Turnabout is fair play

Haha! Only 8 kinds. They could ALL fit on the ark in pairs. Then God would just put them into the Transmorgifier when they get off and PRESTO!! Variant Species.

Does this new paper from Senter cite and respond to Todd Wood's critique of his previous one? Of course it's paywalled, so I don't know. It will be interesting to see Wood's response.

I concluded that the study demonstrated the evolutionary relatedness of these groups with each other and with basal birds in such a way as could not be countered by creation science. However, baraminologist Todd Wood subsequently pointed out that I had mistaken a mere visualization technique (CMDS) for a technique that a baraminologist would accept as a test of genetic related- ness. Taxon correlation is a method that a baraminologist would accept as a test of genetic relatedness. Wood (2011) restudied the Coelurosauria matrix using taxon correla- tion and found morphological discontinuity between three coelurosaurian groups: Oviraptorosauria, basal birds + Deinonychusauria and a group consisting of the remaining coelurosaurs. A baraminologist could therefore infer that three baramins had been identified. Since then, the phylogenetic data matrix used in those studies (Senter, 2010; Wood, 2011) has been enormously improved by an overhaul that included a vast number of corrections and updates, detailed later. Most of the changes resulted from examination of a large number of specimens that I had not previously had the chance to study, at the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP) during a 2010 trip to Beijing. Enough changes were made to justify a new phyloge- netic analysis and a new taxon correlation study with the matrix, to see whether the technique would now identify greater morphological continuity through Coelurosauria.

The rate of speciation changes required after the ark landed have some species changing with each generation, and in some cases one generation would have to change species several times in its lifetime for the required number of different species to all exist. But this can all be accounted for by miracles - which equal science in the creationist worldview.

For those unfamiliar with baraminology, see http://www.conservapedia.com/Baraminology - and when you have your respiratory and heart rate back back to normal, see http://www.conservapedia.com/Kangaroo#Origins

Somehow the massive rates of speciation from the point of origin at the Ark remind me of YEC notions of variable radioactive decay rates. "Do you realize that such rates of radioactive decay would have reduced the Earth to a molten ball of lava?"

As crazy as creationists sound sniping at evolution, it's not remotely as crazy as they sound when they're trying to refute radioactive dating. They could just as well be trying to refute gravity ("Intelligent Falling" indeed).

It gets just as bad with the flood waters during “The Flood.” Where did they come from?

Whether they came from a “canopy” surrounding the Earth or came up from underground, the change in potential energy in that short period of time is enough energy to fry everything on the planet.

It changes the angular momentum of the Earth by a very significant amount, and the water accumulation would not be like a placid pond. No ship - especially that crappy design that is claimed for the wooden ark - would survive.

The dimensions of the ark are ridiculously small to house animals the size of dinosaurs.

It appears that ID/creationists never plug in numbers to see if anything makes sense. Even their PhD mathematicians can’t do math.

And they want to teach that crap in public schools.

Mike Elzinga said: It gets just as bad with the flood waters during “The Flood.” Where did they come from?

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: It gets just as bad with the flood waters during “The Flood.” Where did they come from?

Yes, but I have explained where they went: "You know sponges grow on the bottom of the ocean ... "

There is such a thing as belaboring a joke, you know.

Before that they were working stiffs.

That sounds kinky, but I won't elaborate.

Argghh! Under the new registration system, if you type a comment and then register, the comment disappears.

Let me very briefly recap what I tried to say, which is now lost. First, thanks PZ for the pdf.

Second, the biggest problem with baraminology (aside from the creationist assumption) is that they make not even an attempt to justify their methods, empirically or theoretically. Why do discontinuities distinguish baramins? We don't know. Why discontinuities of a particular size, when even baraminology would imply discontinuities within baramins? We don't know. I take this as a clue that deep down, even the best of them, e.g. Todd Wood, suspect that they are just going through the motions in imitation of science. Maybe Phil Senter might consider these questions if he wants to try it again.

Third, what's the value of Senter's exercise? It won't convince even a comparatively rational creationist like Todd Wood. The public will ignore it. And scientists don't need convincing. At best I see the potential for some propaganda value for use with the uncommitted: See? Even creationists don't follow their own declared methods. Though in fact I find the entertainment value alone to warrant publication.

John Harshman said: Argghh! Under the new registration system, if you type a comment and then register, the comment disappears. Let me very briefly recap what I tried to say,

Second, the biggest problem with baraminology (aside from the creationist assumption) is that they make not even an attempt to justify their methods, empirically or theoretically. Why do discontinuities distinguish baramins? We don't know. Why discontinuities of a particular size, when even baraminology would imply discontinuities within baramins? We don't know. I take this as a clue that deep down, even the best of them, e.g. Todd Wood, suspect that they are just going through the motions in imitation of science. Maybe Phil Senter might consider these questions if he wants to try it again.

The problem is hitting the reply button before you sign in. The comment box is not supposed to show up before you log in. It is on my list of things to fix.

Obviously there is plenty of money to be made with this "scientific" creationism shtick.

I was just looking at AiG’s announcement of a 5 day “mega” conference.

Ham estimated the attendance at last year’s conference to be about 3,000.

If one takes the average cost of admission to be about $100, that brings in about $300,000 for 5 day’s of work. If 13 speakers divvied up the loot evenly (you know Ham will get most of it), that would be about $23,000 apiece.

But Ham’s organization alone is running many conferences every year. All this in addition to selling books, CD’s and other creationist crap.

This is just one ID/creationist organization pulling in money by peddling fairy tales.

So all one has to do to make a living at this is to generate a couple of speeches, make them into books and CD’s, and deliver them in multiple venues to rubes who will pay to lap it up.

In this “Land of Opportunists,” one can get rich by being bizarre and by peddling sectarian dogma. Bizarre attracts the news media (and therefore money), and peddling dogma sucks money out of those who probably cannot afford it.

If it pays well, who cares what rational people think?

Prince's father co-founded the Family Research Council with Gary Bauer.[26] Prince is the brother of Betsy DeVos, a former chairwoman of the Michigan Republican Party and wife of former Alticor (Amway) president and Gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos,[18] son of Richard DeVos, Sr. (listed by Forbes in 2009 as one of the world's richest men, with a net worth of $4.2 billion).[27] "[The Princes] are conservative Christians, and they have very strong views on the sanctity of human life and the defense of marriage and the role of faith in the public square," according to Bauer.[28]

harold said: Edgar, who has been deceased for quite a while, doesn't even get a Wikipedia page of his own, or even a very good online biography, but here's something of interest from Erik's biography -

Prince's father co-founded the Family Research Council with Gary Bauer.[26] Prince is the brother of Betsy DeVos, a former chairwoman of the Michigan Republican Party and wife of former Alticor (Amway) president and Gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos,[18] son of Richard DeVos, Sr. (listed by Forbes in 2009 as one of the world's richest men, with a net worth of $4.2 billion).[27] "[The Princes] are conservative Christians, and they have very strong views on the sanctity of human life and the defense of marriage and the role of faith in the public square," according to Bauer.[28]

Some readers here may have known this.

Here is evidence that the Mackinac Center supports things like ID/creationism.

This article was written back in 2005 when there was an incident in one of our local schools.

Methinks there might be more going on here.
Creationist lumping is making sense.

