Show and tell time

Here are a couple of things that have happened to me lately that I thought y’all might get a kick out of.

I don’t get personal mail at work. No letters, no junk mail, no packages, nothing. But yesterday a small package arrived for me. That’s weird, I thought. The first thing I did was look for the return address. There wasn’t one. That’s really weird, I thought. I have to admit to being a bit nervous as I slowly and carefully opened the box. To my relief, the only contents were a book and a typed note. The book was The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel. The note was polite and well intentioned, but unsigned. My mysterious benefactor shouldn’t have wasted the money and effort on sending me the book. I’ve already read it along with several other books of the creationist/intelligent design stripe. I wasn’t impressed with Strobel’s book to say the least.

Creationist/ID apologetics books are just part of the game, and I can understand and live with their existence. But I have a problem with all of Strobel’s books that goes a step beyond just the apologetics. His promotional material plays up the whole “journalist investigates” angle, which I find nauseating. His books are nothing more than butt kissing sessions with his carefully selected lineup of creationist/ID cast of characters. His “I’m a skeptic” crap is nothing short of a blatant lie.

You want some real reporting in a book? Give Monkey Girl by Edward Humes a try. Humes does an outstanding job of examining all the angles of the Dover, Pa. ID trial. And a good way to wash away the awful sliminess I felt when I had read Strobel’s book was to read Carl Zimmer’s Evolution, The Triumph of an Idea.

That’s not my only story. I work for a Sheriff’s Office, and earlier this month one of our helicopters did an amazing emergency landing. Thankfully, no one was injured despite the chopper blowing a turbine in midair and losing power. The local newspaper reports on the incident, of course. Well, the paper’s website has one heck of a lively online community of folks who leave comments on each story. These comments conversations (which for some reason they refer to as blogs) can get explosive, silly and just plain nuts. The helicopter story was no different. Here’s one comment that I thought y’all would enjoy:

Have any of you that blogged last night on the Evolution VS God story that spoke about Brandon Haught from the Sheriff’s office, ever considered that maybe just maybe this happened because GOD WAS ANGRY? He also wanted to show his power by allowing these guys to walk away from this crash with minimal injury! DO YOU THINK IT WAS A LESSON?

Well, do ya, punk? Do ya think it was a lesson?

About Brandon Haught

Communications Director for Florida Citizens for Science.
This entry was posted in Analysis/Commentary. Bookmark the permalink.

146 Responses to Show and tell time

  1. Vinny says:

    My favorite part of Strobel’s schtik is how he pretends to be surprised when the evidence leads to the fundamentalist Chrisitian conclusion as if it had nothing to do with the fact that he only interviews fundamentalist Christians.

  2. Jonathan Smith says:

    Have any of you that blogged last night on the Evolution VS God story that spoke about Brandon Haught from the Sheriff’s office, ever considered that maybe just maybe this happened because GOD WAS ANGRY? He also wanted to show his power by allowing these guys to walk away from this crash with minimal injury! DO YOU THINK IT WAS A LESSON?

    Can you just imagine God sitting up in heaven thinking “How can I show
    the world that I care about all the children who are dying slowly and
    painfully of hunger in Africa” “I know, I will have my image appear on
    a grilled cheese sandwich, that will convince them”
    With that kind of logic in their thinking do we really expect them
    to understand the concepts of evolution?

  3. Rich says:

    Perhaps you and all of your web site visitors should read Dinesh D’Souza’s book “Whats so great about Christianity”.

    He uses science, philosophy, reason and theology to prove there is a God. He and I both agree there is room for both science and theology in the classroom.

    Science above all must keep an open mind and not exclude any theory. Including one that is faith based. Let the student decide which they want to embrace in whole or part.

    This seems reasonable to me. All or none does not.

  4. S.Scott says:

    @ Rich – Why should science teachers teach theology?

  5. firemancarl says:

    WOW Brandon! Didja ever think the impasse that IAFF L-3574 and the SO union have with the county are cause god and jebus are made at you evilutionists??? Huh do ya? Cause if so, i’m even more pissed!

    ( you need a sarcasm emoticon here! )

  6. firemancarl says:

    ExtantDod did a critical analysis of case for a Creator by Strobel, and they fecking level the stupid thing. You really ought to see it. ExtantDod are on youtube and I dont remember if this was one of the ones that a false DMCA was filed against…yep, it was but I recommend watching their Critical Analysis of Evolution vs Creation.

  7. Jonathan Smith says:

    Rich,

    Dinesh D’Souza’s book does not prove their is a God,no one as ever been able to do that,D’Souza is a rambling idiot.
    How can you have a faith based scientific theory?please tell us how you test for the supernatural using natural observations.
    Students are not forced to accept TOE,they just have to learn the facts in the science class room.If they need to study the supernatural they can do that in their places of worship, where it belongs,not in a science claasroom where it does not belong.

  8. PC-Bash says:

    Rich –

    If this book “proves” that there is a god using science, then I think there would be a bit more fanfare, and I wouldn’t just be reading about this comment in this blog.

    Theology and creationism do not belong in the science classroom.

  9. Spirula says:

    Science above all must keep an open mind and not exclude any theory. Including one that is faith based.

    Rich,

    Here’s a definition of faith

    1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one’s promises (2): sincerity of intentions
    2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust
    3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

    Notice 2 a (2).

    See the problem? There’s no such thing as a scientific theory based on faith. You have simply demonstrated you do not know what science really is.

    Perhaps you should read Ernst Mayr’s “What Evolution Is”.

  10. E. Morriss says:

    Jonathan Smith Says:

    January 26th, 2008 at 10:37 am

    [snip]

    Can you just imagine God sitting up in heaven thinking “How can I show
    the world that I care about all the children who are dying slowly and
    painfully of hunger in Africa” “I know, I will have my image appear on
    a grilled cheese sandwich, that will convince them”
    With that kind of logic in their thinking do we really expect them
    to understand the concepts of evolution?

    If we were to use your standard of judgement, we could cite the scientists who have faked, fabricated and doctored “fossils” and lump all scientists in the same group.

    If you are going to plaster all of “them” with the same brush, perhaps all scientists should be considered the same as those who:

    [1] Made the Archaeoraptor hoax
    [2] Nebraska man hoax
    [3] Java man hoax
    [4] Orce man (1982) hoax
    [5] Haekel’s faked embryonic drawings hoax
    [6] Evolution of horses hoax
    [7] Peppered Moth hoax
    [8] Finch evolution hoax
    [9] The Brontosaurus hoax
    [10] The Miller-Urey experiment hoax

    And so on, most still appearing in text books.

    With that kind of fraud in their thinking do we really expect them
    to be honest about evolution?

  11. firemancarl says:

    E. Morris, other than your crazy assed ad hoc , non sequitur , straw man…I find fault with your post.

    Lets see. As a straw man against evolution you point out all of the “hoaxes” you can find or think of. You do know dont you that these were all outed by scientists who do research and found that these claims were false. they were not made in any way shape or form by religious persons. I dunno how you say that Haekels drawings were a hoax. It was pointed out in the 1920s(?) that his drawings were not acurate and have since been shown to false and correct illustrations have been used.

    Why is #8 a hoax? or #7 or any of them for that matter?

    It’s obvious that you don’t know science.

  12. PC-Bash says:

    Easy. If it violates a book written thousands of years ago that was based on an oral tradition for hundreds of years before it was written, then it obviously must be a hoax. Because, what was written was absolute truth, not metaphor. Anything that violates this “truth”, such as facts, are hoaxes. 😉

    Oh, and this is what we should be teaching our kids. Don’t go looking for the truth, because it only exists in a fairy tale written thousands of years ago, when people did not know about bacteria, the earth revolving around the sun, or other hoaxes. 😉

  13. Jonathan Smith says:

    E. Morriss
    Was it hard work cutting and pasting those ten objections from some creationist rantings? Please tell us more of your “And so on, most still appearing in text books” and please show us the modern text books that contain these falsehoods.
    Being dishonest is the “stock in trade” of the religious,they profess to know
    things that no one could ever possible know, all without a shadow of evidence.

  14. E. Morriss says:

    firemancarl Says:

    January 28th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
    E. Morris, other than your crazy assed ad hoc , non sequitur , straw man…I find fault with your post.

    “Lets see. As a straw man against evolution you point out all of the “hoaxes” you can find or think of.”

    All of you missed the point. I am not surprised the point whizzed right over your collective heads. That list was not offered as an argument against evolution. In fact, I never wrote word one for or against evolution.

    The point is Mr Smith’s strawman of Gods image on a grilled cheese sandwich is reason to paint all creationists with the same brush (“do we really expect *them* to understand…”), so it must be fair to paint all scientists (or more accurately scientists who believe in evolution since not all do) with the same brush due to the hoaxes perpetrated by some scientists.

    If the real point escapes you, I can’t help you.

    “You do know dont you that these were all outed by scientists who do research and found that these claims were false. they were not made in any way shape or form by religious persons.”

    Yes, I know that, and I never said in any way, shape or form that they were from religious people.

    “I dunno how you say that Haekels drawings were a hoax.”

    Would it be more palatable if I said fraud? Steven J Gould: “Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases–in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent –simply copied the same figure over and over again.” (note to Mr Smith: that was not a copy and paste from some creationist rantings)

    “It was pointed out in the 1920s(?) that his drawings were not acurate and have since been shown to false and correct illustrations have been used.”

    Not accurate? He intentionally lied. He wasn’t sloppy or careless or misinformed. He lied, period.

    Where has your head been buried?

    Molecular Biology of the Cell (1994): “embryos of different species so often resemble each other in their early stages and, as they develop, seem sometimes to replay the steps of evolution.” Yes, Haeckels fraudulent drawings are in the textbook 70 years after your lie claiming they are no longer used.

    1999 edition of Raven and Johnson’s textbook, ‘Biology’ has a colorized version of Haeckels drawings with the caption: “Notice that the early embryonic stages of these vertebrates bear a striking resemblance to each other.” Elsewhere the text book explains: “Some of the strongest anatomical evidence supporting evolution comes from comparisons of how organisms develop. In many cases, the evolutionary history of an organism can be seen to unfold during its development, with the embryo exhibiting characteristics of the embryos of its ancestors.”

    Stephen Jay Gould: “… it has fascinated me ever since the New York City public schools taught me Haeckel’s doctrine, that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, ***fifty years*** after it had been abandoned by science.” [emphasis added]

    Text books have been using them at least up to 2004. I haven’t checked beyond that year.

    Do you still want to tell the lie that the Haeckel drawings haven’t been used in text books since the 20’s?

    Why is #8 a hoax? or #7 or any of them for that matter?

    I’ll admit [9] probably does not belong there, but what would you call the rest? Mistakes? Best effort at the time?

    “It’s obvious that you don’t know science.”

    You actually think Haeckels drawings haven’t been used since the 20’s and you expect me to believe you do?

    PC-Bash Says:
    January 28th, 2008 at 8:20 pm

    Nothing worthy of comment.

    Jonathan Smith Says:
    January 28th, 2008 at 8:52 pm

    E. Morriss
    “Was it hard work cutting and pasting those ten objections from some creationist rantings? Please tell us more of your “And so on, most still appearing in text books” and please show us the modern text books that contain these falsehoods.”

    See above. Google is your friend, as is the public library and numerous goverment sources if you aren’t too lazy to find out. On second thought, you will no doubt claim that not providing an answer proves I am lying, so I will bite and give you one or two more examples other than the above examples:

    2004: Biology: Patterns and Processes of Life (J.M.Lebel, 2004)

    2002: Peter H Raven & George B Johnson, Biology (6th ed, McGraw Hill, 2002)

    2001: Michael Padilla et al., Focus on Life Science: California Edition (Prentice Hall, 2001)

    1998: Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (3rd ed, Sinauer, 1998)

    “Being dishonest is the “stock in trade” of the religious,they profess to know
    things that no one could ever possible know, all without a shadow of evidence.”

    Like scientists “know” things that no one could ever know with nothing but shadows for evidence?

    You are here ranting about keeping science in the classroom and you guys are at least 80 years behind on having a clue about what science IS being taught in the classroom.

  15. firemancarl says:

    yes, Haeckels drawings are still used, but they are not given any merit

    from PZ Myers pharygula blog http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/11/once_more_into_the_haeckelian.php

    What we have there in my list is a century of biologists clearly and unambiguously stating that the biogenetic law of Haeckel is invalid. Many of them bring up the methodological flaws in Haeckel’s work, as well. You do not get to complain that evolution is founded on Haeckel and has been hiding the errors in Haeckel’s work when the biologists have been doing no such thing. Over and over again, eminent biologists beyond that list, including people like Roux and TH Morgan and Haldane, have squashed the theory flat, and still ignorant creationists whine that they have not done enough.

    the explanatory theory of Haeckel has been falsified and long rejected. One reason it continues to be brought up, however, is that the data, the body of evidence that reveals similarity in organization of vertebrate embryos, is still intact. This is distinct from the theory of embryonic recapitulation, in which Haeckel suggested that the similarity was a consequence of a pattern of evolutionary change that was incorrect. But the similarities are still there!

