Creationist extravaganza on TBN

Meyer still with the shtick about information only coming from intelligent sources. What a huckster.

I watch about 80%. I had to stop due to the absolute embarrassing nature to the information. I could not help but to think how these grown men sounded like four year old children telling a story about a finger painting they had done.

Complete and utter lack of intelligent thought.

..."in Costa Mesa, CA"

sadly, that's where I was born and raised.

This is where all the money for this shit comes from on the West Coast.

I think Howard Ahmanson was the primary mover 30 plus years ago, up till at least the last decade.

Having said that, I can't recall actually even meeting a creationist until well into college, in Santa Barbara.

I guess nobody paid much attention to them...

Ichthyic said: ...I can't recall actually even meeting a creationist until well into college.... I guess nobody paid much attention to them...

Um does this video now not work for anyone? Did they yank it?

... my brain is already hurting in the first 5'. Scientists thought the Earth was flat just 2 to 300 years ago (ie 1710 to 1810)? It sounds as though it's going a concentrated "pleethooora" of nonsense. The percussion isn't much better than a jackhammer.

Seth, still works for me. It should open in windows media player. It's really painful viewing but if you really want to see it try a different video quality - http://www.tbn.org/watch-us/archives
(2nd one down)

I tried the "high quality" connection, but it was still a bunch of low-quality trash.

Glen Davidson

Rather Odd still says no video, might be an issue with my flash but I haven't had any other issues with flash stuff.. hmm someone rip and put on youtube! lol

Yeah this link gives different resolutions. And all the other episodes too!

It just says No Video, also it's a WMV so not flash hmm.. grr it might suck but sucks worse not seeing it to laugh

finally got it to work, guess it might had been my speed or something, it just said (no video) and then after about 30-45sec the video starts... watching it now, and the opening is really annoying to start with.. ugg I will try and push through it!

http://www.tbn.org/watch-us/archives

Oh man i lived there for 12 years, and i think i know just that place, of the 405 near 55? I could feel ignorance as i sped along. at my college in the area i was in a genetics class and a class mate behind me said: "well if evolution worked how come we are not all concrete colored?!" such is my experience with evolution denial. It can never make sense to people who can't grasp it.

another gem is "it takes me MORE faith to believe evolution." ugh... just translate the theory of evolution into the theory of gravity. who cares what you believe? faith? why do people have 0 grasp of naturalist philosophy

we talk about literacy in this country all the time, literacy for fiction or non fiction; why is scientific literacy so tolerable in a country where the entire ascension as a world power/economy is based on technology?

Lots of stupid crap being thrown around in that video. But what really blew me away in terms of "I can't freaking believe how Goddamn ignorant you are while attempting to make a scientifically based argument" was McDowell's claim that eclipses only happen where there are "observers" (i.e. here on planet Earth).

But to maintain that belief, he's going to have to either tell us what observers live on the planets Jupiter or Mars, or explain why they don't count on planets.

Otherwise he could simply admit he had no freaking idea what the hell he was talking about and vow to never speak of scientific matters before getting his facts straight first, but I don't really see that happening.

How ironic that a show claiming to be all about science begins with the Carman "talkie" song, "There Is a God," that gets just about every assertion it makes about Earth and the Universe completely wrong.

Par for the course.

Glad to see that Stevie Meyer is a holy roller!

The Lord is Information! (amen!)

Jesus is your Windows 7 to 7th Heaven! (hallelujah , brother!)

The Bible is Ten to the Fortieth bits of Goodness! (yeah, gimmie some!)

If only Meyer could sing, man, he'd have it all.

I keep thinking that the only reason anyone would deny evolution is because he has either been lied to from childhood about the Bible being the Word of God and that the physical and chemical laws that government the universe are somehow not real, or that he is himself a con artist lying to others.

I beleive that the universe itself would have to be the Word of God, not any man-made book, and that a God who claims to represent absolute truth and morality would never do miracles, which by definition are a violation of physical and chemical laws. Laws must be absolute to be valid; miracles makes scientific laws pointless. So creationists can't have it both ways; if God does miracles as creationists insists he does, then science is of no value.

It's also fascinating to see how the IQ of the conversation drops when a Hovind male (Eric son of Kent in this case) opens his mouth *even* when that conversation is with other creationists!

Has anyone the intestinal fortitude to do a proper fisking?

Less than a minute into the animation/musical segment, and there were 6 lies I caught in just one pass.

30 seconds more and 3 more lies.

10:10
"Though they silently orbit, the sun, the moon, the stars, are like celestial evangelists above who circle the earth every twenty-four hours shouting in every language that THERE IS A GOD!"
10:22

Come on people! Dig in.

This is somewhat embarrassing, but could someone explain to me exactly how to view this?

Clicking on the link downloads a php file that doesn't really do anything on my desk top (at least so far as I can figure out). Right clicking just lets me copy or save the link.

I'm using Windows vista (I feel rather like an old woman just given a computer for the first time, staring at the Explorer icon and unable to figure out how to get to the internet).

6 lies in 12 seconds!

You know, major props to Nick for finding this, but I can't bring myself to watch. I just don't need the frustration right now. I am curious to see if it comes up that Hugh Ross and Stephen Meyer both think the Earth is about 4.54 billion years old.

Then again, my feeling is that the real objection is not the geological age of the Earth, but the thought of humans evolving from earlier life forms. When pressed for evidence against evolution, creationists almost invariably retreat to abiogenesis (the veterans can confirm or refute this), but I think the bottom line is they need human beings to be supernaturally special.

Is there any likelihood that there will be a copyright infringement suit against creatocreeps "there is '''...'''" at 11:20

also known as

"We are the the world '''...'''"

What is interesting, although it's nothing new with him (it was same in an interview with Dennis Miller), is that Meyer doesn't even pretend that ID isn't about God.

He just states that it is.

I think they've given up on winning a "Dover II" or some such thing.

Glen Davidson

Glen, I don't think this is anything new. IDists have always tailored their comments to the type of audience they are talking to.

Glen Davidson said: What is interesting, although it's nothing new with him (it was same in an interview with Dennis Miller), is that Meyer doesn't even pretend that ID isn't about God. He just states that it is. I think they've given up on winning a "Dover II" or some such thing. Glen Davidson

tacitus said: Glen, I don't think this is anything new. IDists have always tailored their comments to the type of audience they are talking to.

Okay, so I just finished the whole two hours --- nothing on TV and I just tweaked my back saving my laptop from crashing to the ground, so I had little else to do.

The show isn't worth a thorough fisking since it would probably require a complete book to rebut the sheer quantity of nonsense and lunacy on display. But there are a couple of things worth pointing out about the overall presentation.

First, despite the myriad flaws and gross errors in the show, this is still a far more sophisticated presentation of the creationist's arguments than TBN was putting out 20 years ago, when I first came to the States and discovered the bizarre world of right-wing Christian fundamentalism. They would do these creationist shows back then too, trotting out people like Kent Hovid, Karl Baugh, and D. James Kennedy to waffle on about man not evolving from rocks, Paluxy River dinosaur footprints, comparing the Grand Canyon with the aftermath of Mount St. Helens, pre-flood tools and artifacts supposedly found in Precambrian rock strata, and so on.

There was almost none of that obvious nonsense on display in this week's show. What there was instead was almost all distillation of the argument from design -- for life and the Universe. Fine-tuning, the "Privilege Planet hypothesis" irreducible complexity, parallels with software development techniques and so on. Only very occasionally, when the more scientifically challenged guests were on (like Eric Hovind and Ray Comfort) did the facade of scientific reasonableness slip a little.

And probably most striking of all was the almost total lack of Young Earth creationism in the whole two hours. I believe the age of the Earth came up only once in the whole two hours and even then they took pains to say that you could still be a Christian and believe in an old Earth (though one of the guest went a little off message at this point and said you would not be able to believe in an Old Earth for very long). Given that this is TBN we're talking about, whose non-creationism-believing audience likely numbers in the hundreds, that's quite a surprise.

Of course, their new found sophistication is relative. Much of their argument against evolution and naturalism still boils down to being an argument from incredulity, and of course, if the Bible says something is true, then science can do nothing else but confirm it, but it seems that even the Young Earth creationists are evolving their arguments and learning by past mistakes. In the end, they cannot win, but they're certainly not giving up without a fight.

Stephen Meyer introduced at 14:57 as the author of a "really thick book- lots and lots of pages"

And I thought he was just anally repetitive (and using cut'n'paste from over 10 years ago).

Oh, and baby Crotch didn't even read the book, but he liked the video.

I don't see this advertised as an event on the dishonesty institute's site. They used tp pump up their rubes by showing their scheduled events, advertising people like Meyer, Luskin, West, et. al who were going to speak at local churches, that seems to have disappeared. I think they're trying to purge the dishonesty institute's site of any obvious association with church groups and move those "happenings" it into the shadows. But events like this and what they say at them should always be referenced if they otherwise speak in public, hold them accountable, though like good creationsists they'll deny they said anything of the sort.

Nothing new. It’s all the same crap and same misconceptions and misinformation that started with Gish and Morris over 40 years ago.

And you can’t miss all the projection. It’s the back-up threat; if you can’t understand the “science”, you are still terrified of attempting to do so because of what “materialists” and “evolutionists” are and what you will become. Oh the terrible things that will happen to you if you attempt to understand "Darwinism"!

386sx said: Meyer still with the shtick about information only coming from intelligent sources. What a huckster.

I watched the first interview with Stephen Meyer. I fail to understand why the complexity of a cell is evidence for God. That guy with the mustache apparently got it, since he didn't question Meyer on it. They must be privy to some special information on the nature of the universe that the rest 99% of us don’t have access to. This video was useless.

I'm surprised Carl Baugh wasn't on since TBN broadcast creation in the 21st century.

Still, quite surprised at McDowell coming out as a YEC and the fact that the son has bought into Ham's nonsense at the wacky creation museum.

I heard Josh McDowell speak in Belfast some 20 odd years ago (in the early 80's) and I actually thought he was a very good speaker. Nothing at all about YECism being used as a tool for for evangelism. But then again, YECism wasn't around then in Christian circles to the extent that it is now. McDowell has also spoken at the Presbyterian church in Ireland's general assembly in Belfast a couple of years ago.

That first video is enough to make anyone puke though.

Seth said: Um does this video now not work for anyone? Did they yank it?

DavidK said: I don't see this advertised as an event on the dishonesty institute's site. They used tp pump up their rubes by showing their scheduled events, advertising people like Meyer, Luskin, West, et. al who were going to speak at local churches, that seems to have disappeared. I think they're trying to purge the dishonesty institute's site of any obvious association with church groups and move those "happenings" it into the shadows. But events like this and what they say at them should always be referenced if they otherwise speak in public, hold them accountable, though like good creationsists they'll deny they said anything of the sort.

James F said: You know, major props to Nick for finding this, but I can't bring myself to watch. I just don't need the frustration right now. I am curious to see if it comes up that Hugh Ross and Stephen Meyer both think the Earth is about 4.54 billion years old. Then again, my feeling is that the real objection is not the geological age of the Earth, but the thought of humans evolving from earlier life forms. When pressed for evidence against evolution, creationists almost invariably retreat to abiogenesis (the veterans can confirm or refute this), but I think the bottom line is they need human beings to be supernaturally special.

well-known non-creationist, Stephen Meyer.

— Nick Matzke

I watched the first interview with Stephen Meyer. I fail to understand why the complexity of a cell is evidence for God.

— Jerry

That guy with the mustache apparently got it, since he didn’t question Meyer on it.

— Jerry

Well, OK. I watched the whole thing and took notes. Here goes. Some of the names are approximate. I didn't see them in writing.

First, the intro. If these guys think that they're reaching out to unbelievers with this style, they are hopelessly fuddled. This was what my Presbyterian-minister father would have called "Calathumpian Evangelism". Whoop-de-do, and a wound-up audience. And this was the whole of the first seven minutes.

Paul Crouch(?) comes on. I loved the all-black suit, shirt and tie. What, does the guy play for New Zealand or something? Says, "We're going to talk about scientific things. We're going to talk about creation." He means together, not separately.

"Did we simply evolve out of some primordial soup, four billion years ago?" (No, it wasn't simple - which, to this crowd is a deal-breaker, as we shall see, and it wasn't soup, and we didn't evolve four billion years ago - that would be first replicators or so - but apart from that, yeah, we did.)

Quote from Job, says nothing about the shape of the Earth, followed by "Two-three hundred years ago, people thought the Earth was flat." Some did. Some still do, and some of them were in that audience, but for two thousand years anyone with an education has known that the Earth is roughly spherical.

"Cracking books to prove who God is" hasn't been done yet.

Music video, lavishly produced. Samples: "The Earth is perfectly suspended at the centre of the Universe".

"A few degrees closer to the sun, and we'd disintegrate. A few degrees closer, and we'd freexe." Degrees? Disintegrate? Please.

"The axis of the Earth is tilted at a perfect 23 degree angle..." No, it isn't. "...this allows equal global distribution to the rays of the sun." This will come as news to the residents, respectively, of Alaska and Florida.

"The mix of nitrogen and oxygen happens to be the exact mix that life needs to prosper". Funny, I thought that was covered under the idea that life adapts to its environment.

"The sun, the moon and the stars circle the Earth." Has anybody here seen my old friend Copernicus? Can you tell me where he's gone?...

14:30. Bring on Stephen Meyer, with the daunting intro: "He's authored a thick book, lost of pages." One is reminded of George II, no intellectual giant he, remarking to Edmund Gibbon: "Another damned thick, square, black book. Always scribble, scribble, scribble, Mr Gibbon, eh?" Thick books are a no-no in whoop-de-do land.

Meyer carefully sidestepped making a direct reply when asked "Does God exist?" Talked about "Digital code stored in the DNA molecule", and asserted "Information always comes from an intelligent source". I don't think Meyer has ever looked out the window to see if it's going to rain. The ancient refusal to admit that selection has a role. Barrel locks as a phony analogy. Here's a gem: "Finchs' beaks are a change in response to changing weather patterns." Back to abiogenesis, to cover the retreat.

DNA's arrangement of atoms is proof of intelligence. Again the refusal to consider the role of selection, and no hint of the kludge or non-functioning DNA, or the evidence of viral incision.

Crouch says his brain hurts. Monty Python fans will be reminded of Mr Gumby. Pushes Meyer's book, which was probably part of the deal.

Video about how gosh-darned big stars are. Not objectionable.

On to Eric Hovind and Shaun McDowell. Coverage of Hovind, senior, manages to avoid mentioning that he's in jail for telling lies about his income to avoid rendering unto Caesar. McDowell has a master's in Theology, which of course makes him an authority. Eric disarmingly admits that he has no education in science - in fact, no education at all, apparently. Crouch rushes in to try to retrieve this embarrassing gaffe.

McDowell makes the old fine-tuned Universe argument, which includes this whopper: "If the mass of the Universe varied by one grain of sand, life could not have been possible." Crouch, who knows nothing about any of this, nods and says. "Right."

Hovind chimes in with one of his father's little verbal tics, "Cole's Law". (It's a joke, folks, yuck it up.) Then he comes up with this gem: "In a materialistic world, we wouldn't be able to have such things as laws". Yes, he means physical laws, which in fact describe the operations of the material Universe.