I don't agree there are such groups as dinosaurs. i see them as kinds that simply have related features. Yet not related biologically.
I understand the old idea of cold blooded reptiles has finally ended. Indeed they were never reptiles.
One could futher this idea and dimish most creatures into more basic kinds.
I say bears, dogs, seals, etc are all from a kind. i am suspecting rhinos and horses are from a kind. relatives of both in the fossil record look very alike.
In fact one might, I say might, reduce these "dinos' to kinds including later "mammal" types. I often note they segregate on minor points about ear bones or teeth. Possibly some dinos are misidentified from their mammal cousins.

yes diversity is a issue to deal with but it could only be before or after the flood that there is another mechanism to allow sudden massive diversity within biology.
All that is found is diversity. time and intermediates are not found. only presumed because imagination is not employed more liberally.

Have creationists ever explained why angiosperms (flowering plants), which the Bible says were created on the same day of Creation Week as the gymnosperms (conifers, cycads, etc) don't appear in the fossil record until the Cretaceous? If the fossil record is an accurate representation of the Post-Flood settling, shouldn't both groups appear together from the beginning?

mrg said: There is such a thing as belaboring a joke, you know.

Robert Byers said: Methinks...

I say bears, dogs, seals, etc are all from a kind.

Robert Byers said: ... One could futher this idea and dimish most creatures into more basic kinds. I say bears, dogs, seals, etc are all from a kind. ...

So, effectively, these results, made using the creationists own tools, demonstrate a genetic relationship between a diverse group of animals that evolution predicted

Aaargh... "the more the levels of indentation (diversity) are present"

John Harshman said: Third, what's the value of Senter's exercise?

Dave Wisker said: Have creationists ever explained why angiosperms (flowering plants), which the Bible says were created on the same day of Creation Week as the gymnosperms (conifers, cycads, etc) don't appear in the fossil record until the Cretaceous? If the fossil record is an accurate representation of the Post-Flood settling, shouldn't both groups appear together from the beginning?

eric said:

John Harshman said: Third, what's the value of Senter's exercise?

I think it sends a warning shot across the bow. As in: do not think that we scientists are unprepared to discuss your ideas. If you bring baraminology up in schools, in debate, in the literature, basically anywhere, you can expect us to quickly and easily point out why it's crap. You're right that the public will ignore it...if creationists don't bring up baraminology. But if they do, this article can be cited. It can be shown on slide shows. When some student at a private bible High School does a web search on baraminology, I hope this pops up (and I really hope it isn't behind a paywall!). And to the extent that this (PT) community has any control over such things, we should be working to make sure it's the first google reference to pop up for baraminology.

Who's this "Byers" person people keep talking about? Is this some sort of bizarre joke? Sounds like "Harvey", but instead of an imaginary friend, "Byers" is am imaginary nuisance.

Can you imagine the genetic bottleneck coming out of the 8 dinosaurian kinds? Not to mention how much more severe the problem turns to be with the break neck speed of speciation after landing the ark on that mountain...
Does anyone creationist care to answer how many pairs of each dino kind was in the ark?

Mike Elzinga said: It gets just as bad with the flood waters during “The Flood.” Where did they come from? Whether they came from a “canopy” surrounding the Earth or came up from underground, the change in potential energy in that short period of time is enough energy to fry everything on the planet. It changes the angular momentum of the Earth by a very significant amount, and the water accumulation would not be like a placid pond. No ship - especially that crappy design that is claimed for the wooden ark - would survive. The dimensions of the ark are ridiculously small to house animals the size of dinosaurs. It appears that ID/creationists never plug in numbers to see if anything makes sense. Even their PhD mathematicians can’t do math. And they want to teach that crap in public schools.

Henry said: The earth was created under water. There wasn't dry land until the third day so technically, Noah's Flood covered the earth with water a second time.

Mike Elzinga said: Nobody is going to waste any more time with you.

mrg said: ...cranks...get stimulation out of their public wanking...

Ah, if we could only get credits for bashing them. But I suppose that is its own reward.

Henry said: Genesis 1:1 In the beginning ... water a second time. By the way, ICR has a comment about the recent Missouri flood. http://www.icr.org/article/6221/

mrg said: Ah, if we could only get credits for bashing them. But I suppose that is its own reward.

I think there's a pornographic pleasure in fighting back with them.

I'm still plugging away on my JFK assassination document -- I want to get it finished by 2012 so it will be in place by 2013, when the topic is going to get lively. I'm going through every absurd conspiracy theory I can find, even the "Jackie Shot JFK" conspiracy theory ... no, I don't need to deal with that one in any detail.

I think it's going to be useful. But I still wouldn't be doing it if there something stimulating in the sleaze. Instead of lust, the emotion being stimulated is anger.

mrg said: But I still wouldn't be doing it if there [weren't] something stimulating in the sleaze. Instead of lust, the emotion being stimulated is anger.

The way I look at it is: would those guys in the BW spend all that time arguing with that zero IBIG if they didn't enjoy it as much as he does? No.

Yeah; it’s about as hypnotic as a watching train wreck. One sometimes feels the urge to inject something useful or helpful, yet recognizes that it’s totally futile.

Some go the bar to socialize and drink; others go to get drunk and fight.

Just Bob said: And I can't imagine why I would waste the electrons to see what ICR has to say about anything.

Mike Elzinga said:

mrg said: But I still wouldn't be doing it if there [weren't] something stimulating in the sleaze. Instead of lust, the emotion being stimulated is anger.

I can’t say I have ever had any pleasure in dealing with creationist chicanery. But I have mitigated the annoyance somewhat by using their deliberately concocted misconceptions to find better ways of explaining concepts. That plays to an interest I have had in things dealing with ontology and epistemology. And anyone who has to get deeply involved in defining and detecting phenomena in basic research ultimately comes up against such issues. These can add to the interest level of the courses one teaches. Whatever “itch” these charlatans elicit in people; if it generates an immune response in the community of the sane, I would suppose that is progress.

I came to this conclusion after puzzling why I felt so persistently attracted to the crank wars when I find them disgusting. I can only say in my defense that we all have our vices, and there are much worse ones than this.

And I can’t imagine why I would waste the electrons to see what ICR has to say about anything.

So is gold--but ICR gets neither my gold nor my precious electrons!

I'm a little confused as to why this study is suggesting that the entire spectrum of dinosaurs would have to be recreated after the flood. Where did that premise come from? Is there a source for that idea in the Creationist literature you can point me too, because I don't recall it in any of the articles I have read. Quite the opposite, actually.

My understanding of the Creation model is that the flood was the extinction event that destroyed the dinosaurs and that the environmental conditions after the flood were no longer suitable for dinosaurs to flourish. The number and kinds that actually managed to continue on from those carried on the ark were, if I understood correctly, limited and rare.

This study would have been more effective and relevant if the author had chosen a more contemporary 'kind' to explore, but if there is a basis for this claim that Creationist think examples of ALL the different dinosaurs found in the fossil layers were present post flood, all descended from their 50 or so ark survivors, I would like to read more about it.

CJ, in order to conceive of a way for Noah and his sons to have stored 2 of literally every single species of terrestrial animal on Earth inside of the Ark, from lowly bug to towering dinosaur, some Creationists propose that Noah took 2 of each "kind," and that once each pair left the Ark, they underwent a magical, unexplained hyper-evolution to achieve the biological diversity we see today.

Not all Creationists agree to this, mind you.

CJ said: My understanding of the Creation model is that the flood was the extinction event that destroyed the dinosaurs and that the environmental conditions after the flood were no longer suitable for dinosaurs to flourish. The number and kinds that actually managed to continue on from those carried on the ark were, if I understood correctly, limited and rare.