    YOU offered no proof as to why you say that that the finches were a hoax nor the peppered moth.

  16. firemancarl says:

    I suggest you do a little reading from biologists who know what claims have been faked, how they were outed and why they get used.

  17. firemancarl says:

    Con’t from pharyngula

    “The textbooks have not promoted Haeckelian recapitulation, the outdated theory explaining those observations, for many years. Developmental and evolutionary biologists have been quite clear: the theory is wrong. The data is not.”

    “I know the creationists are infatuated with Haeckel, but get over it, please. It’s an obsolete theory that was proposed about 140 years ago, was discarded in the 19th century, and is only mentioned to dismiss it in modern textbooks”

  18. firemancarl says:

    here’s a little more, and I don’t mind cutting and pasting
    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/06/return_of_the_son_of_the_bride.php

    “So why does the infamous diagram still linger?

    Conservatism. It’s amazing how much stuff lingers on for edition after edition in biology textbooks. They’re huge, they’re a lot of work, and new editions are in no way rewrites—the team of authors polish up and refine scattered bits, and maybe add a new chapter or two (it’s always “add”, it seems—they grow and grow, year after year.) For a classic example of this phenomenon, read Gould’s “The Case of the Creeping Fox Terrier,” which you can find in the collection “Bully for Brontosaurus”; somehow, most textbooks ended up describing early horse ancestors as being “the size of a fox terrier”.

    Specialization. Biology is an immense discipline, and there is a dearth of generalists, of necessity. Darn few of the big textbook authors are developmental biologists, too…so the sections on development don’t usually get the same yearly reexamination that the other sections do. Also, if the Haeckel diagrams are there, they’re in the evolution chapter—and evo-devo experts are even rarer on textbook author bylines.

    Historicity. Most textbooks that retain any mention of Haeckel do so because, like him or not, he was a very significant figure in 19th century biology. They keep him in as a symbol of our discipline’s history. The DI shouldn’t complain about that; they seem to be fascinated with him, churning out more stuff about Haeckel than all of the textbooks they complain so bitterly about.

    Accuracy. Here’s something the DI never brings up: the image that is used in those textbooks? It’s not the one that Haeckel was accused of faking! It’s clearly been, to put it most charitably, drawn to serve Haeckel’s interpretations — extraembryonic membranes have been removed, for instance , and there are other signs that he emphasized what he thought was important and diminished what he thought wasn’t — but otherwise, it illustrates a real point: vertebrate embryos at the pharyngula stage resemble one another. There are better illustrations out there now, but remember that first point up there—textbook publishers and authors are conservative.

    Science. This is one the DI always dodges. The books, even those few that still cling to the old diagram, do not argue for Haeckelian recapitulation. They argue against it. What you’ll usually see is a counterproposal, that the way to explain the similarities is by von Baerian recapitulation, which is a completely different matter. Von Baer argued that the cause of the resemblance is that early embryos express the most common, general morphological underpinnings of the phylum, and that development is a process of adding specializations to that general form. It is therefore to be expected that all members of a phylum will all have embryos with greater similiarity, because the unique features that distinguish the species haven’t been formed yet.”

  19. firemancarl says:

    E Morriss, may I suggest you watch these two videos. They go over the finches and the peppered moth. I think you will find them enlightening and I hope they can change your mind

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGND4bEOtS8 part1

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuVDB1Zxuc8n part deux

    Part one soend extensive time on Dr Kettelwells peppered moths

    enjoy!

  20. PC-Bash says:

    E. Morriss –

    Please provide me with a paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that supports your claims that ID is a valid theory.

  21. E. Morriss says:

    firemancarl Says:

    January 30th, 2008

    “What we have there in my list is a century of biologists clearly and unambiguously stating that the biogenetic law of Haeckel is invalid.”

    Did I claim biologists have not stated the biogenetic law of Haeckel is invalid? No. I said Haeckels drawings are still being used in modern textbooks (far beyond your false claim of their removal after the 1920’s) without making any claim of biologists being at fault. Some of those books, and I quoted one of them which you ignored, *still* claim “In many cases, the evolutionary history of an organism can be seen to unfold during its development, with the embryo exhibiting characteristics of the embryos of its ancestors.”

    “You do not get to complain that evolution is founded on Haeckel”

    That is a lie, I did not say that.

    …”and has been hiding the errors in Haeckel’s work when the biologists have been doing no such thing.”

    Another lie, show me where I stated such a thing. I didn’t. This is just another invention of yours. Perhaps this is where I should invoke the logic of Mr. Smith to make the statement “Being dishonest is the “stock in trade” of the evolutionist”.

    “the explanatory theory of Haeckel has been falsified and long rejected. One reason it continues to be brought up, however, is that the data, the body of evidence that reveals similarity in organization of vertebrate embryos, is still intact.”

    Another reason it continues to be brought up is it is still being taught in schools and universities (see quote from Gould).

    Professor Douglas Futuyma admitted in 2000 that he was not aware of Haeckels fraud. This was 2 years after he published his textbook in 1998 (is that modern enough?) mentioned in the previous post using Haeckels drawings. That, and other contemporary examples flatly squashes the false claim that it “is only mentioned to dismiss it in modern textbooks”. Most of the texbooks using Haeckels drawings, or nicely doctored versions, do not mention Haeckel OR the fact the drawings are false.

    Where do you think Dr. Futuyma learned about Haeckels drawings? Was he corrected by his colleages in the scientific community? No, he heard through the grapevine 2 years later about a blog making fun of his use of the drawings.

    He got a PhD (well after the 1920’s) without ever knowing Haeckels drawings were false. I am not putting Dr Futuyma down, I am pointing out that modern education is STILL teaching the wrong science in spite of your repeated false claims it is not happening.

    And you wonder why you still hear about it.

    “This is distinct from the theory of embryonic recapitulation, in which Haeckel suggested that the similarity was a consequence of a pattern of evolutionary change that was incorrect. But the similarities are still there!”

    Are you saying Gould lied when he said he was taught ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny in public school 50 years after biologists “squashed the theory flat”? It is distinct, but what is being taught frequently in schools is not so distinct.

    The link you provide:

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/06/return_of_the_son_of_the_bride.php

    Shows drawings of embryo’s from Raven & Johnson’s Biology, 5th edition, and has the comment:

    “That isn’t drawn from Haeckel, but from contemporary specimens. I like it—it highlights key similarities well.”

    Gill slits? In a modern textbook?

    Neither the reptile or any mammal have gills OR slits at any stage during their development, nor do any parts of the pharyngeal arches (pouches) in reptiles and humans develop into ANY part of their respiratory system.

    Continuing to label the pharyngeal arches “gill slits” is a lie that servers no other purpose than to perpetuate the the wrong assumptions of those such as Agassiz, Haeckel and more recently the likes of Dr. Spock, no matter how much sugar you wish to pour over it.

    Humans do not have tails. Calling this a tail during the growth of a human embryo is ludicrous. That drawing, the labels and text IS a re-hack of ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.

    “YOU offered no proof as to why you say that that the finches were a hoax nor the peppered moth.”

    Kettlewell released the moths during the day. The moths are night flyers. Numerous non-creationist researchers have pointed out this incredible blunder.

    They also point out:

    -He released large numbers of moths in a small area, which grossly exaggerated the predation.

    -Bats, not the birds active in daylight hours, are the primary predator of peppered moths.

    -The peppered moths being torpid in daylight tend to land quickly when released and remain where they land, which is almost always in an atypical location.

    -The moths will seek out better resting places (camouflage) very quickly when they are active. Kettlewell did not consider that a large number of melanic moths might have left the release area in the non-polluted test forest in search of protection, and thus many may not have been available for recapture. The same possibility exists for the lighter colored moths released in the polluted areas.

    -He dismissed the fact that other non-polluted areas had majority melanic populations up to 90%, claiming the south westerly winds carried pollution to those areas. To bad at least one of those areas was southeast of any industrial area and had not experienced darkening of the tree trunks nor reduction of lichens.

    -He ignored the fact that melanic populations increased in some areas before lichens returned to the tree trunks.

    Most textbooks, if any, today do not mention these problems or the objections of his colleagues.

    The Finches.

    The population of each type of Finch varied as their natural food supply was affected by weather. No surpise or argument there.

    The NAS says: “Textbooks present the finch data to illustrate natural selection: that populations change their physical features in response to changes in the environment.”

    The wording strongly suggests the population with beak features not well suited for survival during dry periods explicitly produced offspring with beak features better suited for survival in dry periods. That is not what happened.

    A change in food supply resulted in lowered survival rates of some finches(i.e. those less able or unable to eat larger, harder seeds), not a purposeful genetic change. When the food supply returned to normal, the finch populations that were reduced returned to normal.

    The videos:

    Not impressed. I am not surprised they complain about ad hominem attacks while engaging in ad hominem attacks. I didn’t watch the second video.

    The film completely fails to mention the numerous evolutionist biologists that called Kettlewells methods and so-called facts flawed, and who made the points I mentioned above.

    So much for honesty and objectivity in science.

    By the way, I have not yet confirmed the assertion that Kettlewells field notes have never been peer reviewed because they disappeared. Anyone have more info?

    *****************************

    PC-Bash Says:

    January 30th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
    E. Morriss –

    “Please provide me with a paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that supports your claims that ID is a valid theory.”

    First, show me where I made the claim that “ID is a valid theory”. You guys really like to invent things I never wrote. What is next: “prove your claim creation science is a science”?

    Why dont you reply to my actual words instead of attempting to invent lies about what I did not say?

    Nice try dude, but your attempt is so obvious and lame it is pathetic. What are the possible implications of your question?

    Of course peer-reviewed scientific journals of all kinds would welcome such articles.
    Such an article has never been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
    Since such an article has never been published, no one has ever written such a paper.
    Therefore no one believes in ID as a valid theory.

    I know bovine excrement when I see it.

    PC- prove to me that all peer-reviewed scientific journals will cheerfully accept and publish any paper *openly* supporting ID. Once you can do that, you will get what you asked for.

    It is well known they refuse to do so.

  22. PC-Bash says:

    E. Morriss –

    First, show me where I made the claim that “ID is a valid theory”. You guys really like to invent things I never wrote. What is next: “prove your claim creation science is a science”?

    Well, the majority of the arguments that you bring up are only found in the creationist camp, in fact several of them date back to the Scopes Monkey Trial. So, I just assumed that if you want to argue like a creationist, then you most likely are a creationist.

    So, am I to understand that you are claiming that ID is not a valid theory, then?

    PC- prove to me that all peer-reviewed scientific journals will cheerfully accept and publish any paper *openly* supporting ID.

    and

    It is well known they refuse to do so.

    So, are you telling me that there is some sort of conspiracy in the science community to keep ID down? That’s pretty telling of your true motivations here. Occam’s razor slices right through your implication. Which is more likely, that there is a conspiracy to keep a valid theory from being published, or that the theory does not merit being published, because it is pure rubbish? A rational man would contend that the latter is more likely. Conspiracy theories are the sign of two things: an untenable position, or insanity. Which do you suffer from?

    I’ll make two statements here, and you are willing to either agree with them or provide some valid points to argue against them. First, Creationism and Intelligent Design are junk theories. Second, there are no other alternate theories presented to explain biology that works as well as or better than evolution.

    So, pony up. Either defend ID / Creationism, or give me a valid theory that is more accurate than evolution. This is how science works, so show that you know something about it.

  23. PC-Bash says:

    E. Morriss –

    Humans do not have tails. Calling this a tail during the growth of a human embryo is ludicrous. That drawing, the labels and text IS a re-hack of ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.

    Really, so are you claiming that humans are never born with tails? How do you explain documented cases of humans born with tails, including humans born with tails that include bone and cartilage tissue?

    I know bovine excrement when I see it.

    Yes, I see you are well experienced in the art of bullshit. 😉

  24. E. Morriss says:

    PC-Bash Says:

    January 31st, 2008 at 7:48 pm
    E. Morriss –

    >First, show me where I made the claim that “ID is a valid theory”. You guys really like >to invent things I never wrote. What is next: “prove your claim creation science is a >science”?

    “Well, the majority of the arguments that you bring up are only found in the creationist camp, in fact several of them date back to the Scopes Monkey Trial. So, I just assumed that if you want to argue like a creationist, then you most likely are a creationist.”

