To Distinguish Creationism from ID, Try Evolution as the Outgroup

cdesign proponentsists

Obviously, for many of them it makes no difference.

And the primary reason for differentiating them at all is a legal one.

Beyond that, it's pretty much sectarian squabbling, not very interesting to anyone not of their theological proclivities.

I mean, surely there might be considerable differences between geocentrists, theologically and apologetically, but what's that to anyone who honestly seeks the best answers?

Glen Davidson

Elaine deserved that A. Good choice of essay topic too.

My own distinction: an Intelligent Design proponent is a Creationist who winks whenever he mentions "The Designer".

aw, she forgot to include the extinct transitional species, cdesign proponentsists. that would have made for the A+ ;-).

Don't see it at all myself. I don't think the data have any sort of nested, hierarchical structure. Nebulous as ID is, we shouldn't even consider it a terminal taxon. There are many characters uniting some IDiots with mainstream evolution, and others uniting them with creationists. Behe would of course be more difficult to place than Dembski. Just goes to show that processes that don't involve descent with modification are not well modeled by trees.

John Harshman said: Don't see it at all myself. I don't think the data have any sort of nested, hierarchical structure. Nebulous as ID is, we shouldn't even consider it a terminal taxon. There are many characters uniting some IDiots with mainstream evolution, and others uniting them with creationists. Behe would of course be more difficult to place than Dembski. Just goes to show that processes that don't involve descent with modification are not well modeled by trees.

John Harshman said: Don't see it at all myself. I don't think the data have any sort of nested, hierarchical structure. Nebulous as ID is, we shouldn't even consider it a terminal taxon. There are many characters uniting some IDiots with mainstream evolution, and others uniting them with creationists. Behe would of course be more difficult to place than Dembski. Just goes to show that processes that don't involve descent with modification are not well modeled by trees.

Evolutionary biology isn't an outgroup in the phylogenetic sense. The reality is more like special creation of independent lineages. Evolutionary biology arises out of the science. It is an independent lineage compared to your other two categories of creationism and the intelligent design creationist scam. As in special creation you expect to not see evidence of common ancestry between the science and religious notions. Any commonality is due to chimerism that you expect in created entities like the centaur. Creationism and the intelligent design creationist scam just borrow from each other and from the science. You literally have a man's torso stuck onto a horses body. Something that you would not get by natural biological means.

So the outgroup analogy fails.

Why an A!
If its all about the great idea of a great thinking being having created the universe/earth/biology then ID is creationism.
It seems there is just an attempt to say any conclusion of a thinking being, a God, behind the universe is a wrong conclusion.
So illegal.
I'm sure North America does not agree.
Prohibition of Genesis is based on a prohibition of particular religious doctrines by particular sects etc.
The people do not agree its settled fact and therefore to be illegal to say there is a creator/God.
if so then the preamble to the constitution/or bill of rights (I forget) should also be censored.

Its all about teaching the truth on origins.
Censorship means either truth is not the motive of the education on a subject or its officially not true what is being censored.
if its official that God/Genesis is not true then I understand this is illegal for the state to so impose.

Yes some ID folk just think evolution is wrong and are vague about a God.
Its about truth and opinions on subjects that gov't/law say they can judge.
Its political, social, religious, and stupid.
Its about conclusions on a few subjects dealing with mutual origins.
There has been a rebellion and the rebellion of late has taken more territory and threatening the old empire.
We are in the middle of a story.
Perhaps even a bigger story about our civilization since ww11.

Byers, take your tinfoil hat off and read the post again. It was a question in a psychology class. It's not illegal to discuss actual, real-life socio-political phenomena like Creationism and ID and their relationships with each other and with evolution, their avowed primary target. Hell, those two movements are so chock full of cognitive dissonance, denial and projection that you could spend an entire unit of a Psych class on them.

But hey, if you want to talk illegality, we can always mention the fact that ID was invented - yes, invented - in order to skirt US Constitutional prohibitions on religious privilege and wedge sectarian theology into science classes after "creation science" failed in Edwards v Aguillard - and then was soundly routed in Kitzmiller v Dover, where not only was ID ruled to not be science but its awoedly creationist proponents also deemed to be acting dishonestly and borderline illegally from the get-go.

So, yeah, go on. I'm sure the Panda assembly would be pleased as punch to talk about creationism and illegality within the context of education.

Even if one didn’t have evolution as an outgroup one could look at the “genes” of creationism and ID.

Creationism and ID have exactly the same fundamental misconceptions about basic scientific concepts; ID inherited them from “scientific” creationism and bent them to include molecules.

These particular misconceptions are characteristic of only these groups, so you know they have a common ancestor.

Byers said:

"It seems there is just an attempt to say any conclusion of a thinking being, a God, behind the universe is a wrong conclusion. So illegal."

"The people do not agree its settled fact and therefore to be illegal to say there is a creator/God. if so then the preamble to the constitution/or bill of rights (I forget) should also be censored."

...

What exactly is a "thinking God?" Isn't thought a human attribute? Or is Byers merely reflecting human attributes on his deity, just as humans created it in their image in the first place?

Byers is erroneously referring to the preamble or bill of rights of the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence, the document meant to sever political ties with the King of England, and like kings everywhere, declare their thrown sacred and given to them by their God, thus the reference to God. Since Darwin wasn't around, the founders used general terms couched in religious verbage. Given that, the founders wanted to declare an appeal to the highest court they knew, at the time, which was some divinity. Declaring independence out of the blue just didn't cut it, they had to undercut the King's authority in America. Even in the preamble it was Creator, which could be, and is, interpreted in many ways.

I think the original diagram only works if you assume that Creationism is a single monolithic group. If you allow sub-categories of Creationism -- YEC, OEC, Progressive, Day-Age, Gap (and maybe some others), you will probably find that ID is far closer to Progressive, than either is to YEC, and quite possibly that ID is a subtype of Progressive.

harold said: Why didn't the Dover asteroid impact trial cause more dramatic selection? Well, it did to some degree ("academic freedom" and "critical thinking" language emerged). But also, evolution is constrained. There's only so far that you can go, and still be an evolution denier who sells books to right wing nutjobs.

And next time, don't forget to factor Theistic Evolution -- especially that mixed-up BioLogos business -- into those Psych 189 essay questions.

Let's see who gets an "A" when THAT stuff shows up on the unit test!

FL :)

Actually, I covered that in class, FL, so it could indeed be on the test. I showed class the sheer irony of articles from the Discovery Institute, which supposedly relies entirely on science and not religion, that went after heretic Jews, Protestants and Catholics who have no problem accepting evolution as God's Work (a.k.a. Theistic Evolution). Why should the DI even care at all about what some religious sects believe about biology?
Oh yeah, the DI wants everyone to believe that Biology is ATHEISM, and the fact that some religious folks accept evolution proves the Disco Institute to be flat wrong. So of course, those "heretics" must be exposed and uprooted instead. "The Theistic Evolutionists just haven't thought through the implications like we IDers have..."
Yeah, Right.

FL said: And next time, don't forget to factor Theistic Evolution -- especially that mixed-up BioLogos business -- into those Psych 189 essay questions. Let's see who gets an "A" when THAT stuff shows up on the unit test! FL :)

Forgive me if this has been covered in some of the above comments, but it’s impossible to answer the “Is ID Creationism” question unless all concerned agree on the definition of “creationism*.” If the definition is that used by critics, which is essentially:

“Any strategy to promote unreasonable doubt of evolution that seeks and fabricates bogus ‘weaknesses’ of evolution, proposes some design-based alternative, and optionally adds its own testable claims of ‘what happened when instead’.”

...then "creationism" would be "the genus that includes species A and B," and ID would a subset of creationism. But as the diagram shows, one still can't say it "is" in the sense of "one and the same."

However, if the definition is that used by the general public, which is essentially:

“An honest belief in a design-based alternative to evolution that agrees with a common interpretation of scripture in terms of ‘what happened when’.”

... then "creationism" would be only "species A," and ID would not be creationism, the whole or a subset. The most one can say is that ID, being a “big tent” strategy, indirectly promotes creationism. And I would add, more effectively than the strategies that promote one brand of “creationism” directly.

The outgroup does have value, if only to show the "domains" of science and pseudoscience.

*Actually one would have to agree on the definition of ID too, as the current scam is radically different from that of Rev. Paley 200+ years ago. But that’s just one more issue where the DI is more than glad to pull a bait-and-switch.

hrafn.startssl.com said: I think the original diagram only works if you assume that Creationism is a single monolithic group. If you allow sub-categories of Creationism -- YEC, OEC, Progressive, Day-Age, Gap (and maybe some others), you will probably find that ID is far closer to Progressive, than either is to YEC, and quite possibly that ID is a subtype of Progressive.

Science supporters don’t tend to be sensitive to weasel words and plausible deniability.

harold said: Evolution deniers tend to like the model "A formerly accepted detail was found to be wrong in science so therefore all of science must be wrong".

Do science and pseudoscience really have a common ancestor? What would that look like? And how would the speciation event be described?

Matt G said: Do science and pseudoscience really have a common ancestor? What would that look like? And how would the speciation event be described?

Why should the DI even care at all about what some religious sects believe about biology?

"In 1996, for example, Pope John Paul II acknowledged that Darwinian evolution was a firmly established scientific result and stated that accepting Darwinism was compatible with traditional Christian understandings of God. "If the fact of evolution and the validity of natural selection are utterly uncontroversial, and if belief in evolution is compatible with belief in God, then why does the creationist debate continue?" --EA 4th ed (2007) p. 105.

Hey FL, just out of curiosity, did you read any of the rest of that book or just the quote from the pope?

I suspect you'll find that the book is filled with actual evidence. On other hand, no other notion on the diversity of life has any supporting evidence.

You can call it what ever you like. Evolution STILL works. ID STILL doesn't actually do anything.

All hail FL, King of Out-Of-Context Quotes.

FL -

I completely agree with you.

Theistic evolution, which we both define here to mean acceptance of the theory of evolution, while retaining religious belief, is a religious position.

The theistic part, not the evolution part.

It's kind of a silly term. You're probably a "theistic gravitationist". You may even be a "theistic heliocentrist", although I wouldn't want to presume too much. Other Christians just accept a little bit more of obvious physical reality, and become "theistic evolutionists".

You say it contradicts the Bible, they say it doesn't.

Your primary objective is to tell other Christians what they can and can't believe.

You wish to be accepted, by other Christians, as an authority on Christianity.

Lots of luck with that.

ogremk5 said: Hey FL, just out of curiosity, did you read any of the rest of that book or just the quote from the pope? I suspect you'll find that the book is filled with actual evidence. On other hand, no other notion on the diversity of life has any supporting evidence.

I should also make my ritual complaint about the term "theistic evolution." The structure of English makes it reasonable to characterize me as a "theistic evolutionist" since I'm a theist who accepts the mainstream conclusions of modern biology as the best available scientific explanation for the fact of evolution. But the explanatory framework I accept is not "theistic evolution," it's just "evolution."

Matt G said: Do science and pseudoscience really have a common ancestor? What would that look like? And how would the speciation event be described?

William Paley would appear to be a common stepping-off point for both Charles Darwin and for ID

SWT said:

ogremk5 said: Hey FL, just out of curiosity, did you read any of the rest of that book or just the quote from the pope? I suspect you'll find that the book is filled with actual evidence. On other hand, no other notion on the diversity of life has any supporting evidence.

pp. 97-105 of the book are "3.7. The Debate over 'Scientific Creationism' and Intelligent Design Creationism," in which much space is devoted to the ID argument and a science-based rebuttal. Following that is a brief discussion of a handful of other creationist claims. The science presented is straight-ahead mainstream biology with no theistic or anti-theistic slant. The authors give creationism far more space than it deserves and treat creationist claims, from my quick read, as respectfully as one can treat long-discredited arguments in a university-level science text. After reading this material, a reasonably attentive student will probably wonder why anyone who actually cares about science would make any of the creationist arguments presented in the book. Thus, Section 3.7 closes with a few paragraphs on p. 105 entitled "What Motivates the Controversy?" To frame this question, the text points out that many scientists and many religious people see no conflict between evolutionary biology and their faith. (Note that it's "many" and not "all" scientists and theists, no unqualified claim that that they're compatible.) FL's quote follows that as part of framing the concluding paragraphs of the discussion. It's clear from the context that the authors are not promoting any theological position, regardless of the protestations presented above.

Hey FL, just out of curiosity, did you read any of the rest of that book or just the quote from the pope?

I suspect you’ll find that the book is filled with actual evidence.

FL said:

Hey FL, just out of curiosity, did you read any of the rest of that book or just the quote from the pope?

Yes, I've gone over it chapter by chapter. And prior to the 2007 4th edition, I went over the **third** edition of EA, chapter by chapter. I've had a copy of the textbook for a few years.

I suspect you’ll find that the book is filled with actual evidence.

Except NOT on the Pope's direct Theistic-Evolution claim that they quoted above. Believe it or not, even though they bring up the Pope's evo-compatibility claim for science-students' consumption, they don't offer a single shred of evidence or even reasoning in support of it. They don't even try. Everything else in that textbook, they DO attempt to back up with evidence, assumptions, examples, etc. But its strictly zero-evidence on THAT one item, pure zero nada. (You're supposed to just swallow their bald assertion for evo-compatibility, or swallow the Pope's bald assertion for it, or just swallow, umm, something.) All in the name of Evolution! FL

FL said:

Hey FL, just out of curiosity, did you read any of the rest of that book or just the quote from the pope?

Yes, I've gone over it chapter by chapter. And prior to the 2007 4th edition, I went over the **third** edition of EA, chapter by chapter. I've had a copy of the textbook for a few years.

I suspect you’ll find that the book is filled with actual evidence.

Except NOT on the Pope's direct Theistic-Evolution claim that they quoted above. Believe it or not, even though they bring up the Pope's evo-compatibility claim for science-students' consumption, they don't offer a single shred of evidence or even reasoning in support of it. They don't even try. Everything else in that textbook, they DO attempt to back up with evidence, assumptions, examples, etc. But its strictly zero-evidence on THAT one item, pure zero nada. (You're supposed to just swallow their bald assertion for evo-compatibility, or swallow the Pope's bald assertion for it, or just swallow, umm, something.) All in the name of Evolution! FL

EvoDevo said:

FL said:

Hey FL, just out of curiosity, did you read any of the rest of that book or just the quote from the pope?

Yes, I've gone over it chapter by chapter. And prior to the 2007 4th edition, I went over the **third** edition of EA, chapter by chapter. I've had a copy of the textbook for a few years.

I suspect you’ll find that the book is filled with actual evidence.

Except NOT on the Pope's direct Theistic-Evolution claim that they quoted above. Believe it or not, even though they bring up the Pope's evo-compatibility claim for science-students' consumption, they don't offer a single shred of evidence or even reasoning in support of it. They don't even try. Everything else in that textbook, they DO attempt to back up with evidence, assumptions, examples, etc. But its strictly zero-evidence on THAT one item, pure zero nada. (You're supposed to just swallow their bald assertion for evo-compatibility, or swallow the Pope's bald assertion for it, or just swallow, umm, something.) All in the name of Evolution! FL

Bullshit! There is evidence for evolution. And, it is compatible, with religion.

It's not nearly that complex, FL. The simple fact is that the Discovery Institute, like yourself, likes to spread the Big Lie that you can't both accept evolution and be religious.

The textbook simply notes this lie, gives examples of why it's false, and moves on.

As should you.

phhht said: Thanks for the real explanation. I figured Flawd was wrong - he always is - but I couldn't find the text of the book on-line. Do you have a link?

“In 1996, for example, Pope John Paul II **acknowledged** that Darwinian evolution was a firmly established scientific result and stated that accepting Darwinism was compatible with traditional Christian understandings of God. “If the fact of evolution and the validity of natural selection are utterly uncontroversial, and if belief in evolution is compatible with belief in God, then why does the creationist debate continue?” –EA 4th ed (2007) p. 105.

What Motivates the Controversy? For decades, evolution by natural selection has been considered one of the best-documented and most successful theories in the biological sciences. Many scientists see no conflict between evolution and religious faith (Easterbrook 1997, Scott 1998), and many Christians agree.

In 1996, for example, Pope John Paul II **acknowledged** that Darwinian evolution was a firmly established scientific result and stated that accepting Darwinism was compatible with traditional Christian understandings of God. If the fact of evolution and the validity of natural selection are utterly uncontroversial, and if belief in evolution is compatible with belief in God, then why does the creationist debate continue?

...and many Christians agree. In 1996, for example, Pope John Paul II **acknowledged** that Darwinian evolution was a firmly established scientific result and stated that accepting Darwinism was compatible with traditional Christian understandings of God.

acknowledge, tr. verb. 1a. To admit the existence, reality, or truth of. 1b. To recognize as being valid or having force or power. --The Free Dictionary Online

IF the fact of evolution and the validity of natural selection are utterly uncontroversial, and IF belief in evolution is compatible with belief in God, then why does the creationist debate continue?

Liar for Jesus babbled:

I suspect you’ll find that the book is filled with actual evidence.

Except NOT on the Pope's direct Theistic-Evolution claim that they quoted above. Believe it or not, even though they bring up the Pope's evo-compatibility claim for science-students' consumption, they don't offer a single shred of evidence or even reasoning in support of it. They don't even try. Everything else in that textbook, they DO attempt to back up with evidence, assumptions, examples, etc. But its strictly zero-evidence on THAT one item, pure zero nada. (You're supposed to just swallow their bald assertion for evo-compatibility, or swallow the Pope's bald assertion for it, or just swallow, umm, something.)

Hypocrite For Jesus Lied:

...and many Christians agree. In 1996, for example, Pope John Paul II **acknowledged** that Darwinian evolution was a firmly established scientific result and stated that accepting Darwinism was compatible with traditional Christian understandings of God.

There's the repetition, but notice something serious about it: Pope John Paul "ACKNOWLEDGED" the EA4 evolution-equals-fact claim, but also the Pope "ACKNOWLEDGED" (with equal force as the first claim) the TE religious position that "accepting Darwinism was compatible with traditional Christian understandings of God." Look at what that term means...

acknowledge, tr. verb. 1a. To admit the existence, reality, or truth of. 1b. To recognize as being valid or having force or power. --The Free Dictionary Online

In other words, the Christian Pope, leader of a billion Catholic Christians worldwide, is SURRENDERING and ACKNOWLEDGING not just one, but BOTH of the two major EA4 claims as solid fact. Y ou are NOT told that there is any controversy by Christians on the TE religious evo-compatibility claim, but you ARE told that Pope John Paul II has fully surrendered to it and acknowledged it as fact, just as completely as he acquiesced to and acknowledged the first major claim. That's important. Oh, and notice something else. They DIDN'T pick a scientist for the surrender on the TE claim, they picked a worldwide Christian leader for the surrender! Now go tell me that they weren't presenting a RELIGIOUS position, the religious TE claim!