I always come late to these things. I tried PZs recent post, but to my great shame was a little out of my depth, even when being held by the hand, and escorted through the steps. Oddly though, I find that reassuring. I don't understand the position of many non-scientists that insist on being able to understand the most complex of chemical and kinetic reactions. I understand evolution, I observe it (by the examples given by the people expert in these particular areas.)I even find this acceptance of a plain reality quite freeing, having been brought up a practicing Catholic, and knowing the constraining, stultifying environment this life can produce. Contrarians will say I have 'faith' in scientists. I do. But my reasons are reasoned and not based upon wishful thinking or blind belief. I try not to use the "F" word, or the "B" word on this blog as nutters dive at them like gannets in a feeding frenzy, suffice to say faith in science is rational, faith in God is irrational.

Henry! The only book crackpots in the Middle-east use is some kind of religious tome. The difference between them and you is what exactly?

but if there is a basis for this claim that Creationist think

Just Bob said:

Henry said: Genesis 1:1 In the beginning ... water a second time. By the way, ICR has a comment about the recent Missouri flood. http://www.icr.org/article/6221/

Oh yeah, that settles everything. Why do we even need science when we have the Bible (and Henry to interpret it for us)? And I can't imagine why I would waste the electrons to see what ICR has to say about anything.

Henry said: It was through ICR that I've learned the Grand Canyon was carved out in weeks or days, rather than millions of years, which the Missouri Flood is yet another current example of how quickly flood waters can carve out canyons.

Henry the insane traitor said:

Just Bob said:

Henry said: Genesis 1:1 In the beginning ... water a second time. By the way, ICR has a comment about the recent Missouri flood. http://www.icr.org/article/6221/

Oh yeah, that settles everything. Why do we even need science when we have the Bible (and Henry to interpret it for us)? And I can't imagine why I would waste the electrons to see what ICR has to say about anything.

It was through ICR that I've learned the Grand Canyon was carved out in weeks or days, rather than millions of years, which the Missouri Flood is yet another current example of how quickly flood waters can carve out canyons.

Henry said: It was through ICR that I've learned the Grand Canyon was carved out in weeks or days, rather than millions of years, which the Missouri Flood is yet another current example of how quickly flood waters can carve out canyons.

Just Bob said:

Henry said: It was through ICR that I've learned the Grand Canyon was carved out in weeks or days, rather than millions of years, which the Missouri Flood is yet another current example of how quickly flood waters can carve out canyons.

And why is it that you're willing to "learn" from ICR, but not from, say, the American Academy of Science, any major university, the Pope, the consensus of science worldwide...

"Is Valles Marineris a canyon located on Planet Earth? Or is it located instead on Venus or Mars?"

Offer him other choices: Was it created by Satan to deceive the faithful? Or by God to test our faith? Does it even EXIST? Or was it just made up by NASA and other "darwinists"--have YOU been there?

apokryltaros said: CJ, in order to conceive of a way for Noah and his sons to have stored 2 of literally every single species of terrestrial animal on Earth inside of the Ark, from lowly bug to towering dinosaur, some Creationists propose that Noah took 2 of each "kind," and that once each pair left the Ark, they underwent a magical, unexplained hyper-evolution to achieve the biological diversity we see today. Not all Creationists agree to this, mind you.

Paul Burnett said:

CJ said: My understanding of the Creation model is that the flood was the extinction event that destroyed the dinosaurs and that the environmental conditions after the flood were no longer suitable for dinosaurs to flourish. The number and kinds that actually managed to continue on from those carried on the ark were, if I understood correctly, limited and rare.

From that bastion of creationist ignorance, Answers In Genesis: "Representatives of all the kinds of air-breathing land animals, including the dinosaur kinds, went aboard Noah’s Ark. ... After the Flood, around 4,300 years ago, the remnant of the land animals, including dinosaurs, came off the Ark and lived in the present world, along with people. ... Post-Flood climatic change, lack of food, disease, and man’s activities caused many types of animals to become extinct. The dinosaurs, like many other creatures, died out." - http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/what-happened-to-the-dinosaurs

And one has to wonder why God would have Noah go to the (tremendous) trouble of saving representatives of all "kinds" of critters, if many of those "kinds" were slated for quick extinction, whether or not they hyper-evolved into all pre-deluge species. Didn't God know that their preservation was ultimately going to be a failure?

And Henry, did Noah save plant species too? All species or just "kinds"? If he did, why isn't that mentioned in Genesis? Survival of plants is MORE critical to the biosphere of Earth than animals. We need plants--they don't need us! If Noah didn't save all "kinds" of plants, do you really think they all could have survived immersed in salt or brackish water for a year or so? Or did God save or re-create them magically? If He did that, then why didn't He do that with animals?

And hey, why did He even NEED a flood and ark? He's GOD. He could kill precisely the people that needed killing without wrecking the whole planet, couldn't He?

And Henry, how about answering these things WITHOUT going to the ICR, AIG or similar websites to find out what you're SUPPOSED to believe. Or does your belief system consist of "whatever ICR tells me I have to believe"?

Genesis 6:21 (KJV) And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.

TomS said:

Genesis 6:21 (KJV) And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.

This is the only mention of saving plants on the Ark. Of course, later there is the mention of the olive branch being found having survived the Flood.

CJ said: "... the biological diversity we see today." Yeah, that's part of the rub, because in this case we are talking dinosaurs which we don't see today. That is why I said I wish he had chosen a more contemporary 'kind' for his analysis.

John Harshman said:

CJ said: "... the biological diversity we see today." Yeah, that's part of the rub, because in this case we are talking dinosaurs which we don't see today. That is why I said I wish he had chosen a more contemporary 'kind' for his analysis.

The main point is that the dinosaurs we do see today (hint: the ones with feathers) are clearly embedded within the baramin that includes at the very least oviraptorosaurs and therizinosaurs, showing that the major transition of flight -- which is presumably some kind of macroevolutionary change -- happened within a baramin. If we forget the dotted lines, that baramin includes most dinosaurs, not just coelurosaurs. Since creationists commonly can't agree on just which strata are pre-flood, flood, and post-flood deposits, there's no easy way to tell which parts of this evolution were pre-flood or post-flood. (Though the presence of doves and ravens on the ark suggests that it was almost all pre-flood, but never mind.) The point is that lots of evolution is required, and creationists don't like such things. emphasis mine

John said: And I have to second Paul Burnett's question: "By the way, do you think Noah’s Flood had anything to do with carving a canyon named Valles Marineris, which is about 2,500 miles long, 125 miles wide and over 4 miles deep in places?" ( A little hint: Is Valles Marineris a canyon located on Planet Earth? Or is it located instead on Venus or Mars?)

Paul Burnett said:

Robert Byers said: Methinks...

No...

I say bears, dogs, seals, etc are all from a kind.

Say, Byers, how many different species of beetles (including all the wood-eating species) were on Noah's Ark? Or was there just one "kind" of beetle and speciation to today's varieties took place after the Ark landed? For that matter, how different species of termites were on that wooden boat, and what did they eat?

Robert Byers said: Diversity indeed would of been fantastic after the flood. A clue to the power of post flood biology is that the bible says men lived hundreds of years in lifespan.

This power would also been in creatures and this power plus need can account for the great speciation after the flood.