    Which is a huge leap from stating that I made a claim. The Scopes trial, where evolutionists offered the following “facts”:

    -Human embryo’s have gill slits [but they dont]
    -Horse evolution proves evolution, [but the horse evolution presented at the time was found to be completely wrong and has since been abandoned]
    -The human appendix is a vestigial organ [now known to be false]

    Who knows what else, I haven’t read the entire thing.

    “So, am I to understand that you are claiming that ID is not a valid theory, then?”

    Understand or assume? I didnt bring up ID, you did, but at least you finally asked a question instead of falsely stating I made this or that claim, but the question is off topic from my original post.

    >PC- prove to me that all peer-reviewed scientific journals will cheerfully accept and >publish any paper *openly* supporting ID.

    “So, are you telling me that there is some sort of conspiracy in the science community…”

    Define “the science community”.

    “to keep ID down? That’s pretty telling of your true motivations here.”

    Nice, ask me a question, then answer it for me. You guys are something else. First you specified “peer-reviewed scientific journals”, then expand that to some undefined entity you call “the science community”.

    It is not a conspiracy, it is a well documented fact that peer-reviewed scientific journals recognized by evolutionists will not accept papers from any scientist who is known or suspected to be a creationist, no matter how well credentialed, even if the paper does not mention creation, ID or evolution. Some executives of those journals have made public statements to that effect.

    “Occam’s razor slices right through your implication.”

    You mean the implication you created and then attributed to me?

    “Which is more likely, that there is a conspiracy to keep a valid theory from being published, or that the theory does not merit being published, because it is pure rubbish?”

    Neither. (dontcha hate it when someone does not accept your questions?) What is most likely is that evolutionists will tightly grasp their preconceptions and biases like a favorite blanky.

    “Conspiracy theories are the sign of two things: an untenable position, or insanity.”

    False to fact. That can apply to *some* conspiracy theories, but the brush you use is far too large, but then you guys seem to enjoy that kind of thing.

    “Which do you suffer from?”

    Fantastic. What’s next, “do you still beat your wife?”

    “I’ll make two statements here,…”

    You have made more than 2 and then claimed they were mine.

    “…and you are willing to either agree with them or provide some valid points to argue against them.”

    Is that an order?

    “First, Creationism and Intelligent Design are junk theories.”

    That is your opinion. Besides, you (evolutionists) have already decided that neither can be a theory at all, therefore according to evolutionists they can be neither junk or valid theories.

    “Second, there are no other alternate theories presented to explain biology that works as well as or better than evolution.”

    Thats funny. Since when does explaining biology depend on evolution? Photosynthesis can be explained and understood without any knowledge of evolution. Does a doctor need any knowledge of evolution to understand and explain blood clotting? Your assertion is ridiculous.

    “So, pony up. Either defend ID / Creationism, or give me a valid theory that is more accurate than evolution.”

    Well, which part of evolution? Microevolution occurs and is observable, no doubt there. Macroevolution, in terms of (i.e.) a reptile evolving into a bird is not observable, and has not been proven to have happened.

  25. PC-Bash says:

    Which is a huge leap from stating that I made a claim. The Scopes trial, where evolutionists offered the following “facts”: (strawman removed)

    Who knows what else, I haven’t read the entire thing.

    Yes. That’s a lot of your problem. You haven’t read a lot of things, and what you do read you cherry-pick for ridiculous arguments against evolution.

    You continually pull up things that are from the past, that science has long since moved from. You have yet to mention genetics, how we can trace genes and mitochondrial DNA from one species to another. You continue to claim that there is no evidence of evolution, and you continue this bullshit argument of splitting hairs between “micro-” and “macro-” evolution. Either animals evolve or they don’t. You can’t acknowledge one without the other. Is there some point in which animals stop evolving? As for fossil evidence, how do you explain fossils found by anthropologists, fossils that are neither human nor “ape”, but fall somewhere in between? Fossils that share common characteristics between both species? Is this just something put there to test your faith that evolution is wrong?

    It is not a conspiracy, it is a well documented fact that peer-reviewed scientific journals recognized by evolutionists will not accept papers from any scientist who is known or suspected to be a creationist, no matter how well credentialed, even if the paper does not mention creation, ID or evolution. Some executives of those journals have made public statements to that effect.

    Yes. Conspiracy. They have medication for that. Instead of claiming that there’s documentation for this, why don’t you provide a link? There have been many papers published that are critical of certain assumptions made about evolution over the years, that has helped us to better understand how evolution and natural selection works. Some of these papers were even (*gasp*) critical of evolution. Yet, you obviously haven’t read any of these papers, or your ridiculous and ancient arguments that supposedly “poke holes” in evolution would be retracted. It’s asinine to believe that there is a conspiracy to keep evolution on the books. Science changes, and if there was something that better explained the natural phenomena that we see, then it would be embraced. The problem is that most creationists scientists who attempt to publish “papers” to discredit evolution are only capable of writing incoherent rants
    which have no scientific merit. I have read some of these “papers”, and they are quite laughable. Most of these creationists can’t even go without quoting from a mythical book written thousands of years ago long enough to actually make a point. Generally, the point is something along the lines of “it’s obvious that God, err, I mean an Intelligent Designer created life because the bible supports this.” Of course no one is going to publish rubbish like this.

    What is most likely is that evolutionists will tightly grasp their preconceptions and biases like a favorite blanky.

    You would like to believe so, because you understand the need to grasp at preconceptions. That’s where you are arguing from “evolution is wrong, I just know it”. I always find it interesting that modern scientists are being painted as theologists just because they won’t accept a theory based on theology, and the people who try to point this out support a theistic theory. Kind of ironic, huh?

    That can apply to *some* conspiracy theories, but the brush you use is far too large, but then you guys seem to enjoy that kind of thing.

    Oh… I see. Now it all makes sense… Your conspiracy theory is valid. *snort*

    Your conspiracy theory is nothing more than grasping at straws. “I know I’m right, but it’s all of those big bad scientists that are wrong. They won’t even let people who believe what I believe to publish their rants in their stupid clubs.” You’re not the one who’s crazy, it’s the whole herd, right?

    Yet, evolutionists are the ones holding onto a comfy blankey? Your blanket is the belief that you are right, and you don’t ever have to prove it because there’s a conspiracy to keep you from having to prove it. How lovely.

    That is your opinion. Besides, you (evolutionists) have already decided that neither can be a theory at all, therefore according to evolutionists they can be neither junk or valid theories.

    If you don’t believe this to be true, then why don’t you come out and defend creationism? I’m asking you point-blank. Do you believe in ID, or don’t you?

    Since when does explaining biology depend on evolution?

    Let’s start with modern medicine. When new pharmaceuticals are being tested, we must find animals that we can test these pharmaceuticals on. We know that rats have certain genetic characteristics that link them to humans, because there was a common ancestor that links the two together through evolution. Therefore, we know that the organs of a rat bear enough similarity to that of a human to work as a first-round test for drugs that will eventually be given to a human. If rats and humans did not evolve from a common ancestor, then these tests would be meaningless.

    Our understanding of protein folding and of viruses and bacterial infections that are passed between species (e.g. bird flu) hinges on our understanding of how these species are similar, which hinges on evolution.

    Our understanding of various human illnesses, including but not limited to genetic disorders, is based at least in part on evolution.

    Our modern categorization of species is determined by genetic tests which we use to link one species to another through a common ancestor. This would not work at all unless there was — wait for it — evolution.

    I can go on.

    Well, which part of evolution?

    It is an all or nothing proposition. Your terms “micro-” and “macro-” evolution are inventions of the ID camp. Using them makes you sound like a creationist, even if you continue to claim that you are not. There is and can be no distinction between the two. Either animals evolve or they don’t. If they evolve, then over time they will continue to evolve. When two groups of the same species no longer inter-breed, then a new species has been created. You might want to look up the scientific definition of “species” before you attempt to argue this one.

    You are throwing stones at evolution from behind a large rock. You make ridiculous arguments that would only sound like good arguments to someone who has not studied modern biology. I’m asking you to tell me which of these “alternate” theories that you think we should replace evolution with are valid?

    Macroevolution, in terms of (i.e.) a reptile evolving into a bird is not observable, and has not been proven to have happened.

    Ah, yes. The classic creationist argument. Since we can’t see it in day-to-day life, it must be wrong, right? After all, animals don’t just spontaneously evolve into other animals… do they?

    If life doesn’t evolve, then why do I have to get a flu shot every year? Why has the influenza virus continued to evolve, it is far passed your creationist “micro-evolution” stage. The CDC has maintained each year’s virus since the epidemic in 1912. With our current understanding of genetics, we are able to see how this virus evolves. You can continue to chuck stones at evolution, but if the flu evolves, then so does everything else. It’s not on the “micro-” scale either.

    If life doesn’t evolve, then why is it that animals that live in caves will eventually lose their eyes? Is there some sort of angel in the cave that helps this process along? Or did they never have eyes, just the vestigial remnants. That’s more than a creationist “micro-adaptation”.

    Maybe you should take the time to read this. Wait, it could be another conspiracy for you.
    http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html

  26. E. Morriss says:

    PC-Bash Says:

    February 1st, 2008 at 9:01 am

    [E.Morriss]: Well, which part of evolution?

    “It is an all or nothing proposition. Your terms “micro-” and “macro-” evolution are inventions of the ID camp.

    Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahaha!

    Holy Cow, what in the hell have you been reading Mr “Ah node sumpin bout sayence”?

    The terms macroevolution and microevolution were first coined in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iuri’i Filipchenko (or Philipchenko, depending on the transliteration), in his German-language work Variabilität und Variation, which was an early attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics and evolution. Filipchenko was an evolutionist, but as he wrote during the period when Mendelism seemed to have made Darwinism redundant, the so-called “eclipse of Darwinism” (Bowler 1983), he was not a Darwinian, but an orthogeneticist (he believed evolution had a direction).

    The term was revived by a number of mainly paleontological authors such as Steven Stanley (1979), Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, the authors of punctuated equilibrium theory (see Eldredge 1995), who argued that something other than within-species processes are causing macroevolution, although they disavow the view that evolution is progressive.

    “Using them makes you sound like a creationist, even if you continue to claim that you are not.”

    The late Mr Gould must be spinning in his grave right now. And once again you attribute a claim to me that I have not made. I know most evolutionists are not this stupid and dishonest so I will resist the urge to paint all of them with Mr Smith’s 8 foot wide brush.

    After reading that part, I didn’t see any point in responding to the rest. Now my sides are hurting and I have to go pee.

    P.S. If you want a link to the bit of history I found for you, put down the funny papers and get off your lazy butt and Google for macroevolution, it will be on the first page of search results that comes up. You will no doubt be ecstatic to know that came from an evolutionist web site.

  27. PC-Bash says:

    Besides, you (evolutionists) have already decided that neither can be a theory at all, therefore according to evolutionists they can be neither junk or valid theories.

    I’d like to expand on this point too. Science requires that a theory must be capable of being verified or falsified. ID “theory” cannot be falsified, because it embraces a “supernatural theistic designer” which cannot be observed. We cannot prove the non-existence of something supernatural, therefore ID “theory” cannot be falsified, therefore, by definition, it is not a valid scientific theory. Conjecture about something which cannot be observed or disproved is faith, not science.

    If you spent more time studying science and less time trying to chuck rocks at evolution, you would grasp this plainly. I believe I was taught this requirement of a scientific theory in fourth grade science class, but maybe it was fifth or sixth grade.

  28. PC-Bash says:

    After reading that part, I didn’t see any point in responding to the rest. Now my sides are hurting and I have to go pee.

    …or you don’t feel like arguing the rest of my post. How quaint. I’m just going to assume that if you refuse to answer any of my other questions, then you cannot answer them.

    Regarding “micro-” and “macro-” evolution, I was oversimplifying, of course. No one uses these terms anymore except for creationists. The current definitions that these terms have are largely invented and misconstrued by the creationists.

  29. PC-Bash says:

    …and to head off another sophist re-direct let me expand on my previous comment.

    The definitions and arguments used by creationists in the context of splitting evolution between “micro-” and “macro-” evolution are an invention of the creationists alone. The split between the two, in the creationists arguments, are highly arbitrary.

    So, to be fair, I will let you define “micro-” and “macro-” evolution in the context of your argument. So far, you have only eluded to the definiton of either. For instance, you paint macro-evolution “in terms of (i.e.) a reptile evolving into a bird is not observable” Please define macro-evolution and micro-evolution for me. Be specific and be precise.

  30. E. Morriss says:

    PC-Bash Says:

    February 1st, 2008 at 10:11 am

    Regarding “micro-” and “macro-” evolution, I was oversimplifying, of course.

    Liar. You wrote: “Your terms “micro-” and “macro-” evolution ***are inventions of the ID camp***.”