Bullshit! There is evidence for evolution. And, it is compatible, with religion.

Liar For Jesus Lied: If, as you imply, evolution is compatible with the Christian religion, then actual evidence of that compatibility should not be so very hard to come by.

BTW, FL, phhht's comment reminded me. You used to always brag about having a "three plank theory" (sic) that would explain how Intelligent Design was scientific, but, you never got to actually saying what it was. Several times you've lied about having provided this magical and elusive "theory," but you could never convince anyone here that you ever gave such an explanation, let alone convince anyone that Intelligent Design was science, or even had explanatory powers.

Why are the Pope’s assertion that evolution is not at odds with Christianity, or that that millions of Christians have no problems accepting the validity of evolution not evidence of evolution being compatible with Christianity?

...But you cannot reconcile evolution with Christianity simply by declaring that many people see no conflict. The issue is whether they have a sound basis for their opinions. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-10-10/

So, in other words, it's all because you say so, that millions of Christians are really evil apostates and don't actually know it, and that you think you know more and know better than the Pope, and that atheists and Liars for Jesus should dictate what Christians can and can not believe in or accept as true.

Liar for Jesus quotemined:

Why are the Pope’s assertion that evolution is not at odds with Christianity, or that that millions of Christians have no problems accepting the validity of evolution not evidence of evolution being compatible with Christianity?

Believe it or not, Stanton, evolutionist Dr. Jason Rosenhouse has answered your question already. Please consider:

...But you cannot reconcile evolution with Christianity simply by declaring that many people see no conflict. The issue is whether they have a sound basis for their opinions. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-10-10/

That's why, Stanton.

Dave Thomas said: It's not nearly that complex, FL. The simple fact is that the Discovery Institute, like yourself, likes to spread the Big Lie that you can't both accept evolution and be religious. The textbook simply notes this lie, gives examples of why it's false, and moves on. As should you.

FL said: But it's no lie: they do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING -- totally none of the what I just said about their backing up of the evolution-as-fact thesis -- to support the TE religious evo-compatibility claim that they present so strongly.

A suggestion for FL: Try reading for comprehension of other peoples' actual meaning. You might find it enlightening.

SWT said: A suggestion for FL: Try reading for comprehension of other peoples' actual meaning. You might find it enlightening.

I'd really rather that Evolutionary Analysis 4th Ed. would just leave the religious issue alone. It is suggesting something about compatibility that isn't necessarily true.

That said, it's a university book, not one for compulsory ed, Flawed almost certainly heard about it from some dishonest creationist outfit, and he's making a big deal about very little indeed. Clearly the authors are making a point to dullards and bigots like Flawed who might mistakenly take such a course with hatred for science, and they use a statement that may be included as much or more for its honest admission of evidence for evolution as for the suggestion of compatibility. It is just a suggestion, yet I'd still prefer that it not be there, that evolutionary science just be taught according to science, let intellectually-dishonest bigots flounder. Who cares?

I just have to agree that it may not be the best use of textbook space, for several reasons. Not that the FL bigot cares about education, truth, or anything else of value.

Glen Davidson

The irony here is that ID and creationism are showing speciation, providing evidence for darwinian evolution, whereas the evolution outgroup shows evidence for creationism; a separately created kind, without speciation.

Seems an unwitting outcome to a purported criticism of a particular competitor to Darwinian evolution.

It might be a good idea to show James Shapiro's NGE and other alternatives to the status quo Darwinian evolution narrative, lest this negative meme take hold in cyber-space.

On the claim of indistinguishability between ID and creationism, the contrast is clear enough. However, it is understandable for you(pl) to downplay the contrast to any extent possible...no ammo to your opponent.

To be clear, ID has IC, information as a separate entity, organism's self-modification in response to environmental stimuli, multi-layer command/control regimes, multiple codes, etc, etc that distinguish itself from both creationism and Darwinian evolution.

Creationists see God's ongoing intervention in life, which is what you all here love to attack, whereas ID arguments do not and need not rely on knowledge of the origins of design or any intervention in life processes; simply the observation that design exists, and we can gain further understanding of the structural, developmental, and functional aspects of life based on design theories used in other fields like engineering and computer science.

Further, creationism doesn't claim useful outcomes of their claims that God is responsible for life, whereas ID claims useful outcomes based on understanding biological processes as having a designed origin.

As an example, the hollow fiber in polar bear fur gave the inspiration for hollow-core synthetic fibers now being used in sportswear textiles. This can be chocked up to design, not Darwinian evolution or creationism.

So the contrast is there....if you are really looking. I suspect though that no advocate of Darwinian evolution is really interested in looking.

As an example, the hollow fiber in polar bear fur gave the inspiration for hollow-core synthetic fibers now being used in sportswear textiles. This can be chocked up to design, not Darwinian evolution or creationism.

Steve P. said: ...design exists...

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

As an example, the hollow fiber in polar bear fur gave the inspiration for hollow-core synthetic fibers now being used in sportswear textiles. This can be chocked up to design, not Darwinian evolution or creationism.

Sure, if you don't care about the evidence. And you don't. Glen Davidson

harold said: Paley was probably something of a cynical defender of the status quo...

I'm tired and have a headache so you'll have to forgive me. I don't remotely understand why FL is wasting his time here when his problem is so obviously with the Christians (by the billions apparently) who accept evolution as a part of reality. It boggles the mind that FL would waste his time here when this website, along with this textbook, are doing nothing more than REPORTING what other Christians claim as their own beliefs. NOBODY, and I repeat, NOBODY nor the textbook has reason nor obligation to explain to ANYONE why these Christians believe what they do. They and they alone are responsible for what they believe and that still makes nobody obligated to explain themselves to FL. He's barking up the wrong tree all day and all night long.

Hit the church circuit FL, get the pope on the batphone, climb a telephone pole with a bullhorn, squat at BioLogos and set them all straight. Whatever. What is it that makes you think that anything you do here can affect the real world for these people. This is the last place you should be if you thought you had any possibility of being effective at straightening out these supposedly heretical Christians. I seriously doubt your sincerity with this completely ineffectual and ill conceived approach to the problem you perceive. I become more convinced each passing day that the real truth is that you're nothing more than a drama queen like 'Clastie desperate for attention. Ugg.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: I'd really rather that Evolutionary Analysis 4th Ed. would just leave the religious issue alone. It is suggesting something about compatibility that isn't necessarily true. That said, it's a university book, not one for compulsory ed, Flawed almost certainly heard about it from some dishonest creationist outfit, and he's making a big deal about very little indeed. Clearly the authors are making a point to dullards and bigots like Flawed who might mistakenly take such a course with hatred for science, and they use a statement that may be included as much or more for its honest admission of evidence for evolution as for the suggestion of compatibility. It is just a suggestion, yet I'd still prefer that it not be there, that evolutionary science just be taught according to science, let intellectually-dishonest bigots flounder. Who cares? I just have to agree that it may not be the best use of textbook space, for several reasons. Not that the FL bigot cares about education, truth, or anything else of value. Glen Davidson

I believe this is the only time I've ever responded directly or indirectly to FL. It will be the last so the last word is yours FL.

Oh, and dear lord, SteveP is here. LOL. If only Henry would show up we'd hit the trifecta.

I don't count Byers in the line-up. I suspect and remember a comment from some time ago that someone had interactions with him elsewhere and that it's as much a deep and perhaps physical cognitive disability as it is indoctrination. In a small way I can admire him, he takes it all and never has a foul word for anyone and has a sincerity about him. I'm willing to bet that once away from the subject at hand he's a really nice person to know. I have to give him that much even though the "lines of reasoning" has long since worn thin.

But I do have to say that I hold out hope for Henry. The last time I recall seeing him was when Barton was getting a thrashing and the topic of intellectual honesty was getting pounded on in the comments. He seemed to back off slightly and taking stock with a question or two that hinted of introspection.

For what it's worth Henry, godspeed and here's to seeing through the B.S. wherever you are.

Oh, and dear lord, SteveP is here.

— Rikki Tikki Taalik

FL doesn't believe that the Pope is Christian. Indeed, he only thinks that he is a Christian and all those other people aren't really Christians. At AtBC, he discussed this at length.

I see that he hasn't changed at all in several years.

Instead of discussing the evidence as presented in the text, he would rather argue about whether the pope said it or the book authors said it and the implications of it.

Regardless of any of that, evolution works. Creationism (including ID) don't. Simple fact and until creationists show something that they actually accomplished using creationist (or ID) principles, then the entire point is moot.

FL (and all the others) can whine and cry and gnash their teeth all they like... it doesn't matter because they can't actually talk about the science and they can't do anything with creationism.

ogremk5 said: Regardless of any of that, evolution works. Creationism (including ID) don't. Simple fact and until creationists show something that they actually accomplished using creationist (or ID) principles, then the entire point is moot.

apokryltaros said:

ogremk5 said: Regardless of any of that, evolution works. Creationism (including ID) don't. Simple fact and until creationists show something that they actually accomplished using creationist (or ID) principles, then the entire point is moot.

The sad thing is that modern-day Creationism, including its stillborn offspring Intelligent Design, was never intended to be an explanation, let alone science. Creationists waffle between "it is, too, but I'm not going to show you ever," and "it isn't, but who cares?" never mind that either position is an automatic failure.

SWT said: Snarkiness aside for a moment, I know that my discipline's accrediting body is making a real push to insure that engineering curricula address not only the technical issues, but also societal issues -- for chemical engineering, these are issues like safety, environmental impact, and professional ethics. I don't know if there's a similar push in biology; if there is, a brief discussion of creationism is arguably in order. I'm not a biologist, but I can think of other societal issues that would be a better use of space in a textbook about evolutionary analysis. Then again, I'm not faced with a concerted effort by phlogistonists or advocates of caloric theory to get their pet antiquated notions equal time with statistical thermodynamics.

FL doesn’t believe that the Pope is Christian. At AtBC, he discussed this at length.

FL said:

FL doesn’t believe that the Pope is Christian. At AtBC, he discussed this at length.

Actually, I've affirmed that Pope John Paul II and also Pope Benedict XVI are Christians. Not just affirmed JP2 at ATBC, but repeatedly here at Pandasthumb. And not just affirmed the Pope, but several evolutionist Christians right here at PT. Again, more than once. Hmm. How can I trust the claims of somebody who keeps on missing this?

This is the last place you should be if you thought you had any possibility of being effective at straightening out these supposedly heretical Christians.

Not to belabor anything (hey, it's time for the weekend), but here's the proven truth:

Theistic Evolution is rationally impossible, if the specific theism happens to be Christianity.

FL

FL said: Not to belabor anything (hey, it's time for the weekend), but here's the proven truth: Theistic Evolution is rationally impossible, if the specific theism happens to be Christianity. FL

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

FL said: Not to belabor anything (hey, it's time for the weekend), but here's the proven truth: Theistic Evolution is rationally impossible, if the specific theism happens to be Christianity. FL

And the fact that you can write it proves it, to your self-satisfaction. Well hey, possibly a good case could be made for that claim. Obviously not by Flawed, though. Glen Davidson

Liar for Jesus opined:

FL doesn’t believe that the Pope is Christian. At AtBC, he discussed this at length.

Actually, I've affirmed that Pope John Paul II and also Pope Benedict XVI are Christians. Not just affirmed JP2 at ATBC, but repeatedly here at Pandasthumb. And not just affirmed the Pope, but several evolutionist Christians right here at PT. Again, more than once.

Hmm. How can I trust the claims of somebody who keeps on missing this?

TomS said:

apokryltaros said:

ogremk5 said: Regardless of any of that, evolution works. Creationism (including ID) don't. Simple fact and until creationists show something that they actually accomplished using creationist (or ID) principles, then the entire point is moot.

The sad thing is that modern-day Creationism, including its stillborn offspring Intelligent Design, was never intended to be an explanation, let alone science. Creationists waffle between "it is, too, but I'm not going to show you ever," and "it isn't, but who cares?" never mind that either position is an automatic failure.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, but its advocates wanted the status of science. They claimed to be scientific, without understanding what that meant. (I do not accuse them of dishonesty in this regard.)

Others have said that if such-and-such is a scientific statement then the denial of such-and-such is also science, thus creationism does make scientific statements, and is thereby science - very poor science, but science. (I would rather say that there is more to science than just making statements.)

FL said: You don't test metals by pouring Ivory Dish Soap on them. You pour acid on them instead.

FL said: You don't test metals by pouring Ivory Dish Soap on them. You pour acid on them instead.

FL said: Not to belabor anything (hey, it's time for the weekend), but here's the proven truth: Theistic Evolution is rationally impossible, if the specific theism happens to be Christianity. FL

FL said: PT gives good acid.

FL said:

Hey FL, just out of curiosity, did you read any of the rest of that book or just the quote from the pope?

Yes, I've gone over it chapter by chapter. And prior to the 2007 4th edition, I went over the **third** edition of EA, chapter by chapter. I've had a copy of the textbook for a few years.

Malcolm said:

FL said:

Hey FL, just out of curiosity, did you read any of the rest of that book or just the quote from the pope?

Yes, I've gone over it chapter by chapter. And prior to the 2007 4th edition, I went over the **third** edition of EA, chapter by chapter. I've had a copy of the textbook for a few years.

So what is your excuse for remaining an ill-educated buffoon?

FL said: Not to belabor anything (hey, it's time for the weekend), but here's the proven truth: Theistic Evolution is rationally impossible, if the specific theism happens to be Christianity. FL

FL doesn’t believe that the Pope is Christian. Indeed, he only thinks that he is a Christian...

— ogremk5

Creationists covet and envy the status and authority of science that Evolution(ary Biology) has, but, they can not, will not jump through the hoops necessary to achieve similar standing because of laziness, ignorance, and dogma-induced paralysis. So they try to steal it when they can, and destroy it through slander, libel and propaganda when they can’t.

— apokryltaros

Frank J said:

FL doesn’t believe that the Pope is Christian. Indeed, he only thinks that he is a Christian...

— ogremk5

Then he and Ray Martinez have lots to talk about. Ray is the one and only "true Christian" (not sure if he's a Scotsman, though). In case anyone is unaware, Ray endorses an old-earth-possibly-young-life "theory" that differs from both FL's YE "theory" and Steve P's, which concedes old life and common descent. If Ray and Tony "the Geocentrist" Pagano show up it would really be fun.

Frank J said:

Creationists covet and envy the status and authority of science that Evolution(ary Biology) has, but, they can not, will not jump through the hoops necessary to achieve similar standing because of laziness, ignorance, and dogma-induced paralysis. So they try to steal it when they can, and destroy it through slander, libel and propaganda when they can’t.

— apokryltaros

Not fair! They'd do all that, but they have been "expelled." By themselves of course, but nevertheless "expelled." ;-) On that note, after 5 years, has Ben Stein ever responded to "Set Ben Straight"? I know he evaded it for the first 2 years or so, but haven't followed it much since.

Creationists covet and envy the status and authority of science that Evolution(ary Biology) has, but, they can not, will not jump through the hoops necessary to achieve similar standing because of laziness, ignorance, and dogma-induced paralysis

Harold, I believe the quote is from FL.

Shit, it was not by FL, it was by apokryltaros.

FL doesn’t believe that the Pope is Christian. Indeed, he only thinks that he is a Christian…

FL said: Quickie note for Frank: Ogre has retracted the following.

FL doesn’t believe that the Pope is Christian. Indeed, he only thinks that he is a Christian…

FL

phhht said: So the Pope, who acknowledges the truth of evolution, is a Christian. Therefore one CAN be a Christian and believe in evolution. Just like you've said all along, huh Flawd.

mandrellian said: My own distinction: an Intelligent Design proponent is a Creationist who winks whenever he mentions "The Designer".

Piotr Gąsiorowski said:

mandrellian said: My own distinction: an Intelligent Design proponent is a Creationist who winks whenever he mentions "The Designer".

One gets the impression that according to ID proponents life was designed by You-Know-Who a.k.a. He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.

SWT said:

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

As an example, the hollow fiber in polar bear fur gave the inspiration for hollow-core synthetic fibers now being used in sportswear textiles. This can be chocked up to design, not Darwinian evolution or creationism.

Sure, if you don't care about the evidence. And you don't. Glen Davidson

No, I'm pretty sure that mass-produced hollow-core synthetic fibers are designed. (And Steve P.: It's "chalked up", like a tally on a blackboard.)

Steve P. said: Hollow-fiber synthetic yarns are indeed designed. We know this because there is machinery that produces the yarn. Then you can ask what designed the machinery, with humans as the answer. Now looking at polar bear fur, we can say they were designed as well. There is machinery behind its production. Then we can ask what designed that machinery, with nature as the answer. Then in comparison there will be the objection that nature is not the same thing as humans. We can see humans designing, but we can't see nature designing. Nature does not have a brain. Nature does not have arms and legs. To that I would say, where do humans come from, if not nature? If man designs and is a product of nature, then nature is the author of man's ability to design. There is no category difference. So it seems you(pl)have no faith in your own mind to come to a clear understanding of what it is that you observe. You claim (in quintessential 'doubting thomas ' fashion) that seeing is believing.

Dave Thomas said: It's not nearly that complex, FL. The simple fact is that the Discovery Institute, like yourself, likes to spread the Big Lie that you can't both accept evolution and be religious. The textbook simply notes this lie, gives examples of why it's false, and moves on. As should you.

phhht said: Notice, SkevieP, that your story as you tell it requires no gods at all. It requires no master architect standing behind the scenes tweaking reality. All that you mention happens naturally, of its own, without any need for supernatural influence.

Steve P. said: Hollow-fiber synthetic yarns are indeed designed. We know this because there is machinery that produces the yarn. Then you can ask what designed the machinery, with humans as the answer. Now looking at polar bear fur, we can say they were designed as well. There is machinery behind its production. Then we can ask what designed that machinery, with nature as the answer. Then in comparison there will be the objection that nature is not the same thing as humans. We can see humans designing, but we can't see nature designing. Nature does not have a brain. Nature does not have arms and legs. To that I would say, where do humans come from, if not nature? If man designs and is a product of nature, then nature is the author of man's ability to design. There is no category difference. So it seems you(pl)have no faith in your own mind to come to a clear understanding of what it is that you observe. You claim (in quintessential 'doubting thomas ' fashion) that seeing is believing.