McDowell: "The Universe is big." Mind-blowingly big. You might think it's a long walk to the chemist... Yes, and electrons are teeny tiny little things. Yes. So?

Hovind: Science doesn't know everything. Why, he'd been on a debate with a scientist (John Lennox), and the man came right out and admitted it. Science can't answer "the big questions: Who am I? Why am I here? Where am I going?" No, it can't. Science confines itself to knowledge that can actually be established by evidence. Funny, that.

Hovind then quotes words from Genesis that aren't actually, er, there. I mean, do these guys make it all up as they go along?

The rest is eschatology, and boring as bricks.

At 49:00, McDowall makes a stunning concession: "Evolution theory is consistent with Christianity". He follows this up with a series of studied falsehoods trying to identify what he calls "Darwinism" with atheistic materialism, and ends up trying to hold the fact that the Theory of Evolution is a basic tenet of modern science against it. "Take this (evolutionary biology) away, and the whole thing begins to crumble down." He means that philosophical materialism crumbles, and of course he's wrong, because it doesn't depend on the Theory of Evolution. But he's right about the life sciences crumbling, and that's something to fear.

51:50. Oh, God, the 'half a wing' argument from Hovind. Then a theme that gets increasingly taken up. Science is a religion.

But at 52:50, a racked concession from Hovind that you can believe in theistic evolution and "be saved". (FL disowned him immediately.) This is a major backward step for these guys. Can it be that they've realised that the ship is sinking, and are scrambling for places on the life rafts?

53:00. Crouch, the clown in charge, asks if it takes more faith to accept evolution or biblical creationism, and intones. "It begins where you start with". No shit, Sherlock. The usual intransigent refusal to understand what the theory actually says. Fred Hoyle's tornado again, for Pete's sake. On to theology, and another plug for a book.

57:28. "Evidence for a world-wide flood". Coal seams "span the Earth", apparently. Oh, my aching back.

58:30 Bring on Greg Kokul (chief propagandist for some whackaloon site called "it stands to reason") and Doug Phillips (producer of a creationist video chock-full of misinformation about the Galapagos Islands). Kokul leads off by saying that Christians "didn't have the thinking game down well at all". Well, these ones don't, on account of they ain't very B-R-I-T-E. "At STR, we like to simplify things," he says, and goes on with a very crude appoximation of Locke's argument for God from the existence of the Universe, without the slightest notion that it was demolished two centuries ago. (Nice boy, but about as sharp as a sack of peas.)

At 1;02, we have Phillips take up the running with "Evolution is a religion, a world-view". This is followed up with an intensely mendacious and falsehood-laden misstatement of Darwin's observations on the Galapagos, and a restatement of the false notion that he conceived of the ToE there. This is as untrue as the legend of Washington and the cherry tree.

At 1:04.30 we have "Science always validates the word of God (the Bible) when it is properly approached." (And it's us who says when the approach is proper.) Uh-huh.

1:04.49 Phillips: Darwin led to eugenics and "really to the views that Adolf Hitler picked up".

1:05.00 That isn't enough for Kokul. No, his problem is the enlightenment itself. "In the enlightenment they were trying to take God out of the picture," he says.

I haven't actually heard anyone trying to say that they wanted to reverse the enlightenment and return to the Middle Ages. Kokul actually does say that.

1:05.50. Kokul hand-waves abiogenesis as essential to evolution. It isn't, of course.

1.08.20 Phillips bangs on with the same old lies about fossils proving the Flood. Kinds. Cats remain cats, dogs remain dogs, that schtick. This is so old it smells bad.

1:09.09 Kokul concedes that intelligent people are against them, and issues a rallying cry to the forces of stupidity and ignorance.

1:09.55 Phillips again insists that science is a competing religion.

1:10.20 Kokul refuses to discuss chronology, and sidesteps the entire question of the age of the Earth.

1:11.05 Phillips goes the whole YEC nine yards.

1:13.04 "The Universe looks like somebody has been tampering with it". A charming statement of faith.

1:13.51: The St Helen's volcanic eruption demonstrates that strata are laid down very quickly. (The fact that geologists since Lyall have distinguished between igneous and sedimentary and metamorphic rocks seems to have gotten lost somehow.)

1:15: trailer for their tawdry little DVD.

1:16.51. Finches' beaks. "Big or small, they're still finches." Here we go with "kinds" again.

1:17. Off to theology again and another DVD plug.

1:20 Crouch, whose profound ignorance of science has been blatantly obvious from the start, tells us that he "loves science".

1:21.30. Canned video. Hubble's work more or less correctly described. Nice animation, a pan back from Earth to a viewpoint billions of light years out. Wonder where they got it. No mention of the Kuiper or Oort clouds, presumably because this would be telling where comets come from, thus demolishing one of the creationist talking points.

1:29. Bring on Hugh Ross and (of all people) Ray Comfort.

Ross says he can prove by direct observation that "there must be a causal agent beyond space and time". He can't, of course. I don't follow his assertion that if there were less mass in the Universe the elements up to iron would not form. I always thought that these were the end products of (ordinary) stellar fusion, and those heavier are products of supernovae, and that neither of these have any dependence on the total mass of the Universe.

Another go-around the strong anthropic principle. "The Universe is fine-tuned to produce stars, hence elements, hence life." Sounds to me like an ab initio argument that allows for theistic, but also naturalistic, evolution.

1:34.27. Ray comfort charmingly, and realistically, admits to being an ignoramus, and bafflegabs a Mary Sue about how he converts atheists.

1:36. Ross describes his personal theology. Physics as described by the last chapters of the Book of Revelation.

1:38. Comfort rehearses the old "creation, therefore creator" argument again. Yeah, Ray, like nobody's ever thought of that one before. Oh, yes, and "people become atheists to get rid of moral accountability". The idea that a person can make themselves, not a god, responsible for what they do, and that this is the exact opposite of disclaiming moral accountability, does not seem to have occurred to Ray. Well, why should it be any different from most ideas?

1:39.37: Ray tells us "There is no empirical evidence for 'Darwinism'." Dream on, Ray.

1:40.02 Ross actually uses the words "the scientific explanation for God", as if there were any such thing.

1:41.12 Ross unintentionally torpedoes the "eclipses, therefore God" nonsense presented earlier by stating that the Earth-moon-sun system changes. This is part of a ridiculous attempt to portray ToE as assuming absolute statism, when it in fact assumes the opposite. Then he attempts to use the fact of major extinctions as evidence for God. Does he really want to go there? It seems hard to believe that he does.

1:43.54 Comfort goes back to Hitler. Then we have a video about how he handed the "Origin of Species" out on campuses. No mention of the missing portions, of course, and a particularly stupid parody of the Monkees. Comfort gloats over his cynical exploitation of the status of books on academic campuses.

1:50.43. Comfort: Richard Dawkins is "chicken". The usual taunts and trolling for attention.

1:52.24. Ross tells us that ravens use tools, more than even chimpanzees do, and that this would require that a "Darwinist" would think that humans are descended from ravens. No, seriously!

1:52.48 Ross: "The DNA philogenetic tree is way out of whack with the morphology of the fossils". I believe this to be a straight-out falsehood.

1:53.05 Ross again: "DNA evidence shows that we are descended from one man, one woman." As I understand this evidence, it shows nothing of the kind. The "one man" and the "one woman" were separated by something like 100 000 years.

He concedes 50-80K years since the emergence of modern humans - Comfort wouldn't - but says this is consistent with Genesis. Comfort's YECism isn't further referred to.

And from there on out, we have whoop-de-doo, eschatology and nonsense.

And that's it. There is nothing here that wasn't known and clearly identified as nonsense forty years ago - often, it was so identified centuries ago. And yet it's still being trotted out. It's impossible for me to believe that Ross, at least, actually believes what he says. Comfort and Hovind, yeah, they're stupid and ignorant enough. But the others, no. They're pushing ideas that they know are rubbish, because it profits them.

Frank J said: ...have the definitions of "creationist" and "creationism" continued to "evolve"? As I understood it, a "creationist" is anyone who promotes unreasonable doubt of evolution and peddles a design-based non-explanation. Or has it become common to refer to ID as creationism but IDers not as creationists?

Peter Henderson said: Still, quite surprised at McDowell coming out as a YEC

Did you note the lack of an AIG representative? AIG considers Ross a minor devil for being Old-Earth. Ross considers AIG science-deniers, reality-deniers.

If I recall, AIG has conceded 10,000 years as the age of the Earth. Backsliders! We all know Bishop Ussher established the year of Creation as 4004 B.C. I was never good at math, but I think 2010 and 4004 is 6014 years old for Planet Earth.

Does anyone know how AIG justifies 10,000 years? Must be the Devil also works in mysterious ways.

Paul Burnett said:

Frank J said: ...have the definitions of "creationist" and "creationism" continued to "evolve"? As I understood it, a "creationist" is anyone who promotes unreasonable doubt of evolution and peddles a design-based non-explanation. Or has it become common to refer to ID as creationism but IDers not as creationists?

Framing protocol note: You should always refer to ID as creationism, and you should always refer to IDers as creationists. Never use the term "intelligent design" alone - always use the terms "intelligent design creationism" / "intelligent design creationist." Similarly, never use the initialism "ID" - use the initialism "IDC" instead. Also, ensure that the term "cdesign proponentsists" is used at least once in every thread. Good old-fashioned YEC and OEC creationists (Ham at AIG, McLeroy of Texas) have not even evolved enough to get on the intelligent design creationism bandwagon. The minions and dupes of the Dishonesty Institute - those who are in on the scam as well as the majority who aren't - are essentially all creationists who have (more or less) bought into intelligent design creationism.

Does anyone know how AIG justifies 10,000 years?

— John Vanko

Frank J said:

well-known non-creationist, Stephen Meyer.

— Nick Matzke

Is that tongue-in-cheek, or have the definitions of "creationist" and "creationism" continued to "evolve"? As I understood it, a "creationist" is anyone who promotes unreasonable doubt of evolution and peddles a design-based non-explanation. Or has it become common to refer to ID as creationism but IDers not as creationists? FWIW, Meyer agrees that the Cambrian "explosion" occurred ~530 MY ago (unlike YECs and old-earth-young-life creationists), and to my knowledge never specifically argued for the independent abiogenesis of Cambrian "kinds."

Am glad you had the time and the stomach to watch this deplorable bit of cinematic mendacious intellectual pornography. Wonder whether Phillips was smart enough to mention Weikart and my "favorite" fellow Brunonian, Klinghoffer, yet another Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer, but also the DI Jew, since he wants everyone know to know that he is THE ONE.

Thanks to Dave L. for his yeoman service. This reinforces my sense that the age of the Earth and universe are secondary points for these guys, that evolution = atheism is their central PR canard, and what really upsets them is that humans evolved just like all other life forms. When you've got several organizations and a $27 million museum devoted to portraying The Flintstones as a documentary, however, the deep time issue isn't going to go away quietly.

John Vanko said: Did you note the lack of an AIG representative? AIG considers Ross a minor devil for being Old-Earth. Ross considers AIG science-deniers, reality-deniers. If I recall, AIG has conceded 10,000 years as the age of the Earth. Backsliders! We all know Bishop Ussher established the year of Creation as 4004 B.C. I was never good at math, but I think 2010 and 4004 is 6014 years old for Planet Earth. Does anyone know how AIG justifies 10,000 years? Must be the Devil also works in mysterious ways.

James F said: Thanks to Dave L. for his yeoman service. This reinforces my sense that the age of the Earth and universe are secondary points for these guys, that evolution = atheism is their central PR canard, and what really upsets them is that humans evolved just like all other life forms. When you've got several organizations and a $27 million museum devoted to portraying The Flintstones as a documentary, however, the deep time issue isn't going to go away quietly.

Dave Luckett said: Well, OK. I watched the whole thing and took notes. Here goes. Some of the names are approximate. I didn't see them in writing.

Of course the trick question is asking creos like Meyer whether the Cambrian Explosion or the Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event was more important in creating ample marine metazoan biodiversity during the early Phanerozoic Eon.

First, the intro. If these guys think that they’re reaching out to unbelievers with this style, they are hopelessly fuddled.

— Dave Luckett

Use Firefox with the add-on "download helper".

Helena Constantine said: This is somewhat embarrassing, but could someone explain to me exactly how to view this? Clicking on the link downloads a php file that doesn't really do anything on my desk top (at least so far as I can figure out). Right clicking just lets me copy or save the link. I'm using Windows vista (I feel rather like an old woman just given a computer for the first time, staring at the Explorer icon and unable to figure out how to get to the internet).

John Kwok said: Am glad you had the time and the stomach to watch this deplorable bit of cinematic mendacious intellectual pornography. Wonder whether Phillips was smart enough to mention Weikart and my "favorite" fellow Brunonian, Klinghoffer, yet another Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer, but also the DI Jew, since he wants everyone know to know that he is THE ONE.

Don’t forget of course that, along with their “central PR canard”, they love throwing out the names of Dawkins, Dennett, Harris et al. as the patron saints of the faith known as “Evilution”.

— John Kwok

Frank J said:

Don’t forget of course that, along with their “central PR canard”, they love throwing out the names of Dawkins, Dennett, Harris et al. as the patron saints of the faith known as “Evilution”.

— John Kwok

Until someone mentions Ken Miller. Then he becomes the "evil one," and the atheists mere "useful idiots." But as you know, part of the scam is to not mention that "theistic evolutionists" like Miller exist - such as in the "pornographic" propaganda film "Expelled."

I watched the whole damned thing also.

Whenever a bunch of these ID/creationists get together, they never pass up an opportunity to taunt and brag. Ray Comfort was taking obvious delight in his book scam; and everybody on stage and in the audience was projecting that they got under Dawkins’ skin when Dawkins, in the video they showed, called Comfort an idiot.

As far back as I can remember, taunting was a major part of the ID/creationist shtick. I’m pretty sure they pitch their message in a way that they think will piss “evilutionists” off and rile up their audiences. They demonize and encourage their audiences into chuckling derisively along with them at the “stupidity” and “stubborn blindness” of scientists. The word “atheist” is one of their favorite demonizing words.

Take everything that ID/creationists are and make a really snarky script that projects all this onto scientists. This is what they do routinely; and it strongly suggests that they know they are being obnoxious bastards provoking culture wars that they then blame on the very people they attack.

ID/creationists are not nice people. I think most of them are not far from being criminals; and they use religion as a cover for their scamming activities.

Mike Elzinga said: and it strongly suggests that they know they are being obnoxious bastards provoking culture wars that they then blame on the very people they attack.

I have to admit that a cold shudder passed up my spine when I heard Kokul say that he wanted to reverse the enlightenment. He really meant it. He said as much, right out there in front of everyone, and that shower of hoons applauded.

It still makes me feel queasy.

John Vanko said:

Mike Elzinga said: and it strongly suggests that they know they are being obnoxious bastards provoking culture wars that they then blame on the very people they attack.

They know exactly what they are doing. Remind you of someone with the first name Adolf? They would re-instate the Inquisition if they could. Ken Ham would be the Grand Inquisitor. You would accept literal biblical inerrancy upon pain of death. Power corrupts - witness the cult of Ham - American Taliban. (I've got to stop reading AIG, too scary.)

Dave Luckett said: I have to admit that a cold shudder passed up my spine when I heard Kokul say that he wanted to reverse the enlightenment. He really meant it. He said as much, right out there in front of everyone, and that shower of hoons applauded. It still makes me feel queasy.

