Report on a Creation Evidence Expo

Something threw me about Louise's report. She said she outed herself as a non-believer at a recent expo and the audience cheered her. Huh? Why did an assembly of creationists react positively to the bailing of another believer?

If you think creationism is dead, how about some "new evidence " for it? Check out Florida Citizens for Science blog http://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=1685

I'd write more, but I'm late to kill, steal and destroy.

Glen Davidson

Paul Collier said: Something threw me about Louise's report. She said she outed herself as a non-believer at a recent expo and the audience cheered her. Huh? Why did an assembly of creationists react positively to the bailing of another believer?

"Bring these unbelievers to us, so that we may know them"

ALIVE AND KICKING???
This forum exists because its kicking with impact.

We are living in a actual revolution in "science" subjects dealing with origins.
The YEC part has maintained and progressed important numbers and demographics that insist the bible is not wrong on any point about origins.
That evolution and company is wrong and we can prove it.

The ID part with just small numbers has made creationism(s) and opposition to evolution a modern famous movement.
Everywhere everyone must address in some way this revolution.
Politicians, science publications, and general media must all hustle to present to the public why ID etc are wrong.
Book after book and blogs and everything shows its considered that the ID/YEC movement is dangerous to evolutionary biology or other ideas about origins and God in origins.
It is so famous and popular now to take on evolution that even evolutionists in bokk after book try to grab attention by seeming to question evolution on some point!

It is a real and true historical event that in our day there is a powerful revolution against old conclusions in subjects dealing with origins.

Either this revolution will sweep away the old ideas or it will come to a fantastic flop that 20 years from now kids will write essays about in school.!

Creationism has successfully created a modern scientific revolution despite the results that time must still reveal.
I think any student of western science should be excited about the present situation regardless of their position.
A thing is happening here that could change human thought.
Make sure your with the good guys folks!

Robert Byers said: ALIVE AND KICKING??? This forum exists because its kicking with impact. We are living in a actual revolution in "science" subjects dealing with origins. The YEC part has maintained and progressed important numbers and demographics that insist the bible is not wrong on any point about origins. That evolution and company is wrong and we can prove it. The ID part with just small numbers has made creationism(s) and opposition to evolution a modern famous movement. Everywhere everyone must address in some way this revolution. Politicians, science publications, and general media must all hustle to present to the public why ID etc are wrong. Book after book and blogs and everything shows its considered that the ID/YEC movement is dangerous to evolutionary biology or other ideas about origins and God in origins. It is so famous and popular now to take on evolution that even evolutionists in bokk after book try to grab attention by seeming to question evolution on some point! It is a real and true historical event that in our day there is a powerful revolution against old conclusions in subjects dealing with origins. Either this revolution will sweep away the old ideas or it will come to a fantastic flop that 20 years from now kids will write essays about in school.! Creationism has successfully created a modern scientific revolution despite the results that time must still reveal. I think any student of western science should be excited about the present situation regardless of their position. A thing is happening here that could change human thought. Make sure your with the good guys folks!

Robert Byers said: Book after book and blogs and everything shows its considered that the ID/YEC movement is dangerous to evolutionary biology or other ideas about origins and God in origins.

Robert Byers said: Creationism has successfully created a modern scientific revolution despite the results that time must still reveal.

ALIVE AND KICKING??? This forum exists because its kicking with impact.

Ewan Birney, lead coordinator of ENCODE, has a lot to answer for.

Robert Byers said: ALIVE AND KICKING??? This forum exists because its kicking with impact.

We are living in a actual revolution in "science" subjects dealing with origins. The YEC part has maintained and progressed important numbers and demographics that insist the bible is not wrong on any point about origins.

That evolution and company is wrong and we can prove it.

The ID part with just small numbers has made creationism(s) and opposition to evolution a modern famous movement. Everywhere everyone must address in some way this revolution.

Politicians, science publications, and general media must all hustle to present to the public why ID etc are wrong. Book after book and blogs and everything shows its considered that the ID/YEC movement is dangerous to evolutionary biology or other ideas about origins and God in origins.

It is so famous and popular now to take on evolution that even evolutionists in bokk after book try to grab attention by seeming to question evolution on some point!

It is a real and true historical event that in our day there is a powerful revolution against old conclusions in subjects dealing with origins.

Either this revolution will sweep away the old ideas or it will come to a fantastic flop that 20 years from now kids will write essays about in school.!

Creationism has successfully created a modern scientific revolution despite the results that time must still reveal.

I think any student of western science should be excited about the present situation regardless of their position. A thing is happening here that could change human thought. Make sure your with the good guys folks!

FL said: Permission to speak freely? Things are really at the point where you evolutionists will actually snarl and bite on each other for daring to say (and peer-review-publish) findings and conclusions that doesn't fit the Darwin-Dogma-Dogfood script. An amazing development. In fact, here's some in-house snarling and biting right now:

Ewan Birney, lead coordinator of ENCODE, has a lot to answer for.

(Oooo-hh, sounds kinda bloody, doesn't it? Ain't no Inquisition like an evolutionist Inquisition, baby! Dr. Birney better watch his back, or he gonna git the RACK!!!)

FL said:

ALIVE AND KICKING??? This forum exists because its kicking with impact.

Honestly, that is true. The great rise of the ID movement, along with the concurrent resurgence and huge expansion of YEC (and OEC) advocacy, has essentially forced evolutionists (including the good ole Pandas) to go on the defensive. This website constitutes evidence

Permission to speak freely? Things are really at the point where you evolutionists will actually snarl and bite on each other for daring to say (and peer-review-publish) findings and conclusions that doesn't fit the Darwin-Dogma-Dogfood script. An amazing development. In fact, here's some in-house snarling and biting right now:

Ewan Birney, lead coordinator of ENCODE, has a lot to answer for.

(Oooo-hh, sounds kinda bloody, doesn't it? Ain't no Inquisition like an evolutionist Inquisition, baby! Dr. Birney better watch his back, or he gonna git the RACK!!!)

Ewan Birney definitely has alot to answer for.

For example,over at the Huffington Post, the only one who has blogged credibly about the ENCODE results is Mike White:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-white/media-genome-science_b_1881788.html

On the other hand, the delusional James A. Shapiro reacted with ample enthusiasm by posting this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/bob-dylan-encode-and-evol_b_1873935.html

and then, he opted to post this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/further-thoughts-on-the-e_b_1893984.html

I must credit Diogeneslamp0 for being consistently the most consistently effective poster pointing out Shapiro's breathtaking inanity in grossly misinterpreting the ENCODE results.

Finally, last but not least, here's Shapiro's rather unique take on Science Guy Bill Nye's recent video condemning the teaching of creationism; his latest pathetic example of breathtaking inanity:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/could-bill-nye-have-done-_b_1919558.html

Let them keep on this ENCODE thing. If I’ve understood aright, the other thing the result tells us is that 20% of the genome does literally nothing – it’s chemically inert. Previously ‘junk DNA’ was a rhetorical own goal – a poor, hastily-coined term for sequences that didn’t have a clearly understood function, which allowed the IDs and creationists to crow with victory every time that a new function was discovered for a particular sequence and claim we’d eventually get to 100% and prove that God (or He Who Must Not Be Named Where People Can Hear Us, if you’re going for a cultural wedgie) was not a wastrel. By using the widest definition of ‘active’ possible, however, they’ve painted themselves into a corner. Just ask them to explain the remaining fifth…

YEC Nuclear chemist Dr. Jay Wile

FL said:

ALIVE AND KICKING??? This forum exists because its kicking with impact.

Honestly, that is true. The great rise of the ID movement, along with the concurrent resurgence and huge expansion of YEC (and OEC) advocacy,

Things are really at the point where you evolutionists will actually snarl and bite on each other for daring to say (and peer-review-publish) findings and conclusions that doesn't fit the Darwin-Dogma-Dogfood script. An amazing development.

Either this revolution will sweep away the old ideas or it will come to a fantastic flop that 20 years from now kids will write essays about in school.

Here's a hint... when you describe a 'scientific revolution' as a 'movement', you probably don't know what a scientific revolution even is.

As far as 'movement', well insert your own crude joke here, because that's all ID really is.

Let me know when you decide to actually do anything sciency with Intelligent Design. You know, like create a valid hypothesis. One that is testable, discriminatory, and falsifiable. Then let me know when you actually get around to testing it, instead of blatantly misrepresenting other peoples' work. Let me know when you have gotten together with all the other YECs, OECs, IDists, etc and come up with a single notion, instead of all the mutually contradictory ones that you all support because you don't dare be seen to argue with one another.

Oh and, you still owe us a discussion of how to teach ID in schools, especially considering that 40% of science class must be labs. So feel free to describe a lab that shows ID in biology.

And just look at the quality and knowledge of ID/creationism's followers!

Or, um, well...look, a wombat.

Glen Davidson

Matt Bright said: Let them keep on this ENCODE thing. If I’ve understood aright, the other thing the result tells us is that 20% of the genome does literally nothing – it’s chemically inert. Previously ‘junk DNA’ was a rhetorical own goal – a poor, hastily-coined term for sequences that didn’t have a clearly understood function, which allowed the IDs and creationists to crow with victory every time that a new function was discovered for a particular sequence and claim we’d eventually get to 100% and prove that God (or He Who Must Not Be Named Where People Can Hear Us, if you’re going for a cultural wedgie) was not a wastrel. By using the widest definition of ‘active’ possible, however, they’ve painted themselves into a corner. Just ask them to explain the remaining fifth…

Well yeah, I suppose you’d get down to some sort of trivial structural stuff where you could argue the toss. That big string of Gs looks like it’s helping something bind to a histone, or preventing too much read-through from something upstream. Does it need to be that long, though? Maybe it does! Maybe God’s involved! Who knows? You don’t. Ahaaaaaa!!!

Is the game really worth the candle at that point, though? Maybe our only hope with these people is to back them into a place where the only arguments they can make are self-demolishing, in that they require the listener to know so much molecular biology even to follow them that they can immediately see why they’re bullshit.

Even there, Creationists have an "out" that might sound convincing. If there's a small amount of DNA that definitely doesn't do anything, they will go to the Fall-back position. That is, it's DNA that was damaged since The Fall. "After all," they'll say, "everybody knows mutations are always bad and don't produce anything useful."

ksplawn said: Even there, Creationists have an "out" that might sound convincing. If there's a small amount of DNA that definitely doesn't do anything, they will go to the Fall-back position. That is, it's DNA that was damaged since The Fall. "After all," they'll say, "everybody knows mutations are always bad and don't produce anything useful."

Hi Byers & FL!

Since you think ID is such a great scientific slam-dunk maybe you can take a moment to explain it to us. My own cursory examination of the subject suggests that the 'science' bit is based on two claims 1} Some systems are Irreducibly Complex [IC] -- ie, they could never have developed by any conceivable step-by-step process; and 2} that the existence of Complex Specified Information [CSI] requires an intelligent designer -- and that CSI is detectible and measurable in all designed things.

I'm nor terribly interested in IC, though maybe you could give an example or two of a biological system that displays IC. Primarily I'd like an explanation of CSI; please describe how CSI can be detected and measured in several examples. Help cure my ignorance of ID by walking me through the math, step by step; show me exactly what is so blazingly obvious to you and other ID advocates, but that I seem to keep missing.

I eagerly await your concise & clear answer.

ogremk5 said:

ksplawn said: Even there, Creationists have an "out" that might sound convincing. If there's a small amount of DNA that definitely doesn't do anything, they will go to the Fall-back position. That is, it's DNA that was damaged since The Fall. "After all," they'll say, "everybody knows mutations are always bad and don't produce anything useful."

And then we can hammer them with exactly how stupidly wrong they are. It'll be fun!

Robert Byers and FL both beautifully demonstrate the utter barrenness and malevolent uselessness of the Creationism/Intelligent Design movement.

Robert Byers repeatedly shows us how he has nurtured his self-inflicted inability to learn anything into arrogant self-delusion.

FL, in turn, shows us how his only reason for living is to spread lies and slander about everything and everyone whom he hates or does not share his unthinking hatred of science.

J. L. Brown said: I eagerly await (Byers' and FL's) concise & clear answer.

apokryltaros said:

J. L. Brown said: I eagerly await (Byers' and FL's) concise & clear answer.

You're going to wait a while. I recommend taking up a hobby to help pass the time, like, knitting afghans for Clydesdales or piano cosies.

Don't these creationists realize that they will be held accountable for withholding all of that evidence for ID/creationism, very likely leading to the loss of souls?

I realize that all of this evidence must be highly proprietary, since not a speck of legitimate evidence for ID/creationism ever leaks out into the public, but we're talking about the mortal sin of sending souls to hell for lack of knowledge.

If they won't think of us, still you'd suppose that they'd think of themselves. Maybe they just want so badly to be with us that they're willing to go to hell for it.

Glen Davidson

Glen Davidson said: Don't these creationists realize that they will be held accountable for withholding all of that evidence for ID/creationism, very likely leading to the loss of souls?

Sinjari said:

Robert Byers said: Book after book and blogs and everything shows its considered that the ID/YEC movement is dangerous to evolutionary biology or other ideas about origins and God in origins.

It is dangerous in the sense that its proponents, who include those in positions of political authority, are attempting to undermine and erase everything we know about modern biology, as well as geology and other ACTUAL sciences.

Robert Byers said: Creationism has successfully created a modern scientific revolution despite the results that time must still reveal.

How so? The overwhelming majority of scientists still denounce Creationism as pseudoscientific clap trap. The "revolution" is entirely in your head.

FL said:

ALIVE AND KICKING??? This forum exists because its kicking with impact.

Honestly, that is true. The great rise of the ID movement, along with the concurrent resurgence and huge expansion of YEC (and OEC) advocacy, has essentially forced evolutionists (including the good ole Pandas) to go on the defensive. This website constitutes evidence Permission to speak freely? Things are really at the point where you evolutionists will actually snarl and bite on each other for daring to say (and peer-review-publish) findings and conclusions that doesn't fit the Darwin-Dogma-Dogfood script. An amazing development. In fact, here's some in-house snarling and biting right now:

Ewan Birney, lead coordinator of ENCODE, has a lot to answer for.

(Oooo-hh, sounds kinda bloody, doesn't it? Ain't no Inquisition like an evolutionist Inquisition, baby! Dr. Birney better watch his back, or he gonna git the RACK!!!)

PA Poland said:

Robert Byers said: ALIVE AND KICKING??? This forum exists because its kicking with impact.

Creationism exists as a socio-political (bowel) movement, but not a scientific one. Initiating delusion of adequacy in 3.. 2.. 1.. :

We are living in a actual revolution in "science" subjects dealing with origins. The YEC part has maintained and progressed important numbers and demographics that insist the bible is not wrong on any point about origins.

RiiIIiiIIiiight ! Expect for the FACT there was no world-wide flood - christians almost 200 years ago realized that ! And for the FACT that you have to bend, fold, spindle and mutilate REAL WORLD DATA to make it conform to the creationut 'model'. How, EXACTLY, does blubbering 'IT WAS CREATED MY A MAGICAL SKY PIXIE !!!!!1!!!!' qualify as a valid, useful, or scientific answer ? The stupidity continues with :

That evolution and company is wrong and we can prove it.

