The DI's list of "Darwin doubters" analyzed

The Dishonesty Institute's list of Darwin dissenters was started in 2001, and several signatories have since died. Do they remove those names, or keep them?

Paul Burnett said: The Dishonesty Institute's list of Darwin dissenters was started in 2001, and several signatories have since died. Do they remove those names, or keep them?

I don't think it practical to expect the DI to routinely verify that everyone on their list is alive. Likewise for the NCSE and its list. If anyone sees a list of hundreds of people that was started in 2001 and does realize that many of them are likely to have died then they are profoundly stupid.

As for debunking the DI list, one should point out that large numbers of the signers of the DI list do accept common descent though the list is often used to attack "evolution." Someone asked them in the early part of the last decade.

Pretty much any evolutionary biologist could sign the DI statement if they failed to comprehend what the list's real purpose is. After all, things other than natural selection and mutation clearly do affect evolution. Consider the asteroid that took out the non-avian dinosaurs. Also the mitochondria's origins includes an event that does not fit what most people call a "mutation."

It is traditional that the DI retain the signatures of dead people as they are capable of communicating with the dead through their spiritual contacts. I recall too that some people had changed their minds and requested removal of their names from the list, but the DI rejected their requests.

I wonder if their list is similar to an older one they had which turned out to be joke.
See the video critique of the sham below as it's very interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM&feature=plcp

Paul Burnett said: The Dishonesty Institute's list of Darwin dissenters was started in 2001, and several signatories have since died. Do they remove those names, or keep them?

Didn't strike me as much of an analysis, and not very useful.

Yes, of course since this is a creationist PR exercise, what these people agreed to bears very little resemblance to what they are represented as having agreed to. But how many of the signers really were legitimately tricked by this? Any? I've heard rumors of one or two, which isn't many.

So maybe another approach is to examine the religious orientations of the signers. How many can be associated in one way or another with fundagelicism? It seems clear to me that correlating the signers with religious position would be FAR more informative than correlating them with relevance of their specializatons.

Really, how important is it that 60% of the Steve List are in closely related fields, and only 30% of the DI list? Wouldn't we learn a LOT more if we found that 1% of the Steve List and 99% of the DI list were creationists? (And there's always going to be 1% who don't understand what they're signing).

Of course, trying to pin down the religious orientation of 840 people isn't an armchair task - it's going to require some serious legwork. At least serious enough to require funding. And who would fund such a task?

I did a short item on why Darwin could have signed the "Dissent from Darwin" statement:
http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2012/03/discotute-dissent-from-darwin.html

And, we should bear in mind that people have tried to leave the Disco'tutes list. Even people named Steve!:
http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2012/01/another-steve-leaves-dark-side.html

Gary_Hurd said: I did a short item on why Darwin could have signed the "Dissent from Darwin" statement: http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2012/03/discotute-dissent-from-darwin.html And, we should bear in mind that people have tried to leave the Disco'tutes list. Even people named Steve!: http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2012/01/another-steve-leaves-dark-side.html

Often associated with the DI petition and its growing length is the statement that "scientists increasingly doubt evolution" Scientific literature shows to the contrary that support for evolution continues to increase.

I'd guess that artificial selection would tend to reduce the number of variables involved, or at least the impact of variables that the people involved consider irrelevant.

But that's a difference of degree, not a difference in the basic principles.

Henry

The LIST is a reply to accusations NO scientists agree with creationists ideas and criticisms of many conclusions in origin issues.
It should be that any claim made in 'science" is sustained by the evidence alone.
however in these matters it quickly turns to a head count of degree-ed people agreeing or disagreeing with this or that.
In fact a favourite criticism of us is that authority is invoked instead of good old fashioned proof.
I would say its strange but it proves to me the lack of evidence and confidence in evidence of evolutionists.
They instinctively smell their case is very light if pressed for evidence.
In "other" science subjects invoking head counts to back up assertions never happens.
They don't need too.
The evidence is there and not realizing it is a reflection on those who don't.
Say no more.

Origin issues are always difficult to prove.
They are about past and gone events and processes.

The list here shows a great problem with evolution etc.
it shouldn't have such dissent.
The dissent here is already proof evolution has failed to be a scientific conclusion and after all this time such dissent is a hint of the future.
Evolutionism really was always just lines of reasoning and speculation.
We are at the beginning of the end for ToE.
YEC was always here but ID and the well degree-ed folks thereof really settleing the thing.

harold said:

Gary_Hurd said: I did a short item on why Darwin could have signed the "Dissent from Darwin" statement: http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2012/03/discotute-dissent-from-darwin.html And, we should bear in mind that people have tried to leave the Disco'tutes list. Even people named Steve!: http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2012/01/another-steve-leaves-dark-side.html

This comment intended as a friendly expansion on the topic. "Artificial" selection is a form of natural selection. Humans are 100% natural and 100% animals. That's a point that atheists and people with traditional religious beliefs, as opposed to freakish right wing dystopian reality-denying hyper-ideologues, can all accept as obvious. "Artificial" selection is just one animal's behavior impacting on the evolution of other species it interacts with in the common environment. Certainly, humans are a bit more clever (in this specific context) than even our highly intelligent primate, canine, cephalopod and feline fellow travelers. We've selected for animals that voluntarily live within our grasp, whereas all foxes have ever selected for, highly intelligent though they are, is animals that are better at getting away from foxes (or good at being parasites on foxes, but in that respect, we're more equal). Although Darwin did the British thing of separating between "artificial" and "natural" selection, it's fairly clear that he understood that they are basically the same thing.

Robert Byers said: Origin issues are always difficult to prove.

Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

As far as I'm concerned, the real issue is whether there is any interesting criticism which calls into question our basic understanding of evolution. (For example, is there any way of accounting for the tree of life which does not involve common descent?) If there is only one person who has an interesting criticism, then let's hear about it.

Why has no one produced such an interesting criticism?

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said: Origin issues are always difficult to prove.

Since demonstrating confidence that a scientific theory is likely to be correct (science doesn't deal in "proof") requires evidence, how about some evidence for your version. --W. H. Heydt

Gary_Hurd said:

harold said:

Gary_Hurd said: I did a short item on why Darwin could have signed the "Dissent from Darwin" statement: http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2012/03/discotute-dissent-from-darwin.html And, we should bear in mind that people have tried to leave the Disco'tutes list. Even people named Steve!: http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2012/01/another-steve-leaves-dark-side.html

This comment intended as a friendly expansion on the topic. "Artificial" selection is a form of natural selection. Humans are 100% natural and 100% animals. That's a point that atheists and people with traditional religious beliefs, as opposed to freakish right wing dystopian reality-denying hyper-ideologues, can all accept as obvious. "Artificial" selection is just one animal's behavior impacting on the evolution of other species it interacts with in the common environment. Certainly, humans are a bit more clever (in this specific context) than even our highly intelligent primate, canine, cephalopod and feline fellow travelers. We've selected for animals that voluntarily live within our grasp, whereas all foxes have ever selected for, highly intelligent though they are, is animals that are better at getting away from foxes (or good at being parasites on foxes, but in that respect, we're more equal). Although Darwin did the British thing of separating between "artificial" and "natural" selection, it's fairly clear that he understood that they are basically the same thing.

I think that "artificial selection" could qualify as an example of mutualism. Yes, we tend to kill and eat the critters we raise. However, they do better than in the wild for the the time they have, and prize breeders do very well indeed.

Robert Byers said: The LIST is a reply to accusations NO scientists agree with creationists ideas and criticisms of many conclusions in origin issues. It should be that any claim made in 'science" is sustained by the evidence alone. however in these matters it quickly turns to a head count of degree-ed people agreeing or disagreeing with this or that. In fact a favourite criticism of us is that authority is invoked instead of good old fashioned proof. I would say its strange but it proves to me the lack of evidence and confidence in evidence of evolutionists. They instinctively smell their case is very light if pressed for evidence. In "other" science subjects invoking head counts to back up assertions never happens. They don't need too. The evidence is there and not realizing it is a reflection on those who don't. Say no more. Origin issues are always difficult to prove. They are about past and gone events and processes. The list here shows a great problem with evolution etc. it shouldn't have such dissent. The dissent here is already proof evolution has failed to be a scientific conclusion and after all this time such dissent is a hint of the future. Evolutionism really was always just lines of reasoning and speculation. We are at the beginning of the end for ToE. YEC was always here but ID and the well degree-ed folks thereof really settleing the thing.