Steve P. said: Dave Thomas, Fl is correct. You cannot be Christian and accept the Darwinian narrative that evolution is an unintelligent process. To be sure however, Christian can accept the definition of evolution in its original form as that of 'a rolling out (of pre-existing rudiments)', before the word was co-opted by Darwinians and stealthily transformed into an 'unintelligent building contractor' status. Today's discoveries are putting paid to the notion that evolution is unintelligent, goalless, purposeless, etc etc. Even now, you feel the pressure that the tables are turning and it will be you(pl) that appears the loony for denying, each and every discovery that clearly exhibits the hallmarks of design. Just now PaV at UD called attention to a paper that shows how DNA is uncannily like computer software in that it is possible to calculate the amount of core components necessary for it to function just as we do with computer software. The more we see parallels in nature to what we have designed, the harder it will be for you to deny what I have been saying for some time - -that man is embedded in nature. Therefore nature is the author of man's ability to design. Therefore, nature itself designs. Therefore, the systems and machinery we find in cells are designed. Therefore we can discover useful applications from the designed nature of living things. Therefore design is a useful and scientific endeavor.'

Dave Thomas said: It's not nearly that complex, FL. The simple fact is that the Discovery Institute, like yourself, likes to spread the Big Lie that you can't both accept evolution and be religious. The textbook simply notes this lie, gives examples of why it's false, and moves on. As should you.

Christianity is eminently consistent with acceptance of the Theory of Evolution.

FL has, from time to time, tried to state reasons why it isn't. Those attempts are easily and comprehensively refuted, because they are false to the core.

What he has never done is to try to engage the refutations. He simply does as he has done here, that is, ignore the refutations and state once again his routed proposition as if it had been demonstrated. It has not been demonstrated; it has been destroyed. He even goes so far as to say, as he does here, that it is "proven truth", instead of having been totally demolished - which it has been. It was done over and over, and FL never lets out a peep in reply.

It's been proposed that not even FL actually believes this falsehood; that he's just saying it to be annoying. I suspect that proposal is true, but there's no way to establish it.

All that can be done is to reiterate: the idea that Christianity is intellectually incompatible with acceptance of the theory of evolution is false, comprehensively and totally false, false from top to bottom, false totally, false entirely, false utterly.

You cannot be Christian and accept the Darwinian narrative that evolution is an unintelligent process.

Steve P. said: As usual the substance of the post is deftly circumvented.

Steve P. said: NO shit!, Sherlock!!

Steve P. said: As usual the substance of the post is deftly circumvented.

Now looking at polar bear fur, we can say they were designed as well.

Steve P. said: As usual the substance of the post is deftly circumvented.

SWT said:

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

As an example, the hollow fiber in polar bear fur gave the inspiration for hollow-core synthetic fibers now being used in sportswear textiles. This can be chocked up to design, not Darwinian evolution or creationism.

Sure, if you don't care about the evidence. And you don't. Glen Davidson

No, I'm pretty sure that mass-produced hollow-core synthetic fibers are designed. (And Steve P.: It's "chalked up", like a tally on a blackboard.)

Steve P. said: Hollow-fiber synthetic yarns are indeed designed. We know this because there is machinery that produces the yarn. Then you can ask what designed the machinery, with humans as the answer. Now looking at polar bear fur, we can say they were designed as well. There is machinery behind its production. Then we can ask what designed that machinery, with nature as the answer.

Dave Luckett said: All that can be done is to reiterate: the idea that Christianity is intellectually incompatible with acceptance of the theory of evolution is false, comprehensively and totally false, false from top to bottom, false totally, false entirely, false utterly.

SWT said: OK, now for a substantive response.

Steve P. said: Hollow-fiber synthetic yarns are indeed designed. We know this because there is machinery that produces the yarn. Then you can ask what designed the machinery, with humans as the answer. Now looking at polar bear fur, we can say they were designed as well. There is machinery behind its production. Then we can ask what designed that machinery, with nature as the answer.

OK. You do realize, don't you, that the "nature" "designs" using evolutionary processes. Glad you've seen the light.

Your characterization of life as “condensed or soft matter’ is a category error. If condensed matter was a mundane property easily detected through out the universe, you might have a point.

Steve P. said: Dave Thomas, Fl is correct. You cannot be Christian and accept the Darwinian narrative that evolution is an unintelligent process.

I’m confused. Are you saying that theistic evolutionists are real Christians, but irrational? Or are you implying that they aren’t real Christians, even though elsewhere you deny making such implications?

Are you saying that theistic evolutionists are real Christians, but irrational?

As much as I should hate to attract a YEC readership, it has recently struck me that the theory of evolution is highly incompatible with, not only the literalist position of Christianity, but the more liberal position that accepts a certain level of biblical errancy. -- Tim Cooley blog (18-year-old atheist)

If God created evolution by natural selection as many liberal Christians believe, He set up a mechanism which rendered Him completely superfluous from that point onward. If God guided natural selection along the way, then it wasn’t natural selection. -- "Ask The Atheist", posted by SmartLX, Mar 3 2010

“Which core doctrines of Christianity does evolution challenge? Well, basically all of them. The doctrine of original sin is a prime example. "If my rudimentary grasp of the science is accurate, then Darwin’s theory tells us that because new species only emerge extremely gradually, there really is no “first” prototype or model of any species at all—no “first” dog or “first” giraffe and certainly no “first” homo sapiens created instantaneously. The transition from predecessor hominid species was almost imperceptible. So, if there was no “first” human, there was clearly no original couple through whom the contagion of “sin” could be transmitted to the entire human race. The history of our species does not contain a “fall” into sin from a mythical, pristine sinless paradise that never existed.”

". . . The role of Christ as the Second Adam who came to save and perfect our fallen species is at the heart of the New Testament’s argument for Christ’s salvific significance. St. Paul wrote, “Therefore, just as one man’s trespass led to the condemnation of all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to salvation and life for all.” (Romans 5:18) Over the centuries this typology of Christ as the Second Adam has been a central theme of Christian homiletics, hymnody and art. More liberal Christians might counter that, of course there was no Adam or Eve; when Paul described Christ as another Adam he was speaking metaphorically. But metaphorically of what? And Jesus died to become a metaphor? If so, how can a metaphor save humanity?” --former Christian pastor Mike Aus, quoted by evolutionist Jerry Coyne (who agreed by saying, "I don't see any way around this.")

So the Pope, who acknowledges the truth of evolution, is a Christian. Therefore one CAN be a Christian and believe in evolution. Just like you’ve said all along, huh Flawd.

Fucking Lunatic spewed out:

So the Pope, who acknowledges the truth of evolution, is a Christian. Therefore one CAN be a Christian and believe in evolution. Just like you’ve said all along, huh Flawd.

Yes, Phhht. That IS what I've said all along, both at ATBC and right here at PT. Repeatedly. You apparently didn't get the memo either. Heh. **** The fact is that if you are a Christian evolutionist, you are trafficking in irrationality and syncretism. You are trying to simultaneously hold on to two irreconcilable, clashing beliefs. And people on all sides are starting to notice. However, that does NOT mean you automatically stop being a Christian. Nope. (But don't forget, there are former Christians out there who honestly testify that evolution DID play a part in their choice to abandon Christianity. The incompatibility is real.) FL

So Floyd, once again we come to the simple question: Given the massive amounts of evidence for evolution, and the complete lack of evidence for your religion, why would anyone choose your beliefs over reality?

Actually Floyd is right on this one. Evolution did play a role in the process that involved my abandonment of religious beliefs. I was taught from a very early age that evolution was not true, that it was a lie and that if I believed it I was going to hell. I was literally brainwashed not to trust science or any scientist who claimed that the earth was old or that beneficial mutations could occur or that humans came from monkeys. But I was also taught to value scholarship and the study of nature, so when I went to college I majored in biology. I was convinced that careful analysis would confirm all that I had been taught. Guess what, it didn't happen. I looked at the evidence for myself and I discovered that I had been lied to. No teacher asked me what I believed. No one tried to convince me of anything. I went in the lab and looked at the fossils myself, I examined the genetic evidence and I studied comparative anatomy. I found out that all of those preachers had been lying and distorting and covering up and hoping that no one would actually try to learn anything for themselves. I had been scammed.

That's what really drives people away from religion, being lied to. People trying to fool them just to get another dollar in the offering plate. Floyd and people like him are driving people away from religions that refuse to accept reality. Anyone who bothers to actually learn for themselves will realize that they are being scammed. Deep down inside Floyd knows this. That is why he steadfastly refuses to discuss the evidence. That is why he offers no explanation at all for the evidence. All he has is lies and impotent threats of eternal damnation. He doesn't understand science and he hopes no one else does either. It is worthless trying to reason with him, he is the most close minded person you will ever likely encounter. I just ignore him, since in the end the only thing he is hurting is his own myopic religion.

Steve P. said: Dave Thomas, Fl is correct. You cannot be Christian and accept the Darwinian narrative that evolution is an unintelligent process.

TomS said:

Steve P. said: Dave Thomas, Fl is correct. You cannot be Christian and accept the Darwinian narrative that evolution is an unintelligent process.

Can one be Christian and accept that reproduction (genetics, metabolism, growth, death) is an unintelligent process? Can one be Christian and accept that weather, fire, earthquake, meteor shower, ... is an unintelligent process?

DS said:

TomS said:

Steve P. said: Dave Thomas, Fl is correct. You cannot be Christian and accept the Darwinian narrative that evolution is an unintelligent process.

Can one be Christian and accept that reproduction (genetics, metabolism, growth, death) is an unintelligent process? Can one be Christian and accept that weather, fire, earthquake, meteor shower, ... is an unintelligent process?

Can one be a christian and believe that the earth is round? Can one be a christian and believe that the earth goes around the sun? Can one be a christian and believe that bacteria cause disease? Can one be a christian and believe that there is life on other planets? Can one live successfully in reality if one chooses to deny reality?

Hi team. Long time lurker and occasional commentator here. (be nice!) As an ex biblical christian, I agree with FL that it is not possible to be a biblical christian and accept an old earth and the theory of evolution. I became an atheist when I discovered that I had been lied to by parents, ministers and elders for over 30 years. They all made it very clear that evolutionary theory was the work of the devil and must be rejected in light of what is said in the bible. I strongly suspect that if the pope (and the Catholic church) thought he could deny a lot of science, especially evolution, without open and complete ridicule, he would.

One only has to look at the ID commentators at UD to understand that there is a very thin veneer of science acceptance, with them reverting to YEC "science" speak if not herded by their more politically savvy leaders. Why do you think that the only tactic for all forms of creationist "scientists" (ID, YEC, TE...) is to attempt to undermine the theory of evolution? (and geology, and physics, and astronomy...)

my 2 pence...

DS said:

TomS said:

Steve P. said: Dave Thomas, Fl is correct. You cannot be Christian and accept the Darwinian narrative that evolution is an unintelligent process.

Can one be Christian and accept that reproduction (genetics, metabolism, growth, death) is an unintelligent process? Can one be Christian and accept that weather, fire, earthquake, meteor shower, ... is an unintelligent process?

Can one be a christian and believe that the earth is round? Can one be a christian and believe that the earth goes around the sun? Can one be a christian and believe that bacteria cause disease? Can one be a christian and believe that there is life on other planets? Can one live successfully in reality if one chooses to deny reality?

TomS said:

apokryltaros said:

ogremk5 said: Regardless of any of that, evolution works. Creationism (including ID) don't. Simple fact and until creationists show something that they actually accomplished using creationist (or ID) principles, then the entire point is moot.

The sad thing is that modern-day Creationism, including its stillborn offspring Intelligent Design, was never intended to be an explanation, let alone science. Creationists waffle between "it is, too, but I'm not going to show you ever," and "it isn't, but who cares?" never mind that either position is an automatic failure.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, but its advocates wanted the status of science. They claimed to be scientific, without understanding what that meant. (I do not accuse them of dishonesty in this regard.) Others have said that if such-and-such is a scientific statement then the denial of such-and-such is also science, thus creationism does make scientific statements, and is thereby science - very poor science, but science. (I would rather say that there is more to science than just making statements.)

Steve P has to go to the Discovery Institute and argue the point with the ID perps like Dembski and Behe. They claim that they are not creationists, but they are Christians. There is also the point that Behe accepts common descent as a fact of nature.

— Ron Okimoto

NobleRot, suppose you had been brought up in a Christian denomination that taught that the Bible is the Word of God, and that there is nothing to say that God must not speak His truth through metaphor, narrative and allegory. Specifically, that there is nothing in Scripture or the Creed or the requirements of the Faith that requires the Christian to read Genesis as literal history. Most Christian denominations actually hold that view.

Do you think you would then have become an atheist, on being presented with the facts of evolution and an ancient Earth?

phhht said: Biologos insists that the designer is Yahweh Graybeard, Burner of Bushes.

Piotr Gąsiorowski said:

mandrellian said: My own distinction: an Intelligent Design proponent is a Creationist who winks whenever he mentions "The Designer".

One gets the impression that according to ID proponents life was designed by You-Know-Who a.k.a. He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.

NobleRotter said: Hi team. Long time lurker and occasional commentator here. (be nice!) As an ex biblical christian, I agree with FL that it is not possible to be a biblical christian and accept an old earth and the theory of evolution. I became an atheist when I discovered that I had been lied to by parents, ministers and elders for over 30 years. They all made it very clear that evolutionary theory was the work of the devil and must be rejected in light of what is said in the bible. I strongly suspect that if the pope (and the Catholic church) thought he could deny a lot of science, especially evolution, without open and complete ridicule, he would. One only has to look at the ID commentators at UD to understand that there is a very thin veneer of science acceptance, with them reverting to YEC "science" speak if not herded by their more politically savvy leaders. Why do you think that the only tactic for all forms of creationist "scientists" (ID, YEC, TE...) is to attempt to undermine the theory of evolution? (and geology, and physics, and astronomy...) my 2 pence...

Dave Luckett said: NobleRot, suppose you had been brought up in a Christian denomination that taught that the Bible is the Word of God, and that there is nothing to say that God must not speak His truth through metaphor, narrative and allegory. Specifically, that there is nothing in Scripture or the Creed or the requirements of the Faith that requires the Christian to read Genesis as literal history. Most Christian denominations actually hold that view. Do you think you would then have become an atheist, on being presented with the facts of evolution and an ancient Earth?

DS said: I would also like to ask you a question. How did you learn the truth? It is very traumatic to go against all of your background and training and to risk being shut out of the social group that has been so important for your entire life. How did you find the courage to confront the truth? I commend you. But of course your story is far from unique. Floyd has been told this hundreds of times and yet he persists in his dishonesty and shenanigans. More is the pity.

NobleRotter,

I have the utmost respect and admiration for anyone who has the curiosity and intellectual honesty to question everything they have been taught. I do know how hard that can be. And to think you were able to find the answers for yourself and to understand them for yourself. You are truly an inspiring individual.

As for FLoyd, I'm sure he will just shrug and say you are lying when you tell him how his dishonest and deceitful nature has helped you to see the flaws in religion. Mind you, believing in evolution does not necessarily preclude belief in the existence of a god. But being lied to by people you trusted does tend to have the effect of helping one to question their beliefs and in many cases finding them wanting. Good luck to you in your continued efforts to honor the truth.

DS said: ... I was taught from a very early age that evolution was not true, that it was a lie and that if I believed it I was going to hell. ... But I was also taught to value scholarship and the study of nature, so when I went to college... ... I looked at the evidence for myself and I discovered that I had been lied to. No teacher asked me what I believed. No one tried to convince me of anything. I went in the lab and looked at the fossils myself, ... I had been scammed. That's what really drives people away from religion, being lied to. ... Anyone who bothers to actually learn for themselves will realize that they are being scammed. Deep down inside Floyd knows this. That is why he steadfastly refuses to discuss the evidence

stevaroni,

It's sad that you were raised in a religion that officially accepts the truth of evolution and yet still found it necessary to deny and demonize science. Then again, that's only one of the problems with the catholic church. Like NobleRotter, I was taught to despise catholics as heretics. Ironically, it was probably partly because of their more tolerant attitude toward science.

The truth will always win out in the end. Religions would be wise to remember that. As Glen points out, evolution isn't incompatible with christianity, it's lying that is incompatible with christianity.

NobleRotter said: Hi team. Long time lurker and occasional commentator here. (be nice!) As an ex biblical christian, I agree with FL that it is not possible to be a biblical christian and accept an old earth and the theory of evolution. I became an atheist when I discovered that I had been lied to by parents, ministers and elders for over 30 years. They all made it very clear that evolutionary theory was the work of the devil and must be rejected in light of what is said in the bible. I strongly suspect that if the pope (and the Catholic church) thought he could deny a lot of science, especially evolution, without open and complete ridicule, he would. One only has to look at the ID commentators at UD to understand that there is a very thin veneer of science acceptance, with them reverting to YEC "science" speak if not herded by their more politically savvy leaders. Why do you think that the only tactic for all forms of creationist "scientists" (ID, YEC, TE...) is to attempt to undermine the theory of evolution? (and geology, and physics, and astronomy...) my 2 pence...

DS said: stevaroni, It's sad that you were raised in a religion that officially accepts the truth of evolution and yet still found it necessary to deny and demonize science.

I wonder why evolution. There is nothing in the Bible about "descent with modification" or "species" (the concept didn't exist until at least 1000 years later). Why not, just to pick a couple of examples:

After all, whats the point in using a sacred text if parts of it may or may not be a god using metaphors to explain rather important concepts such as the fall?

More liberal Christians might counter that, of course there was no Adam or Eve; when Paul described Christ as another Adam he was speaking metaphorically. But metaphorically of what? And Jesus died to become a metaphor? If so, how can a metaphor save humanity?”

stevaroni said:

DS said: stevaroni, It's sad that you were raised in a religion that officially accepts the truth of evolution and yet still found it necessary to deny and demonize science.

I agree. It wasn't till I grew up and knew more about the world that I realized that the Catholic church had long made peace with science. I was in Rome a few years ago and toured the vatican museums. There, in a display case of stone age tools, were all kinds of artifacts with dates like "ca 40,000 BC" without any hint of irony or evasion. Sadly, the same couldn't be said for the individual dioceses in the Northeast in the late 70's to whom science was not only a closed book, but preferably a burned an buried book as well.. Still, considering what happened to some boys at the hands of the priests of the era, I should be happy that the worst thing that happened to me was a convincing case of atheism.

FL's primary goal is to insult Christians who accept biological evolution.

He is equally happy to hear YEC types say "you can't be a Christian and accept evolution", or to hear hard core atheists say the same thing. He actually views the atheists who say that as allies, if temporary allies.

He thinks that if he can frame the issue as "accept mainstream science and become an atheist" versus "submit to my version of Christianity and deny science", that some people will deny science rather than give up on religious traditions altogether. He may or may not be right.

However, it's impossible to tell, because, to his constant frustration, there are Christians who don't deny evolution.

He keeps repeating "a lot of atheists accept evolution". Well, all atheists accept that water is necessary for human life, but that doesn't make that proposition controversial for Christians.

