my rather hazy memory which was wrong in details but (thankfully) correct in essence. I'm noting the time and date in the transcript for future reference.

dpr

This copy/paste troll cannot be educated. He doesn’t read the crap he posts, and he has no capacity for understanding why it is totally wrong.

Ship the troll to the Bathroom Wall.

[Rothschild] Now, you claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory.

IBelieveInGod said: I'm going to make a prediction about scientists attempting to recreate abiogenesis! Scientists will never create life. It will never happen in the near future, nor will it happen in the next million years!!!

Part of the problem with thinking about abiogenesis is the unspoken premise that there is a bright line between living and nonliving when it is more likely that what happened was that chemical processes simply became more and more complex without ever making some single dramatic leap.

I expect that progress on abiogenesis will require a much better understanding of the phylogenetic relationship of living organisms. We don't know how many stages might have occurred before the planet saw something like a bacterium. We already know of a couple of kinds of semi-living beings (viruses, prions). Maybe we'll find, or create many more that are representative of the sexy chemistry/protolife/first organisms of primeval times. And there may be novel mechanisms of change to discover that are as distinct from the various processes envisaged in existing theories of abiogenesis as they are from natural selection/genetic drift/symbiosis. Hey, the crucial things happened 4 billion years ago. We shouldn't be too surprised if it takes some doing to figure things out!

Explore fossils, create personal family trees, study finch beaks, make a field journal to record your scientific observations as you go on your own voyage of discovery, and lots more.

Well, on topic, in a way, I just returned from the "Academic Freedom Day" celebration [sic] at the University of Arkansas. They showed Expelled, and then Casey Luskin got up and spoke for 1 hour and 40 minutes. A Q&A followed, but little was accomplished. They had interested members of the audience line up at a microphone to ask 2 questions each. I left while he was answering the 3rd question, having to get home and eat. He just went on and on and on and on.... I felt like I was watching a living Fox News "debate", where one person is allowed to drown out the other by talking loud and fast.

As for content -- it was the same old same old. ID is science, ID is testable, ID has lots of peer reviewed publications, ID has absolutely nothing whatsoever no-sirree to do with God, no no no, and the Dover trial was awful horrible and nasty. Everybody hates ID just because Judge Jones said so, and Judge Jones copied everything verbatim from the ACLU and ignored all that fine testimony.

So I now have a firm impression of Luskin: 1) he talks waaaaaay too fast and too much 2) he uses the same old tiresome, slick, deceptive arguments, but throws them out so fast that anyone not familiar with the specific issues would be left confused or convinced, 3) he is very good at his job, which is apologetics to everybody EXCEPT the people he claims won't listen to him (us academical scientist types).

I think I will celebrate Darwin Day by doing some actual science.

Dave Luckett said: Yeah, Byers, we know what creationists say. It's not hard to pick it, since it always lies somewhere between invincible ignorance and downright lying. "Crumbling fortress of evolution"? What a laugh! Self-delusion, thy name is Byers. Fifty years ago, creationism was still required in some state schools. That's gone. Thirty years ago, science and creationism still had to be taught together in some states. That's gone. Twenty years ago, creationism could still sometimes get away with representing itself as science. That's gone. Five years ago, creationism tried calling itself something else and getting that represented as science, and that's gone, too. It's all gone, Byers. Creationism can't be taught in science classes anywhere in the USA, because it's a religious belief, not science. As a result, creationists have been in retreat for over forty years as actual knowledge succeeds enforced superstition. They will continue to retreat until their dogma is something that only bedrock loons buy into. People like you, Byers. So fire away as much as you like. Your pitiful ammunition - ignorance, prejudice, folly, unreason and delusion - only serves to strengthen the walls.

Byers is bullshitting as usual. When he isn't playing the part of the pompous twit, he's pulling stuff out of his hole in the vain hope that it will somehow wow us.

Would it be too much to ask to send him and his moronic ramblings to the Bathroom Wall forever?

mplavcan said: So I now have a firm impression of Luskin: 1) he talks waaaaaay too fast and too much 2) he uses the same old tiresome, slick, deceptive arguments, but throws them out so fast that anyone not familiar with the specific issues would be left confused or convinced, 3) he is very good at his job, which is apologetics to everybody EXCEPT the people he claims won't listen to him (us academical scientist types).

stevaroni said:

@ February 11, 2010 11:14 AM Rolf Aalberg said: I first read this thread today, March 11th at 16:30 GMT...

Dude! You have a time machine that allows people to skip over both Valentines day and the primary season here in Texas! I'll pay you anything!!!

As for content – it was the same old same old. ID is science, ID is testable, ID has lots of peer reviewed publications, ID has absolutely nothing whatsoever no-sirree to do with God, no no no, and the Dover trial was awful horrible and nasty. Everybody hates ID just because Judge Jones said so, and Judge Jones copied everything verbatim from the ACLU and ignored all that fine testimony.

Rolf Aalberg said:

As for content – it was the same old same old. ID is science, ID is testable, ID has lots of peer reviewed publications, ID has absolutely nothing whatsoever no-sirree to do with God, no no no, and the Dover trial was awful horrible and nasty. Everybody hates ID just because Judge Jones said so, and Judge Jones copied everything verbatim from the ACLU and ignored all that fine testimony.

On the spot. That's all we ever hear from them. More that ten years since Darwin's Black Box, I still have no idea what ID might be except something/somebody did something sometime and that explains everything you need know about evolution. Because "we don't deny evolution, it's just that ID is a better explanation." What the explanation is? It is better - that's all you need know. Googling for a particular parody reference, I struck the real thing instead: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/02/a_dialogue_concerning_intellig.html

Rolf Aalberg said:

stevaroni said:

@ February 11, 2010 11:14 AM Rolf Aalberg said: I first read this thread today, March 11th at 16:30 GMT...

Dude! You have a time machine that allows people to skip over both Valentines day and the primary season here in Texas! I'll pay you anything!!!

Hush, I just slipped. Will advertise when ready, have problems with chronocontroller.

Ken Ham has to be one hell of a wealthy charlatan. He really hit pay dirt coming to the US.

Happy Darwin Day. I am off to the local university to celebrate.

Oh, by the way, the bathroom wall if full of crap. Do not go in there, the stench is overpowering. Thanks to all the moderators who had the patience to remove all the crap. Let's hope the infestation is not allowed to spread to any other threads.

More that ten years since Darwin’s Black Box, I still have no idea what ID might be except something/somebody did something sometime and that explains everything you need know about evolution.

signsofthelastdays.com: The reality is that young Americans are deserting the Church in America in droves. The other day we came across an article in Advertising Age that blew us away. The article was discussing marketing and religion, but what impacted us so profoundly were some figures from the American Religious Identification Survey by the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society & Culture at Trinity College. According to that survey, 15% of Americans now say they have "no religion" which is up from 8% in 1990. That would be bad enough news for evangelical Christianity. But there is some more news from that survey that is much worse. In that same survey, 46% of Americans between the ages of 18 to 34 indicated that they had no religion. Forty. Six. Percent.

Get your grubby little hands off my wallet, keep your sick death-cult dogma out of my country’s laws,

IBelieveInGod said:

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

raven said: US xianity is on the downhill slide. 46% of young adults are No Religions. It looks like rather than bringing about The New Dark Age, the DI and the fundies are destroying US xianity. People are voting with their feet and fleeing.

Grace32wz said: I don't think that each student in whole world has a passion of essay thesis accomplishing! Nevertheless, people ,which don't have writing skills should utilize an assistance of famous essay writing service and be satisfied with a result.

I don't think that each student in whole world has a passion of essay thesis accomplishing! Nevertheless, people ,which don't have writing skills should utilize an assistance of famous essay writing service and be satisfied with a result.