Robert Byers said: The LIST is a reply to accusations NO scientists agree with creationists ideas and criticisms of many conclusions in origin issues. It should be that any claim made in 'science" is sustained by the evidence alone. however in these matters it quickly turns to a head count of degree-ed people agreeing or disagreeing with this or that. In fact a favourite criticism of us is that authority is invoked instead of good old fashioned proof. I would say its strange but it proves to me the lack of evidence and confidence in evidence of evolutionists. They instinctively smell their case is very light if pressed for evidence. In "other" science subjects invoking head counts to back up assertions never happens. They don't need too. The evidence is there and not realizing it is a reflection on those who don't. Say no more. Origin issues are always difficult to prove. They are about past and gone events and processes. The list here shows a great problem with evolution etc. it shouldn't have such dissent. The dissent here is already proof evolution has failed to be a scientific conclusion and after all this time such dissent is a hint of the future. Evolutionism really was always just lines of reasoning and speculation. We are at the beginning of the end for ToE. YEC was always here but ID and the well degree-ed folks thereof really settleing the thing.

Gary_Hurd said: I did a short item on why Darwin could have signed the "Dissent from Darwin" statement: http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2012/03/discotute-dissent-from-darwin.html And, we should bear in mind that people have tried to leave the Disco'tutes list. Even people named Steve!: http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2012/01/another-steve-leaves-dark-side.html

SLC said: I seem to recall that Richard Dawkins has stated that he, in good conscience, could sign such a statement.

Gary_Hurd said: I did a short item on why Darwin could have signed the "Dissent from Darwin" statement: http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2012/03/discotute-dissent-from-darwin.html And, we should bear in mind that people have tried to leave the Disco'tutes list. Even people named Steve!: http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2012/01/another-steve-leaves-dark-side.html

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said: Origin issues are always difficult to prove.

Since demonstrating confidence that a scientific theory is likely to be correct (science doesn't deal in "proof") requires evidence, how about some evidence for your version. --W. H. Heydt

Rolf said: Robert, did you study the list, how many YEC’s do you find there? Dembski, Behe?

Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

Creationists, both ID and YEC don’t study the evidence; they read the Bible. Do you study the evidence?

I have in the subjects I care about studied the best they got for why they make their conclusions.

Robert Byers said: For YEC the bible is our claim for what happened. then we take on anything thrown against this. We debunk our oppositions evidence. Thats all we have to do. For explaining things we speculate with the best of them. Evidence for our side is simply interoperating data in the field more accurately.

Robert Byers said: The LIST is a reply to accusations NO scientists agree with creationists ideas and criticisms of many conclusions in origin issues. It should be that any claim made in 'science" is sustained by the evidence alone. however in these matters it quickly turns to a head count of degree-ed people agreeing or disagreeing with this or that. In fact a favourite criticism of us is that authority is invoked instead of good old fashioned proof. I would say its strange but it proves to me the lack of evidence and confidence in evidence of evolutionists. They instinctively smell their case is very light if pressed for evidence. In "other" science subjects invoking head counts to back up assertions never happens. They don't need too. The evidence is there and not realizing it is a reflection on those who don't. Say no more. Origin issues are always difficult to prove. They are about past and gone events and processes. The list here shows a great problem with evolution etc. it shouldn't have such dissent. The dissent here is already proof evolution has failed to be a scientific conclusion and after all this time such dissent is a hint of the future. Evolutionism really was always just lines of reasoning and speculation. We are at the beginning of the end for ToE. YEC was always here but ID and the well degree-ed folks thereof really settleing the thing.

Robert Byers said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said: Origin issues are always difficult to prove.

Since demonstrating confidence that a scientific theory is likely to be correct (science doesn't deal in "proof") requires evidence, how about some evidence for your version. --W. H. Heydt

For YEC the bible is our claim for what happened. then we take on anything thrown against this. We debunk our oppositions evidence. Thats all we have to do. For explaining things we speculate with the best of them. Evidence for our side is simply interoperating data in the field more accurately.

Robert Byers said:

Rolf said: Robert, did you study the list, how many YEC’s do you find there? Dembski, Behe?

Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

Creationists, both ID and YEC don’t study the evidence; they read the Bible. Do you study the evidence?

I have in the subjects I care about studied the best they got for why they make their conclusions. I find it fails in evidence or proper scientific investigation. The latter because investigation in origin subjects is difficult and repeating process, to demonstrate process, non existent.

Will Byers ever get around to reading Endless Forms Most Beautiful (a popular level book about
evo-devo) and then to "enlightening" us about all the geology that is supposedly part of evo-devo?

Will Byers ever get around to explaining why the particular Designer he seems to believe in would intentionally put broken genes (such as the Vitamin C pseudogene and hemoglobin pseudogene) in the same places in humans, chimps, bonobos, gorillas and other primates? We especially want to know why these defective genes often have exact matching defects (in both humans and other primates). As geneticists have discovered, the hemoglobin pseudogene has six defects. This includes a particular defective stop switch in middle of the pseudogene that is a triple-copy; these six defects (including the particular off switch which is, again, a triple-copy defect) are in the exact same places in humans, chimps, bonobos, gorillas.

Will Byers ever tell Biology-online.org (click here for indirect link) to remove anatomy, ethology (the study of animal behavior) and biogeography from the list of sub-fields within biology?

Will Byers........oh, never mind.

(but if per chance Byers does get around to these questions, they perhaps would be better posted in the Bathroom Wall)

so creationist being wrong about origin issues just reading they bible and deciding without any evidences what to believe and not to Then ridiculing everyone else who doesnt agreement even if they have all of the evidences on origins if i just remaining ignorant of everything that everyone actually is saying then i can be cling to bible nonsense and not being persuaded of nothing no how

besides we can make up lists of non scientific types who are disagreeing, even if i am saying that authority is not good for origin issues i can just make a double standards and believe anyone i want who i claim is authority and ignoring all others regardless as long as they are disagreeing Still i be having no answers for the actual evidences, but no one is caring if i am obtuse enough for comprehension anywise

oh and if you are not to agree i can always just claim you are not doing biology or maybe you are not doing science i will have to decide what you are not doing based on my not looking at any evidences on origins

Keelyn said: Yes, we should stop feeding the Booby troll.

apokryltaros said:

Keelyn said: Yes, we should stop feeding the Booby troll.

If we should not feed the troll, then why is the troll allowed to disrupt every thread it infests in the first place?

apokryltaros said:

Keelyn said: Yes, we should stop feeding the Booby troll.

If we should not feed the troll, then why is the troll allowed to disrupt every thread it infests in the first place?

Say no more.

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

Has no one mentioned the incident of the book A Hundred Authors Against Einstein?

Of course, one aspect is that Darwin was wrong about a lot of particulars. Evolutionary theory has advanced way beyond what Darwin could have even thought possible.

Of course, that's the way it is with creationists. Their entire belief structure is based on old writings. They assume that our entire 'belief structure' is based on Darwin.

But just like with evolution, these creationists utterly fail when considering the modern research into their own holy book. They just can't accept that much of what they were taught is completely wrong (and they ignore the rest... like 'thou shalt not lie').

It's why we will never be able to convince any Tru Believer(tm). How they think is completely opposite from how science actually works. They believe in authority and certainty, not probability and support. Change in belief can only come from within one's self and people like Bobby, FL, even Dembski and Luskin, do not have the strength of character to change. Heck, they have been programmed by their religion to not change, not question.

I'm willing to consider that Dembski and the rest of the DI crowd to really understand science. But that just makes them liars and hypocrites rather than stupid.

I don't see much point in arguing with Robert Byers, but technically, he isn't a troll.

His comments, to the best that they can be understood, simply describe the YEC position. He can't be convinced, but he doesn't post in excessive volume, and is quite civil. He is a rare creationist who describes and defends his own position, sometimes with surprising, if perhaps unintentional, candor.

Obviously I think his position is totally unreasonable, to put it mildly, but merely holding a different position does not make him a troll.

Even Steve P. is a very mild troll.

Now, if you want to see a troll, the person? Family? Compound? Rotating team? That calls itself IBIG may still be active on the BW for all I know.

Rolf said: Robert said:

I have in the subjects I care about studied the best they got for why they make their conclusions.

Please give an example of "the best they got" that you have studied. To name just a very few,like Ernst Mayr, Sean B. Carroll, Neil Shubin, Jeffrey K. McKee, Richard Dawkins, S.J. Gould, Willima F. Loomis, Mark S. Blumberg or Jonathan Weiner (Beak of the Finch), Ted Nield,Iris Fry - even Elaine Morgan, I presume? With a keen interest like yours, you must have quite a library at hand. Those are just the few books I have on my own bookshelf. Add to that those I have given away, library loans - and yet there are hundreds of books that I wish I had read. I also read all the science news I can find time to browse on the Internet. Now, honestly tell us whether you are a conscientious student of evolutionary biology or just the crackpot creationist we find in your writings. I think you are lying, you do not speak the truth like a Christian is obliged to. You have not made a honest effort of learning the facts from the people who knows, the scientists themselves. Prove me wrong.