Dave Thomas said: ....The simple fact is that the Discovery Institute, like yourself, likes to spread the Big Lie that you can't both accept evolution and be religious. The textbook simply notes this lie, gives examples of why it's false, and moves on. As should you.

apokryltaros said:

Frank J said:

FL doesn’t believe that the Pope is Christian. Indeed, he only thinks that he is a Christian...

— ogremk5

Then he and Ray Martinez have lots to talk about. Ray is the one and only "true Christian" (not sure if he's a Scotsman, though). In case anyone is unaware, Ray endorses an old-earth-possibly-young-life "theory" that differs from both FL's YE "theory" and Steve P's, which concedes old life and common descent. If Ray and Tony "the Geocentrist" Pagano show up it would really be fun.

You'd think so, but, while Ray Martinez always accuses all other Creationists of being covert Darwinist/Atheists, he always either ignores or remains in polite and hypocritical agreement with all other evolution-denying trolls in Panda's Thumb.

After all, the sole reason why Ray Martinez claims that he is the only Christian is in the pathetic attempt to shock us with his alleged Christian bigotry.

Hypocrite lied: Your very valid point, and Aus's valid point as well, have NOT been refuted or resolved in this forum (nor in other forums). Honestly, those points re-affirm and re-inforce the fact that Theistic Evolution is rationally impossible, if the specific theism happens to be Christianity. The incompatibility is simply undeniable at this point.

An Idiot lied:

Dave Thomas said: ....The simple fact is that the Discovery Institute, like yourself, likes to spread the Big Lie that you can't both accept evolution and be religious. The textbook simply notes this lie, gives examples of why it's false, and moves on. As should you.

William Dembski, Michael Behe, and Jonathan Wells (to name a few believing "higher ups") accept natural selection and microevolution to exist and operate in nature (Darwin's main cause-and-effect claim). Behe is known to also accept common descent and human evolution. So, like the Bible says, they have fallen into the ditch which they have dug.

An Idiot whined:

apokryltaros said:

Frank J said:

FL doesn’t believe that the Pope is Christian. Indeed, he only thinks that he is a Christian...

— ogremk5

Then he and Ray Martinez have lots to talk about. Ray is the one and only "true Christian" (not sure if he's a Scotsman, though). In case anyone is unaware, Ray endorses an old-earth-possibly-young-life "theory" that differs from both FL's YE "theory" and Steve P's, which concedes old life and common descent. If Ray and Tony "the Geocentrist" Pagano show up it would really be fun.

You'd think so, but, while Ray Martinez always accuses all other Creationists of being covert Darwinist/Atheists, he always either ignores or remains in polite and hypocritical agreement with all other evolution-denying trolls in Panda's Thumb.

How can a person be a Creationist while accepting Darwin's main conceptual and theoretical claim (natural selection/species mutability)?

After all, the sole reason why Ray Martinez claims that he is the only Christian is in the pathetic attempt to shock us with his alleged Christian bigotry.

What on earth are you talking about?

NobleRotter said: Ultimately, curiosity killed the christian in me!!

apokryltaros said: In other words, you're saying that the last two Popes are not Christians because they saw no incompatibility between Evolution and Christianity.

I wonder why evolution. There is nothing in the Bible about “descent with modification” or “species” (the concept didn’t exist until at least 1000 years later). Why not, just to pick a couple of examples: 1. reproduction. After all, reproduction is mentioned in the Bible, and it doesn’t say anything about the scientific description of reproductive biology. And reproduction is about the individual. 2. heliocentrism. The Bible clearly is geocentric, this was the universal interpretation of the Bible before the rise of modern science.

— TomS

SWT said:

apokryltaros said: In other words, you're saying that the last two Popes are not Christians because they saw no incompatibility between Evolution and Christianity.

Oh, be fair. FL is just saying that Roman Catholic clergy don't understand Christian theology as well as he does. It's a shame there's no specialized training required to become clergy in the Roman Catholic church; perhaps Benedict and Francis can make a trip to Topeka so that FL can teach him what the Bible really says.

Ray Martinez said: For Catholic hierarchy to assert compatibility between Christianity and evolution is self-evident nonsense. Both are polar opposites. The former is founded on a purported miracle (Resurrection of Christ). The latter plainly says miracles and Divine action in reality are false and do not occur. .

apokryltaros said:

NobleRotter said: Ultimately, curiosity killed the christian in me!!

No, the discovery that you were repeatedly lied to by trusted authority figures was what killed the Christian in you.

NobleRotter said: Ultimately, why bother trying to reconcile holy texts with science if you have to resort to saying; "oh, maybe god inerrantly inspired his earthly scribe to write about the origins of the earth in metaphors, therefore maybe a day equals 1 billion years?" or "the designer(TM) front loaded all the information(TM) 4 billion years ago into DNA for all life and evolution took over!"?

IMO FL is honest in what he says in this regard. As I said above, the rest of the ID and TE (including the pope) crowd would immediately drop this facade and revert to YEC if they could find a weak link (no pun intended) in the theory of evolution.

NobleRotter said: As I said above, the rest of the ID and TE (including the pope) crowd would immediately drop this facade and revert to YEC if they could find a weak link (no pun intended) in the theory of evolution.

NobleRot's and stevaroni's experiences illustrate something from which FL must hide in shame: that when the truth outs, not only are lies exposed as lies, but also the liars are exposed as liars. Noblerot and stevaroni were told lies. They know that those who lie about one thing are likely to lie about others. Now they believe nothing that these people say.

FL says that Genesis is literal history. This is known to be untrue, from evidence. It's a lie. So nothing FL says can be accepted. He says he doesn't understand this. But does he really think that, or is he affecting to think that?

On the BW, FL demonstrated that he doesn't appear to understand what fiction is. He said that it must come with some sort of label indicating that it's fiction. He says he can't understand the idea that he himself may be a fiction, that is, an invented character that some puppet-master narrativist presents to us: the perfect bigot, the archetypical religious fanatic, half-blind, half-furious, as much a stranger to reality as he is to charity. That statement may itself be a fiction, of course. But still I wonder. How many layers are operating here?

I mean, there's that painful faux-hillbilly dialect he affects from time to time. It's false, of course, and the falsity is manifestly obvious. That opens a vista down a hall of mirrors. Does he affect it simply because it is irritating? Or is FL trying to evoke an America that is gone? Is he demonstrating how alienated he is, how uncomfortable he finds the America he inhabits, how much he wants to revert to an idealised God's-own-country of bucolic notions, folk wisdom, and strong silent men from the backwoods? Noble-savage romanticism? The echoes go back to Cincinnatus and beyond.

Or, by the inconsistency and obvious tin-eared incompetence of this characterisation, is he demonstrating that the character itself is an imposter; perhaps that it always was an imposter. Is FL really like this? Or is he a fictional character created to demonstrate the horrid facts about such a character? Or is he a fictional character playing a fictional character, to demonstrate the nature of the fiction - not only that the character is fictional, but that the romantic hero, the romantic ideal itself, is a lie, a swindle from top to bottom?

And yet, no such thing is demonstrated. There is yet something in the heroic ideal, no matter how much mud is flung at it. There is yet something noble about a nation that begins with the premise that "all men are created equal", a nation that founded itself by saying "We, the people", a nation that still believes that its cities are undimmed by human tears, and that it lifts its lamp beside the golden door, and that nobility remains no matter what grotesque caricatures are employed to ridicule it.

And there may yet be something in the idea that imperfect humans may be redeemable. I don't know. I know the idea is... interesting.

Yet this is fiction. Powerful as it is, overwhelming as it may be, fiction demonstrates nothing. It only opens possibilities. That alone is enough to justify it, mind. FL is one of those possibilities, or rather, he's a bundle of them, one within another like Russian dolls. I find that idea... interesting.

Whoops, hadn't considered Ray.

Trifecta achieved.

Frank J said:

Steve P has to go to the Discovery Institute and argue the point with the ID perps like Dembski and Behe. They claim that they are not creationists, but they are Christians. There is also the point that Behe accepts common descent as a fact of nature.

— Ron Okimoto

Steve P also accepts ~4 billion years of common descent. For that he needs to debate FL, Byers, Ray etc., not the DI. Reason #4,000,000,001 to avoid the word "creationist": I haven't forgotten that you admitted being one, at least per one of its many common definitions. Which kind of makes criticizing "creationists" (instead of anti-evolution activists) not unlike "suicide bombing."

@Ron:

Steve is what I would call, for lack of a better word, an "anti-evolution activist." That he, you and I all agree that "some designer did something at some time" is completely irrelevant to the science. He crosses the line by insisting that that conclusion is tied to some "weakness" in the science. Whenever one does that, one needs to answer the questions (which are hardly ever asked, unfortunately):

"OK, let's assume for the sake of argument, that some designer is the ultimate cause. What exactly did that designer do, when, where and how? And how did you test that to rule out that the designer didn't do something else, at other times, by other methods, etc.?"

Rank and file evolution-deniers either react with "I believe what this book* says and nothing can change my mind," or "I guess something like evolution is true, but its more important to me that God is involved than all those 'what happened when' details."

Activists, however, either evade the question or at best offer a few vague statements, then do everything in his power to steer the "debate" back to "weaknesses" and "implications" of "Darwinism." Like Behe, Steve plainly admitted ~4 billion years of common descent, but one will have to sift through many pages of his rants to find it. During which time one will find many statements of support of those activists who disagree with him radically on such "details."

* With some persistence they will admit that its their particular interpretation only, and that all others are just as wrong as evolution.

NobleRotter said: I am struggling with the proper quoting format here so apologies if it looks a bit odd...

I wonder why evolution. There is nothing in the Bible about "descent with modification" or "species" (the concept didn't exist until at least 1000 years later). Why not, just to pick a couple of examples:

because it removes the special creation of humans and our place in nature, and puts in doubt sin entering the world via a woman, snake and some fruit. In particular, without sin the messiah story is not needed. We were "made" in his image etc... As regards the exact science of biological reproduction and heliocentrism, however you interpret what is said about them in the bible, what we know about them now does not threaten the unique relationship between humans and god. This is the key to all of the objections to evolution by biblical christians. In their eyes if we are just evolved animals then we are just, well, animals!!

Dave Luckett said: NobleRot's and stevaroni's experiences illustrate something from which FL must hide in shame: that when the truth outs, not only are lies exposed as lies, but also the liars are exposed as liars. Noblerot and stevaroni were told lies. They know that those who lie about one thing are likely to lie about others. Now they believe nothing that these people say. FL says that Genesis is literal history. This is known to be untrue, from evidence. It's a lie. So nothing FL says can be accepted. He says he doesn't understand this. But does he really think that, or is he affecting to think that? On the BW, FL demonstrated that he doesn't appear to understand what fiction is. He said that it must come with some sort of label indicating that it's fiction. He says he can't understand the idea that he himself may be a fiction, that is, an invented character that some puppet-master narrativist presents to us: the perfect bigot, the archetypical religious fanatic, half-blind, half-furious, as much a stranger to reality as he is to charity. That statement may itself be a fiction, of course. But still I wonder. How many layers are operating here? I mean, there's that painful faux-hillbilly dialect he affects from time to time. It's false, of course, and the falsity is manifestly obvious. That opens a vista down a hall of mirrors. Does he affect it simply because it is irritating? Or is FL trying to evoke an America that is gone? Is he demonstrating how alienated he is, how uncomfortable he finds the America he inhabits, how much he wants to revert to an idealised God's-own-country of bucolic notions, folk wisdom, and strong silent men from the backwoods? Noble-savage romanticism? The echoes go back to Cincinnatus and beyond. Or, by the inconsistency and obvious tin-eared incompetence of this characterisation, is he demonstrating that the character itself is an imposter; perhaps that it always was an imposter. Is FL really like this? Or is he a fictional character created to demonstrate the horrid facts about such a character? Or is he a fictional character playing a fictional character, to demonstrate the nature of the fiction - not only that the character is fictional, but that the romantic hero, the romantic ideal itself, is a lie, a swindle from top to bottom? And yet, no such thing is demonstrated. There is yet something in the heroic ideal, no matter how much mud is flung at it. There is yet something noble about a nation that begins with the premise that "all men are created equal", a nation that founded itself by saying "We, the people", a nation that still believes that its cities are undimmed by human tears, and that it lifts its lamp beside the golden door, and that nobility remains no matter what grotesque caricatures are employed to ridicule it. And there may yet be something in the idea that imperfect humans may be redeemable. I don't know. I know the idea is... interesting. Yet this is fiction. Powerful as it is, overwhelming as it may be, fiction demonstrates nothing. It only opens possibilities. That alone is enough to justify it, mind. FL is one of those possibilities, or rather, he's a bundle of them, one within another like Russian dolls. I find that idea... interesting.

phhht said: But you go much farther than that, don't you, SkevieP. It's one thing to claim that the teleology you perceive in nature is grounds for scientific thought. Hey, go right ahead. Start with telling us how to detect it empirically. But you want to go well beyond that. You want to insist that because some things look designed and have designers, all things which look designed must have a designer. That's simply not so, SkevieP. What you recognize as design occurs very frequently in nature without any sign of a designer. When it snows, is there a snowflaker? Just because the rings of Saturn look designed, does that mean that there is a race of Cosmic Teapot People who have deposited every grain into careful orbit? You want to argue that because you hear thunder, there must be a thunderer. There is just no reason to think so, Skevie, and so it is with your designer. If you want to convince anyone of its reality, you have to do better than simply insist that your reasoning is correct. You have to have empirical evidence.

Steve P. said: Dave Thomas, Fl is correct. You cannot be Christian and accept the Darwinian narrative that evolution is an unintelligent process. To be sure however, Christian can accept the definition of evolution in its original form as that of 'a rolling out (of pre-existing rudiments)', before the word was co-opted by Darwinians and stealthily transformed into an 'unintelligent building contractor' status. Today's discoveries are putting paid to the notion that evolution is unintelligent, goalless, purposeless, etc etc. Even now, you feel the pressure that the tables are turning and it will be you(pl) that appears the loony for denying, each and every discovery that clearly exhibits the hallmarks of design. Just now PaV at UD called attention to a paper that shows how DNA is uncannily like computer software in that it is possible to calculate the amount of core components necessary for it to function just as we do with computer software. The more we see parallels in nature to what we have designed, the harder it will be for you to deny what I have been saying for some time - -that man is embedded in nature. Therefore nature is the author of man's ability to design. Therefore, nature itself designs. Therefore, the systems and machinery we find in cells are designed. Therefore we can discover useful applications from the designed nature of living things. Therefore design is a useful and scientific endeavor.'

Dave Thomas said: It's not nearly that complex, FL. The simple fact is that the Discovery Institute, like yourself, likes to spread the Big Lie that you can't both accept evolution and be religious. The textbook simply notes this lie, gives examples of why it's false, and moves on. As should you.

Steve P said: As an example, the hollow fiber in polar bear fur gave the inspiration for hollow-core synthetic fibers now being used in sportswear textiles. This can be chocked [sic] up to design, not Darwinian evolution or creationism.

Let us grant that each of us stands in a special relationship with our Creator, and that each of us individuals is a creature of God. The science which treats of the origins of us individuals is reproductive biology. So if there is any conflict between belief in being creatures of God and a science, that science would be reproductive biology.

Scott F said:

phhht said: But you go much farther than that, don't you, SkevieP. It's one thing to claim that the teleology you perceive in nature is grounds for scientific thought. Hey, go right ahead. Start with telling us how to detect it empirically. But you want to go well beyond that. You want to insist that because some things look designed and have designers, all things which look designed must have a designer. That's simply not so, SkevieP. What you recognize as design occurs very frequently in nature without any sign of a designer. When it snows, is there a snowflaker? Just because the rings of Saturn look designed, does that mean that there is a race of Cosmic Teapot People who have deposited every grain into careful orbit? You want to argue that because you hear thunder, there must be a thunderer. There is just no reason to think so, Skevie, and so it is with your designer. If you want to convince anyone of its reality, you have to do better than simply insist that your reasoning is correct. You have to have empirical evidence.

Steve P. said: Dave Thomas, Fl is correct. You cannot be Christian and accept the Darwinian narrative that evolution is an unintelligent process. To be sure however, Christian can accept the definition of evolution in its original form as that of 'a rolling out (of pre-existing rudiments)', before the word was co-opted by Darwinians and stealthily transformed into an 'unintelligent building contractor' status. Today's discoveries are putting paid to the notion that evolution is unintelligent, goalless, purposeless, etc etc. Even now, you feel the pressure that the tables are turning and it will be you(pl) that appears the loony for denying, each and every discovery that clearly exhibits the hallmarks of design. Just now PaV at UD called attention to a paper that shows how DNA is uncannily like computer software in that it is possible to calculate the amount of core components necessary for it to function just as we do with computer software. The more we see parallels in nature to what we have designed, the harder it will be for you to deny what I have been saying for some time - -that man is embedded in nature. Therefore nature is the author of man's ability to design. Therefore, nature itself designs. Therefore, the systems and machinery we find in cells are designed. Therefore we can discover useful applications from the designed nature of living things. Therefore design is a useful and scientific endeavor.'

Dave Thomas said: It's not nearly that complex, FL. The simple fact is that the Discovery Institute, like yourself, likes to spread the Big Lie that you can't both accept evolution and be religious. The textbook simply notes this lie, gives examples of why it's false, and moves on. As should you.

Hi phhht, It think that you are so hung up on denying gods that you think all evolution deniers are Christians, or at least theists. You appear to believe that SteveP is arguing for a "god", for a "designer". He is not arguing for a single "designer", or even multiple "designers". It took me quite a while to wrap my head around SteveP's position. But, I believe that when he says that all living things are "designed", what he means is that they designed themselves. For example, the reason that a bacterium has a flagellum is not that a "designer" gave it one. Instead, he believes (and has stated explicitly on other threads here on PT) that the bacterium noticed that it would be useful to have a flagellum, and so the bacterium intentionally designed its own flagellum by its own volition. It wanted a flagellum, and so it designed one for itself. I understand his position to be something like a self-directed, self-realized Lamarckism: the giraffe needed to reach the higher branches, so it "designed" for itself (it willed itself to have) a longer neck. It's not "theism" or even "deism". It's not "creationism", in the classical sense of "Special Creationism". It isn't even "Gaiaism" (if one might define such a thing), in the sense that "Nature" (as Gaia) is the "Designer". I can't seem to find an "-ism" that describes it. I also cannot find a place on Dave Thomas' original cladistic diagram where such an "IDist" might be placed. In the context of this diagram, I think that SteveP really is an example of "Special Creation", a real one-off design that somehow designed itself. :-)

Steve P said: As an example, the hollow fiber in polar bear fur gave the inspiration for hollow-core synthetic fibers now being used in sportswear textiles. This can be chocked [sic] up to design, not Darwinian evolution or creationism.