Creationuts and IDiots have been claiming that for DECADES. PUT UP OR SHUT UP ! (and no, blubbering '** I ** assert evolution cannot explain X; therefore, Xtian Magical Sky Pixie DIDIT !!!!!' is not, has never been, nor will ever be a convincing argument).

The ID part with just small numbers has made creationism(s) and opposition to evolution a modern famous movement. Everywhere everyone must address in some way this revolution.

A socio-political bowel movement, meant as a mental laxative to shove Magical Skymanism into science where it never belonged.

Politicians, science publications, and general media must all hustle to present to the public why ID etc are wrong. Book after book and blogs and everything shows its considered that the ID/YEC movement is dangerous to evolutionary biology or other ideas about origins and God in origins.

Good thing that it is quite easy to show why IDiots and creationuts are wrong. The only problem is that IDiots and creationuts are incapable of listening, and so, when shown to be wrong, merely bellow their misunderstandings and lies ever louder (in a feeble attempt to drown out reality with their sanctimonious screechings).

It is so famous and popular now to take on evolution that even evolutionists in bokk after book try to grab attention by seeming to question evolution on some point!

RiiIIiiIIIGHT ! They argue about the fine points of how evolution works, NOT WHETHER OR NOT IT WORKS. A point the IDio-creationuts have YET to comprehend ...

It is a real and true historical event that in our day there is a powerful revolution against old conclusions in subjects dealing with origins.

Ah, yes - ye olde 'evolution is about to fall ANY DAY NOW !!!' Creationuts have been saying that for 150+ years. They were wrong then. They are wrong now. And they will continue to be wrong until they can present postive evidence FOR IDio-creationism. (and no, blubbering 'evolution cannot explain X; therefore, GodDesigner DIDIT !!!!!' will not cut it). More vainglorious posturing :

Either this revolution will sweep away the old ideas or it will come to a fantastic flop that 20 years from now kids will write essays about in school.!

Creationism has been a flop in science for nearly 200 years; ID doesn't even reach the status of hypothesis (since it has no testable mechanisms, predicts nothing, etc). More santimonious gibbertwittery :

Creationism has successfully created a modern scientific revolution despite the results that time must still reveal.

Translation : we IDiots and creationuts are taking credit for the scientific revolution that DEMONSTRATES WE ARE WRONG AT EVERY TURN ! Egomaniacal wanking in 3.. 2.. 1..

I think any student of western science should be excited about the present situation regardless of their position. A thing is happening here that could change human thought. Make sure your with the good guys folks!

'Change human thought' as in 'drag science and learning backwards 200 years so it conforms to one peculiar interpretation of ancient morality tales'. That is NOT a good thing ! The good guys are the ones that advanced science by studying the REAL WORLD and then TESTING THEIR IDEAS AGAINST IT. Given the fact that IDiots and creationuts are unable or unwilling to test their ideas, the winner is EVOLUTION. Unless, of course, you actually have EVIDENCE to the contrary ?

ogremk5 said: Here's a hint... when you describe a 'scientific revolution' as a 'movement', you probably don't know what a scientific revolution even is. As far as 'movement', well insert your own crude joke here, because that's all ID really is. Let me know when you decide to actually do anything sciency with Intelligent Design. You know, like create a valid hypothesis. One that is testable, discriminatory, and falsifiable. Then let me know when you actually get around to testing it, instead of blatantly misrepresenting other peoples' work. Let me know when you have gotten together with all the other YECs, OECs, IDists, etc and come up with a single notion, instead of all the mutually contradictory ones that you all support because you don't dare be seen to argue with one another. Oh and, you still owe us a discussion of how to teach ID in schools, especially considering that 40% of science class must be labs. So feel free to describe a lab that shows ID in biology.

J. L. Brown said: Hi Byers & FL! Since you think ID is such a great scientific slam-dunk maybe you can take a moment to explain it to us. My own cursory examination of the subject suggests that the 'science' bit is based on two claims 1} Some systems are Irreducibly Complex [IC] -- ie, they could never have developed by any conceivable step-by-step process; and 2} that the existence of Complex Specified Information [CSI] requires an intelligent designer -- and that CSI is detectible and measurable in all designed things. I'm nor terribly interested in IC, though maybe you could give an example or two of a biological system that displays IC. Primarily I'd like an explanation of CSI; please describe how CSI can be detected and measured in several examples. Help cure my ignorance of ID by walking me through the math, step by step; show me exactly what is so blazingly obvious to you and other ID advocates, but that I seem to keep missing. I eagerly await your concise & clear answer.

Robert Byers said:

Sinjari said:

Robert Byers said: Book after book and blogs and everything shows its considered that the ID/YEC movement is dangerous to evolutionary biology or other ideas about origins and God in origins.

It is dangerous in the sense that its proponents, who include those in positions of political authority, are attempting to undermine and erase everything we know about modern biology, as well as geology and other ACTUAL sciences.

Robert Byers said: Creationism has successfully created a modern scientific revolution despite the results that time must still reveal.

How so? The overwhelming majority of scientists still denounce Creationism as pseudoscientific clap trap. The "revolution" is entirely in your head.

The only "scientists' that matter are ones who actually study origin related subjects.

It is about what people are persuaded is true.

ID/YEC is bringing a revolution/rebellion to the people and especially people who think about these things even if they don't get paid for it.

Creationism moves through grass roots and has no political support other then any political support that responds to the people.

Creationism is a intellectual movement against old tired ideas.

Robert Byers said:

PA Poland said:

Robert Byers said: ALIVE AND KICKING??? This forum exists because its kicking with impact.

Creationism exists as a socio-political (bowel) movement, but not a scientific one. Initiating delusion of adequacy in 3.. 2.. 1.. :

We are living in a actual revolution in "science" subjects dealing with origins. The YEC part has maintained and progressed important numbers and demographics that insist the bible is not wrong on any point about origins.

RiiIIiiIIiiight ! Expect for the FACT there was no world-wide flood - christians almost 200 years ago realized that ! And for the FACT that you have to bend, fold, spindle and mutilate REAL WORLD DATA to make it conform to the creationut 'model'. How, EXACTLY, does blubbering 'IT WAS CREATED MY A MAGICAL SKY PIXIE !!!!!1!!!!' qualify as a valid, useful, or scientific answer ? The stupidity continues with :

That evolution and company is wrong and we can prove it.

Creationuts and IDiots have been claiming that for DECADES. PUT UP OR SHUT UP ! (and no, blubbering '** I ** assert evolution cannot explain X; therefore, Xtian Magical Sky Pixie DIDIT !!!!!' is not, has never been, nor will ever be a convincing argument).

The ID part with just small numbers has made creationism(s) and opposition to evolution a modern famous movement. Everywhere everyone must address in some way this revolution.

A socio-political bowel movement, meant as a mental laxative to shove Magical Skymanism into science where it never belonged.

Politicians, science publications, and general media must all hustle to present to the public why ID etc are wrong. Book after book and blogs and everything shows its considered that the ID/YEC movement is dangerous to evolutionary biology or other ideas about origins and God in origins.

Good thing that it is quite easy to show why IDiots and creationuts are wrong. The only problem is that IDiots and creationuts are incapable of listening, and so, when shown to be wrong, merely bellow their misunderstandings and lies ever louder (in a feeble attempt to drown out reality with their sanctimonious screechings).

It is so famous and popular now to take on evolution that even evolutionists in bokk after book try to grab attention by seeming to question evolution on some point!

RiiIIiiIIIGHT ! They argue about the fine points of how evolution works, NOT WHETHER OR NOT IT WORKS. A point the IDio-creationuts have YET to comprehend ...

It is a real and true historical event that in our day there is a powerful revolution against old conclusions in subjects dealing with origins.

Ah, yes - ye olde 'evolution is about to fall ANY DAY NOW !!!' Creationuts have been saying that for 150+ years. They were wrong then. They are wrong now. And they will continue to be wrong until they can present postive evidence FOR IDio-creationism. (and no, blubbering 'evolution cannot explain X; therefore, GodDesigner DIDIT !!!!!' will not cut it). More vainglorious posturing :

Either this revolution will sweep away the old ideas or it will come to a fantastic flop that 20 years from now kids will write essays about in school.!

Creationism has been a flop in science for nearly 200 years; ID doesn't even reach the status of hypothesis (since it has no testable mechanisms, predicts nothing, etc). More santimonious gibbertwittery :

Creationism has successfully created a modern scientific revolution despite the results that time must still reveal.

Translation : we IDiots and creationuts are taking credit for the scientific revolution that DEMONSTRATES WE ARE WRONG AT EVERY TURN ! Egomaniacal wanking in 3.. 2.. 1..

I think any student of western science should be excited about the present situation regardless of their position. A thing is happening here that could change human thought. Make sure your with the good guys folks!

'Change human thought' as in 'drag science and learning backwards 200 years so it conforms to one peculiar interpretation of ancient morality tales'. That is NOT a good thing ! The good guys are the ones that advanced science by studying the REAL WORLD and then TESTING THEIR IDEAS AGAINST IT. Given the fact that IDiots and creationuts are unable or unwilling to test their ideas, the winner is EVOLUTION. Unless, of course, you actually have EVIDENCE to the contrary ?

It's not a socio-poltical movement!!

It's a intellectual revolution(because of its impact) or rebellion on subjects dealing with origins .

It's about making a case on nature's evidence and debunking a wrong case that claim's nature's evidence.

For YEC it's also asserting a witness for basic boundaries.

Not understanding this revolution is a option for why it's not well dealt with. This is a scientific revolution as far as science can deal with origin subjects.

I predict the most famous leaders in ID (and maybe YEC) will become celebrated revolutionaries in the future.

Critics of them will be just the protagonists in another story of resisting the progress of human knowledge. Make sure your on the right side!

A Cowardly Hypocrite said: No can do! Derailing a thread is not welcome and especially from creationists! it's about time evolutionists made a better case for their great claims. I mean a scientific one. A actual one.

Robert Byers said: The only "scientists' that matter are ones who actually study origin related subjects. It is about what people are persuaded is true. ID/YEC is bringing a revolution/rebellion to the people and especially people who think about these things even if they don't get paid for it. Creationism moves through grass roots and has no political support other then any political support that responds to the people. Creationism is a intellectual movement against old tired ideas. its evolutionists and the bigger establishment everywhere that is desperate to hold the public back from the revolution that is going on. Everyone who reaches large audiences that deal with subjects in science has had to respond with all guns blazing to the creationist movement of recent date. Creationists predict and find important dust ups between researchers in these subjects if they question tenents in evolutionary biology etc. evolutionists disagreeing with each other couldn’t come at a first time in evolutions present de-evolution in credibility. It really did just take a wee bit more attention to unravel error. It’s not a socio-poltical movement!! It’s a intellectual revolution(because of its impact) or rebellion on subjects dealing with origins . It’s about making a case on nature’s evidence and debunking a wrong case that claim’s nature’s evidence. For YEC it’s also asserting a witness for basic boundaries. Not understanding this revolution is a option for why it’s not well dealt with. This is a scientific revolution as far as science can deal with origin subjects. I predict the most famous leaders in ID (and maybe YEC) will become celebrated revolutionaries in the future. Critics of them will be just the protagonists in another story of resisting the progress of human knowledge. Make sure your on the right side! A scientific revolution is when a spectrum of conclusions in subjects that use the higher standards of investigation called science are overthrown in whole or part. We are in a rebellion and surely a revolution in confidence of old conclusions. The western world is reacting to this as it never has to anything else for the longest time. In our time the world will be turned upside down on origin subjects! It is a historical event in science already and even if they hold on. It’s passed a threshold. No can do! Derailing a thread is not welcome and especially from creationists! it’s about time evolutionists made a better case for their great claims. I mean a scientific one. A actual one.

dalehusband said:

Robert Byers said: The only "scientists' that matter are ones who actually study origin related subjects. It is about what people are persuaded is true. ID/YEC is bringing a revolution/rebellion to the people and especially people who think about these things even if they don't get paid for it. Creationism moves through grass roots and has no political support other then any political support that responds to the people. Creationism is a intellectual movement against old tired ideas. its evolutionists and the bigger establishment everywhere that is desperate to hold the public back from the revolution that is going on. Everyone who reaches large audiences that deal with subjects in science has had to respond with all guns blazing to the creationist movement of recent date. Creationists predict and find important dust ups between researchers in these subjects if they question tenents in evolutionary biology etc. evolutionists disagreeing with each other couldn’t come at a first time in evolutions present de-evolution in credibility. It really did just take a wee bit more attention to unravel error. It’s not a socio-poltical movement!! It’s a intellectual revolution(because of its impact) or rebellion on subjects dealing with origins . It’s about making a case on nature’s evidence and debunking a wrong case that claim’s nature’s evidence. For YEC it’s also asserting a witness for basic boundaries. Not understanding this revolution is a option for why it’s not well dealt with. This is a scientific revolution as far as science can deal with origin subjects. I predict the most famous leaders in ID (and maybe YEC) will become celebrated revolutionaries in the future. Critics of them will be just the protagonists in another story of resisting the progress of human knowledge. Make sure your on the right side! A scientific revolution is when a spectrum of conclusions in subjects that use the higher standards of investigation called science are overthrown in whole or part. We are in a rebellion and surely a revolution in confidence of old conclusions. The western world is reacting to this as it never has to anything else for the longest time. In our time the world will be turned upside down on origin subjects! It is a historical event in science already and even if they hold on. It’s passed a threshold. No can do! Derailing a thread is not welcome and especially from creationists! it’s about time evolutionists made a better case for their great claims. I mean a scientific one. A actual one.

That's an awful lot of assertions with absolutely no evidence for any of them. Also known as outright lies. That is all Creationism is and ever has been.

He's above such a pathetic level of detail.

Robert Byers said:

J. L. Brown said: Hi Byers & FL! Since you think ID is such a great scientific slam-dunk maybe you can take a moment to explain it to us. My own cursory examination of the subject suggests that the 'science' bit is based on two claims 1} Some systems are Irreducibly Complex [IC] -- ie, they could never have developed by any conceivable step-by-step process; and 2} that the existence of Complex Specified Information [CSI] requires an intelligent designer -- and that CSI is detectible and measurable in all designed things. I'm nor terribly interested in IC, though maybe you could give an example or two of a biological system that displays IC. Primarily I'd like an explanation of CSI; please describe how CSI can be detected and measured in several examples. Help cure my ignorance of ID by walking me through the math, step by step; show me exactly what is so blazingly obvious to you and other ID advocates, but that I seem to keep missing. I eagerly await your concise & clear answer.

No can do! Derailing a thread is not welcome and especially from creationists! it's about time evolutionists made a better case for their great claims. I mean a scientific one. A actual one.

To anyone who actually thinks that evidence matters, Byers is simply infuriating. Boy, do I know how infuriating he is. But it's not merely that Byers and FL and the rest of them don't think evidence matters. It's worse than that. It's that the concept "evidence" is actually beyond their mental horizons.