Matt: please, please please, ban this IP too.

Thank you Matt.

but in general when I was growing up if you saw Christians on the news doing something “in the name of Jesus” it was usually something that Jesus himself would understand.

The decline of religion in America is probably more a reflection of the general tendency of most of the country to become more like Western Europe than of Christianity doing an especially bad job of promoting itself. You often read the U.S. is an culturally and politically conservative country. That's true if you look at the averages; but if you take the South out of the mix, American attitudes are already comparable to those of people in Germany, France, or the U.K.

The sociologists of religion, at least the ones I've read or spoken with, seem to think that the secularization of society in modern times has rather little to do with the advance of scientific ideas and more to do with more general economic and demographic trends. I tend to agree, but it seems to me that the fact that the sciences don't provide any credible support for theology matters in an indirect way. Very few scientists circa 1800 were biblical literalists, but a great many of them thought that some sort of independent intelligence would turn out to have been at work in the history of nature. That dog never barked, but imagine a replay of the religious history of the 19th and 20th Centuries if Paley had turned out to be right.

Robert Byers said: Things, truly, have never been so good for organized creationism in the history of man.

Xianity seems to be on the skids in the USA. By my reckoning, between 1-2 million people are leaving the religion every year. Below is data from fundie sources. They know it. I blame the fundies. When xian becomes synonymous with Liar, Hater, Ignorant, Crazy, and sometimes Killer, who would want to be one? Lifeway Some Young Adults Are Leaving Church What’s their gripe? And what can you learn from this exodus? By Doug Horchak An April-May 2007 study in the United States found that young adults are leaving Christian churches in record numbers. The primary reason? They find their church irrelevant to their lives and many of its members judgmental or hypocritical. A survey by LifeWay Research revealed that seven in 10 Protestants ages 18 to 30 who went to church regularly in high school said they quit attending by age 23 And 34% of those said they had not returned, even sporadically, by age 30 … “‘This is sobering news,’ says Ed Stetzer, director of Nashville-based LifeWay Research, which is affiliated with the publishing arm of the Southern Baptist Convention. ‘It seems the teen years are like a free trial on a product. By 18, when it’s their choice whether to buy in to church life, many don’t feel engaged and welcome,’ says associate director Scott McConnell” (Cathy Lynn Grossman, “Young Adults Aren’t Sticking With Church,” USA Today, Aug. 8, 2007). Barna poll: Even among young Christians … [half] of young churchgoers said they perceive Christianity to be, too judgmental, hypocritical, and too political. One-third said it was old-fashioned and out of touch with reality.

Jim Harrison said: The sociologists of religion, at least the ones I've read or spoken with, seem to think that the secularization of society in modern times has rather little to do with the advance of scientific ideas and more to do with more general economic and demographic trends.

Byers the delusional kook: Robert Byers said: Things, truly, have never been so good for organized creationism in the history of man.

Robert Byers said:

Dave Luckett said: Yeah, Byers, we know what creationists say. It's not hard to pick it, since it always lies somewhere between invincible ignorance and downright lying. "Crumbling fortress of evolution"? What a laugh! Self-delusion, thy name is Byers. Fifty years ago, creationism was still required in some state schools. That's gone. Thirty years ago, science and creationism still had to be taught together in some states. That's gone. Twenty years ago, creationism could still sometimes get away with representing itself as science. That's gone. Five years ago, creationism tried calling itself something else and getting that represented as science, and that's gone, too. It's all gone, Byers. Creationism can't be taught in science classes anywhere in the USA, because it's a religious belief, not science. As a result, creationists have been in retreat for over forty years as actual knowledge succeeds enforced superstition. They will continue to retreat until their dogma is something that only bedrock loons buy into. People like you, Byers. So fire away as much as you like. Your pitiful ammunition - ignorance, prejudice, folly, unreason and delusion - only serves to strengthen the walls.

Okay let me fire right through the middle ranks. Creationism is the original, ancient, and then and now well accepted framework, one way or another, of the origin of things. The attack against it in schools represents establishment bodies and agitators working behind the scenes, or in front when ready, to interfere with the public will. These are small obscure circles that ever dealt with origin teachings and do not represent , yet, the normal power of contentions in American life. This is beginning now as YEC and high education I.D. gangs begin to strike at walls of censorship and opposition. The past was simply minor forts being swamped by a invading agenda. Today creationism (s) is advancing in public opinion and with this will COME attacks against the establishments control on issues of origins in public institutions. Things, truly, have never been so good for organized creationism in the history of man. The old days were not really creationism but enforced general concepts from establishments with some religious foundation. I suspect creationist ideas in schools was never very prevalent save in some simple premises. Not the present scholarship of YEC and I.D. Say what you will it sure seems to this Canadian creationist stuff is falling off the wall from impact.

Jim Harrison said: The sociologists of religion, at least the ones I've read or spoken with, seem to think that the secularization of society in modern times has rather little to do with the advance of scientific ideas and more to do with more general economic and demographic trends.

stevaroni said:

Jim Harrison said: The sociologists of religion, at least the ones I've read or spoken with, seem to think that the secularization of society in modern times has rather little to do with the advance of scientific ideas and more to do with more general economic and demographic trends.

But you can't take them in isolation. People in the middle ages had good reason to believe in God. They prayed, their crops grew. Every once in a while they did something to make God mad and a drought came or they got invaded by the Huns. Back in the day it was obvious God made stuff happen. Or, at the very least, it was foolhardy to piss Him off. People in comfortable western democracies today might not say explicitly that they don't believe in God because of science, and religion may give them a warm fuzzy feeling in a troubling world, but at the end of the day it's a pretty safe bet that they internalize the fact that the things that make their lives comfortable, safe, and productive come from people in lab coats and pocket protectors and not from chanting in Latin. People

Robert Byers said: Elevate the discussion?! By accusing my side as saying we say choose between faith and science?! We don't say that. We either say origin subjects are not open to much or any science OR we say we do the same science as anyone on these topics. As for these evolution thumper clergy WELL if we tripe that number does that make our side right? It is difficult to see how a Christian can ignore scripture on this but accept it on that. Yet i accept one can because they say do. Yet its fair to say evolution is a opponent of the bible and what is the truth. The clergy thing seems to show a problem in the evolution cause. being seen as anti Christian is not good for gaining acceptance. Evolution is not sound science or science is not that sound on aggresive conclusions ism. God and genesis is sound on origin subjects. So the entire genus of creationism is confident and firing away at the crumbling fortress of evolution and company.

Rilke's Granddaughter said: The incredible humor value of Byers has to be seen to be appreciated. Does he really believe this nonsense? Really? How can anyone be smart enough to tie his own socks and make nonsensical statements like this is beyond me.

IBelieveInGod said: Here I present evidence against abiogenesis!!! Origins of life on Earth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolut[…]tory_of_life Biochemists reason that all living organisms on Earth must share a single last universal ancestor, because it would be virtually impossible that two or more separate lineages could have independently developed the many complex biochemical mechanisms shared by all living organisms.[31][32] However the earliest organisms for which fossil evidence is available are bacteria, which are far too complex to have arisen directly from non-living materials.[33] The lack of fossil or geochemical evidence for earlier types of organism has left plenty of scope for hypotheses, which fall into two main groups: that life arose spontaneously on Earth, and that it was “seeded” from elsewhere in the universe.[34] Did you read this: “many complex biochemical mechanisms shared by all living organisms” So, all life would have come from one common ancestor, there could only have been one first living organism that all life evolved from right? If life came from two or more different first living organisms then how would they share the same biochemical mechanisms? So abiogenesis would have only happened once in billions of years, don’t you even see a big problem with this? This is evidence that it is highly improbable that abiogenesis ever occurred in the first place. If many complex biochemical mechanisms are shared by all living organisms, then there are only two explanations, 1. all living things came from one and only one living organism, or 2. they would have been created by a creator, who happen included many of the same shared mechanisms with all living organisms that were created. This evidence reveals how improbable abiogenesis really is, we are asked to accept that abiogeneis happened once in 4 billion years, and was so successful in that one event, that all life that we see today came from that one single abiogenesis event. What are the odds of that first life living for very long, much less being so successful at reproducing? CHECK MATE!!!