TomS said:

Robert Byers said: For YEC the bible is our claim for what happened. then we take on anything thrown against this. We debunk our oppositions evidence. Thats all we have to do. For explaining things we speculate with the best of them. Evidence for our side is simply interoperating data in the field more accurately.

Do you agree with the Bible that the Sun goes around a stationary Earth? Or do you allow naturalistic evidence and human reasoning to influence your interpretation of the Bible to accept a heliocentric model of the Solar System? For something like 2000 years (500 BC to AD 1500), everybody agreed that the Bible said that the Earth was fixed. Since then, almost everybody came to accept modern science. That includes most YECs, who do not "take on everything thrown against this", but rather accommodate to modern science.

KlausH said:

Robert Byers said: The LIST is a reply to accusations NO scientists agree with creationists ideas and criticisms of many conclusions in origin issues. It should be that any claim made in 'science" is sustained by the evidence alone. however in these matters it quickly turns to a head count of degree-ed people agreeing or disagreeing with this or that. In fact a favourite criticism of us is that authority is invoked instead of good old fashioned proof. I would say its strange but it proves to me the lack of evidence and confidence in evidence of evolutionists. They instinctively smell their case is very light if pressed for evidence. In "other" science subjects invoking head counts to back up assertions never happens. They don't need too. The evidence is there and not realizing it is a reflection on those who don't. Say no more. Origin issues are always difficult to prove. They are about past and gone events and processes. The list here shows a great problem with evolution etc. it shouldn't have such dissent. The dissent here is already proof evolution has failed to be a scientific conclusion and after all this time such dissent is a hint of the future. Evolutionism really was always just lines of reasoning and speculation. We are at the beginning of the end for ToE. YEC was always here but ID and the well degree-ed folks thereof really settleing the thing.

Then WHY DIDN'T THEY ASK ABOUT ORIGINS OR EVOLUTION? The statement that was actually signed said that the signer (often NOT a scientist) was skeptical of Darwinism (which is variation plus natural selection) explaining ALL biological features, nad and that evidence should be evaluated (which creationists rarely do). There was nothing in it that can be construed as "shows a great problem with evolution".

Tenncrain said: Will Byers ever get around to reading Endless Forms Most Beautiful (a popular level book about evo-devo) and then to "enlightening" us about all the geology that is supposedly part of evo-devo? Will Byers ever get around to explaining why the particular Designer he seems to believe in would intentionally put broken genes (such as the Vitamin C pseudogene and hemoglobin pseudogene) in the same places in humans, chimps, bonobos, gorillas and other primates? We especially want to know why these defective genes often have exact matching defects (in both humans and other primates). As geneticists have discovered, the hemoglobin pseudogene has six defects. This includes a particular defective stop switch in middle of the pseudogene that is a triple-copy; these six defects (including the particular off switch which is, again, a triple-copy defect) are in the exact same places in humans, chimps, bonobos, gorillas. Will Byers ever tell Biology-online.org (click here for indirect link) to remove anatomy, ethology (the study of animal behavior) and biogeography from the list of sub-fields within biology? Will Byers........oh, never mind. (but if per chance Byers does get around to these questions, they perhaps would be better posted in the Bathroom Wall)

Robert Byers said: The bible never said nothing about these things. its just basic conversations were recorded. We still stay sunrise/sunset. Its neutral. tHere are no errors in the bible about nature. in fact if it was not God's word it could only be there would be error a plenty since men were full of errors. Yet its clean.

So Robert, since you are so knowledgable, explain to us why there is a nested hierarchy of SINE insertions in primates and why it is consistent with the phylogeny drawn from the fossil record and every other genetic data set. Why did god copy the mistakes? Was she just stupid and careless? Explain it to us Robert, or STFU forever.

P.S. No creationist has ever given an credible explanation for this data, so don't even try to pretend.

DS said: P.S. No creationist has ever given an credible explanation for this data, so don't even try to pretend.

Robert Byers said: The bible never said nothing about these things. its just basic conversations were recorded. We still stay sunrise/sunset. Its neutral. tHere are no errors in the bible about nature. in fact if it was not God's word it could only be there would be error a plenty since men were full of errors. Yet its clean.

Evolutionary biology is a simple idea.

Helena Constantine said: I will draw attention to the unpleasant fact that one's ability to use language is diagnostic of basic intelligence. I was originally moved to write this post when I saw the bizarre misusage of words like "patenting" and "studious." They really jump out at you. I will leave it to the reader to determine the correctness of Byers' use of the word "dishonest." And not to seem schoolmarmish, but while there are many cases (esp. in languages other than English), where the double-negative is fine, the post quoted above is so preposterous it would make a parodist look clumsy.

Remember, this is the same guy who claimed that genetics was "atomic and unproven". Now he is claiming expertise in the relevant fields of study in order to judge the validity of the modern theory of evolution. Yea, right. And I bet he's qualified to judge the theory of relativity as well, at least in his own mind.

Hey, maybe we could get him to sign that list of doubters. You know, the one that was the topic of this thread before Bobby was allowed to trash it up with his crap. That would be the best condemnation of such lists that I can think of.

DS said: Hey, maybe we could get him to sign that list of doubters. You know, the one that was the topic of this thread before Bobby was allowed to trash it up with his crap. That would be the best condemnation of such lists that I can think of.

Robert Byers wheezed, through an opium-induced semi-consciousness: tHere are no errors in the bible about nature.

Robert Byers said: tHere are no errors in the bible about nature.

Chad Finley said:

Robert Byers wheezed, through an opium-induced semi-consciousness: tHere are no errors in the bible about nature.

Bats aren't birds. Idiot.

Nor do grasshoppers have 4 legs.

Nor does making sheep look at peeled sticks affect the wool color of their offspring.

Nor is the mustard seed the smallest of all seeds.

Nor is there a mountain anywhere in the world from which one can see "all nations".

Nor is the moon a "lesser light". It's just a reflector.

Want more, Robert?

Nor, in this space/time continuum, can there possibly be a round object with a circumference of 30 and a diameter of 10!

Nor do rabbits "chew the cud".

Nor are rainbows "in the cloud".

Is there a "firmament" in the sky, Robert, with windows in it that have to be opened to let rain through? Is that what causes rain?

Just Bob said: Nor are rainbows "in the cloud".

Scott F said:

Just Bob said: Nor are rainbows "in the cloud".

Now, to be fair, if you've every looked down at the shadow of your airplane on a cloud below, you can usually see a circular rainbow "in the cloud". :-)

Hmm... You must be right about that. But god was talking to Noah, and surely describing rainbows that Noah could have seen to be reminded of the "covenant". And any Noah could have seen might have been IN FRONT of A BACKDROP OF CLOUDS, but not "in the cloud".

And hey, I can make a rainbow in my yard on a sunny day with nary a cloud in the sky! There's a fair chance that a many-hundeds-of-years-old guy like Noah would have been familiar with such rainbows. All it takes is some sort of spray or mist with the sun behind you.

So Robert, were the refractive properties of light different during the ~1700 years between creation and the flood?

TomS said:

Robert Byers said: The bible never said nothing about these things. its just basic conversations were recorded. We still stay sunrise/sunset. Its neutral. tHere are no errors in the bible about nature. in fact if it was not God's word it could only be there would be error a plenty since men were full of errors. Yet its clean.

The exact same thing can be said about evolution as you say about the motion of the Earth. But the modern change of attitude toward what the Bible has to say about the motion of the Earth is due to the acceptance of modern naturalistic science. Everyone is free to construct their own scriptural interpretations, accepting some of modern science while rejecting some. I don't intend to change your mind about what you accept. But I ask people to recognize that they pick and choose which science they take to influence what they see in the Bible.

Really.

Are you writing that with a straight face?

Helena Constantine said:

Robert Byers said: The bible never said nothing about these things. its just basic conversations were recorded. We still stay sunrise/sunset. Its neutral. tHere are no errors in the bible about nature. in fact if it was not God's word it could only be there would be error a plenty since men were full of errors. Yet its clean.

I won't draw attention to that fact that almost every ancient text, including the Bible, envisions a geocentric cosmology, and Byers' denial is just sophistry and bearing false-witness, or to the fact that biogeography in an intrinsic part of evolutionary theory and that both evolution and creationism make predictions about biogeography and those predictions are different and the facts that are actually observed agree with evolutionary predictions, instead I will draw attention to the unpleasant fact that one's ability to use language is diagnostic of basic intelligence. I was originally moved to write this post when I saw the bizarre misusage of words like "patenting" and "studious." They really jump out at you. I will leave it to the reader to determine the correctness of Byers' use of the word "dishonest." And not to seem schoolmarmish, but while there are many cases (esp. in languages other than English), where the double-negative is fine, the post quoted above is so preposterous it would make a parodist look clumsy.

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said: tHere are no errors in the bible about nature.