Nick Matzke Wrote: well-known non-creationist, Stephen Meyer. Is that tongue-in-cheek,

or have the definitions of “creationist” and “creationism” continued to “evolve”? As I understood it, a “creationist” is anyone who promotes unreasonable doubt of evolution and peddles a design-based non-explanation. Or has it become common to refer to ID as creationism but IDers not as creationists?

re: YEC vs. OEC -- as far as anyone being explicit it was much more YEC than not. My sense of it is the old-earthers agreed to hold off on that issue -- even though the fine-tuning of the universe/solar system arguments, now used by both young- and old-earthers, make no sense at all without an ancient, naturally evolving universe and life!

Think Ross has been an OEC since the 1970s if not before. I vaguely recall hearing him speak before my undergraduate chapter of the Campus Crusade for Christ around the time a few Campus Crusade creos had the great idea of having ICR vice president Henry Morris debate a biology prof (I was the token “evolutionist” on their ad hoc “Origins Committee”.),

Nick (Matzke) said:

Think Ross has been an OEC since the 1970s if not before. I vaguely recall hearing him speak before my undergraduate chapter of the Campus Crusade for Christ around the time a few Campus Crusade creos had the great idea of having ICR vice president Henry Morris debate a biology prof (I was the token “evolutionist” on their ad hoc “Origins Committee”.),

Wow, I don't think I've heard this story. You were on the Campus Crusade Committee (at Brown?) that set up the Morris/Miller debate?

Nick (Matzke) said: It has become common for IDists to, on the one hand, swear up and down and sideways that ID is not creationism -- in fact this was the whole point of the term "ID" in the first place, google cdesign proponentsists -- but on the other hand, it is common for them to appear as one of the creationists in forums like TBN's Praise the Lord, and talk about how everything they do proves that God specially created humans and other critters it says (allegedly) in the Bible. Thus it is common for us to parody their speaking out of both sides of their mouth.

Well, so as opposed to complete YECiness, at about 75% of the way in, they have some zoom-out on the universe video, it goes all the way out to 14 billion years. No mention of how this contradicted what other guests said...

Nick (Matzke) said: Well, so as opposed to complete YECiness, at about 75% of the way in, they have some zoom-out on the universe video, it goes all the way out to 14 billion years. No mention of how this contradicted what other guests said...

Nick (Matzke) said: they have some zoom-out on the universe video, it goes all the way out to 14 billion years. No mention of how this contradicted what other guests said...

John Vanko said:

Nick (Matzke) said: they have some zoom-out on the universe video, it goes all the way out to 14 billion years. No mention of how this contradicted what other guests said...

Why those other guests are not yet self-educated on the deep gravitational well Earth sits in, being at the center of the Universe. And as every creationist physicist knows, time passes more slowly in a deep gravitational well. Viola! Six-day Earth - 13.7 billion year Universe. (Physics will never be the same.)

John Vanko said:

Nick (Matzke) said: they have some zoom-out on the universe video, it goes all the way out to 14 billion years. No mention of how this contradicted what other guests said...

Why those other guests are not yet self-educated on the deep gravitational well Earth sits in, being at the center of the Universe. And as every creationist physicist knows, time passes more slowly in a deep gravitational well. Viola! Six-day Earth - 13.7 billion year Universe. (Physics will never be the same.)

Nick (Matzke) said: My sense of it is the old-earthers agreed to hold off on that issue

John Kwok said: I suppose Ross, in his infinite wisdom, as a former geologist, may accept as valid the theory of plate tectonics.

It has become common for IDists to, on the one hand, swear up and down and sideways that ID is not creationism – in fact this was the whole point of the term “ID” in the first place, google cdesign proponentsists – but on the other hand, it is common for them to appear as one of the creationists in forums like TBN’s Praise the Lord, and talk about how everything they do proves that God specially created humans and other critters it says (allegedly) in the Bible. Thus it is common for us to parody their speaking out of both sides of their mouth.

— Nick Matzke

John Vanko said:

Nick (Matzke) said: they have some zoom-out on the universe video, it goes all the way out to 14 billion years. No mention of how this contradicted what other guests said...

Why those other guests are not yet self-educated on the deep gravitational well Earth sits in, being at the center of the Universe. And as every creationist physicist knows, time passes more slowly in a deep gravitational well. Viola! Six-day Earth - 13.7 billion year Universe. (Physics will never be the same.)

I might add that it gets even funnier.

What happens to all those finely tuned physical constants in our solar system? What prevents the entire solar system from collapsing into a neutron star or a black hole?

Mike Elzinga said: If the Earth sits in such a deep well, the light and other radiation from the rest of the universe will be blue-shifted into energetic gamma rays (to say nothing of those photons that start out as gammas) as it falls down onto the Earth. That should pretty much cook everything in the solar system in 6000 years. But I’m sure they have a kluge to fix that also. These guys can bend themselves into pretzels to preserve dogma.

Dave Luckett said: Well, OK. I watched the whole thing and took notes. Here goes.

You might think it's a long walk to the chemist...

Mike Elzinga said: I might add that it gets even funnier. What happens to all those finely tuned physical constants in our solar system? What prevents the entire solar system from collapsing into a neutron star or a black hole?

JohnK said: Ross => ex-astronomer, Meyer => ex-geologist.

Mike Elzinga said: I might add that it gets even funnier. What happens to all those finely tuned physical constants in our solar system? What prevents the entire solar system from collapsing into a neutron star or a black hole?

Stanton said:

Mike Elzinga said: I might add that it gets even funnier. What happens to all those finely tuned physical constants in our solar system? What prevents the entire solar system from collapsing into a neutron star or a black hole?

GODDOESIT, duh.

Dave Luckett said: "The mix of nitrogen and oxygen happens to be the exact mix that life needs to prosper". Funny, I thought that was covered under the idea that life adapts to its environment.

well I can't watch this since the presenters are established liars and smug to boot, so all I can get out of it is the urge to break my computer

but the people who did persevere, and now have urges to break things, seem to be missing a point: the show is not an "argument" aimed at scientists. it's not even designed for adults. modern, successful christian ministry is almost entirely aimed at youth. it's far less effort to convince the next generation than this one, leaving aside about 10% of your effort to nag a proportion of people into staying after they mature and grow something approximating a brain.

so ... this sort of program is excellent at the business the churches are in: ministering to children. the presenters care NOT that there are a dozen atheist scientists who disagree with them when thousands of christian children are lapping it up, smugly high fiving themselves that their beliefs have all been proved by people who write thick books. it's not like the kids are readers of panda's thumb. it LOOKS like a presentation for the world, which is why it has so much credibility with the kids, but the low low cost of that credibility is a handful of irate scientists who can be easily ignored.

sorry, but I just can't see what the point is in picking apart this latest incarnation of moronic arguments from jesus' disingenuous warriors

John Kwok said: Thanks for the correction:

JohnK said: Ross => ex-astronomer, Meyer => ex-geologist.

However, to be more precise, both Meyer and Luskin are ex-geophysicists.

snaxalotl said: (snip) sorry, but I just can't see what the point is in picking apart this latest incarnation of moronic arguments from jesus' disingenuous warriors

Hear, hear, Dave!

Dave Luckett said:

snaxalotl said: (snip) sorry, but I just can't see what the point is in picking apart this latest incarnation of moronic arguments from jesus' disingenuous warriors

The point is the same as what they would say is theirs: to witness to the truth. To give the lie to the liars. There is no ducking the fact that this is a public controversy, at least in the USA. Of course it's not a scientific debate, in any sense. But it is a political brawl. I don't have the media access that these loons do. But that is no excuse for not doing what I can to defend rationality. For this I know: if reason and science do not rejoin, do not respond, are silent and dumb before this onslaught of ignorance and malice, then it is the ignorant and the malicious that will triumph, by default.

Mike Elzinga said: I might add that it gets even funnier. What happens to all those finely tuned physical constants in our solar system? What prevents the entire solar system from collapsing into a neutron star or a black hole?

There is no ducking the fact that this is a public controversy, at least in the USA. Of course it’s not a scientific debate, in any sense. But it is a political brawl. I don’t have the media access that these loons do. But that is no excuse for not doing what I can to defend rationality. For this I know: if reason and science do not rejoin, do not respond, are silent and dumb before this onslaught of ignorance and malice, then it is the ignorant and the malicious that will triumph, by default.

— Dave Luckett

James F said:

John Vanko said:

Nick (Matzke) said: they have some zoom-out on the universe video, it goes all the way out to 14 billion years. No mention of how this contradicted what other guests said...

Why those other guests are not yet self-educated on the deep gravitational well Earth sits in, being at the center of the Universe. And as every creationist physicist knows, time passes more slowly in a deep gravitational well. Viola! Six-day Earth - 13.7 billion year Universe. (Physics will never be the same.)

This is, indeed, the sort of thing they postulate out of thin air all the time. Did you know that Noah and his kin were able to live hundreds of years because there was a higher percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere in those days?

Mike Elzinga said: I might add that it gets even funnier. What happens to all those finely tuned physical constants in our solar system? What prevents the entire solar system from collapsing into a neutron star or a black hole?

Dornier Pfeil said: I have often wondered if an infinitely powerful god would not also be an infinitely massive black hole. To be infinitely powerful you would need an infinite amount of energy at your disposal and infinite energy=infinite mass=infinite gravity=the mother of all singularities. Yes/No?

I think you're looking for a natural explanation for something that's pure magic and needs no cause other than Sheer Will to produce any effects. There is no other mechanism, nor is any needed. You are confusing the power of a black hole with the power of imagination harnessed to delusion. The black hole has no chance. Mike Elzinga said: I might add that it gets even funnier. What happens to all those finely tuned physical constants in our solar system? What prevents the entire solar system from collapsing into a neutron star or a black hole?

Mike Elzinga said: If the Earth sits in such a deep well, the light and other radiation from the rest of the universe will be blue-shifted into energetic gamma rays (to say nothing of those photons that start out as gammas) as it falls down onto the Earth. That should pretty much cook everything in the solar system in 6000 years. But I’m sure they have a kluge to fix that also. These guys can bend themselves into pretzels to preserve dogma.

Dornier Pfeil said:

James F said:

John Vanko said:

Nick (Matzke) said: they have some zoom-out on the universe video, it goes all the way out to 14 billion years. No mention of how this contradicted what other guests said...

Why those other guests are not yet self-educated on the deep gravitational well Earth sits in, being at the center of the Universe. And as every creationist physicist knows, time passes more slowly in a deep gravitational well. Viola! Six-day Earth - 13.7 billion year Universe. (Physics will never be the same.)

This is, indeed, the sort of thing they postulate out of thin air all the time. Did you know that Noah and his kin were able to live hundreds of years because there was a higher percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere in those days?

The water canopy also protected them from extra-terrestrial radiation, chiefly UV light from the sun.

Why those other guests are not yet self-educated on the deep gravitational well Earth sits in, being at the center of the Universe.

Dave Luckett said: The point is the same as what they would say is theirs: to witness to the truth. To give the lie to the liars.

DavidK said:

John Kwok said: Thanks for the correction:

JohnK said: Ross => ex-astronomer, Meyer => ex-geologist.

However, to be more precise, both Meyer and Luskin are ex-geophysicists.

Although Luskin squeeked by and got a masters in geology, he is by no legitimate account a geophysicist. His advisor published a fairly nondescript paper and put all her grad students names on it. I think Luskin brought the beer to the party. Other than that he thumps his chest and brags about his degrees but I think he has little understanding of the science of geology, and loves to flaunt it in the face of anyone who will listen to him. Meyer apparently got a BA degree in physics and apparently did work for an oil company, though in what capacity is a mystery. I really doubt that that qualifies him as a geophysicist, though like a good creationist and like his buddy Luskin, he'll flaunt it wherever and whenever he can and will not correct anyone who calls him a geophysicist, and why should he?

Dave Luckett said:

snaxalotl said: (snip) sorry, but I just can't see what the point is in picking apart this latest incarnation of moronic arguments from jesus' disingenuous warriors

The point is the same as what they would say is theirs: to witness to the truth. To give the lie to the liars. There is no ducking the fact that this is a public controversy, at least in the USA. Of course it's not a scientific debate, in any sense. But it is a political brawl. I don't have the media access that these loons do. But that is no excuse for not doing what I can to defend rationality. For this I know: if reason and science do not rejoin, do not respond, are silent and dumb before this onslaught of ignorance and malice, then it is the ignorant and the malicious that will triumph, by default.

Dave Luckett said: McDowell makes the old fine-tuned Universe argument, which includes this whopper: “If the mass of the Universe varied by one grain of sand, life could not have been possible.” Crouch, who knows nothing about any of this, nods and says. “Right.”

Perhaps it's my inherantly myopic viewpoint from across the Pond (where the cDesignist movement isn't as well funded, nor as politically connected, and wallows in the backwaters), but it always seems to me that outside of scientific fields, science is constantly fighting a defensive manoeuvre against the raging hordes of legally and politically savvy fundamentalists.

The policy of refusing to debate on scientific matters is a sound one. The impression should never be given that, somehow, ID or creationism has an equal footing with evolution as a valid viewpoint, and as satisfying as it might be, debating with them merely encourages them.

Instead, the focus should be concentrating on those aspects of cDesign philosophy that are unable to stand upto intense scrutiny or aspects of their 'science' that were invented to fit their dogma. Issues such as who determines which version of creationism should be taught in schools (and therefore showing the fundamental problem in teaching belief systems as factual), how many different creation myths should be taught alongside evolution before the 'fairness' is achieved, the starlight thing, the utter lack of anything resembling evidence their whole sorry beliefs have produced.

By bringing the fight to their doorstep, instead of defending the theories already established (as we know they're sound, solid systems that are, unfortunately, too technical for most to grasp the nuances of), then it doesn't allow cDesignist the opportunity to play to the lowest common denominator. The average person isn't going to be convinced by explaining scientific theory to them; most either don't care or don't understand.

Perhaps, in the interests of fairness, at every event hosted by the Creationist crowd, we should start asking (in the spirit of fairness) to be allowed to speak at their Sunday School and Bible Classes, to their youth, about evolution. I suspect they won't be so keen on that.

Natman said: Perhaps it's my inherantly myopic viewpoint from across the Pond (where the cDesignist movement isn't as well funded, nor as politically connected, and wallows in the backwaters), but it always seems to me that outside of scientific fields, science is constantly fighting a defensive manoeuvre against the raging hordes of legally and politically savvy fundamentalists. The policy of refusing to debate on scientific matters is a sound one. The impression should never be given that, somehow, ID or creationism has an equal footing with evolution as a valid viewpoint, and as satisfying as it might be, debating with them merely encourages them. Instead, the focus should be concentrating on those aspects of cDesign philosophy that are unable to stand upto intense scrutiny or aspects of their 'science' that were invented to fit their dogma. Issues such as who determines which version of creationism should be taught in schools (and therefore showing the fundamental problem in teaching belief systems as factual), how many different creation myths should be taught alongside evolution before the 'fairness' is achieved, the starlight thing, the utter lack of anything resembling evidence their whole sorry beliefs have produced. By bringing the fight to their doorstep, instead of defending the theories already established (as we know they're sound, solid systems that are, unfortunately, too technical for most to grasp the nuances of), then it doesn't allow cDesignist the opportunity to play to the lowest common denominator. The average person isn't going to be convinced by explaining scientific theory to them; most either don't care or don't understand. Perhaps, in the interests of fairness, at every event hosted by the Creationist crowd, we should start asking (in the spirit of fairness) to be allowed to speak at their Sunday School and Bible Classes, to their youth, about evolution. I suspect they won't be so keen on that.