Paul Burnett said:

Robert Byers said: Diversity indeed would of been fantastic after the flood. A clue to the power of post flood biology is that the bible says men lived hundreds of years in lifespan.

Have you considered that maybe the sun was going around the earth much faster then, and years were much shorter?

b) The text is faulty (biblical inerrancy not withstanding)

c) A terminal case of "My Dad's older than your Dad"

Social insects, including termites, present an interesting puzzle for taking a pair, male and his mate. How does that form a viable colony? What about the need for workers?

Also, termites need internal symbionts to process their food. There is some explaining needed about how to take those creatures.

And then there is the question of survival after the Flood, when a termite-eating animal had its first meal. Right then, a "kind" of termites went extinct - and a termite-eater would not be satisfied with one or two termites. How many kinds of termites were taken, and how many kinds survived the early round of termite-eating?

TomS said: Social insects, including termites, present an interesting puzzle for taking a pair, male and his mate. How does that form a viable colony? What about the need for workers? Also, termites need internal symbionts to process their food. There is some explaining needed about how to take those creatures. And then there is the question of survival after the Flood, when a termite-eating animal had its first meal. Right then, a "kind" of termites went extinct - and a termite-eater would not be satisfied with one or two termites. How many kinds of termites were taken, and how many kinds survived the early round of termite-eating?

And which of Noah's sons (and the son's wife, presumably) had the clap?

Just Bob said: And which of Noah's sons (and the son's wife, presumably) had the clap?

Knowing what we know now about dinosaur morphology and physiology, which "kinds", if any, would have been "clean" following the rules in Leviticus? Seven of each of those would have to have been aboard.

And, damnit, if Noah knew or was instructed by God on what was "clean" and what "unclean", why wasn't that knowledge passed down? Why was it necessary to delineate it all again in Moses' time? My unscholarly guess: at a later period, when the Hebrews were really into the "clean" and "unclean" thing, some bungling editor decided to "clean up" the old Noah story by pasting in some seven-cleans-for-sacrifices references without bothering to delete the two-of-each-kind lines...even when that resulted in blatant in-your-face contradictions.

Just Bob said: My unscholarly guess: at a later period, when the Hebrews were really into the "clean" and "unclean" thing, some bungling editor decided to "clean up" the old Noah story by pasting in some seven-cleans-for-sacrifices references without bothering to delete the two-of-each-kind lines...even when that resulted in blatant in-your-face contradictions.

Notice how, when people start asking fourth-grader type questions about the silly Ark story, the creationists disappear?

Except for Byers, of course, who just makes childish stuff up, which, in his view, is just as legitimate as hard-won scientific knowledge.

Just Bob said: Notice how, when people start asking fourth-grader type questions about the silly Ark story, the creationists disappear? Except for Byers, of course, who just makes childish stuff up, which, in his view, is just as legitimate as hard-won scientific knowledge.

Just Bob said:

Henry said: Genesis 1:1 In the beginning ... water a second time. By the way, ICR has a comment about the recent Missouri flood. http://www.icr.org/article/6221/

Oh yeah, that settles everything. Why do we even need science when we have the Bible (and Henry to interpret it for us)? And I can't imagine why I would waste the electrons to see what ICR has to say about anything.

Just Bob said: And which of Noah's sons (and the son's wife, presumably) had the clap?

Henry the theocratic lunatic said:

Just Bob said: And which of Noah's sons (and the son's wife, presumably) had the clap?

Maybe none. At least from written European history, STDs haven't been around until 1494. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexually_transmitted_disease

Henry said:

Just Bob said: And which of Noah's sons (and the son's wife, presumably) had the clap?

Maybe none. At least from written European history, STDs haven't been around until 1494. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexually_transmitted_disease

I can't speak for everyone, but I can speak for myself and I have a life outside reading, researching and commenting on the internet, and a multitude of things I'd like (or am required) to be doing other than reading and researching. Sometimes the desire is there, but the time is not. It may be a day or more before I can get back to any particular subject I've involved myself in, regardless of interest, and by the time the time IS there, conversations have often moved on to other things and its not always worth revisiting. For that reason I rarely get into discussions the can get lengthy, but this one intrigued me as it appeared to be based on a totally false premise designed to make Creationist look stupid - that of Creationist claiming the kinds of dinosaurs taken on the ark actually - not potentially had the capability of - but actually re-reproduced all the dinosaurs found in the fossil layers... before, obviously, going extinct again?

No one has yet provided the source to support that specific premise, so I am beginning to think it invalid and the question the honesty of the author. If you're going to claim to treat a theory with sound science to disprove it, don't start out with a false premise to build your case on. It undermines the legitimacy of the study. And don't tell me Creationist do it to. I don't care WHO does it. It's wrong and just muddies the water for those who honestly want to evaluate a subject based on its own merits. In the case of Evolution vrs Creation, if the science is TRULY behind Evolution, then what does it have to fear by inviting evaluation, especially in schools. It hones critical thinking and teaches kid to how to recognize and weed out nonsense before they hit the world where they will be bombarded will all sorts of conflicting notions, not just those regarding the origins of life. If Creation is the pseudo-science Evolutionist say, then honest evaluation and dialogue will prove that out in the end to anyone who’s not believing Creation for strictly fanatical religious reasons.

So why did I "disappear"? Besides life in general, I had several new subjects presented which I was unfamiliar with that I need to research and evaluate - For example I'm still looking into baramins, which is a new term to me. I'm also easily distracted and The Panda's Thumb is a new site to me with a great deal to explore that has taken too much time away from things I have previous commitments to already. I may or may not get back into this conversation. By the time I feel I have adequately educated myself on the subjects, I'm sure this thread will be among the 'old hats'.

But to throw my 2 cents re: simple questions and Mr Byers, while I agree his response on the termites was quite speculative without any backing - scientific or scriptural, which is not wise - let’s be honest. Evolution has it's own just-so conjecture stories every bit as unprovable and hypothetical as Mr. Byer's. Mammal-like reptiles is something else the Panda's Thumb introduced me to that was previously unfamiliar - interesting creatures, but not entirely convincing in my 'lack of Masters and PhD in Evolutionary Theory' background. Even if you give the Evolution side the jaw changes which releases the bones to relocate and reform into an entirely different hearing system without discernible reason, proof or explanation for how the creature could function in the interim of this slow gradual change, how does Evolution explain the simultaneous and equally dramatic changes in the reproductive and respiratory systems without conjecture? I don’t think there is a great deal of evidence for that incredible transition, beyond the fact that mammals exist, therefore it must have happened. For the purposes of this thread, the question is rather rhetorical because a great deal more research is required on my part to even begin to intelligently discuss that subject, or even the one on baramins for that matter. By that time, this discussion - I'm sure - will be long buried, but speculation, conjecture and unprovable' just-so stories is not an issue isolated to Creationists.

The more a read on both sides, the more I see they are the same in their attitudes and it is frustrating to be anywhere in the middle trying to sort out any degree of honest veracity to the science both claim to have a handle on. To be one and seriously consider the other makes you anathema to your original position. Both have mysteries and unanswered (even unanswerable) questions. Both have good and valid questions regarding the other's theory, but would rather take 'We don't know that right now' as reason to discount the whole idea rather than seriously consider it. Both have their "miracle cures" that make it work - time or God, respectively, and neither idea can be seriously considered without the inclusion of that 'miracle cure', thus neither will be considered valid by the other because to even consider the possibility of the other’s ‘miracle cure’ would undermine their own position. Both say 'The answer is out there and I have faith we'll know it someday, even if I'm not alive at the time.'