These are pre-modern minds. They don't do evidence. They operate on authority, which includes the authority of repeated assertion and tradition. Everyone did, once. Aristotle said that flies are spontaneously created in rotting material and dung. Everyone simply accepted it. Not much less than two thousand years passed before anyone thought to actually check it out by observation under controlled conditions.

Byers et al belong to that era. It's no use asking them for actual evidence. They don't understand the concept. They'll quote an authority, maybe, but a request for evidence is just a meaningless noise to them. They simply don't understand what it is. And they won't give it a thought, because they can't.

Robert Byers said: Creationism is a intellectual movement...

Robert Byers said: It's a intellectual revolution...

Dave Luckett said: To anyone who actually thinks that evidence matters, Byers is simply infuriating. Boy, do I know how infuriating he is. But it's not merely that Byers and FL and the rest of them don't think evidence matters. It's worse than that. It's that the concept "evidence" is actually beyond their mental horizons. These are pre-modern minds. They don't do evidence. They operate on authority, which includes the authority of repeated assertion and tradition. Everyone did, once. Aristotle said that flies are spontaneously created in rotting material and dung. Everyone simply accepted it. Not much less than two thousand years passed before anyone thought to actually check it out by observation under controlled conditions. Byers et al belong to that era. It's no use asking them for actual evidence. They don't understand the concept. They'll quote an authority, maybe, but a request for evidence is just a meaningless noise to them. They simply don't understand what it is. And they won't give it a thought, because they can't.

"You're all doomed" screamed the dodo bird at the top of his lungs. "Dodos rule and soon you will all bend to our will. I know some of you other species say it isn't so, but it's all just sour grapes. We don't need no stinkin facts and figures. We all know dodos is king. Sure our englishes ain't so good, but so what, we have ignorance on our side, and it's powerful weak! We don't has to explains why we is so superior, it's just obvious that we is."

You can deny reality all you want, but reality doesn't care.

Time to send most of Booby Byers' comments to the bathroom wall.

(SLC wrote) Time to send most of Booby Byers’ comments to the bathroom wall.

(Byers wrote) No can do! Derailing a thread is not welcome and especially from creationists!

Robert Byers said: No can do! Derailing a thread is not welcome and especially from creationists! it's about time evolutionists made a better case for their great claims. I mean a scientific one. A actual one.

FL said:

(Byers wrote) No can do! Derailing a thread is not welcome and especially from creationists!

Byers is correct. JL Brown's request is fairly reasonable (with one glaring exception that I'll get to later this afternoon), but what Mr. Brown apparently doesn't know is that answering his sincere request in THIS thread, will generate precisely the reaction that SLC has provided. The end result is likely to be that Brown's requested explanation, if given, will get sent to the Bathroom Wall, despite Brown's naive "quite to the contrary" response.

(Besides, Mr. Brown, your Panda pals are getting trounced over there on the "Bible" front, so I'm sure they're ready to do some discussion on the "Science" front instead!!)

Richard B. Hoppe said: Go right ahead. As noted above, that's not a derailment of a thread about creationist evidence. And it's also a question I've been asking of ID proponents for years to no avail. So go ahead: provide an operational definition of CSI and several worked out biological examples to show how it was determined/measured.

Robert Byers said: No can do! Derailing a thread is not welcome and especially from creationists! it's about time evolutionists made a better case for their great claims. I mean a scientific one. A actual one.

apokryltaros said:

Richard B. Hoppe said: Go right ahead. As noted above, that's not a derailment of a thread about creationist evidence. And it's also a question I've been asking of ID proponents for years to no avail. So go ahead: provide an operational definition of CSI and several worked out biological examples to show how it was determined/measured.

Robert Byers said: No can do! Derailing a thread is not welcome and especially from creationists! it's about time evolutionists made a better case for their great claims. I mean a scientific one. A actual one.

J. L. Brown said: Hi Byers & FL! Since you think ID is such a great scientific slam-dunk maybe you can take a moment to explain it to us. My own cursory examination of the subject suggests that the 'science' bit is based on two claims 1} Some systems are Irreducibly Complex [IC] -- ie, they could never have developed by any conceivable step-by-step process; and 2} that the existence of Complex Specified Information [CSI] requires an intelligent designer -- and that CSI is detectible and measurable in all designed things. I'm nor terribly interested in IC, though maybe you could give an example or two of a biological system that displays IC. Primarily I'd like an explanation of CSI; please describe how CSI can be detected and measured in several examples. Help cure my ignorance of ID by walking me through the math, step by step; show me exactly what is so blazingly obvious to you and other ID advocates, but that I seem to keep missing. I eagerly await your concise & clear answer.

FL said: Byers is correct. JL Brown's request is fairly reasonable (with one glaring exception that I'll get to later this afternoon), but what Mr. Brown apparently doesn't know is that answering his sincere request in THIS thread, will generate precisely the reaction that SLC has provided. The end result is likely to be that Brown's requested explanation, if given, will get sent to the Bathroom Wall, despite Brown's naive "quite to the contrary" response. As for me, I'm very comfortable with the Bathroom Wall, as it provides a very good forward-base from which to do my mischievous mess. So this afternoon, I'll go ahead and start responding to Brown's request....in THAT specific forum. (Besides, Mr. Brown, your Panda pals are getting trounced over there on the "Bible" front, so I'm sure they're ready to do some discussion on the "Science" front instead!!) FL :)

Richard B. Hoppe said: Go right ahead. As noted above, that's not a derailment of a thread about creationist evidence. And it's also a question I've been asking of ID proponents for years to no avail. So go ahead: provide an operational definition of CSI and several worked out biological examples to show how it was determined/measured.

Robert Byers said: No can do! Derailing a thread is not welcome and especially from creationists! it's about time evolutionists made a better case for their great claims. I mean a scientific one. A actual one.

I'd also like to know how, when, and where to detect and measure CSI .

And what PRACTICAL results would proceed from acknowledging or believing in ID? How would it help science produce more and better results? Never have got an answer to that, after asking for the last year.

Still waitin Rovert. When are ya gonna make a actual one?

J. L. Brown said:

Richard B. Hoppe said: Go right ahead. As noted above, that's not a derailment of a thread about creationist evidence. And it's also a question I've been asking of ID proponents for years to no avail. So go ahead: provide an operational definition of CSI and several worked out biological examples to show how it was determined/measured.

Robert Byers said: No can do! Derailing a thread is not welcome and especially from creationists! it's about time evolutionists made a better case for their great claims. I mean a scientific one. A actual one.

Thanks RBH! So R Byers & FL, we have the blessing of the thread moderator to discuss the methods, definitions, and evidence for ID -- please proceed. If all of creation sings with the profound truth of IC, and it is impossible to drop a pin from the eaves of a house without hitting three dozen good examples of CSI, then surely one of you kind souls can give just one or two brief examples & clear up my confusion. Tell you what -- are there any textbooks on this subject? Just something basic, suitable (for example) for introducing and explaining these topics to high school students, would do. A single example exercise would qualify as 'fair use' -- walk me through just one such example for CSI. Given that such a text must surely have dozens of such exercises, and probably a whole chapter dedicated to the simplest introduction to the theory & application of CSI, surely much of the explanatory work has already been done for you. Is CSI found in a creatures DNA? If not, then where? If so, how can someone detect and measure it, thereby showing that a given sequence was designed? Is there an example of something living which does not have CSI, or has measurably less CSI? How can I tell? Please help!

Robert Byers said: Well i'm YEC and not ID. Creationism is subject driven and its a big spectrum of subjects. YEC starts from the bible and then attacks its critics based on the evidence of nature since the critics claim to be using nature's evidence.

ID says nature shows the fingerprints of a creator and any idea of chance building nature is impossible bu observing the complexity. The evidence is the complexity of nature and the reasoned impossibility of chance as origin.

Then they also get atomic about this complexity being only possible from a thinking being. They also attack the wrong ideas of evolution etc. they keep a bit though. Creationism(s) and evolutionism and No-evidence-for-a-creator-ism all work upon the same evidence in nature and claim to.

Saying each other must provide evidence is just not accurate. Everybody rather must demonstrate natures evidence rightly leads to their conclusions. Then everybody can take on that "evidence". The contentions in origins are about interpreting evidence from nature and not discovering it. evidence for creationism EXPO means interpreting whats already known.

So that would be a no. You refuse to answer the question. You refuse to even try. Thanks for playing. Bye bye.

eric said:

FL said:

ALIVE AND KICKING??? This forum exists because its kicking with impact.

Honestly, that is true. The great rise of the ID movement, along with the concurrent resurgence and huge expansion of YEC (and OEC) advocacy,

You had 90% of the people in the mid-1800s. Now you have at most 50%. And what resurgence? YEC numbers seem to have been stable for the last 30 years.

Things are really at the point where you evolutionists will actually snarl and bite on each other for daring to say (and peer-review-publish) findings and conclusions that doesn't fit the Darwin-Dogma-Dogfood script. An amazing development.

Nobody is disputing the scientific results of ENCODE. We don't like how its been hyped, that is all. They used a very broad definition of 'functional' which has already lead to misunderstanding by the public (and probably will continue to do so). But change the term to "chemically active" or something else like that, and everyone here would be perfectly happy with the result. So again, just to make this point clear: nobody is disputing that (bits of) the genome acts the way they describe. People are disputing whether 'functional' is the best word to describe what they found.

Robert Byers said:

J. L. Brown said:

Richard B. Hoppe said: Go right ahead. As noted above, that's not a derailment of a thread about creationist evidence. And it's also a question I've been asking of ID proponents for years to no avail. So go ahead: provide an operational definition of CSI and several worked out biological examples to show how it was determined/measured.

Robert Byers said: No can do! Derailing a thread is not welcome and especially from creationists! it's about time evolutionists made a better case for their great claims. I mean a scientific one. A actual one.

Thanks RBH! So R Byers & FL, we have the blessing of the thread moderator to discuss the methods, definitions, and evidence for ID -- please proceed. If all of creation sings with the profound truth of IC, and it is impossible to drop a pin from the eaves of a house without hitting three dozen good examples of CSI, then surely one of you kind souls can give just one or two brief examples & clear up my confusion. Tell you what -- are there any textbooks on this subject? Just something basic, suitable (for example) for introducing and explaining these topics to high school students, would do. A single example exercise would qualify as 'fair use' -- walk me through just one such example for CSI. Given that such a text must surely have dozens of such exercises, and probably a whole chapter dedicated to the simplest introduction to the theory & application of CSI, surely much of the explanatory work has already been done for you. Is CSI found in a creatures DNA? If not, then where? If so, how can someone detect and measure it, thereby showing that a given sequence was designed? Is there an example of something living which does not have CSI, or has measurably less CSI? How can I tell? Please help!

Well i'm YEC and not ID. Creationism is subject driven and its a big spectrum of subjects.

YEC starts from the bible and then attacks its critics based on the evidence of nature since the critics claim to be using nature's evidence.

ID says nature shows the fingerprints of a creator and any idea of chance building nature is impossible bu observing the complexity.

The evidence is the complexity of nature and the reasoned impossibility of chance as origin. Then they also get atomic about this complexity being only possible from a thinking being. They also attack the wrong ideas of evolution etc. they keep a bit though.

Creationism(s) and evolutionism and No-evidence-for-a-creator-ism all work upon the same evidence in nature and claim to.

Saying each other must provide evidence is just not accurate.

Everybody rather must demonstrate natures evidence rightly leads to their conclusions. Then everybody can take on that "evidence".

The contentions in origins are about interpreting evidence from nature and not discovering it. evidence for creationism EXPO means interpreting whats already known.

PA Poland said to Robert Byers: What you are doing is trying to make reality conform to your silly-arsed stories via 'interpretation'. REAL science adjusts is ideas to fit the evidence; gibbering imbeciles, IDiots and creationuts try to adjust reality to fit their 'ideas'. If there was a world-wide flood, there would be GEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE of it. There isn't any - so the YECs 'interpret' reality to make it fit. Like claiming the Grand Canyon was carved out of mud in just a few years. Or the speed of light changed enough to make the universe look millions of times older than the YECers want it to be. When pointed out that changing the speed of light enough to make reality fit YEC ideas would lead to radioactive decay melting the Earth, they blubber back 'well, the laws of physics were conveniently different back then !! OBEY !!' You CLAIMED you had evidence to show that creationism is right, and evolution is wrong. You have yet to present anything.

IBIG, you stated (at least one of the IBIG clones did) here that you would read over this link. It's been over a month. What did you think? What parts do you agree/disagree with?

Feel free to provide specific examples from the website.

Then perhaps you could get to these links that you have generally ignored since the spring.

Tenncrain said: IBIG, you stated (at least one of the IBIG clones did) here that you would read over this link. It's been over a month. What did you think? What parts do you agree/disagree with? Feel free to provide specific examples from the website. Then perhaps you could get to these links that you have generally ignored since the spring.

Robert Byers said: Well i'm YEC and not ID. Creationism is subject driven and its a big spectrum of subjects. YEC starts from the bible ...

... and then attacks its critics based on the evidence of nature since the critics claim to be using nature's evidence.

ID says nature shows the fingerprints of a creator ...

... and any idea of chance building nature is impossible bu observing the complexity.

The evidence is the complexity of nature and the reasoned impossibility of chance as origin.

Then they also get atomic about this complexity being only possible from a thinking being.

They also attack the wrong ideas of evolution etc. they keep a bit though.

Creationism(s) and evolutionism and No-evidence-for-a-creator-ism all work upon the same evidence in nature and claim to. Saying each other must provide evidence is just not accurate.

Everybody rather must demonstrate natures evidence rightly leads to their conclusions. Then everybody can take on that "evidence". The contentions in origins are about interpreting evidence from nature and not discovering it. evidence for creationism EXPO means interpreting whats already known.

Robert Byers said: ... Saying each other must provide evidence is just not accurate.

Everybody rather must demonstrate natures evidence rightly leads to their conclusions.

Then everybody can take on that "evidence".

The contentions in origins are about interpreting evidence from nature and not discovering it.

evidence for creationism EXPO means interpreting whats already known.

Evolution explains.

Creationism (ID included) explains away the science explanation--or rather, it tries as hard as possible to look as if it does. Actually explaining anything is of no interest to them, since "God is the explanation."

Glen Davidson

Robert Byers said: YEC starts from the bible and then attacks its critics based on the evidence of nature since the critics claim to be using nature's evidence.

So have either Robert Byers or FL bothered to present any actual support for their inane claims that Creationism/Intelligent Design are somehow magically sciences, or that Evolution(ary Biology) has somehow magically failed as a science?

Tenncrain said: As has been pointed out, even the ENCODE scientists openly state they have not falsified junk DNA. But speaking of infighting, FL naively thinks we don't remember how Answers In Genesis and Creation Ministries International had that very heated legal dispute with each other only a few years ago. Perhaps even more entertaining than the AIG vs CMI fiasco was the Discovery Inst vs Thomas Moore Law Center fight just before the start of the Dover trial in Harrisburg; part of the quarrel was even broadcast live on C-SPAN! To be sure, it's a little disappointing that this dispute was one factor that lead to most of the expert witnesses for the defense withdrawing from the trial, as we were denied the chance to see Bill Dembski and others be embarrassed on the stand like Michael Behe was.

