Fairy Tale Theory of Evolution is Fiction Again
2012-03-22 at 11:02:50

Guest
2012-03-25 08:11:24
 

You guys are adorable. I hope you never leave the Middle Ages.

But why are you so fixated on evolution? There are, after all, so many godless fields of study that just don't factor in the Biblical account. Take the Book of Matthew, for example: where is ScienceAgainstFluidDynamics[dot]org? I know of no scientists that think water above the freezing point could support a fully-grown messiah. Especially not in a turbulent storm.

 
Joey
2012-03-25 13:15:37
 

I don't understand why fluid dynamics is a godless field of study. It's something that can be understood using the scientific method, unlike evolution. If the problem is because walking on water violates known physical laws ... well ... that's all that evolution does too. Let's agree then that we both believe in supernatural miracles, so we're all adorable people stuck in the Middle Ages. :-)

 
Jōl
2012-03-25 17:29:48
 

(Sorry I accidentally posted as Guest earlier)

Except none of that is true. Evolution violates no physical laws, and creationists want Intelligent Design taught in school not as a supernatural miracle, but as science. Why can't walking on water be taught the same way?

 
Jōl
2012-03-25 17:31:51
 

And fluid dynamics is a godless science for the same reason biology is: proper science is based on material evidence and cannot presume the existence of a supernatural force in its hypotheses.

 
 
 
Jōl
2012-03-26 15:35:01
 

That link is broken -- it goes to some kind of black hole where science is perverted to fit some kind of callow need.

Look, thermodynamics doesn't work like that. You have been told before, but you continually refuse to look up the truth for yourself.

Or, if you're right, you should immediately revert to the sperm, egg, and menstrual fluid you started out as. I suppose you could try to convince me that you 'willed' yourself (as sperm and egg) to evolve (oops, better tone it down so I don't distract you), I mean CHANGE into the immensely more complex form you're in today.

Or maybe Vishnu put tiny Devas in your mother's belly that knitted you into a dude (and in every cat's belly, and amphibian egg clutch, etc.) and that's how you (and every other creature on the planet) violated your imaginary laws of thermodynamics.

Come to think of it, you'd have a better chance of convincing me you AREN'T more complex now than you were then.

As for your question, I wasn't there for the genesis of the life we all evolved from so I don't hold a belief regarding it. A lengthy process of chemical evolution makes the most sense to me, based on my limited knowledge of the topic, but I find the concept of panspermia far more enchanting. I imagine some rugged germs surviving on the Voyager spacecraft as it crashes into some planet in the distant future and seeding that world from ours. It's unlikely, 'cause the conditions would probably have to be pretty specific on that planet, and V-ger would have to slam into a planet rather than a star or black hole, etc., but it's a cool idea to me.

But the idea of life being created by a God who loves me and all life and has a plan that in the end will all make sense and serve some higher purpose is the most appealing idea. If I was the kind of guy who chose the most reassuring answer over the most logical I'd go with that.

 
Joey
2012-03-28 19:31:53
 

Wait ... CK would break down into sperm and egg? That's not something the Bible teaches or even those weird creation scientists. Maybe you guys ought to re-read some science books about thermodynamics, but probably not the ones that still teach recapitulation to high school kids. O_o

Isn't the reason CK doesn't break down is because of software programming that intelligently drives his hardware to work against it? (Otherwise, he would suffer from something like xeroderma pigmentosum. Any life that began spontaneously likely suffered from something like this, as it didn't have a mechanism in place to deal with it, and was killed by something like it, but never mind that.) The fact that CK will die and turn into dust anyway is because that's how thermodynamics work. The reason this planet will one day experience heat death is because that's how thermodynamics work. The reason plants don't break down before our eyes is because they are programmed to detect and repair sun damage that will otherwise destroy it. (Have you read what it takes for a plant to detect and repair sun damage? It will kick you in the face. It kicked my face. Check Scripps Research Institute, Feb 9, 2012.) But the fact that plant life will die and turn to dust is because that's how thermodynamics work. Sure, we can speculate a simpler mechanism must have occurred in the past, because "we just know" it couldn't have been created that way because a hypothesis allowing for the supernatural is, uh, somehow illogical. They can invent all kinds of atmospheres (doesn't solve the violation; only moves when the violation happened) and scenarios that might explain how life on earth (in this universe) overcame thermodynamics naturally-by-accident ... but they don't have the foggiest idea. Therefore, your acceptance of it would be equally irrational, because it is based on information and speculation they can't verify experimentally and information you received by revelation. It's all just hopeful religion; roughly the same kind that CK and I practice.

:-O NOoooooOOOOOOooooo. We're all slaves to religion!!! JeSUS was right!!!!!

"process of chemical evolution makes the most sense to me," <--- Religion; you accept it as "truth" because it "makes sense," a feeling of assurance driven by chemicals in the brain.
"but I find the concept of panspermia far more enchanting" <--- Religion; you accept it as truth because of personal bias conferred by evolutionary social and chemical development.
"but it's a cool idea to me." <--- Religion; you accept it as truth because of personal bias conferred by evolutionary social and chemical development.
"science ... cannot presume the existence of a supernatural force in its hypotheses." <--- Religious dogma. (And Newton certainly thought otherwise.)

If CK's evolutionary development has encoded him to accept religion as a reassuring lie that gets him through life, then by the nature of what you believe, aren't you also merely encoded to be enchanted by other forms of religious or anti-religious nonsense? You would be either lucky or privileged if it happens to be truth ... but you couldn't even know if you believed it because it was true. (You admitted it, so don't deny it!) I'm okay with you touting your religious superiority; that's what Muhammed does in the Quran; that's what Paul does in the Bible. But that's not the point ... the point is that evolution is a fairytale. Why? Because, well, read the link for one. I want to see what you have to say why scientists who were utterly wrong about their predictions of ape DNA based on their evolutionary speculation should be trusted to keep telling us not to worry, that there is no god, and that evolution works. How is that rational?