I appreciate the posters that took the time to offer intelligent answers (even if they didn't directly answer the question ;). I have some food for thought and some things to research, so the time was well spent, but until I learn more I can't discuss it very intelligently, so if that means I'm running away, so be it.

CJ said: In the case of Evolution vrs Creation, if the science is TRULY behind Evolution, then what does it have to fear by inviting evaluation, especially in schools.

It hones critical thinking and teaches kid to how to recognize and weed out nonsense before they hit the world where they will be bombarded will all sorts of conflicting notions, not just those regarding the origins of life.

If Creation is the pseudo-science Evolutionist say, then honest evaluation and dialogue will prove that out in the end to anyone who’s not believing Creation for strictly fanatical religious reasons.

The usual, CJ. You believe what you believe perfectly sincerely, I'm sure. What you believe or don't believe is up to you.

One thing that arguing with Biblical literalists has shown me over the years is that their beliefs do not rely on any physical evidence whatsoever, and that physical evidence to the contrary is simply invisible to them. They always cover this by saying that the evidence isn't good enough to convince them. That's what you're doing.

You referred to evidence of transitional change from reptiles to mammals. A good deal of evidence was given, with transitional forms, detailed descriptions, diagrams and discussion. You're now saying it's not good enough, because all your questions haven't been fully answered. Of course they haven't been. Nobody's questions are ever fully answered, least of all the scientists'. They always want more evidence, too. The difference is, they believe the evidence they've got, and you don't.

Believing the evidence that you have is not a "just-so" story. Incidentally, the fact that you use that silly phrase simply tells everyone that you haunt creationist websites, and read - and probably believe - their propaganda.

Evolutionary biology deals in explanations supported by evidence, which start as hypotheses to explain the evidence. Rather often, more research uncovers more evidence, and the explanations are modified in the light of this. But there are no "just-so stories". Failed explanations are discarded. Knowledge increases. Research goes on. Facts become established. Explanations improve. Truth is approached. It is never perfect, and it cannot, of its very nature, be absolutely complete, but it is better than statements in early iron-age texts to the effect that a miracle happened.

But as I said at first, believe what you like. It makes no difference.

CJ said: Both have their "miracle cures" that make it work - time or God, respectively, and neither idea can be seriously considered without the inclusion of that 'miracle cure', thus neither will be considered valid by the other because to even consider the possibility of the other’s ‘miracle cure’ would undermine their own position. Both say 'The answer is out there and I have faith we'll know it someday, even if I'm not alive at the time.'

CJ said:

Paul Burnett said:

CJ said: My understanding of the Creation model is that the flood was the extinction event that destroyed the dinosaurs and that the environmental conditions after the flood were no longer suitable for dinosaurs to flourish. The number and kinds that actually managed to continue on from those carried on the ark were, if I understood correctly, limited and rare.

From that bastion of creationist ignorance, Answers In Genesis: "Representatives of all the kinds of air-breathing land animals, including the dinosaur kinds, went aboard Noah’s Ark. ... After the Flood, around 4,300 years ago, the remnant of the land animals, including dinosaurs, came off the Ark and lived in the present world, along with people. ... Post-Flood climatic change, lack of food, disease, and man’s activities caused many types of animals to become extinct. The dinosaurs, like many other creatures, died out." - http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/what-happened-to-the-dinosaurs

Thank you, this is the sort of thing I was looking for, in fact I think I may have read it or something like it. Unfortunately it doesn't answer the question. Simply stating "After the Flood, ... the remnant of the land animals, including dinosaurs, came off the Ark and lived in the present world, along with people." isn't quantitative as to the number of species they are talking about. Simply put, while it does indicate that Creationist believe that dinosaurs survived after the flood (due to Noah's efforts), it doesn't indicate that they are saying the entire spectrum of dinosaurs was recreated -- it doesn't specify one way or the other -- but that is the basis of the author's ridicule, isn't it... that Creationist say the entire spectrum was (not could have been) recreated from their limited kinds. I'm trying to find out if this is a case of, 'Creationists say they had dinosaurs after the flood. Lets take it to the extreme and presume the term is all inclusive of every species of dinosaur we've ever discovered in the fossils and prove how untenable that is so they really look stupid [Yeah, I know, Henry J, you're going to suggest they don't need help looking stupid - lol].' or is there an actual quote out there where some Creationist idiot actually suggested, 'After the flood, the limited kinds of dinosaurs Noah preserved on the ark repopulated the world with every type of dinosaur found in the fossil records.' There is a bit of a difference.

CJ wrote: "I’m still looking into baramins"

In all sincerity, don't waste your time. You can learn everything you need to know about baramins by reading http://www.conservapedia.com/Baramin - if that doesn't convince you that baramins are 200-proof bullshit, made up by anti-science creationists, there's little hope for you.

Did you notice, CJ, that after I started asking questions about the Ark myth that would occur to any bright 8-year-old, Henry hasn't commented again?

I do not and do not need to accept evo science on “faith”; give me a theory that seems to better fit the facts and I’ll eagerly reject the old in favor of the new, with enthusiasm over the revelation. I reject creationism because it is not only entirely based on excess baggage, that excess baggage is invisible. Experience also shows me that creationism is based on gross misrepresentation of the facts, and necessarily so. If people don’t want to buy evo science, fine, not much to be said about it, but claiming the sciences reject it is as well is as obviously false as claiming that Mexicans speak French instead of Spanish. To attempt to claim the sciences endorse or even humor creationism when they obviously do not demands an absolute mangling of the facts. Evo science doesn’t know everything, it never will, and scientists can on occasion be pretty pompous. Neither of those facts gives any reason to then accept a sorry scam like creationism.

Just Bob said: Did you notice, CJ, that after I started asking questions about the Ark myth that would occur to any bright 8-year-old, Henry hasn't commented again?

phantomreader42 said:

Just Bob said: Did you notice, CJ, that after I started asking questions about the Ark myth that would occur to any bright 8-year-old, Henry hasn't commented again?

Well, that's not really fair. How do you expect Henry to find a bright eight-year-old in his cult? It's hard enough finding an adult creationist who isn't drooling like an imbecile and babbling irrelevant nonsense.

Henry, are you so seriously disordered that you think it is impossible to refer metaphorically to the fantastically intricate working of a living organism as "a complicated machine"? Especially since Muller had only the first basic notions of how complcated it really is?

This was freaking 1918, Henry. He had hardly any knowledge of the actual chemistry behind genetics. He could only describe mutations morphologically; and obviously most morphologically-expressed mutations are lethal.

For Pete's sake, Henry, it's obvious that you can't show any actual reason, goodwill, or understanding of the history of the science - but are you so lacking in ordinary common sense as to think that pretty close to a century has passed, and this still represents current knowledge?

Once you accept that Muller was working within the limitations and constraints of his knowledge, he was still describing the process of exaption with tolerable accuracy. Far more than that is known now, and his observations have been validated hundreds of times.

As for your bone-headed remark about flies remaining flies, it is nothing more than a blatant admission of your ignorance and ill-will. They're flies, Henry, but they're different flies, and that's all that has to be shown.