Dave Luckett said: McDowell makes the old fine-tuned Universe argument, which includes this whopper: “If the mass of the Universe varied by one grain of sand, life could not have been possible.” Crouch, who knows nothing about any of this, nods and says. “Right.”

Kevin B said:

Dornier Pfeil said: The water canopy also protected them from extra-terrestrial radiation, chiefly UV light from the sun.

Did this bit get in to explain the long-held myth that Noah was an albino? (I know that the current politically-correct phrase is "person with albinism", but this is a long-held myth.)

stevaroni said: I'm always fascinated by the fact that the creationist argument always includes elements both of science knowing a vast amount about tiny minutia (science knows so much about the expansion of the universe it can calculate the critical mass to the last gram) and yet being entirely wrong about basic concepts in the same freakin' paragraph

eric said:

Mike Elzinga said: If the Earth sits in such a deep well, the light and other radiation from the rest of the universe will be blue-shifted into energetic gamma rays (to say nothing of those photons that start out as gammas) as it falls down onto the Earth. That should pretty much cook everything in the solar system in 6000 years. But I’m sure they have a kluge to fix that also. These guys can bend themselves into pretzels to preserve dogma.

What would there be to cook? Everything would be flattened from the gravitational force. And I'm not sure how they can kludge that, since the gravitational force is what creates the time dilation in the first place. No force/acceleration, no time dilation. On the plus side, these ridiculous statements provide fun calculations for H.S. or freshman physics. Calculate what force would be required to create the YEC time dilation. :)

Jesse said: I've been saying for a while that ID is politics and should be treated as such. While straight-up creationism itself may not be politics, the creationist movement is a political movement. It should also be treated as such. The scientific community needs be more aggressive when it comes to framing the ID/Creationism fights as political fights. Refusal to debate is a start.

MrG said:

stevaroni said: I'm always fascinated by the fact that the creationist argument always includes elements both of science knowing a vast amount about tiny minutia (science knows so much about the expansion of the universe it can calculate the critical mass to the last gram) and yet being entirely wrong about basic concepts in the same freakin' paragraph

It's sort of fascinating, but creationists have this bizarre mix of craftiness and ignorance. There's obviously some brainpower at work, they have a clear and in many ways highly effective agenda, but calling it "intelligent" just doesn't seem quite right. I think John Derbyshire had *exactly* the right term for it: "Low cunning."

Mike Elzinga said: These people have no sense of proportion, no shame, and no ethical standards. When caught, they change the subject, crank up the bluster, and just keep plowing ahead. It raises all sorts of questions about their mental health and other psychological issues.

John Kwok said: Yours is not a unique observation. As far back as the early 2000s, both Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross recognized this when they collaborated on their book "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design". It is certainly a political movement since so many of its leading figures have a clear-cut political bent:

Jesse said: I've been saying for a while that ID is politics and should be treated as such. While straight-up creationism itself may not be politics, the creationist movement is a political movement. It should also be treated as such. The scientific community needs be more aggressive when it comes to framing the ID/Creationism fights as political fights. Refusal to debate is a start.

In lieu of debating, evolution advocates need to do what Ken Miller and Lawrence Krauss have done, devoting time to lecturing at Fundamentalist Christian schools in an effort to educate their audiences on what is - and what isn't - science. I remain skeptical of Arthur Hunt and Steve Matheson's decision to engage with Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer Stephen Meyer recently, if only because their willingness to act as critics may have erroneously given the audience the impression that there is a genuine scientific debate between "creation" and evolution.

"the earth is suspended on nothing".

No, it isn't. It's falling into the sun at 40,000 mph.

Samphire said: No, it isn't. It's falling into the sun at 40,000 mph.

MrG said:

Samphire said: No, it isn't. It's falling into the sun at 40,000 mph.

To rephrase Douglas Adams: The secret of orbiting is to throw yourself at the ground, and miss.

Mivart accepted evolution, just not regarding the intelligence of humanity. Far from being ignored, at the time, the Mivart/Darwin debate was well covered and publicised and Mivart used tactics often seen these days - quote mining and creating straw men. In fact, he was even a proponent of irreducible complexity, it was because of his critism that Darwin outlined the possible stages for the evolution of the eye. The fact that cDesignists still use that argument, even though it was refuted at source, is testament to their rabid neolithic behaviour and refusal to even contemplate alternatives to their hardline concepts.

There is a real reason why the journals are dominated by evolutionary literature - it provides evidence and data. If the IDists wish to compete in that area they only have to produce experimental data that can be reproduced and tested.

They can't, so they don't.

"...how can natural selection be involved with a structure which had not yet appeared?"

Why would it have to?

Meyer, ugh...

'I was a working scienctist....'
'Information always comes from a mind...'

Give it a rest....

Mike Elzinga said: It will take someone like Philip Bruce Heywood’s “Quantum Computation.”

MrG said:

Mike Elzinga said: It will take someone like Philip Bruce Heywood’s “Quantum Computation.”

I skimmed through that rather quickly and it didn't make a bit of sense. I did learn enough, however, to realize that under closer examination it wouldn't make a bit more sense.

Mike Elzinga said: Mind blowing, eh?

raven said: Not seeing how this works. ...

stevaroni said: By the way, when, exactly, do the creationists say that time went back to "normal" speed? And, for that matter, since the time dilation was fueled by mass, and we can assume that the earth hasn't actually shed 99.999999% of it's mass in the last couple of thousand years, how did that happen?

raven said:

Why those other guests are not yet self-educated on the deep gravitational well Earth sits in, being at the center of the Universe.

Not seeing how this works. If the earth is the center of the universe, shouldn't there not be any universal gravitational well? My understanding is that an observer at the center of the earth would be weightless. The matter would be the same amount in all directions and gravity is a property of matter. So it would all cancel in the center, i.e. pull from the north would be canceled by the equal pull from the south. The earth isn't the center of the universe anyway. In the common, intuitive reference frame, we aren't even the center of the solar system. If one adopts arbritrary coordinate systems then it is. As well as every single other point in the universe. The universe then has a center everywhere and nowhere.

There were these 3 guys Haldane, Wright, and Fisher that did all the work to show that contrary to nearly everyone's expectation (including Bateson's) in the early 1900's Natural selection was very capable of explaining the pattern of evolution. I recommend Gould's lucid account in the Structure of Evolutionary Theory. For a detailed blow by blow of all the scenario's worked out Joe Felsenstein has his book on population genetics for download.

John Vanko said:

stevaroni said: By the way, when, exactly, do the creationists say that time went back to "normal" speed? And, for that matter, since the time dilation was fueled by mass, and we can assume that the earth hasn't actually shed 99.999999% of it's mass in the last couple of thousand years, how did that happen?

See the links to White Hole Cosmology in the Creation Wiki, a comment or two above. They will explain everything to you. Then go to Wikipedia for Creationist Cosmologies and scroll down to White Hole Cosmology for some sanity and real physics.

MrG said:

Mike Elzinga said: Mind blowing, eh?

My mind is truly blown.

"Blow your mind: Smoke dynamite" -The Benny Hill Show

Falsity is a word, and it is the correct word, implying only that an assertion presented as fact is not factual. It would be going too far to call the assertions "falsehoods" since it has not been made out that the asserter doesn't believe them himself. I can't think why not, though, since they are obviously, palpably untrue.

Which lineages are the largest and most successful, those that are exclusively asexual or those that are exclusively sexual? Now how does sexual reproduction prevent evolution again?

I guess it makes just a s much sense as selection not acting on structures that don't exist yet.

Does this guy have any arguments that are not over one hundred years old and obviously false?

DS said: I guess it makes just as much sense as selection not acting on structures that don't exist yet.

Paul Burnett said:

johnadavison said: I have postulated at least two "Gods" the one benevolent, the other malevolent.

This sounds very familiar. Are their names "Ahura Mazda" and "Ahriman"?

DS said: Which lineages are the largest and most successful, those that are exclusively asexual or those that are exclusively sexual? Now how does sexual reproduction prevent evolution again? I guess it makes just a s much sense as selection not acting on structures that don't exist yet. Does this guy have any arguments that are not over one hundred years old and obviously false?

My mind is truly blown.

"Blow your mind: Smoke dynamite" -The Benny Hill Show

"If brains were plastic explosive, you wouldn't have enough to blow your nose" -British squaddie put down, 1970s or earlier.

Dale Husband said: Did you notice that he in his very first sentence stated an outright lie? I wish anti-evolutionists would be consistent in their statements: Some claim that evolution is not falsifiable (it is) and others claim it HAS been falsified (it hasn't).

Science does not proceed by proving your adversary is wrong. Karl Popper's notion of fasifiability is absurd.

I wonder if he beleives in a flat Earth too.

Dale Husband said: Did you notice that he in his very first sentence stated an outright lie?

darwin in the style of sherlock holmes:
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c550e56ad4/dana-carvey-s-darwin

MrG said:

Dale Husband said: Did you notice that he in his very first sentence stated an outright lie?

Actually, I think it is just content-free rhetoric with no other intent than to sustain an argument indefinitely. I suppose I can't complain. There's people who like to argue here, obviously both sides find that it serves their interests.

Stanton said: Can you explain why Charles Darwin's idea of "descent with modification" still persists in one form or twenty others for one and a half centuries later, without having to resort to some cheesy conspiracy theory?

Mike Elzinga said:

MrG said:

Dale Husband said: Did you notice that he in his very first sentence stated an outright lie?

Actually, I think it is just content-free rhetoric with no other intent than to sustain an argument indefinitely. I suppose I can't complain. There's people who like to argue here, obviously both sides find that it serves their interests.

Looks as though he may be trying to drum up business for his blog. It is so nauseatingly boring over there that he isn’t getting any of the people he has been taunting and drooling over to come on his blog and challenge him. But then, how does one challenge a boring idiot anyway? Most people have lives.

eric said:

johnadavison said: Since our appearance a mere 100,000 years ago I know not of the appearance of a single documented new mammalian species. All that we witness today is rampant extinction.

We don't just witness extinction - there have been lots of speciation events in that time. You've just decided for some reason not to count non-mammals. Your conclusion is a result of your biased data selection; you've come to a general conclusion (only extinction occurs) based on a truncated and limited sample (mammals) we wouldn't expect to evolve over this time period. Its like someone claiming that humans cannot be under five feet tall (a general conclusion) because they've never seen a professional basketball player (limited and biased sample) that short. Whoop de do! That doesn't show speciation or evolution doesn't happen, what it shows is that you've got yourself a data selection problem.

You do realize that mass extinctions have happened several times in Earth’s history. Where did the new animals come from?

Q: Why are kangaroos found only in Australia? A: It’s interesting. At our seminars we sometimes like to ask our audience, ‘How many of you believe kangaroos once lived in the Middle East?’ No-one puts up their hands. Then we ask, ‘How many believe that Noah’s Flood was a real event?’ Their hands go up. ‘How many believe that Noah’s Ark was a real boat?’ Yes, they agree on that, too. ‘How many believe that two of every kind of land animal, including the kangaroos, went on the Ark?’ Yes, they accept that. Then we ask, ‘How many people believe the Ark landed in the Middle East?’ Up go the hands. ‘How many now believe that kangaroos came off the Ark after the Flood?’ They start to laugh and put up their hands. Then we ask again, ‘Did kangaroos once live in the Middle East?’ All the hands now go up. When we think with a biblical perspective, we realize that all the kinds of land animals must have once lived in the Middle East … because they came off Noah’s Ark.

Mike Elzinga said: I would suggest not giving him what he wants most.

MrG said: Aw c'mon, MrE, you know people like to argue too much.

The Faroe Island house mouse. Speciation in mammals observed in the wild. aDavison is wrong. He was told about it, and ignored it. He's delusional, as well.

Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner.

I thought you were leaving in disgust? Aren't you going to leave in disgust?
Please?

fnxtr said: I thought you were leaving in disgust? Aren't you going to leave in disgust? Please?

Stanton said:

fnxtr said: I thought you were leaving in disgust? Aren't you going to leave in disgust? Please?

Well, you know how it is with creationists being attention whores while trolling for Jesus.

eric said:

Stanton said: Can you explain why Charles Darwin's idea of "descent with modification" still persists in one form or twenty others for one and a half centuries later, without having to resort to some cheesy conspiracy theory?

Clearly no humans could have pulled off such a complex, specified, conspiracy. There can be only one architect, or should I say Architect, behind the success of evolution.

"Between postmodernism and scientism lies a middle way by which objective knowledge of the world can emerge. We ought to think about science as a Bayesian algorithm, Pigliucci argues, echoing the sentiment of many contemporary philosophers of science. Bayesian algorithms calculate probabilities of future events or observations based on prior knowledge. As we gain new knowledge, we feed that back into the equation, “updating our priors” and leading to increasingly accurate predictions. In this way, little by little, science nudges us closer to understanding the way the world really is."

So, have any evolutionary biologists that frequent this board (or know other biologists that have) used Baynesian algorithms to predict lines of common descent?

Steve P -

Also comical - this was discussed extensively right here on PT not long ago - something you would have found by simply googling the search term "Bayesian common descent"

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/nature09014.html

Steve P. said: You guys can ridicule John all you want, but he has a gargantuan point. Speciation now taking place in basically organisms trying to hold on to what they already have. If observed speciation is interpreted as 'transitional snapshots', (which is basically what you all are saying)we should be able to observe, if not topically, as in physical characteristics, but on the molecular level, see pieces of telltale evidence which would serve as supporting evidence in making predictions on the timeline and make up of an organism's future line of decent. What are the tell tale molecular changes, if not physical features, for example in flies, that provides supporting evidence for their transitional state? What is the prediction of a theoretical timeline when drosophila might diverge and what will the divergent species look like based on our analysis of historical evolutionary evidence from several mya up to now? And how about the other new species that are claimed to be popping up now? What will Eric's Faeroe Island house mouse line of descent look like 1myfn? Seriously, I have been checking out this debate for 3 years now and have never heard anyone, regardless of their background or 'world view' talking about predictions based on common descent. Shouldn't these predictions be a hallmark of TMS? As well, if you(pl) can't make these predictions, how are you so sure John is wrong about macro evolution fizzling out?

Steve P. said: As well, if you(pl) can't make these predictions, how are you so sure John is wrong about macro evolution fizzling out?

Steve P. said: Speciation now taking place in basically organisms trying to hold on to what they already have.

If observed speciation is interpreted as 'transitional snapshots', (which is basically what you all are saying)

Seriously, I have been checking out this debate for 3 years now and have never heard anyone, regardless of their background or 'world view' talking about predictions based on common descent.

As well, if you(pl) can't make these predictions, how are you so sure John is wrong about macro evolution fizzling out?

Mike, I am a Tea Party sympathizer, even if I don't endorse everything they stand for. Hope you don't include me in your analysis.

Steve P. said: Seriously, I have been checking out this debate for 3 years now and have never heard anyone, regardless of their background or 'world view' talking about predictions based on common descent.