For the record ... you clearly think I'm crazy and stupid. But I don't think you're irrational or dumb. CK even says you're a smart guy, and I'm inclined to believe him. I also know that, if what you believe is true, you can't help but think I am irrational and dumb because you have been programmed to get to that belief. So I don't hold it against you, evolutionary speaking! :-)

Response to Previous Post
I'm a creationist, and I don't want it taught in schools. We certainly don't want hostile religious bigots teaching creationism to children, just like you don't want hostile science bigots teaching evolution (or even raising children.) If people would remember that science is science because of the scientific method, we could probably all get along.

Another Response to a Previous Post
As someone as rational and learned as you, I again would hope you could detect the difference. We call walking on water a miracle because it violates a natural law. It can’t be empirically tested. Fluid dynamics can be tested. You’re just a bigot if you think creation scientists think fluid dynamics is devilry. Stop being a bigot!!!

What's Most Fascinating
Yes. We'll never agree about thermodynamics. I know you don't know what you're talking about. (Wait, I got this, "Joey, you have no idea what you're talking about, you '#$@#%' creationist!!!!!") So let's skip that nonsense and talk about something else that's fascinating. Even a religious man like me understands why I believe what I believe if evolution is true; therefore, I know logically that I can't be arrogant about it whether evolution is true or the God I believe in is true. It goes against everything I could possibly conceive myself of believing. I even know I could be wrong about how we all got here. But you don't seem to think you could be. And that surprises me, because you should understand why you believe what you believe if what you believe is true. (Your hero Dawkins even cops to this.) You act like you don't. And I want to know why that is.

 
 
 
Jōl
2012-03-29 09:08:23
 

Dear Joey,

So your contention is that biologists claim life (or even that first cell) is immortal? I can't find anything to back that up. The laws of thermodynamics claim that nothing will ever convert or use energy with perfect efficiency (or, of course, better than perfect efficiency), and nothing in the field of evolutionary study violates that. When it comes to attempts by Creationists to refute solid science, they often twist thermodynamics to mean something different, and that's probably what you're parroting.

As for your accusations of religiosity, I suppose you're right in the sense that not practicing golf makes me an athlete, or how not tending any houseplants makes me a botanist, or even how not having a wife makes me married. Yes, I suppose if I go by the tortured logic of your argument, not accepting anything on faith makes me -- religious?

Good work.

"If CK's evolutionary development has encoded him to accept religion as a reassuring lie that gets him through life, then by the nature of what you believe, aren't you also merely encoded to be enchanted by other forms of religious or anti-religious nonsense?" Ah: a good question (despite your attempts to beggar it). That's where critical thinking, science, and skepticism come in. Yes, I am genetically programmed to experience awe at nature and fear of death, but as a student of history and admirer of great minds, I have learned that received knowledge is often the LEAST reliable form knowledge comes in. The scientific method has proven to be the best tool man has come up with for explaining phenomena. The hands down, bar-none, accept no substitute be-all/end-all for figuring stuff out. It defies belief. And you guys (meaning creationists in general and your particular Millerite sect specifically) are absolutely awful at it.

But -- and here's the real comedy of this exercise -- you love science. You understand at some level that, "hey some dude wrote this down 'cause Magic told him to," just doesn't cut it anymore. You can't look at all the suspension bridges and cell-phone satellites and say, "yeah, that science thing is a fad -- I'll just avoid the four-legged insects and unclean menstruating women until it blows over."

...well, I guess the Amish and some Mennonites try to. But even they have just chosen a particular historical state of technology to cling to. And the only argument they've got is Satan -- he might be wicked, but they can't say his cellphones don't work.

The point is, science has made its case. Science is king, you don't have to take anybody's word for it, and that's the point. That's why Do-While and Ken Ham spend all that time trying to twist legitimate research to fit their own lies: they know that they are playing catch-up to science. You want to convince me that evolution is not real? As soon as Creationists come up with a scientific theory that is a better explanation of observed evidence -- I'm there. I don't believe in evolution. I have no faith in it and nothing riding on it emotionally. Give me a better scientific explanation for genetic heritability, stratified fossil records, and mass extinctions and I'm your biggest fan.

Because ultimately it's not enough to sit back in the cheap seats of 'your science breaks the laws of thermodynamics 'cause my eternal, uncreated, omnipotent idea says it does.' For all its flaws, the Ptolemaic, earth-centered model of the solar system stood as the best explanation until Copernicus developed a better one. Sure, people may have pointed out holes in the idea that Mars just mysteriously reversed course occasionally as it orbited earth, but that was the go-to science until a more complete theory came along. Had I been alive before Copernicus, I'm sure I would have accepted the earlier model. I'm no scientist, and I'm easy to fool.

So do it. Give me the Theory of Creation. Let me see the data. No more of this half-assed, "hey! I think I've found some wiggle room!" Just replace it already.

Before I close, I would like to point out that I don't let crazy, stupid people assign me heroes. Since you seem to be interested, here are three of my actual heroes in no particular order:

Bishop Desmond Tutu. Certainly the bravest, most compassionate person alive today. I once watched him dive into a throng of frenzied fanatics to rescue a child being crushed without even thinking about his own safety or sending someone from his retinue who surely could have gotten it done. And that's nothing compared to standing up to South Africa's Apartheid government, who routinely murdered and imprisoned its critics.

Dr. Jane Goodall. A field scientist of the first order. To me she embodies the attempt to understand animals without the crutch of assuming they are like malfunctioning humans; and I think that's really hard to do. I actually met her once and wept -- for reasons that still aren't entirely clear to me.

Elizabeth Warren. A true consumer advocate in a time when consumption threatens to define all of us.

Please note that just because they're my heroes I don't share all their views or think that they are somehow more than human. Also, that's not a complete list. But it's a start, and should give you some ammo in your attempt to make the discussion about you and me rather than answering my question.

 
Jōl
2012-03-29 11:21:48
 

Dear C.K.

>Just one perversion>

You know that part that says "Scores of distinguished scientists?" That's a lie. That page is lying. They weren't distinguished or even real scientists. I'm no scientist, and hardly distinguished, but even I am able to look up Newton's Laws of Thermodynamics. No real biologist thinks that evolution means 'stuff can't die.' they just don't. Duane Gish is trying to fool everyone into thinking he can read.

>Do you think you know more about thermodynamics than, say, a college-educated, multi-decade-experienced engineer?>

The one who thinks he knows more about biology than every biologist in the world?