The Bible says... Whales are fish. (They aren't. They're mammals.) Bats are birds. (They aren't. Bats are mammals.) Grasshoppers have 4 legs. (They have 6 legs.) The Earth has "four corners", and they're visible from a single mountain top. (An oblate spheroid has no corners and how much of it you can see from any single point is limited.) The Sun can be made to stop in the sky. (Implies a fixed Earth with the Sun traveling around it. No other record keeping culture noticed this happening, despite good historical data running right through the period in question.) All of those are part of nature and the Bible is wrong on every one of them. --W. H. Heydt

Just Bob said: Nor do grasshoppers have 4 legs. Nor does making sheep look at peeled sticks affect the wool color of their offspring. Nor is the mustard seed the smallest of all seeds. Nor is there a mountain anywhere in the world from which one can see "all nations". Nor is the moon a "lesser light". It's just a reflector. Want more, Robert?

Robert Byers said: The sun stopping probably was the earth stopping and its just use of language.

Just Bob said: Hmm... You must be right about that. But god was talking to Noah, and surely describing rainbows that Noah could have seen to be reminded of the "covenant". And any Noah could have seen might have been IN FRONT of A BACKDROP OF CLOUDS, but not "in the cloud". And hey, I can make a rainbow in my yard on a sunny day with nary a cloud in the sky! There's a fair chance that a many-hundeds-of-years-old guy like Noah would have been familiar with such rainbows. All it takes is some sort of spray or mist with the sun behind you. So Robert, were the refractive properties of light different during the ~1700 years between creation and the flood?

I think the Bible must say somewhere that the troll-chasers (and trolls) will inherit the Earth. Or its threads, anyway.

Fundamentalists do this all the time. The Bible means the literal when they say it means the literal, and it means the metaphorical when they say it means the metaphorical. There is simply no arguing with that. The Bible means what they say it means, and it's as simple as that.

There's no arguing with this. It's the perfect answer to every problem. Of course, the question is, how do they make up their minds which is which?

As we have seen with Byers, it's pretty simple. Where the Bible contradicts what he cannot deny is reality, it's a metaphor. Where it requires the impossible, it's a miracle. Where it contradicts itself, as when it refers to whales both by Hebrew words ("dag godol") that mean "great fish" (Jonah 1:17) and different words ("tanin") that may be translated as "sea monsters" or as "jackals" or "wild beasts" (Lamentations 4:3; the actual reading is disputed), it is simply right where it is right, and where it is wrong it is still right.

All you need to do this is a compound of ignorance and intellectual dishonesty. And never, never to question how you know which formula to apply.

Robert Byers said: i'm a thinker

Dave Luckett said: Fundamentalists do this all the time. The Bible means the literal when they say it means the literal, and it means the metaphorical when they say it means the metaphorical. There is simply no arguing with that. The Bible means what they say it means, and it's as simple as that. There's no arguing with this. It's the perfect answer to every problem. Of course, the question is, how do they make up their minds which is which?

the bible is rights no matter when its wrongs so i dont have to look at no evidences at alls thats why im such an experts in every field of sciences cause i dont have to actual learn anythings just read the bible and conclude that its rights even when its wrong see perfect logics

sign mes up for that awesome list cause im definately never gonna be believing in no evolution no hows

Fundamentalists do this all the time. The Bible means the literal when they say it means the literal, and it means the metaphorical when they say it means the metaphorical. There is simply no arguing with that. The Bible means what they say it means, and it’s as simple as that.

Just Bob said: Really. Are you writing that with a straight face?

Robert Byers said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said: tHere are no errors in the bible about nature.

The Bible says... Whales are fish. (They aren't. They're mammals.) Bats are birds. (They aren't. Bats are mammals.) Grasshoppers have 4 legs. (They have 6 legs.) The Earth has "four corners", and they're visible from a single mountain top. (An oblate spheroid has no corners and how much of it you can see from any single point is limited.) The Sun can be made to stop in the sky. (Implies a fixed Earth with the Sun traveling around it. No other record keeping culture noticed this happening, despite good historical data running right through the period in question.) All of those are part of nature and the Bible is wrong on every one of them. --W. H. Heydt

Can't go point by point but for example the bible doesn't say whales are fish and in fact mentions they milk their kids. A good observation for those days. The sun stopping probably was the earth stopping and its just use of language. The bible says a book was written about whjen it happen but is now lost. Perhaps greater details.

Robert Byers said: i'm a thinker and not attentive to the forgotten ideas from English class. As long as articulation takes place words and commas don't matter.

W. H. Heydt said: As it is, one of the early church father (St. Paul, wasn't it?) wrote a letter admonishing Christians not to make stupid statements to non-Christians about what is in the Bible that those non-Christians knew to be false from their own observations of nature because it worked against any chance of religious conversions.

W. H. Heydt said: Nearly every person of any real intellectual standing that I have ever met has been able to spell correctly and use proper grammar, both in speech and in writing. The only exceptions that I have seen were those for whom English was not their native language, and even then, the mistakes are far fewer and make sense if one has any sort of acquaintance with the person's native language. Such exceptions also tend to take gentle corrections well (and often ask that native speakers correct any errors they spot) and don't try to defend such errors.

Jesus H. Christ on a shingle, you are talking about someone who cannot spell Dna correctly, then declares himself a scientific expert due to his years of study! He is either really this stupid or this rude or both. The only thing dumber than Byers is not being able to automatically block his insipid comments.

Does anyone care about who doesn't accept evolutionary biology? Isn't the issue whether they have good reasons - or even just interesting reasons - or even just an articulated alternative? In particular, why should we be concerned about a particular writer to the Panda's Thumb? Let's just talk about the ideas, rather than personalities. IMHO.

Robert Byers said: i'm a thinker

TomS said: Does anyone care about who doesn't accept evolutionary biology? Isn't the issue whether they have good reasons - or even just interesting reasons - or even just an articulated alternative? In particular, why should we be concerned about a particular writer to the Panda's Thumb? Let's just talk about the ideas, rather than personalities. IMHO.

TomS said:

W. H. Heydt said: As it is, one of the early church father (St. Paul, wasn't it?) wrote a letter admonishing Christians not to make stupid statements to non-Christians about what is in the Bible that those non-Christians knew to be false from their own observations of nature because it worked against any chance of religious conversions.

I believe that is Augustine, On the Literal Meaning of Genesis, I, xix, 39

Robert Byers said: it's always been taught that it never rained before the flood. So rainbows would not be seen. The world was watered by a powerful dew. [...] anyways the rainbow would be notable for its size and ones in waterfalls etc are beside the point. [...] yet as i said its always been presumed it never rain and never rainbowed.

Robert Byers said:

Tenncrain said: Will Byers ever get around to explaining why the particular Designer he seems to believe in would intentionally put broken genes (such as the Vitamin C pseudogene and hemoglobin pseudogene) in the same places in humans, chimps, bonobos, gorillas and other primates? We especially want to know why these defective genes often have exact matching defects (in both humans and other primates). As geneticists have discovered, the hemoglobin pseudogene has six defects. This includes a particular defective stop switch in middle of the pseudogene that is a triple-copy; these six defects (including the particular off switch which is, again, a triple-copy defect) are in the exact same places in humans, chimps, bonobos, gorillas. Will Byers ever tell Biology-online.org (click here for indirect link) to remove anatomy, ethology (the study of animal behavior) and biogeography from the list of sub-fields within biology?

These are not my subjects and other creationists can handle them fine. If these are your best points then its sorry collection . they are minor points even if they made a good point.

Robert Byers said: Biogeography has nothing to do with biological investigation of origins of biological systems and results.

Robert Byers said: ..., as if sensing the poverty of evidence themselves, they invoke unrelated subjects and raise them in importantce as evidences for ToE.

Robert Byers said: In short if evolutionary ideas are not true then there couldn't be evidence for them. Much less the high standard of evidence gathering called the scientific method. I say by new and close attention to the claimed evidences for evolution one will find it non existent as biological evidence. YEC always said this

Robert Byers said: and ID WELL DEGREE-ED folks of late arte famous and smelling awards in a future rejecting old man Darwin.

“there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred”

Robert Byers said: i'm a thinker and not attentive to the forgotten ideas from English class. As long as articulation takes place words and commas don't matter. I try to watch and not be too irritating and its good enough. Yes some basic convictions on writing are in error as a accurate analysis will show. The folks should do such analysis on evolutionary biology evidence claims.

apokryltaros said:

Just Bob said: Really. Are you writing that with a straight face?

He is, and he really is that stupid.

Just in case any of the other YECs out there decide to take up Tenncrain's challenge: You also need to explain why guinea pigs have a completely different broken gene stopping them from producing vitamin C.