John Kwok said: Mike, I am a Tea Party sympathizer, even if I don't endorse everything they stand for. Hope you don't include me in your analysis.

Steve P. said: ... making predictions on the timeline and make up of an organism's future line of decent. And how about the other new species that are claimed to be popping up now? What will Eric's Faeroe Island house mouse line of descent look like 1myfn? Seriously, I have been checking out this debate for 3 years now and have never heard anyone, regardless of their background or 'world view' talking about predictions based on common descent. Shouldn't these predictions be a hallmark of TMS? As well, if you(pl) can't make these predictions, how are you so sure John is wrong about macro evolution fizzling out?

John Kwok said: Mike, I am a Tea Party sympathizer, even if I don't endorse everything they stand for. Hope you don't include me in your analysis.

Davison lost his comment privileges on PT a long time ago. I've moved his posts and all those responding to him (as best as I can tell) to the BW.

DO NOT FEED THE FUCKING TROLLS

The fruit flies, by the way, will extract hideous vengeance on mankind for all those years of laboratory experiments.

harold said: Bunch of ingrates. Why couldn't they just build a space ship and say "So long, and thanks for all the fly food"?

Speaking of the "science" and the "scientists" on TBN, take a look at this horrific, ghastly mess over on AiG.

Mike Elzinga said: Speaking of the "science" and the "scientists" on TBN, take a look at this horrific, ghastly mess over on AiG.

Mike Elzinga said: Speaking of the "science" and the "scientists" on TBN, take a look at this horrific, ghastly mess over on AiG.

The Bible provides frank and absolutely reliable direction for every moral issue experienced by mankind. ... With respect to global warming, the Bible provides much more guidance than “creation care” concepts. The following is a proposed biblical framework for evaluating the claims of global warming.

Mike Elzinga said: Speaking of the "science" and the "scientists" on TBN, take a look at this horrific, ghastly mess over on AiG.

Here's a reasonable prediction of common descent - the biochemistry of descendants would be expected to include proteins, et. al., that are more diverse and more modified than those of the ancestors.

Think hemoglobin. What do we observe? Living descendants of species more recent in the fossil record do have more complex hemoglobin. Living descendants of species first appearing deeper in the fossil record, and little changed, have simpler hemoglobin.

Another prediction - Organisms related by common descent should have similar mechanisms of biochemistry.

What do we observe? All life on planet Earth shares DNA/RNA/proteins/chirality/etc.

Pretty dang convincing that we all share common ancestry.

Dale Husband said:

Mike Elzinga said: Speaking of the "science" and the "scientists" on TBN, take a look at this horrific, ghastly mess over on AiG.

I think I'm going to have a lot of fun slamming this piece on my Wordpress blog (click on my name above to see it). But I have a request for the moderators of Panda's Thumb: When I have finished my critique, could I also publish it here as a guest contributor?

The Bible provides frank and absolutely reliable direction for every moral issue experienced by mankind. … With respect to global warming, the Bible provides much more guidance than “creation care” concepts. The following is a proposed biblical framework for evaluating the claims of global warming.

harold said: Steve P - Given my master's degree level training in statistics and probability (that's in addition to my doctoral level training in biomedical sciences), I agree with Pigliucci. I think it is a very good analogy. How comical that you would quote Pigliuggci. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigliucci

So, have any evolutionary biologists that frequent this board (or know other biologists that have) used Baynesian algorithms to predict lines of common descent?

Yes, statistical and probablistic tools are central to modern genetics and genomics.

Mike Elzinga said:

Steve P. said: As well, if you(pl) can't make these predictions, how are you so sure John is wrong about macro evolution fizzling out?

Are you suggesting that the increased political organization by creationists and Tea Party crackpots is a strong indicator that mankind is evolving to be stupider?

harold said: Steve P - Also comical - this was discussed extensively right here on PT not long ago - something you would have found by simply googling the search term "Bayesian common descent" http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/nature09014.html

The idea that there were hominid ancestors, and the basic pattern they would take was, in fact, a prediction in 1871, and an earth-shaking one at that.

Give us the precise environmental context over next million years of the Faero mice, and we will tell you.

Steve P. said: My question is that if the evidence for what we observe as micro evolution (e.coli, new varieties of mouse and fly) can be extrapolated to macro evolution as TMS suggests, then we should be able to have a peek at the future, what with the millions of years of the fossil record on hand being analyzed using homology, cladistics, etc. In my view, the only way to strengthen the claim of micro and macro evolution as being one and the same mechanism is to predict lines of descent. You cannot claim it if you cannot demonstrate its function, correct.

Your "question" isn't a question. It's an off-the-wall, seat-of-the-pants conjecture of the same nature as the idea that if we can predict the weather for tomorrow, we should be able to predict it for May 27 next year, and for May 27 2642 as well. Nonsense, of course.

What you are demanding is that an immensely complex interactive environment with countless mutually emergent effects be rigorously quantified in all its aspects, and that all these be indefinitely extrapolated with complete accuracy. It can't be done. But the science of evolutionary biology, like the science of meteorology, exists, and has application to the real world, unlike your armchair speculations.

Steve P. said: Malchus, I thought that was what you(pl)were good at. How about a predictive model of the earth's atmosphere based on historical data being extrapolated to the future?

Give us the precise environmental context over next million years of the Faero mice, and we will tell you.

Steve P. said: In my view, the only way to strengthen the claim of micro and macro evolution as being one and the same mechanism is to predict lines of descent.

Steve P. said: Stevoroni, That was a prediction of the past. What is the prediction of the future for Hominids? IMV, evolution is finished because the earth is stable. It went through several stages of development, which coincides with the various stages of biological development (bacteria to form the atmosphere, plants to lock in the cycle, etc.) IOW, now that the earth is stable, there is no reason for further development of the organisms, since organic development is tied to the earth's development.

Speciation is just a response to the regular flux of earth's atmospheric conditions. Speciation does not suggest the creation of new phyla over time.

It's like asking how a kite is going to respond to the next gust of wind. It might stay up, tossed around a bit, or it might come crashing down.

John Vanko said: Admitting 'micro-evolution' while denying 'macro-evolution' is like admitting the area under a curve can be approximated by lots of little rectangular columns, but denying you can compute the area by evaluating the Integral.

Hmm ... interestingly, it should be obvious that Intelligent Design would be required to PREVENT speciation.

Suppose we fire two missiles at a target around the world.
Their guidance systems would have to be EXTREMELY accurate for them to land in the same place. The greater the "circular error probability" in their guidance systems, the farther apart they land. The farther you shoot them, the greater their absolute divergence on impact. If they didn't have a guidance system and were simply shot off in the general direction of a target, they would not land anywhere near each other.

Similarly ... if a population of Woobies gets split into two populations by a shifting river, over time the two populations of Woobies will keep on genetically drifting relative to each other. There being no MAGIC BARRIER to stop them, eventually they will genetically drift until they can't interbreed, if not sooner, or later. It would require an Intelligent Designer to STOP the genetic drift over time.

Steve P. said: Stevoroni, That was a prediction of the past. What is the prediction of the future for Hominids? IMV, evolution is finished because the earth is stable. It went through several stages of development, which coincides with the various stages of biological development (bacteria to form the atmosphere, plants to lock in the cycle, etc.) IOW, now that the earth is stable, there is no reason for further development of the organisms, since organic development is tied to the earth's development. Speciation is just a response to the regular flux of earth's atmospheric conditions. Speciation does not suggest the creation of new phyla over time. Only a particular 'world view' might have that sort of 'itch'.

The idea that there were hominid ancestors, and the basic pattern they would take was, in fact, a prediction in 1871, and an earth-shaking one at that.

MrG said: And of course, if Alice can walk ten kilometers in one day, that's just "microwalking". There's no way she could walk a thousand kilometers in a hundred days, 'coz that's "macrowalking." Obviously, as any creationist will tell you, the only way she could go a thousand kilometers is by magical teleportation.

I haven’t read the paper like many other due the pay wall. The wife won’t let me use my card on the web. Suspicious woman!

However, from Theobald’s own comments, we can see that he was not making specific predictions of future common descent scenarios.

He was working to provide supporting evidence to bolster the claim of ‘historical’ common descent.

My question is that if the evidence for what we observe as micro evolution (e.coli, new varieties of mouse and fly) can be extrapolated to macro evolution as TMS suggests, then we should be able to have a peek at the future, what with the millions of years of the fossil record on hand being analyzed using homology, cladistics, etc.

In my view, the only way to strengthen the claim of micro and macro evolution as being one and the same mechanism is to predict lines of descent.

You cannot claim it if you cannot demonstrate its function, correct.

So why are Young Earth Creationists so anti-Calculus?

John Vanko said: Exactly right. So why are Young Earth Creationists so anti-Calculus?

In my view, the only way to strengthen the claim of gravity being the mechanism that drives rivers downstream is to predict the path of the river millions of years from now.

Meanwhile, ID is valid even if all it does is give vague mumblings about well, nothing.

Recall the start of "Rebel without a Cause."

planetarium scene, rather: "The Earth will one day disappear in a burst of gas and fire. [...] In the immensity of our universe and the galaxies beyond, the Earth will not be missed. Through the infinite reaches of space the problems of man seem trivial and naive indeed. And man, existing alone, seems himself an episode of little consequence."

Steve P. said: IMV, evolution is finished because the earth is stable. It went through several stages of development, which coincides with the various stages of biological development (bacteria to form the atmosphere, plants to lock in the cycle, etc.)

harold said: The reason why is simple. They dare to dream that those of us who have a biomedical education are as ignorant of math as they are, and will be fooled or intimidated by bafflegab if it uses terms from math. Pathetic fools.

Mike Elzinga said: But the second physicists are out of earshot, the creationists when right back to using their bogus arguments against biologists.

Dale Husband said: But what if the Earth's stability is disrupted by a sudden event, such as an impact by an asteroid? That would result in a mass extinction and that would enable lines of organisms to fill the ecological niches left open. In the absence of competition, the populations of organisms would expand quickly and then the process of random mutation would result in biodiversity increasing once more.

Steve P. said: IMV, evolution is finished because the earth is stable. It went through several stages of development, which coincides with the various stages of biological development (bacteria to form the atmosphere, plants to lock in the cycle, etc.)

Ptaylor said:

Steve P. said: IMV, evolution is finished because the earth is stable. It went through several stages of development, which coincides with the various stages of biological development (bacteria to form the atmosphere, plants to lock in the cycle, etc.)

Wow an evolution and tectonics denier!

Steve P. said: Stevoroni, That was a prediction of the past. What is the prediction of the future for Hominids?

Ptaylor said:

Steve P. said: IMV, evolution is finished because the earth is stable. It went through several stages of development, which coincides with the various stages of biological development (bacteria to form the atmosphere, plants to lock in the cycle, etc.)

Wow an evolution and tectonics denier!

stevaroni said:

Steve P. said: Stevoroni, That was a prediction of the past. What is the prediction of the future for Hominids?

I already told you what was going to happen. Giant Faeroe islands mice and fruit fly's mutating into evil galactic overlords. And you have yet to prove me wrong. If you have proof that I'm wrong, bring forth with it. Otherwise I have answered your question, Go away defeated. (Sadly, I think I'm getting way to comfortable with creationist logic).

Steve P. said: Oooooohhhh, another design denier.

Steve P. said: Stevoronio, Nice one! What do you call that dance again? Probably shape shifter or something 'sciencey' like that.

Stanton said:

Ptaylor said:

Steve P. said: IMV, evolution is finished because the earth is stable. It went through several stages of development, which coincides with the various stages of biological development (bacteria to form the atmosphere, plants to lock in the cycle, etc.)

Wow an evolution and tectonics denier!

Remember we are dealing with a grown man who thinks that competition in nature is illusionary because not all women in 1st world countries have the opportunity to marry sports superstars, or that ecosystems apparently balance everything out. To say nothing of the fact that he also scolded us for taking what scientists say about science seriously, and not the quacks at the Discovery Center say about science.

Thats why the word competition should not be used in evolutionary biology.

But then evolution would be hard to sell to the public without the borrowed teleological language.

Dilemmas, dilemmas.

Steve P. said: Stevoronio, Nice one! What do you call that dance again? Probably shape shifter or something 'sciencey' like that.

stevaroni said:

Steve P. said: Stevoroni, That was a prediction of the past. What is the prediction of the future for Hominids?

I already told you what was going to happen. Giant Faeroe islands mice and fruit fly's mutating into evil galactic overlords. And you have yet to prove me wrong. If you have proof that I'm wrong, bring forth with it. Otherwise I have answered your question, Go away defeated. (Sadly, I think I'm getting way to comfortable with creationist logic).

Steve P. said: And here we have another grown man that grabs a line and milks it for all its worth. Repeat, rinse, repeat. Remember how that conversation panned out. Had to have Joe come out and clarify that competition is a matter of outcomes and is intra-species specific and not inter-species specific, which lots of you were not aware of and Kwok had issued with , etc. etc. etc. (Yes, even creos have a decent memory capacity). So your idea that competition is about goats rammin' horns, or lions chasing antelope is just a weeeeeeeeee bit simplistic.

Stanton said:

Ptaylor said:

Steve P. said: IMV, evolution is finished because the earth is stable. It went through several stages of development, which coincides with the various stages of biological development (bacteria to form the atmosphere, plants to lock in the cycle, etc.)

Wow an evolution and tectonics denier!

Remember we are dealing with a grown man who thinks that competition in nature is illusionary because not all women in 1st world countries have the opportunity to marry sports superstars, or that ecosystems apparently balance everything out. To say nothing of the fact that he also scolded us for taking what scientists say about science seriously, and not the quacks at the Discovery Center say about science.

Steve P. said: Remember how that conversation panned out. Had to have Joe come out and clarify that competition is a matter of outcomes and is intra-species specific and not inter-species specific, which lots of you were not aware of and Kwok had issued with , etc. etc. etc.

(Yes, even creos have a decent memory capacity).

So your idea that competition is about goats rammin' horns, or lions chasing antelope is just a weeeeeeeeee bit simplistic.

Here’s a reasonable prediction of common descent - the biochemistry of descendants would be expected to include proteins, et. al., that are more diverse and more modified than those of the ancestors.

Just look at the example the Texas BOE has set for its children. Dumb down everything to suit the right wing rubes. Truly backwards evolution.

Steve P. said: Thats why the word competition should not be used in evolutionary biology. But then evolution would be hard to sell to the public without the borrowed teleological language. Dilemmas, dilemmas.

Steve P. said: And here we have another grown man that grabs a line and milks it for all its worth. Repeat, rinse, repeat. Remember how that conversation panned out. Had to have Joe come out and clarify that competition is a matter of outcomes and is intra-species specific and not inter-species specific, which lots of you were not aware of and Kwok had issued with , etc. etc. etc. (Yes, even creos have a decent memory capacity). So your idea that competition is about goats rammin' horns, or lions chasing antelope is just a weeeeeeeeee bit simplistic.

Stanton said:

Ptaylor said:

Steve P. said: IMV, evolution is finished because the earth is stable. It went through several stages of development, which coincides with the various stages of biological development (bacteria to form the atmosphere, plants to lock in the cycle, etc.)

Wow an evolution and tectonics denier!