J. L. Brown said:

Robert Byers said: Well i'm YEC and not ID. Creationism is subject driven and its a big spectrum of subjects. YEC starts from the bible ...

Wait; are you saying that YEC starts out assuming the thing it is trying to show? Isn't that a classical error in reasoning; wouldn't it be a stronger position if you reached a conclusion without assuming it was true?

... and then attacks its critics based on the evidence of nature since the critics claim to be using nature's evidence.

But the critics position isn't really important! If one position is successful at explaining how nature behaves -- if YEC is correct -- then no coherent or successful criticism would ever be possible. That's the sort of thing I hope you can show me; not 'Why my opponents are wrong', but rather 'Here are the things my position can successfully explain and predict' -- and if your position happens to do a better job, about more stuff in nature, then it is pretty obvious who the winner is.

ID says nature shows the fingerprints of a creator ...

There! That is what I am after! Please show me a few of those fingerprints, teach me how to find & measure them for myself. That would have tremendous persuasive power.

... and any idea of chance building nature is impossible bu observing the complexity.

That sounds suspiciously like an argument from personal incredulity -- "I can not believe this, therefore it must be false" -- and such an argument is very risky. It doesn't guarantee that your conclusions are incorrect, but it allows incorrect reasoning to slip through key points. Safer to stay away from that sort of thing.

The evidence is the complexity of nature and the reasoned impossibility of chance as origin.

Sounds a bit like personal incredulity again; if anyone were to show that a natural random process could produce a complex output, then this whole argument would fall apart. I would rather stay away from such a fragile argument if possible.

Then they also get atomic about this complexity being only possible from a thinking being.

That is a very strong avenue of approach! If IC and CSI can be detected and measured, then ID will have truly established itself -- and that's exactly what I was hoping you could show me.

They also attack the wrong ideas of evolution etc. they keep a bit though.

Again, if ID provides a better explanation than the Modern Synthesis, then the claims of your opponents don't really matter. The correct explanation will be useful, and be used; a bad 'explanation' will not be fruitful, will not be useful, will not be used -- and will eventually fade into obscurity.

Creationism(s) and evolutionism and No-evidence-for-a-creator-ism all work upon the same evidence in nature and claim to. Saying each other must provide evidence is just not accurate.

Newtonian mechanics got things wrong; Einstein didn't make his point by attacking Newton -- he just provided a better model. Since his General Relativity explained all the behavior in nature that Newtonian Mechanics did -- plus a bit that Newton just plain couldn't get right -- it is Einstein that gets used in situations where precision and accuracy matter. Just show us how IC and CSI can be detected; just provide the better model. Please explain how these things can be measured, and everyone can go off and measure -- and in so doing, maybe ID can find uses and prove itself to be the better model. Any demands for evidence beyond that just aren't terribly useful.

Everybody rather must demonstrate natures evidence rightly leads to their conclusions. Then everybody can take on that "evidence". The contentions in origins are about interpreting evidence from nature and not discovering it. evidence for creationism EXPO means interpreting whats already known.

I'm glad that we both seem to agree that nature itself is the final arbiter of what is and is not a good explanation of nature; but I must disagree about the role of discovery. I like discovering new things; discovery can lead to all sorts of wonderful stuff. In any case, it helps to not be confused by the legalistic language that gets tossed around here occasionally -- nature isn't about court cases or labored hair-splitting. What works works; what doesn't work doesn't. Anyone who can tell the rest of us what works -- or what works better than what is currently being used -- deserves to be heard. In that spirit, can you please explain how I can detect and measure CSI? If not, who can demonstrate this?

John said:

Tenncrain said: As has been pointed out, even the ENCODE scientists openly state they have not falsified junk DNA. But speaking of infighting, FL naively thinks we don't remember how Answers In Genesis and Creation Ministries International had that very heated legal dispute with each other only a few years ago. Perhaps even more entertaining than the AIG vs CMI fiasco was the Discovery Inst vs Thomas Moore Law Center fight just before the start of the Dover trial in Harrisburg; part of the quarrel was even broadcast live on C-SPAN! To be sure, it's a little disappointing that this dispute was one factor that lead to most of the expert witnesses for the defense withdrawing from the trial, as we were denied the chance to see Bill Dembski and others be embarrassed on the stand like Michael Behe was.

ENCODE lead researcher Ewan Birney may be the only biologist not named James A. Shapiro who thinks that Junk DNA is "functional".

OTherwise, thanks for the memories Tenncrain. I still get more than a laugh or two whenever I think of the Thomas More Law Center's pissing match with the Disco Tute. It's one worthy of commemoration by Monty Python IMHO.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

Robert Byers said: ... Saying each other must provide evidence is just not accurate.

Evolutionists have to provide evidence, and they do. Pseudoscientists are the only ones who think that they need no evidence for, say, the Designer (I mean evidence of actual design--rationality, thinking across evolutionary limitations, etc., rather than deliberately conflating evolutionary and design expectations, a la Dembski). If you don't have evidence of design, and you don't, then you have nothing.

Everybody rather must demonstrate natures evidence rightly leads to their conclusions.

The only honest way to do this is to begin with nature, not with the Rig Veda or the Bible.

Then everybody can take on that "evidence".

Then explain the evidence. Why does life have all of the indications of being limited by their transmission of DNA, vertically, horizontally, or both? Evolution explains it all handily, unsurprisingly, as it's modeled on the evidence, while all of the pseudoscientific explanations avoid this central issue while picking at side issues.

The contentions in origins are about interpreting evidence from nature and not discovering it.

Of course that marks the pseudoscienist/apologist. Evolution is the only idea that actually leads to discovery, because it has mechanisms that both enable and limit biological change. Horizontal transmission of DNA had to be considered in archea, bacteria, and some of the eukarya, when it was shown that vertical transmission of DNA was inadequate to explain DNA sequences (at first, the products of the DNA, not the DNA itself). ID/creationism merely had "Goddidit" as an explanation, so could lead to no discovery of non-vertical DNA transmission.

evidence for creationism EXPO means interpreting whats already known.

It means faking it as much as possible. Until and unless creationism of all kinds can actually come from honest discovery, instead of merely twisting actual science's results, it's nothing but dishonesty. Not written for the unteachable Byers, but for anyone genuinely interested in learning who doesn't yet know. Glen Davidson

TomS said:

Robert Byers said: YEC starts from the bible and then attacks its critics based on the evidence of nature since the critics claim to be using nature's evidence.

If you use the same methodology about the question whether the Sun goes around the Earth, what are your results? Do you allow the evidence of nature to influence your interpretation of the Bible passages which were read (by everybody, for something like 2000 years) as saying that the Sun makes a daily orbit of the fixed Earth? Why do you accept the heliocentric interpretation of the Bible?

Evolutionists don’t provide evidence but rather interpret raw data and by accumulation its called evidence.

We do this too.

There’s no evidence bits in a box in these matters. its not a proper way of looking at it.

We see nature working or its results and this raw data is used to figure out origins for our natural world.

YEC/ID evidence for our conclusions using this data is explained everytime something is discussed.

Bullshit, Robert.

You've been asked and begged again and again and again for any evidence to prop up your campfire stories. You provide nothing.

Ergo, your words mean nothing.

Robert Byers said: The bible never said anything about the sun. its just wording.

Robert Byers said:Evolutionists don’t provide evidence but rather interpret raw data and by accumulation its called evidence. We do this too. There’s no evidence bits in a box in these matters. its not a proper way of looking at it. We see nature working or its results and this raw data is used to figure out origins for our natural world. YEC/ID evidence for our conclusions using this data is explained everytime something is discussed.

Has Ewan Birney actually addressed the criticism directed at him for his sloppy PR work? Does he realize the harm he has done or is he unrepentant?

So, Robert Byers, are you going to ever bother to present evidence to prove that Young Earth Creationism is a science magically superior to Evolutionary Biology, or are you going to continue boring and annoying us with your whining and inanely feeble word lawyering?

Robert Byers said: The bible never said anything about the sun. its just wording.

TomS said:

Robert Byers said: The bible never said anything about the sun. its just wording.

The Bible never said anything about evolution. (I don't even see any "just wording" about evolution, so I'm not adding "It's just wording", but I'm not going to argue about that.) Nothing about the mechanism of the origins of species, nothing about common/separate descent, nothing about micro or macro evolution, nothing about extinctions, nothing about biogeography, nothing about taxonomy, nothing about most forms of life on Earth (for example, nothing about microbes), nothing about biochemistry, nothing about the vertebrate eye, nothing about the adaptive immune system, nothing about bacterial flagella, ... Why do you think that the Bible says nothing about the Sun? I'd bet that it is because you accept the word of scientists about the heliocentric model of the Solar System. (And I'm willing to bet that most heliocentrist creationists have no better understanding of the scientific evidence for heliocentrism than they do about evolution.)

Robert Byers said: The bible has boundaries for many matters and so, logically, other conclusions are wrong as far as the bible sees it. It's only on these origin subjects that there is contention.

It's possible other matters in 'science" are wrong and live because of lack of investigation and interest.

J. L. Brown said:

Robert Byers said:Evolutionists don’t provide evidence but rather interpret raw data and by accumulation its called evidence. We do this too. There’s no evidence bits in a box in these matters. its not a proper way of looking at it. We see nature working or its results and this raw data is used to figure out origins for our natural world. YEC/ID evidence for our conclusions using this data is explained everytime something is discussed.

I'm having trouble parsing that down into something that makes sense; maybe I just need my morning coffee. Can you please be clearer? It sounds a bit as though you may hold that any observations of nature are untrustworthy, because of human fallibility -- ie, our senses are constantly deceived, and nothing we see, hear, touch, etc is in any way trustworthy. Sorry if I have misinterpreted you -- like I said, no coffee yet. All of this is beside the point though -- I was hoping for an explanation of CSI and how to detect and measure it. Can you please help me to understand how this works?

Robert,

The Atlantic Ocean basin is ~150,000,000 inches wide.

Actual GPS (like the GPS in your car) measurements between the United States and Europe show the Atlantic Ocean basin is growing by ~1 inch per year.

What is your estimate of the age of the Atlantic Ocean basin?

My estimate is ~150,000,000 years.

This is confirmed with multiple additional lines of measurements.

Could this indicate the Earth is older than 10,000 years?

There is a measured trans-Neptunian object identified as Sedna 90377. Sedna takes 11,400 years to orbit the sun. Has Sedna perhaps completed more than one orbit since formation?

Could these measurements indicate the Earth is older than 10,000 years?

Paul Burnett said: Are you including the blatantly mythologicaal story of Noah's Flood in "origin subjects"? Or are you aware that there is some contention over that story?

Robert Byers said: Coffee away! It was well said what i said. Again you say measure creationism.

Robert Byers said: There is only 'measurement" of raw data in nature (laying asidfe YEC witness called the bible). Different people come up with different measurements. In origin subjects it's because there is no actual measuring but speculating without verification.

Robert Byers said: On any particular subject creationism(s) interoperates the data of nature . This is the evidence we present.

J. L. Brown said: I have asked, repeatedly, for some example -- any example at all -- where CSI is clearly observable. Any similar example of IC would also be useful. Although any evidence from observations in nature which supports YEC claims is on topic for this thread, talking about YEC-related topics doesn't answer my questions. Can someone, anyone, please define and demonstrate CSI?

Robert Byers said:

TomS said:

Robert Byers said: The bible never said anything about the sun. its just wording.

The Bible never said anything about evolution. (I don't even see any "just wording" about evolution, so I'm not adding "It's just wording", but I'm not going to argue about that.) Nothing about the mechanism of the origins of species, nothing about common/separate descent, nothing about micro or macro evolution, nothing about extinctions, nothing about biogeography, nothing about taxonomy, nothing about most forms of life on Earth (for example, nothing about microbes), nothing about biochemistry, nothing about the vertebrate eye, nothing about the adaptive immune system, nothing about bacterial flagella, ... Why do you think that the Bible says nothing about the Sun? I'd bet that it is because you accept the word of scientists about the heliocentric model of the Solar System. (And I'm willing to bet that most heliocentrist creationists have no better understanding of the scientific evidence for heliocentrism than they do about evolution.)

The bible has boundaries for many matters and so, logically, other conclusions are wrong as far as the bible sees it. It's only on these origin subjects that there is contention. It's possible other matters in 'science" are wrong and live because of lack of investigation and interest.

And flat-Earthism.

Most of the Christian world used to KNOW the world was flat, and KNEW that the Bible backed them up. Now they (mostly) KNOW the Earth is spherical, and "KNOW" that the Bible never said it was flat. What caused that Christianity-wide change of literal world-view? Could it have been the exploration of the physical world and the rise of modern science that forced them to change their opinions on what the Bible meant, and conclude that all those earlier Christians had been WRONG for ~1500 years?

It surely wasn't any new verses suddenly appearing in the Bible, testifying to a round planet.

Robert Byers said:

J. L. Brown said:

Robert Byers said:Evolutionists don’t provide evidence but rather interpret raw data and by accumulation its called evidence. We do this too. There’s no evidence bits in a box in these matters. its not a proper way of looking at it. We see nature working or its results and this raw data is used to figure out origins for our natural world. YEC/ID evidence for our conclusions using this data is explained everytime something is discussed.

I'm having trouble parsing that down into something that makes sense; maybe I just need my morning coffee. Can you please be clearer? It sounds a bit as though you may hold that any observations of nature are untrustworthy, because of human fallibility -- ie, our senses are constantly deceived, and nothing we see, hear, touch, etc is in any way trustworthy. Sorry if I have misinterpreted you -- like I said, no coffee yet. All of this is beside the point though -- I was hoping for an explanation of CSI and how to detect and measure it. Can you please help me to understand how this works?

Coffee away! It was well said what i said. Again you say measure creationism. There is only 'measurement" of raw data in nature (laying asidfe YEC witness called the bible). Different people come up with different measurements. In origin subjects it's because there is no actual measuring but speculating without verification. On any particular subject creationism(s) interoperates the data of nature . This is the evidence we present. There is no such thing as creationist or evolutionist evidence. Just subjects and points with their own investigations whether well done or not.

rob said: Robert, The Atlantic Ocean basin is ~150,000,000 inches wide. Actual GPS (like the GPS in your car) measurements between the United States and Europe show the Atlantic Ocean basin is growing by ~1 inch per year. What is your estimate of the age of the Atlantic Ocean basin? My estimate is ~150,000,000 years. This is confirmed with multiple additional lines of measurements. Could this indicate the Earth is older than 10,000 years? There is a measured trans-Neptunian object identified as Sedna 90377. Sedna takes 11,400 years to orbit the sun. Has Sedna perhaps completed more than one orbit since formation? Could these measurements indicate the Earth is older than 10,000 years?

J. L. Brown said:

Robert Byers said: Coffee away! It was well said what i said. Again you say measure creationism.

No, my questions have concerned measuring CSI. I have for examples, any examples, of CSI and IC; are you saying that these concepts are part of creationism?

Robert Byers said: There is only 'measurement" of raw data in nature (laying asidfe YEC witness called the bible). Different people come up with different measurements. In origin subjects it's because there is no actual measuring but speculating without verification.