Yep.

>We were built by our parents.>

No. You were built IN your parents. Your parents had sex. That was really the extent of their responsibility from a biological point of view. Well, that and keeping your mom out of the way of trains and such. They needed apply no thought or design to the process of converting you from a couple of cells and effluvia to the fine figure of a man you are today. It doesn't matter if your parents have the slightest grasp of duodenums or prostates, you have them.

And the reason you have them has nothing to do with what your DNA or your parents' DNA wanted or thought -- it's a blind, brainless, natural process. A natural process that every species of every level of mental capacity undergoes some form of. Any idiot can make a baby, and millions do.

>Regardless, we can't go on forever, can we?>

Exactly. Which is why that putative machine builder who violates every single property of the world we live in is such a waste of time to ponder.

>Oh, yes you do... Don't be shy.>

Nope. As I told your brother: I have no investment in accepted scientific principles and am ready to change my mind as soon as a better explanation comes along. I suppose science might consider me a mind-harlot, but my infidelity is, in my mind, completely justified, what with the wisest creatures we know of being the same ones that worry about Y2K and sometimes dress up in bedsheets to set one another on fire. And wear Crocs. I mean, come on.

>Yes, because abiogenesis and evolution is so logical and scientific. :-/ >

Finally! I knew you'd come to your senses -- wait, what's that random-looking punctuation at the end of the sentence -- oh. I see what you did there.

 
Joey
2012-03-30 21:31:20
 

Remember, Jol, the post and link about Ape DNA is about a scientific study … you made it into something else right away in your first comment ...

>>>> So your contention is that biologists claim life (or even that first cell) is immortal?

Obviously they don’t. They likely know, however, that the evolution of life (from simple to complex forms) is unlikely because it’s never been observed (observed phenomenon = science). And millions of observed generations of fruit flies remaining fruit flies should at least signal a problem. Therefore, what you believe (or don't believe but are defending anyway) is not science, so you "defending" science hardly seems necessary here.

>>> As for your accusations of religiosity

No. You are religious because you put faith in things delivered to you by revelation of which you have no power to verify and admit to not really knowing if it's true; you are religious because you have adopted a creation myth and attempt to apply meaning to your life from that creation myth. That is—you mock me for doing the same religious things you do.

>>> student of history and admirer of great minds,

Again, this is revelation … and religion. What makes them great minds in your mind? You push the problem away with a comment like this, but the problem is still there. It’s likely they are great minds to you because they deliver a vision of the world that suits your particular chemical and social makeup. Your brain lights up in a way that the religious-oriented brain does not. That’s hardly your doing and it hardly matters that one is true and the other isn’t. So your acceptance of it is likely driven by the same kind of natural mechanism that makes me choose God over atheism. Neither one of these is a big deal if you believe what you believe, but you seem annoyed by it. If religion has been successful in ensuring human survival for hundreds of thousands of years, whether it’s true or false could hardly be important to anyone. It might be outdated and should change in your opinion, but you have no scientific evidence to support that opinion.

>>> Millerite sect specifically

Pathetic display of bigotry. But I know you know that you can’t help it. As far as heroes, you do seem to follow Dawkins closely here. He said at the recent atheist rally that you should mock the religious. I don’t know what you hate about my religion in particular—but I don’t know why I should appreciate yours. You say you have science on your side, but you don’t know that (you admit to it). According to your belief, I would say my subconscious survival mechanism doesn’t see a particularly helpful survival advantage of joining up with one-percenters who believe that compassion is really just another selfish survival mechanism that sometimes works and sometimes doesn’t. Who cares what Desmond Tutu did? His actions are random byproducts of other random byproducts. The jury is still out on whether his actions really matter.

>>> Science is king,

When it comes to understanding the natural world, science is a wonderful power. My particular religious sect has used science to prove a lot of things about the human body—and it’s why we’re among the longest-lived people on the earth. Their hypothesis was: If the Bible is true, the diet of Genesis will likely be the most beneficial. Guess what happened? But if you believed the evolutionists at the turn of the century, you’d still believe humans adapted to the point where they needed meat to survive. But then they saw our science and changed their minds. Then again, they’d still probably mock us for pointing to Scripture that says we were designed by God to only eat fruits and veggies and nuts and will even one day resume that again. If we didn’t have to worry about sin and war, we’d be the dominate people group on the planet within a century. But you choose to mock me for believing that “the devil did it.” Well, whatever. I even have the religion haters from National Geographic and PBS admitting our religious outlook dominates because we have science on our side. And science also says that the theory of evolution is unscientific.

In many ways, we both believe in the supernatural anyway. You believe in an uncaused, unknowable, unintelligent singularity that went bang. I don’t think you are crazy or stupid for believing in that because you admit like me that something supernatural—and beyond the understanding of science—at some point had to occur in order for this universe to get going. I happen to accept the Bible’s premise—that an unknowable, eternal, and uncaused intelligent entity that exists outside space and time had to get it started. It’s remarkable that a bunch of uneducated camel jockeys in 2000 B.C. came up with such a startling idea instead of adopting the gods they’d been exposed to since religion was, I guess, invented by intelligent but nefarious scientists seeking to control the masses.

NooooOOOOOooo!!!! HISTORY IS REPEATING ITSELF!!!!!!! >:-(

>>> That's why Do-While and Ken Ham spend all that time trying to twist legitimate research to fit their own lies:

I’d love to accept that you have verified this with your own scientific analysis, but I can’t—cause you admit you don’t really know. It’s not like I haven’t heard this before or haven’t read that same criticism of their so-called faulty interpretation of the data. It’s just circular nonsense we’re getting into. Like I mentioned, the interesting part is that it seems to me you aren’t able to accept and live in the reality that you believe.

>>> As soon as Creationists come up with a scientific theory that is a better explanation of observed evidence -- I'm there.

I don’t think you know what observed evidence really means. It was a creationist who first devised natural selection through observation in the 19th century; it was another kind of person who decided later in that century that natural selection meant one kind of animal would eventually become another kind of animal. He was shown to be wrong; which is why it's called neo-Darwinism. Yet you people love him anyway. (As I understand it, theories of natural selection have been discovered from ancient Greece.) One of these phenomena has actually been observed. All the other forensic-based data—the fossil records, genetics, geology—can be used right now to undergird the two major theories regarding the origin of life. It’s all the same data. The question is—what explanation makes the most sense of what we observe? That’s creationism. Doesn’t mean it’s true, of course, because science can’t prove it. But science has already disproved the theory of evolution; one way it has done that is by applying the laws of thermodynamics to it and seeing what happens.