See? He is arguing against what he calls Creationism, or at least the "God Created All Things" type of Creationism. When SteveP is talking about "ID" and "Design", he is not talking about FL's god. (I'm always surprised that FL has never had any criticism of SteveP's position.) Instead, SteveP is talking about "life" designing itself, about individual organisms designing and actively (and intentionally) modifying themselves individually, without the need of "god" or "gods". I have no explicit evidence in this thread, but my understanding is that SteveP believes, not that an all-powerful Designer created the polar bears' hollow fur, but that the polar bear itself "Designed" its hollow fur, and willed itself to have hollow fur.

phhht said: SkevieP, is there a single Designer? Is it the Christian god? My prediction is that we will get no clear answer.

Scott F said: I also cannot find a place on Dave Thomas' original cladistic diagram where such an "IDist" might be placed. In the context of this diagram, I think that SteveP really is an example of "Special Creation", a real one-off design that somehow designed itself. :-)

SkevieP, is there a single Designer? Is it the Christian god? My prediction is that we will get no clear answer.

maybe SteveP would fit as a branch closer to the “Evolutionary Biology” branch (in Dave Thomas’ diagram), after the split with ID/Creationism.

Scott F said: It think that you are so hung up on denying gods that you think all evolution deniers are Christians, or at least theists. You appear to believe that SteveP is arguing for a "god", for a "designer". He is not arguing for a single "designer", or even multiple "designers". It took me quite a while to wrap my head around SteveP's position. But, I believe that when he says that all living things are "designed", what he means is that they designed themselves. For example, the reason that a bacterium has a flagellum is not that a "designer" gave it one. Instead, he believes (and has stated explicitly on other threads here on PT) that the bacterium noticed that it would be useful to have a flagellum, and so the bacterium intentionally designed its own flagellum by its own volition. It wanted a flagellum, and so it designed one for itself. I understand his position to be something like a self-directed, self-realized Lamarckism: the giraffe needed to reach the higher branches, so it "designed" for itself (it willed itself to have) a longer neck. It's not "theism" or even "deism". It's not "creationism", in the classical sense of "Special Creationism". It isn't even "Gaiaism" (if one might define such a thing), in the sense that "Nature" (as Gaia) is the "Designer". I can't seem to find an "-ism" that describes it.

W.H. Heydt wrote:

"I can’t seem to find an “-ism” that describes it."

How about fanaticism?

How about self delusional ism?

How about fairy tale ism?

How about making stuff up without any evidence just because ism?

How about desperately looking for an alternative explanation because you don't want to accept reality ism?

How about nep vitalism?

How about I'm the only one smart enough to figure it out and everyone else is wrong ism?

How about I refuse to look at the evidence so I can maintain any beliefs I want ism.

Take your pick.

W. H. Heydt said:

Scott F said: It think that you are so hung up on denying gods that you think all evolution deniers are Christians, or at least theists. You appear to believe that SteveP is arguing for a "god", for a "designer". He is not arguing for a single "designer", or even multiple "designers". It took me quite a while to wrap my head around SteveP's position. But, I believe that when he says that all living things are "designed", what he means is that they designed themselves. For example, the reason that a bacterium has a flagellum is not that a "designer" gave it one. Instead, he believes (and has stated explicitly on other threads here on PT) that the bacterium noticed that it would be useful to have a flagellum, and so the bacterium intentionally designed its own flagellum by its own volition. It wanted a flagellum, and so it designed one for itself. I understand his position to be something like a self-directed, self-realized Lamarckism: the giraffe needed to reach the higher branches, so it "designed" for itself (it willed itself to have) a longer neck. It's not "theism" or even "deism". It's not "creationism", in the classical sense of "Special Creationism". It isn't even "Gaiaism" (if one might define such a thing), in the sense that "Nature" (as Gaia) is the "Designer". I can't seem to find an "-ism" that describes it.

Perhaps, if one if familiar with _Stranger in a Strange Land_, one could describe his position as "Heinleinism", evn though it is certainly not a position that Robert A. Heinlein personally held. But then, what is now called "Lamarkism" is not what Lamarck actually proposed, either.

harold said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Scott F said: It think that you are so hung up on denying gods that you think all evolution deniers are Christians, or at least theists. You appear to believe that SteveP is arguing for a "god", for a "designer". He is not arguing for a single "designer", or even multiple "designers". It took me quite a while to wrap my head around SteveP's position. But, I believe that when he says that all living things are "designed", what he means is that they designed themselves. For example, the reason that a bacterium has a flagellum is not that a "designer" gave it one. Instead, he believes (and has stated explicitly on other threads here on PT) that the bacterium noticed that it would be useful to have a flagellum, and so the bacterium intentionally designed its own flagellum by its own volition. It wanted a flagellum, and so it designed one for itself. I understand his position to be something like a self-directed, self-realized Lamarckism: the giraffe needed to reach the higher branches, so it "designed" for itself (it willed itself to have) a longer neck. It's not "theism" or even "deism". It's not "creationism", in the classical sense of "Special Creationism". It isn't even "Gaiaism" (if one might define such a thing), in the sense that "Nature" (as Gaia) is the "Designer". I can't seem to find an "-ism" that describes it.

Perhaps, if one if familiar with _Stranger in a Strange Land_, one could describe his position as "Heinleinism", evn though it is certainly not a position that Robert A. Heinlein personally held. But then, what is now called "Lamarkism" is not what Lamarck actually proposed, either.

The position of evolution denialists is authoritarian, hypocritical post-modern Christianity allied with the post-modern right wing social-political movement, represented in the US by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, the Republican Party as it now stands, etc. It is that simple. Let's do a thought experiment. If evolution denial were diverse, then we would expect anti-evolution bills to be introduced by politicians from both major parties. We would not expect such bills to be concentrated in one area of the country, but to occur in all types of states with largely equal per capita frequency. We would not expect trolls to perceive each other as allies, nor to parrot the same slogans. On the other hand, if evolution denial is, similar to climate denial, a stereotyped dogma more or less totally associated with a right wing ideology, we would expect to see almost all anti-science bills introduced by Republicans, we would expect anti-evolution activity to concentrate in "red" states, especially the south, and in conservative rural areas outside of that zone, and we would expect all Republican presidential primary candidates to pander to denialists by, at a minimum, being coy about what they really believe, and at a maximum, by outright endorsing anti-science positions. I don't know what you see, but I do know what I see.

Design - that's the real issue, isn't it?

Every certain example of design we know unequivocally comes from human engineering. Beyond that we see patterns in Nature we suspect are 'designs' - the Fibonacci series in a sunflower seed head, the six-fold symmetry of a perfect quartz crystal, the coiled shell of a nautilus. Whence cometh these 'designs'?

Are they 'Designs of Nature', or are they designed by some 'intelligence'? Surely not human intelligence, and if not human where else could it come from?

Ray and FL and Steve will not answer. I will answer. These are Designs of Nature, which is to say, natural designs that have come about without intelligence. They require no super-human entity. They come about by natural means, as did RNA, and DNA, and proteins, and metabolism, and reproduction. Just like sunflower seeds, quartz crystals, and nautiluses.

Prove me wrong, you cdesign proponentists.

DS said: W.H. Heydt wrote:

"I can’t seem to find an “-ism” that describes it." How about fanaticism? How about self delusional ism? How about fairy tale ism? How about making stuff up without any evidence just because ism? How about desperately looking for an alternative explanation because you don't want to accept reality ism? How about nep vitalism? How about I'm the only one smart enough to figure it out and everyone else is wrong ism? How about I refuse to look at the evidence so I can maintain any beliefs I want ism. Take your pick.

W. H. Heydt said: If we're going to be all formal about it, how about "autocreationism" or "recursionism" (or perhaps "autorecursionism")?

stevaroni said:

W. H. Heydt said: If we're going to be all formal about it, how about "autocreationism" or "recursionism" (or perhaps "autorecursionism")?

how about "auto-erratic ass-fixitation"?

NobleRot’s and stevaroni’s experiences illustrate something from which FL must hide in shame: that when the truth outs, not only are lies exposed as lies, but also the liars are exposed as liars. Noblerot and stevaroni were told lies.

And yet, FL refuses to tell anyone what evidence there is for the world and its inhabitants being magically poofed into existence, using magic, as per a literal reading of the English translation of the Bible, 6 to 10,000 years ago.

And FL also refuses to tell where in the Bible it even says that the world is only 6 to 10,000 years old, let alone tell where in the Bible it specifically states that one must believe Genesis is a literal, historical narrative under pain of Eternal Damnation and Rape in Hell with barbeque sauce.

And yet, FL also has to hypocritically whine about how he doesn't like being called a Liar for Jesus.

FL said:

NobleRot’s and stevaroni’s experiences illustrate something from which FL must hide in shame: that when the truth outs, not only are lies exposed as lies, but also the liars are exposed as liars. Noblerot and stevaroni were told lies.

Were they indeed "told lies", amigos? Depends on what exactly they were told. If they were told that God supernaturally and directly created the first humans, with NO animal ancestors at all, and NO evolutionary processes at all, as per the exact words of Gen. 2:7 (Adam) and Gen. 2:21-22, then that's not a lie. It's not a lie UNLESS you pre-assume, (without rational support for that presumption), that the religion of atheism is true, and that the universe we live in is NOT a theistic universe at all. Then yes, under that materialistic, atheistic assumption, the specific Adam and Eve historical claims of Genesis, would indeed be a lie (or at least mistaken). FL

Dave Luckett said: I see SteveP eagerly latches on to FL's notion, in the following terms:

You cannot be Christian and accept the Darwinian narrative that evolution is an unintelligent process.

Yes, you can. You can understand evolution as an unintelligent process used, as other unintelligent processes are used, towards an end by the intelligence that ordained them. Gravity is an unintelligent process, used for causing stars and planets to form from unevenly distributed dust. Atomic fusion is an unintelligent process used for causing heavier elements to form. Chemical bonding is an unintelligent process causing organic chemicals to form from simpler molecules. Evolution is an unintelligent process causing the separation and emergence of species, eventually including a species capable of self-awareness, empathy, and understanding of consequence: one that can come to know God. Why would it be impossible for the Christian God to use these processes for these, His own ends? Or do FL and SteveP wish to place restrictions on that God, averring that He could only work by fiat miracle?

Scott F said:

phhht said: But you go much farther than that, don't you, SkevieP. It's one thing to claim that the teleology you perceive in nature is grounds for scientific thought. Hey, go right ahead. Start with telling us how to detect it empirically. But you want to go well beyond that. You want to insist that because some things look designed and have designers, all things which look designed must have a designer. That's simply not so, SkevieP. What you recognize as design occurs very frequently in nature without any sign of a designer. When it snows, is there a snowflaker? Just because the rings of Saturn look designed, does that mean that there is a race of Cosmic Teapot People who have deposited every grain into careful orbit? You want to argue that because you hear thunder, there must be a thunderer. There is just no reason to think so, Skevie, and so it is with your designer. If you want to convince anyone of its reality, you have to do better than simply insist that your reasoning is correct. You have to have empirical evidence.

Steve P. said: Dave Thomas, Fl is correct. You cannot be Christian and accept the Darwinian narrative that evolution is an unintelligent process. To be sure however, Christian can accept the definition of evolution in its original form as that of 'a rolling out (of pre-existing rudiments)', before the word was co-opted by Darwinians and stealthily transformed into an 'unintelligent building contractor' status. Today's discoveries are putting paid to the notion that evolution is unintelligent, goalless, purposeless, etc etc. Even now, you feel the pressure that the tables are turning and it will be you(pl) that appears the loony for denying, each and every discovery that clearly exhibits the hallmarks of design. Just now PaV at UD called attention to a paper that shows how DNA is uncannily like computer software in that it is possible to calculate the amount of core components necessary for it to function just as we do with computer software. The more we see parallels in nature to what we have designed, the harder it will be for you to deny what I have been saying for some time - -that man is embedded in nature. Therefore nature is the author of man's ability to design. Therefore, nature itself designs. Therefore, the systems and machinery we find in cells are designed. Therefore we can discover useful applications from the designed nature of living things. Therefore design is a useful and scientific endeavor.'

Dave Thomas said: It's not nearly that complex, FL. The simple fact is that the Discovery Institute, like yourself, likes to spread the Big Lie that you can't both accept evolution and be religious. The textbook simply notes this lie, gives examples of why it's false, and moves on. As should you.

Hi phhht, It think that you are so hung up on denying gods that you think all evolution deniers are Christians, or at least theists. You appear to believe that SteveP is arguing for a "god", for a "designer". He is not arguing for a single "designer", or even multiple "designers". It took me quite a while to wrap my head around SteveP's position. But, I believe that when he says that all living things are "designed", what he means is that they designed themselves. For example, the reason that a bacterium has a flagellum is not that a "designer" gave it one. Instead, he believes (and has stated explicitly on other threads here on PT) that the bacterium noticed that it would be useful to have a flagellum, and so the bacterium intentionally designed its own flagellum by its own volition. It wanted a flagellum, and so it designed one for itself. I understand his position to be something like a self-directed, self-realized Lamarckism: the giraffe needed to reach the higher branches, so it "designed" for itself (it willed itself to have) a longer neck. It's not "theism" or even "deism". It's not "creationism", in the classical sense of "Special Creationism". It isn't even "Gaiaism" (if one might define such a thing), in the sense that "Nature" (as Gaia) is the "Designer". I can't seem to find an "-ism" that describes it. I also cannot find a place on Dave Thomas' original cladistic diagram where such an "IDist" might be placed. In the context of this diagram, I think that SteveP really is an example of "Special Creation", a real one-off design that somehow designed itself. :-)

Steve P said: As an example, the hollow fiber in polar bear fur gave the inspiration for hollow-core synthetic fibers now being used in sportswear textiles. This can be chocked [sic] up to design, not Darwinian evolution or creationism.

See? He is arguing against what he calls Creationism, or at least the "God Created All Things" type of Creationism. When SteveP is talking about "ID" and "Design", he is not talking about FL's god. (I'm always surprised that FL has never had any criticism of SteveP's position.) Instead, SteveP is talking about "life" designing itself, about individual organisms designing and actively (and intentionally) modifying themselves individually, without the need of "god" or "gods". I have no explicit evidence in this thread, but my understanding is that SteveP believes, not that an all-powerful Designer created the polar bears' hollow fur, but that the polar bear itself "Designed" its hollow fur, and willed itself to have hollow fur.

Steve P. said: Current observations confirm that there is only the closed loop of oscillating allele frequencies taking place as opposed to an open loop of macro-evolutionary events.

If they were told that God supernaturally and directly created the first humans, with NO animal ancestors at all, and NO evolutionary processes at all, as per the exact words of Gen. 2:7 (Adam) and Gen. 2:21-22, then that’s not a lie.

FL said: Quickie note for Frank: Ogre has retracted the following.

FL doesn’t believe that the Pope is Christian. Indeed, he only thinks that he is a Christian…

FL

Steve P.,

There's a guy at After the Bar Closes, you need to meet. His name is Gary and he's got a model that he pretends to show what you are talking about. He could really use some advocates, maybe you and him can discuss your shared notions and come up with something useful.

And that's one of the telling things about creationism (and religion) as concepts. The proponents absolutely refuse to engage each other to work out problems and inconsistencies with their shared notions.

The DI tried it with their Big Tent approach, but the only thing that ended up was a bunch of people saying contradictory things.

It think that you are so hung up on denying gods that you think all evolution deniers are Christians, or at least theists. You appear to believe that SteveP is arguing for a “god”, for a “designer”. He is not arguing for a single “designer”, or even multiple “designers”. It took me quite a while to wrap my head around SteveP’s position.

Steve P. said: Not quite ScottF, they did not will themselves any thing. That was your misinterpretation talking. When I spoke of individual bacterial cell's capability to communicate with other cells of the same population, you seem to have purposefully or unwittingly construed it as I claiming they possessed intelligence in the same manner as humans do; ie they call each other with their ion- phones or something. But obviously that was not what I said. Rather, my clear position is that organisms by their very nature possess intelligent capabilities; i.e. possess advanced software that allows for a specific degree of solutions to environmental challenges. I have argued that there are barriers to an organism's ability to modify its own genome (in fact they do possess this capability according to James Shapiro). And a good thing, too!. If organisms had the unlimited capability to 'evolve', given enough time, to meet any challenge (including the challenge from 'designing' humans) that your evolutionary narrative suggests, then we would not stand a chance of winning the battle against disease. But as it goes, we can have confidence that organisms, operating within the parameters of the software it possesses, cannot pass that barrier and will eventually concede to our superior design technology. This is also why I claim there is no macro-evolution taking place now. Current observations confirm that there is only the closed loop of oscillating allele frequencies taking place as opposed to an open loop of macro-evolutionary events. By the way, I have also argued that my position is testable. We can ask the question: What are the limits of bacteria's ability to metabolize substrates? We can design experiments in the same vein as Lensk's but expand it to try and discover a pattern of what types of substrates each type of bacteria can metabolize; map each genome with their respective list of metabolic capabilities and compare against other bacteria's genomes to try to draw conclusions as to why each bacteria are stuck with the list they possess. The above is a design approach as opposed to an evolutionary approach, which denies the limitation from the get-go resulting in no research proposal in that direction.

Dave Luckett said: I see SteveP eagerly latches on to FL's notion, in the following terms:

You cannot be Christian and accept the Darwinian narrative that evolution is an unintelligent process.

Yes, you can. You can understand evolution as an unintelligent process used, as other unintelligent processes are used, towards an end by the intelligence that ordained them. Gravity is an unintelligent process, used for causing stars and planets to form from unevenly distributed dust. Atomic fusion is an unintelligent process used for causing heavier elements to form. Chemical bonding is an unintelligent process causing organic chemicals to form from simpler molecules. Evolution is an unintelligent process causing the separation and emergence of species, eventually including a species capable of self-awareness, empathy, and understanding of consequence: one that can come to know God. Why would it be impossible for the Christian God to use these processes for these, His own ends? Or do FL and SteveP wish to place restrictions on that God, averring that He could only work by fiat miracle?

Scott F said:

phhht said: But you go much farther than that, don't you, SkevieP. It's one thing to claim that the teleology you perceive in nature is grounds for scientific thought. Hey, go right ahead. Start with telling us how to detect it empirically. But you want to go well beyond that. You want to insist that because some things look designed and have designers, all things which look designed must have a designer. That's simply not so, SkevieP. What you recognize as design occurs very frequently in nature without any sign of a designer. When it snows, is there a snowflaker? Just because the rings of Saturn look designed, does that mean that there is a race of Cosmic Teapot People who have deposited every grain into careful orbit? You want to argue that because you hear thunder, there must be a thunderer. There is just no reason to think so, Skevie, and so it is with your designer. If you want to convince anyone of its reality, you have to do better than simply insist that your reasoning is correct. You have to have empirical evidence.