Wait a second -- Intelligent Design, and it's central concepts of Irreducible Complexity and Complex Specified Information deal exclusively with origin subjects. YEC also deals exclusively with origin subjects. Are you saying that these are just 'speculating without verification'? That seems like a strange thing to say.

Robert Byers said: On any particular subject creationism(s) interoperates the data of nature . This is the evidence we present.

And that is exactly what I am asking for; where in nature can I observe IC and CSI? How can I tell that what I observe actually is -- or is not -- genuine IC or CSI? I have asked, repeatedly, for some example -- any example at all -- where CSI is clearly observable. Any similar example of IC would also be useful. Although any evidence from observations in nature which supports YEC claims is on topic for this thread, talking about YEC-related topics doesn't answer my questions. Can someone, anyone, please define and demonstrate CSI?

TomS said:

Robert Byers said:

TomS said:

Robert Byers said: The bible never said anything about the sun. its just wording.

The Bible never said anything about evolution. (I don't even see any "just wording" about evolution, so I'm not adding "It's just wording", but I'm not going to argue about that.) Nothing about the mechanism of the origins of species, nothing about common/separate descent, nothing about micro or macro evolution, nothing about extinctions, nothing about biogeography, nothing about taxonomy, nothing about most forms of life on Earth (for example, nothing about microbes), nothing about biochemistry, nothing about the vertebrate eye, nothing about the adaptive immune system, nothing about bacterial flagella, ... Why do you think that the Bible says nothing about the Sun? I'd bet that it is because you accept the word of scientists about the heliocentric model of the Solar System. (And I'm willing to bet that most heliocentrist creationists have no better understanding of the scientific evidence for heliocentrism than they do about evolution.)

The bible has boundaries for many matters and so, logically, other conclusions are wrong as far as the bible sees it. It's only on these origin subjects that there is contention. It's possible other matters in 'science" are wrong and live because of lack of investigation and interest.

You (and, BTW, I would like to hear from anyone, whether they deny or accept evolution or geocentrism) haven't told me why people today accept the heliocentric model of the Solar System and find ways of accommodating that acceptance with the Bible. You have told us that you believe that the Bible does not say that the Sun makes a daily orbit of a fixed Earth. I understand that you believe that. There is no need for you to repeat that belief. What I want to know is the reason that you (or anyone else) thinks that. Given that for a couple of thousand years, up to the time of the rise of modern science, no one thought that the Bible did not teach that the Sun orbited a fixed Earth, anybody would have to wonder why there was such a change of opinion. I am not arguing that that interpretation of the Bible is true or false, and I am not arguing whether geocentrism is true or false. What I am asking about why there was that change of opinion, and why so many people today, unlike everybody for a couple of thousand years, take that approach to the Bible passages which look like they're supporting geocentrism. I agree that all of those people over all of those years could have been mistaken. But what was it that caused people to suddenly grasp the real meaning of the Bible? It looks to me as if the reason that there has been that massive change of opinion is due to scientific discoveries of modern science. I think that people today think that the Bible does not teach geocentrism is due, in part, to the evidence provided by modern science. I think that anybody would have to admit that it is somewhat plausible that modern science has been a significant factor in the modern opinion about the Bible being compatible with heliocentrism.

Take a course and learn something dipstick.

"Valley's in northern areas were not made by their present streams but great events of moving water."

I have the feeling that Byers has heard somewhere about glaciation, but has completely garbled it, in classic Byersian fashion.

Byers, did you ever pause to think that there are differences between the effects of large flows of water over short times, and relatively small flows over very long times, and that geologists know this, and can tell the difference? So that, if these 'valley's' were the result of the run-off of one almighty flood, they'd know it and would say so?

Robert Byers said: It's welcome and true the coninents separated. Yet this was within the flood year. Any later separation is from minor secondary actions in the crust the result from a great original separation. all that there is IS separation of the land. The minor movement today is not evidence for the original movement. even if it was true. It's just a line of reasoning and not based on scientific evidence.

Robert Byers said:

J. L. Brown said: And that is exactly what I am asking for; where in nature can I observe IC and CSI? How can I tell that what I observe actually is -- or is not -- genuine IC or CSI? I have asked, repeatedly, for some example -- any example at all -- where CSI is clearly observable. Any similar example of IC would also be useful. Although any evidence from observations in nature which supports YEC claims is on topic for this thread, talking about YEC-related topics doesn't answer my questions. Can someone, anyone, please define and demonstrate CSI?

IC and CSI are things I investigate. Still however IC is about the raw data of nature and demonstrating its too complex to be reduced into simple mechanisms without a thinking being behind it. Nature is the evidence by this line of investigation. ID is saying it just can't be reduced further! The testing is that it can't and critics tsting must be to show it can!

Robert Byers said: This can be compared to geomorphology research that shows many valley's in northern areas were not made by their present streams but great events of moving water. The present streams are only taking advantage of the land decline . they are called underfit rivers meaning too small to have created their valleys. Likewise in your example. It's welcome and true the coninents separated. Yet this was within the flood year. Any later separation is from minor secondary actions in the crust the result from a great original separation. all that there is IS separation of the land. The minor movement today is not evidence for the original movement. even if it was true. It's just a line of reasoning and not based on scientific evidence. IC and CSI are things I investigate. Still however IC is about the raw data of nature and demonstrating its too complex to be reduced into simple mechanisms without a thinking being behind it. Nature is the evidence by this line of investigation. ID is saying it just can’t be reduced further! The testing is that it can’t and critics tsting must be to show it can! That people thought what thought is of no matter! Protestantism corrected Catholicism! people changed thier minds based on demonstrated evidence and the bible never said otherwise but only use words as everyone did and does. Evolution has not demonstrated itself, as many insist, and it makes conclusions clearly opposite to the bible.

dalehusband said: I have to wonder if Robert Byers is certifiably insane; his statements make no sense and have no basis in reality.

apokryltaros said: So have either Robert Byers or FL bothered to present any actual support for their inane claims that Creationism/Intelligent Design are somehow magically sciences, or that Evolution(ary Biology) has somehow magically failed as a science?

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said: It's welcome and true the coninents separated. Yet this was within the flood year. Any later separation is from minor secondary actions in the crust the result from a great original separation. all that there is IS separation of the land. The minor movement today is not evidence for the original movement. even if it was true. It's just a line of reasoning and not based on scientific evidence.

I would tell you to do some research into the history of how sea-floor spreading was discoved by using towed mangetometers, but you wouldn't do it and you wouldn't understand anything you did read. So...for the sake of the lurkers.... If you tow a sensitive magnetometer behind a ship, you can detect the historical (on a geologic time scale) reversals of the Earth's magnetic field. The pattern of reversals can be correlated with the same reversals on land, and the rocks in question can be dated. That the patterns are repeated (in reverse) on the opposite side of the Midatlantic ridge shows that the ocean spreads from the center. This is also an excellent example of making peaceful use of technology developed for military purposes, since the magnetometers go back to the World War II magnetic mines.

Robert Byers said: That people thought what thought is of no matter! Protestantism corrected Catholicism! people changed thier minds based on demonstrated evidence and the bible never said otherwise but only use words as everyone did and does. Evolution has not demonstrated itself, as many insist, and it makes conclusions clearly opposite to the bible.

Belief that the Earth was flat was not as widespread, for as long, by such authorities, nor with such vigor, as belief in geocentrism. See, for example, the Wikipedia article Myth of the Flat Earth

I am concentrating on geocentrism because it is beyond doubt true that, up until the rise of modern science, there were only a very few people who questioned geocentrism, and no one doubted that the Bible supported geocentrism. (In the Christian world, there are only a couple of people in the late Middle Ages who suggested heliocentrism. See Wikipedia: Heliocentrism#Western Christendom)
Geocentrism is unlike belief in the flat earth in that (1) the evidence for a round Earth is accessible to the public without recourse to the methods of modern science and (2) Jews and Christians, from early days, managed to accommodate their respect for Scripture with their knowledge about the shape of the Earth.

I dare say that even today, people who are not fairly sophisticated in their knowledge of science would find it difficult to demonstrate that the Earth is a planet of the Solar System. I would go so far as to say that the evidence for common descent with modification is more accessible to the general public than is the evidence for heliocentrism: Most people have to rely on their trust that what "everybody knows" is true, more so for heliocentrism than for evolutionary biology.

And I can even make a better case for the Bible being silent about evolution, as compared to what the Bible has to say about evolution (given that anything about species is an anachronism in the context of the Ancient Near East).

John said:

W. H. Heydt said: I would tell you to do some research into the history of how sea-floor spreading was discoved by using towed mangetometers, but you wouldn't do it and you wouldn't understand anything you did read. So...for the sake of the lurkers.... If you tow a sensitive magnetometer behind a ship, you can detect the historical (on a geologic time scale) reversals of the Earth's magnetic field. The pattern of reversals can be correlated with the same reversals on land, and the rocks in question can be dated. That the patterns are repeated (in reverse) on the opposite side of the Midatlantic ridge shows that the ocean spreads from the center. This is also an excellent example of making peaceful use of technology developed for military purposes, since the magnetometers go back to the World War II magnetic mines.

Over at the Huffington Post at one of James A. Shapiro's blogs, one of his delusional creationist fans, Wendell Read, claimed falsely that Alfred Wegener had proposed the theory of plate tectonics. In reply I noted that Wegner had no conception of plate tectonics, andt that this theory didn't emerge until geologists began using for scientific research, some of the very instruments that had been used for waging World War II against the Axis Powers. Thank you W. H. Heydt for posting a far more explicit answer here than what I did at HuffPo. (Though even if I did, I doubt Read would "get it".)

W. H. Heydt said: What Wegener proposed was "continental drift", which (basically) held that the continents sort of plowed through the sea floor crust. While this idea wasn't new with him, he did make the key observation that got used as plate tectonics developed that the matching edges of the separating continents were the edges of the continental shelves, NOT the present shoreline. In that sense, one can trace plate tectonics back to Wegener. The problem with Wegener was two-fold. First, he was a Meteorologist, and the Geologists largely dismissed his work on that basis (more so in the US than in Europe), and the mechanism--differential (with latitude) centripetal acceleration--was fairly quickly shown to be inadequate. Where this digression all ties back to the creationist trolls is that they tend to treat different scientific disciplines as separate and non-interacting. This is--of course--a failure to understand the way different branches of science interact and reinforce each other. You can see the failure in their efforts to "explain away" the data that supports an old Earth in an old universe. When a problem is pointed out, like the light from distant stars, they will throw out an ad hoc fix like changing the speed of light, and creates bunch more problems they don't anticipate, like shifting energy levels or changing radioactive decay rates. Their "fixes" to make things come out the way they want just get them into a deeper mess.

Just a couple notes for Mr. Brown:

There's a basic explanation of Irreducible Complexity (IC) as evidence of Intelligent Design, with clear examples, that I've now completed over on the Bathroom Wall.

If you are interested, you may take time to look at it and think it over.

****

I think you also asked, "Tell you what – are there any textbooks on this subject? Just something basic, suitable (for example) for introducing and explaining these topics to high school students, would do."

Behe's classic book "Darwin's Black Box" immediately comes to mind.

However, most high schoolers prefer to start off with short articles and especially videos, to help get them "warmed up" for the text book stuff. So start your students off with short Behe articles like "Molecular Machines":

http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm

And start them off with videos like these:

http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html

Also, I would easily recommend William Dembski's basic 1999 book "Intelligent Design" for high school students. This is easy to read, and easily understood. Readers will NOT be able to figure out "how to calculate CSI", (hey, I can't either), but they'll at least understand the basic definition and description of CSI in the first place.

(For example, every paragraph, every sentence, every post in this forum, is a clear example of CSI.)

There are other good, shorter explanations, such as those at Access Research Network website. Check them out at www.arn.org .

FL

A creation scientist by the name of Antonio Snider-Pellegrini later published the concept in his book, La Création et ses mystères dévoilés (Creation and its Mysteries Unveiled), in 1858.[2] To form his theory, Snider drew from Genesis 1:9-10 where it is explained that God gathered the seas into one place, suggesting the possibility of one single landmass at that point in time. He also observed the close fit of the Eastern South American coast and the Western African coast.

He concluded that the Flood of Noah had caused subsequent horizontal movement of the supercontinent causing it to break, thus forming the tectonic plates. Snider's idea was overlooked, possibly due to the fact that Darwin's book had been published in the same year. Snider wrote a book and even had it translated into French, but still, his theory went unnoticed until the early twentieth century. At that time, the German meteorologist Alfred Wegener wrote a book on the idea of one original supercontinent called Pangaea.

You made no such explanation or example of Irreducible Complexity, FL.

You simply gushed about how incomprehensibly complex and stupidly perfect the human eye and the human body are, and then jumped to GODDIDIT as the only explanation. When challenged, you then lied about not ignoring other more primitive and more advanced eyes seen in animals, while also using the shifting burden of proof onto me, while threatening me with excommunication solely because I did not kiss your ass in celebration of your latest example of Lies and Stupidity For Jesus.

And your reference is CreationWiki, of all sources, FL?

The only site less trustworthy and more incompetent is Conservapedia.

And Snider-Pellegrini was not the first person to propose continental drift, moron. That would be the Flemish cartographer, Abraham Ortelius, in the 1500's, a little less than 3 centuries before Snider-Pellegrini.

It was first proposed by, ummm, a CREATIONIST. And he got the idea from the book of Genesis!

If the theoretical basis of the ideas should prove adequateto support them, they [convection currents] could in any case be considered as contributory factors in the formation of the surface of the earth. It is still not possible at present to survey the theoretical background. Wegener, 1929 178-179, my bracketed additions [author's bracketed additions, not mine, Glen Davidson]

Wegener, as noted already [2.7] mentioned internal currents as a possible cause of mobilism in his Petermanns paper (1912b).

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

It was first proposed by, ummm, a CREATIONIST. And he got the idea from the book of Genesis!

Wow, a creationist before the Origin was published. Gee, so was Cicero. Utterly moronic drift idea, at that. Wegener did know about ideas of convection currents moving things around in the crust, and mentioned it, although he didn't do much with it:

If the theoretical basis of the ideas should prove adequateto support them, they [convection currents] could in any case be considered as contributory factors in the formation of the surface of the earth. It is still not possible at present to survey the theoretical background. Wegener, 1929 178-179, my bracketed additions [author's bracketed additions, not mine, Glen Davidson]

And:

Wegener, as noted already [2.7] mentioned internal currents as a possible cause of mobilism in his Petermanns paper (1912b).

Both quotes from here. Arthur Holmes especially pushed the convection hypothesis. I think Wegener only knew vaguely of it from others, hence it was only mentioned, nevertheless better ideas than his original notions were in the air and even mentioned by Wegener. It's fortunate that in Europe geologists tended to be more open-minded about it, and there they worked such ideas together until they were fairly good models. In fact, the tale is that some plate tectonics scientists at a conference mentioned that it might be well to search for magnetic signals of seafloor spreading, and at the same time someone was presenting the magnetic data collected that had these baffling anomalies--reversals of polarity. The right people found out, and they were off and running with evidence for plate tectonics. Glen Davidson

FL said: Just one more thing: Wegener was NOT the first to propose continental drift.