    Also note:

    [Quote]

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html#concept
    September 23, 2006

    “Antievolutionists argue against macroevolution so loudly that some people think they invented the term in order to dismiss evolution. But this is not true; scientists not only use the terms, they have an elaborate set of models and ideas about it, which of course antievolutionists gloss over or treat as being somehow problems for evolutionary biology.”

    Is you face getting red and flushed yet?

    “No one uses these terms anymore except for creationists.”

    Really? Maybe you should contact talkorigins and tell em they are full of it. Well what the heck, maybe they are wrong so lets look at some other sources to see if you are right. BTW, why, and exactly when did “the scientific community” abandon those terms?

    Mark Ridley, Evolution (2004: 227) defines the terms thus:

    Macroevolution means evolution on the grand scale, and it is mainly studied in the fossil record. It is contrasted with microevolution, the study of evolution over short time periods, such as that of a human lifetime or less. Microevolution therefore refers to changes in gene frequency within a population …. Macroevolutionary events events are much more likely to take millions of years. Macroevolution refers to things like the trends in horse evolution … or the origin of major groups, or mass extinctions, or the Cambrian explosion …. Speciation is the traditional dividing line between micro- and macroevolution.

    Was it after 2004?

    Wainwright, P. C. Functional versus morphological diversity in macroevolution. 2007. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution & Systematics. 38:381-401.

    Was it after 2007? (that does not leave you much time)

    http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/paleonet/paleo21/mevolution.html
    Macroevolution in the 21st Century
    David Jablonski, Michael J. Benton, Robert A. Gastaldo, Charles R. Marshall, and J. John Sepkoski, Jr.

    Wow, 21st Century, that is pretty recent. Maybe you should contact David Jablonski, Michael J. Benton, Robert A. Gastaldo, Charles R. Marshall, and J. John Sepkoski, Jr., Wainwright, P. C., and Mark Ridley and tell em they are full of it too.

    “The current definitions that these terms have are largely invented and misconstrued by the creationists.”

    What were you saying about a conspiracy theory?

  31. PC-Bash says:

    Even if you disagree with what I said about micro- versus macro- evolution, I assume you must agree with everything else I said, since you are only attacking this point.

    What about the rest of my comments that you have ignored?

  32. PC-Bash says:

    Also, it’s just a tad bit childish to call me a “liar”. 😉

  33. Peter Smyth says:

    PC-Bash –

    You are overly enthusiastic, but your understanding here may be flawed. Those terms do exist, although creationists like to twist these in pseudo-intellectual debate to discredit evolution. The terms in themselves are not wrong, the wrongness is how these terms are used to discredit evolution. The belief is that microevolution is observed, but macroevolution is not observed. As you will see in my comment here, that simply is not the case.

    Just to clarify on definitions here, I’ll give a definition for both terms.

    A species is a group of living things that breed.
    Microevolution are changes that happen within a species.
    Macroevolution is a change or a number of changes that lead to one species being split into two species.

    The former type of evolution is very easy to find in nature. There are copious examples, and even those who make a futile argument against evolution concede that these changes occur.

    The latter type of evolution, evolution that leads to one species being split into multiple species, is more difficult to find. However, these exist. Remember the definition of species above, which is a group of living things that breed. To qualify as macroevolution, it is only necessary to find an example of a change that leads to two groups of living things that no longer inter-breed. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the two groups are incapable of producing a child if they breed, but rather that they do not breed, either through mate selection (e.g. females are not receptive to males with a certain feather plumage), or through genetic incompatibility.

    As for evidence supporting macroevolution, please read this link:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

  34. Peter Smyth says:

    E. Morriss –

    Do you agree or disagree with my comment above?

  35. E. Morriss says:

    PC-Bash Says:

    February 1st, 2008 at 11:01 am
    “…and to head off another sophist re-direct let me expand on my previous comment.”

    “The definitions and arguments used by creationists in the context of splitting evolution between “micro-” and “macro-” evolution are an invention of the creationists alone. The split between the two, in the creationists arguments, are highly arbitrary.”

    That is a completely different statement, or should I say attempt to back peddle out of a lie.

    Let us repeat your first statement:

    “Your terms “micro-” and “macro-” evolution are inventions of the ID camp.”

    Note you said “your terms”, but we have established that creationists did NOT invent those terms.

    “So, to be fair,…”

    What a novel idea.

    “…I will let you define “micro-” and “macro-” evolution in the context of your argument. So far, you have only eluded to the definiton of either. For instance, you paint macro-evolution “in terms of (i.e.) a reptile evolving into a bird is not observable” Please define macro-evolution and micro-evolution for me. Be specific and be precise.”

    It is kinda hard to be specific or precise to any degree that you might find acceptable since mainstream evolutionary scientists seem to have a bit of trouble doing so:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html#concept

    Ways in which the term “macroevolution” is used by scientists. Some are exact in the way they use it, while others are less exact. These usages are not all the same, and this causes some confusion. Why do scientists not agree on the meaning of their terms?

    The meaning modern authors give to the terms “macroevolution” and “microevolution” is often confusing, and varies according to what it is they are discussing. This is particularly the case when “large-scale” evolutionary processes are being discussed. For example, R. L. Carroll, in his undergraduate textbook (1997: 10) defines microevolution as “involving phenomena at the level of populations and species” and macroevolution as “evolutionary patterns expressed over millions and hundreds of millions of years”. Eldredge says, “Macroevolution, however it is precisely defined, always connotes “large-scale evolutionary change” (1989: vii) and throughout his book speaks of macroevolution as roughly equivalent to the evolution of taxa that are of a higher rank than species, such as genera, orders, families and the like.

    http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/01/24/hopeless_monstersa_guest_post.php

    [this is a great read by the way]

    Hopeless Monsters–A Guest Post from Dr. Jerry Coyne
    Category: Evolution
    Posted on: January 24, 2008 10:43 AM, by Carl Zimmer

    HOPELESS MONSTERS, by Jerry Coyne

    Macromutationism is the idea that important evolutionary changes between groups were produced by single mutations with very large effects. Advocates of this idea propose that these mutations produce, in one fell swoop, complete new features that distinguish major groups, such as the extra pair of wings in dragonflies, the jaws of vertebrates, or the feathers of proto-birds. The first mutants with these new traits are famously known as “hopeful monsters.”

    ____________________________________________
    The notion of macromutationism pops up every
    few years in evolutionary biology.
    It’s wrong but it’s resilient.
    ____________________________________________

    It’s like one of those large, roly-poly rubber clowns that I played with as a child: knock it down and it pops right back up again. The harder you knock it down, the faster it pops back up. First broached by the “mutationists” in the early twentieth century, and made famous by Richard Goldschmidt, the idea was batted down by, among others, Dobzhansky, Mayr, and many luminaries of the Modern Synthesis. The idea of macromutational hopeful monsters, or “saltations,” had a prominent resurrection in 1980 when Stephen Jay Gould, as part of his and Niles Eldredge’s theory of punctuated equilibrium, proposed that macromutations could explain the “jumps” in the fossil record. After getting a severe drubbing from geneticists, Eldredge and Gould retreated in 1993, claiming that they never suggested the idea of saltations. More recently, hopeful monsters have reared their heads from the land of evolutionary developmental biology (“evo devo”), some of whose advocates say that key regulatory mutations could lead to changes in the “Bauplan”–the basic anatomical structure of a major group. This notion, too, is controversial.

    The issue remains alive because evolution is a historical science. The changes we are interested in happened in the distant past and they’re very difficult to study. After all, it’s hard to determine what genetic changes underlie the difference between, say, insects and crustaceans. The classical technique for figuring this out–using genetic crosses between the species to pin down the genes–is impossible between distantly related forms. You can try to cross a lobster with a butterfly but, be warned, it’s going to be an unrewarding experience. Transgenic work may eventually solve the problem, but for now there’s simply no evidence that macromutations have played a macro role in macroevolution.

    End copy.

    That article is very long, but it is a great example of how the definition, understanding and interpretation of macroevolution is a point of contention between evolutionary biologists as well as creationists.

    To see the extent of confusion and disagreement in the E camp, read the comments below the article. Here is a sample:
    __________________________
    I think Jerry Coyne might perhaps be committing what one might call the “inductive/probabilistic fallacy” — if it doesn’t happen much and there isn’t a high chance of it, it cannot have and will not happen! 😉 This despite the escape clauses (“one cannot blithely…”, etc).

    I wonder if he will be “responsible” and back-up “accurately” his attacks on Gould (and others)… I won’t hold my breath.
    __________________________

    And this reply to comments from Coyne:

    Just two comments

    1. Re neil’s comment: I didn’t say that doing genetics was the only way to “investigate the nature of evolution.” Rather, I said that it’s really the only way to find out what GENES were involved in evoutionary change. I can’t think of any other way to do this besides crossing species (impossible between distant relatives) or doing transgenics. If anybody knows another way, I’d be glad to hear it.

    2. The original incarnation of punctuated equilibriumwas made more than just a claim of rapid allopatric speciation. The theory explicitly invoked instantaneous macromutational change. Here is a quote from Gould (1980, Paleobiology 6:119):

    “I envisage a potential saltational origin for the essential features of key adaptations. Why may we not imagine that gill arch bones of an ancestral agnathan moved forward in one step to surround the mouth and form proto-jaws.”

    To me, this seems like a pretty big saltational change! Gould and Eldrdge later backed off on this, saying that “Opponents now accept that punctuated equilibrium was never meant as a saltational theory . . ” (Gould and Eldredge Nature 366:326).

    The problem I think, is that Gould and Eldredge were contantly changing the mixture of claims that constituted punctuated equilibrium, particularly those claims dealing with its mechanism. Brian Charlesworth and I discussed the constantly-morphing nature of punc. eq. in a letter to Science (1997 276:339-341; see also Gould and Eldredge’s response on pp. 338-339 of the same issue).

    End copy.

    Classic.

    Your assertion that creationist caused this problem is totally unfounded and, I note, without references to support your claim.

  36. PC-Bash says:

    E. Morriss –

    If we cannot agree on a definition of “micro-” versus “macro-” evolution, then perhaps we should speak in terms that we can agree on.

    You have agreed that life does evolve over time, yet you are quick to claim that there is no evidence to support so-called “macro-” evolution, a term that you cannot define, but you liken “in terms of (i.e.) a reptile evolving into a bird is not observable”. So, where do we draw the line where evolution stops?

    From what I can see so far, your line seems pretty arbitrary. You imply that evolution cannot give rise to new species. If this is true, then how do you account for fossil record? Where did the current variety of life come from? Why does fossil record show that life has grow more complex as time has gone on?

  37. firemancarl says:

    Ok E Morris, here is the answer to your creationist myth fallacy about the moths studied by Dr Kettlewell
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726380.700-moth-myths.html

    In a control experiment, in which Kettlewell released moths before dawn when they could fly to their own resting places, the predation percentages were indistinguishable from those for hand-placed moths. There was even an internal control: some moths evaded capture on the first night after release, and were captured on the second night, after spending the day in spots of their own choosing. Again, the predation results were indistinguishable from those for the hand-placed moths.

    It is not clear how the myth that Kettlewell placed moths only on trunks and only in daylight came about, as the details are set out clearly in the original papers. Perhaps, like the myth that Arthur Eddington fudged his eclipse results, a good iconoclastic story has a momentum beyond the reach of mere facts.

    yes, ya see, IDiots like to bring up urban myths about science that never hold up to SCIENTIFIC scrutiny.

  38. firemancarl says:

    Con’t

    From Mark Sellwood

    The story of the peppered moth is one of natural selection. A previously scarce but existing group (dark moths) became more common under favourable conditions (dark trees) than a previously favoured group (light moths that rested on light trees).

    That natural selection is at work in the world is self-evident. The crucial and more interesting question is whether natural selection is responsible for the diversity of life, and indeed life’s very existence. The peppered moth may have generated much intellectual heat but has done little to illuminate this issue.

    Richmond, Surrey, UK

    The editor writes:

    Yes, the peppered moth is an example of natural selection, but that is not to damn it with faint praise. Natural selection is a key element of the theory of evolution which creationists seek to destroy. No, the peppered moth is not an example of speciation – of the origin of diversity – but nobody ever said it was. And yes, it doesn’t shed any light on whether natural selection can explain the origin of life but, again, who claimed it did?

    From issue 2638 of New Scientist magazine, 12 January 2008, page 19

  39. E. Morriss says:

    PC-Bash Says:

    February 1st, 2008 at 2:50 pm
    “Even if you disagree with what I said…”

    I will always disagree with lies. Opinions are another matter altogether.

    “I assume you must agree with everything else I said, since you are only attacking this point.”

    You may assume anything you wish, or think you can afford. So far, all you have done is assume yourself into a mess.

    What about the rest of my comments that you have ignored?

    Oh, I am not done yet.