>>> I don't believe in evolution. I have no faith in it and nothing riding on it emotionally.

I have read plenty of paragraphs that suggest you do. I confess I have a lot of faith in the Bible and have a lot riding on it emotionally. If it’s wrong, it means everything. My life will change, completely and utterly. But my life has already changed completely and utterly in the past … I can probably handle it again, but maybe not. We’ll find out someday, I guess!

>>> cheap seats of 'your science breaks the laws of thermodynamics 'cause my eternal, uncreated, omnipotent idea says it does.

I don’t need my religion to cast doubt on the plausibility of evolution because the science does that. Did you read that article on how plants realize they’re damaged and how they fix the damage? That's hard science you can look at now! You will see what the science says. You’ll see it didn’t happen by chance because it couldn’t have happened by chance. But you’ll likely find comfort anyway when it says, “plants evolved to do this,” even though it doesn’t remotely begin to suggest how something like it could have happened. It just says it happened, kind of like the Bible says, it just happened.

>>> Let me see the data.

The data is all over the place, and you really don’t care for me to show you. You seem to be biased to the point of being religious about it. Do you expect me to prove it here? How do I prove it if you won't look at sites I send you to? Some sites, you'll just say, "Can't look at that site, it's made by creationists." Look, we're both men. Let's stop being silly about what we're willing to read and study. I’ve seen a lot of the data. I know how evolutionists understand a lot of the data. I know how creationists understand the very same data. The data is all the same. I confess that I didn’t even know that there is an ongoing distant starlight problem for the big bang model until recently and that astronomers can’t figure out how to correct it without blowing big holes in the big bang. I thought it was only a problem for creationism. We all have the same data. The question is, what theory best puts that data in perspective? I’ve seen time and again that creationism handles the data the best.

>>> But it's a start, and should give you some ammo in your attempt to make the discussion about you and me

I think you started the discussion about “you and me” when you started popping off insults at people who disagree with your beliefs even before the discussion started. Remember, this post is about how the scientific data impinges the evolutionary model of ape DNA yet … it does, because the study itself says it does, not because Do-While says it does … yet it is expected in the creationism model. However, you made it about people living in the dark ages who hate science. It doesn’t even seem like you care about the science at all. You haven't addressed it. Why? If you don't know enough about it, maybe you shouldn't burst in the door with guns ablazing.

>>> rather than answering my question.

Can you repeat the question? I’ll answer every one you asked in the previous post directed at me:

>>> I suppose if I go by the tortured logic of your argument, not accepting anything on faith makes me -- religious?

You accept evolution on faith. (You act like you do, anyway.) You admit you don’t even know if evolution is true, that you just like it, which means you don’t know if it really upholds under scientific scrutiny—yet you get annoyed when someone who isn’t an atheist t says, “Look, here is where yet another evolutionary belief is dogged by the scientific method.” Your response is—you crazy creationists. That doesn't seem right.

>>> You want to convince me that evolution is not real?

Is this a trick question! You know I can’t prove something doesn’t exist! O_o

But no … I really don’t want to convince you about evolution. I don’t want to try. I wish I could convince you there is a God. I can't. I think what I can do is show you that my religion is the best possible understanding of the world, that yours is likely the worst, and that I came to it not because I’m prone to religion or prone to being correct, but because it appeals to my rational nature even though I am a very skeptical person at heart. Because you are intelligent, because you seem to care about compassion, I think you will see it’s not worth your time being annoyed—and that perhaps it’s not so insane to believe in the God of the Bible.

I REALLY want you to look at the things you write and explain why you write them if what you believe is really true. I REALLY want you to believe because God wants you in heaven. But I can’t convince you of anything. I’m not smart enough to make anything like that happen.

 
Jōl
2012-03-31 14:43:32
 

>“That is—you mock me for doing the same religious things you do.”

Again: no. I put no faith in evolution. If the theory of evolution is a lie then it’s just a much better lie than yours, ‘cause I can see through yours with the slightest amount of research. And I mean the barest amount of energy. I actually have to raise the energy required to stay interested. I have to extrapolate a lot when you guys give me a segment of some half-assed claim creationists used to use a century ago just to challenge myself to break out the science books and look up what biology actually claims about natural selection or such.

...and that’s the part I like. I went to the bookstore today, as a matter of fact, and might not have spent as long in the science section as I did were it not for you guys. Thanks.


>“Again, this is revelation … and religion. What makes them great minds in your mind?”

They are great minds because I don’t *have* to take them at their words. When Schopenhauer claims that love at first sight is two people recognizing a good genetic match with one another I get to think about that. I’m not obliged to accept it. If I don’t accept it, I need to think about what objections I have to it. If I have objections to it, I have to think about if they’re sound objections or just prejudices I can dispense with. And so on.

So I guess what makes me consider them great minds (and I’m going to act like I expect this to make me seem MORE narcissistic to you) is the fact that they give me an opportunity to better mine mind -- er, my mind minded. Whatever. You get the idea.

>“... It’s likely they are great minds to you because they deliver a vision of the world that suits your particular chemical and social makeup. ... your acceptance of it is likely driven by the same kind of natural mechanism that makes me choose God over atheism ...”

Oh I see. You can’t imagine my process of critical thought, and since I disagree with you about so many things I can’t be trusted to self-report, so you just assume I do what you do. If that doesn’t work, you switch me over to the “Dawkins” template since he’s another atheist you disagree with. This must be so comforting. How could I possibly compete with that?

Hmm. Now *I’ve* beggared a question.

And I am *not* annoyed by religion. I love religion. I think religion is one of the most important things humankind has ever done. I would defend religion from those who try to denigrate it to mere facts and ignore the glorious and wise message I think it was always intended to be.



>“Pathetic display of bigotry. ... You say you have science on your side, but you don’t know that (you admit to it). According to your belief, I would say ... selfish survival mechanism ... Who cares what Desmond Tutu did? ... actions really matter.”