Remember we are dealing with a grown man who thinks that competition in nature is illusionary because not all women in 1st world countries have the opportunity to marry sports superstars, or that ecosystems apparently balance everything out. To say nothing of the fact that he also scolded us for taking what scientists say about science seriously, and not the quacks at the Discovery Center say about science.

Steve P. said: Thats why the word competition should not be used in evolutionary biology. But then evolution would be hard to sell to the public without the borrowed teleological language. Dilemmas, dilemmas.

Malchus said: Actually, it's not. A great deal of statistical modeling has been done for predator-prey relationships. For example, the wolf-moose predator-prey relationship in Isle Royale National Park is an admirable example of the Lotka-Volterra model.

Stanton said:

Steve P. said: Oooooohhhh, another design denier.

Then how come you refuse to provide any evidence that what scientists think is evolution is really an "Intelligent Designer" is tampering with life in ways that scientists will never know or understand?

Steve P. said: Stanton, Strawman characterizations. Tinker, tailor, soldier, spy. According to the Bible, God is in all things, therefore there is no tinkering, no intervention, no dabbling. What I find interesting here is that intelligence people like yourselves that can think in the abstract cannot take observations to their logical conclusions. God denial is an abrupt departure from logic and reason. By the way, I have provided evidence. Bacteria came first to set up the initial atmospheric conditions. Plants came next to add carbon dioxide to fix the atmospheric cycle. Next, came animal life. Bacteria don't depend on plants, animals. Plants don't depend on animals. But animals DO depend on both bacteria and plants. That's design.

Stanton said:

Steve P. said: Oooooohhhh, another design denier.

Then how come you refuse to provide any evidence that what scientists think is evolution is really an "Intelligent Designer" is tampering with life in ways that scientists will never know or understand?

Malchus, snark in response to snark.

Steve P. said: Malchus, snark in response to snark.

What do you believe that God denial is a departure from reason? I am an evangelical Christian, and even I cannot understand your taking such an attitude.

Steve P. said: Stanton, Strawman characterizations. Tinker, tailor, soldier, spy. According to the Bible, God is in all things, therefore there is no tinkering, no intervention, no dabbling. What I find interesting here is that intelligence people like yourselves that can think in the abstract cannot take observations to their logical conclusions.

God denial is an abrupt departure from logic and reason.

By the way, I have provided evidence. Bacteria came first to set up the initial atmospheric conditions. Plants came next to add carbon dioxide to fix the atmospheric cycle. Next, came animal life.

Bacteria don't depend on plants, animals. Plants don't depend on animals. But animals DO depend on both bacteria and plants. That's design.

Steve P. said: Malchus, I don't follow you. Logic and reason invariably brings you to God. Only a willful and abrupt suspension of reason allows for no gods. "Everything only makes sense in the light of God."

What do you believe that God denial is a departure from reason? I am an evangelical Christian, and even I cannot understand your taking such an attitude.

Stanton, exceptions don't make the rule. If all animals died off, plants would still survive. If all plants died off, bacteria would still survive.

You can't see the big picture by looking at the elephants trunk or its tail.

You need to see the trunk and the tail and the feet and the ears together to know that it is in fact an elephant.

Steve P. said: Stanton, exceptions don't make the rule. If all animals died off, plants would still survive. If all plants died off, bacteria would still survive. You can't see the big picture by looking at the elephants trunk or its tail. You need to see the trunk and the tail and the feet and the ears together to know that it is in fact an elephant.

Malchus said:

Steve P. said: Malchus, snark in response to snark.

And you don't have the willpower to ignore it and concentrate on some actual argument? You have been so vague and unclear up to now, and have demonstrated so many misunderstandings that whatever argument you might be trying to make has been lost.

Steve P. said: Malchus, I don't follow you. Logic and reason invariably brings you to God. Only a willful and abrupt suspension of reason allows for no gods. "Everything only makes sense in the light of God."

What do you believe that God denial is a departure from reason? I am an evangelical Christian, and even I cannot understand your taking such an attitude.

Steve P. said: Stanton, exceptions don't make the rule. If all animals died off, plants would still survive. If all plants died off, bacteria would still survive. You can't see the big picture by looking at the elephants trunk or its tail. You need to see the trunk and the tail and the feet and the ears together to know that it is in fact an elephant.

Stanton said:

Malchus said:

Steve P. said: Malchus, snark in response to snark.

And you don't have the willpower to ignore it and concentrate on some actual argument? You have been so vague and unclear up to now, and have demonstrated so many misunderstandings that whatever argument you might be trying to make has been lost.

He lacks the brainpower to focus on actual arguments.

Reed A. Cartwright said: DO NOT FEED THE FUCKING TROLLS

Mike Elzinga said:

Dale Husband said:

Mike Elzinga said: Speaking of the "science" and the "scientists" on TBN, take a look at this horrific, ghastly mess over on AiG.

I think I'm going to have a lot of fun slamming this piece on my Wordpress blog (click on my name above to see it). But I have a request for the moderators of Panda's Thumb: When I have finished my critique, could I also publish it here as a guest contributor?

Have at it, Dale. :-) I was coming up with at least a paragraph of rebuttal for every sentence as I read it. This is one of the smelliest pieces of pure garbage to come off the creationist presses in months. It contains just about every brazen, in-your-face sneer at science that Ham and his minions can muster. Clearly he is taunting. And it’s scary to realize that this megalomaniac is serious; but what fun debunking!

Dale Husband said:

Reed A. Cartwright said: DO NOT FEED THE FUCKING TROLLS

I wonder if that command also applies to Steve P.

Dale Husband said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Dale Husband said:

Mike Elzinga said: Speaking of the "science" and the "scientists" on TBN, take a look at this horrific, ghastly mess over on AiG.

I think I'm going to have a lot of fun slamming this piece on my Wordpress blog (click on my name above to see it). But I have a request for the moderators of Panda's Thumb: When I have finished my critique, could I also publish it here as a guest contributor?

Have at it, Dale. :-) I was coming up with at least a paragraph of rebuttal for every sentence as I read it. This is one of the smelliest pieces of pure garbage to come off the creationist presses in months. It contains just about every brazen, in-your-face sneer at science that Ham and his minions can muster. Clearly he is taunting. And it’s scary to realize that this megalomaniac is serious; but what fun debunking!

I have finished it! I would like others to critique it, please: http://circleh.wordpress.com/2010/05/26/misusing-the-bible-to-deny-global-warming/

Malchus said: He certainly appears to lack focus and has failed to provide sound support for any of his assertions. But passionate belief often prevents sound logic.

It is true that some bacteria would survive if other branches of life were destroyed. Not, however, the ones that rely on environments or food sources furnished by or dependent on other living organisms, which is actually many of them.

It is true that some plants - they'd have to be self-seeding and wind-pollinating, at least - would survive the collapse of the animal kingdom. Yes? So?

There is no implication of design in that. All it implies is that life appeared in a sequence that can be inferred from those facts, and that life adapts to the environment, which environment includes other living things.

Malchus said: Two thousand years of philosophers, theologians, and scientists have attempted to demonstrate the God of the Bible through pure reason. They have all failed. How is that you have done better? I would be interested in your logic.

Steve P. said: Malchus, I don't follow you. Logic and reason invariably brings you to God. Only a willful and abrupt suspension of reason allows for no gods. "Everything only makes sense in the light of God."

What do you believe that God denial is a departure from reason? I am an evangelical Christian, and even I cannot understand your taking such an attitude.

Malchus said: A trivial initial request: spell-check.

Dale Husband said:

Mike Elzinga said: Speaking of the "science" and the "scientists" on TBN, take a look at this horrific, ghastly mess over on AiG.

I think I'm going to have a lot of fun slamming this piece on my Wordpress blog (click on my name above to see it). But I have a request for the moderators of Panda's Thumb: When I have finished my critique, could I also publish it here as a guest contributor?

Have at it, Dale. :-) I was coming up with at least a paragraph of rebuttal for every sentence as I read it. This is one of the smelliest pieces of pure garbage to come off the creationist presses in months. It contains just about every brazen, in-your-face sneer at science that Ham and his minions can muster. Clearly he is taunting. And it’s scary to realize that this megalomaniac is serious; but what fun debunking!

Steve P. said: Malchus, I don't follow you. Logic and reason invariably brings you to God. Only a willful and abrupt suspension of reason allows for no gods. "Everything only makes sense in the light of God."

Malchus said: This is actually untrue. Many bacteria are specialized for specific hosts - without them, the bacteria would die. Some animals are pure carnivores; they would survive the destruction of plants. This is not logic you are offering. It does not hold together in rational syllogisms.

Steve P. said: Stanton, exceptions don't make the rule. If all animals died off, plants would still survive. If all plants died off, bacteria would still survive. You can't see the big picture by looking at the elephants trunk or its tail. You need to see the trunk and the tail and the feet and the ears together to know that it is in fact an elephant.

Dale Husband said: I have finished it! I would like others to critique it, please: http://circleh.wordpress.com/2010/05/26/misusing-the-bible-to-deny-global-warming/

Dale Husband said:

Reed A. Cartwright said: DO NOT FEED THE FUCKING TROLLS

I wonder if that command also applies to Steve P.

Mike Elzinga said: Did you notice the sly implication about CO₂ levels being justified by government standards allowed for the mining industry?

One problem is that your claims run contrary to what has been observed in reality.

Another problem is that your claims betray your gross, deliberate ignorance of science.

A third problem is that you whine and snark whenever we point out the glaring flaws in your demonstratively wrong, demonstratively false claims.

A fourth problem is that you're arrogant enough to assume that you have the right to lecture actual scientists and actual students of science on science and biology.

Dale Husband said:

Steve P. said: Malchus, I don't follow you. Logic and reason invariably brings you to God. Only a willful and abrupt suspension of reason allows for no gods. "Everything only makes sense in the light of God."

Logic and reason may lead some people to Deism, but not Biblical Christianity, unless your logic and reason is polluted by false or at best highly questionable claims.

And yet, you still refuse to demonstrate how your deliberate ignorance of anything and everything science, evasion, bullshitting, lying, pompousness, and inane snark are evidence of having found logic and reason from God.

Steve P. said: But the fact that fundamentalism is giving Christianity a bad name will not cause me to abandon Christ. And it will not cause me to stop allowing my theistic intuitions to guide my study of nature. In fact, I truly believe theistic conceptualizations have the advantage. All the great ideas so far have come from theists (and deists in the case of Einstein), not atheists, materialists, or Ann Rand positivists, or other world views. There's a reason for that.

Bacteria came first. Well, then, wouldn't we expect that the life that followed would rely to some extent on the bacteria themselves and on environmental changes wrought by the existence of the bacteria? But also, since we know that other life opens up other niches, wouldn't we expect that bacteria would adapt to colonise those niches, in a mutually emergent sequence?

Of course. And we observe both of these.

Photosynthesis appeared with cyanobacteria, about 3.4 billion years ago. All green plants are descended from them. With the rise of a group of organisms that could fuel their growth and reproduction from sunlight, a new food source and a new niche opened. Evolution predicts that other living things would adapt to exploit this. They did. Hence, the rise of the animal kingdom.

Evolution predicts that competition for the niches would produce divergent forms, and that these forms would create new niches in turn, in an ever more complex series of emergent effects, traceable over time, if given adequate evidence. This is exactly what is observed. In other words, events occurred in the order they did because that is the only order in which they could have occurred.

Nothing in any of this requires design, intelligence, or mind. Steve P's windy generalisations are useless, false and misleading.

Dale Husband said:

Steve P. said: But the fact that fundamentalism is giving Christianity a bad name will not cause me to abandon Christ. And it will not cause me to stop allowing my theistic intuitions to guide my study of nature. In fact, I truly believe theistic conceptualizations have the advantage. All the great ideas so far have come from theists (and deists in the case of Einstein), not atheists, materialists, or Ann Rand positivists, or other world views. There's a reason for that.

ALL the great ideas? Uh, no. Darwin was an agnostic when he published the Origin of Species. Carl Sagan made his COSMOS series and he was no theist or deist. I'm sure others can come up with more examples, but those two alone debunk your claim.

Dave Luckett said: Nothing in any of this requires design, intelligence, or mind. Steve P's windy generalisations are useless, false and misleading.

Steve P. said: And it will not cause me to stop allowing my theistic intuitions to guide my study of nature.

Malchus said: Feynman, Hawking, Penrose, Einstein (who was NOT a deist), also.

Dale Husband said: ALL the great ideas? Uh, no. Darwin was an agnostic when he published the Origin of Species. Carl Sagan made his COSMOS series and he was no theist or deist. I'm sure others can come up with more examples, but those two alone debunk your claim.

Steve P. said: Aquinas comes to mind.

Malchus said: Two thousand years of philosophers, theologians, and scientists have attempted to demonstrate the God of the Bible through pure reason. They have all failed. How is that you have done better? I would be interested in your logic.

Steve P. said: Malchus, I don't follow you. Logic and reason invariably brings you to God. Only a willful and abrupt suspension of reason allows for no gods. "Everything only makes sense in the light of God."

What do you believe that God denial is a departure from reason? I am an evangelical Christian, and even I cannot understand your taking such an attitude.

There’s a reason for that.

aside from your miscategorizations (already pointed out), the reason is...

time.

once upon a time, everyone was religious, because religion was the only game in town to explain anything.

then there was science, and it quickly showed that the scientific method, requiring no allusion to myths of any kind, worked MUCH better to explain the world around us and provide predictive value.

you just haven't lived long enough to appreciate how much things have changed, and how much they will continue to do so.

your theology is nothing but a useless anchor.

Dale Husband said: In fact, Einstein denied the existence of a personal God and followed the beliefs of Spinoza, who was a pantheist, not a theist or a deist. The God Einstein referred to was the material universe itself. In Deism, God is still separate from the universe He created, but he does not actively intervene in it. Only in traditional Theism does a personal God do "miracles".

Malchus said: Feynman, Hawking, Penrose, Einstein (who was NOT a deist), also.

Dale Husband said: ALL the great ideas? Uh, no. Darwin was an agnostic when he published the Origin of Species. Carl Sagan made his COSMOS series and he was no theist or deist. I'm sure others can come up with more examples, but those two alone debunk your claim.

John Vanko said: What do we observe? All life on planet Earth shares DNA/RNA/proteins/chirality/etc.

Steve P. said: But the fact that fundamentalism is giving Christianity a bad name will not cause me to abandon Christ. And it will not cause me to stop allowing my theistic intuitions to guide my study of nature.

Until Steve P gets his blood pressure under control we better leave him alone; it is easy to see what a debate with him is leading up to. Doing some actual study of the science of evolution is beyond him and would spoil his fun.

Dale Husband said: Warning to fellow Panda's Thumb commenters: Do not submit a comment with more than one link in it. It will not appear and instead you will see this message:

Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner.

What is THAT for???

Dale Husband said: I made some typos? Well, could you tell me where so I can fix them?

Steve P. said: According to the Bible,

God denial is an abrupt departure from logic and reason.

By the way, I have provided evidence. Bacteria came first to set up the initial atmospheric conditions. Plants came next to add carbon dioxide to fix the atmospheric cycle. Next, came animal life. Bacteria don't depend on plants, animals. Plants don't depend on animals. But animals DO depend on both bacteria and plants.

That's design.

Steve P. said: Stanton, exceptions don't make the rule. If all animals died off, plants would still survive. If all plants died off, bacteria would still survive.