Steve P. said: Dave Thomas, Fl is correct. You cannot be Christian and accept the Darwinian narrative that evolution is an unintelligent process. To be sure however, Christian can accept the definition of evolution in its original form as that of 'a rolling out (of pre-existing rudiments)', before the word was co-opted by Darwinians and stealthily transformed into an 'unintelligent building contractor' status. Today's discoveries are putting paid to the notion that evolution is unintelligent, goalless, purposeless, etc etc. Even now, you feel the pressure that the tables are turning and it will be you(pl) that appears the loony for denying, each and every discovery that clearly exhibits the hallmarks of design. Just now PaV at UD called attention to a paper that shows how DNA is uncannily like computer software in that it is possible to calculate the amount of core components necessary for it to function just as we do with computer software. The more we see parallels in nature to what we have designed, the harder it will be for you to deny what I have been saying for some time - -that man is embedded in nature. Therefore nature is the author of man's ability to design. Therefore, nature itself designs. Therefore, the systems and machinery we find in cells are designed. Therefore we can discover useful applications from the designed nature of living things. Therefore design is a useful and scientific endeavor.'

Dave Thomas said: It's not nearly that complex, FL. The simple fact is that the Discovery Institute, like yourself, likes to spread the Big Lie that you can't both accept evolution and be religious. The textbook simply notes this lie, gives examples of why it's false, and moves on. As should you.

Hi phhht, It think that you are so hung up on denying gods that you think all evolution deniers are Christians, or at least theists. You appear to believe that SteveP is arguing for a "god", for a "designer". He is not arguing for a single "designer", or even multiple "designers". It took me quite a while to wrap my head around SteveP's position. But, I believe that when he says that all living things are "designed", what he means is that they designed themselves. For example, the reason that a bacterium has a flagellum is not that a "designer" gave it one. Instead, he believes (and has stated explicitly on other threads here on PT) that the bacterium noticed that it would be useful to have a flagellum, and so the bacterium intentionally designed its own flagellum by its own volition. It wanted a flagellum, and so it designed one for itself. I understand his position to be something like a self-directed, self-realized Lamarckism: the giraffe needed to reach the higher branches, so it "designed" for itself (it willed itself to have) a longer neck. It's not "theism" or even "deism". It's not "creationism", in the classical sense of "Special Creationism". It isn't even "Gaiaism" (if one might define such a thing), in the sense that "Nature" (as Gaia) is the "Designer". I can't seem to find an "-ism" that describes it. I also cannot find a place on Dave Thomas' original cladistic diagram where such an "IDist" might be placed. In the context of this diagram, I think that SteveP really is an example of "Special Creation", a real one-off design that somehow designed itself. :-)

Steve P said: As an example, the hollow fiber in polar bear fur gave the inspiration for hollow-core synthetic fibers now being used in sportswear textiles. This can be chocked [sic] up to design, not Darwinian evolution or creationism.

See? He is arguing against what he calls Creationism, or at least the "God Created All Things" type of Creationism. When SteveP is talking about "ID" and "Design", he is not talking about FL's god. (I'm always surprised that FL has never had any criticism of SteveP's position.) Instead, SteveP is talking about "life" designing itself, about individual organisms designing and actively (and intentionally) modifying themselves individually, without the need of "god" or "gods". I have no explicit evidence in this thread, but my understanding is that SteveP believes, not that an all-powerful Designer created the polar bears' hollow fur, but that the polar bear itself "Designed" its hollow fur, and willed itself to have hollow fur.

Steve P. said: This is also why I claim there is no macro-evolution taking place now. Current observations confirm that there is only the closed loop of oscillating allele frequencies taking place as opposed to an open loop of macro-evolutionary events. By the way, I have also argued that my position is testable. We can ask the question: What are the limits of bacteria's ability to metabolize substrates? We can design experiments in the same vein as Lensk's but expand it to try and discover a pattern of what types of substrates each type of bacteria can metabolize; map each genome with their respective list of metabolic capabilities and compare against other bacteria's genomes to try to draw conclusions as to why each bacteria are stuck with the list they possess. The above is a design approach as opposed to an evolutionary approach, which denies the limitation from the get-go resulting in no research proposal in that direction.

FL said: It's not a lie UNLESS you pre-assume, (without rational support for that presumption), that the religion of atheism is true, and that the universe we live in is NOT a theistic universe at all.

This is a test.

This is a test.

stevaroni said: But FL, there is rational support for the presumption that there is no God. If you look for something as all-encompassing as the Abrahamic God for 4000 years without turning up some tiny sliver of evidence that he actually exists, there is something wrong. Yaweh is not shy. He interacts with his flock in a tangible sense. He magically provides manna and duplicates loaves and fishes. He resurrects the very, very, dead. He turns major river systems to blood. He smites entire cities on a whim. In the Jude-Chrisitian tradition his fingerprint is literally everywhere. If the God of your Bible exists it should be roughly as difficult to demonstrate as it is to demonstrate that the sun exists. It should not require a technical discussion about the derivation of the bacterial flagellum. It should come in the form of a newspaper headline about how al-Aqsa Mosque melted this morning because God decided it was defiling the Temple Mount (because that's what the bible says should happen to infidels who defile the Temple Mount, and that's how Jehova rolls when he's refused). True, it's difficult to prove a negative, but the positions "there seems to be no elephant in this room" and "there is an elephant in the room, it's just that it's a magic, invisible, elephant that controls space and time so it can't be detected" are not the same thing.

prongs said:

stevaroni said: But FL, there is rational support for the presumption that there is no God. If you look for something as all-encompassing as the Abrahamic God for 4000 years without turning up some tiny sliver of evidence that he actually exists, there is something wrong. Yaweh is not shy. He interacts with his flock in a tangible sense. He magically provides manna and duplicates loaves and fishes. He resurrects the very, very, dead. He turns major river systems to blood. He smites entire cities on a whim. In the Jude-Chrisitian tradition his fingerprint is literally everywhere. If the God of your Bible exists it should be roughly as difficult to demonstrate as it is to demonstrate that the sun exists. It should not require a technical discussion about the derivation of the bacterial flagellum. It should come in the form of a newspaper headline about how al-Aqsa Mosque melted this morning because God decided it was defiling the Temple Mount (because that's what the bible says should happen to infidels who defile the Temple Mount, and that's how Jehova rolls when he's refused). True, it's difficult to prove a negative, but the positions "there seems to be no elephant in this room" and "there is an elephant in the room, it's just that it's a magic, invisible, elephant that controls space and time so it can't be detected" are not the same thing.

Stevaroni, You are making FL very uncomfortable, asking such embarrassing questions. Such talk as yours, that requires thinking and careful considerations, is unwarranted. FL prefers arguments from interpretation (AFI I call it), of which there are a practical infinity (there's a nice sciency word for FL). And he who shouts the loudest, and get the last word, wins. At least that's how FL sees it. Give him a break, will ya? He hasn't used the barbeque threat for months now.

FL said:

NobleRot’s and stevaroni’s experiences illustrate something from which FL must hide in shame: that when the truth outs, not only are lies exposed as lies, but also the liars are exposed as liars. Noblerot and stevaroni were told lies.

Were they indeed "told lies", amigos? Depends on what exactly they were told. If they were told that God supernaturally and directly created the first humans, with NO animal ancestors at all, and NO evolutionary processes at all, as per the exact words of Gen. 2:7 (Adam) and Gen. 2:21-22, then that's not a lie.

It's not a lie UNLESS you pre-assume, (without rational support for that presumption), that the religion of atheism is true, and that the universe we live in is NOT a theistic universe at all. Then yes, under that materialistic, atheistic assumption, the specific Adam and Eve historical claims of Genesis, would indeed be a lie (or at least mistaken).

But I'm still waiting on you to rationally rule out a theistic universe, and provide rational warrant for an atheistic and materialistic universe. If you and your evolutionary comrades do NOT do that, (and you guys have NEVER done so, quite honestly), then your assumption is baseless and false.

Therefore NobleRotter and Stevaroni were NOT told lies, when and if they were told about the Genesis supernatural Non-Evolution origins of the first two humans.

Honestly, they -- and you, and me, and us -- were told the truth. Even Jesus said so (Matt. 19:4-5).

There are scientifically documented aspects of NobleRutter, Stevaroni, Dave Luckett, FL, and all the Pandas (such as the unique human language commuication system that we're all taking for granted in this forum!), whose origins are inexplicable unless you accept Gen. 2:7 and Gen. 2:21-22 as true.

FL said:

NobleRot’s and stevaroni’s experiences illustrate something from which FL must hide in shame: that when the truth outs, not only are lies exposed as lies, but also the liars are exposed as liars. Noblerot and stevaroni were told lies.

Were they indeed "told lies", amigos? Depends on what exactly they were told. If they were told that God supernaturally and directly created the first humans, with NO animal ancestors at all, and NO evolutionary processes at all, as per the exact words of Gen. 2:7 (Adam) and Gen. 2:21-22, then that's not a lie. It's not a lie UNLESS you pre-assume, (without rational support for that presumption), that the religion of atheism is true, and that the universe we live in is NOT a theistic universe at all. Then yes, under that materialistic, atheistic assumption, the specific Adam and Eve historical claims of Genesis, would indeed be a lie (or at least mistaken).

But I'm still waiting on you to rationally rule out a theistic universe, and provide rational warrant for an atheistic and materialistic universe. If you and your evolutionary comrades do NOT do that, (and you guys have NEVER done so, quite honestly), then your assumption is baseless and false.

Honestly, they -- and you, and me, and us -- were told the truth. Even Jesus said so (Matt. 19:4-5).

There are scientifically documented aspects of NobleRutter, Stevaroni, Dave Luckett, FL, and all the Pandas (such as the unique human language commuication system that we're all taking for granted in this forum!), whose origins are inexplicable unless you accept Gen. 2:7 and Gen. 2:21-22 as true.

FL said:

NobleRot’s and stevaroni’s experiences illustrate something from which FL must hide in shame: that when the truth outs, not only are lies exposed as lies, but also the liars are exposed as liars. Noblerot and stevaroni were told lies.

Were they indeed "told lies", amigos? Depends on what exactly they were told.If they were told that God supernaturally and directly created the first humans, with NO animal ancestors at all, and NO evolutionary processes at all, as per the exact words of Gen. 2:7 (Adam) and Gen. 2:21-22, then that's not a lie.It's not a lie UNLESS you pre-assume, (without rational support for that presumption), that the religion of atheism is true, and that the universe we live in is NOT a theistic universe at all. Then yes, under that materialistic, atheistic assumption, the specific Adam and Eve historical claims of Genesis, would indeed be a lie (or at least mistaken).

But I'm still waiting on you to rationally rule out a theistic universe, and provide rational warrant for an atheistic and materialistic universe. If you and your evolutionary comrades do NOT do that, (and you guys have NEVER done so, quite honestly), then your assumption is baseless and false.

Therefore NobleRotter and Stevaroni were NOT told lies, when and if they were told about the Genesis supernatural Non-Evolution origins of the first two humans. Honestly, they -- and you, and me, and us -- were told the truth. Even Jesus said so (Matt. 19:4-5). There are scientifically documented aspects of NobleRutter, Stevaroni, Dave Luckett, FL, and all the Pandas (such as the unique human language commuication system that we're all taking for granted in this forum!), whose origins are inexplicable unless you accept Gen. 2:7 and Gen. 2:21-22 as true. FL

You are making FL very uncomfortable, asking such embarrassing questions.

If you look for something as all-encompassing as the Abrahamic God for 4000 years without turning up some tiny sliver of evidence that he actually exists, there is something wrong.

Yaweh is not shy. He interacts with his flock in a tangible sense. He magically provides manna and duplicates loaves and fishes. He resurrects the very, very, dead. He turns major river systems to blood. He smites entire cities on a whim. In the Jude-Chrisitian tradition his fingerprint is literally everywhere.

It should not require a technical discussion about the derivation of the bacterial flagellum.

Why should we respect the OT? We find a god created in the image of man. With a very human nature. He is power-hungry, hedonistic, vain, vengeful and capricious. He may be wrong and change his mind, he share the contemporary view on family relations and human values. He may be in a bad mood but may be consoled by animal sacrifice. He relish the smell of burnt flesh.

Isn't he a product of the culture of the times?

It is because our soul JUST KNOWS that God is there.

Dave Luckett said: stevaroni was citing "evidence". FL demonstrates that he neither knows nor cares what evidence is. Specifically, tales told by unknown authors who cannot be interrogated, cannot be verified, and cannot be tested, are not evidence. FL thinks they are. He's simply wrong. Atheism is not a religion. It is a philosophical position made up of a number of strands, such as a refusal to accept faith or dogma, and a committment to testable evidence, but it has none of the traits of a religion. It does not demand faith. It does not require belief, only tentative acceptance. It does not have mysteries, ceremonies, hierarchy, creed, ritual, priesthood, deities, supernatural explanations for anything, edifices, privileges, ideologies, dogma or sanctioned practices. It is only, solely, nothing else but, a simple statement: "I do not believe in a God, God or gods." That's it. That's all of it. There is nothing more. Notice the "one of each" argument. The Al-Aqsa mosque still stands, despite God's prohibition on it, because God is merciful. Sodom and Gomorrah were obliterated, hundreds of thousands of Egyptian babies died, and the Amelekites were genocided out of existence, because God isn't merciful. And this is completely consistent. Same God yesterday, today, for ever. Sure it is. No wonder that site is one of FL's favourites. This is their evidence for God:

It is because our soul JUST KNOWS that God is there.

Well, my soul doesn't know anything, but my brain thinks different. So what we have there is not evidence, it's opinion. The fact that fundamentalists think it's evidence is merely further demonstration that they can't tell the difference. Which is where FL is.

There are scientifically documented aspects of NobleRutter, Stevaroni, Dave Luckett, FL, and all the Pandas (such as the unique human language commuication system that we’re all taking for granted in this forum!), whose origins are inexplicable unless you accept Gen. 2:7 and Gen. 2:21-22 as true.

Sheer, bald-faced god-of-the-gaps. THE INEXPLICABLE DOES NOT ENTAIL THE SUPERNATURAL, Flawd. You and I already established that, remember? I whipped your sorry ass and drove you into a corner like the cowardly dog you are. That is a fallacy, and your repeated invocation of it does not speak well of your sanity.

1:26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” 1:27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

2:7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

2:21-22 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

FL makes a claim: We can rationally predict that, if those very specific historical claims about God are actually true, AT LEAST ONE observable aspect would appear in humans that has NEVER appeared in ANY animals in earth history, and for which NO evolutionary processes nor naturalistic causes are known at all, just as you’d expect if humans didn’t have any animal ancestors. Furthermore, such an observable aspect would be reflective of God Himself (but not of animals) in some way, shape, or form.

Dave Luckett said: Nobody has been able to demonstrate the existence of God, let alone that He speaks like a human.

In Egypt he was Osiris, in Greece Dionysus, in Asia Minor Attis, in Syria Adonis, in Italy Bacchus, in Persia Mithras. Fundamentally all these godmen are the same mythical being. As was the practice from as early as the third century BCE,3,4 in this book we will use the combined name Osiris-Dionysus to denote his universal and composite nature, and his particular names when referring to a specific Mystery tradition. From the fifth century BCE philosophers such as Xenophanes and Empedocles had ridiculed taking the stories of the gods and goddesses literally. They viewed them as allegories of human spiritual experience. The myths of Osiris-Dionysus should not be understood as just intriguing tales, therefore, but as a symbolic language, which encodes the mystical teachings of the Inner Mysteries. Because of this, although the details were developed and adapted over time by different cultures, the myth of Osiris-Dionysus has remained essentially the same. The various myths of the different godmen of the Mysteries share what the great mythologist Joseph Campbell called "the same anatomy." Just as every human is physically unique yet it is Possible to talk of the general anatomy of the human body, so with these different myths it is possible to see both their uniqueness and fundamental sameness. A helpful comparison may be the relationship between Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet and Bernstein's West Side Story. One is a sixteenth-century English tragedy about wealthy Italian families, while the other is a twentieth-century American musical about street gangs. On the face of it they look very different, yet they are essentially the same story. Similarly, the tales told about the godmen of the Pagan Mysteries are essentially the same, although they take different forms. 4 The more we studied the various versions of the myth of Osiris-Dionysus, the more it became obvious that the story of Jesus had all the characteristics of this perennial tale. Event by event, we found we were able to construct Jesus' supposed biography from mythic motifs previously relating to OsirisDionysus: .:. Osiris-Dionysus is God made flesh, the savior and "Son of God." .:. His father is God and his mother is a mortal virgin. .:. He is born in a cave or humble cowshed on December 25 before three shepherds. .:. He offers his followers the chance to be born again through the rites of baptism. .:. He miraculously turns water into wine at a marriage ceremony. .:. He rides triumphantly into town on a donkey while people wave palm leaves to honor him. .:. He dies at Eastertime as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. .:. After his death he descends to hell, then on the third day he rises from the dead and ascends to heaven in glory. .:. His followers await his return as the judge during the Last Days. .:. His death and resurrection are celebrated by a ritual meal of bread and wine, which symbolize his body and blood. These are just some of the motifs shared between the tales of OsirisDionysus and the biography of Jesus.

Dave Luckett said: Secondly, it rests on the curious idea that the development of language cannot be explained by evolution,

Dolphins are known to have unique sound patterns that refer to individuals. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/060508_dolphins.html

Further, they can communicate. A trainer can tell one dolphin to do something and that dolphin will communicate with another dolphin and they will both perform a trick at the same time.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/how-smart-dolphins.html

The Bible doesn't say anything about dolphin communication. So, FL, where does dolphin communication come from? What is the religious answer for it?

@Dave Luckett -- you seem to be surprised that FL is a linguistic creationist. Am I mis-reading you?

I would be tempted to make the ancient Australian joke about cunning linguists, but heaven forbid.

That's an Australian joke? I thought it was American ...

No, the American joke is the one about the difference between a magic show (a cunning array of stunts) and a chorus line (...).

Dave Thomas said: No, the American joke is the one about the difference between a magic show (a cunning array of stunts) and a chorus line (...).

(Ogre said,) Further, they can communicate. A trainer can tell one dolphin to do something and that dolphin will communicate with another dolphin and they will both perform a trick at the same time.