According to my belief? Apparently I don’t even need to be here for this discussion. Look, I don’t know whose beliefs you’re ascribing to me, but that’s nothing I’ve ever said and not a position I care to defend.

But clearly I’m some kind of outlet for you to externalize your own doubts, so don’t let your straw-man argument slow you down any: you stick with it ‘till you’ve conquered your demons -- it’s good for the soul. I’m happy to oblige.



>“When it comes to understanding the natural world, science is a wonderful power.”

Invisibility is a power, science is a skill. But do go on.

>“My particular religious sect ... among the longest-lived ... pointing to Scripture ... fruits and veggies and nuts ...”

Or the yogurt enemas in Genesis, Chapter 18.

No, no. Just kidding. It struck me as funny. I know it’s not a fair characterization. Comment withdrawn.

>“If we didn’t have to worry about sin and war, we’d be the dominate people group on the planet within a century. But you choose to mock me ... whatever. ... our religious outlook dominates ... science on our side. And science also says that the theory of evolution is unscientific.”

Ooh. You had me up to that last lie. Though I’m not sure I understand the comment about sin and war. Are you saying that the SDA church would be dominant if they didn’t sin and war so much? I would think *other* groups' sins and wars would rocket a virtuous group to dominance that much quicker.

Also, did you ever consider that maybe you guys live longer because God is postponing your arrival in Heaven for as long as possible?

“Oh great: another one. Look, Peter, we get to hear about Ellen White and bran again.”

[splitting the post now for my own ease of topic-following]

 
Jōl
2012-03-31 15:10:05
 

>“In many ways, we both believe in the supernatural anyway. You believe ... singularity that went bang. ... you admit like me that something supernatural... had to occur ... I happen to accept the Bible’s premise ...”

Which is fine, but has nothing to do with science.

The Biblical story of creation could be completely true, but by its very nature is unapproachable by science. And it’s the point I was hinting at with my original question.

In Genesis, we are told, “And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind...” God, being a perfect maker, made trees. Those trees, being trees made by a perfect maker, must have had rings. Rings are a feature of trees, a tree without rings wouldn’t be a real tree, and God was making real trees.

Can we agree on that? (I’m carrying on regardless, but it feels like the place to ask)

If God’s trees were brought forth into being with rings, then they were brought forth into being with a history. I suppose God could have faked the history, but that’s not very perfect, so these trees, though mere milliseconds old, are at the same time old enough to bear fruit. *Actually* old enough to bear fruit, mind you, not fake trees with real fruit.

I was once in a discussion forum where a young-earth creationist was asked something like, ‘if the universe is only thousands of years old, how can we see distant stars when we know that the light would take millions or billions of years to reach us?’ The reply was an analogy to God creating a garden hose with the water already in it on its way to the mouth (mouth? what do you call the business end of a hose?). If that’s right, and I contend that’s exactly what the Bible is telling us, then God is creating light that has a history of millions of years. God wouldn’t try to fool us, so even though he had just created the light and trees, he created them at their appropriate age. There is no disagreement.

And I don’t want you to think I’m trying to render the problem moot or find it frivolous -- I honestly think it’s profound. Accepting the Biblical account of creation as a factual event is a matter of faith. You accept it, for example, and I don’t. That’s fine. That’s religion. But that doesn’t mean that science shouldn’t explore that historical record that God left for us.

Not only did those first trees have rings, they had genes. We can’t look at the genes of those first trees (though I suppose they could have been found unknowingly), but the genes of the trees we have at hand tell us that trees share a common ancestor with other plants. This is a trait they inherited from those trees that God called forth.

For some reason the physical properties of water pose no threat to people who believe Jesus’ miracle of walking on water is literal. Nobody packs the Texas school board to get Home-Ec to teach that sometimes water might be wine. Kids need to be able to understand (godless, atheistic) science and even the most strident literalist is mum when it comes to teaching staves-to-snakes in P.E.

I think it’s because creationists lack imagination. They haven’t found a way to give themselves permission to view creation as an appendix -- a beautiful suspension -- to otherwise well-established natural processes in the same way Jesus’ (and Moses’ -- I’m not conflating) miracles were.

Cut to modern times and you’ve got ScienceAgainstEvolution[dot]com Monday-morning quarterbacking actual research by actual researchers because Do-While Jones is so lazy and unimaginative that he will never be able to produce his own research. He got his hands on a paper that showed support for a more detailed family tree of certain primates than researches had before with some surprising conclusions and immediately starts yelling, “See? See? It’s all bunk! I told you! I told you! Respect my Authoritar! You don’t know me! I’m taking the ball and going home!” When all he really needs to do is get his own training in biology and go write his own papers.

Or just stick to his own field of expertise and poke holes in other (what is it: software design?) software designers’ work.

[brace yourself for another split]

 
Jōl
2012-03-31 15:35:04
 

>“It’s remarkable that a bunch of uneducated camel jockeys in 2000 B.C. came up with such a startling idea instead of adopting the gods they’d been exposed to since religion was, I guess, invented by intelligent but nefarious scientists seeking to control the masses.



>NooooOOOOOooo!!!! HISTORY IS REPEATING ITSELF!!!!!!! >:-(“

Actually, there’s plenty of evidence that says they did adopt the gods they’d been exposed to. Elohim. Tiama. Joseph Campbell says that there is nice numerological synergy (jargon nonsense -- sorry I pulled that word) between the Babylonian forefathers and the Judaic. Your Sumerian roots are showing, Hebrews.

Also: more like fifth century B.C.

But they most likely did have camels, so I have to give you that.



>”I don’t think you know what observed evidence really means. ... it's called neo-Darwinism.”

What? I don’t think I know what observed evidence really means to *you,* but far from “devising” natural selection, Edward Blyth *described* his ‘observed evidence’ and drew his conclusions. Darwin described his own ‘observed evidence’ and drew better conclusions. The fact that you are distracted to the point of confusion over the religion of the scientist making the observations is my own ‘observed evidence’ that you just don’t understand science too well.

>”Yet you people love him anyway. (As I understand it, theories of natural selection have been discovered from ancient Greece.)”