A "Why evolution is important" piece from the Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-newton/five-reasons-why-evolutio_b_459636.html

dpr

Mike Elzinga said:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: The incredible humor value of Byers has to be seen to be appreciated. Does he really believe this nonsense? Really? How can anyone be smart enough to tie his own socks and make nonsensical statements like this is beyond me.

Jason Rosenhouse in his above thread provided this link to Stephen M. Barr’s recent blog. The comments there are long and mostly tedious and pompous “philosophical” wrangling by presumably educated persons. What is missing in all of it, including Barr’s comments, is anyone who demonstrates a solid understanding of real science and who can put their finger on why ID/creationism is a pseudo-science. The notable exception over there is Nick Natzke, who knows the details so intimately that the others have no clue who they are dealing with. Most of the arguments spin and spin around philosophical nitpicking. Many are attempting to still give ID/creationism the “benefit of the doubt”. Yet most of the posters there have no understanding of the fundamentals of science that are routinely mangled by the ID/creationists. Even if someone could “argue away” all the legal, sociopolitical, religious, and Constitutional reasons for keeping ID/creationism out of the schools, ID/creationism would still be a pseudo-science operating with pseudo-science concepts that lead to erroneous results. Dembski also replied over there, and he provided a link to UD where he once again provides us with one of his jealous and bitter complaints of his rejection by the science community. He really hates it when others get better recognition in the science community than he does.

And Dembski's bitterness is quite evident. Ever since the Baylor fiasco, when he basically shot himself in the foot and destroyed his own 'center' he's been acting like a petty, nasty, vicious little creep who can't figure out why teams don't pick him and why girls don't want to go out with him.

D. P. Robin said: A "Why evolution is important" piece from the Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-newton/five-reasons-why-evolutio_b_459636.html dpr

I think another big reason that the number of areligious is growing, especially among young people, is the growth of the internet itself. It's probably no coincidence that the numbers of the faithful have dropped significantly since the 90's, about the time the masses really started to get connected in significant numbers.

It also coincides with my own "conversion". Up until the late 90's I was fairly big into all kinds of new-age woo, as well as being a "skeptic" on things like the big bang and global warming. But a decade of at-the-fingers access to real scientific knowledge, and participation in communities of honest scientific supporters like this one, showed me just how I'd been taken in by slick-sounding pseudo-science and navel-gazing philosophy. I drifted first into agnosticism, and then two years ago finally admitted to myself that I was, in fact, an atheist; one who accepts the scientific consensus as being the most likely explanation for most controversial topics (at least, those that have scientific explanations).

It's likely that many others have undergone similar transitions. While the net does allow people with wacko beliefs to promote their nonsense, it also allows others to counter it with more accurate info. You really have to work hard to avoid encountering a variety of viewpoints when online, and when people have access to a multiple viewpoints they tend to become more open-minded in general. It must be doing something to affect the balance.

raven said:

Get your grubby little hands off my wallet, keep your sick death-cult dogma out of my country’s laws,

Phantomreader, calm down. Byers is a Canadian kook in Canada and has no influence about what happens in a foreign country called the USA. I think he posts here because no one in Canada bothers to pay any attention to him and his ramblings.

Just heard a loveley comment

Today is DARWINMAS.

Michael Roberts said: Just heard a loveley comment Today is DARWINMAS.

D. P. Robin said:

Michael Roberts said: Just heard a loveley comment Today is DARWINMAS.

I can appreciate that, but wouldn't bandy it about. The Creationist fringe thinks that evolution is the "religion of Darwinism", we don't need to give them anymore encouragement. dpr

Oh dear, I am a minister with a geological background too!!

The trouble is that whatever you do the creationists will twist it.

phantomreader42 said: Byers is a disgrace to Canada. He's a religious fanatic who worships lies. He makes shit up about the U.S. Constitution somehow endorsing his sick cult, but in reality he is an enemy of freedom, eager to undermine civilization. Fuck the bastard.

raven said:

Get your grubby little hands off my wallet, keep your sick death-cult dogma out of my country’s laws,

Phantomreader, calm down. Byers is a Canadian kook in Canada and has no influence about what happens in a foreign country called the USA. I think he posts here because no one in Canada bothers to pay any attention to him and his ramblings.

Michael Roberts said: Just heard a loveley comment Today is DARWINMAS.

D. P. Robin said:

Michael Roberts said: Just heard a loveley comment Today is DARWINMAS.

I can appreciate that, but wouldn't bandy it about. The Creationist fringe thinks that evolution is the "religion of Darwinism", we don't need to give them anymore encouragement. dpr

Rob said: I refuse to let creationist define me and my family. Rob

Rob wrote:

I hope you had your Tree-of-Life up for Darwinmas.

I prefer a festivus for the rest of us.

Stanton said:

Rob said: I refuse to let creationist define me and my family. Rob

If you ask me, I find it extremely odd that creationists whoop and wail about how horrible and awful and sinful it is to suggest that we're related to, or worse yet, descended from monkeys, and yet, be quite proud to be descended from Adam and Eve. The same Adam and Eve who, according to the Bible, were singlehandedly responsible for bringing death, predation, suffering, old age and pain into the Universe. And I fail to see how being descended from these two primeval ne'er-do-wells is somehow better than being related to a monkey.

Just Bob said:

Stanton said:

Rob said: I refuse to let creationist define me and my family. Rob

If you ask me, I find it extremely odd that creationists whoop and wail about how horrible and awful and sinful it is to suggest that we're related to, or worse yet, descended from monkeys, and yet, be quite proud to be descended from Adam and Eve. The same Adam and Eve who, according to the Bible, were singlehandedly responsible for bringing death, predation, suffering, old age and pain into the Universe. And I fail to see how being descended from these two primeval ne'er-do-wells is somehow better than being related to a monkey.

It's even worse. Adam's immediate ancestor was DIRT. For the life of me, I can't figure how it's worse to be descended from pre-human primates than from mud.

fnxtr -

As a US/Canadian dual citizen, I am quite aware that many parts of the US are more similar to parts of Canada than to other parts of the US. To take an extreme example, the cities of the US Pacific Northwest are quite similar to Vancouver B.C., and not very similar to the deep South.

There is a region of the US where creationism and far right politics are the order of the day. That region is quite far from the Canadian border.

Nevertheless, all parts of the US and Canada, as well as the UK, Ireland, Australia, and NZ, have some hard core creationists.

There is nothing to apologize for.

harold said: ... Nevertheless, all parts of the US and Canada, as well as the UK, Ireland, Australia, and NZ, have some hard core creationists. ...

Dave Luckett said:

harold said: ... Nevertheless, all parts of the US and Canada, as well as the UK, Ireland, Australia, and NZ, have some hard core creationists. ...

Oh, indeed we Australians do. We've even managed to export a few to the US, much to our discredit. Ken Ham, for one. Now, for that we do owe you an apology and compensation. Just as long as you don't send him back.

Just Bob said: It's even worse. Adam's immediate ancestor was DIRT. For the life of me, I can't figure how it's worse to be descended from pre-human primates than from mud.