Steve P. said: You are focusing on particular bacteria, particular plants, particular animals. It says nothing of bacteria, plants, and animals in general. So particular species would cease to exist. But that has no impact on the the whole.

Malchus said: Some animals are pure carnivores; they would survive the destruction of plants.

To put in my two cents here, well of course the first species to appear on the planet could live without the species that didn't appear until much later. And it's probable that some of their descendants could still manage without life from those other domains, though a lot of their relatives have probably evolved dependencies that the earlier bacteria didn't have.

Steve P.: so far no-one who has insisted that their religious beliefs guide their scientific studies has explained to me how E=mc² differs from E=mc² + GOD.

Maybe you can clear this up for me? Thanks.

Steve P. said: Stanton, exceptions don't make the rule. If all animals died off, a FEW plants would still survive. If all plants died off, a FEW types of bacteria would still survive.

Steve P -

You are wasting your time is a particularly absurd way.

Your interest appears to be in religious philosophy.

The theory of evolution is a particularly strong scientific theory. The pro-science posters here range from highly religious to atheistic, yet the evidence supporting the theory of evolution is obvious to all and a matter of consensus. This is also true of other strong scientific theories.

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with religion. The ONLY exception to this occurs when someone deliberately adopts an arbitrary belief that contradicts it. This is also true of all other scientific theories.

Your comments reveal a lack of knowledge of biomedical science, mathematics, and indeed, basic general science at the undergraduate or even high school senior. Bluntly, I must interpret such a lack of knowledge as indicating an underlying lack of interest.

There is no reason for you to waste your time making uninformed comments about scientific topics, especially as you seem to lack knowledge of or interest in science.

If you wish to discuss religion and philosophy, there are plenty of venues for that.

Malchus said: To this category we may add those other great atheists and agnostics: Thales of Miletus, Buddha, Democritus, Aristotle (arguably), and of course, Socrates himself.

Dave Luckett said: Bacteria came first. Well, then, wouldn't we expect that the life that followed would rely to some extent on the bacteria themselves and on environmental changes wrought by the existence of the bacteria? But also, since we know that other life opens up other niches, wouldn't we expect that bacteria would adapt to colonise those niches, in a mutually emergent sequence? Of course. And we observe both of these. Photosynthesis appeared with cyanobacteria, about 3.4 billion years ago. All green plants are descended from them. With the rise of a group of organisms that could fuel their growth and reproduction from sunlight, a new food source and a new niche opened. Evolution predicts that other living things would adapt to exploit this. They did. Hence, the rise of the animal kingdom. Evolution predicts that competition for the niches would produce divergent forms, and that these forms would create new niches in turn, in an ever more complex series of emergent effects, traceable over time, if given adequate evidence. This is exactly what is observed. In other words, events occurred in the order they did because that is the only order in which they could have occurred. Nothing in any of this requires design, intelligence, or mind. Steve P's windy generalisations are useless, false and misleading.

Ichthyic said: There’s a reason for that. aside from your miscategorizations (already pointed out), the reason is... time. once upon a time, everyone was religious, because religion was the only game in town to explain anything.

Dale Husband said:

Mike Elzinga said: Did you notice the sly implication about CO₂ levels being justified by government standards allowed for the mining industry?

I sure did! Of course, if you increase CO2 levels, you also increase amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere, because warmer air holds more moisture. So even if it were true that water vapor is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, CO2 would still be the trigger for more warming, NOT H2O! Indeed, H2O forms both clouds and ice, which block and/or reflect far more sunlight than they absorb, resulting in a cooling effect.

Mike Elzinga said:

Dale Husband said:

Mike Elzinga said: Did you notice the sly implication about CO₂ levels being justified by government standards allowed for the mining industry?

I sure did! Of course, if you increase CO2 levels, you also increase amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere, because warmer air holds more moisture. So even if it were true that water vapor is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, CO2 would still be the trigger for more warming, NOT H2O! Indeed, H2O forms both clouds and ice, which block and/or reflect far more sunlight than they absorb, resulting in a cooling effect.

If you want something else absolutely hilarious to read, take a look at this latest posting on Aig. I wonder if they will apply this same reasoning to the chronology of creation in Genesis.

On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther nailed his ninety-five theses to the door of that city’s cathedral, the standard procedure in that day to invite other scholars to a debate. He had only wanted to purify the Roman Catholic Church, being convinced that his arguments against the abuses of the Church were compelling and would provoke reform. However, because of his stand—Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) and Sola Fide (faith alone) along with Solus Christus (Christ alone), Sola Gratia (grace alone), and Soli Deo Gloria (the glory of God alone)—and the intransigence of the Pope, Luther finally broke with the Roman Catholic Church, launching the Protestant Reformation.

Dale Husband said: Right, blame Satan for any criticism of Scripture and the Church and claim evolution as his tool. No, that claim dishonors God, who is supposed to have made the universe which contains the clues that led Darwin and others to discover the theory of evolution.

Sorry folks, but I beg to differ.

To paraphrase Einstein, good science is all about good intuition.

It certainly appears that the theistic ideas and notions swimming in the brains of scientists like Newton, Copernicus, Galilei, Faraday, Heisenberg, Le Maitre, Ampere, Kelvin, Joules, Watt, Volta, Maxwell, Hertz, Becquerel, Pasteur, Lavoisier, Marconi, Mendel, Kepler, Euler, Harvey, Avagadro, Dalton, Boyle, Pascal, Da Vinci, amongst many other religious scientists, had a positive impact on their science.

For me, it seems rather irrational to claim that since God 'cannot be seen under the microscope', then therefore He is irrelevant to doing science.

No, I think He, as the ultimate abstraction, is quite relevant to our ability to perceive, conceptualize, and confirm the unseen. I don't think any of the above scientists were looking to find the 'face' of God in atomic particles or galactic debri, but in their ability to make sense of what it is they were studying. Christ said the kingdom of God is within us. I take Him at His word.

There are assuredly plenty of undetectable natural phenomena still waiting to be discovered and it is my prediction that the larger part of these new discoveries will be made by scientists with theistic leanings.

It just doesn't seem to click when you purposely try to disassociate yourself from your 'starter kit'. It kills the big ideas, the deeper insights, the uncanny intuitions. That's how I see it.

Could be wrong!?!?!?!?!?!?

Steve P. said: Sorry folks, but I beg to differ. To paraphrase Einstein, good science is all about good intuition.

It certainly appears that the theistic ideas and notions swimming in the brains of scientists like Newton, Copernicus, Galilei, Faraday, Heisenberg, Le Maitre, Ampere, Kelvin, Joules, Watt, Volta, Maxwell, Hertz, Becquerel, Pasteur, Lavoisier, Marconi, Mendel, Kepler, Euler, Harvey, Avagadro, Dalton, Boyle, Pascal, Da Vinci, amongst many other religious scientists, had a positive impact on their science.

For me, it seems rather irrational to claim that since God 'cannot be seen under the microscope', then therefore He is irrelevant to doing science.

No, I think He, as the ultimate abstraction, is quite relevant to our ability to perceive, conceptualize, and confirm the unseen. I don't think any of the above scientists were looking to find the 'face' of God in atomic particles or galactic debri, but in their ability to make sense of what it is they were studying. Christ said the kingdom of God is within us. I take Him at His word.

There are assuredly plenty of undetectable natural phenomena still waiting to be discovered and it is my prediction that the larger part of these new discoveries will be made by scientists with theistic leanings.

It just doesn't seem to click when you purposely try to disassociate yourself from your 'starter kit'. It kills the big ideas, the deeper insights, the uncanny intuitions. That's how I see it.

Could be wrong!?!?!?!?!?!?

Steve P. said: Sorry folks, but I beg to differ.

For me, it seems rather irrational to claim that since God 'cannot be seen under the microscope', then therefore He is irrelevant to doing science.

No, I think He, as the ultimate abstraction, is quite relevant to our ability to perceive, conceptualize, and confirm the unseen.

I don't think any of the above scientists were looking to find the 'face' of God in atomic particles or galactic debri, but in their ability to make sense of what it is they were studying.

Christ said the kingdom of God is within us. I take Him at His word.

It just doesn't seem to click when you purposely try to disassociate yourself from your 'starter kit'. It kills the big ideas, the deeper insights, the uncanny intuitions. That's how I see it.

Robin said:

It just doesn't seem to click when you purposely try to disassociate yourself from your 'starter kit'. It kills the big ideas, the deeper insights, the uncanny intuitions. That's how I see it.

And you are welcome to see it that way. Plenty of us, otoh, do not see this 'starter kit' you believe in. And since said 'starter kit' can't be evaluated scientifically, it doesn't offer much to scientific conclusions.

Steve P. said: There are assuredly plenty of undetectable natural phenomena still waiting to be discovered and it is my prediction that the larger part of these new discoveries will be made by scientists with theistic leanings.

It just doesn't seem to click when you purposely try to disassociate yourself from your 'starter kit'. It kills the big ideas, the deeper insights, the uncanny intuitions. That's how I see it.

Is the Chandrashekhar Limit different for Dr. C than it would have been if Bacon had discovered it, Steve P.?

Your claim that God (and I assume, your specific image of YHWH as you understand it) is necessary for science has, so far, no evidence.

No-one's saying you're not allowed to believe in a god while doing scientific research. Just don't pretend that that god has any place in said research. I love my gal but it has no influence on how I drive a nail.

Stanton said:

Robin said:

It just doesn't seem to click when you purposely try to disassociate yourself from your 'starter kit'. It kills the big ideas, the deeper insights, the uncanny intuitions. That's how I see it.

And you are welcome to see it that way. Plenty of us, otoh, do not see this 'starter kit' you believe in. And since said 'starter kit' can't be evaluated scientifically, it doesn't offer much to scientific conclusions.

From Steve P.'s profoundly incorrect statements, as well as the mental contortions he often goes through to justify himself, one gets the impression that the only tools in his "starter kit" are his willful ignorance, repeating "GODDIDIT," and a pathological need to repeat "GOD IS GREAT" over and over again just to satisfy his own vanity.

In American democracy all religions and denominations, and thus all religious opinions, are equally valid. None may be discriminated again, nor may one of them be promoted above the rest.

Science is no such democracy, it is a meritocracy (thanks to Lynn Margulis for this, I believe) where only the best, most meritorious, explanation rules the day - always subject to a better explanation (of the facts) when it comes along.

Young Earth Creationists are accustomed to equal treatment for all religious ideas. Therefore they want equal treatment for their pseudo-scientific ideas.

Science doesn't work that way.

Steve P. said: Sorry folks, but I beg to differ. To paraphrase Einstein, good science is all about good intuition.

It certainly appears that the theistic ideas and notions swimming in the brains of scientists like Newton, Copernicus, Galilei, Faraday, Heisenberg, Le Maitre, Ampere, Kelvin, Joules, Watt, Volta, Maxwell, Hertz, Becquerel, Pasteur, Lavoisier, Marconi, Mendel, Kepler, Euler, Harvey, Avagadro, Dalton, Boyle, Pascal, Da Vinci, amongst many other religious scientists, had a positive impact on their science.

For me, it seems rather irrational to claim that since God ‘cannot be seen under the microscope’, then therefore He is irrelevant to doing science.

No, I think He, as the ultimate abstraction, is quite relevant to our ability to perceive, conceptualize, and confirm the unseen.

I don’t think any of the above scientists were looking to find the ‘face’ of God in atomic particles or galactic debri, but in their ability to make sense of what it is they were studying. Christ said the kingdom of God is within us. I take Him at His word.

There are assuredly plenty of undetectable natural phenomena still waiting to be discovered and it is my prediction that the larger part of these new discoveries will be made by scientists with theistic leanings.

It just doesn’t seem to click when you purposely try to disassociate yourself from your ‘starter kit’. It kills the big ideas, the deeper insights, the uncanny intuitions. That’s how I see it.

Replace 'again' with 'against'. My fingers don't alway listen to the brain.

Since Steve P. is invoking a lot of historical scientific figures, perhaps we should look at the history of science. I claim no special knowledge in this area. But what little I know is that "science", as we know it today, evolved from "Natural Philosophy". In this discipline, people for hundreds of years were trying to investigate Nature. In particular, they were looking for how God did what he did; how God made Nature and made it work, the handiwork of God. Many of these scientists were, after all, men of the cloth. For hundreds of years the Church was the only source of education, and the monastic life was one of the few endeavors that provided the means and the free time to study Nature. Most of them were looking for the hand of God in Nature. Guess what? As hard as they looked, they never, ever found the hand or even finger print of God in Nature. As the Enlightenment progressed, and more people joined the project, more and more simply gave up looking for something that wasn't needed. All the evidence pointed to anything but God.

Does God exist? I don't know. Does God show himself in how Nature works? No. Even when we look really hard. The only time God does show himself in how Nature works is when we give up and stop asking, "But why?" or "How?". When we stop doing science, that's where we find God. It seems that that is what Steve P. and his ilk want. They don't want anyone doing science, because God can't answer "How" and "Why" questions. So, for Steve P. it is simply best not to ask those kinds of questions.

Dear Steve, if I misunderstood anything in your comments, please let me know.

Why add GODDIDIT to an equation?

E = mc2 + GODDIDIT

It's obvious. It's the ultimate fudge factor. With a fudge factor that big, it can account for any discrepancy. There's no need for further study. No need for further questions. No need to waste any more effort asking silly questions like, "Why?", or "How?" Those kinds of questions just lead to moral decay.

Isn't that right, Steve?

Steve P. said: Sorry folks, but I beg to differ. To paraphrase Einstein, good science is all about good intuition. It certainly appears that the theistic ideas and notions swimming in the brains of scientists like Newton, Copernicus, Galilei, Faraday, Heisenberg, Le Maitre, Ampere, Kelvin, Joules, Watt, Volta, Maxwell, Hertz, Becquerel, Pasteur, Lavoisier, Marconi, Mendel, Kepler, Euler, Harvey, Avagadro, Dalton, Boyle, Pascal, Da Vinci, amongst many other religious scientists, had a positive impact on their science. For me, it seems rather irrational to claim that since God 'cannot be seen under the microscope', then therefore He is irrelevant to doing science. No, I think He, as the ultimate abstraction, is quite relevant to our ability to perceive, conceptualize, and confirm the unseen. I don't think any of the above scientists were looking to find the 'face' of God in atomic particles or galactic debri, but in their ability to make sense of what it is they were studying. Christ said the kingdom of God is within us. I take Him at His word. There are assuredly plenty of undetectable natural phenomena still waiting to be discovered and it is my prediction that the larger part of these new discoveries will be made by scientists with theistic leanings. It just doesn't seem to click when you purposely try to disassociate yourself from your 'starter kit'. It kills the big ideas, the deeper insights, the uncanny intuitions. That's how I see it. Could be wrong!?!?!?!?!?!?

Mike: I wrote a wind quintet in 5/4 called "Drunken Clowns", so your comment really made me laugh.

Send me your e-mail and I'll shoot you an mp3. :-)

Steve P. said: Sorry folks, but I beg to differ. To paraphrase Einstein, good science is all about good intuition.

Malchus said: Can you provide any actual evidence that the theistic ideas and notions of these men made any difference in their discoveries? [...] Evidence. What actual evidence do you have?