Because Darwin put it together into a useful theory. Darwin undoubtedly stood on the shoulders of giants, but that’s how science works. Neil deGrasse Tyson doesn’t have to go back and reinvent calculus just to talk about orbits -- Newton already did that for him. Now if you’re accusing Darwin of plagiarism -- maybe. Maybe Blyth’s descendants should sue Darwin’s descendants, but it has nothing to do with the observed evidence of common descent. Again, malign Darwin all you want -- maybe he was a pederast schizophrenic who secretly cooked and ate all those finches -- it has nothing to do with his science. And it’s neo-Darwinian evolution because new evidence has been found. It’s what you expect from science. Science is NOT based on the idea that the earliest writing is always perfect...

>”One of these phenomena has actually ... science has already disproved the theory of evolution; one way it has done that is by applying the laws of thermodynamics to it and seeing what happens.”

Apparently, ‘makes the most sense’ means something different to you than it does to me. To me, the one that makes the fewest assumptions and violates the fewest laws of nature (*actual* laws of nature, not made-up ones) makes more sense.



>”I don’t need my religion to cast doubt ... the science does that.”

The science you barely understand? You are probably still clinging to the childish falsehood that evolution happens by chance. Aren’t you? Of course you are:

>”Did you read that article on how plants realize they’re damaged ... You’ll see it didn’t happen by chance ... It just says it happened, kind of like the Bible says, it just happened.”

Okay. Here’s evidence that you’ve read the Bible, but no evidence you’ve ever read word one on biology.

Plants, by the way, realize nothing. That’s personification. It’s a great literary device, but demonstrates gross ignorance when it comes to other species.



>”The data is all over the place, and you really don’t care for me to show you.”

Yawn. That’s *evidence*, not data. See the difference? (I’m carrying on regardless) The evidence is (according to you) everywhere, and yet you refuse to compile a set of explanations and laws into a theory of how it works. That’s what science does, but you’re not really talking about science, are you? You’re talking about some touchy-feely sense that every child has at stuff they don’t really understand.

I work with mentally retarded children; have for decades. I can’t tell you how many (otherwise brilliant) people have said stuff to me along the lines of, ‘clearly [he or she] is operating on a higher plane we don’t even understand.’ Now I would love to believe that -- what a relief! But the evidence for that is extremely weak. More likely is that these individuals are flawed people (just like the rest of us) with serious handicaps most of us don’t have.

>”You seem to be biased to the point of being religious about it.”

Nice. Keep trying.

>”Do you expect me to prove it here? ... you'll just say, "Can't look at that site, it's made by creationists." ... The question is, what theory best puts that data in perspective? I’ve seen time and again that creationism handles the data the best.”

Best in the sense of being the least scientific, relying as it does on infinite energy and an intelligence nobody has any evidence for...



>”I think you started the discussion about “you and me” when you started popping off insults at people who disagree with your beliefs even before the discussion started.”

To be fair, I only incidentally disagree with those people -- they fully deserve to be insulted.

>”Remember, this post is about how the scientific data impinges the evolutionary model of ape DNA yet … it does, because the study itself says it does, not because Do-While says it does … yet it is expected in the creationism model.”

Really? Does it really? Does the paper -- the one you read about primate DNA -- the primary source -- you know, the one where senior author Chris Tyler Smith concludes, “We found that gorillas share many parallel genetic changes with humans including the evolution of our hearing...” -- the one performed by ‘evolutionists’ who remained ‘evolutionists’ even after it was concluded -- the one that found that divergence of gorillas from humans and chimpanzees occurred around ten million years ago -- the one titled “Insights into hominid evolution from the gorilla genome sequence.” -- that paper? -- Does it *really* say itself that it “impinges” the evolutionary model and conforms to the creationism model? That would be weird. You know [dramatic pause], I’m starting to think that you didn’t read it. It would seem that you just skimmed Do-While’s hand-waving brain fart, nodded, and went back to singing your little ‘science is what I say it is’ song.