Stanton said:

Rob said: I refuse to let creationist define me and my family. Rob

If you ask me, I find it extremely odd that creationists whoop and wail about how horrible and awful and sinful it is to suggest that we're related to, or worse yet, descended from monkeys, and yet, be quite proud to be descended from Adam and Eve. The same Adam and Eve who, according to the Bible, were singlehandedly responsible for bringing death, predation, suffering, old age and pain into the Universe. And I fail to see how being descended from these two primeval ne'er-do-wells is somehow better than being related to a monkey.

It’s even worse. Adam’s immediate ancestor was DIRT. For the life of me, I can’t figure how it’s worse to be descended from pre-human primates than from mud.

fnxtr said:

phantomreader42 said: Byers is a disgrace to Canada. He's a religious fanatic who worships lies. He makes shit up about the U.S. Constitution somehow endorsing his sick cult, but in reality he is an enemy of freedom, eager to undermine civilization. Fuck the bastard.

raven said:

Get your grubby little hands off my wallet, keep your sick death-cult dogma out of my country’s laws,

Phantomreader, calm down. Byers is a Canadian kook in Canada and has no influence about what happens in a foreign country called the USA. I think he posts here because no one in Canada bothers to pay any attention to him and his ramblings.

Again, SORRY! On the bright side, thanks to the implosion of the so-called Reform Party, his wingnutism has zero influence on our country's laws. I wish you the same future.

But, the evolution from other species, for Creationists, threatens their sense of human uniqueness in reflecting the nature of God.

Henry J said:

But, the evolution from other species, for Creationists, threatens their sense of human uniqueness in reflecting the nature of God.

The main problem with that argument from their camp is that the lack of uniqueness of humans is present and observable, whether it got there by evolving or not. Henry

John Kwok said: Unfortunately you're also responsible for Ray Comfort too alas (Not you directly, but your country....):

Henry J said:

But, the evolution from other species, for Creationists, threatens their sense of human uniqueness in reflecting the nature of God.

The main problem with that argument from their camp is that the lack of uniqueness of humans is present and observable, whether it got there by evolving or not. Henry

Just Bob said:

Henry J said:

But, the evolution from other species, for Creationists, threatens their sense of human uniqueness in reflecting the nature of God.

The main problem with that argument from their camp is that the lack of uniqueness of humans is present and observable, whether it got there by evolving or not. Henry

And good luck getting anything like a straight answer from them about what "created in God's image" might mean. It's one of those things, like the "firmament", that was clearly MEANT literally when it was written, but that fundamentalists REFUSE to take literally now (most of them, anyway). I wonder if Byers thinks God has a digestive tract, or testicles.

Dave Luckett said:

John Kwok said: Unfortunately you're also responsible for Ray Comfort too alas (Not you directly, but your country....):

Not guilty. Comfort's a New Zealander. The Kiwis would also send their apologies, except that nobody listens to them.

Sylvilagus -

I have mental model of what drives creationists. I can't read their minds, but the model I apply to their behavior certainly helps me to predict their actions over and over again.

I think that they are fundamentally, no pun intended, authoritarian.

I happened to be on some web site that was devoted to "debating" and "logic" not long ago, and some guy was seriously advancing the claim that all truth is decided by the "winner". Whoever can force others to "concede" that he is right determines the "truth". That is their mind set. They don't "get" concepts like objectivity and honesty, any more than someone with a brain lesion that destroys their ability to understand language "gets" a written page.

Authoritarians instinctively loathe science, because within science, truth is determined by evidence. This puzzles and infuriates them. They want the truth to be whatever the guy with the torture chamber tells you it is, and then to be the guy with the torture chamber (however, they still prefer this system even if they are the one who has to submit). They want concrete, unchanging rules enforced by violent authority.

If some harsh ancient religious writings said that humans were descended from primates, and scientific evidence suggested spontaneous formation of humans from soil, then they would argue in favor of human descent from "monkeys" and condemn "spontaneous emergence from soil theory" as atheistic.

Henry J said:

It’s even worse. Adam’s immediate ancestor was DIRT. For the life of me, I can’t figure how it’s worse to be descended from pre-human primates than from mud.

Maybe it's not the nearer relations? Evolution does have us as distantly related to creatures with unpleasant habits, such as parasites, digger wasps, jellyfish, skunks, etc. Henry

GvlGeologist, FCD said: ...we're related to Byers, IBIG, Ham, Dembski, etc., who are willfully ignorant, malicious, or worse.

GvlGeologist, FCD said: Off topic, I'm so relieved that there are active threads here besides on the BW with the idiots. Then more OT: what's worse than being related to parasites, etc. (who are only doing what evolution has set up for them) is that we're related to Byers, IBIG, Ham, Dembski, etc., who are willfully ignorant, malicious, or worse.

Henry J said:

It’s even worse. Adam’s immediate ancestor was DIRT. For the life of me, I can’t figure how it’s worse to be descended from pre-human primates than from mud.

Maybe it's not the nearer relations? Evolution does have us as distantly related to creatures with unpleasant habits, such as parasites, digger wasps, jellyfish, skunks, etc. Henry

Altair IV said: I think another big reason that the number of areligious is growing, especially among young people, is the growth of the internet itself. It's probably no coincidence that the numbers of the faithful have dropped significantly since the 90's, about the time the masses really started to get connected in significant numbers. It also coincides with my own "conversion". Up until the late 90's I was fairly big into all kinds of new-age woo, as well as being a "skeptic" on things like the big bang and global warming. But a decade of at-the-fingers access to real scientific knowledge, and participation in communities of honest scientific supporters like this one, showed me just how I'd been taken in by slick-sounding pseudo-science and navel-gazing philosophy. I drifted first into agnosticism, and then two years ago finally admitted to myself that I was, in fact, an atheist; one who accepts the scientific consensus as being the most likely explanation for most controversial topics (at least, those that have scientific explanations). It's likely that many others have undergone similar transitions. While the net does allow people with wacko beliefs to promote their nonsense, it also allows others to counter it with more accurate info. You really have to work hard to avoid encountering a variety of viewpoints when online, and when people have access to a multiple viewpoints they tend to become more open-minded in general. It must be doing something to affect the balance.

So, tell us again why we should trust hired hackers who conveniently (illegally) obtained allegedly damning emails?

Stanton said: So, tell us again why we should trust hired hackers who conveniently (illegally) obtained allegedly damning emails?

Stanton said: So, tell us again why we should trust hired hackers who conveniently (illegally) obtained allegedly damning emails?

Henry wrote:

"You could see the fins of the whale and the legs of the mammal, but you don’t see anything in between, showing the actual change taking place. There will never be any evidence showing the whale’s evolution because it never happened."

You are sadly mistaken. There are at least eight intermediate forms between modern whales and their terrestrial ancestors. You should really not spout off about thing you know nothing about, grasshopper.

Here you go Henry:

1. Pakicetus 50 M

2. Ambulocetus 48 M

3. Procetus 45 M

4. Rodhocetus 46 M

5. Kutchicetus 43 M

6. Basilosaurus 36 M

7. Dorudon 37 M

8. Aetiocetus 26 M

National Geographic 200(5):64-76

Now after you explain this evidence, we can move on to the genetic and developmental evidence. Until then you can try to deny climate change all you want.

henry said: What is really interesting is how many people continue to take man made climate change or global warming as scientific fact--as scientific as evolution. Yet both have serious flaws.

DS said: Here you go Henry: 1. Pakicetus 50 M 2. Ambulocetus 48 M 3. Procetus 45 M 4. Rodhocetus 46 M 5. Kutchicetus 43 M 6. Basilosaurus 36 M 7. Dorudon 37 M 8. Aetiocetus 26 M National Geographic 200(5):64-76 Now after you explain this evidence, we can move on to the genetic and developmental evidence. Until then you can try to deny climate change all you want.

sylvilagus,

Indeed. I think that is somewhere on the talkorigins web site.