So the question remains, ‘do dolphins have anything like human language’? The simple answer to that is: as far as science has been able to determine, no they don’t. Well, why not? If they can convey all sorts of information about their emotions and coordinate activities together, they must have something like human language, right? Well, no not really... Well, what exactly are the ‘things’ that make a complicated communication system different from a language? Why don’t scientists take seriously the idea that dolphins speak ‘dolphinese’? Following from the previous discussion, scientists at this point have no reason to believe that, unlike human language, the natural communication system of dolphins can do the following things: • Refer to objects in their environment • Refer to abstract concepts • Combine small meaningful elements into larger meaningful elements • Organize communicative elements into a systematic grammar that can produce an infinite combination of meanings • Refer to things in the past and the future • Learn and store in memory the meanings of hundreds of thousands of concepts and map them onto specific combinations of vocal patterns Indeed, it is entirely true that dolphins can be taught artificial communication systems that allows them to do at least some of the things listed above (for example, refer to things in their environment and even abstract concepts). Check out the podcast titled ‘Herman’s dolphin prodigies’ on thedolphinpod.com for more information on this topic. But, despite their prowess in these experiments, dolphins don’t seem to use their normal communication system to do any of the human language like things I just listed. In fact, no animal communication system (with one or two small exceptions here or there) are able to do any of these things, and certainly no system other than human language can do all of them. -- Justin Gregg, "Do Dolphins Have A Language?", from the Dolphin Communication Project Full text of Justin Gregg's article available at: http://www.dolphincommunicationproject.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1103&Itemid=263

In fact, no animal communication system (with one or two small exceptions here or there) are able to do any of these things, and certainly no system other than human language can do all of them.

1) You can SAY whatever you like, until you back it up with evidence, all you're doing is wasting time and energy.

2) Genesis doesn't say anything about dolphins, much less the language of dolphins. If you think that genesis does say this, then cite the chapter and verse. If you can't (and we both know that you can't), then you are making up shit and inserting it into the Bible. In other words, you are (again) making a claim that cannot be supported with any evidence. What's further is that you are "interpreting" the Bible, you are putting your own version ahead of the real version (whatever that is). And that, as I recall, is a no-no... something about false idols.

Either way, you can't support your claim that Genesis explains dolphin communication without making a bigger problem for yourself. But that's normal, we're all used to watching you do that by now.

3) That's a very interesting link and I fundamentally disagree with the conclusions of the author. If you has actually followed the link that I posted you will see that dolphins can communicate complex and new concepts to each other. Indeed, they can work together to create a new behavior and act simultaneously to display that behavior. So, I think the evidence is much more supporting of animal communication and cognitive ability than your

"because the Bible says so" *

*Especially considering that they Bible DOESN'T say so.

Concluding Remarks The evidence for syntactic competency in three very different species underscores the reality that such competencies are not the exclusive province of animals havinga close evolutionary relationship to humans.There has often been an assumption that language-like skills must lie exclusively within the hominoid branch of evolution and that,to understand the evolution of human language,we must necessarily restrict our investigations to phylogenetically close lines of descent. This assumption has worked to the detriment of a fuller understanding oflanguage skills and theirfoundations.For example,the quotation from Savage-Rumbaugh et al. (1993), cited by Kako (1999), refers to “the inherent similarity between ape and human brains” that contributes to the development of complex systemssuch aslanguage.In fact, one might argue that, in terms of brain size, extent of cortical area,and brain–body relationships, there is more structural similarity of dolphin brain to human brain than of ape to human. Of course, thisis an oversimplification. However,to ignore the considerable capabilities of dolphins for complex information processing diverts attention from general cognitive processes that could in common explain dolphin and ape capabilities for syntactic processing, as well as other language-like or cognitively complex skills (Herman, 1980; Herman, Pack, & MorrelSamuels, 1993). Much of human language skill has a cognitive component,such as class concepts for objects, sequential processing, and reference. The animal language work can help us to identify with more surety those processes in humans that may derive from general cognitive structures rather than from language-specific structures. Dolphins live in a highly complex social world (see, e.g. ,Connor,Mann,Tyack,&Whitehead, 1998)in which communication among members of the society and the formation of alliances and coalitions play a vital role in the development, well-being, and survival of individuals.There is much to learn in that social world (Herman,1991). The evolution of advanced cognitive skills in dolphins that enable their demonstrated competencies in language-like tasks may largely result from the considerable advantages of social living, social learning, and social communication. The same may be true for chimpanzees and humans.

The "one or two exceptions here and there" are the kicker. They demonstrate that animals other than humans have the beginnings of language, and therefore language is a development and an extension. And that means that evolution can explain it.

Sure, language has been enormously developed by one species because that species has undergone selection for it. What of that? The living world is full of species that have developed some adaptation far beyond the basal forms found in others. Language in humans is a development of a basal form found in other species. Echo location in bats is a development of a basal form found in other species. Sonar in whales. Electric current in eels. Gliding surfaces in "flying" squirrels. Bacterial flagella. On and on. There are examples without number everywhere you look.

The explanation for all of them is the same: evolution.

FL said:

Yaweh is not shy. He interacts with his flock in a tangible sense. He magically provides manna and duplicates loaves and fishes. He resurrects the very, very, dead. He turns major river systems to blood. He smites entire cities on a whim. In the Jude-Chrisitian tradition his fingerprint is literally everywhere.

With the single exception of his claim "He smites entire cities on a whim" (the "on a whim" part is totally inaccurate if you look at the Bible), Stevaroni has inadvertently specified multiple lines of attack (such as the specific topic of miracles), that could be profitably used against his own atheist religion.

FL said: Dr. Poland had an interesting response:

Sheer, bald-faced god-of-the-gaps. THE INEXPLICABLE DOES NOT ENTAIL THE SUPERNATURAL, Flawd. You and I already established that, remember? I whipped your sorry ass and drove you into a corner like the cowardly dog you are. That is a fallacy, and your repeated invocation of it does not speak well of your sanity.

First off, did you see what I saw, good Pandas? It's in all-caps there. Dr. Poland quietly conceded that we are indeed talking about something INEXPLICABLE in natural terms. The unique human language communication system, of course. Evolution cannot account for it. Natural causes can't account for it. So, since Dr. Poland had to concede that "inexplicable" aspect, he (rather predictably) goes straight for Plan B: simply claiming that the argument is merely "god-of-the-gaps." But that claim fails too, in this particular case. Why? Because nobody's saying, "We don't know how the unique human language communication system came about, therefore the cause must be God." (That's the form of the god-of-the-gaps argument, see Wiki.) Instead, a positive rational case is being presented here regarding this topic, not a we-don't-know, god-of-the-gaps case.

FL is Lucy, people who argue with him are Charlie Brown. No football ever gets played.

The Jesus Mysteries

FL said: What Stevaroni is saying here is that he doesn't like using rational tools like Inference-To-The-Best-Explanation to help him understand the natural world around him, because using such tools can leave the rational door open -- even WIDE open in individual cases -- to the inferred existence of God.

Which then chops the scrawny legs out from under his unsupported bald assertion that "there is rational support for the presumption that there is no God." WHAT rational support? Sheesh.

FL said: And now, while listening to some Crosby Stills Nash & Young, let's meditate briefly

FL said: There is NOTHING on this planet -- no joke, there simply isn't -- that approaches the unique human language communication system. And evolution or any other natural causes, cannot account for it. (But Genesis can!)

FL said: And now, while listening to some Crosby Stills Nash & Young, let's meditate briefly on the following:

There are scientifically documented aspects of NobleRutter, Stevaroni, Dave Luckett, FL, and all the Pandas (such as the unique human language commuication system that we’re all taking for granted in this forum!), whose origins are inexplicable unless you accept Gen. 2:7 and Gen. 2:21-22 as true.

Now this pretty much took care of business, but Dr. Poland had an interesting response:

Sheer, bald-faced god-of-the-gaps. THE INEXPLICABLE DOES NOT ENTAIL THE SUPERNATURAL, Flawd. You and I already established that, remember? I whipped your sorry ass and drove you into a corner like the cowardly dog you are. That is a fallacy, and your repeated invocation of it does not speak well of your sanity.

First off, did you see what I saw, good Pandas? It's in all-caps there. Dr. Poland quietly conceded that we are indeed talking about something INEXPLICABLE in natural terms. The unique human language communication system, of course. Evolution cannot account for it. Natural causes can't account for it.

‘Inexplicable’ TO YOU, perhaps. But your ignorance is evidence of NOTHING except your ignorance. And just how, EXACTLY, does blubbering ‘A Magical Sky Pixie DIDIT !!!1!!!!!!!!!1!!!’ actually qualify as an answer ? It’s a great way to PRETEND you have an answer, but you really don’t.

So, since Dr. Poland had to concede that "inexplicable" aspect, he (rather predictably) goes straight for Plan B: simply claiming that the argument is merely "god-of-the-gaps."

But that claim fails too, in this particular case. Why? Because nobody's saying, "We don't know how the unique human language communication system came about, therefore the cause must be God." (That's the form of the god-of-the-gaps argument, see Wiki.) Instead, a positive rational case is being presented here regarding this topic, not a we-don't-know, god-of-the-gaps case.

FL said: First off, did you see what I saw, good Pandas? It's in all-caps there. Dr. Poland quietly conceded that we are indeed talking about something INEXPLICABLE in natural terms. The unique human language communication system, of course. Evolution cannot account for it. Natural causes can't account for it.

...then you and I can rationally make a specific PREDICTION from those historical claims (and it's important to remember that ZERO animal ancestors is one of those direct historical claims, and that we're still talking about God and theism). We can rationally predict that, if those very specific historical claims about God are actually true, AT LEAST ONE observable aspect would appear in humans that has NEVER appeared in ANY animals in earth history, and for which NO evolutionary processes nor naturalistic causes are known at all, just as you'd expect if humans didn't have any animal ancestors. Furthermore, such an observable aspect would be reflective of God Himself (but not of animals) in some way, shape, or form. And behold, it comes to pass: The unique human language communication system FITS that prediction.

Now you see the real deal, in fact an astonishing deal. This is NOT “god-of-the-gaps” at all. After all, you’ve been given direct historical statements from the Bible as to the source and cause of the unique human language communication system (a supernatural Creator God), you’ve seen that a rational PREDICTION can be made from those statements, and that the unique human language communication system at least fits that prediction. Now THAT, is something to think about.

FL said:

The Jesus Mysteries

Go here for a proper fisking of TJM. http://www.tektonics.org/books/jesmystrvw.html

So, if language separates humans from other animals, does that mean that Balaam's donkey had metamorphosed from a human, like Bottom in A Midsummer Night's Dream?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/yr9IGE4_zeDw2NHGyU_LzwrT..Rf2K8ztZjSlyS4AmoJTKxIte20#0d698 said: So, if language separates humans from other animals, does that mean that Balaam's donkey had metamorphosed from a human, like Bottom in A Midsummer Night's Dream?

apokryltaros said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/yr9IGE4_zeDw2NHGyU_LzwrT..Rf2K8ztZjSlyS4AmoJTKxIte20#0d698 said: So, if language separates humans from other animals, does that mean that Balaam's donkey had metamorphosed from a human, like Bottom in A Midsummer Night's Dream?

What about parrots, crows, mynas, lyrebirds and other mimicking birds? Are they human?

Actually I don’t see how you can say the Bible makes this prediction based on the quotes you provided.

Mainly because as phhht and others point out you are just making shit up when you say that language is what separates humans from animals, after all the Bible simply doesn’t say that, anywhere.

Also, I must reiterate that there are myriad scientific publications dealing with the evolution of language in humans. So your claim that there are no naturalistic explanations for it is just more bullshit.

Also rearchers have trained several great apes to communicate with American sign language and lexigrams. (Wikipedia link). In some cases, these primate subjects have been able to employ the use of grammar when communicating.

Linguistic critics challenged the animal trainers to demonstrate that Washoe was actually using language and not symbols. The null hypothesis was that the Gardners were using conditioning to teach the chimpanzee to use hand formations in certain contexts to create desirable outcomes, and that they had not learned the same linguistic rules that humans innately learn. In response to this challenge, the chimpanzee Nim Chimpsky was taught to communicate using sign language in studies led by Herbert S. Terrace. In 44 months, Nim Chimpsky learned 125 signs. However, linguistic analysis of Nim's communications demonstrated that Nim's use was symbolic, and lacked grammar, or rules, of the kind that humans use in communicating via language. This constitutes a chimpanzee vocabulary learning rate of roughly 0.1 words per day. This rate is not comparable to the average college-educated English-speaking human who learns roughly 14 words per day between ages 2 and 22.

"(Rene) Descartes was right: there really are no beasts, no matter how fortunately circumstanced, that can make known their thoughts through language." Aping Language: A Skeptical Analysis of the Evidence for Nonhuman Primate Language by Clive Wynne Copyright © 2007 the Skeptics Society and Clive Wynne http://www.skepdic.com/essays/apinglanguage.html

"The apes are universally incapable of entering the realm of abstract thought. They cannot separate representations from the situations to which they are appropriate. Therefore they cannot acheive the freedom of choice that comes with the ability to consider purely hypothetical abstractions (e.g., if I were to drop the cup on the tile it would break, so I won't drop it). Freedom of will and moral responsibility as humans know them, both depend on this sort of abstract capability." -- John W. Ollar Jr. and John L. Omdahl, "Origin of the Human Language Capacity: In Whose Image", from The Creation Hypothesis, JP Moreland, ed., 1994 IVP, pp 261-262

No, you are still making a god of the gaps argument from the get go because you are still saying, “science can’t explain human language, therefore god.”

So, if language separates humans from other animals, does that mean that Balaam’s donkey had metamorphosed from a human, like Bottom in A Midsummer Night’s Dream?

FL said: Nope, not at all. There's no evidence of that in the Bible.

FL claims again: The Bible does say that a very articulate God supernaturally created the first humans in His image, with no animal ancestors. So that information would provide a reasonable (albeit supernatural) explanation of why we humans are articulate too, and why we have something the animals don’t have.

FL, You said, Genesis explains it nicely.

Cite the chapter and verse where language is explained. Not the Tower of Babel, but the origin of language and why non-human animals can't have language.

You said it, you support it.

Among other things, evidence is useless and meaningless to FL.

NobleRotter said:

Among other things, evidence is useless and meaningless to FL.

This is where I cannot comprehend the bloody minded determination is takes to ignore the evidence! I understand that some of my siblings and former church members will never bother to investigate for themselves and therefore remain ignorant of science. However, if any biblical christian has decided to "swim with the sharks" like FL, and expose themselves to mainstream science then how can they retain their beliefs? When reading through all the comments on this excellent debate, I keep asking myself the question: Is there one single discovery in science over the past 2000 years that has added to the authority of the key teachings in the bible? Any? Just one? I can't think of any! This is why in my opinion the day that the catholic church issued its statement on evolution, I don't imagine they were breaking out the bubbly!! BTW, in my opinion the key biblical teachings are: Special creation, Death, Obedience, Punishment, Redemption and Blood sacrifice...sure to start another debate or maybe a completely new thread ;-)

NobleRotter said: BTW, in my opinion the key biblical teachings are: Special creation, Death, Obedience, Punishment, Redemption and Blood sacrifice...sure to start another debate or maybe a completely new thread ;-)

TomS said:

NobleRotter said: BTW, in my opinion the key biblical teachings are: Special creation, Death, Obedience, Punishment, Redemption and Blood sacrifice...sure to start another debate or maybe a completely new thread ;-)

I note that you do not include among the key teachings anything about the Bible - its inspiration, its authorship, how to interpret it (literal or figurative), its sufficiency ("sola scriptura"), its necessity, its inerrancy, ... or even what the Bible is. I'm not arguing with you, I'm just pointing this out.

However, if any biblical christian has decided to “swim with the sharks” like FL, and expose themselves to mainstream science then how can they retain their beliefs?

BTW, in my opinion the key biblical teachings are: Special creation, Death, Obedience, Punishment, Redemption and Blood sacrifice…

NobleRotter said:

TomS said:

NobleRotter said: BTW, in my opinion the key biblical teachings are: Special creation, Death, Obedience, Punishment, Redemption and Blood sacrifice...sure to start another debate or maybe a completely new thread ;-)

I note that you do not include among the key teachings anything about the Bible - its inspiration, its authorship, how to interpret it (literal or figurative), its sufficiency ("sola scriptura"), its necessity, its inerrancy, ... or even what the Bible is. I'm not arguing with you, I'm just pointing this out.

Well noted!!

Evolution is fully compatible with Christianity. It doesn't matter how often FL says it isn't, it's still untrue.

I note that now FL has shifted strategy to "avoid answering questions".

Cite the chapter and verse where language is explained. Not the Tower of Babel, but the origin of language and why non-human animals can’t have language.

10 Moses said to the Lord, “Pardon your servant, Lord. I have never been eloquent, neither in the past nor since you have spoken to your servant. I am slow of speech and tongue.” 11 The Lord said to him, “Who gave human beings their mouths? Who makes them deaf or mute? Who gives them sight or makes them blind? Is it not I, the Lord?

Does anyone see the Love of Christ shining from FL's posts?

Ray, Steve, IBIG, do you see it?

Maybe I'm not qualified to say.

An Inference!!! So we were right, it's not explicitly stated in the Bible. You are just making stuff up.

BTW: The mouth is not language, but you knew that right?

Tell me, what else can we INFER from the Bible? I bet I can infer a lot of things that are not Christian and have legitimate Biblical support. But that's another thread and I won't go there.

But, we have seen that you can't support your claim. You have to 'infer' the claim from what you read... just like everyone else when dealing with the Bible.

Well, I just gave a specific answer to Ogre there, Prongs.

Tell me where the "Love of Christ" (as you put it) is missing from that post, and on what basis you believe it's missing.

Genuinely curious about it. Do you have an explanation?

FL

Methinks FL's problem is simply that he thinks he speaks for all Christians. He's a legend in his own mind!

The Lord said to him, “Who gave human beings their mouths? Who makes them deaf or mute? Who gives them sight or makes them blind? Is it not I, the Lord?

An Inference!!! So we were right, it’s not explicitly stated in the Bible. You are just making stuff up.

ogremk5 said: I note that now FL has shifted strategy to "avoid answering questions".

I'd point out that even if one takes this to be a statement about the origins of language, it does not address the other assertion: That the Bible says that animals do not have language. (They do have mouths.)

FL said:

An Inference!!! So we were right, it’s not explicitly stated in the Bible. You are just making stuff up.

What, you don't use inferences in science, business, family, daily life Ogre? Most folks do. Inferences are NOT "making stuff up". Inferences are Rationality 101. "Implicit" is as real, and as necessary to reckon with, as "explicit." But, honestly, that's why you were given the DIRECT quotation from Exodus 4, where God simpiy and openly tells a self-conscious "slow of speech" Moses, that GOD is the very source of his unique human language communication ability no matter how slow it is. "Who makes a person's mouth?....Is it not I, the Lord?" That honestly doesn't get much clearer, does it? And it rationally corrorborates the inferential Bible texts that you were given. FL

Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true.