Regarding why fundamentalists accept heliocentrism but not evolution, my guess is that the described theology is dependent on length and order of events here on Earth, but isn't dependent on the arrangement and motion of objects out in space. So while heliocentrism conflicts with a few statements here and there in the Bible, it doesn't conflict with the theology that it describes. So they (mostly at least) don't worry about it.

That's my 2 cents on that.

Henry

Henry J said: Regarding why fundamentalists accept heliocentrism but not evolution, my guess is that the described theology is dependent on length and order of events here on Earth, but isn't dependent on the arrangement and motion of objects out in space. So while heliocentrism conflicts with a few statements here and there in the Bible, it doesn't conflict with the theology that it describes. So they (mostly at least) don't worry about it. That's my 2 cents on that. Henry

apokryltaros said:

Henry J said: Regarding why fundamentalists accept heliocentrism but not evolution, my guess is that the described theology is dependent on length and order of events here on Earth, but isn't dependent on the arrangement and motion of objects out in space. So while heliocentrism conflicts with a few statements here and there in the Bible, it doesn't conflict with the theology that it describes. So they (mostly at least) don't worry about it. That's my 2 cents on that. Henry

Or that the evidence for a heliocentric solar system is so undeniable that only the blindest and the crazy-stupidest of the various Idiots For Jesus would deny it for piety's sake.

Here's another angle. Evolution is (relatively) easy to misunderstand. In fact, that's a chronic feature among anti-evolutionists and makes up a good chunk of their literature almost without fail. Notice how many of them rely on a boneheaded version of evolution that would require crocoducks, lizards with half a wing, male and female sexes evolving independently of each other at the same time for each species, or humans having to totally displace monkeys if we evolved from them.

On the other hand, "the Earth goes around the Sun" is harder to get wrong.

It really isn't that complicated - apply what I'll call political usefullness - to any scientific endeavor or fact and one can predict who will deny it's truth. In the 1490's - 1600 +/- the same trade routes that brought wealth to Europe (and the Church) also spread Christianity - Missions went almost everywhere the great explorers did. More accurate navigation (and the observations that lead to it) were at least eventually tolerated if not outrightly endorsed by the Church because it served the Church's own interests. On the other hand we have a meme arising around 1850 of the clockwork universe and man's place in it- where some see the hand of God and some see no need for God - the stage is set for a Us vs Them scenario- a confict that somehow serves the purposes of certain religious sects and without a counter/ practical/financial benefit to offset it.

If one wants to get a real feel for the intellectual foundations of ID/creationism, it is hard to do better than to look at their pseudoscience about how they think the universe works.

Here is a recent video by Ian Juby that is full of misconceptions, misrepresentations, and conflations.

And who can forget the snarky Thomas Kindell, protégé of Henry Morris at ICR, who presents Morris’ complete mangle of thermodynamics.

Then there is Werner Gitt who thinks “In the Beginning was Information.”

All of ID/creationism is built on these misconceptions, misrepresentations, and conflations. Dembski, Marks, Abel, and the rest of those “great thinkers and theorists” of ID/creationism all base their works on the junk found in those videos.

This is their world view. It is wrong, it comports with their sectarian dogma; and nothing is going to change their minds.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

apokryltaros said: Or that the evidence for a heliocentric solar system is so undeniable that only the blindest and the crazy-stupidest of the various Idiots For Jesus would deny it for piety's sake.

Is the evidence for evolution really less?

Yes. The retrograde motions of Venus and Mercury were known in ancient times, but are actually rather difficult to observe, requiring close attention over long periods. It was not until Copernicus that it was realised that they could be far more economically explained by constant motion of the Earth and the other planets around the sun than by assuming that unknown forces somehow reversed direction from time to time, which events were suspiciously regular. Newton's Laws provided corroboration. But until stellar aberration - which is really very small - was measured, no direct evidence was available.

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said: It's welcome and true the coninents separated. Yet this was within the flood year. Any later separation is from minor secondary actions in the crust the result from a great original separation. all that there is IS separation of the land. The minor movement today is not evidence for the original movement. even if it was true. It's just a line of reasoning and not based on scientific evidence.

I would tell you to do some research into the history of how sea-floor spreading was discoved by using towed mangetometers, but you wouldn't do it and you wouldn't understand anything you did read. So...for the sake of the lurkers.... If you tow a sensitive magnetometer behind a ship, you can detect the historical (on a geologic time scale) reversals of the Earth's magnetic field. The pattern of reversals can be correlated with the same reversals on land, and the rocks in question can be dated. That the patterns are repeated (in reverse) on the opposite side of the Midatlantic ridge shows that the ocean spreads from the center. This is also an excellent example of making peaceful use of technology developed for military purposes, since the magnetometers go back to the World War II magnetic mines.

J. L. Brown said:

Robert Byers said:

J. L. Brown said: And that is exactly what I am asking for; where in nature can I observe IC and CSI? How can I tell that what I observe actually is -- or is not -- genuine IC or CSI? I have asked, repeatedly, for some example -- any example at all -- where CSI is clearly observable. Any similar example of IC would also be useful. Although any evidence from observations in nature which supports YEC claims is on topic for this thread, talking about YEC-related topics doesn't answer my questions. Can someone, anyone, please define and demonstrate CSI?

IC and CSI are things I investigate. Still however IC is about the raw data of nature and demonstrating its too complex to be reduced into simple mechanisms without a thinking being behind it. Nature is the evidence by this line of investigation. ID is saying it just can't be reduced further! The testing is that it can't and critics tsting must be to show it can!

This is my sixth post, and you have made (since I first asked) about fifteen posts. You say you 'study' IC and CSI, but you seem entirely unable to answer even the simplest questions about these things. Is there any substance at all to ID? Why do you waste time, verbiage, and electrons prevaricating? Is it simply that you cannot provide any sensible answers? Please define IC, and provide a clear example or two of where it can and cannot be seen. Please define CSI, and provide similar simple example -- even hypothetical ones. Share with us where in nature these can be observed, and how these observations can be made -- or admit that IC and CSI are nonsense, empty concepts.

John said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said: It's welcome and true the coninents separated. Yet this was within the flood year. Any later separation is from minor secondary actions in the crust the result from a great original separation. all that there is IS separation of the land. The minor movement today is not evidence for the original movement. even if it was true. It's just a line of reasoning and not based on scientific evidence.

I would tell you to do some research into the history of how sea-floor spreading was discoved by using towed mangetometers, but you wouldn't do it and you wouldn't understand anything you did read. So...for the sake of the lurkers.... If you tow a sensitive magnetometer behind a ship, you can detect the historical (on a geologic time scale) reversals of the Earth's magnetic field. The pattern of reversals can be correlated with the same reversals on land, and the rocks in question can be dated. That the patterns are repeated (in reverse) on the opposite side of the Midatlantic ridge shows that the ocean spreads from the center. This is also an excellent example of making peaceful use of technology developed for military purposes, since the magnetometers go back to the World War II magnetic mines.

Over at the Huffington Post at one of James A. Shapiro's blogs, one of his delusional creationist fans, Wendell Read, claimed falsely that Alfred Wegener had proposed the theory of plate tectonics. In reply I noted that Wegner had no conception of plate tectonics, andt that this theory didn't emerge until geologists began using for scientific research, some of the very instruments that had been used for waging World War II against the Axis Powers. Thank you W. H. Heydt for posting a far more explicit answer here than what I did at HuffPo. (Though even if I did, I doubt Read would "get it".)

FL said: Just one more thing: Wegener was NOT the first to propose continental drift. It was first proposed by, ummm, a CREATIONIST. And he got the idea from the book of Genesis!

A creation scientist by the name of Antonio Snider-Pellegrini later published the concept in his book, La Création et ses mystères dévoilés (Creation and its Mysteries Unveiled), in 1858.[2] To form his theory, Snider drew from Genesis 1:9-10 where it is explained that God gathered the seas into one place, suggesting the possibility of one single landmass at that point in time. He also observed the close fit of the Eastern South American coast and the Western African coast.

He concluded that the Flood of Noah had caused subsequent horizontal movement of the supercontinent causing it to break, thus forming the tectonic plates. Snider's idea was overlooked, possibly due to the fact that Darwin's book had been published in the same year. Snider wrote a book and even had it translated into French, but still, his theory went unnoticed until the early twentieth century. At that time, the German meteorologist Alfred Wegener wrote a book on the idea of one original supercontinent called Pangaea.

http://creationwiki.org/Continental_drift

As usual creationism is way ahead of actual true ideas in origin subjects.

And Robert Byers the Idiot Liar For Jesus still refuses to present any evidence for Creationism being a science, or for Evolution somehow failing.

I wonder if it is because he is an idiot, or if it is because he's too cowardly to admit that he has absolutely no evidence or ability to support his inane false assertions.

Well, not both, apokrytaros. He's no coward, because he's here making a complete fool of himself, difficult as it is to improve on nature, in his case. By some definitions, he's an idiot, true - the original Greek sense of the word is "one who is impervious to ideas outside his own internal concerns", or more colloquially, "one who isn't interested in outside affairs". Byers, it's true, can't engage with any idea that he hasn't internalised, or that he doesn't recognise from internalised authority.

But the real reason for Byers' intransigent irrationality is that Byers simply doesn't understand what evidence is, and can't access it or consider it, because it's beyond his mental horizons. It's pointless to tell him to produce evidence. You might as well ask him to produce galumphwoo. He has no idea of what you mean. He can't for the life of him see why you're making such odd remarks about something that's meaningless.

Theory? Snider's Theory? Snider's what?

A theory is a construction in science that links together various pieces of evidence with one explanation for all, which explanation is then tested by interpolating what further evidence would falsify it, then looking for this evidence empirically. Only if repeated tests find only the evidence predicted by the explanation is the explanation termed a theory.

Which of these steps were followed here? Well, here's a piece of evidence - the eastern coastline of South America and the western coastline of Africa fit rather neatly together. Explanation: the continents were once joined, but were split apart by the results of Noah's Flood. Hurrah! The Bible has been vindicated.

Um. Testing? What testing? What do you mean, you want to know whether a flood would split continents apart? You want to know exactly how? What forces would be required? Where they'd come from? What would be the results of these?

Since the Atlantic was about as wide in 1492 as it is now, to within a few inches, that gives us about four thousand years to go from zero to a width of about three thousand miles, about three-quarters of a mile a year. You want to know how land masses this size could move so fast? What could push them? What would happen at the leading edges? You also want to know why they'd suddenly slow down to the present slow crawl within the last five centuries or so? What was suddenly different, as soon as the Europeans developed the carvel and actually navigated the Atlantic.

What, you mean you want to test the implications? What a nerve! This is proving the Bible. We don't need to descend to your pathetic level of detail.

Theory, my foot.

Robert Byers said:

J. L. Brown said:

Robert Byers said:

J. L. Brown said: And that is exactly what I am asking for; where in nature can I observe IC and CSI? How can I tell that what I observe actually is -- or is not -- genuine IC or CSI? I have asked, repeatedly, for some example -- any example at all -- where CSI is clearly observable. Any similar example of IC would also be useful. Although any evidence from observations in nature which supports YEC claims is on topic for this thread, talking about YEC-related topics doesn't answer my questions. Can someone, anyone, please define and demonstrate CSI?

IC and CSI are things I investigate. Still however IC is about the raw data of nature and demonstrating its too complex to be reduced into simple mechanisms without a thinking being behind it. Nature is the evidence by this line of investigation. ID is saying it just can't be reduced further! The testing is that it can't and critics tsting must be to show it can!

This is my sixth post, and you have made (since I first asked) about fifteen posts. You say you 'study' IC and CSI, but you seem entirely unable to answer even the simplest questions about these things. Is there any substance at all to ID? Why do you waste time, verbiage, and electrons prevaricating? Is it simply that you cannot provide any sensible answers? Please define IC, and provide a clear example or two of where it can and cannot be seen. Please define CSI, and provide similar simple example -- even hypothetical ones. Share with us where in nature these can be observed, and how these observations can be made -- or admit that IC and CSI are nonsense, empty concepts.

Strangely for me I garbled my sentence. I mean I DON't study IC and CSI. I did however make the right answer. All of nature is not reducable ar its obvious complex structures. That's the whole point. Everything in nature is this way! What is reduced to a none complex element.

Robert Byers said: Yeah thats the guy [Snider-Pellegrini]! I heard about him. As usual creationism is way ahead of actual true ideas in origin subjects.

Robert Byers said: Its fine that it separates from the centre. It just happened quick and only later does it sway about or in a minor way keeps pulling apart.

Robert Byers said: Strangely for me I garbled my sentence. I mean I DON't study IC and CSI. I did however make the right answer. All of nature is not reducable ar its obvious complex structures. That's the whole point. Everything in nature is this way! What is reduced to a none complex element.

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said: Its fine that it separates from the centre. It just happened quick and only later does it sway about or in a minor way keeps pulling apart.

Laser measurements show the continents are separating from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (MAR) by a few centimeters a year. This rate of separation has been roughly the same the last 200 million years; we don't need to assume a constant separation rate, for not only do we have magnetic pole reversals that are "frozen" into the rocks, geophysicists have performed direct radiometric dating samples on strata from the sea floor. If radiometric dating of strata 100 kilometers from the MAR (on both sides) gives a result of 10 million years old, strata 500 km away from the MAR gives a result about 50 million years old, and so on as you get farther from the MAR. Before fundamentalists go dismissing radiometric dating, a few pioneers of radiometric/radiocarbon dating were Christian, look up Dr Laurence Kulp as one example. Scientists that are Christians routinely use radiometric dating in their field work, see here http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

I wish Robert Byers would demonstrate that he has even the most rudimentary understanding of science. Like physics and chemistry. He doesn't seem to know anything at all; his arguments really are on a par with what anyone can pull out of his ass, on the rare occacions that an argument of his is decipherable into something resembling coherence.

He doesn't understand even the most basic facts of nature.

I am waiting for RB to outline the process whereby wolves transformed into thylacines. Did a flock of wolves just morph into thylacines withuat any cause, for no reason at all, with no genetic, chemical, physical or other processes involved? Must we believe it because he says it, or why should we believe it?

Is all that he says true simply becaus it is his belief?

I had to skip much of this thread because my head was about to explode but as far as I can tell FL doesn't take exception to any of RB's drivel. Anything goes as long as it rejects sound science, that's creationism in a nutshell.

Obviously, he thinks that holding his hands over his ears and shouting CREATION at the top of his lungs is an argument. No knowledge or facts or logic are needed. Hell, you don't even have to scream anything coherent. Just keep repeating it over and over and everyone will eventually be convinced.

Only problem with that strategy is, that if you really think that constitutes a valid argument, then others can use the same strategy against you. I know it's rude and crude and highly disrespectful. That's the point.

For example: what is not reduced to a none complex element. It isnt it isnt it isnt so there!

Rolf said: Did a flock of wolves just morph into thylacines withuat any cause, for no reason at all, with no genetic, chemical, physical or other processes involved?