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said:

Tenncrain said: Will Byers ever get around to explaining why the particular Designer he seems to believe in would intentionally put broken genes (such as the Vitamin C pseudogene and hemoglobin pseudogene) in the same places in humans, chimps, bonobos, gorillas and other primates? We especially want to know why these defective genes often have exact matching defects (in both humans and other primates). As geneticists have discovered, the hemoglobin pseudogene has six defects. This includes a particular defective stop switch in middle of the pseudogene that is a triple-copy; these six defects (including the particular off switch which is, again, a triple-copy defect) are in the exact same places in humans, chimps, bonobos, gorillas. Will Byers ever tell Biology-online.org (click here for indirect link) to remove anatomy, ethology (the study of animal behavior) and biogeography from the list of sub-fields within biology?

These are not my subjects and other creationists can handle them fine. If these are your best points then its sorry collection . they are minor points even if they made a good point.

Well, if they are not your subjects at the moment, how do you really know about them? How do you really know the points are "sorry" and "minor"? For instance, it would greatly help your cause to provide detailed scientific data why exact matching genetic defects in the exact same places in humans and other primates does not support a nested hierarchy, does not support common descent. Even though you admit you don't know enough to attempt this right away, that by itself is not a huge sin. Look at me, I never took physics, and frankly I was a bit intimidated by the subject. But I took the plunge and did some self-study over several months and in the process shed many misconceptions I had learned while growing up a YEC, including how basic physics works in radiometric dating. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html If you really had read all of Endless Forms Most Beautiful or any other popular level book about evo-devo, you could successfully point out all the geology that's supposedly in evo-devo, you would confirm what you have claimed all along and put your critics in their place. Why the hesitation of not reading the book after all this time?

Robert Byers said: Biogeography has nothing to do with biological investigation of origins of biological systems and results.

What does the "bio" in bio-geography mean? Tell us, since you claim to be so knowledgeable.

Robert Byers said: ..., as if sensing the poverty of evidence themselves, they invoke unrelated subjects and raise them in importantce as evidences for ToE.

Such "unrelated" subjects like bio-geography? Like evolutionary biology? Like developmental biology? Like evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo)?

Robert Byers said: In short if evolutionary ideas are not true then there couldn't be evidence for them. Much less the high standard of evidence gathering called the scientific method. I say by new and close attention to the claimed evidences for evolution one will find it non existent as biological evidence. YEC always said this

Even three decades ago, YECism was impotent within the scientific community. During the 1981 McLean vs Arkansas trial, the defendants (creation scientists) had a grand opportunity to show their stuff, yet they did not provide even one example of a creationist paper that had been turned down by a mainstream science peer-review journal. The trial was such a debacle for the defendants, even one of the lead expert witnesses for the defense testified that no rational scientist accepts a young earth or world Flood! YECism did virtually no science then, they do virtually none now.

Robert Byers said: and ID WELL DEGREE-ED folks of late arte famous and smelling awards in a future rejecting old man Darwin.

Then why did even ID sensation Michael Behe admit to agreeing with this court statement?

“there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred”

Oh, why do you so strongly support ID folks like Behe when Behe accepts an old earth, rejects a world Flood, and even accepts common descent which so vastly contradicts your own YEC views?

Wouldn't it be a good idea to remove Robert from our sight? All he does is posting over and over again the same message: There is no evidence for evolution, ToE will soon be dead, YEC is true and we better believe him. He is a thinker and doesn't have to study the evidence. Besides there ain't noe evidence for evolution.

He said it, we heard him, end of story.

Let his vomit default to the BW and make him a thread of his own at AtBC if he need to defecate.

Yes, we need to be saved. We're helpless!! Every time Byers posts some of his inanity, we are forced to post multiple responses, and divert all our resources from the original discussion. Mr. Moderator, save us!

I guess it thinks that incoherence is a strategy.

Looking at the list of Darwin dissenters, I note there are four dissenters from "Biola University," the former Bible Institute Of Los Angeles. There's only one dissenter from Liberty "University," and none from Bob Jones "University."

I had forgotten that Director of the Biologic Institute Douglas Axe's doctorate is in Chemical Engineering (not biology), from the California Institute of Technology.

And going back to my original question, there are seven dissenters who are noted as deceased but who are still on the list.

Joe Felsenstein said: Yes, we need to be saved. We're helpless!! Every time Byers posts some of his inanity, we are forced to post multiple responses, and divert all our resources from the original discussion. Mr. Moderator, save us!

I mostly leave Byers in because he so beautifully illustrates the creationist mindset, one I'm familiar with from extended local experience. Let me say it plainly: Byers is not an aberration, not an outlier. In spite of being Canadian, he represents a non-trivial segment of the U.S. creationist population, and is a clear refutation of the notion that if only they were better educated in science they'd abandon their anti-science and anti-evolution positions. Not a few folks on 'our' side believe that, but for those in the Ken Ham presuppositionalist camp--where Byers resides--it's plainly false. And he is not alone.

Richard B. Hoppe said: I mostly leave Byers in because he so beautifully illustrates the creationist mindset, one I'm familiar with from extended local experience.

Let me say it plainly: Byers is not an aberration, not an outlier. In spite of being Canadian, he represents a non-trivial segment of the U.S. creationist population, and is a clear refutation of the notion that if only they were better educated in science they'd abandon their anti-science and anti-evolution positions.

Sure, go ahead and let him post. But don't complain when he gets the ridicule he so richly deserves. Seriously, I defy anyone to tell me what this means:

"The BIO in biogeography only refers to biological agents being here and there but not over there. Its unrelated to investigation of the agent outside or in. Its about spotting things and drawing conclusions how they got there and nothing to do with touching them ."

It isn't English, it isn't rational, it isn't an argument and it isn't comprehensible. Oh well, he is probably not alone is thinking that genetics is "atomic and unproven" either.

DS said: Sure, go ahead and let him post. But don't complain when he gets the ridicule he so richly deserves. Seriously, I defy anyone to tell me what this means: "The BIO in biogeography only refers to biological agents being here and there but not over there. Its unrelated to investigation of the agent outside or in. Its about spotting things and drawing conclusions how they got there and nothing to do with touching them ." It isn't English, it isn't rational, it isn't an argument and it isn't comprehensible. Oh well, he is probably not alone is thinking that genetics is "atomic and unproven" either.

apokryltaros said: Then why don't we have everyone who responds to Byers' Inanity For Jesus banned from Panda's Thumb so Byers can continue trolling and disrupting threads with his offensive stupidity in peace?

Robert Byers said:

Helena Constantine said:

Robert Byers said: The bible never said nothing about these things. its just basic conversations were recorded. We still stay sunrise/sunset. Its neutral. tHere are no errors in the bible about nature. in fact if it was not God's word it could only be there would be error a plenty since men were full of errors. Yet its clean.

I won't draw attention to that fact that almost every ancient text, including the Bible, envisions a geocentric cosmology, and Byers' denial is just sophistry and bearing false-witness, or to the fact that biogeography in an intrinsic part of evolutionary theory and that both evolution and creationism make predictions about biogeography and those predictions are different and the facts that are actually observed agree with evolutionary predictions, instead I will draw attention to the unpleasant fact that one's ability to use language is diagnostic of basic intelligence. I was originally moved to write this post when I saw the bizarre misusage of words like "patenting" and "studious." They really jump out at you. I will leave it to the reader to determine the correctness of Byers' use of the word "dishonest." And not to seem schoolmarmish, but while there are many cases (esp. in languages other than English), where the double-negative is fine, the post quoted above is so preposterous it would make a parodist look clumsy.

It doesn't matter what evert text said about nature. The bible is from God and got it right. It can't be shown it said anything about such details of the earth. i'm a thinker and not attentive to the forgotten ideas from English class. As long as articulation takes place words and commas don't matter. I try to watch and not be too irritating and its good enough. Yes some basic convictions on writing are in error as a accurate analysis will show. The folks should do such analysis on evolutionary biology evidence claims.

Robert Byers said:

Just Bob said: Nor do grasshoppers have 4 legs. Nor does making sheep look at peeled sticks affect the wool color of their offspring. Nor is the mustard seed the smallest of all seeds. Nor is there a mountain anywhere in the world from which one can see "all nations". Nor is the moon a "lesser light". It's just a reflector. Want more, Robert?

Again not point by point but a few points. The moon is a lesser light and doesn't mean it makes its own light. The shhep thing is a miracle. thats the point of the story. The mustard seed thing means to be as tenaciousits about faith, as that seed and is not about size. Etc.

Robert Byers said: it's always been taught that it never rained before the flood. So rainbows would not be seen. The world was watered by a powerful dew. These days YEC creationists are not sure the bible means it didn't rain before the flood. anyways the rainbow would be notable for its size and ones in waterfalls etc are beside the point. However its also a option the earth was so different after the flood that indeed reflective details were different. perhaps the earth tilted or something . I'm guessing. yet as i said its always been presumed it never rain and never rainbowed.

There it is again. “Articulation.” “convictions” He’s using ‘big words’ whose meaning he doesn’t understand.