Flawed keeps using the word "rational"
the word doesn't mean that he thinks it means, or (also possible) he is conflating/ flip-flopping different definitions at different times

ADJECTIVE
1. reasonable and sensible: governed by, or showing evidence of, clear and sensible thinking and judgment, based on reason rather than emotion or prejudice
2. able to think clearly and sensibly: able to think clearly and sensibly, unimpaired by physical or mental condition, strong emotion, or prejudice
"I can't be rational when so many people give me conflicting advice."
3. in accordance with reason and logic: presented or understandable in terms that accord with reason and logic or with scientific knowledge
"a rational explanation"
4. able to reason: endowed with the ability to reason, as opposed to being governed solely by instinct and appetite
5. mathematics expressible as ratio of polynomials: in mathematics, able to be expressed exactly as the quotient of two whole numbers or polynomials
"a rational function"

pretty much by definition an explaination based on faith or holy writ is NOT a rational explaination (definition 3)

and theistic evolution is not a rational posistion (not from the point of view of not being sane - but not a conclusion based entirely on evidence)

same weak ass word games we've seen before

A Christian can accept evolution, and still be rational (sane). The evolution part is rational(based on logic/evidence/science) the theistic part is not - it is based on FAITH and threfore by definition - not rational

the Pope(s) is(are) not insane (irrational because he advocates acceptance of evolution

"evidence" from the Bible is not rational evidence

-JasonMItchell

https://me.yahoo.com/a/XRnHyQl8usUn8ykD1Rji0ZXHNe.9lqmg3Dm7ul96NW4vxpbU3c_GLu.k#d404b said: "evidence" from the Bible is not rational evidence -JasonMItchell

FL said: This should be interesting. Mostly focussing on J. Biggs here, but really this post is for everybody.

Actually I don’t see how you can say the Bible makes this prediction based on the quotes you provided.

Umm, I said that "you and I" can make a prediction based on the specific three Bible quotes that were provided. A prediction that the unique human language communication system just happens to fulfill nicely.

Mainly because as phhht and others point out you are just making shit up when you say that language is what separates humans from animals, after all the Bible simply doesn’t say that, anywhere.

Ohh Ohh, whenever it gets to the point where you have to use Phhht's favorite fall-back as your first line of defense....that's when you're out of ammo. Honestly. I could quote him John 3:16 verbatim, in English and Greek, and he'd go off claiming that the Bible didn't say THAT verse either. (Sheesh!)

The Bible does say that a very articulate God supernaturally created the first humans in His image, with no animal ancestors. So that information would provide a reasonable (albeit supernatural) explanation of why we humans are articulate too, and why we have something the animals don't have.

Meanwhile, the unique human language communication systems DOES separate humans from animals. There are other aspects of humanity that also separate humans from animals too. For example the human conscience is a stark, no-escape, total separation from ALL animals, (past or present). As such, it's a single-handed refutation of the theory of evolution, all by itself. But we're just looking at this one item, the unique human language system, for now.

Also, I must reiterate that there are myriad scientific publications dealing with the evolution of language in humans. So your claim that there are no naturalistic explanations for it is just more bullshit.

So, exactly how did naturalistic evolution originate the unique human language communication system? Hmm? Tell me. ****

Also rearchers have trained several great apes to communicate with American sign language and lexigrams. (Wikipedia link). In some cases, these primate subjects have been able to employ the use of grammar when communicating.

Grammar? Indeed, the Wiki link you provided actually shows a pretty big wipeout regarding grammar, especially on the chimp thing.

Linguistic critics challenged the animal trainers to demonstrate that Washoe was actually using language and not symbols. The null hypothesis was that the Gardners were using conditioning to teach the chimpanzee to use hand formations in certain contexts to create desirable outcomes, and that they had not learned the same linguistic rules that humans innately learn. In response to this challenge, the chimpanzee Nim Chimpsky was taught to communicate using sign language in studies led by Herbert S. Terrace. In 44 months, Nim Chimpsky learned 125 signs. However, linguistic analysis of Nim's communications demonstrated that Nim's use was symbolic, and lacked grammar, or rules, of the kind that humans use in communicating via language. This constitutes a chimpanzee vocabulary learning rate of roughly 0.1 words per day. This rate is not comparable to the average college-educated English-speaking human who learns roughly 14 words per day between ages 2 and 22.

That's an outright failure there. In fact it gets worse, so let's pile it on. Here is a 2007 article chock-full of problemos, ESPECIALLY on the grammar thing:

"(Rene) Descartes was right: there really are no beasts, no matter how fortunately circumstanced, that can make known their thoughts through language." Aping Language: A Skeptical Analysis of the Evidence for Nonhuman Primate Language by Clive Wynne Copyright © 2007 the Skeptics Society and Clive Wynne http://www.skepdic.com/essays/apinglanguage.html

And here's a nice little oldie but goodie on another important ape issue:

"The apes are universally incapable of entering the realm of abstract thought. They cannot separate representations from the situations to which they are appropriate. Therefore they cannot acheive the freedom of choice that comes with the ability to consider purely hypothetical abstractions (e.g., if I were to drop the cup on the tile it would break, so I won't drop it). Freedom of will and moral responsibility as humans know them, both depend on this sort of abstract capability." -- John W. Ollar Jr. and John L. Omdahl, "Origin of the Human Language Capacity: In Whose Image", from The Creation Hypothesis, JP Moreland, ed., 1994 IVP, pp 261-262

So, you get the picture. That ape-business (more accurately, MONKEY-business!!) just ain't working. ****

No, you are still making a god of the gaps argument from the get go because you are still saying, “science can’t explain human language, therefore god.”

No, that's specifically NOT what is being argued here. Of course, it IS true that evolution and natural causes can't explain the unique human language communication system. But remember, I specifically did supply you an alternative (albeit supernatural) rational explanation. (The three Bible texts, remember?) Humans were supernaturally and directly created in God's image, and that is the cause, the origin, for how humans get that unique, far-advanced language system, a total quantum-leap above what the animals are even remotely capable of doing. We humans received this ability from God (viz., the image of God), and God is quite articulate all by Himself.

Therefore, since I didn't argue "therefore god" based on a LACK of rational explanation for the phenomenon's existence, I did NOT give you a "god of the gaps" argument. And there you go; that's the real deal. I invite Dr. Poland to think about it too.

**** You guys merely assume that "Evolution-Did-It" even when you don't have a SCRAP of evidence that evolution or any natural causes actually did it at all. You guys are fully into "Evolution-Of-The-Gaps."

But I am not arguing from gaps. A supernatural explanation is still a RATIONAL explanation, unless you fellas have finally succeeded in ruling out the existence of the supernatural (and ya know ya sure ain't done that!).

So the Bible is clear that the origin of the unique human language communication is due to the fact that we humans were created (supernaturally, directly, no animal ancestors) in the image of God. It explains why Adam was smart enough to name all the animals in one gig (Gen 2). It explains why Adam and Eve could hold an adult-level conversation with God (see Gen 3) without having first gone through pre-school elementary-school secondary-school etc). You disagree? Fine, good luck with that unsupported "Evolution-Of-The-Gaps" sales-pitch. But rest assured that at least I am not offering you any "gaps" argument. FL

Ecc 3:18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. Ecc 3:19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all [is] vanity. Ecc 3:20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.

Amen.

I even alluded to the MYH16 polymorphism seen in only humans which accounts for our bigger brains and more gracile muscular and skeletal oro-facial apparatus. I have no intention on summarizing an extremely fecund area of research just so you can continue to deny it exists.

...(Since) there is not a real correlation between cranial capacity and intelligence, the suggestion that the MYH16 mutation played a key role in the evolution of modern humans from ape-like ancestors at this point is far fetched. More information: David DeWitt, "Did a jaw muscle protein mutation lead to increased cranial capacity in man?" http://creation.com/did-a-jaw-muscle-protein-mutation-lead-to-increased-cranial-capacity-in-man

As we discuss here, it is unlikely that MYH16 mutation would have led to the dramatic changes in early hominid masticatory mechanics suggested by Stedman et al. It is also unlikely, therefore, that MYH16 gene inactivation played a significant role in the craniofacial evolution of Homo. --Melanie McCollum et al, "Of muscle-bound crania and human brain evolution: The story behind the MYH16 headlines". http://home.gwu.edu/~sherwood/2006.MYH16.Reply.JHE.pdf

phhht said: But you're a loony, Flawd. Your inferences are wrong, indefensible, and unsupported. Even the most vehemently defended inference is a house of cards without evidence to back it up. For example, drawing inferences from a book of myths is no way to reach truth. The source itself is false, so every inference drawn from it may be true or false at random, and there is no way to tell which. Not without empirical evidence. And even the fictional Bible DOES NOT SAY what you claim it does, Flawd. It DOES NOT SAY that "yes" is the answer to your protagonist's question, "Is it not I, the Lord?" The inferred answer can just as well be "no."

FL said:

An Inference!!! So we were right, it’s not explicitly stated in the Bible. You are just making stuff up.

What, you don't use inferences in science, business, family, daily life Ogre? Most folks do. Inferences are NOT "making stuff up". Inferences are Rationality 101. "Implicit" is as real, and as necessary to reckon with, as "explicit." But, honestly, that's why you were given the DIRECT quotation from Exodus 4, where God simpiy and openly tells a self-conscious "slow of speech" Moses, that GOD is the very source of his unique human language communication ability no matter how slow it is. "Who makes a person's mouth?....Is it not I, the Lord?" That honestly doesn't get much clearer, does it? And it rationally corrorborates the inferential Bible texts that you were given. FL

FL said:

I even alluded to the MYH16 polymorphism seen in only humans which accounts for our bigger brains and more gracile muscular and skeletal oro-facial apparatus. I have no intention on summarizing an extremely fecund area of research just so you can continue to deny it exists.

Oh, that's okay. MYH16 has not been scientifically shown to be ANY kind of evolutionary originator of the unique human language communication system, (and there's some big baggage attached to MYH16 that you failed to mention, see below) so I am not worried about it. So when you say, "...myriad scientific publications dealing with the evolution of language in humans", yet cannot offer a single explanation from a single one of them of how evolution originated the unique human language communication system, your statement just doesn't cut the mustard. The reality is that evolutionary theory, (science articles and all), simply have NOT come up with any evolutionary originators at all in this important area. All you have is literally "Evolution-Did-It" and "Evolution-of-the-Gaps." Just doesn't work. ****

Meanwhile, I found a neat little article about MYH16. Seems there are a slew of problems and "issues" attached to it. Here's one you might like.

...(Since) there is not a real correlation between cranial capacity and intelligence, the suggestion that the MYH16 mutation played a key role in the evolution of modern humans from ape-like ancestors at this point is far fetched. More information: David DeWitt, "Did a jaw muscle protein mutation lead to increased cranial capacity in man?" http://creation.com/did-a-jaw-muscle-protein-mutation-lead-to-increased-cranial-capacity-in-man

And if you don't like getting a plateful of reality from DeWitt's Creation.com article, perhaps you'll settle for a tasty entree Peer-Reviewed article from the Journal of Human Evolution 50 (2006) 232-236...

As we discuss here, it is unlikely that MYH16 mutation would have led to the dramatic changes in early hominid masticatory mechanics suggested by Stedman et al. It is also unlikely, therefore, that MYH16 gene inactivation played a significant role in the craniofacial evolution of Homo. --Melanie McCollum et al, "Of muscle-bound crania and human brain evolution: The story behind the MYH16 headlines". http://home.gwu.edu/~sherwood/2006.MYH16.Reply.JHE.pdf

So there you go. Like I said earlier, that ape-business (more accurately, MONKEY-business) just ain’t working. FL

Dave Thomas said: Methinks FL's problem is simply that he thinks he speaks for all Christians. He's a legend in his own mind!

Even if the development of language wasn't specifically explained by evolution, that by itself wouldn't make it inconsistent with evolution, nor would it serve as evidence against the ToE.

Henry

What FL proposes is that a natural and detailed explanation for the development of grammar in human language should be discarded for a supernatural one. He actually proposes that these explanations are as rational as each other. Further, he proposes that the latter is to be preferred on the grounds of scriptural authority.

Both these propositions are false. The explanation from evolution is natural and detailed, and its details are testable. The supernatural explanation is not natural, by definition, and not detailed. It cannot be tested. The first is rational, the second is not rational.

Further, scripture does not say that human language, with its elaborate grammar, was supernaturally installed in human beings. Any such argument requires that the texts say more than they actually say.

Hence, the proposition that human language was supernaturally installed is both irrational and unscriptural, and must be rejected.

Henry J said: Even if the development of language wasn't specifically explained by evolution, that by itself wouldn't make it inconsistent with evolution, nor would it serve as evidence against the ToE. Henry

How does creationism/intelligent design account for human language? What happened (when and where) that resulted in language?

This thread is on its 6th day! And the 7th Day is a day of rest, so get your final digs in by Friday!!

Actually, no. The Bible doesn't actually say that language was installed supernaturally. It says (Gen 1:27) that God created human beings, although it doesn't specify the means at that point. Granted, the implication of Gen 2:22 is that woman, at least, was created by supernatural means, although that is not actually enunciated. But man had language before that - he had named all the animals - and Gen 2:7 says only that man was formed of the dust of the ground, which if you allow that to mean "the elements present on Earth", is pretty right. So we are, and the means was not supernatural.

But certainly nowhere in the text is any statement to the effect that God installed language, or grammar, or speech, into human beings. If there were such a statement, it would still not preclude the possibility that the process was entirely natural, using evolution.

It's interesting to watch FL make flat assertions that have no scriptural authority. As for "assumptions that the supernatural doesn't exist", they are not made, nor are they relevant. An entirely natural explanation for the development of human language is available, and it suffices. That being the case, no supernatural explanation is required.

FL said:

How does creationism/intelligent design account for human language? What happened (when and where) that resulted in language?

Let's unpack that for a moment. Biblical Creationism is not the same as the specific Dembski/Behe ID hypothesis from their books, so let's stick with biblical creationism. You ARE actually told what happened and Who made it happen--in fact, you read the Genesis verses already--but it was not a mechanistic natural-process event. Ummm, supernatural, remember? God did it supernaturally, not naturally, not using evolution at all. And atheistic assumptions that the supernatural doesn't exist or doesn't constitute a rational explanation, are simply false. Why? B'cause you guys have never rationally ruled out the existence of the supernatural, nor even a theistic universe. FL

How does creationism/intelligent design account for human language? What happened (when and where) that resulted in language?

Let's unpack that for a moment. Comical Creationism is not the same as the specific Dembski/Behe ID hypothesis from their books, so let's stick with comical creationism. You ARE actually told what happened and Who made it happen--in fact, you read the Genesis issues already--but it was not a mechanistic natural-process event. Ummm, fictional, remember? God did it fictionally, not naturally, not using evolution at all. And realistic assumptions that the fictional doesn't exist or doesn't constitute a rational explanation, are simply false. Why? B'cause you guys have never rationally ruled out the existence of the fictional, nor even a comical universe.

Lying Idiot For Jesus babbled: You ARE actually told what happened and Who made it happen--in fact, you read the Genesis verses already--but it was not a mechanistic natural-process event. Ummm, supernatural, remember? God did it supernaturally, not naturally, not using evolution at all.

In other words, you're saying that God can only do things with magic poofs, or nothing at all.

Never read the turd's stuff. (Take that as imperative or declarative; either way works.)

I've been in a different hemisphere and engaged in other things for a while, so I'm gradually catching the drift here.

Remember when the turd put his foot in it and proved that fetuses were not "biblically alive" because only breathing things (unlike plants) are alive?

Seems to me he's scored again: Humans aren't animals because humans have language and animals don't. Well, unfortunately, there are a number of humans who have no language. They can't speak it, understand it, read it, learn it, or think in it. They never could from birth, and never will. They're severely retarded. Now we know, thanks to the turd's biblical analysis, that they're also not human. They lack that which distinguishes humans from animals.

Which brings up other questions: Are people who have more fluency and expertise in using language more human than those who can't use language with facility?

apokryltaros said:

Lying Idiot For Jesus babbled: You ARE actually told what happened and Who made it happen--in fact, you read the Genesis verses already--but it was not a mechanistic natural-process event. Ummm, supernatural, remember? God did it supernaturally, not naturally, not using evolution at all.

In other words, you're saying that God can only do things with magic poofs, or nothing at all.

You know... I've never seen FL and God on the same forum logged in at the same time...

Indeed off thread but my two cents on language.
It is not explained by evolutionary ideas anywhere I've read it.
Language is very simply a expression of human thoughts by sounds.
Words being segregated combinations of sounds in order to better articulate and faster.
The breakup of this agreement on what the sounds/combinations mean happened suddenly at babel in a organized drift.
I think it was 70 languages.

People are so smart that we understand and organize quickly these rapid sounds for communication.
Animals, being stupid, can not or have need to organize thoughts. However animals and apes can talk just as well as us.
No physical problem.

ogremk5 said: You know... I've never seen FL and God on the same forum logged in at the same time...

Is it just me, or is trying to make sense of Byers trying to explain language like taking a trip through the looking glass? Irony thy name is Byers. To "better articulate and faster" indeed. According to his logic, Byers is an animal, since he cannot seem to organize his thoughts. Indeed, animals and apes can talk just as well as him can. Imagine that.

And of course, in his own inevitably clueless style, he totally eviscerated the nonsense that Floyd was spouting to boot. Now that's irony.

FL said: And now, while listening to some Crosby Stills Nash & Young, let's meditate briefly on the following: ...

DS said: Is it just me, or is trying to make sense of Byers trying to explain language like taking a trip through the looking glass? Irony thy name is Byers. To "better articulate and faster" indeed. According to his logic, Byers is an animal, since he cannot seem to organize his thoughts. Indeed, animals and apes can talk just as well as him can. Imagine that. And of course, in his own inevitably clueless style, he totally eviscerated the nonsense that Floyd was spouting to boot. Now that's irony.

j. biggs said:

FL said:

I even alluded to the MYH16 polymorphism seen in only humans which accounts for our bigger brains and more gracile muscular and skeletal oro-facial apparatus. I have no intention on summarizing an extremely fecund area of research just so you can continue to deny it exists.

Oh, that's okay. MYH16 has not been scientifically shown to be ANY kind of evolutionary originator of the unique human language communication system, (and there's some big baggage attached to MYH16 that you failed to mention, see below) so I am not worried about it. So when you say, "...myriad scientific publications dealing with the evolution of language in humans", yet cannot offer a single explanation from a single one of them of how evolution originated the unique human language communication system, your statement just doesn't cut the mustard. The reality is that evolutionary theory, (science articles and all), simply have NOT come up with any evolutionary originators at all in this important area. All you have is literally "Evolution-Did-It" and "Evolution-of-the-Gaps." Just doesn't work. ****

Why would I bother to summarize years of literature for you? Do your own homework. You claimed there isn't a natural mechanism that explains human language. I proved you are wrong by providing a long list of research publications about what you claim doesn't exist. It's not my problem if you are too lazy to read them.

Well, it's been fun. Closing this thread, don't want to babysit two at once.