Henry said: Would a bright eight-year-old question this statement of faith? "…thus a complicated machine was gradually built up whose effective working was dependent upon the interlocking action of very numerous different elementary parts or factors, and many of the characters and factors which, when new, were originally merely an asset finally became necessary because other necessary characters and factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the former" From Hermann J. Muller’s 1918 paper, GENETIC VARIABILITY, TWIN HYBRIDS AND CONSTANT HYBRIDS, IN A CASE OF BALANCED LETHAL FACTORS (GENETICS 1918 3: 422–499)

His observations were P 465 , 7th line –“probably the majority, if not the vast majority, of mutants are lethal”

He started with flies and ended with flies.

Henry said:

phantomreader42 said:

Just Bob said: Did you notice, CJ, that after I started asking questions about the Ark myth that would occur to any bright 8-year-old, Henry hasn't commented again?

Well, that's not really fair. How do you expect Henry to find a bright eight-year-old in his cult? It's hard enough finding an adult creationist who isn't drooling like an imbecile and babbling irrelevant nonsense.

Would a bright eight-year-old question this statement of faith? "…thus a complicated machine was gradually built up whose effective working was dependent upon the interlocking action of very numerous different elementary parts or factors, and many of the characters and factors which, when new, were originally merely an asset finally became necessary because other necessary characters and factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the former" From Hermann J. Muller’s 1918 paper, GENETIC VARIABILITY, TWIN HYBRIDS AND CONSTANT HYBRIDS, IN A CASE OF BALANCED LETHAL FACTORS (GENETICS 1918 3: 422–499) It looked like Muller was walking by faith, evolutionary faith, not by sight. His observations were P 465 , 7th line –“probably the majority, if not the vast majority, of mutants are lethal” He started with flies and ended with flies. What complicated machine did he see being built up?

Hey, so you DID finally come back...after allowing plenty of time and comments to intervene so that the casual lurker could forget the childish questions that you're STILL running away from. Back up a page or two. You'll find 'em.

Try one at a time. Pick any one you want.

When you've embarrassed all serious Christians with your apologetic answers (if you even try), I have a few more.

Henry said: From Hermann J. Muller’s 1918 paper, GENETIC VARIABILITY, TWIN HYBRIDS AND CONSTANT HYBRIDS, IN A CASE OF BALANCED LETHAL FACTORS (GENETICS 1918 3: 422–499)

Just Bob said: And one has to wonder why God would have Noah go to the (tremendous) trouble of saving representatives of all "kinds" of critters, if many of those "kinds" were slated for quick extinction, whether or not they hyper-evolved into all pre-deluge species. Didn't God know that their preservation was ultimately going to be a failure? And Henry, did Noah save plant species too? All species or just "kinds"? If he did, why isn't that mentioned in Genesis? Survival of plants is MORE critical to the biosphere of Earth than animals. We need plants--they don't need us! If Noah didn't save all "kinds" of plants, do you really think they all could have survived immersed in salt or brackish water for a year or so? Or did God save or re-create them magically? If He did that, then why didn't He do that with animals? And hey, why did He even NEED a flood and ark? He's GOD. He could kill precisely the people that needed killing without wrecking the whole planet, couldn't He? And Henry, how about answering these things WITHOUT going to the ICR, AIG or similar websites to find out what you're SUPPOSED to believe. Or does your belief system consist of "whatever ICR tells me I have to believe"?

Thanks, Phantom.

And Henry, START with that last paragraph. You don't need ICR to tell you what the Bible says or means--just read it!

"You don’t need ICR to tell you..."

Well, I guess he does. He's not coming up with anything on his own.

Just Bob said:

Henry said:

Just Bob said: And which of Noah's sons (and the son's wife, presumably) had the clap?

Maybe none. At least from written European history, STDs haven't been around until 1494. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexually_transmitted_disease

No, fool, the maladies in question weren't identified as separate diseases, or recognized as being sexually transmitted until then. Among all the filth, fleas, lice and other vermin that infested our lovely Christian ancestors during the Middle Ages, who would have noticed that specifically gonorrheal infections only resulted from sex with a carrier? Especially when some carriers can be asymptomatic. You try not bathing all year, wearing the same clothes every day, and sleeping in a filthy hovel with several other folks with similar hygiene habits and some livestock. Throw in a bad diet. See if you don't break out with an infection or two "down there," even without any contact with a gonorrhea carrier. How would anyone know the difference, or even suspect that THOSE blisters are an STD, but THESE are just infected flea bites? Hell, some STDs were not recognized as "ST" until a few years ago.

Henry said:

Just Bob said:

Henry said:

Just Bob said: And which of Noah's sons (and the son's wife, presumably) had the clap?

Maybe none. At least from written European history, STDs haven't been around until 1494. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexually_transmitted_disease

No, fool, the maladies in question weren't identified as separate diseases, or recognized as being sexually transmitted until then. Among all the filth, fleas, lice and other vermin that infested our lovely Christian ancestors during the Middle Ages, who would have noticed that specifically gonorrheal infections only resulted from sex with a carrier? Especially when some carriers can be asymptomatic. You try not bathing all year, wearing the same clothes every day, and sleeping in a filthy hovel with several other folks with similar hygiene habits and some livestock. Throw in a bad diet. See if you don't break out with an infection or two "down there," even without any contact with a gonorrhea carrier. How would anyone know the difference, or even suspect that THOSE blisters are an STD, but THESE are just infected flea bites? Hell, some STDs were not recognized as "ST" until a few years ago.

If it's true that during the Middle Ages people didn't know how STDs were transmitted, what excuses do 21st century Americans have?

Henry said: If it's true that during the Middle Ages people didn't know how STDs were transmitted, what excuses do 21st century Americans have?

Henry said: Would a bright eight-year-old question this statement of faith? "…thus a complicated machine was gradually built up whose effective working was dependent upon the interlocking action of very numerous different elementary parts or factors, and many of the characters and factors which, when new, were originally merely an asset finally became necessary because other necessary characters and factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the former" From Hermann J. Muller’s 1918 paper, GENETIC VARIABILITY, TWIN HYBRIDS AND CONSTANT HYBRIDS, IN A CASE OF BALANCED LETHAL FACTORS (GENETICS 1918 3: 422–499) It looked like Muller was walking by faith, evolutionary faith, not by sight. His observations were P 465 , 7th line –“probably the majority, if not the vast majority, of mutants are lethal” He started with flies and ended with flies. What complicated machine did he see being built up?

DS said:

Henry said: Would a bright eight-year-old question this statement of faith? "…thus a complicated machine was gradually built up whose effective working was dependent upon the interlocking action of very numerous different elementary parts or factors, and many of the characters and factors which, when new, were originally merely an asset finally became necessary because other necessary characters and factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the former" From Hermann J. Muller’s 1918 paper, GENETIC VARIABILITY, TWIN HYBRIDS AND CONSTANT HYBRIDS, IN A CASE OF BALANCED LETHAL FACTORS (GENETICS 1918 3: 422–499) It looked like Muller was walking by faith, evolutionary faith, not by sight. His observations were P 465 , 7th line –“probably the majority, if not the vast majority, of mutants are lethal” He started with flies and ended with flies. What complicated machine did he see being built up?