It is only very rarely, if ever, that the Biblical Hebrew and Koine can be closely enough pinned down in translation as to be unequivocably caught out in an absolute error of everyday fact. As Helena Constantine says, the Hebrew words do not actually mean "insect" or "bird" or "leg" as we mean them. The celebrated passage in 1 Kings 7:23 onward describing the "sea" of Solomon, the great bronze vessel in the first Temple, which appears to say that the circumference is exactly three times the diameter of a circle, is also loose enough to allow for it to be accurate. The Hebrew word describing the vessel's shape probably means "round", not "perfect circle". An ellipse is round, in this sense. Or the language does not make plain whether the measure of the rim was inside or outside, and ditto for the diameter.

If the size and capacity of the thing is actually factual, and not a brag, the bronze would have had to be several inches thick at the rim. No wonder the writers thought it was something wonderful - that would have required enormous resources and wealth, in the ninth century BCE. In fact, the Bible devotes a great deal more space to a detailed and approving description of Solomon's sea than it does to proscribing homosexuality. How come fundamentalist churches don't go in for showy bronze objects, I wonder, since the Bible writers thought they were so important, and all?

Solomon's sea does not demonstrate that the Bible writers thought that pi=3. (They probably didn't think that.) But what it does show, and what the fundamentalists can never get into their pointy little heads, is that the people who wrote the Bible thought in terms different to the terms we think in and it is that which we read. The writers of that particular passage thought that the terrific wealth and power of Solomon, and the richness of his Temple, were worth spending a lot of time and trouble to extol. They were not writing down what God told them, they were writing down what they thought in the terms they thought it. "Consider the lilies," said Jesus, and that is a radically different thought. Actually subversive, by comparison.

Just think: the writers of 1 Kings thought it was really important to convey the sheer impressiveness of the Temple. Jesus plainly wasn't impressed. The real contradiction, the one that matters, is there, not in the question of what pi is equal to.

Joe Felsenstein said:

apokryltaros said: Then why don't we have everyone who responds to Byers' Inanity For Jesus banned from Panda's Thumb so Byers can continue trolling and disrupting threads with his offensive stupidity in peace?

In threads that I run, I send Byers to the Wall and anyone who troll-chases has those comments of theirs go there as well. This seems to work. There is no need to ban anyone -- that is the nice thing about having the Wall. Apparently Richard Hoppe has decided otherwise and does not mind having his threads turn into Byers-chasing sessions, considering it relevant enough.

Good, no early morning drive by. Maybe it realizes that everyone is just laughing at it. Maybe it realizes that providing your sworn enemy with ammunition is not the way to fight a war. Maybe it just slept in. Maybe its busy trying to sign the list of doubters. Maybe no one cares.

Joe Felsenstein said: Apparently Richard Hoppe has decided otherwise and does not mind having his threads turn into Byers-chasing sessions, considering it relevant enough.

Richard B. Hoppe said:

Joe Felsenstein said: Apparently Richard Hoppe has decided otherwise and does not mind having his threads turn into Byers-chasing sessions, considering it relevant enough.

Three remarks. First, I do not have 24 access to the Web to moderate in (close to) real time. Health issues preclude that. Second, there's the "This is what a lot of creationists are like" I mentioned above. Third, were it not for Byers, we wouldn't have neat clarifications like that of Helena Constantine above.

To every one else: There are a few biblical passages that talk about how, in the dry climate of Palestine, dew was a vital part of sustaining grape vines. Byres doesn’t understand them, so he assumes they are some kind of miracle or something.

Richard B. Hoppe said: Three remarks. First, I do not have 24 access to the Web to moderate in (close to) real time. Health issues preclude that. Second, there's the "This is what a lot of creationists are like" I mentioned above. Third, were it not for Byers, we wouldn't have neat clarifications like that of Helena Constantine above.

SteveP. said: Helen, you seem to be saying that since dew is mentioned in the bible, it means it rained as well. In your opinion, is dew caused by rain?

To every one else: There are a few biblical passages that talk about how, in the dry climate of Palestine, dew was a vital part of sustaining grape vines. Byres doesn’t understand them, so he assumes they are some kind of miracle or something.

SteveP appears to acknowledge the existence of dew even though he doesn’t know about everything it implies about how matter behaves and how those same mechanisms that produce dew also produce to rain. Apparently Byers doesn’t get it either.

And rainbows require an index of refraction. Without the occurrence of a phenomenon such as the index of refraction, there would be no universe as we know it. Humans and talking snakes could not exist. There would be nobody to tempt and nobody to do the tempting and nobody to do the sinning that led to the deistic temper tantrum that produced a worldwide flood followed by a rainbow. There would be no water and no rain.

It is this kind of naiveté that reveals that ID/creationists don’t have even a middle school education in science. As Byers and SteveP illustrate so dramatically, it is not possible to carry on a dialog with people who shut down in middle school and have remained stubbornly shut down ever since.

Richard B. Hoppe said: I mostly leave Byers in because he so beautifully illustrates the creationist mindset, one I'm familiar with from extended local experience. Let me say it plainly: Byers is not an aberration, not an outlier. In spite of being Canadian, he represents a non-trivial segment of the U.S. creationist population, and is a clear refutation of the notion that if only they were better educated in science they'd abandon their anti-science and anti-evolution positions. Not a few folks on 'our' side believe that, but for those in the Ken Ham presuppositionalist camp--where Byers resides--it's plainly false. And he is not alone.

Malcolm said: Just in case any of the other YECs out there decide to take up Tenncrain's challenge: You also need to explain why guinea pigs have a completely different broken gene stopping them from producing vitamin C.

Tenncrain said:

Malcolm said: Just in case any of the other YECs out there decide to take up Tenncrain's challenge: You also need to explain why guinea pigs have a completely different broken gene stopping them from producing vitamin C.

Guess there were no takers. Actually, guinea pigs have the same broken Vitamin C gene (the GULO psuedogene) as humans, chimps, monkeys, etc. But humans and other primates with GULO psuedogenes have a very interesting feature: their GULO pseudogenes are broken in the exact same spot. BTW, most primates have the broken GULO gene. But more distantly related primates like Lemurs have fully functional GULO genes and thus like most mammals can make their own Vitamin C. However, the guinea pig GULO psuedogene is broken in a completely different location than humans, chimps, monkeys, etc. When you look at the big picture, this all of course again shows a nested hierarchy and again suggests common descent.

Tenncrain said:

Richard B. Hoppe said: I mostly leave Byers in because he so beautifully illustrates the creationist mindset, one I'm familiar with from extended local experience. Let me say it plainly: Byers is not an aberration, not an outlier. In spite of being Canadian, he represents a non-trivial segment of the U.S. creationist population, and is a clear refutation of the notion that if only they were better educated in science they'd abandon their anti-science and anti-evolution positions. Not a few folks on 'our' side believe that, but for those in the Ken Ham presuppositionalist camp--where Byers resides--it's plainly false. And he is not alone.

I'm also familiar with this mindset. Indeed, try having many of your relatives and close friends as YECs - after you become an ex-YEC. To be sure, I and a few friends/relatives have shed our YEC beliefs, so more science education does work for some (although I struggled for about a year even if mainly for spiritual reasons not scientific ones). But most friends/relatives still remain YECs at all costs and they display many of the eccentric mannerisms of the trolls here at PT. One individual YEC - who combined both the stupidity of Byers and the taunting of FL - tried to be particularly nasty. Guess this is the price an ex-YEC can pay for mutiny.

Tenncrain said: most friends/relatives still remain YECs at all costs and they display many of the eccentric mannerisms of the trolls here at PT. One individual YEC - who combined both the stupidity of Byers and the taunting of FL - tried to be particularly nasty. Guess this is the price an ex-YEC can pay for mutiny.

inadvertent post button

--[steve mcintyre] as an example of how denialism can exist before the science which it denies

for YEC there is a rich and elaborate structure of denial and apology for the bible as a historical record, the authors had no comprehension that these things were testable or empirical or whatever. creationists have just ridden along the body of science like some kind of sucker fish. "oh, look what they learned this week well lessee maybe Miss Georgia will use her form letter to write up how the bible predicted that already but these scientists don't even know what they have done anyway"

what is interesting to me is how is this different from the climate denialism phenomenon. Is it different? The bible is out there as a 'prediction' of sorts, but i can't see anything that is equivalent to climate change beliefs.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/KirCgV93wJhLm65myiH0mSwTlWCQuwnMxlI4xKqx#26847 said: what is interesting to me is how is this different from the climate denialism phenomenon. Is it different? The bible is out there as a 'prediction' of sorts, but i can't see anything that is equivalent to climate change beliefs.

I wonder, is there a list of those who choose not to believe in continental drift because that would mean that millions would die in earthquakes? Is there a list of those who refuse to believe that a meteor could impact the earth because that would mean mass extinction? IS there a list of those who don't want to believe in germs because that would mean that epidemics could happen?