At the time I’m writing this I cannot get to Do-While Jones’ site. I admit I didn’t read his nonsense very carefully and I don’t waste much brain space on morons talking about stuff they don’t understand (as opposed to otherwise bright and worthwhile individuals talking about stuff they don’t understand -- like here), but I can get to the actual study over at Sanger’s site, and that’s not what it says. You would know that if you looked into it. But you might pick up actual science and we can’t have that. Don’t do it. Don’t read the primary source at any cost. I *dare* you -- no, I *order* you -- not to read it.

~~~ I am sooo scared right now, y’all. ~~~

>”However, you made it about people living in the dark ages who hate science. It doesn’t even seem like you care about the science at all. You haven't addressed it. Why? If you don't know enough about it, maybe you shouldn't burst in the door with guns ablazing.”

Told you: I’m no scientist. But I can read. I recently read a scientific paper titled, “Insights into hominid evolution from the gorilla genome sequence.” It was interesting. Pretty good stuff.

Oh, and hey: you know what it wasn’t? It wasn’t the very demise of the underpinning science of all modern biology.

So why should I address it? The paper doesn’t need my help: those guys seem to know what they’re doing. And surely nobody would come along and just accept what an amateur critic says without reading it and deciding for themselves, right? I mean, nobody would need a filter like ScienceAgainstEvolution[dot]com to form opinions about actual research papers, would they?



>”Can you repeat the question? I’ll answer every one you asked in the previous post directed at me:”

Q: What is the difference between a brick?


A: Oranges don’t have handlebars!

Well now I’m just being silly. It’s as if I’ve lost all interest in your lies and distortions altogether. My disregard is, if anything, more insulting than the insults I was hurling earlier.

>”You accept evolution on faith. ... You know I can’t prove something doesn’t exist! O_o”

Exactly. Which is why a scientific theory of creation, being a more accurate model and is, I’m sure, forthcoming, is called for.

 
 
 
Jōl
2012-04-12 15:50:53
 

> -- Sure you do. There's no evidence for abiogenesis. The facts of biodiversity can be just as easily explained by intelligent creation as it can by evolution (even though there's absolutely no known mechanism by which an amoeba can become a man, despite however many billions of years you give "the process") (no, "random mutation and natural selection" aren't worthy).

Wow. An entire paragraph of nothing but falsehood. Impressive even for you. There is, of course, no way for me to drag you to reason, but I would encourage you to consider the scenarios in which you are correct:

Either...

a) the faculty of every accredited life-sciences school in the world, every medical research center, our nation's military, etc. are run by a cabal of godless atheists (many of whom are churchgoing, believing godless atheists) who are trying to convince the world there is no God by TRAINING PEOPLE in the actual scientific process and then PUBLICLY PUBLISHING science that so clearly violates the very laws they will teach to anyone of any faith that anyone who reads it can see through it immediately, but only those with the love of Jesus are brave enough to say anything.

or...

b) the faculty of every accredited life-sciences school in the world, every medical research center, our nation's military, etc. are run by a cabal of godless atheists (many of whom are churchgoing, believing godless atheists) who are so incurious they can't even understand that the science they have been training in their whole careers is so flawed that it takes a brave group of computer engineers and graduates of various paper mills to show them how easy it all is.

> -- An appeal to the pseudo-science of psychology?! Really?! Wow. OK. So, Schopenhauer "claims" that bit about love and chemicals. Where's the evidence that convinces you, or does it simply require an assertion by someone for whom you *don't* have to take at his word?

I wish you had never (mis)read that webpage on logical fallacies. I am not making an 'appeal' to anything. I am not saying the theory of evolution is true because Arthur Schopenhauer was a pessimistic philosopher or anything of the sort. I was explaining that some of us use REASON when we encounter new ideas rather than running to a prophet for interpretation.

> -- Reread what he said ... It was inevitable that you would reject Christianity. It was inevitable that he would embrace it. Neither is responsible. Neither is better.

Okay. Now reread what I said. I reject that. I reject it completely. We are thinking creatures engaged in mental exercise.

> -- Wrong. Who's to say that God didn't create without using some divine power. Isn't it conceivable that He simply has a lab that allows molecular manipulation, and that He worked in this lab and created life? He created the hardware from available elements (we are, after all, made of stuff we can find anywhere), and then created some software for our brains? Of course it's possible.

Of course. And we can tell that one of His major tools was evolution. And that's why we study evolution. Because there's plenty of evidence for that tool. If, at some future date, a literal laboratory of the type you speculate here is postulated in a scientific way and there is evidence put forth in support of it, then I suppose we could talk about those studies and that theory, but (as I pointed out) at this point in time, it's pure speculation and not scientific.

> -- Big "if." Did Adam have a belly button?

If he didn't then God wasn't creating a man. As his name implies, Adam was a human being. A perfect god would necessarily create a real human being.

> -- As opposed to your voluminous publications...? Let's see... You're actually suggesting that you- as a Monday-morning quarterback yourself- are a much more informed or intelligent MMQB than Do-While Jones, who's had training in engineering and decades of experience in the field? You... read books.

You do realize that Whats-His-Nuts isn't even reading the scientific study, right? He's actually commenting on the article describing the science. Look, the guy might be a lovely individual and awesome at (and still nobody has told me what he actually does -- obviously not HTML or pedagoguery...) engineering whatever, but his arguments about science are just dreadful.

> -- I'm gonna hafta go with Do-While Jones' expertise over yours. But, don't take it personally. Get yourself a college education and some relevant experience, and maybe after you publish your own stack of papers, you might be more believable. But probably not.

Ah, but I'm not here to convince you of anything. I don't care if you're happy rejecting science -- I just think it's cute the excuses you make to avoid using your brain. I work with people who legitimately can't use their brains correctly -- so for a hobby why not reach out to those who just won't?

> -- Blyth was wrong. Darwin was wrong. That's why there's a thing called "Neo-Darwinism." Simple.

Yeah. And that doesn't bother you? The simplicity, I mean. And hey: you should google Blyth. I bet you wouldn't think he was wrong. I think I remember you using a similar argument to his in the past.

> -- No, the new name is because the theory has changed so much. Many of Darwin's ideas have been falsified. In fact, so many that the theory is no longer the original Darwinism of Darwin. But, to pay homage to Darwin, they call it "Neo-Darwinism" *golf clap*

No, the Darwinism is still there. The neo-Darwinism term was coined because Darwin didn't integrate genetics research when he described natural selection.

> -- No, but OTHER sciences haven't changed as much as evolution. Why? (Hint: evolution isn't science. Or, better, it's science badly done. You guys ever heard of the scientific method?!)

That's quite a claim. I think if you looked into it, other sciences have changed as much or more, but you haven't been to as many creationist propaganda sites "debunking" them.

> -- Mutations are by chance. Whenever you have an equation (random mutation + natural selection) that includes a randomization component, the entire equation is random. This is one of those logical truths you learn when you study engineering. So, yes, evolution does happen by chance, or it doesn't happen at all.

My God, you just disproved mathematics! All math is random because some math is random, y'all!

> -- Data is evidence. Evidence is data. Both can be interpreted. You think the better interpretation is evolution, proving you have no background at all in engineering, biology, etc.