    PC-Bash Says:

    February 1st, 2008 at 2:50 pm
    “Also, it’s just a tad bit childish to call me a “liar”.”

    A turd by any other name would stink as much. (Ed Norton, c1970)

  40. PC-Bash says:

    E. Morriss –

    I have responded to every point you have brought up. If I missed a point, it is through omission alone. Feel free to point them out, and I will address them, each and every one.

    You, on the other hand, have made it a point to cherry pick what questions of mine to answer, or which points of mine to ignore.

  41. PC-Bash says:

    That should read accidental omission alone.

  42. PC-Bash says:

    Peter Smyth –

    You explained it more eloquently than I could.

  43. PC-Bash says:

    E. Morriss –

    Here is something important that you seem to have missed, so let me repost it.

    That is your opinion. Besides, you (evolutionists) have already decided that neither can be a theory at all, therefore according to evolutionists they can be neither junk or valid theories.

    If you don’t believe this to be true, then why don’t you come out and defend creationism? I’m asking you point-blank. Do you believe in ID, or don’t you?

    Science requires that a theory must be capable of being verified or falsified. ID “theory” cannot be falsified, because it embraces a “supernatural theistic designer” which cannot be observed. We cannot prove the non-existence of something supernatural, therefore ID “theory” cannot be falsified, therefore, by definition, it is not a valid scientific theory. Conjecture about something which cannot be observed or disproved is faith, not science.

    Respond.

  44. firemancarl says:

    How typical PC-Bash!

    Another apologist deciding what questions to answer, and offering no proof of what their spouting. Only trying to nit pick evolution, and doing a poor job of it.

  45. PC-Bash says:

    Yes. I think that I’m going to put together a list of questions that I will continue to ask these apologists until they actually answer them.

  46. firemancarl says:

    Well, that could be an exercise in futility. Go to pharyngula and listen to the “debate PZ Myers had with one of these types http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/thats_some_memory_hole.php#comments

    You’ll hear the guy never answers any questions, or offers and proof for (un)intelligent design.

  47. E. Morriss says:

    firemancarl Says:

    February 1st, 2008 at 4:21 pm
    Ok E Morris, here is the answer to your creationist myth fallacy

    My creationist myth fallacy? What do you call it when evolutionary biologist criticize Kettlewells work on the pepperd moths?

    Yes, you did ignore that point in my previous post didn’t you.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726380.700-moth-myths.html

    “In a control experiment, in which Kettlewell released moths before dawn”

    Which he did only once. So his errors are pointed out by his colleagues, he then goes out one day to make amends.

    …”when they could fly to their own resting places, the predation percentages were indistinguishable from those for hand-placed moths. There was even an internal control: some moths evaded capture on the first night after release, and were captured on the second night, after spending the day in spots of their own choosing. Again, the predation results were indistinguishable from those for the hand-placed moths.”

    It has been noted, and acknowledged by Kettlewell, that the moths can cover up to one mile per day. The moths at a disadvantage for hiding places will seek out better hiding places. In the lichen covered area, the some of the melanics will move to find the best possible environment, while the light colored moths would be quite happy where they are.

    How many of the melanic moths left the area and were not available for recapture?
    How many of the light moths stayed in the release area?

    “It is not clear how the myth that Kettlewell placed moths only on trunks and only in daylight came about, as the details are set out clearly in the original papers.”

    Could it be because Kettlewell said so?

    “I admit that, under their own choice, many would have taken up position higher in the trees” H.B.D. Kettlewell, “Selection experiments on industrial melanism in the Lepidoptera,” Heredity, 9:323­342, 1955

    And perhaps because Majerus said: “in most predation experiments peppered moths have been positioned on vertical tree trunks, despite the fact that they rarely chose such surfaces to rest upon in the wild”.

    Still not clear? If it is only a creationist myth fallacy, why do many of Kettlewells professional evolutionist scientist peers mention it? Perhaps Dr. Jerry Coyne got sucked into a creationist myth fallacy when he made this criticism: “the most serious problem is that B. betularia probably does not rest on tree trunks -exactly two moths have been seen in such a position in more than 40 years of intensive search.” (Coyne J.A., “Not black and white,” Nature 396, 1998, pp35-36)”

    I bet Kauri Mikkola got sucked into the same creationist myth fallacy when he said: “the normal resting place of the peppered moth is beneath small, more or less horizontal branches (but not on narrow twigs), probably high up in the canopies, and the species probably only exceptionally rests on tree trunks.”

    I bet Rory Howlett and Michael Majerus got sucked into the same creationist myth fallacy when they made this criticism: “It seems certain that most B. betularia rest where they are hidden” AND “exposed area of the tree trunks are not important resting sites for any form of B. betularia.”

    Tony Liebert and Paul Brakefield said the same thing, so I guess they got sucked in too.

    Michael Majerus criticized the pictures and filming work noting the moths were “positioned on vertical tree trunks, despite the fact that they rarely chose such surfaces to rest upon in the wild”.

    “yes, ya see, IDiots like to bring up urban myths about science that never hold up to SCIENTIFIC scrutiny.”

    Dr Coyne is an IDiot? He didn’t provide scientific scrutiny? How about Kauri Mikkola, Rory Howlett, Michael Majerus, Tony Liebert, and Paul Brakefield? What did they provide?

    If that is not enough, how about:

    Cyril Clarke:

    ‘But the problem is that we do not know the resting sites of the moth during the day time. … In 25 years we have found only two betularia on the tree trunks or walls adjacent to our traps (one on an appropriate background and one not), and none elsewhere.

    Atuhiro Sibatani, Japanese biologist: the story of industrial melanism must be shelved, at least for the time being, as a paradigm of neo-Darwinian evolution…”

    John Endler, evolutionary biologist, in 1986 wrote in regards to Kettlewells work: “A strong demonstration of natural selection combined with a lack of knowledge of its reasons and mechanisms is no better than alchemy.”

    And once again Dr Jerry Coyne wrote the following when he found out about the problems with Kettlewell’s methods: “My own reaction resembles the dismay attending my discovery, at the age of six, that it was my father and not Santa who brought the presents at Christmas Eve.”

    Giuseppe Sermonti and Paola Catastini: “do not prove in any acceptable way, according to the current scientific standard, the process he maintains to have experimentally demonstrated.”

    Jim Bishop and Laurence Cook used dead moths on trees and noticed discrepancies in the results and wrote “this may indicate we are not not correctly accessing the true nature of the resting sites of living moths”

    firemancarl Says:

    February 1st, 2008 at 4:22 pm
    Con’t

    “From Mark Sellwood”

    “The story of the peppered moth is one of natural selection.”

    True. Natural selection does occur. Was natural selection demonstrated exactly how it occurs in nature?

    Could Kettlewell know if he was losing a disproportionate number of moths because they simply left the area seeking better hiding places?

    Does any of this disprove evolution? Of course not. Does any of this prove evolution? Some say yes, some evolutionists say no, it only demonstrates natural selection.

  48. E. Morriss says:

    PC-Bash Says:

    February 1st, 2008 at 7:51 pm
    E. Morriss –

    Here is something important that you seem to have missed, so let me repost it.

    [snip]

    Respond.

    Have you responded to any point I posted? No. Your first response was some stupid ‘nyah-nyah’ 5th grader drivel, and not much has changed since then.

    Then you accuse me of making a claim about ID being a valid theory.

    “Please provide me with a paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that supports your claims that ID is a valid theory.”

    When I call you on it:

    First, show me where I made the claim that “ID is a valid theory”.

    You demonstrate the Jonathan Smith “paint ’em all with the same brush” mentality:

    “So, I just assumed that if you want to argue like a creationist, then you most likely are a creationist.”

    When I point out to you that those journals refuse to print such articles from creationists, your only “response” is:

    “So, are you telling me that there is some sort of conspiracy in the science community to keep ID down? That’s pretty telling of your true motivations here.”

    You dont respond with information, you respond with a stupid question, then answer it yourself.

    Then you make a false to fact statement:

    “Conspiracy theories are the sign of two things: an untenable position, or insanity.”

    And again I call you on it. Did you respond with information to support your statement? Did you debate the point? No, your best effort was:

    “Yes. Conspiracy. They have medication for that. Oh… I see. Now it all makes sense… Your conspiracy theory is valid. *snort*”

    Then you come up with this jewel:

    “The problem is that most creationists scientists who attempt to publish “papers” to discredit evolution are only capable of writing incoherent rants”

    But even better than that, after bashing the capabilities of degreed professionals ONLY because they are creationists, you spew forth this dazzling display of the depth and breadth of your impressive and extensive knowledge:

    “Your terms “micro-” and “macro-” evolution are inventions of the ID camp.”

    So I bust your ass on it giving you copy of the history of the words. What do you do? Did you respond with information to support your assertion? Did you debate the point?

    Of course not, you tell even more lies by trying to claim you didn’t really say that, PLUS you add even more of your manure to the pile by really reaching down to the very bowels of the bottomless pit of your knowledge and spew forth:

    “No one uses these terms anymore except for creationists. The current definitions that these terms have are largely invented and misconstrued by the creationists.”

    That from somone who claims to be so well read, to really, really, really know “how science works”.

    Now you *demand* a response. If I decide to waste any more time on you, it will be at my choosing.

  49. PC-Bash says:

    E. Morriss –

    Your circular logic is making my head hurt.

    Does any of this prove evolution? Some say yes, some evolutionists say no, it only demonstrates natural selection.

    and

    Microevolution occurs and is observable, no doubt there.

    So, what exactly are you arguing now?

    You have conceded that natural selection occurs, as does microevolution. Therefore, I think we can move beyond any more arguments of these two points and focus on the remainder of evolution theory.

    So, I’ll go back to the horse’s mouth. Darwin makes ten claims for evolution. I’ll paraphrase them here.
    1. Species have more offspring than can grow to adulthood.
    2. Populations remain roughly the same size, with some variation.
    3. Food resources are limited, but relatively stable over time.
    4. This causes a struggle for survival.
    5. In sexually reproducing species, generally no two individuals are identical.
    6. Some of these variations impact an individual’s ability to survive in an environment.
    7. Much of these variations are inheritable.
    8. Those less suited to the environment are less likely to survive, and those more suited are more likely to survive.
    9. Those that survive are more likely to pass their inheritable traits to future generations.
    10. These variations slowly adapt a population to an environment over time, and over a longer period of time lead to new varieties and new species.

    So far, you have conceded points 4,6,7,8,9. You have implicitly conceded point 5. You have agreed to half of point 10. I welcome you to argue points 1,2, and 3; I’ll assume that you’ll see these points as rather self-evident, but I am certainly willing to back them up if you feel like arguing them.

    So, let’s focus on point 10.

    First, how do you explain the fossil evidence supporting that evolution over long periods of time lead to new species?

    Second, I recommend that you read here, with copious examples of speciation, both in the lab and in nature.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5

  50. PC-Bash says:

    E. Morriss –

    Now you *demand* a response. If I decide to waste any more time on you, it will be at my choosing.

    You’ve latched onto one minor technicality of every point that I have brought up, and are using it as an excuse to ignore every other point. In other words, you are DODGING. So typical of you creationists apologists. Wait… what are you calling yourselves now? Anti-evolutionists? I can’t keep up, you keep shifting your positions in a desperate attempt to spit in the wind.

    If you don’t respond to my points, then I think that anyone who reads these comments should just assume that you can’t respond to these points without destroying your position, which is weak and brittle to begin with.

    I will concede (*gasp* something you won’t do readily) that my understanding of the terms “micro-” and “macro-” evolution may have been incorrect. I believe that Peter Smyth above corrected me in something more coherent than your comments, and I thank him for that.

    Now, concede, respond, or give up. 🙂

  51. PC-Bash says:

    …after bashing the capabilities of degreed professionals ONLY because they are creationists…

    First, I have a lot of experience dealing with “degreed professionals”. Having a degree does not mean that a person is suddenly more capable of being right. In my experience, having a degree means little if anything as to whether a person is capable of handling a job or not. So, qualifying someone as a “degreed professional” is less than meaningless to me, and should be less than meaningless to anyone who has real world experience.

    I will bash the capabilities of anyone if they are incapable of being rational, incapable of remaining coherent, inclined to proselytize fairy tales without evidence (such as creationism / intelligent design), or who use inane statements to try to push an agenda (such as teaching creationism in public schools). I am not singling out creationists or anti-evolutionists or whatever else they troll as, I am an equal opportunity offender.

  52. firemancarl says:

    PC-Bash Says:
    February 2nd, 2008 at 9:20 pm
    …after bashing the capabilities of degreed professionals ONLY because they are creationists…

    First, I have a lot of experience dealing with “degreed professionals”. Having a degree does not mean that a person is suddenly more capable of being right.