Tenncrain said:

Malcolm said: Just in case any of the other YECs out there decide to take up Tenncrain's challenge: You also need to explain why guinea pigs have a completely different broken gene stopping them from producing vitamin C.

Guess there were no takers. Actually, guinea pigs have the same broken Vitamin C gene (the GULO psuedogene) as humans, chimps, monkeys, etc. But humans and other primates with GULO psuedogenes have a very interesting feature: their GULO pseudogenes are broken in the exact same spot. BTW, most primates have the broken GULO gene. But more distantly related primates like Lemurs have fully functional GULO genes and thus like most mammals can make their own Vitamin C. However, the guinea pig GULO psuedogene is broken in a completely different location than humans, chimps, monkeys, etc. When you look at the big picture, this all of course again shows a nested hierarchy and again suggests common descent.

DS said:

Tenncrain said:

Richard B. Hoppe said: I mostly leave Byers in because he so beautifully illustrates the creationist mindset, one I'm familiar with from extended local experience. Let me say it plainly: Byers is not an aberration, not an outlier. In spite of being Canadian, he represents a non-trivial segment of the U.S. creationist population, and is a clear refutation of the notion that if only they were better educated in science they'd abandon their anti-science and anti-evolution positions. Not a few folks on 'our' side believe that, but for those in the Ken Ham presuppositionalist camp--where Byers resides--it's plainly false. And he is not alone.

I'm also familiar with this mindset. Indeed, try having many of your relatives and close friends as YECs - after you become an ex-YEC. To be sure, I and a few friends/relatives have shed our YEC beliefs, so more science education does work for some (although I struggled for about a year even if mainly for spiritual reasons not scientific ones). But most friends/relatives still remain YECs at all costs and they display many of the eccentric mannerisms of the trolls here at PT. One individual YEC - who combined both the stupidity of Byers and the taunting of FL - tried to be particularly nasty. Guess this is the price an ex-YEC can pay for mutiny.

Been there, done that. Keep the faith brother (or lack thereof). I have been told everything from dinosaur infants on the ark (which makes no sense at all), to dinosaurs are still being caught today (they are just released to prevent them from suffering so there is conveniently no evidence), to all professors are all out to brainwash you (for some unknown reason, but apparently they are all gay so I guess that is sup[posed to explain it). Holidays, when the whole family gets together, can be a real trip that's for sure. And it doesn't matter how hard you try to avoid conflict or be peace maker, ironically enough the Jesus loves me crowd always seems to be out for blood.

It's as if some people judge the accuracy of an argument by how they feel about the conclusion.

Esp. with global warming - I for one certainly don't like its conclusions. But unfortunately, that's not one of the criteria.

Henry J said: It's as if some people judge the accuracy of an argument by how they feel about the conclusion.

Henry J said: It's as if some people judge the accuracy of an argument by how they feel about the conclusion.

The biggest sticking point is to be aware of the tendency and catch yourself doing it.

DS said: I wonder, is there a list of those who choose not to believe in continental drift because that would mean that millions would die in earthquakes? Is there a list of those who refuse to believe that a meteor could impact the earth because that would mean mass extinction? IS there a list of those who don't want to believe in germs because that would mean that epidemics could happen?

SLC said: At one time there were some scientists who were highly skeptical of continental drift, even as late as the 1960s. For example, George Gaylord Simpson was one of them.

DS said: I wonder, is there a list of those who choose not to believe in continental drift because that would mean that millions would die in earthquakes? Is there a list of those who refuse to believe that a meteor could impact the earth because that would mean mass extinction? IS there a list of those who don't want to believe in germs because that would mean that epidemics could happen?

A Swedish TV journalist and tv personality, Robert Aschberg, recently was interviewed on TV. He told that he'd been tricked out of 20 million SEK, hard earned and what was left after the IRS had done their job. With open eyes this skeptic, realistic and intelligent person had been into the lure for several years before finally wisening up.

Which goes to prove that the placebo principle works at all levels of human activity. The tales told and the promises made by TV pastors and all other kinds of tricksters, snake oil salesmen and what have you got - we are all vulnerable to them. If you have been indoctrinated (you can do it all by yourself too!) from an early age, you will have a hard time if ever you are to get out from whatever spell has been cast on you.

I grew up like a savage and had to find my own way, and decided the best bet was to go with science. Never regretted it.

Religious indoctrination from an early age programs and corrupts the brains of innocent children.How can they learn skepticism and respect for evidence and scientific thinking?

Dave Luckett said: It is only very rarely, if ever, that the Biblical Hebrew and Koine can be closely enough pinned down in translation as to be unequivocably caught out in an absolute error of everyday fact. As Helena Constantine says, the Hebrew words do not actually mean "insect" or "bird" or "leg" as we mean them. The celebrated passage in 1 Kings 7:23 onward describing the "sea" of Solomon, the great bronze vessel in the first Temple, which appears to say that the circumference is exactly three times the diameter of a circle, is also loose enough to allow for it to be accurate. The Hebrew word describing the vessel's shape probably means "round", not "perfect circle". An ellipse is round, in this sense. Or the language does not make plain whether the measure of the rim was inside or outside, and ditto for the diameter. If the size and capacity of the thing is actually factual, and not a brag, the bronze would have had to be several inches thick at the rim. No wonder the writers thought it was something wonderful - that would have required enormous resources and wealth, in the ninth century BCE. In fact, the Bible devotes a great deal more space to a detailed and approving description of Solomon's sea than it does to proscribing homosexuality. How come fundamentalist churches don't go in for showy bronze objects, I wonder, since the Bible writers thought they were so important, and all? Solomon's sea does not demonstrate that the Bible writers thought that pi=3. (They probably didn't think that.) But what it does show, and what the fundamentalists can never get into their pointy little heads, is that the people who wrote the Bible thought in terms different to the terms we think in and it is that which we read. The writers of that particular passage thought that the terrific wealth and power of Solomon, and the richness of his Temple, were worth spending a lot of time and trouble to extol. They were not writing down what God told them, they were writing down what they thought in the terms they thought it. "Consider the lilies," said Jesus, and that is a radically different thought. Actually subversive, by comparison. Just think: the writers of 1 Kings thought it was really important to convey the sheer impressiveness of the Temple. Jesus plainly wasn't impressed. The real contradiction, the one that matters, is there, not in the question of what pi is equal to.

KlausH said:

Dave Luckett said: It is only very rarely, if ever, that the Biblical Hebrew and Koine can be closely enough pinned down in translation as to be unequivocably caught out in an absolute error of everyday fact. As Helena Constantine says, the Hebrew words do not actually mean "insect" or "bird" or "leg" as we mean them. The celebrated passage in 1 Kings 7:23 onward describing the "sea" of Solomon, the great bronze vessel in the first Temple, which appears to say that the circumference is exactly three times the diameter of a circle, is also loose enough to allow for it to be accurate. The Hebrew word describing the vessel's shape probably means "round", not "perfect circle". An ellipse is round, in this sense. Or the language does not make plain whether the measure of the rim was inside or outside, and ditto for the diameter. If the size and capacity of the thing is actually factual, and not a brag, the bronze would have had to be several inches thick at the rim. No wonder the writers thought it was something wonderful - that would have required enormous resources and wealth, in the ninth century BCE. In fact, the Bible devotes a great deal more space to a detailed and approving description of Solomon's sea than it does to proscribing homosexuality. How come fundamentalist churches don't go in for showy bronze objects, I wonder, since the Bible writers thought they were so important, and all? Solomon's sea does not demonstrate that the Bible writers thought that pi=3. (They probably didn't think that.) But what it does show, and what the fundamentalists can never get into their pointy little heads, is that the people who wrote the Bible thought in terms different to the terms we think in and it is that which we read. The writers of that particular passage thought that the terrific wealth and power of Solomon, and the richness of his Temple, were worth spending a lot of time and trouble to extol. They were not writing down what God told them, they were writing down what they thought in the terms they thought it. "Consider the lilies," said Jesus, and that is a radically different thought. Actually subversive, by comparison. Just think: the writers of 1 Kings thought it was really important to convey the sheer impressiveness of the Temple. Jesus plainly wasn't impressed. The real contradiction, the one that matters, is there, not in the question of what pi is equal to.

So, to sum up your post, the Bible is not inaccurate, because the translations everyone uses are inaccurate, therefore the Bible is accurate.

phhht said:

KlausH said: So, to sum up your post, the Bible is not inaccurate, because the translations everyone uses are inaccurate, therefore the Bible is accurate.

Huh? That is nowhere near to what he said.

KlausH said:

phhht said:

KlausH said: So, to sum up your post, the Bible is not inaccurate, because the translations everyone uses are inaccurate, therefore the Bible is accurate.