Nope. Evidence is evidence. In itself, evidence can sometimes be used to support two entirely different arguments. Part of the scientific process is collecting evidence into a set of data that supports a specific argument.

And I would just like to point out that you aren't insulting me by saying I have no background in biology or engineering. It's laughable. I know. I'm still waiting for you to make your case. Please, please, please illuminate the world (and all those people who DO have a background in biology and engineering who for some reason still don't agree with you) and present your theory of Creation! I'm on your side. I would LOVE to see you topple the world's top scientists! I'm a sucker for an underdog.

> -- You know people. They'll cling to their cherished beliefs, even after the wrench has been lobbed into the cogs.

Except the whole point of presenting a scientific paper is to present a reasoned and logical conclusion. The conclusion presented by this particular paper, it turns out, was NOT, "OMG, y'all, evolutionists are dumb!" If you, Joey, or Do-While would like to point out where it fails, you should do that.

> -- Life on earth came from either 1) an intelligent creator, or 2) another place in the universe. Evidence and logic point to #1, and #2 just gives us an infinite progression of "other places in the universe" (turtles all the way down), and so is useless and unscientific.

> -- Science by proclamation. You are, of course, the very first person in the entire history of the world to ever do that. It's novel.

 
 
 
Jōl
2012-04-13 04:31:21
 

> -- I think we do a disservice to the discussion when we ponder only the hyperbole.

This is just precious. Really. This one's going on the fridge, sport. We are talking about a critique of a scientific study of primate genetics which gives the conclusion, "If Scally and his associates had been creationists instead of evolutionists, they could have learned so much more," but now we can't ponder hyperbole?

Okay. Avoiding hyperbole, let's get to the remainder of your post:

.

.

.

.

.

Hmm. I'm afraid you've put us in a bit of a fix...

 
Jōl
2012-04-17 12:17:31
 

Help me out, I'm having a hard time seeing the point you were making when you posted the following:

ME: Except the whole point of presenting a scientific paper is to present a reasoned and logical conclusion.

YOU: "A new study of cancer research finds almost nine out of 10 studies could not be reproduced." [a link I can't repost]

Seems to me, your faith in the "reasoned and logical conclusions" of scientific papers is, let's say, optimistic. And this is where lives are at stake! Sad when men can't be objective in pursuit of the almighty dollar. Not that they're all bad, but it takes looking at an issue from every side. You should be glad there are people tearing holes in the theory of evolution daily. That's real science, right? ;-)

ME (NOW): Did you think I was saying that every scientific study is 100% accurate? Or do you think that errors and fraud in some studies mean that there is no place for reason or logic in science?

Also, while we're talking about things that make no sense, I've been reading page v16i3f at scienceagainstevolution[sic]org (titled "What I Knew in '62"). You seem to be under the impression that this essay somehow discusses changes in the theory of evolution, but it clearly doesn't. It's just a guy rambling about how misinformed he used to be compared to how misinformed he's trying to make everyone else.

For example:

"In 1962, I was taught that dinosaurs were cold-blooded scaly reptiles that went extinct long before man appeared on the Earth. Now, school children are being taught that dinosaurs were actually warm-blooded feathered birds, some of which coexist with man today."

It's true that school children (the ones with competent teachers, anyway) are being taught today that *some* dinosaurs were feathered, and that their metabolism is not fully understood. Nobody who's looked into the matter calls them birds -- they only point out that birds may be descended from some kind of dinosaur.

Now even if anything ol' Do-While wrote was true (he could have just had a crappy teacher or just misremember what he was taught, after all), what does that have to do with the idea that living creatures share a common ancestor? Where does it contend that fossils don't lay out a clear order in which different species evolved?

"In 1962, I was taught that Neanderthal man evolved into Cro-Magnon man, who evolved into modern man. Neanderthal man went extinct long before modern man evolved. Now, children are told that Neanderthal man not only existed at the same time as modern man, he also had sexual relations (and probably homosexual relations) with modern man."

This one's clearly just a case of poor teaching/bad memory. Nobody ever claimed that Cro-Magnon man evolved into anything -- 'cause he's the same species as us! As for the relationship between Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens, it's still a question of whether they coexisted in a geographical sense, but I can't find any claims that Neanderthals weren't around at the same TIME as Cro-Magnons.

But, again, so what? We know that there were human species that did evolve into other human species, and that some human species weren't alive at the same time as other human species. Let's pretend that Do-While's second claim here also contains accuracy. Getting a clearer picture of human evolution does not mean that the theory of evolution has changed at all.

Let's imagine that the scientists over at the Large Hadron Collider actually discover that instead of F=ma, Newton's second law of motion is more accurately defined as F=m(a⋅0.99999999999999999999999999). Would that mean that Newton's second law of motion was wrong? Yes. Would that mean that there is no such thing as motion? No. Non sequitur -- does not follow. There would simply be a modified second law of motion.

See, the principles of heritability, natural selection, and even evolution are completely solid science. The picture we have of every species that's ever lived in the 4+ billion year history of life on earth is tremendously minuscule (pardon the oxymoron), and there will almost certainly be additions to the picture of the evolutionary tree we have as new species are discovered. It's expected. It is, as a matter of fact, one of the theory of evolution's predictions. But nobody claims that the tree we draw today is complete, so these discoveries (which I predict you and Do-While will hilariously refer to as 'nails in evolution's coffin') are a good thing.

 
Jōl
2012-05-01 09:45:36
 

I've been thinking a lot lately about this statement, C.K.:

"The belly button serves no function, so I have no problem with Adam not having a belly button. However, I don't know if he did. It would not make him less of a man if he did not. :-)"

I have to assume you know better: the belly-button does indeed serve a function. I suppose you're just saying it would serve no function for a man literally created out of mud and that's as far as you got, but I'm AMAZED (just kidding) that you haven't thought this through very carefully.

We could speculate 'till the cows come home over whether Adam (from the Hebrew, meaning mankind -- also kinda sounds like the Hebrew word for dirt -- hmm) had a belly button only if we were prepared to follow the whole line of speculation: Did Adam have nose hairs? wisdom teeth? baby teeth? fingernails? Genesis does not give us a detailed physical description of Adam, of course. Did he have two testicles? Did he have a four-chambered heart? appendix? intestinal cilia? Did Adam have hairy toes? Did he have male-pattern baldness? Did he have DNA?

Ah. Bet you said yes to that one. But why? Why have DNA? My DNA gives me a navel. And by all accounts it's a heritable trait. See, what you're suggesting is that maybe God didn't create Adam as a human being, but rather some other kind of creature -- a proto-human -- who then gave birth to human beings. This seems like a stretch -- or even (gasp) evilution -- and it suggests that Genesis is intentionally misleading.

So did Adam have glands that produced HGH? Did his skull have a closed fontanel? Did he have both an 'X' chromosome and a "Y" chromosome? Because by including any of these things in His creation, God is NECESSARILY creating a history. Since God is perfect and the author of all things, this history has to be real.

And when we combine Adam's very real genetic history with the history God left in the fossil record, we have to assume that God (as envisioned by the Hebrews) is also an evolutionist.

 

Add Your Comment

Login or Signup to post with privileges.
 
Name:
Your Comment:
Leave the box to the right empty. It's a honeypot to catch spam. HAHAHA!
Time to process blocks: 0.61 seconds. / Time to run index.esp: 0.00 seconds. / DB Queries: 49+cache(1)