It's so cute when creationists try to quote mine hundred year old papers without ever bothering to read anything else published since. It just make you want to tweak their little noses and send them out to play in the sandbox. FIrst, Muller turned out to be right about how complex structures evolve. The last hundred years of progress in developmental genetics have confirmed the mechanisms by which this can occur. Just because creationists refuse to red this research doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Willful ignorance is the only way to maintain belief in a god of the gaps. Second, Muller was studying the phenotypic effects of balanced lethals. He might will have concluded that the majority of mutations are deleterious. From modern molecular genetics we now know that the majority of mutations are neutral but provide a wealth of genetic variation on which natural selection can potentially act. Third, even if moist mutations were deleterious, evolution would still work. It would just require a lot more differential mortality. Creationist can never get their minds around change over time or the importance of mortality in bringing about that change. Of course none of this has anything to do with the evolution of dinosaurs. Henry is just desperate to cast some kind of doubt on the last hundred years of science that he hasn't bothered to study and isn't capable of understanding. Funny that he uncritically accepts any nonsensical concoctions that creationists think up but somehow can't be bothered to actually learn any science. In the time he has been posting nonsense here, he could have completed an entire undergraduate degree and moved on to graduate work, if he were interested or capable that is.

Assuming you DID recall correctly, did you happen to note what point he was making with that quote? What use was he making of it? What was the context?

For instance, if it was provided, as I suspect, for a historical perspective on "where the field was" in 1918, then your yanking it out of context and trotting it out here is entirely dishonest.

It would be akin to quoting something YOU said about oh, say, the Bible when you were eight, and using that to represent your views today.

Just Bob said: Assuming you DID recall correctly, did you happen to note what point he was making with that quote? What use was he making of it? What was the context? For instance, if it was provided, as I suspect, for a historical perspective on "where the field was" in 1918, then your yanking it out of context and trotting it out here is entirely dishonest. It would be akin to quoting something YOU said about oh, say, the Bible when you were eight, and using that to represent your views today.

Henry said:

phantomreader42 said:

Just Bob said: Did you notice, CJ, that after I started asking questions about the Ark myth that would occur to any bright 8-year-old, Henry hasn't commented again?

Well, that's not really fair. How do you expect Henry to find a bright eight-year-old in his cult? It's hard enough finding an adult creationist who isn't drooling like an imbecile and babbling irrelevant nonsense.

Would a bright eight-year-old question this statement of faith? "…thus a complicated machine was gradually built up whose effective working was dependent upon the interlocking action of very numerous different elementary parts or factors, and many of the characters and factors which, when new, were originally merely an asset finally became necessary because other necessary characters and factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the former" From Hermann J. Muller’s 1918 paper, GENETIC VARIABILITY, TWIN HYBRIDS AND CONSTANT HYBRIDS, IN A CASE OF BALANCED LETHAL FACTORS (GENETICS 1918 3: 422–499) It looked like Muller was walking by faith, evolutionary faith, not by sight. His observations were P 465 , 7th line –“probably the majority, if not the vast majority, of mutants are lethal” He started with flies and ended with flies. What complicated machine did he see being built up?

Henry said: It's actually a quote that Mike Elzinga has used in his book, if I recall correctly. Would a bright eight year old question Mike on the use of quote from an out dated paper?

xubist said: Which is it, henry? Are you ignorant and/or uncomprehending... or are you just another goddamn Creationist deceiver-for-Christ?

there is no god

It would be interesting to apply Senter's methods to the primate 'kind'. Given that the only known primates on the Ark were Noah and his family, this would make all other living and extinct primates their direct descendants. I wonder which of his sons is the progenitor of the gibbons and which the ancestor of the New World monkeys, and how the families of those concerned felt as their descendants rapidly diversified, sprouting fur and prehensile tails. And never mind which son supposedly colonized what continent--what I really want to know is: which of Japheth, Shem, and Ham is the ancestor of wet-nosed lemurs?

It need not puzzle us, at least, that the Bible fails to record these extraordinary events*, given that it seems to have missed, for example, the diversification of the rodent 'kind' into 1,000-kilogram caviomorphs (now extinct; God can be so cruel) and pygmy jerboas weighing only a few grams. The authors -- distracted, no doubt, by the effort of recording all those 'begats' -- also seem to have completely overlooked the very existence of dinosaurs, but I suppose giant flesh-eating lizard-like creatures just weren't considered worthy of comment back then.**

* "Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. The sons of Japheth: Gomer and Magog and Madan and Bonzo. And oh by the way I almost forgot: Bonzo was a chimpanzee. Quite a surprise for his mother I can tell you. And the daughter of Bonzo: Koko."

** "And oh did I mention: it came to pass that the Lord sent unto Madan this great big carnivorous lizard-like thingie with huge teeth while he (Madan, not the Lord) was riding his unicorn. And Madan was eaten with much terrified screaming and rending of flesh. And though we were really all a bit sad: so it goes."

Mike Elzinga said:

Henry said: The earth was created under water. There wasn't dry land until the third day so technically, Noah's Flood covered the earth with water a second time.

You already got your clock thoroughly cleaned on this topic over on this other thread. Evidently, like every creationist, you are still unable to learn. Nobody is going to waste any more time with you. Remain in your preferred state of incorrigible ignorance.

Henry said: It looks like you provided a possible pathway how the Ark could have been built.

"You assume that the pre-Noahic flood people couldn’t have known about the such concepts. Man lived over 900 years then and being only 1600+ years removed from the original creation, they would have better functional brains as well. It’s possible they did know."

And that's what we call a 'just-so story'.

Doesn't it occur to you, Henry, that you are attempting to IMPROVE on Genesis? Can't you see that that's a serious SIN? Your underlying premise is that the Bible NEEDS improvement--it's not good enough the way it is, so you need to enhance it with all sorts of additions, explanations, footnotes, could-have-beens, etc.

Leave my Bible alone, you damned atheist!

phantomreader42 said:

Henry said:

Just Bob said:

Henry said:

Just Bob said: And which of Noah's sons (and the son's wife, presumably) had the clap?

Maybe none. At least from written European history, STDs haven't been around until 1494. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexually_transmitted_disease

No, fool, the maladies in question weren't identified as separate diseases, or recognized as being sexually transmitted until then. Among all the filth, fleas, lice and other vermin that infested our lovely Christian ancestors during the Middle Ages, who would have noticed that specifically gonorrheal infections only resulted from sex with a carrier? Especially when some carriers can be asymptomatic. You try not bathing all year, wearing the same clothes every day, and sleeping in a filthy hovel with several other folks with similar hygiene habits and some livestock. Throw in a bad diet. See if you don't break out with an infection or two "down there," even without any contact with a gonorrhea carrier. How would anyone know the difference, or even suspect that THOSE blisters are an STD, but THESE are just infected flea bites? Hell, some STDs were not recognized as "ST" until a few years ago.

If it's true that during the Middle Ages people didn't know how STDs were transmitted, what excuses do 21st century Americans have?

Your cult has been lying about the cause of disease for centuries, claiming it's due to demons. How many millions have died in agony due to such idiocy? How many billions more will you murder with your lies?

Henry said:

Just Bob said: Assuming you DID recall correctly, did you happen to note what point he was making with that quote? What use was he making of it? What was the context? For instance, if it was provided, as I suspect, for a historical perspective on "where the field was" in 1918, then your yanking it out of context and trotting it out here is entirely dishonest. It would be akin to quoting something YOU said about oh, say, the Bible when you were eight, and using that to represent your views today.