They also provide evidence to show that it is not only the limbs that undergo the transition to the marine environment, but also the nostrils, teeth, echo location apparatus, etc. And then of course there is the genetic and developmental data which all give the same answer as the fossil evidence. Ain't science great? Too bad henry can't be bothered to learn any of it.

henry said:

Stanton said: So, tell us again why we should trust hired hackers who conveniently (illegally) obtained allegedly damning emails?

You don't have to trust those hackers. Wikipedia has an entry on Climatic Research Unit hacking incident[i.e. Climate gate]. Also, here's a link to an honest IPCC scientist. http://biggovernment.com/jlakely/2010/02/05/an-honest-ipcc-scientist-warns-his-colleagues-dont-dismiss-climategate/ What is really interesting is how many people continue to take man made climate change or global warming as scientific fact--as scientific as evolution. Yet both have serious flaws. Dawkins, in answering the claims that there are no transitional forms, presented the evolutionary tale of the whale. You could see the fins of the whale and the legs of the mammal, but you don't see anything in between, showing the actual change taking place. There will never be any evidence showing the whale's evolution because it never happened.

Where exactly do you disagree with this, and what evidence supports your view?

henry said: You were right about being skeptical on man made global warming.

Since Henry brought up the CRU hack, I would like to remind people that there is nothing in those emails that supports a charge of scientific fraud. All of the quoted portions breathlessly ranted about by the denialosphere turn out to have been - you are going to be so shocked - quotemines.

tresmal said: Since Henry brought up the CRU hack, I would like to remind people that there is nothing in those emails that supports a charge of scientific fraud. All of the quoted portions breathlessly ranted about by the denialosphere turn out to have been - you are going to be so shocked - quotemines.

Richard Simons said:

henry said: What is really interesting is how many people continue to take man made climate change or global warming as scientific fact--as scientific as evolution. Yet both have serious flaws.

We're getting somewhat off-topic here, but briefly:
1. Most of the energy arriving at Earth from the sun has a relatively short wavelength, whereas most of the radiation leaving Earth has a longer wavelength.
2. CO₂ in the atmosphere is transparent to short-waved radiation but absorbs some of the longer-waved radiation.
3. In the absence of a negative feed-back mechanism, this will increase the average temperature of earth compared to a body without CO₂ in the atmosphere. (So far, all of this has been known for at least 100 years.)
4. The amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere has been increasing since the start of industrialization.
5. Several lines of evidence show that the great majority of the increase in CO₂ has come from human activity. (These two points have been known for less time, about 50 years.)
6. There is no known negative feed-back mechanism that is remotely close to the magnitude needed to counter the warming effect of the extra CO₂. Where exactly do you disagree with this, and what evidence supports your view?

henry said:

Richard Simons said:

henry said: What is really interesting is how many people continue to take man made climate change or global warming as scientific fact--as scientific as evolution. Yet both have serious flaws.

We're getting somewhat off-topic here, but briefly:
1. Most of the energy arriving at Earth from the sun has a relatively short wavelength, whereas most of the radiation leaving Earth has a longer wavelength.
2. CO₂ in the atmosphere is transparent to short-waved radiation but absorbs some of the longer-waved radiation.
3. In the absence of a negative feed-back mechanism, this will increase the average temperature of earth compared to a body without CO₂ in the atmosphere. (So far, all of this has been known for at least 100 years.)
4. The amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere has been increasing since the start of industrialization.
5. Several lines of evidence show that the great majority of the increase in CO₂ has come from human activity. (These two points have been known for less time, about 50 years.)
6. There is no known negative feed-back mechanism that is remotely close to the magnitude needed to counter the warming effect of the extra CO₂. Where exactly do you disagree with this, and what evidence supports your view?

Henrik Svensmark's theory is global warming is caused by solar activity, not man's activities.

Stanton said:

henry said:

Richard Simons said:

henry said: What is really interesting is how many people continue to take man made climate change or global warming as scientific fact--as scientific as evolution. Yet both have serious flaws.

We're getting somewhat off-topic here, but briefly:
1. Most of the energy arriving at Earth from the sun has a relatively short wavelength, whereas most of the radiation leaving Earth has a longer wavelength.
2. CO₂ in the atmosphere is transparent to short-waved radiation but absorbs some of the longer-waved radiation.
3. In the absence of a negative feed-back mechanism, this will increase the average temperature of earth compared to a body without CO₂ in the atmosphere. (So far, all of this has been known for at least 100 years.)
4. The amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere has been increasing since the start of industrialization.
5. Several lines of evidence show that the great majority of the increase in CO₂ has come from human activity. (These two points have been known for less time, about 50 years.)
6. There is no known negative feed-back mechanism that is remotely close to the magnitude needed to counter the warming effect of the extra CO₂. Where exactly do you disagree with this, and what evidence supports your view?

Henrik Svensmark's theory is global warming is caused by solar activity, not man's activities.

Please explain where Henrik Svensmark said we should trust the fraudulent emails conveniently provided by the hired hackers, please.

DS said: Here you go Henry: 1. Pakicetus 50 M 2. Ambulocetus 48 M 3. Procetus 45 M 4. Rodhocetus 46 M 5. Kutchicetus 43 M 6. Basilosaurus 36 M 7. Dorudon 37 M 8. Aetiocetus 26 M National Geographic 200(5):64-76 Now after you explain this evidence, we can move on to the genetic and developmental evidence. Until then you can try to deny climate change all you want.

henry said: The first five have legs and the latter three have fins, but I don't see any transformation from legs to fins. If anything, these animals appear to be fully functional the way they are, not some pre-whale forms.

If anything, these animals appear to be fully functional the way they are, not some pre-whale forms.

henry said: I just don't have the great imagination of real scientists.

henry said: I just don't have the great imagination of real scientists. It's really hard to imagine the land mammals acquiring huge tails.

Henry wrote:

"I just don’t have the great imagination of real scientists.

The first five have legs and the latter three have fins, but I don’t see any transformation from legs to fins. If anything, these animals appear to be fully functional the way they are, not some pre-whale forms.

It’s really hard to imagine the land mammals acquiring huge tails.

What you don't have is the training of professional palentologists. If you look at the skeletons carefully, you will see that they form a graded series with small gradual changes in exactly the chronological sequence required. They are all obviously intermediate between terrestrial mammals and whales. The same is true for many other characters, including the nostrils, the pelvis, the hind limbs, the echo location structures, etc. How do you explain their existence if whales were poofed into existence and are not related to terrestrial mammals?

Also, don't forget, that all of the genetic and developmental evidence is in agreement with this conclusion. How do you explain the fact that all of the data give the same answer? "I don't want to believe it" is not a valid response.

Just Bob said:

henry said: I just don't have the great imagination of real scientists. It's really hard to imagine the land mammals acquiring huge tails.

Ever seen a beaver?

henry said:

DS said: Here you go Henry: 1. Pakicetus 50 M 2. Ambulocetus 48 M 3. Procetus 45 M 4. Rodhocetus 46 M 5. Kutchicetus 43 M 6. Basilosaurus 36 M 7. Dorudon 37 M 8. Aetiocetus 26 M National Geographic 200(5):64-76 Now after you explain this evidence, we can move on to the genetic and developmental evidence. Until then you can try to deny climate change all you want.

If anything, these animals appear to be fully functional the way they are, not some pre-whale forms.