    Yes, just like Qui Gon Jin said in Star Wars The Phantom Menace “the ability to speak does not mean your intelligent.”

  53. PC-Bash says:

    firemancarl –

    I just listened to the previous link that you gave me:
    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/thats_some_memory_hole.php#comments

    That was a very interesting debate. I have to admit that I burst out laughing when the Discovery Institute fellow claimed that brain organization in a child was “pruned by design”. Good stuff. It was also interesting how a so-called “degreed professional” such as this DI guy could be so ignorant of science. I guess it goes right along with what we both have said here.

    It’s interesting how the debate has changed from that of being in favor of ID to just outright attacking evolution. The creationists are losing ground, and they are attempting a different strategy because they realize that their position is untenable. This is also evident in the first minute or so of the radio clip, in which PZ mentions that the topic of the debate had changed from “evolution versus ID” to “why Darwin is wrong”. Even the DI fellow wants nothing to do with defending creationism now. 😉

  54. E. Morriss says:

    PC-Bash Says:
    February 2nd, 2008 at 9:20 pm

    “I will bash the capabilities of anyone if they…use inane statements to try to push an agenda…”

    You mean like: “Your terms “micro-” and “macro-” evolution are inventions of the ID camp.”

    And: “No one uses these terms anymore except for creationists. The current definitions that these terms have are largely invented and misconstrued by the creationists.”

    You have not yet commented on Dr Jerry Coyne:

    The notion of macromutationism pops up every few years in evolutionary biology.
    It’s wrong but it’s resilient….but for now there’s simply no evidence that macromutations have played a macro role in macroevolution.

    PC-Bash Says:

    February 1st, 2008 at 3:50 pm
    E. Morriss –

    “If we cannot agree on a definition of “micro-” versus “macro-” evolution, then perhaps we should speak in terms that we can agree on.”

    You have yet to offer a definition of either term because you believe creationists invented both words. How can you say we cannot agree?

    “You have agreed that life does evolve over time, yet you are quick to claim that there is no evidence to support so-called “macro-” evolution,”

    Since just a couple of days ago you thought micro and macro evolution were creationist inventions I can see why you dont understand this. Speciation is not macroevolution. Up to now you seem to have included everything under one term- evolution. Before we go on you need to catch up and learn how YOUR camp has defined those two terms. Hint, dont just jump on the first definition you Google up, it may not agree with others you will find from YOUR camp.

    “a term that you cannot define”

    Where did I say that?

    “You imply that evolution cannot give rise to new species.”

    I did not. This shows your lack of understanding the difference between micro and macro.

    “If this is true, then how do you account for fossil record?”

    That question really isn’t specific enough to provide an answer. Reformulate your question to some specific characteristic of the fossil record of your choosing.

    “Where did the current variety of life come from?

    Science does not know. Science does not know how to explain the Cambrian explosion, the sudden appearance of fully formed and functional eyes, birds, etc.

    “Why does fossil record show that life has grow more complex as time has gone on?

    That may depend on your view of what complex means. To some extent that is true, but also realize that during the Cambrian explosion virtually all the anatomical designs of modern organisms made their appearance, and since the Cambrian explosion no new phyla have entered the fossil record.

  55. PC-Bash says:

    I said:

    You imply that evolution cannot give rise to new species.

    Your reply:

    I did not.

    Thus, you concede point 10 above. Thus, you concede original Darwinian evolution.

    Thanks for playing, you have argued yourself into a paradox.

  56. E. Morriss says:

    PC-Bash Says:

    January 31st, 2008 at 8:07 pm

    E. Morriss –
    Humans do not have tails. Calling this a tail during the growth of a human embryo is ludicrous. That drawing, the labels and text IS a re-hack of ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.

    PC-Bash
    “Really, so are you claiming that humans are never born with tails? How do you explain documented cases of humans born with tails, including humans born with tails that include bone and cartilage tissue?”

    **************
    http://www.thefetus.net/page.php?id=997

    When we compare this “human tail” with the tail of other vertebrates, the difference is evident. This tails do not contain vertebral structures. In fact, there is only one case reported in medical literature in which the human tail had vertebral remnants.
    **************

    True tails comprise only mesenchymal tissue (adipose, connective, muscle, nerve tissue, blood vessels, and cutis). All other lumbosacrococcygeal protrusions are summarized as pseudotails. Superficially they may resemble true tails.

    The “tail” label in embryo drawings or photos forms into the coccyx, which in no way, shape or form serves as a tail in humans. There is no proof that the coccyx is a vestigial tail from an ancestor with a tail.

    The so-called “tails” in photos do not involve the coccyz. They are called caudal appendages and consider congenital anomolies, not the genetic expression of an ancestral tail.

  57. PC-Bash says:

    E Morriss –

    Please read above. You have argued yourself into a contradiction. There is a term you should look up, we use it a lot in math: reductio ad absurdum. You have conceded evolution, Darwinian evolution at that.

  58. E. Morriss says:

    PC-Bash Says:

    February 3rd, 2008 at 10:08 pm
    I said:

    You imply that evolution cannot give rise to new species.

    Your reply:

    I did not.

    “Thus, you concede point 10 above. Thus, you concede original Darwinian evolution.”

    Incorrect. Speciation is microevolution, which is what you describe in #10.

    What I said is there is no proof that (i.e.) reptiles give rise to birds, which is MACROevolution, which by evolutionists definition is above the level of species and is not the same as microevolution.

    “Thanks for playing, you have argued yourself into a paradox.”

    What paradox? When you get to the point you understand the evolutionists definitions of micro and macro evolution you might get this right.

    Example of microevolution, or your #10:

    While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

    Since the evolutionists definition of macroevolution means ABOVE the species level, that means the mutation example above would have to result in a new GENUS or higher:

    n., pl. gen·er·a (jĕn’ər-ə).
    Biology. A taxonomic category ranking below a family and above a species and generally consisting of a group of species exhibiting similar characteristics.

    THAT would be macroevolution.

  59. PC-Bash says:

    E. Morriss –

    Anything else you argue here does not matter. The point of this board is to discuss evolution in the classroom. You have just conceded evolution, thus there really isn’t anything further for us to discuss here.

  60. PC-Bash says:

    FWIW, most of what I tossed at you was red herring, specifically meant to keep you engaged long enough to hang yourself.

    Debate is a subtle art. You can think me a fool all you want, but I got you to concede evolution, and you still haven’t seemed to figure out what exactly you were supposed to be arguing about. You were too busy gobbling the bones that I tossed you that it never occurred to you to check in which direction I was leading you.

    Is evolution perfect? No. It is still an active area of research in biology. However, we can not doubt that evolution does occur and does happen, as you have conceded.

  61. E. Morriss says:

    PC-Bash Says:

    February 2nd, 2008 at 11:05 am
    E. Morriss –

    “Your circular logic is making my head hurt.”

    I can understand how any kind of logic would make your head hurt.

    E. Morriss:
    Does any of this prove evolution? Some say yes, some evolutionists say no, it only demonstrates natural selection.

    “and”

    E. Morriss:
    Microevolution occurs and is observable, no doubt there.

    “So, what exactly are you arguing now?”

    Well, what you incorrectly think is circular logic is really very simple.

    The moth experiments demonstrate natural selection which is a component of evolution, but it is not all that evolution is.

    There was no net evolutionary change in the moth species. That is how you can demonstrate natural selection (birds see light moths better on dark surfaces [duh!]), but not see a net evolutionary change.

  62. E. Morriss says:

    PC-Bash Says:

    February 3rd, 2008 at 10:59 pm
    E. Morriss –

    “Anything else you argue here does not matter. The point of this board is to discuss evolution in the classroom. You have just conceded evolution, thus there really isn’t anything further for us to discuss here.”

    You really are too funny. You dont know the difference between micro and macroevolution and have been lumping micro and macroevolution under one word- evolution.

    Your error has been pointed out by your own side, but you continue to use only the word “evolution” and completely ignore the distinctions between microevoltion (which includes speciation), and Macroevolution.

    Once again your #10 is microevolution:

    10. These variations slowly adapt a population to an environment over time, and over a longer period of time lead to new varieties and new species.

    Which is perfectly true, BUT that is not all there is to your oversimplified use of the term “evolution”.

    If you had writtem #10 this way, it would be MACROevolution:

    10. These variations slowly adapt a population to an environment over time, and over a longer period of time lead to new varieties, species and new ***GENERA***.

    Macroevolution is where we divide, understand now?

  63. PC-Bash says:

    My point is that since you have conceded as much as you have, your position is now ever brittle.

    You have conceded that over time, evolution leads to new species.

    The rest is nothing more than taxonomy. Kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species.

    Your claim, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong here, is that evolution can split at the species order, but not at the genus order? Your failure here is an understanding of how biological taxonomy works. Taxonomy is an arbitrary classification. Over time, this classification has become more accurate, but there can be no doubt that it is still arbitrary. There is no absolute dividing line here. Genus changes all of the time in taxonomy, as we discover that certain species are more related than previously thought. For instance, in fungi perfecti, the psilocybe genus was once part of the storpharia genus.

    Of course, classification is not as important as understanding how these species came to evolve over time.

    Your argument is even more ridiculous now. Are you honestly going to argue that Australopithecus afarensis is not related to Homo sapiens? I hope you say yes, because this part will be far easier than getting you to admit that evolution leads to speciation.

  64. PC-Bash says:

    That above should read “species level” and “genus level”, not “species order” and “genus order”.

    That’s what I get for typing a response before I have a cup of coffee.

  65. E. Morriss says:

    PC-Bash Says:
    February 4th, 2008 at 7:09 am

    “My point is that since you have conceded as much as you have, your position is now ever brittle.
    You have conceded that over time, evolution leads to new species.”

    Conceded? I never disagreed with microevolution, there was nothing to concede.

    “I hope you say yes, because this part will be far easier than getting you to admit that evolution leads to speciation.”

    See above.

    “Are you honestly going to argue that Australopithecus afarensis is not related to Homo sapiens?”

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html
    ___________________________
    Australopithecus afarensis
    A. afarensis existed between 3.9 and 3.0 million years ago. Afarensis had an apelike face with a low forehead, a bony ridge over the eyes, a flat nose, and no chin. They had protruding jaws with large back teeth.
    ___________________________

    Talkorigins leaves a lot out of their description. Why is no surprise. The scapula, hyoid bone, jaw bone and inner ear have been shown to be nearly identical to apes:

    Alemseged, et al., Nature 443, 21 September 2006, “A juvenile early hominin skeleton from Dikika, Ethiopia”, pages 296-301:

    The hyoid bone:

    [1] Alemseged: “The find includes many previously unknown skeletal elements from the Pliocene hominin record, including a hyoid bone that has a typical African ape morphology”

    [2] Alemseged: “It is most similar to that of juvenile African apes, and unlike that of modern humans”

    [3] Alemseged: “Its similarities with Pan and Gorilla hyoids suggest that the bulla-shaped body is the primitive condition for African apes…”

    The scapula:

    [1] Alemseged: “The shape of the scapula resembles the scapulae of juvenile and adult gorillas. In contrast, modern humans at a similar age have a wider infraspinous fossa and a more laterally facing glenoid fossa, with a correspondingly horizontal spine orientation, whereas chimpanzees tend to have a narrower infraspinous fossa and a more superiorly facing glenoid fossa with a corresponding spine orientation…. Nevertheless, comparing supraspinous and infraspinous fossa breadths still groups DIK-1-1 more closely with gorilla than with modern humans” (443:299)

    [2] Alemseged: “Now that the scapula of this species can be examined in full for the first time, it is unexpected to find the strongest similarities with Gorilla, an animal in which weight-bearing and terrestrial knuckle-walking predominantly characterize locomotor use of the forelimbs”

    [3] Bernard Wood Nature, 443:278-281, September 21: “The shoulder-bone (scapula) of the fossil is more like that of a gorilla than a modern human.”

    [4] Alemseged: “If functionally relevant, the glenoid fossa orientation in DIK-1-1 could also point to frequent use of the arms above the head, and the activity with which this would be most consistent is climbing” (443:300)

    The inner ear:

    [1] Alemseged: “One further clue in this context is that the semicircular system in DIK-1-1 is similar to that of African ape and A. africanus. (443:300, emp. added).