I don't think he was making a historical point, but it was around this time frame. Cubist replied to comment from henry | November 13, 2010 11:57 PM | Reply | Edit henry said: Cubist said: henry said: Loren Williams said: It is true that translation is outrageously complex, and meets all the requirements of an irreducibly complex system. Take away the large subunit or the small subunit or the mRNA or the rRNA or the ribosomal proteins or the tRNA or the ions or the amino acids or whatever and it does not work. But never-the-less, we have detailed models, discussed in the last session of the meeting (video posted soon), all supported by data, all experimentally accessible, for ribosomal origins and evolution. The first two statements seem to contradict the third. There is an irreducibly complex system in the present, but there wasn’t one in the past? If IC systems can indeed be produced by evolution, I fail to see how “no IC system in the past” contradicts “IC system in the present”. Are you suggesting that ID-pushers are correct to assert that IC systems cannot be produced by evolution? If you are, please explain the error in Hermann J. Muller’s 1918 paper, GENETIC VARIABILITY, TWIN HYBRIDS AND CONSTANT HYBRIDS, IN A CASE OF BALANCED LETHAL FACTORS (GENETICS 1918 3: 422–499), which makes an awfully strong case for IC systems being an expected product of evolution. The money quote, to my way of thinking, is this (emphasis in the original text): …thus a complicated machine was gradually built up whose effective working was dependent upon the interlocking action of very numerous different elementary parts or factors, and many of the characters and factors which, when new, were originally merely an asset finally became necessary because other necessary characters and factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the former. It looks like the evolution of IC systems is assumed to prove that evolution of IC systems occurred. It may be worth noting that the 61-word quote I provided is taken from a paper that’s 78 pages long. Whatever do you think Muller might have been writing about in the other 77+ pages of GENETIC VARIABILITY, TWIN HYBRIDS AND CONSTANT HYBRIDS, IN A CASE OF BALANCED LETHAL FACTORS (GENETICS 1918 3: 422–499), henry? Would you care to, like, substantiate your accusation that Muller was guilty of assuming his conclusion, by working thru Muller’s reasoning and demonstrating that Muller did, indeed, assume his conclusion? Or do you expect everyone to just, you know, take your bald, unsupported word for it? Apart from that, I note that you aren’t confronting the point Muller explicitly raised (in this quote: Namely, that evolutionary changes can modify the parts of a biological system so that a component which had been merely beneficial at some time in the past, becomes necessary. If the ID-pushers’ “IC systems can’t evolve” argument is valid, Muller’s argument must be universally invalid – Muller’s argument cannot ever be valid under any circumstances whatsoever. Do you think you can demonstrate that, henry? Any damn-fool ignoramus can mindlessly repeat “is not!” in reply to any scientific conclusion, henry. That sort of response-on-autopilot doesn’t require the mindless repeater to actually, like, understand whatever-it-is they happen to be automatically gainsaying. Likewise, any damn-fool ignoramus can mindlessly repeat “he assumed his conclusion!” without the tawdry necessity of, like, reading and understanding the paper they’re mindlessly replying to. So I once again invite you, henry, to read Muller’s 1918 paper, GENETIC VARIABILITY, TWIN HYBRIDS AND CONSTANT HYBRIDS, IN A CASE OF BALANCED LETHAL FACTORS (GENETICS 1918 3: 422–499), and demonstrate where Muller screwed up. You won’t demonstrate where Muller screwed up by shouting detail-free accusations of logical fallacy; all that will do is provide evidence to support the proposition that you, henry, are a damn-fool ignoramus. If you want to demonstrate where Muller screwed up, you’re going to have to actually, like, demonstrate where Muller screwed up, and not just baldly assert that Muller screwed up. And one more thing: If you’re a Christian, henry, you might want to avoid bearing false witness against Muller (in this case, by accusing Muller of an error he never actually committed). I am given to understand that there’s a whole Commandment which forbids the bearing of false witness; I am further given to understand that the Biblically-validated post mortem fate of false witnesses involves a lake of fire, and it sure doesn’t sound like it would be comfortable for even a second, let alone for all eternity… This was on the Origin of Life thread. The Mike Elinza quote I believe was on a different one. I'll have to check on that later.

I understand, Henry, that "American" means "a person lawfully born in America, or naturalised as such". There are therefore no 'unborn Americans'.

And how many American lives have abortions saved? How many Americans have been rescued from poverty and misery by termination of an unwanted pregnancy? Or don't they count, because they're women, Henry?

Dave Luckett said: I understand, Henry, that "American" means "a person lawfully born in America, or naturalised as such". There are therefore no 'unborn Americans'. And how many American lives have abortions saved? How many Americans have been rescued from poverty and misery by termination of an unwanted pregnancy? Or don't they count, because they're women, Henry?

Henry said: I was mistaken. It was Matt Young, not Mike. My apologies to Mike. Matt Young | November 13, 2010 12:30 PM … please explain the error in Hermann J. Muller’s 1918 paper … Muller’s paper is very interesting indeed; in fact Paul Strode and I quote the same passage in our book on evolution and creation. I do not know enough to know whether Behe should have known about the Muller paper, but we conclude, Behe thinks incorrectly that evolution adds parts, one by one, as if organelles were made out of whole cloth. Muller recognized that parts were gradually modified to perform new functions, until eventually one or more parts became crucial. In 1939, he coined the term “interlocking complexity,” and thus anticipated Behe’s “discovery” by nearly 60 years.

Just Bob said: And one has to wonder why God would have Noah go to the (tremendous) trouble of saving representatives of all "kinds" of critters, if many of those "kinds" were slated for quick extinction, whether or not they hyper-evolved into all pre-deluge species. Didn't God know that their preservation was ultimately going to be a failure? And Henry, did Noah save plant species too? All species or just "kinds"? If he did, why isn't that mentioned in Genesis? Survival of plants is MORE critical to the biosphere of Earth than animals. We need plants--they don't need us! If Noah didn't save all "kinds" of plants, do you really think they all could have survived immersed in salt or brackish water for a year or so? Or did God save or re-create them magically? If He did that, then why didn't He do that with animals? And hey, why did He even NEED a flood and ark? He's GOD. He could kill precisely the people that needed killing without wrecking the whole planet, couldn't He? And Henry, how about answering these things WITHOUT going to the ICR, AIG or similar websites to find out what you're SUPPOSED to believe. Or does your belief system consist of "whatever ICR tells me I have to believe"?

Henry said:

phantomreader42 said:

Henry said:

Just Bob said:

Henry said:

Just Bob said: And which of Noah's sons (and the son's wife, presumably) had the clap?

Maybe none. At least from written European history, STDs haven't been around until 1494. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexually_transmitted_disease

No, fool, the maladies in question weren't identified as separate diseases, or recognized as being sexually transmitted until then. Among all the filth, fleas, lice and other vermin that infested our lovely Christian ancestors during the Middle Ages, who would have noticed that specifically gonorrheal infections only resulted from sex with a carrier? Especially when some carriers can be asymptomatic. You try not bathing all year, wearing the same clothes every day, and sleeping in a filthy hovel with several other folks with similar hygiene habits and some livestock. Throw in a bad diet. See if you don't break out with an infection or two "down there," even without any contact with a gonorrhea carrier. How would anyone know the difference, or even suspect that THOSE blisters are an STD, but THESE are just infected flea bites? Hell, some STDs were not recognized as "ST" until a few years ago.

If it's true that during the Middle Ages people didn't know how STDs were transmitted, what excuses do 21st century Americans have?

Your cult has been lying about the cause of disease for centuries, claiming it's due to demons. How many millions have died in agony due to such idiocy? How many billions more will you murder with your lies?

Since Roe v wade, abortions have taken the lives of 50+ million unborn Americans. Did you take that into your considerations?