Dave Luckett said: Well, not both, apokrytaros. He's no coward, because he's here making a complete fool of himself, difficult as it is to improve on nature, in his case. By some definitions, he's an idiot, true - the original Greek sense of the word is "one who is impervious to ideas outside his own internal concerns", or more colloquially, "one who isn't interested in outside affairs". Byers, it's true, can't engage with any idea that he hasn't internalised, or that he doesn't recognise from internalised authority.

But the real reason for Byers' intransigent irrationality is that Byers simply doesn't understand what evidence is, and can't access it or consider it, because it's beyond his mental horizons. It's pointless to tell him to produce evidence. You might as well ask him to produce galumphwoo. He has no idea of what you mean. He can't for the life of him see why you're making such odd remarks about something that's meaningless.

These clowns make it hard for anyone to take Christians seriously.

I have to remind myself that they don't speak for all Christians, just their retarded little groups of incestuous thought, but if they had their way their delusions would be the official dogma of all Christians.

Good job Flawed, Booby, Iborg, you are deconverting people away from your religion daily. Just by coming here and exposing the gaping maw of your depraved and willful ignorance is probably more of a public service than anything pro-science could ever do.

Agreed. And then the jackasses have the utter audacity to refuse to sign up for a free course to learn anything about genetics or evolution, after their abysmal ignorance has repeatedly been pointed out to them. Ignorance is a temporary condition, willful ignorance is a life style. If they can't be banned they can at least be ridiculed.

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said: Its fine that it separates from the centre. It just happened quick and only later does it sway about or in a minor way keeps pulling apart.

Laser measurements show the continents are separating from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (MAR) by a few centimeters a year. This rate of separation has been roughly the same the last 200 million years; we don't need to assume a constant separation rate, for not only do we have magnetic pole reversals that are "frozen" into the rocks, geophysicists have performed direct radiometric dating samples on strata from the sea floor. If radiometric dating of strata 100 kilometers from the MAR (on both sides) gives a result of 10 million years old, strata 500 km away from the MAR gives a result about 50 million years old, and so on as you get farther from the MAR. Before fundamentalists go dismissing radiometric dating, a few pioneers of radiometric/radiocarbon dating were Christian, look up Dr Laurence Kulp as one example. Scientists that are Christians routinely use radiometric dating in their field work, see here http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

Robert.

You are wrong.

The mid-Atlantic ridge is high (look at Google Maps) because it is still hot soon after formation of the ocean crust (hot rock expands). This is why Iceland is volcanically active and above sea level today.

As the newly created ocean floor moves away from the spreading center it cools and contracts. The ocean gets deeper away from the mid-Atlantic ridge (look at Google Maps).

The measured slope from the mid-Atlantic ridge to the deep Atlantic shows the spreading has been slow and steady at ~1 inch per year for ~150,000,000 years.

If at any time the Atlantic basin opened quickly we could measure it in the slope today.

These are simple measurements you can check or repeat yourself.

The Earth is old and shows it with simple measurements.

Robert Byers said:

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said: Its fine that it separates from the centre. It just happened quick and only later does it sway about or in a minor way keeps pulling apart.

Laser measurements show the continents are separating from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (MAR) by a few centimeters a year. This rate of separation has been roughly the same the last 200 million years; we don't need to assume a constant separation rate, for not only do we have magnetic pole reversals that are "frozen" into the rocks, geophysicists have performed direct radiometric dating samples on strata from the sea floor. If radiometric dating of strata 100 kilometers from the MAR (on both sides) gives a result of 10 million years old, strata 500 km away from the MAR gives a result about 50 million years old, and so on as you get farther from the MAR. Before fundamentalists go dismissing radiometric dating, a few pioneers of radiometric/radiocarbon dating were Christian, look up Dr Laurence Kulp as one example. Scientists that are Christians routinely use radiometric dating in their field work, see here http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

When you say its been 200 million years you are assuming aplenty. The lasers ain't been observing for that long! Whatever is noticed now need be nothing more then minor swaying or minor movement after a great separation event. It's reasonable it would be that way. in fact its unreasonable too see a slow separation. This separation is the origin of smashed up corners and rising mountains and volcanoes everywhere on earth. The first guess should of been of a fast breck. They just didn't imagine what could do that. We , creationists, can imagine the great flood year being the origin. It all works with a fast action.

Dave Luckett said: He's no coward,

Robert Byers said:

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said: Its fine that it separates from the centre. It just happened quick and only later does it sway about or in a minor way keeps pulling apart.

Laser measurements show the continents are separating from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (MAR) by a few centimeters a year. This rate of separation has been roughly the same the last 200 million years; we don't need to assume a constant separation rate, for not only do we have magnetic pole reversals that are "frozen" into the rocks, geophysicists have performed direct radiometric dating samples on strata from the sea floor. If radiometric dating of strata 100 kilometers from the MAR (on both sides) gives a result of 10 million years old, strata 500 km away from the MAR gives a result about 50 million years old, and so on as you get farther from the MAR. Before fundamentalists go dismissing radiometric dating, a few pioneers of radiometric/radiocarbon dating were Christian, look up Dr Laurence Kulp as one example. Scientists that are Christians routinely use radiometric dating in their field work, see here http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

When you say its been 200 million years you are assuming aplenty. The lasers ain't been observing for that long! Whatever is noticed now need be nothing more then minor swaying or minor movement after a great separation event. It's reasonable it would be that way. in fact its unreasonable too see a slow separation. This separation is the origin of smashed up corners and rising mountains and volcanoes everywhere on earth. The first guess should of been of a fast breck. They just didn't imagine what could do that. We , creationists, can imagine the great flood year being the origin. It all works with a fast action.

bigdakine said: Robert, the measurements based on GPS are in excellent agreement with plate motion rates and directions determined from geophysical data such magnetic anomaly stripes coupled with radio-chronology, transform fault azimuths etc. Since the latter were determined years before GPS was brought to bear on plate motions, you are forced to claim that this agreement is a fantastic coincidence. There is no data that supports any of your claims. None. However, all of the data gathered to date, supports Plate Tectonics. No such thing as a slow opening you say? Try the East African Rift. You're a cartoonish buffoon. You should be proud of yourself.

What's that you says, evidences? I cant be hearing yous. I already made up my minds on this one so nothing is going to be changein it. Sure i just made up all that bullshit about the magic flood. Dont say nothin in the bibles bout that no how, so i can just make shit up and god will be none the wiser. You is a wastin you time with gpses and magnetic reversals and such. ifin i donts wants to beleives it i anit a gonna no how. So theres.

rob said: Robert. You are wrong. The mid-Atlantic ridge is high (look at Google Maps) because it is still hot soon after formation of the ocean crust (hot rock expands). This is why Iceland is volcanically active and above sea level today. As the newly created ocean floor moves away from the spreading center it cools and contracts. The ocean gets deeper away from the mid-Atlantic ridge (look at Google Maps). The measured slope from the mid-Atlantic ridge to the deep Atlantic shows the spreading has been slow and steady at ~1 inch per year for ~150,000,000 years. If at any time the Atlantic basin opened quickly we could measure it in the slope today. These are simple measurements you can check or repeat yourself. The Earth is old and shows it with simple measurements.

...geophysicists have performed direct radiometric dating samples on strata from the sea floor. If radiometric dating of strata 100 kilometers from the MAR (on both sides) gives a result of 10 million years old, strata 500 km away from the MAR gives a result about 50 million years old, and so on as you get farther from the MAR. Before fundamentalists go dismissing radiometric dating, a few pioneers of radiometric/radiocarbon dating were Christian, look up Dr Laurence Kulp as one example. Scientists that are Christians routinely use radiometric dating in their field work, see here http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

bigdakine said:

Robert Byers said:

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said: Its fine that it separates from the centre. It just happened quick and only later does it sway about or in a minor way keeps pulling apart.

Laser measurements show the continents are separating from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (MAR) by a few centimeters a year. This rate of separation has been roughly the same the last 200 million years; we don't need to assume a constant separation rate, for not only do we have magnetic pole reversals that are "frozen" into the rocks, geophysicists have performed direct radiometric dating samples on strata from the sea floor. If radiometric dating of strata 100 kilometers from the MAR (on both sides) gives a result of 10 million years old, strata 500 km away from the MAR gives a result about 50 million years old, and so on as you get farther from the MAR. Before fundamentalists go dismissing radiometric dating, a few pioneers of radiometric/radiocarbon dating were Christian, look up Dr Laurence Kulp as one example. Scientists that are Christians routinely use radiometric dating in their field work, see here http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

When you say its been 200 million years you are assuming aplenty. The lasers ain't been observing for that long! Whatever is noticed now need be nothing more then minor swaying or minor movement after a great separation event. It's reasonable it would be that way. in fact its unreasonable too see a slow separation. This separation is the origin of smashed up corners and rising mountains and volcanoes everywhere on earth. The first guess should of been of a fast breck. They just didn't imagine what could do that. We , creationists, can imagine the great flood year being the origin. It all works with a fast action.

Robert, the measurements based on GPS are in excellent agreement with plate motion rates and directions determined from geophysical data such magnetic anomaly stripes coupled with radio-chronology, transform fault azimuths etc. Since the latter were determined years before GPS was brought to bear on plate motions, you are forced to claim that this agreement is a fantastic coincidence. There is no data that supports any of your claims. None. However, all of the data gathered to date, supports Plate Tectonics. No such thing as a slow opening you say? Try the East African Rift. You're a cartoonish buffoon. You should be proud of yourself.

No matter what your evidences, I can always be claiming the interpretation is wrong. I dont have to prove it, i dont have to provide any evidences of my own, all i have to do is just say i wont believe it and it cant be true. See, very simple. Just deny all reality no matter what. You dont have to know anything or learn anything or study anything. You should try it sometime. its easy. Of course i cant explain the actual evidence, i dont have to, im me!

genetics is atomic and unproven and continental drift is all hooey no matter what the real experts are saying. they may be experts but i am knowing better because i know what i want to believe.

Robert Byers said:

rob said: Robert. You are wrong. The mid-Atlantic ridge is high (look at Google Maps) because it is still hot soon after formation of the ocean crust (hot rock expands). This is why Iceland is volcanically active and above sea level today. As the newly created ocean floor moves away from the spreading center it cools and contracts. The ocean gets deeper away from the mid-Atlantic ridge (look at Google Maps). The measured slope from the mid-Atlantic ridge to the deep Atlantic shows the spreading has been slow and steady at ~1 inch per year for ~150,000,000 years. If at any time the Atlantic basin opened quickly we could measure it in the slope today. These are simple measurements you can check or repeat yourself. The Earth is old and shows it with simple measurements.

Simple measurements still need accurate interpretation! there is no problem with what you said as coming from a movement, within a year or so, and then having been broken it continues to separate or sway about. Yet calculating the present speed of separation is not evidence that was always it's speed! It would look the way it looks whether fast or slow. In fact perhaps if it was slow it wouldn't look as it does today but I'm speculating.

Robert Byers said:

bigdakine said:

Robert Byers said:

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said: Its fine that it separates from the centre. It just happened quick and only later does it sway about or in a minor way keeps pulling apart.

Laser measurements show the continents are separating from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (MAR) by a few centimeters a year. This rate of separation has been roughly the same the last 200 million years; we don't need to assume a constant separation rate, for not only do we have magnetic pole reversals that are "frozen" into the rocks, geophysicists have performed direct radiometric dating samples on strata from the sea floor. If radiometric dating of strata 100 kilometers from the MAR (on both sides) gives a result of 10 million years old, strata 500 km away from the MAR gives a result about 50 million years old, and so on as you get farther from the MAR. Before fundamentalists go dismissing radiometric dating, a few pioneers of radiometric/radiocarbon dating were Christian, look up Dr Laurence Kulp as one example. Scientists that are Christians routinely use radiometric dating in their field work, see here http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

When you say its been 200 million years you are assuming aplenty. The lasers ain't been observing for that long! Whatever is noticed now need be nothing more then minor swaying or minor movement after a great separation event. It's reasonable it would be that way. in fact its unreasonable too see a slow separation. This separation is the origin of smashed up corners and rising mountains and volcanoes everywhere on earth. The first guess should of been of a fast breck. They just didn't imagine what could do that. We , creationists, can imagine the great flood year being the origin. It all works with a fast action.

Robert, the measurements based on GPS are in excellent agreement with plate motion rates and directions determined from geophysical data such magnetic anomaly stripes coupled with radio-chronology, transform fault azimuths etc. Since the latter were determined years before GPS was brought to bear on plate motions, you are forced to claim that this agreement is a fantastic coincidence. There is no data that supports any of your claims. None. However, all of the data gathered to date, supports Plate Tectonics. No such thing as a slow opening you say? Try the East African Rift. You're a cartoonish buffoon. You should be proud of yourself.

Animation aside it still is the good point that all that is shown by any measurements is what would be if the separation happened within the year of the flood! Things would line up from the process and results of separation! It's more likely , reasonable, and biblical, that the single original land mass broke up for the new post flood world.

Robert Byers said:

rob said: Robert. You are wrong. The mid-Atlantic ridge is high (look at Google Maps) because it is still hot soon after formation of the ocean crust (hot rock expands). This is why Iceland is volcanically active and above sea level today. As the newly created ocean floor moves away from the spreading center it cools and contracts. The ocean gets deeper away from the mid-Atlantic ridge (look at Google Maps). The measured slope from the mid-Atlantic ridge to the deep Atlantic shows the spreading has been slow and steady at ~1 inch per year for ~150,000,000 years. If at any time the Atlantic basin opened quickly we could measure it in the slope today. These are simple measurements you can check or repeat yourself. The Earth is old and shows it with simple measurements.

Simple measurements still need accurate interpretation! there is no problem with what you said as coming from a movement, within a year or so, and then having been broken it continues to separate or sway about. Yet calculating the present speed of separation is not evidence that was always it's speed! It would look the way it looks whether fast or slow. In fact perhaps if it was slow it wouldn't look as it does today but I'm speculating.

apokryltaros said: Is there a Bible passage that says a single land mass magically broke apart because of Noah's Flood?

Well see i says the earth is only five thousands of years old and the sun goes around the earth like it says in the bible if you are not to be agreeing then you are not doing astronomy cause astronomy is the study of stars and the sun is to big to be a stars so i says its the wrong interpretation also god made every little grasshopper by magic poof i said it i believe it and thats that

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said:

rob said: Robert. You are wrong. The mid-Atlantic ridge is high (look at Google Maps) because it is still hot soon after formation of the ocean crust (hot rock expands). This is why Iceland is volcanically active and above sea level today. As the newly created ocean floor moves away from the spreading center it cools and contracts. The ocean gets deeper away from the mid-Atlantic ridge (look at Google Maps). The measured slope from the mid-Atlantic ridge to the deep Atlantic shows the spreading has been slow and steady at ~1 inch per year for ~150,000,000 years. If at any time the Atlantic basin opened quickly we could measure it in the slope today. These are simple measurements you can check or repeat yourself. The Earth is old and shows it with simple measurements.

Simple measurements still need accurate interpretation! there is no problem with what you said as coming from a movement, within a year or so, and then having been broken it continues to separate or sway about. Yet calculating the present speed of separation is not evidence that was always it's speed! It would look the way it looks whether fast or slow. In fact perhaps if it was slow it wouldn't look as it does today but I'm speculating.