    [2] Bernard Wood “Lastly, images of the inner ear of the specimen show it to have semicircular canals more like those of chimpanzees than of modern humans” (2006, 443:279)

    The jaw bone:

    http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0606454104

    Published online before print April 10, 2007, 10.1073/pnas.0606454104
    PNAS | April 17, 2007 | vol. 104 | no. 16 | 6568-657

    From the Cover
    BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES / ANTHROPOLOGY
    Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths

    Yoel Rak*,, Avishag Ginzburg*, and Eli Geffen

    *Department of Anatomy and Anthropology, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, and Department of Zoology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel

    Edited by David Pilbeam, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, and approved February 26, 2007 (received for review July 28, 2006)

    “Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered specimen of Australopithecus afarensis closely matches that of gorillas. This finding was unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans. Because modern humans, chimpanzees, orangutans, and many other primates share a ramal morphology that differs from that of gorillas, the gorilla anatomy must represent a unique condition, and its appearance in fossil hominins must represent an independently derived morphology. This particular morphology appears also in Australopithecus robustus. The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor. The ramal anatomy of the earlier Ardipithecus ramidus is virtually that of a chimpanzee, corroborating the proposed phylogenetic scenario.”

    End copy.

    [Note: Make no assumptions about my agreement or disagreement with any topics in the above other than the reference to mandibular ramus morphology of A. afarensis]

    Next part from Talkorigins:

    Cranial capacity varied from about 375 to 550 cc. The skull is similar to that of a chimpanzee, except for the more humanlike teeth. The canine teeth are much smaller than those of modern apes, but larger and more pointed than those of humans, and shape of the jaw is between the rectangular shape of apes and the parabolic shape of humans.

    The teeth:

    [1] Bernard Wood “The best match is with three-year-old chimpanzees” (p. 279)

    Cranial capacity of the Juvenile:

    Alemseged, et al., Nature 443, 21 September 2006, “A juvenile early hominin skeleton from Dikika, Ethiopia”, pages 296-301

    Preliminary volume measurements of the preserved endocast of DIK-1-1 from CT scans yield a value of 235 cm3. However, this endocranial volume (EV) underestimates the true value because of the minor deformation of the occipital region, and a few areas of the cranial base where the bone–matrix interface is unclear. To provide an alternative estimate, we calculated the correlation between the EV and the combined endocranial breadth and midsagittal arc for an ontogenetic series of Pan troglodytes and Gorilla gorilla. Using the regression equations, the EV of DIK-1-1 was estimated as 275 to 330 cm3 (Supplementary Note S3). This is not unlike the volume evident in P. troglodytes of a comparable dental age of three years (Supplementary Note S4a). DIK-1-1 would have completed between 65 and 88 per cent of an average EV of 375 to 425 cm3 estimated for adult female A. afarensis. This proportional endocranial volume, and that of A.L. 333-105, overlaps with the range of variation of both modern humans and African apes (Supplementary Note S4b).

    End copy

    Result: Inconclusive. The hope was the growth rate of the juvenile would show a rate more consistent with humans. It didn’t.

    Next part from Talkorigins:

    “However their pelvis and leg bones far more closely resemble those of modern man, and leave no doubt that they were bipedal (although adapted to walking rather than running (Leakey 1994).”

    The degree to which they were bipedal is still an item of much debate. I noticed that two reconstructions show one version looks nothing like another except both have human breasts. One depicts Lucy with a bare chest and cute little ta-ta’s.

    How do they know that?

    A big gorilla head, chimp body and a Brittany spears chest is just plain wrong. 🙂

    Next part from Talkorigins:

    “The finger and toe bones are curved and proportionally longer than in humans, but the hands are similar to humans in most other details (Johanson and Edey 1981). Most scientists consider this evidence that afarensis was still partially adapted to climbing in trees, others consider it evolutionary baggage.”

    “curved and proportionally longer than in humans”? While partially true, it is far from complete:

    [1] Alemseged: “long and curved manual phalanges raise new questions about the importance of aboreal behavior in the A. afarensis locomotor repertoire” (443:296)

    [2] Alemseged: “…the manual phalanges are curved and long”

    [3] Bernard Wood, Nature, 443:278-281, September 21: “…the bones of the only complete finger are curved like those of a chimpanzee. Chimpanzee finger bones begin life only slightly curved, but become more curved when the hands are used to climb branches; this is what seems to have happened in the case of the Dikika infant.” (443:279)

    [4] Stern, Jack T. Jr. and Randall L. Susman (1983), “The Locomotor Anatomy of Australopithecus afarensis,” Journal of Physical Anthropology, 60:279-317.
    ““It is demonstrated that A. afarensis possessed anatomic characteristics that indicate a significant adaptation for movement in the trees” (1983, 60:280)

    End

    Considering all of the above, this sums it up for me:

    “This particular morphology appears also in Australopithecus robustus. The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor.”

    A afarensis is another ape that might have been more bipedal than others.

  66. PC-Bash says:

    Sigh. You read some of talkorigins, but not the rest of it.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_piths.html

    “Solly Zuckerman attempted to prove with biometrical studies (based on measurements) that the australopithecines were apes. Zuckerman lost this debate in the 1950’s, and his position was abandoned by everyone else (Johanson and Edey 1981). Creationists like to quote his opinions as if they were still a scientifically acceptable viewpoint.”

    Talkorigins leaves a lot out of their description. Why is no surprise. The scapula, hyoid bone, jaw bone and inner ear have been shown to be nearly identical to apes:

    “Charles Oxnard (1975), in a paper that is widely cited by creationists, claimed, based on his multivariate analyses, that australopithecines are no more closely related, or more similar, to humans than modern apes are. Howell et al.(1978) criticized this conclusion on a number of grounds. Oxnard’s results were based on measurements of a few skeletal bones which were usually fragmentary and often poorly preserved. The measurements did not describe the complex shape of some bones, and did not distinguish between aspects which are important for understanding locomotion from those which were not. Finally, there is “an overwhelming body of evidence”, based on the work of nearly 30 scientists, which contradicts Oxnard’s work. These studies used a variety of techniques, including those used by Oxnard, and were based on many different body parts and joint complexes. They overwhelmingly indicate that australopithecines resemble humans more closely than the living apes.”

    The teeth:

    “Creationists also rarely mention australopithecine teeth. Gish says that “[Dart] pointed out the many ape-like features of the skull, but believed that some features of the skull, and particularly of the teeth, were man-like”. (Note the misleading implication that the apelike features really exist, while the humanlike ones are a figment of Dart’s imagination.) Gish disputes this, pointing out that the molar teeth of africanus are extremely large. What Gish does not tell readers is that this is one of the few differences between them and human teeth. When the teeth of the Taung child could be properly examined, Dart’s claim was strongly confirmed, and is now generally accepted:

    “In fact, though the molars were larger than is now normal, most of the teeth [of the Taung child] could have belonged to a child of today.” (Campbell 1988) ”

    While you can contrast this specimen, there can be no doubt of the similarities. I never said that A. afarenis was a direct ancestor of man, but there can be no doubt that this specimen is related, as apes and chimps are related to us. Likely, this specimen is more related to us, even if it exists on the ape line after the split between man and ape. How do you account for the similarities? For that matter, how do you account for the similarities between chimps, apes, and humans? Did your designer decide to re-use DNA, or re-use some of his designs in both? You would be hard pressed to find a scientist who is taken seriously that believes that there is no relation between these species. If these species are related, then how did they becomes so without evolution, precisely?

  67. firemancarl says:

    PC-Bash,

    Yes, all the IDiots do is try to attack evolution and science in general with out dated data and cliam they can show flaws in the works.

  68. PC-Bash says:

    The sad thing is that some of these IDiots have actually started believing the inanity that spews out of their mouth.

    I can only wonder what would have happened if their “holy” book claimed that the weight of hell is what causes things to fall to the ground, and not gravity. Would we be having this same debate about the theory of gravity? “Gravity is just a theory — not fact. There are valid alternate theories of why things fall to the ground, such as ‘Unintelligible Dominion’ theory.”

    Don’t get me wrong, skepticism is good in science. If not for skepticism, science would be weak. However, there is a big difference between skepticism and putting your hands to your ears and going “la la la la la”. The creationists/ID/anti-evolutionists/whatever else they decide is politically correct to call themselves today are definitely in the latter camp. If they would actually stop for a moment and reason through what they are saying, they would realize just how ignorant they sound.

  69. firemancarl says:

    E Morriss

    you said “Could Kettlewell know if he was losing a disproportionate number of moths because they simply left the area seeking better hiding places?

    Does any of this disprove evolution? Of course not. Does any of this prove evolution? Some say yes, some evolutionists say no, it only demonstrates natural selection. ”

    #1, the population of the peppered moth was show to decline over time. That is not indiciative of them flying away.

    Cyril Clarke:
    #2 “In 25 years we have found only two betularia on the tree trunks or walls adjacent to our traps (one on an appropriate background and one not), and none elsewhere.”

    Here is the REAL MEAT behind the peppered moth;

    The hypothesis actually stated the birds preyed on the two different color morphs depending on the environmental conditions

    50.4% of peppered moths rest at the junction of branches and the truck. 37% rest directly on the trunk

    “In 25 years we have found only two betularia on the tree trunks…” THIS IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE!!!!

    continuing using the real science and experiment and not the BS put forth by IDiots
    The peppered moth has two distinct color morphs controlled by a single locus

    Dr Kettlewell begna studying the moths in 1952. His initial observation was that the dark morph dominated the industrial areas and the ligh morph in the rural areas

    -the stduy of the peppered moth began shortly after the discovery of the first dark morph in 1811-

    In 1896 J.W. Tutt hypothesized that the change was due to selective predation by birds. He carried out small simple experiments that supported his hypothesis

    By 895, dark morphs represented 98% of the population in Manchester, England ( big industrial area) In 1848, they represented 2% of the population. It was deduced that the coloration was controlled by the spread of a single allele

    The first Kettlewell experiment involved the release of a mixed group of peppered moths into an aviary-DESTROYING THE “FLYING AWAY” IDiot myth-He recored the proportion of survivors at various time intervals. The evidence supported bird predation based on color morph.

    In 1953, Kettlewell conducted MARK ( thus he knew what moths where “his” ) release and recapture experiments in a polluted woodland. Bird predation based on the color mproh supported the conclusion.

    In 1955 Kettlewell repeated the experiment using an unpoluted woodland. The same conclusion was reached.

    To wit;
    Those were Kettlewells controlled predation experiments to confrim the previous findings while eliminating as many variables as possible.

    Dr. Kettlewell was NEVER decpetive about the conditions of his experiments.

    you also said “I bet Rory Howlett and Michael Majerus got sucked into the same creationist myth fallacy when they made this criticism: “It seems certain that most B. betularia rest where they are hidden” AND “exposed area of the tree trunks are not important resting sites for any form of B. betularia.”

    Tony Liebert and Paul Brakefield said the same thing, so I guess they got sucked in too.

    Michael Majerus criticized the pictures and filming work noting the moths were “positioned on vertical tree trunks, despite the fact that they rarely chose such surfaces to rest upon in the wild”.”

    Way to quote mine my friend!

    Majerus is continuing the work of Kettlewell and his studies determine the natural resting place of the moths as well as confirmed by predation by bird as the primary selective pressure.

    Majerus was also able to show that the lichen of the trees commo’d the light morphs in both the visible as well as the uv spectrum.

    Dark morphs are also cammo’d in both spectrums, except they absorb uv light rather than reflect it like the bark of a bare tree. Birds are capable of seeing in both the visible and uv spectrum.

    Majerus was refering to how Kettlewell pinned the moths to a tree for the pictures. They were not used as proof of resting. They were used to show how they blended in. Now, unless you know of some other type of insects, the ones I know of don’t pose for pictures and remain still. Especially when a predator is around.

    DO NOT QUOTE MINE ANYMORE. It is quite clear that your answers came from creations hack jobs who distort REAL SCIENCETISTS( Behe and Dembski anyone?). You ought to read the entire reasearch before making half assed statements.

    Not only have I given you proof that you are wrong the experiments were not faked, I am gonna even give you the research, unlike IDiots and creationists. or should I say cdesing propentists

    1)Stward, RC. 1977. Industrial and non-industrial melanism in the peppered moth Biston betularia (L.). Ecological Entomology. 2:231-243.
    2) Majerus, MEN. 2005. The Peppered Moth: Decline of a Darwinian Disciple. In: Insect Evolutionary Ecology. CABI.
    3) Edleston, RS. 1864. Untitled (first f. carbonaria melanic morph Biston betularia). Entomologist 2:150
    4) Tutt, JW. 1896. British Moths. George Routledge.
    5) Haldane, JBS. 1924. A Mathematical Theory of Natural and Artificial Selection. Trans. Canmb. Phil. Soc., 23:19-41.
    6) Kettlewell, H. B. D. 1973. The evolution of melanism: the study of a recurring necessity; with special reference to industrial melanism in the Lepidoptera. Clarendon Press
    7) Kettlewell, H. B. D. 1955. Selection experiments on industrial melanism in the Lepidoptera. Heredity 9:323-342.
    8) Kettlewell, H. B. D. 1956. Further selection experiments on industrial melanism in the Lepidoptera. Heredity 10:287-301.
    9) Bennett, AT and IC Cuthill. 1994. Ultraviolet vision in birds

    thanks to extant dodo

  70. E. Morriss says:

    PC-Bash Says:
    February 5th, 2008 at 8:57 am

    “The sad thing is that some of these IDiots have actually started believing the inanity that spews out of their mouth.”