Steve P. said: It certainly appears that the theistic ideas and notions swimming in the brains of scientists like Newton, Copernicus, Galilei, Faraday, Heisenberg, Le Maitre, Ampere, Kelvin, Joules, Watt, Volta, Maxwell, Hertz, Becquerel, Pasteur, Lavoisier, Marconi, Mendel, Kepler, Euler, Harvey, Avagadro, Dalton, Boyle, Pascal, Da Vinci, amongst many other religious scientists, had a positive impact on their science.

eddie said: We can't speculate how Copernicus would have modelled planetary motion without invoking God, because he didn't do it like that. Whether 21st century atheists like it or not, many scientists used theistic thinking to model the universe. Doesn't change the validity of their findings, but don't rewrite history just because you don't like the way they came to their conclusions.

Scott, you can use sup and /sup in angle brackets for exponents.

or ^ is usually understood as a superscript symbol.

Mike Elzinga said: The culture of societies dominated by religion requires one to speak carefully and in the acceptable norms dictated by powerful authorities who didn’t hesitate to enforce conformity. And don’t forget the Salem Witch trials.

fnxtr said: Steve P.: so far no-one who has insisted that their religious beliefs guide their scientific studies has explained to me how E=mc² differs from E=mc² + GOD. Maybe you can clear this up for me? Thanks.

Oops...

1)given; E = mc² and E = mc² + GOD

2) by the associative property through E; mc² + GOD = mc²

3) subtract the common term; mc² + GOD = mc²

4) find for value; GOD = 0.

(it's really a pain in the ass to write equations in html)

No, but thanks for pointing out the bleedin' obvious, Stevaroni. :-)

Maybe Christian Math works differently.

How bout it, Steve P? Got a different answer?

... and while religion may serve as a motive for research, it's not going to change Kepler's Laws as a closer approximation to planetary orbits that all that messy epicycle stuff, whether Kepler was a deist, theist, atheist or poltergeist.

orbits than all that... welcome to Typo Day (hah! another famous astronomer?)

eddie said: To paraphrase: 'It doesn't matter what the evidence says, everyone from the past who I agree with thinks like me. And if it doesn't look like they think like me that's only because of the evil theists who prevented them from publishing in peer-reviewed technical journals.' Mate, I'm an atheist who believes that the Earth orbits the Sun. I struggle to identify the Sun with God on a day-to-day basis. What I believe doesn't make a bit of difference to how Copernicus came to his conclusions. And Salem Witch trials? I knew scientists had a persecution complex... but really?

I may be missing some sarcasm also. The last few weeks have been full of pain (exruciation bursitus in the knee). Age; bah!

fnxtr said: Mike: I wrote a wind quintet in 5/4 called "Drunken Clowns", so your comment really made me laugh. Send me your e-mail and I'll shoot you an mp3. :-)

Mike Elzinga said: Apparently you didn’t get the point of cultural pressures on the recorded language of thinkers of the past [...] You really should look up and study the Salem witch trials and the effects of an imposed religious world view. There are complete transcripts of these trials showing the religious pressures put upon witnesses. [...] And, indeed, early natural philosophy was greatly influenced by the religious traditions of the past. [...] Thinkers who dared to wander too far into heresy were punished if they didn’t consider their words carefully. When you used a Copernican model of the universe, you were not to declare that it was actually true but that it could be used “as if” such were the case.

At rest, however, in the middle of everything is the sun. For in this most beautiful temple, who would place this lamp in another or better position than that from which it can light up the whole thing at the same time? For, the sun is not inappropriately called by some people the lantern of the universe, its mind by others, and its ruler by still others. (Hermes) the Thrice Greatest labels it a visible god, and Sophocles’ Electra, the all-seeing. (Edward Rosen's translation)

eddie said: Scientists do not stand outside of society and then simply conform their writings to meet the demands of external pressure. They too are a product of their society.

eddie said:

Malchus said: Can you provide any actual evidence that the theistic ideas and notions of these men made any difference in their discoveries? [...] Evidence. What actual evidence do you have?

Steve P. said: It certainly appears that the theistic ideas and notions swimming in the brains of scientists like Newton, Copernicus, Galilei, Faraday, Heisenberg, Le Maitre, Ampere, Kelvin, Joules, Watt, Volta, Maxwell, Hertz, Becquerel, Pasteur, Lavoisier, Marconi, Mendel, Kepler, Euler, Harvey, Avagadro, Dalton, Boyle, Pascal, Da Vinci, amongst many other religious scientists, had a positive impact on their science.

While it might make an amusing counterfactual late-night drinking conversation -- 'What would Copernicus' universe have looked like if he hadn't believed in God?' -- it beggars belief that anyone would want to argue that a deeply religious person isn't influenced by their Theistic outlook. In the case of Copernicus (and Kepler, for that matter), the Sun needed to be placed in the centre of the universe because it was perfect and represented God himself. Having the Earth at the centre was to prioritise man above his creator. The perfect circular motion (!) of the Earth around the Sun was both a symbolic and literal representation of God's way of keeping humanity in a steady orbit around Himself. It should be noted that the perfection of the Sun, its association (which is more than just an association, scholastic thinking had a very high emphasis on similarity = identity) with the creator, and its consequent need to be placed in the centre of the universe is the strongest argument in favour of the Copernican system. As a method of predicting planetary motion it was rubbish compared to the complex epicycles worked out by neo-Ptolomaic thinkers. We can't speculate how Copernicus would have modelled planetary motion without invoking God, because he didn't do it like that. Whether 21st century atheists like it or not, many scientists used theistic thinking to model the universe. Doesn't change the validity of their findings, but don't rewrite history just because you don't like the way they came to their conclusions.

eddie said:

Malchus said: Can you provide any actual evidence that the theistic ideas and notions of these men made any difference in their discoveries? [...] Evidence. What actual evidence do you have?

Steve P. said: It certainly appears that the theistic ideas and notions swimming in the brains of scientists like Newton, Copernicus, Galilei, Faraday, Heisenberg, Le Maitre, Ampere, Kelvin, Joules, Watt, Volta, Maxwell, Hertz, Becquerel, Pasteur, Lavoisier, Marconi, Mendel, Kepler, Euler, Harvey, Avagadro, Dalton, Boyle, Pascal, Da Vinci, amongst many other religious scientists, had a positive impact on their science.

While it might make an amusing counterfactual late-night drinking conversation -- 'What would Copernicus' universe have looked like if he hadn't believed in God?' -- it beggars belief that anyone would want to argue that a deeply religious person isn't influenced by their Theistic outlook. In the case of Copernicus (and Kepler, for that matter), the Sun needed to be placed in the centre of the universe because it was perfect and represented God himself. Having the Earth at the centre was to prioritise man above his creator. The perfect circular motion (!) of the Earth around the Sun was both a symbolic and literal representation of God's way of keeping humanity in a steady orbit around Himself. It should be noted that the perfection of the Sun, its association (which is more than just an association, scholastic thinking had a very high emphasis on similarity = identity) with the creator, and its consequent need to be placed in the centre of the universe is the strongest argument in favour of the Copernican system. As a method of predicting planetary motion it was rubbish compared to the complex epicycles worked out by neo-Ptolomaic thinkers. We can't speculate how Copernicus would have modelled planetary motion without invoking God, because he didn't do it like that. Whether 21st century atheists like it or not, many scientists used theistic thinking to model the universe. Doesn't change the validity of their findings, but don't rewrite history just because you don't like the way they came to their conclusions.

Eddie, is there a reference you would recommend for those statements of Copernicus? I know nothing of the details you seem to be referring to (for example, the need to hedge his conclusions), and would like to know more. The history of science is almost as interesting as the new stuff. :-) Thanks.

Malchus said: You seem to be arguing that theistic beliefs made these men worse scientists.

Scott said: Eddie, is there a reference you would recommend for those statements of Copernicus? I know nothing of the details you seem to be referring to (for example, the need to hedge his conclusions), and would like to know more. The history of science is almost as interesting as the new stuff. :-) Thanks.

Owen Gingerich is another who immediately comes to mind. I have a fairly decent library on the history of science. I’ll dig up some more tomorrow.

Malchus said: And actually, Copernicus did not put the sun at the center of the universe: he put it near the center. I would suggest a reread (or perusal) of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium for a better understanding of his thought. Do you have any independent evidence for your information about Kepler and Copernicus' intent?

Copernicus said: Lastly, it will be realized that the sun occupies the middle of the universe. All these facts are disclosed to us by the principle governing the order in which the planets follow one another, and by the harmony of the entire universe, if only we look at the matter, as the saying goes, with both eyes. (Rosen's translation, my emphasis)

Malchus said: You seem to be arguing that theistic beliefs made these men worse scientists.

Peter Henderson said: I'm surprised Carl Baugh wasn't on since TBN broadcast creation in the 21st century. Still, quite surprised at McDowell coming out as a YEC and the fact that the son has bought into Ham's nonsense at the wacky creation museum. I heard Josh McDowell speak in Belfast some 20 odd years ago (in the early 80's) and I actually thought he was a very good speaker. Nothing at all about YECism being used as a tool for for evangelism. But then again, YECism wasn't around then in Christian circles to the extent that it is now. McDowell has also spoken at the Presbyterian church in Ireland's general assembly in Belfast a couple of years ago. That first video is enough to make anyone puke though.

sez eddie: "I’m an atheist who believes that the Earth orbits the Sun. I struggle to identify the Sun with God on a day-to-day basis."
Hmm. An atheist "struggle(s) to identify the Sun with God"? And, what's more, "struggle(s)" to do this thing "on a day-to-day basis"? Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but our new chum eddie appears to be accompanied by a distinctly piscine aroma...

stevaroni said: I already told you what was going to happen. Giant Faeroe islands mice and fruit fly's mutating into evil galactic overlords. And you have yet to prove me wrong. If you have proof that I'm wrong, bring forth with it. Otherwise I have answered your question, Go away defeated. (Sadly, I think I'm getting way to comfortable with creationist logic).

Cubist said: sez eddie: "I’m an atheist who believes that the Earth orbits the Sun. I struggle to identify the Sun with God on a day-to-day basis." Hmm. An atheist "struggle(s) to identify the Sun with God"? And, what's more, "struggle(s)" to do this thing "on a day-to-day basis"? Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but our new chum eddie appears to be accompanied by a distinctly piscine aroma...

That, of course, should be 'you're autistically literal...'. Must get my grammar right on PT.

eddie said: That, of course, should be 'you're autistically literal...'. Must get my grammar right on PT.

Good science often starts with good intuition. Bad science ends with it.

Now THAT sounds more like something Einstein would have actually said.

You argue the ignorant. We are all physically comprised of the same(men, pigs, flowers), but it is our lives that are filled with complications. Why, because God sees and hears everything. Free-will allows for us to reap that which we sow whether we believe ourselves to be Co-Creators or not. Mind is the builder, but molecularly it is same but varied. Apes came from man. We evolve in spirals. We are all Creators, everything in our world, we Create. Science really has no value in a society that is incomparable to that of the Egyptians and the Romans in their height. I think the pyramids and the coliseums are still at there heights are far as tourism is concerned, thousands of years later. Create. Don't Regurgitate.

Is it wrong of me to assume that anyone who says "science is of no value om a society" to be a gibbering, incoherent idiot?

Love is a luxury of the humble. Creation is for love. I surround myself with everything I love.
The United States is banrupt with no pyramids or coliseums, or roads. Scary.

Stanton said: Is it wrong of me to assume that anyone who says "science is of no value om a society" to be a gibbering, incoherent idiot?

Perle said: Mind is the builder, but molecularly it is same but varied. Apes came from man. We evolve in spirals. We are all Creators, everything in our world, we Create. Science really has no value in a society that is incomparable to that of the Egyptians and the Romans in their height.

Perle said: Love is a luxury of the humble. Creation is for love. I surround myself with everything I love. The United States is banrupt with no pyramids or coliseums, or roads. Scary.

Perle said: Love is a luxury of the humble. Creation is for love. I surround myself with everything I love. The United States is banrupt with no pyramids or coliseums, or roads. Scary.

Jesse said:

Perle said: Love is a luxury of the humble. Creation is for love. I surround myself with everything I love. The United States is banrupt with no pyramids or coliseums, or roads. Scary.

Have you ever, you know, been more than 20 miles from home?

eric said:

Perle said: Mind is the builder, but molecularly it is same but varied. Apes came from man. We evolve in spirals. We are all Creators, everything in our world, we Create. Science really has no value in a society that is incomparable to that of the Egyptians and the Romans in their height.

You said it Perle! We must move forward, not backward! Upward, not forward! And always twirling...twirling...TWIRLING towards freedom! pppbbbbtttt.

Mind is the Builder. Apes evolved from Man. We spiraled from perfect Creation to the caveman or neanderthal man. We were not allowed knowledge of fire and the Earth was severely tilted almost to be swung from its axis. We had forced numerous ice ages upon ourselves during all this upheaval or disobedience. Mind is the builder whether it be a centaur, a pig, or a flower.
Mythology is real. Man lived in perfection for thousands of years, and then came the mixture of creatures, etc. when Man co-created in blatant disregard. We are persons or pure sons (of God).
1x1x1x1x1x1=1 God can multiply without separation, but man has free-will and chooses to struggle with reincarnation. You can’t mix oil and water. God can’t receive man back unwillingly. Create. Don’t regurgitate.

((Backs slowly away, smiling blandly))

Jesse said:

Perle said: Love is a luxury of the humble. Creation is for love. I surround myself with everything I love. The United States is banrupt with no pyramids or coliseums, or roads. Scary.

Have you ever, you know, been more than 20 miles from home?

Perle said: We evolve in spirals.

Perle said: Mind is the Builder. Apes evolved from Man. We spiraled from perfect Creation to the caveman or neanderthal man. We were not allowed knowledge of fire and the Earth was severely tilted almost to be swung from its axis. We had forced numerous ice ages upon ourselves during all this upheaval or disobedience. Mind is the builder whether it be a centaur, a pig, or a flower. Mythology is real. Man lived in perfection for thousands of years, and then came the mixture of creatures, etc. when Man co-created in blatant disregard. We are persons or pure sons (of God). 1x1x1x1x1x1=1 God can multiply without separation, but man has free-will and chooses to struggle with reincarnation. You can’t mix oil and water. God can’t receive man back unwillingly. Create. Don’t regurgitate.

phantomreader42 said:

Perle said: We evolve in spirals.

BRO BRO FIGHT DA POWAH!!!! Who the hell do you think I am?!!

Ichthyic said: Good science often starts with good intuition. Bad science ends with it. Now THAT sounds more like something Einstein would have actually said.

Jesse said:

phantomreader42 said:

Perle said: We evolve in spirals.

BRO BRO FIGHT DA POWAH!!!! Who the hell do you think I am?!!

Good catch!

Justfinethanks said: Lots of stupid crap being thrown around in that video. But what really blew me away in terms of "I can't freaking believe how Goddamn ignorant you are while attempting to make a scientifically based argument" was McDowell's claim that eclipses only happen where there are "observers" (i.e. here on planet Earth). But to maintain that belief, he's going to have to either tell us what observers live on the planets Jupiter or Mars, or explain why they don't count on planets. Otherwise he could simply admit he had no freaking idea what the hell he was talking about and vow to never speak of scientific matters before getting his facts straight first, but I don't really see that happening.