And why do you reckon whales today have the useless remnants of pelvis and hind leg bones buried deep in their bodies? And why do they have exactly 5 internal digits, complete with finger "joints" in their flippers, while externally all that is wrapped up in one large digit? And why couldn't God beat Jacob at wrestling?

Just Bob said: And why do you reckon whales today have the useless remnants of pelvis and hind leg bones buried deep in their bodies? And why do they have exactly 5 internal digits, complete with finger "joints" in their flippers, while externally all that is wrapped up in one large digit? And why couldn't God beat Jacob at wrestling?

henry said: Henrik Svensmark's theory is global warming is caused by solar activity, not man's activities.

Henry wrote:

"If anything, these animals appear to be fully functional the way they are, not some pre-whale forms."

Right. In order for whales to evolve from terrestrial animals, all of the intermediates would have to be nonfunctional! Amazing. You should publish Henry. You must have discovered a novel mechanism of evolution where death is not a problem. If you ever bothered to learn the definition of an intermediate, then you would realize that this is incorrect. Why don't you look it up and report back what you learn. Here is a hint: there are living intermediates!

Still waiting for you to explain the genetic and developmental data as well.

DS said: ...there are living intermediates!

Just Bob said:

DS said: ...there are living intermediates!

Hey, I'd really like a brief list of living critters that could reasonably be considered "intermediates." (I realize that's probably not a legitimate biological term, since it implies that the critter is "on the way to becoming something else.") A couple that occur to me are lungfish and mudskippers. Maybe monotremes. How about some others from the bio folks?

Actually, the Annelida are not closely related to Onychophora or Arthopoda. Annelida are more closely related to the Mollusca, while the Onychophora and Arthropoda are closely related to Tardigrada and Nematoda.

DS said: Well no, actually an intermediate is not “on the way to becoming something else”. An intermediate simply has retained some basal traits and has acquired some derived traits in some combination.

Just Bob said:

DS said: Well no, actually an intermediate is not “on the way to becoming something else”. An intermediate simply has retained some basal traits and has acquired some derived traits in some combination.

Thanks DS, that's pretty much what I meant--I just didn't take the time to spell it out. But I'd still like the names of some well-known beasts that could be used whenever someone trots out the old "there are no intermediates" line.

Just Bob said:

henry said: I just don't have the great imagination of real scientists. It's really hard to imagine the land mammals acquiring huge tails.

Ever seen a beaver?

henry said:

Just Bob said:

henry said: I just don't have the great imagination of real scientists. It's really hard to imagine the land mammals acquiring huge tails.

Ever seen a beaver?

I'm sure with some imagination it'll fit right in between the 5. Kutchicetus and 6. Basilosaurus.

Rolf Aalberg said:

henry said:

Stanton said: So, tell us again why we should trust hired hackers who conveniently (illegally) obtained allegedly damning emails?

You don't have to trust those hackers. Wikipedia has an entry on Climatic Research Unit hacking incident[i.e. Climate gate]. Also, here's a link to an honest IPCC scientist. http://biggovernment.com/jlakely/2010/02/05/an-honest-ipcc-scientist-warns-his-colleagues-dont-dismiss-climategate/ What is really interesting is how many people continue to take man made climate change or global warming as scientific fact--as scientific as evolution. Yet both have serious flaws. Dawkins, in answering the claims that there are no transitional forms, presented the evolutionary tale of the whale. You could see the fins of the whale and the legs of the mammal, but you don't see anything in between, showing the actual change taking place. There will never be any evidence showing the whale's evolution because it never happened.

How can you know you are descended from Adam, you don't have the bones of all your ancestors? There will never be any evidence showing the descent of your family lineage because it never happened. Since in spite of that you seem to exist you must be a specially created specimen. But don't be shy, what are the serious flaws in the theory of evolution, how would you know?

henry said:

DS said: Here you go Henry: 1. Pakicetus 50 M 2. Ambulocetus 48 M 3. Procetus 45 M 4. Rodhocetus 46 M 5. Kutchicetus 43 M 6. Basilosaurus 36 M 7. Dorudon 37 M 8. Aetiocetus 26 M National Geographic 200(5):64-76 Now after you explain this evidence, we can move on to the genetic and developmental evidence. Until then you can try to deny climate change all you want.

If anything, these animals appear to be fully functional the way they are, not some pre-whale forms.

henry said: According to my calculations, Adam was still alive when Noah's father, Lamech, was 56. Adam's grandson, Enos, was still alive when Noah was 84. Noah lived until Abraham was 58. It shouldn't be too hard to imagine the early history of man was accurately transmitted.

DS said: Well no, actually an intermediate is not “on the way to becoming something else”...(snip)

Hey Henry! This seems to scare Byers off every time, and you've ducked it once on this thread already. Why couldn't God beat a mere mortal at wrestling, even after cheating by using magic, and couldn't escape from Jacob's grasp until He said "uncle" by blessing Jacob? Gen 32:22-30

fnxtr said:

DS said: Well no, actually an intermediate is not “on the way to becoming something else”...(snip)

Bearing in mind that so-called intermediates are also subject to evolutionary forces, even if "only" neutral mutation and drift. So even the silverfish of today are not yer great-great-great-great-great-great-grandma's silverfish.

Just Bob said: Hey Henry! This seems to scare Byers off every time, and you've ducked it once on this thread already. Why couldn't God beat a mere mortal at wrestling, even after cheating by using magic, and couldn't escape from Jacob's grasp until He said "uncle" by blessing Jacob? Gen 32:22-30

Absolutely. They will continue to evolve as long as they are extant. But they are not automatically “on the way” to becoming winged insects.

They would have been goldfish if not for the Russian judge.

No sight of the bronzefish, unfortunately.

fnxtr said: They would have been goldfish if not for the Russian judge. No sight of the bronzefish, unfortunately.

Just Bob said: Hey Henry! This seems to scare Byers off every time, and you've ducked it once on this thread already. Why couldn't God beat a mere mortal at wrestling, even after cheating by using magic, and couldn't escape from Jacob's grasp until He said "uncle" by blessing Jacob? Gen 32:22-30

Yes, of course.

One interpretation of this tale requires God take material form, for no particular reason, wrestle a mortal, for no reason, lose, for no reason, and afflict his opponent with a disabling and painful permanent injury to remind him of it, thus demonstrating that God is loopy, vengeful and sadistic.

Note that the mortal could not possibly have won unless God let him, and the only reason for that was to give God an excuse for hurting him. Not much of an excuse, but hey. This is the god who drowned everybody, and promises to send me to hell to burn for eternity for thinking the wrong things. Pretty much in character, I'd say, for that god. That's henry's god, all right.

The other is that old codgers tell tall tales over the camp fire of an evening, and that these tales tend not to make too much sense after the third or fourth date wine.

Which one of these interpretations will I accept? Decisions, decisions...

Mr Luckett... really.

I doubt very much that you cannot see the artistic potential in the story of Jacob wrestling an angel. After all, Rembrandt and Epstein (to name but two) managed to create masterpieces from it. To reduce it to 'old codgers tales' is to cheapen a story which has provided one of the most striking visual images in the OT.

As for the question -- "Why couldn’t God beat a mere mortal at wrestling, even after cheating by using magic?" -- I will rely here on my KJV since, as we all know, God spoke Jacobean English and no other tongue.

1. Who said Jacob wrestled God? The text says he 'wrestled a man'. It is Jacob's words later -- 'I have seen God face to face' -- which provide the alleged evidence. Almost every visual interpretation, including Rembrandt and Epstein, have Jacob wrestling an angel. As we all know, no man can see the face of God and live, so this is all very mysterious. (And I love a good mystery.)