Huh? That is nowhere near to what he said.

Really? That is what his FIRST SENTENCE says and the rest just fleshes it out. His whole post claims that the Bible is not caught "an absolute error of everyday fact" because of inexact translation. What did you think he said?

It is only very rarely, if ever, that the Biblical Hebrew and Koine can be closely enough pinned down in translation as to be unequivocably caught out in an absolute error of everyday fact.

I must admit that I had no intention of implying what KlausH imputes to me.

As Helena Constantine explains, the Bible's authors did not have a term available to them that means "insect" precisely as the English means it. The Hebrew means "creeping things", and spiders, centipedes, scorpions and visible worms were all lumped into it. The taxonomy of the living world with which we are familiar, the one that derives ultimately from Carl Linne's, (and which works precisely because of common descent) did not exist. Similarly, the back legs of a grasshopper or cricket were not seen as legs, but as "springers", so one of these kinds of "creeping things" only had four legs; a bird and a bat were both "flying things".

And so on. The Bible's authors were not unaware of nature. In fact, they were often keen observers of it, and closer to it than we. I think they were probably aware of a closer approximation of the value of pi than three, too; and while they certainly thought of the Earth as a flat plate surrounded by water and covered with a dome, the descriptions of it that appear in Job and Isaiah are poetic, and hardly to be considered rigorous, any more than my remarking that I was up this morning before the sun rose is to be considered an assertion that the sun moves rather than that the Earth rotates. To say that is as silly as the fundamentalist notion that because Isaiah describes the sky, (in one translation at least) as "stretched out like a canopy", he anticipated the expansion of the Universe. (Isaiah 40:22). Ridiculous, considering that in the previous verse the prophet described God as sitting on the dome of the sky.

It's not in these matters that the Bible fails. These are details, and can either be dismissed as insignificant, put down to metaphor, or ascribed to the fact that the original words and the concepts behind them were not the same as ours. Seizing on these makes the critic look as primitive and as picayune as the fundamentalists themselves.

Rather than getting into debates about, for example, whether the writer of 1 Kings thought pi=3, we should be asking questions like "Why did that writer devote a great deal more space to describing the appointments of the Temple of Solomon than is given to the Decalogue?"

The reason, of course, is political. The grandiosity of the Temple is to be emphasised and magnified at length because that tends to legitimise the House of David specifically and the separate political entity of Judah generally. It was almost certainly written down at a time when they no longer existed, and the text is merely a claim to former glory, having much the same legitimacy and deriving from much the same roots as the claims by Israeli "settlers" to land on the west bank and elsewhere today. In other words, it's propaganda.

But as soon as you say that, you recognise that the Bible is the product of humans whose purposes were not by any stretch of the imagination divinely inspired. Similarly, anyone who has read history can look at, say, the Nativity stories or those of the appearances of Jesus after death, and say confidently that these are clearly embroidered accounts of oral traditions that had already, a generation or two on, taken on mythic qualities.

Could the Bible also be the Word of God, in any part, or in any sense? I really don't know. I must admit that I find in some of the words of Jesus a wisdom so profound as to be actually anomolous for that time and place, and there are other parts of Scripture that I treasure as great literature, even great philosophy or ethics. Nevertheless, certainly the Bible as a whole cannot make any such claim. Anyone who can read, say, the book of Joshua, or the description of the genocide against the Amelekites in Deuteronomy and Samuel, and not be revolted, has abandoned any pretence to ethics. Anyone who can say with a straight face that the Bible is even self-consistent on matters of basic ethics and morality is either demonstrating ignorance or attempting deception, whether of themselves, or out of a will to deceive others. The same for its understanding of the nature of God - it is simply not self-consistent on that, either.

But that's where the crazy notion of Biblical infallibility and inerrancy should be attacked, not on questions of how many legs a grasshopper has.

Does that make matters clearer?

What interests me is the methodology of those who claim to accept both (1) that the Bible is authoritative on matters of the natural world and (2) the heliocentric model of the Solar System. It is clear that acceptance of heliocentrism is arrived at only by naturalistic modern science, and how one treats Biblical statements is strongly influenced by this science. (Whether the seeming geocentric statements are irrelevant, or are concessions to the culture which produced them, or whatever.) The question remains why one allows modern science to be determinative on the matter of the structure of the Solar System but not on other issues. There are very few people today who are Biblical geocentrists.

It seems to me that the case is much easier to make with respect to geocentrism than it is for pi=3 (or the flat Earth or, indeed, for the fixity of species) because only for geocentrism can one say that there was universal acceptance, for something like 2000 years, that the Bible authoritatively said that. Only for geocentrism can one say that this was considered serious enough that people got in deep trouble for denying it.

The literalists tend to say that the Bible is talking figuratively in regards to geocentrism. Byers recently said something like "We still talk about the sun rising and setting and we know that the circles the sun". This raises the questions of (1) if the ancient Hebrews knew that the earth orbited the sun why not put it into the Bible and (2) how do you know that they didn't mean for Genesis to figuratively as well.

Also it raises the question of why didn't God give them some useful knowledge that no body else at the time knew.

MichaelJ said: The literalists tend to say that the Bible is talking figuratively in regards to geocentrism. Byers recently said something like "We still talk about the sun rising and setting and we know that the circles the sun". This raises the questions of (1) if the ancient Hebrews knew that the earth orbited the sun why not put it into the Bible and (2) how do you know that they didn't mean for Genesis to figuratively as well. Also it raises the question of why didn't God give them some useful knowledge that no body else at the time knew.

MichaelJ said: The literalists tend to say that the Bible is talking figuratively in regards to geocentrism. Byers recently said something like "We still talk about the sun rising and setting and we know that the circles the sun". This raises the questions of (1) if the ancient Hebrews knew that the earth orbited the sun why not put it into the Bible and (2) how do you know that they didn't mean for Genesis to figuratively as well. Also it raises the question of why didn't God give them some useful knowledge that no body else at the time knew.

DS said:

SLC said: At one time there were some scientists who were highly skeptical of continental drift, even as late as the 1960s. For example, George Gaylord Simpson was one of them.

DS said: I wonder, is there a list of those who choose not to believe in continental drift because that would mean that millions would die in earthquakes? Is there a list of those who refuse to believe that a meteor could impact the earth because that would mean mass extinction? IS there a list of those who don't want to believe in germs because that would mean that epidemics could happen?

Precisely. What convinced them was the evidence, not their wants and desires, not their fairy tale versions of reality, not the fear of the consequences. The evidence is all that matters. Funny that creationists don't seem to want to get any. They can doubt all they want, but unless they actually spend some of their money to actually study nature, they are never going to convince anybody. They can scream about morality, they can threaten eternal damnation, but in the end denial of reality is what really has consequences.

Exactly. No real scientist would ever use the Appeal to Consequences of Belief argument. It isn't logical, it isn't rational and only a few moments of thought would be sufficient to convince any reasonable person not to use such an argument. The creationists can claim be be doing science all they want, they can claim that they value logic and reason, but when they try to pull nonsense as blatant as this, they invariable reveal themselves as the pseudoscientific charlatans that they are.

Real scientists value the evidence, regardless of the consequences. That is how evolution was discovered in the first place. Creationists on the other hand refuse to even look at evidence. No argument is too tortured, no stretch of the imagination is to far for them, just as long as they can find an excuse to ignore and deny the evidence.

I'd like to extend the observations that the evolution deniers are not doing science. They do not present any coherent and positive position, but are simply complaining that there is something, somehow wrong with evolutionary biology. They do not come up to the standards of secondary-school expository essays. One can grant that the Young Earth Creationists do at least tell us when and who, but Intelligent Design carefully avoids even that fragment of a position. Evolution denial makes no attempt to tell us, for example, the difference between things that are designed/created and those that are not. This is not science, but it is not history, jurisprudence, esthetics, or anything else - other than slogans in an advertising campaign for a social/political movement.

Overall I am optimistic in the longer term. Getting away from the partisan sites I find that creationists get drowned out. I think that the younger generation are more pro-science. You don't need to convince everybody. Once the GOP can see they get a handful more votes being pro-science they will flip. The same with Fox.

I think the AGW denial will be the first to disappear. You already hear noises in the GOP about trying to turn around the default position. I think that the weather other the past couple of years together with what's happening in the Arctic and Greenland paints a very clear picture that it is happening. I went around to the denial sites the other day and they all seem to be more about scandals with surveys and some email or other from the IPCC. None of them could paint a simple picture to counter what is happening now.

MichaelJ said: The same with Fox.

Tenncrain said:

MichaelJ said: The same with Fox.

At least within their science/technology pages on their website, FOX has been relatively good about biological evolution. Indeed, I recall seeing many anti-evolutionists in the comments section complaining of Fox being "biased" for evolution. Of course, it's a very different matter with many of the individual Fox on-air personalities.