You're still overlooking crustal cooling rates (and heat flow measurements), sedimentation rates (thicker sediments at the continental margins, decreasing steadily towards a spreading zone), radiometric dating of sea floor rocks, and magnetic reversal data (which has already been discussed in this thread). *All* of the data points to the same conclusion: Long term, slow spreading from the Mid-atlantic rift zone at speeds consistent with current measurements. This leaves you with some choices that *ought* to be unpleasant. The least so would be that the scientists are right an YEC is wrong. A more disturbing conclusion--for you--would be that God *lies*, because you are interpreting the Bible to say one thing and the rocks (what you believe to be God's creation) say something completely different.

Robert Byers said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said:

rob said: Robert. You are wrong. The mid-Atlantic ridge is high (look at Google Maps) because it is still hot soon after formation of the ocean crust (hot rock expands). This is why Iceland is volcanically active and above sea level today. As the newly created ocean floor moves away from the spreading center it cools and contracts. The ocean gets deeper away from the mid-Atlantic ridge (look at Google Maps). The measured slope from the mid-Atlantic ridge to the deep Atlantic shows the spreading has been slow and steady at ~1 inch per year for ~150,000,000 years. If at any time the Atlantic basin opened quickly we could measure it in the slope today. These are simple measurements you can check or repeat yourself. The Earth is old and shows it with simple measurements.

Simple measurements still need accurate interpretation! there is no problem with what you said as coming from a movement, within a year or so, and then having been broken it continues to separate or sway about. Yet calculating the present speed of separation is not evidence that was always it's speed! It would look the way it looks whether fast or slow. In fact perhaps if it was slow it wouldn't look as it does today but I'm speculating.

You're still overlooking crustal cooling rates (and heat flow measurements), sedimentation rates (thicker sediments at the continental margins, decreasing steadily towards a spreading zone), radiometric dating of sea floor rocks, and magnetic reversal data (which has already been discussed in this thread). *All* of the data points to the same conclusion: Long term, slow spreading from the Mid-atlantic rift zone at speeds consistent with current measurements. This leaves you with some choices that *ought* to be unpleasant. The least so would be that the scientists are right an YEC is wrong. A more disturbing conclusion--for you--would be that God *lies*, because you are interpreting the Bible to say one thing and the rocks (what you believe to be God's creation) say something completely different.

Again. Sediment loading or dating measurements do not interfere with the fast and furious concept for separation. The dating thing is not proven by the way. Your list shows nothing that can't be seen as confirming a fast breck! It looks and seems most likely to be what it is. A great earth movement including its bringing about smashing/splitting of other areas. Plate tectonics is one of the good things to come along for creationism. it explains a lot for us and for me explains the mechanism for the great power behind the water/sediment that was piled on earth during the flood. The dinos were covered by the sediment pushed by the water from the splitting continents. The dino egg accumulations were first drowned and then later covered powerfully by the sediment including such a pressure as to instantly fossilize them.

rob said: Robert, You are wrong again. The slope of Atlantic sea floor (see Google Maps Satellite) would look different if it spread quickly or slowly. Measurement of sea floor slope (you can have the measurements) shows that the Atlantic Ocean basin opened slow and steady at a rate of ~1 inch per year. On another subject, there is a measured trans-Neptunian object orbiting our sun that is identified as Sedna 90377. Look it up. Measurements of the orbital velocity (you can check or repeat them) show that Sedna takes 11,400 years to orbit the sun. Has Sedna completed more than one orbit since formation? Did god arrange things to trick us?

Robert Byers said:

rob said: Robert. You are wrong. The mid-Atlantic ridge is high (look at Google Maps) because it is still hot soon after formation of the ocean crust (hot rock expands). This is why Iceland is volcanically active and above sea level today. As the newly created ocean floor moves away from the spreading center it cools and contracts. The ocean gets deeper away from the mid-Atlantic ridge (look at Google Maps). The measured slope from the mid-Atlantic ridge to the deep Atlantic shows the spreading has been slow and steady at ~1 inch per year for ~150,000,000 years. If at any time the Atlantic basin opened quickly we could measure it in the slope today. These are simple measurements you can check or repeat yourself. The Earth is old and shows it with simple measurements.

Simple measurements still need accurate interpretation! there is no problem with what you said as coming from a movement, within a year or so, and then having been broken it continues to separate or sway about. Yet calculating the present speed of separation is not evidence that was always it's speed! It would look the way it looks whether fast or slow. In fact perhaps if it was slow it wouldn't look as it does today but I'm speculating.

is not is not is not so there

apokryltaros said: So where in the Bible does it talk about Plate Tectonics? Where in the Bible does it say that Plate Tectonics is magically powered by the Magical Noah's Flood?

Beyers clearly does not understand correlation. He keeps responding as if your points are separate pieces of evidence that have been "misinterpreted." He doesn't get the correlation between data, e.g. magnetic stripes and plate movement rates, nor how devastating this is for creationist arguments. The whole concept of correlation seems to be too abstract for him to grasp. The odd mixture of obtuseness, obsession, and distinctive language usage, makes it pretty clear to me that he suffers from some form of "developmental delay" or traumatic brain injury or personality disorder.

Sylvilagus said: Beyers clearly does not understand

Robert Byers said:

rob said: Robert. You are wrong. The mid-Atlantic ridge is high (look at Google Maps) because it is still hot soon after formation of the ocean crust (hot rock expands). This is why Iceland is volcanically active and above sea level today. As the newly created ocean floor moves away from the spreading center it cools and contracts. The ocean gets deeper away from the mid-Atlantic ridge (look at Google Maps). The measured slope from the mid-Atlantic ridge to the deep Atlantic shows the spreading has been slow and steady at ~1 inch per year for ~150,000,000 years. If at any time the Atlantic basin opened quickly we could measure it in the slope today. These are simple measurements you can check or repeat yourself. The Earth is old and shows it with simple measurements.

Simple measurements still need accurate interpretation! there is no problem with what you said as coming from a movement, within a year or so, and then having been broken it continues to separate or sway about. Yet calculating the present speed of separation is not evidence that was always it's speed! It would look the way it looks whether fast or slow. In fact perhaps if it was slow it wouldn't look as it does today but I'm speculating.

Robert Byers said: Simple measurements still need accurate interpretation! there is no problem with what you said as coming from a movement, within a year or so, and then having been broken it continues to separate or sway about. Yet calculating the present speed of separation is not evidence that was always it's speed! It would look the way it looks whether fast or slow. In fact perhaps if it was slow it wouldn't look as it does today but I'm speculating.

Moo Moo said: Don't all dating methods depend on assumptions that may prove incorrect?

Science always uses assumptions that may prove correct, which is why its findings are tentative to varying degrees–and yet these “assumptions” have worked well enough to give us the modern world.

Science always uses assumptions that may prove incorrect, which is why its findings are tentative to varying degrees–and yet these “assumptions” have worked well enough to give us the modern world.

Moo Moo said: Don't all dating methods depend on assumptions that may prove incorrect?

Moo Moo said: Don't all dating methods depend on assumptions that may prove incorrect?

There are, however, a number of serious difficulties with RATE's hypothesis of accelerated decay. The RATE creationists acknowledge two of the most fundamental side effects of any such acceleration: heat and radiation. Aggregated over the 4.5 billion year history of Earth, radioactive decay has produced tremendous amounts of both. The acceleration of 4 billion years of decay into the first two days of the creation week and squeezing 500 million years into the year of the Flood (DeYoung 2005:150-151) is rather problematic. The Flood acceleration alone would have released enough energy to heat the Earth to a temperature of more than 22,000° C (Snelling 2005:183), which is roughly four times the temperature of the surface of the sun (DeYoung 2005:152). That amount of energy would have caused rocks, and presumably the entire crust of the Earth, to vaporize (DeYoung 2005:152; Snelling 2005:183).

At 6000 years ago, it is pretty obvious that the entire Earth would be molten and Adam and Eve's goose was cooked.

Moo Moo said:

Richard B. Hoppe said:

Moo Moo said: Don't all dating methods depend on assumptions that may prove incorrect?

Sure. And how are those assumptions determined to be correct or incorrect? Why, by testing them. For example, the assumption of constant decay rates of radioactive isotopes has been tested in any number of ways, ranging from directly measuring them in lab tests where the material is subjected to various stressors (e.g., temperature and pressure stressors) to measuring the rate of decay of radioisotopes detected in supernova explosions (see here for a summary of one such test and here (behind a paywall) for a more technical description of it). The assumptions don't merely hang unsupported.

Thanks for this, although I was thinking more about the initial proportions of the isotopes in many cases.

Moo Moo said:

Richard B. Hoppe said:

Moo Moo said: Don't all dating methods depend on assumptions that may prove incorrect?

Sure. And how are those assumptions determined to be correct or incorrect? Why, by testing them. For example, the assumption of constant decay rates of radioactive isotopes has been tested in any number of ways, ranging from directly measuring them in lab tests where the material is subjected to various stressors (e.g., temperature and pressure stressors) to measuring the rate of decay of radioisotopes detected in supernova explosions (see here for a summary of one such test and here (behind a paywall) for a more technical description of it). The assumptions don't merely hang unsupported.

Thanks for this, although I was thinking more about the initial proportions of the isotopes in many cases.

Robert Byers said:

rob said: Robert, You are wrong again. The slope of Atlantic sea floor (see Google Maps Satellite) would look different if it spread quickly or slowly. Measurement of sea floor slope (you can have the measurements) shows that the Atlantic Ocean basin opened slow and steady at a rate of ~1 inch per year. On another subject, there is a measured trans-Neptunian object orbiting our sun that is identified as Sedna 90377. Look it up. Measurements of the orbital velocity (you can check or repeat them) show that Sedna takes 11,400 years to orbit the sun. Has Sedna completed more than one orbit since formation? Did god arrange things to trick us?

Robert Byers said:

rob said: Robert. You are wrong. The mid-Atlantic ridge is high (look at Google Maps) because it is still hot soon after formation of the ocean crust (hot rock expands). This is why Iceland is volcanically active and above sea level today. As the newly created ocean floor moves away from the spreading center it cools and contracts. The ocean gets deeper away from the mid-Atlantic ridge (look at Google Maps). The measured slope from the mid-Atlantic ridge to the deep Atlantic shows the spreading has been slow and steady at ~1 inch per year for ~150,000,000 years. If at any time the Atlantic basin opened quickly we could measure it in the slope today. These are simple measurements you can check or repeat yourself. The Earth is old and shows it with simple measurements.

Simple measurements still need accurate interpretation! there is no problem with what you said as coming from a movement, within a year or so, and then having been broken it continues to separate or sway about. Yet calculating the present speed of separation is not evidence that was always it's speed! It would look the way it looks whether fast or slow. In fact perhaps if it was slow it wouldn't look as it does today but I'm speculating.

Not wrong. Any slope measurement works fine with a fast movement. Orbits of rocks is beside the point but is not evidence of its time in motion any more then a modern satellite is. The rock was put in the orbit by some event and is not evidence that there need even of been one revolution.

There are two fresh open access papers about reducible complexity of coagulation system. Behe and other creationists will not be pleased or rather will ignore it. One is from China, second from Poland.

Chao Y, Fan C, Liang Y, Gao B, Zhang S. A novel serpin with antithrombin-like activity in Branchiostoma japonicum: implications for the presence of a primitive coagulation system. PLoS One. 2012;7:e32392

Ponczek MB, Bijak MZ, Nowak PZ. Evolution of thrombin and other hemostatic proteases by survey of protochordate, hemichordate, and echinoderm genomes. J Mol Evol. 2012;74:319-31

michpon said: There are two fresh open access papers about reducible complexity of coagulation system. Behe and other creationists will not be pleased or rather will ignore it. One is from China, second from Poland. Chao Y, Fan C, Liang Y, Gao B, Zhang S. A novel serpin with antithrombin-like activity in Branchiostoma japonicum: implications for the presence of a primitive coagulation system. PLoS One. 2012;7:e32392 Ponczek MB, Bijak MZ, Nowak PZ. Evolution of thrombin and other hemostatic proteases by survey of protochordate, hemichordate, and echinoderm genomes. J Mol Evol. 2012;74:319-31

It is easy to get sidetracked by the details of percentages and what actual functional interactions between RNA and DNA segments mean. The important lesson to be learned from these studies, in my opinion, is a broader appreciation of how complex the genome is. The more we peel away the layers the more functionally interactive it all becomes. It is no longer meaningful to ask how many genes we have because we can no longer define a gene by the geographic location of bases, and we can no longer define how evolutionarily advanced an organism is by how many genes it has. It is becoming evident that the order in which genes are expressed, their post transcription modifications, etc. are vastly more important in determining the final outcome. This level of mind-boggling series of controls and counter-controls leads me and, increasingly, eminent scientists from around the world, to begin to re-examine the basic tenets of evolution. It is becoming clearer with each discovery that the sheer complexity of the genome and its regulatory mechanisms needs a more robust theory than the simplistic model of spontaneous mutations and natural selection, even though, on a local level, these mechanisms have a very important role. People like Simon Conway Morris, Cambridge Professor of evolutionary biology, and John Kearns, Harvard geneticist, have each expressed doubt about the standard evolutionary model for different reasons and join hundreds of other eminent scientists who are calling for a more robust model. Evan Olsen has even proposed a model based on chaos theory by which DNA is a fractal attractor which guides the evolutionary process toward a defined goal. If all this sounds like blasphemy, let us not be tempted to give Michael Behe's infantile Intelligent Design model any more due than to admit that his concerns over the ever-increasing complexity of the genome are seeping into the mainstream scientific community.

Bill Maz said: If all this sounds like blasphemy, let us not be tempted to give Michael Behe's infantile Intelligent Design model any more due than to admit that his concerns over the ever-increasing complexity of the genome are seeping into the mainstream scientific community.

It is becoming clearer with each discovery that the sheer complexity of the genome and its regulatory mechanisms needs a more robust theory than the simplistic model of spontaneous mutations and natural selection, even though, on a local level, these mechanisms have a very important role.

People like Simon Conway Morris, Cambridge Professor of evolutionary biology, and John Kearns, Harvard geneticist, have each expressed doubt about the standard evolutionary model for different reasons and join hundreds of other eminent scientists who are calling for a more robust model.

Evan Olsen has even proposed a model based on chaos theory by which DNA is a fractal attractor which guides the evolutionary process toward a defined goal.

The sine circle map θn+1=θn+Ω-(k/2π)sin(2πθn) is investigated from a relativistic perspective. The Ω (frequency ratio) or average shift of the angle theta or winding number is conjectured to be a lorentz contraction (alpha) or α=Ω. This has ramifications for space-time theory and because of its relation to chaos theory also has ramifications to DNA. The winding number in the sine circle map is investigated experimentally by the Josephson junction in a microwave field. DNA is considered to be a strange attractor and its structure is related to this new theory of space-time. Space-time is an oscillator and so is matter, and thus space-time is the causation of life.

Yeah, let us crank up the science!!!!

(I know, but that sounds better than the way you phrased it!)