2. The function of the story seems reasonably clear to me. Jacob is a classic trickster who cheated his older brother out of his legitimate birthright. Here, the trickster attempts to beat 'a man' (who probably isn't a man) by sheer force: 'there wrestled a man until the breaking of the day'. Seeing that Jacob has not learned his lesson (to quote Mick Jagger, you can't always get what you want), the 'man' buggers up Jacob's thigh. Now Jacob is forced to realise that what he needs is a blessing, not a simple case of always getting what he desires. So the tale turns from a use of force for conquest, to a desire to be blessed by God.

Admittedly, this has a few problems. Mostly, that Jacob still gets what he wants, e.g. a blessing. But it strikes me that it moves a bit closer to the intent of the writer than seeing it as a tale told by pissed blokes around a fire.

The masterpiece is the masterpiece. The source material is source material. Masterpieces those pieces might be, but that was because geniuses made them. The story they come from - well, as material, it's a bit thin.

Jacob wrestled with a man, who was just, like, there. Why? Because. Who? Well, he was just this guy, you know? Only he was an angel. Or maybe he was God. And Jacob wouldn't let go until the guy blessed him, even though he'd dislocated his hip. Or maybe just wrenched his leg, since with a dislocated hip joint he wouldn't be able to walk at all. You young fellows these days, you couldn't have done that. Have another toddy.

See what I mean? It sort of lacks something. Narrative values? Complication? Continuity? Resolution? Motivation? That sort of thing.

It sounds like a piss-artist's maunderings to me. Sort of "I met Bigfoot in the Woods" thing. Sorry. But as for Jacob needing the blessing, I sure agree with that. He was a real prize, was Jacob. The guy gypped his own brother, but not satisfied with that did it to his blind elderly father as well. And he still got a blessing, and a guarantee of God's personal favour.

The point being, I guess, God doesn't give a hoot for your morals, as long as he likes you. Well, oddly enough John Calvin came to much the same conclusion. He can get stuffed, too, him and Jacob both.

Jacob Wrestles With God 22 That night Jacob got up and took his two wives, his two maidservants and his eleven sons and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. 23 After he had sent them across the stream, he sent over all his possessions. 24 So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. 25 When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob's hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. 26 Then the man said, "Let me go, for it is daybreak." But Jacob replied, "I will not let you go unless you bless me." 27 The man asked him, "What is your name?" "Jacob," he answered. 28 Then the man said, "Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome." 29 Jacob said, "Please tell me your name." But he replied, "Why do you ask my name?" Then he blessed him there. 30 So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared." 31 The sun rose above him as he passed Peniel, and he was limping because of his hip.

Sylvilagus said: Henry - Since you logged on and answered some questions but avoided ones that challenged your knowledge of evolutionary science, I'll try again...

henry said:

DS said: Here you go Henry: 1. Pakicetus 50 M 2. Ambulocetus 48 M 3. Procetus 45 M 4. Rodhocetus 46 M 5. Kutchicetus 43 M 6. Basilosaurus 36 M 7. Dorudon 37 M 8. Aetiocetus 26 M National Geographic 200(5):64-76 Now after you explain this evidence, we can move on to the genetic and developmental evidence. Until then you can try to deny climate change all you want.

If anything, these animals appear to be fully functional the way they are, not some pre-whale forms.

Sylvilagus said: Did you expect a transitional species to NOT be fully "functional"?? This sounds like you have a mistaken idea of what transitional forms should look like. What exactly would you expect a transitional whale-land mammal to be like, if not like these fossils? I'm serious about this question... it would help us to better understand your perspective.

eddie said: Mr Luckett... really. I doubt very much that you cannot see the artistic potential in the story of Jacob wrestling an angel. After all, Rembrandt and Epstein (to name but two) managed to create masterpieces from it. To reduce it to 'old codgers tales' is to cheapen a story which has provided one of the most striking visual images in the OT. As for the question -- "Why couldn’t God beat a mere mortal at wrestling, even after cheating by using magic?" -- I will rely here on my KJV since, as we all know, God spoke Jacobean English and no other tongue. 1. Who said Jacob wrestled God? The text says he 'wrestled a man'. It is Jacob's words later -- 'I have seen God face to face' -- which provide the alleged evidence. Almost every visual interpretation, including Rembrandt and Epstein, have Jacob wrestling an angel. As we all know, no man can see the face of God and live, so this is all very mysterious. (And I love a good mystery.) 2. The function of the story seems reasonably clear to me. Jacob is a classic trickster who cheated his older brother out of his legitimate birthright. Here, the trickster attempts to beat 'a man' (who probably isn't a man) by sheer force: 'there wrestled a man until the breaking of the day'. Seeing that Jacob has not learned his lesson (to quote Mick Jagger, you can't always get what you want), the 'man' buggers up Jacob's thigh. Now Jacob is forced to realise that what he needs is a blessing, not a simple case of always getting what he desires. So the tale turns from a use of force for conquest, to a desire to be blessed by God. Admittedly, this has a few problems. Mostly, that Jacob still gets what he wants, e.g. a blessing. But it strikes me that it moves a bit closer to the intent of the writer than seeing it as a tale told by pissed blokes around a fire.

If mutations were cumulative over millions of years, shouldn’t there be creatures showing the actual transition from feet to fins? 75% feet and 25% fins. Then 50% feet and 50% fins. Eventually, 0% feet and 100% fins. But we don’t see anything at all. Just complete feet and then complete fins.

henry said: The Old Testament was written in mostly Hebrew.I'm sure you knew that. A while ago, you had a discussion with Dave and you mentioned that you were puzzled about Americans being so religious. That's understandable if you think that America is a secular nation. But it's not so puzzling if you think that America is Christian nation. We're unlike Europe which mostly turned secular, leaving churches virtually empty. Our churches are everywhere, some holding multiples services just to accommodate all the people.

henry said: If mutations were cumulative over millions of years, shouldn't there be creatures showing the actual transition from feet to fins? 75% feet and 25% fins. Then 50% feet and 50% fins. Eventually, 0% feet and 100% fins. But we don't see anything at all. Just complete feet and then complete fins.

or an otter...or a dugong... Galapagos lizards... gators, crocs, 'n' caimen ... gulls... penguins... walri...

or Tiktaalik ...

None of this changes the fact that God speaks in Jacobean English.

henry said:

Sylvilagus said: Henry - Since you logged on and answered some questions but avoided ones that challenged your knowledge of evolutionary science, I'll try again...

henry said:

DS said: Here you go Henry: 1. Pakicetus 50 M 2. Ambulocetus 48 M 3. Procetus 45 M 4. Rodhocetus 46 M 5. Kutchicetus 43 M 6. Basilosaurus 36 M 7. Dorudon 37 M 8. Aetiocetus 26 M National Geographic 200(5):64-76 Now after you explain this evidence, we can move on to the genetic and developmental evidence. Until then you can try to deny climate change all you want.

If anything, these animals appear to be fully functional the way they are, not some pre-whale forms.

Sylvilagus said: Did you expect a transitional species to NOT be fully "functional"?? This sounds like you have a mistaken idea of what transitional forms should look like. What exactly would you expect a transitional whale-land mammal to be like, if not like these fossils? I'm serious about this question... it would help us to better understand your perspective.

If mutations were cumulative over millions of years, shouldn't there be creatures showing the actual transition from feet to fins? 75% feet and 25% fins. Then 50% feet and 50% fins. Eventually, 0% feet and 100% fins. But we don't see anything at all. Just complete feet and then complete fins.

Hey Henry, is what a mudskipper walks on a fin or a foot?

What about what a performing seal stands on?

How about penguins? Feet modified to be pretty poor for walking, but pretty good for swimming, like, well, fins. And ex-wings that are hopeless for flying, but superb for "flying" through the water, like, umm, really good fins.

Ready to admit, along with the passage in Genesis that I quoted for you, that God could not beat Jacob at wrestling? Or is Genesis WRONG in it's plain language? Face it, man, either God couldn't win or Genesis is wrong.

"...the man saw that he could not overpower him...you have struggled with God...I saw God face to face"

Richard Simons said:

henry said: If mutations were cumulative over millions of years, shouldn't there be creatures showing the actual transition from feet to fins? 75% feet and 25% fins. Then 50% feet and 50% fins. Eventually, 0% feet and 100% fins. But we don't see anything at all. Just complete feet and then complete fins.

What proportion of foot to fin does a platypus have on its front limbs? How about a sealion? Or a seal? I am trying to get some idea of what you mean by '50% feet and 50% fins'.

So if YOU (a noted authority on vertebrate morphology) consider it a fish, then its limbs are "fins" (even it it walks on dry land with them, like mudskippers). But if it's a mammal or bird, then its limbs are "feet" or "wings," even if it can swim with them fast enough to catch fish, as penguins and otters do.

Got it.

Oh, except for whales, which are mammals. You do believe they're mammals, right? Since you don't want to admit that they evolved from critters with feet, then you've decided to call their extremities "fins" and "tails" (actually, they're flippers and flukes). Even though their flippers contain the bones of 5 jointed fingers, and buried in their hindquarters are vestigial hip and leg bones.

Got it.

Now have you decided, oh master of morphological nomenclature, whether seals and walruses, which can walk on land with their limbs, and some of which have claws, have "feet" or "fins"? Because Jesus would hate it if they were something in between.

Oh, and just out of curiosity, are humans mammals? Are we animals?

Just Bob said: So if YOU (a noted authority on vertebrate morphology) consider it a fish, then its limbs are "fins" (even it it walks on dry land with them, like mudskippers). But if it's a mammal or bird, then its limbs are "feet" or "wings," even if it can swim with them fast enough to catch fish, as penguins and otters do. Got it. Oh, except for whales, which are mammals. You do believe they're mammals, right? Since you don't want to admit that they evolved from critters with feet, then you've decided to call their extremities "fins" and "tails" (actually, they're flippers and flukes). Even though their flippers contain the bones of 5 jointed fingers, and buried in their hindquarters are vestigial hip and leg bones. Got it. Now have you decided, oh master of morphological nomenclature, whether seals and walruses, which can walk on land with their limbs, and some of which have claws, have "feet" or "fins"? Because Jesus would hate it if they were something in between. Oh, and just out of curiosity, are humans mammals? Are we animals?

henry said: No, we are not animals.

Right, YOU don't see the transition from terrestrial to aquatic environments in whale fossils that is for sure. Funny but the rest of the world does. Imagine that.

There is a graded series of intermediates in the fossil record documenting the transition from the terrestrial to the aquatic environment for not only of the flippers and flukes but also for the pelvis, the blow hole, echo location structures, baleen filtering structures, etc. And of course all of this fossil evidence is completely consistent with the genetic and developmental evidence as well.

You can deny it all you want to, but no no one is going to be fooled by your ignorance.

Oh and humans are primates which are mammals which are vertebrates which are chordates which are animals so once again you are completely wrong. If you have a problem with your animal heritage, why not complain to the one you assume made you look like an animal? It was all her idea, right? But she wasn't smart enough to fool you now was she?

DS said: Oh and humans are primates which are mammals which are vertebrates which are chordates which are animals so once again you are completely wrong. If you have a problem with your animal heritage, why not complain to the one you assume made you look like an animal? It was all her idea, right? But she wasn't smart enough to fool you now was she?

No, we are not animals.

Stanton said:

henry said: No, we are not animals.

Then why do we, humans, share so many commonalities with other animals, in both genetics, anatomy and behavior? Should we classify humans in a separate biological kingdom? What proof do you have that humans are not animals? Hell, what proof do you have that a platypus' webbed foot can not function as a fin?

Matt Young said:

No, we are not animals.

We are beginning to get silly. Please stop feeding the trolls.

henry said: We have common features because we have a common Creator, not a common ancestor.

And even if a creator reused parts, why group the parts usage in a single nested hierarchy?

Also why add random minor variations within members of a group of related species? More so, why arrange for the amount of minor variation to correlate fairly well with the time since divergence of their predecessors in the fossil record?

Rolf Aalberg said:

As for content – it was the same old same old. ID is science, ID is testable, ID has lots of peer reviewed publications, ID has absolutely nothing whatsoever no-sirree to do with God, no no no, and the Dover trial was awful horrible and nasty. Everybody hates ID just because Judge Jones said so, and Judge Jones copied everything verbatim from the ACLU and ignored all that fine testimony.

On the spot. That's all we ever hear from them. More that ten years since Darwin's Black Box, I still have no idea what ID might be except something/somebody did something sometime and that explains everything you need know about evolution. Because "we don't deny evolution, it's just that ID is a better explanation." What the explanation is? It is better - that's all you need know. Googling for a particular parody reference, I struck the real thing instead: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/02/a_dialogue_concerning_intellig.html

henry said:

Stanton said: So, tell us again why we should trust hired hackers who conveniently (illegally) obtained allegedly damning emails?

You don't have to trust those hackers. Wikipedia has an entry on Climatic Research Unit hacking incident[i.e. Climate gate]. Also, here's a link to an honest IPCC scientist. http://biggovernment.com/jlakely/2010/02/05/an-honest-ipcc-scientist-warns-his-colleagues-dont-dismiss-climategate/ What is really interesting is how many people continue to take man made climate change or global warming as scientific fact--as scientific as evolution. Yet both have serious flaws. Dawkins, in answering the claims that there are no transitional forms, presented the evolutionary tale of the whale. You could see the fins of the whale and the legs of the mammal, but you don't see anything in between, showing the actual change taking place. There will never be any evidence showing the whale's evolution because it never happened.

henry said:

Stanton said:

henry said:

Richard Simons said:

henry said: What is really interesting is how many people continue to take man made climate change or global warming as scientific fact--as scientific as evolution. Yet both have serious flaws.

We're getting somewhat off-topic here, but briefly:
1. Most of the energy arriving at Earth from the sun has a relatively short wavelength, whereas most of the radiation leaving Earth has a longer wavelength.
2. CO₂ in the atmosphere is transparent to short-waved radiation but absorbs some of the longer-waved radiation.
3. In the absence of a negative feed-back mechanism, this will increase the average temperature of earth compared to a body without CO₂ in the atmosphere. (So far, all of this has been known for at least 100 years.)
4. The amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere has been increasing since the start of industrialization.
5. Several lines of evidence show that the great majority of the increase in CO₂ has come from human activity. (These two points have been known for less time, about 50 years.)
6. There is no known negative feed-back mechanism that is remotely close to the magnitude needed to counter the warming effect of the extra CO₂. Where exactly do you disagree with this, and what evidence supports your view?

Henrik Svensmark's theory is global warming is caused by solar activity, not man's activities.

Please explain where Henrik Svensmark said we should trust the fraudulent emails conveniently provided by the hired hackers, please.

I am not aware of any Svensmark comments on Climate Gate. He does object to the way the temperatures are used to determine global warming. Instead using the data on a yearly basis, the mean of 10 year periods are used, which hides fluctuations and gives the appearance of gradual warming. This is discussed in Wikipedia's entry on Svensmark.

Just Bob said:

DS said: ...there are living intermediates!

Hey, I'd really like a brief list of living critters that could reasonably be considered "intermediates." (I realize that's probably not a legitimate biological term, since it implies that the critter is "on the way to becoming something else.") A couple that occur to me are lungfish and mudskippers. Maybe monotremes. How about some others from the bio folks?