    Which of those I cited in that response was a creationist? None that I am aware of.

    “I can only wonder what would have happened if their “holy” book claimed that the weight of hell is what causes things to fall to the ground, and not gravity. Would we be having this same debate about the theory of gravity? “Gravity is just a theory — not fact.”

    A strawman. Why not pick something from the holy book that is actually in the book? [fascinating how you guys complain of “us” using a strawman]

    “There are valid alternate theories of why things fall to the ground, such as ‘Unintelligible Dominion’ theory.Don’t get me wrong, skepticism is good in science. If not for skepticism, science would be weak. However, there is a big difference between skepticism and putting your hands to your ears and going “la la la la la”. The creationists/ID/anti-evolutionists/whatever else they decide is politically correct to call themselves today are definitely in the latter camp. If they would actually stop for a moment and reason through what they are saying, they would realize just how ignorant they sound.

    You keep going back to creationists without realizing that none of the cites I used are from creationists. This is a bad habit of yours- falsly attributing things to people.

    Your lack of rebuttal, except for attacking the messenger, indicates you agree the status of A afarensis is not settled.

  71. PC-Bash says:

    “Your lack of rebuttal, except for attacking the messenger, indicates you agree the status of A afarensis is not settled.”

    Your lack of an ability to read my rebuttal (previous to the comment that I made about firemancarl’s comment) indicates that you lack an ability to read.

  72. PC-Bash says:

    As for “attacking the messenger”, I’ll direct you to your first comment on this thread. (Emphasis mine)

    “If we were to use your standard of judgement, we could cite the scientists who have faked, fabricated and doctored “fossils” and lump all scientists in the same group.”

    Who is the “we” you are referring to here? It sounds quite a bit like the ID camp. The fact that this “we” is separate from scientists, as implied in your statement, is very telling of your position.

    That would be attacking the messenger. The previous response was not directed toward you. This one is.

  73. PC-Bash says:

    Well, unless you are defending the creationists, which you have done repeatedly although you claim that you are not a creationist. You do seem to become quite irate when I poke fun at the creationists, as if I am poking fun at you. Pretty telling, I think. You keep claiming that you aren’t a creationist, yet every time I attack creationists, you quickly scamper back to defend them and to try to point out that you are not a creationist.

    To quote one of my favorite works of fiction (which happens not to be the bible), here’s some William Shakespeare:
    “Thou dost protest too much.”

  74. PC-Bash says:

    Those two comments would be “attacking the messenger”, an ad hominem. Get the difference? See, you’re learning something now.

  75. firemancarl says:

    E. Morris,

    you said “A strawman. Why not pick something from the holy book that is actually in the book? [fascinating how you guys complain of “us” using a strawman]”

    Ok, you asked for it!!!!

    And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.”

    — Judges 1:19

    So, god and jebus can’t beat a bunch of smelly desert dwellers cause they have iron chariots eh? Interesting. See, you folks don’t read your bibles, do ya?

    But I digress…….

  76. firemancarl says:

    ugh, I really have to start spell checking when I have cdesign proponentsists in the crushing grip of reason. Oy!

  77. E. Morriss says:

    firemancarl Says:

    February 5th, 2008 at 9:45 am
    E Morriss

    [snip]

    Here is the REAL MEAT behind the peppered moth;

    The hypothesis actually stated the birds preyed on the two different color morphs depending on the environmental conditions

    50.4% of peppered moths rest at the junction of branches and the truck. 37% rest directly on the trunk

    “In 25 years we have found only two betularia on the tree trunks…” THIS IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE!!!!

    ______________________

    Are you claiming Clark did NOT make that comment in the 1985 Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 26:189–199, page 197? Are you claiming he lied?

    Are you absolutely sure about that? Is that you final answer? Can you prove it?

    Go here:
    http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/Research/majerus.htm

    Note this is Cambridge University, and that is the same Majerus you talk about below.

    Click on the PDF (their web site is reeeeeely slow for the PPT download)
    http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/Research/Majerus/Swedentalk220807.pdf

    If the above quote is an outright lie Majerus would not cite the same quote in HIS OWN WORK.

    Way to claim a lie and not provide a shred of proof.

    Interesting note here. Majerus makes fun of Clark for only seeing 2 betularia on tree trunks because they are hard to see, so that is supposed to falsify Clarks statement.

    I guess Majerus thinks he has some special ability to see the moths when Clark cannot. Also, what you can see in a picture is not the same as what you can see with your own eyes in the actual habitat.

    Also note Majerus describes releasing his test moths in “arenas”, then removing the arenas just before dawn.

    103 Arenas in a roughly 2.4 acre area makes for small arenas. Once again the research alters the natural process so the moths cannot fly away and they stay in a controlled enclosure.

    Will you also claim that in 1998 Dr Jerry Coyne, WHO IS NOT A CREATIONIST, did NOT write in Nature 396, 1998, pp35-36 “Not black and white”: “the most serious problem is that B. betularia probably does not rest on tree trunks -exactly two moths have been seen in such a position in more than 40 years of intensive search.”

    Either he is lying, or he is STUPID enough to get sucked in by what you claim to be a creationist lie and didn’t check HIS sources before publishing in the peer-reviewed scientific journal NATURE, or he checked his sources and the comment is real.

    YOU will have to prove the first or second, if you cant, the last is the only option left.

    __________________

    firemancarl Says:
    By 895, dark morphs represented 98% of the population in Manchester, England ( big industrial area) In 1848, they represented 2% of the population. It was deduced that the coloration was controlled by the spread of a single allele
    __________________

    [1] How do we know the light moths had not fled the area in search of protection?
    [2] Were any studies performed to see if their numbers were atypically high in other areas?
    [3] Why is not just as reasonable to deduce that since via predation (to some unknown degree) AND migration (to some unknown degree) (fleeing for better cover) of one type of moth, there were simply more of the other left to breed with each other?

    __________________
    firemancarl Says:
    The first Kettlewell experiment involved the release of a mixed group of peppered moths into an aviary-DESTROYING THE “FLYING AWAY” IDiot myth-He recored the proportion of survivors at various time intervals. The evidence supported bird predation based on color morph.
    __________________

    Sure, it they ***CAN’T*** fly away because they are in an enclosure, that really destroys the myth they might have flown away in their natural habitat.

    __________________
    firemancarl Says:
    In 1953, Kettlewell conducted MARK ( thus he knew what moths where “his” ) release and recapture experiments in a polluted woodland. Bird predation based on the color mproh supported the conclusion.
    __________________

    Providing some number of the marked light moths didn’t fly away looking for better cover, but there is no way to know that is there?

    __________________
    firemancarl Says:
    In 1955 Kettlewell repeated the experiment using an unpoluted woodland. The same conclusion was reached.
    __________________

    Providing some number of the marked melanic moths didn’t fly away looking for better cover, but there is no way to know that is there?

    So your best answer to that question is he put moths in an aviary where they could NOT behave as they might in their natural habitat.

    __________________
    firemancarl Says:
    you also said “I bet Rory Howlett and Michael Majerus got sucked into the same creationist myth fallacy when they made this criticism: “It seems certain that most B. betularia rest where they are hidden” AND “exposed area of the tree trunks are not important resting sites for any form of B. betularia.”

    Tony Liebert and Paul Brakefield said the same thing, so I guess they got sucked in too.

    Michael Majerus criticized the pictures and filming work noting the moths were “positioned on vertical tree trunks, despite the fact that they rarely chose such surfaces to rest upon in the wild”.”

    Way to quote mine my friend!
    __________________

    If I quote creationists (which to the best of knowledge I haven’t) you bitch, if I quote “yours” you bitch. Go figure.

    __________________
    firemancarl Says:
    Majerus is continuing the work of Kettlewell
    __________________

    See above.
    __________________
    firemancarl Says:
    DO NOT QUOTE MINE ANYMORE.
    __________________

    Does it bother when “yours” do not support your position? I will quote whom I please.

    __________________
    firemancarl Says:
    It is quite clear that your answers came from creations hack jobs who distort REAL SCIENCETISTS( Behe and Dembski anyone?). You ought to read the entire reasearch before making half assed statements.
    __________________

    If you have a problem with “your” people lying, go talk to them.

  78. firemancarl says:

    #1 I am not bitching if you quote pro evo. Why would you think that? The works I quoted support my position, even Coynes’ works.

    #2, they are not lying.

    #3 Coyne is a well known for his work tis true, but he is an xtian apologist.

    #4 Dr Kettlewell eliminated as many variables as possible in his experiments. That is what scientists do when they are testing out their theories.

    The fact that they were in an aviary would not matter re: predation. The moths would simply rest and fly etc in their normal paterns. The aviary had no effect on the moths. Simply stating that “they flew away in their natural habitat” diverts the attention from the experiment. How do YOU KNOW that the moths didn’t behave as they would in their natural habitat?

    Once again, the moths were placed on the trees to show their contrast with the trees.

    The experiment was not about birds feeding on moths in flight, it was about predation based on color morphs while they were resting.

    What’s interesting is that as of yet, the conclusion of the experiment has yet to be overturned.

    Could it be that the birds found that the light color moths were easier prey than the dark moths? The dark moths were able to absorb uv light and thus hide better.

    remember, evolution is not a “retirement fund” changes can and are reversed.

    please allow me to quote from da wiki, since you get your info from ID friendly sites, lets look at what is really said re; Majerus

    Michael Majerus in his 1998 book Melanism: Evolution in Action discussed criticisms that had been made of Kettlewell’s experimental methods.[9] Criticism and controversy arose when the book was misrepresented in reviews, and the story was picked up by creationist campaigners. The journalist Judith Hooper suggested in her book Of Moths and Men (2002) that Kettlewell committed scientific fraud. Careful studies of Kettlewell’s surviving papers by Rudge (2005) and Young (2004) have revealed that Hooper’s allegation of fraud is unjustified, and “that Hooper does not provide one shred of evidence to support this serious allegation”.[11][10]

    Young, M. (2003). Moonshine: Why the Peppered Moth Remains an Icon of Evolution.
    ^ Rudge, D.W. (2005). “Did Kettlewell Commit Fraud? Re-examining the Evidence.”, Public Understanding of Science 14 (3) (pp. 249–268).

  79. firemancarl says:

    continuing….

    Coyne had erred in his statement that only two peppered moths had been found on tree trunks, as the book gives the resting positions of 47 peppered moths Majerus had found in the wild between 1964 and 1996; twelve were on tree trunks (six exposed, six unexposed), twenty were at the trunk/branch joint, and fifteen resting on branches.[16] Majerus found that the review did not reflect the factual content of the book or his own views,[19] and cites an assessment by the entomologist Donald Frack that there was essentially no resemblance between the book and Coyne’s review,[20] which appeared to be a summary of the Sargent et al paper rather than Majerus’s book.[21]
    a b c Michael Majerus (2004). The Peppered moth: decline of a Darwinian disciple (.doc). Retrieved on 2007-09-10.

  80. firemancarl says:

    Perhaps this is the biggest hit against your creationist claims

    Majerus found that the review did not reflect the factual content of the book or his own views,[19] and cites an assessment by the entomologist Donald Frack that there was essentially no resemblance between the book and Coyne’s review,which appeared to be a summary of the Sargent et al paper rather than Majerus’s book.[21]

    So again, there is your proof. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

    Feel free to reaad it an learn a bit. The creationists got it wrong, yet again and cannot for the life of them ever quote exactly what scientists without making false claims with no evidence. To wit, you have offered no proof of anything about the moth experimentation that would lend credance to your claim or creationism/ID

  81. E. Morriss says:

    firemancarl Says:

    February 5th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
    E. Morris,

    you said “A strawman. Why not pick something from the holy book that is actually in the book? [fascinating how you guys complain of “us” using a strawman]”

    Ok, you asked for it!!!!

    And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.”

    — Judges 1:19

    So, god and jebus can’t beat a bunch of smelly desert dwellers cause they have iron chariots eh? Interesting. See, you folks don’t read your bibles, do ya?

    But I digress…….
    _____________________________

    Frequently!

    And here I thought you would have a real challenge. As much as you guys complain, and TalkOrigins even writes about creationists ignoring context, taking things out of context and such, here you go and do exactly what you and your buddies complain about.

    Why am I not surprised?

    God frequently made contracts, often with limitations, and for good reason. The contract was established in Deut 7:22 and there is a certain proviso within the Deuteronomic contract (emphasis added):

    And the LORD thy God will put out those nations before thee by (little and little): thou mayest not consume them at once, lest the beasts of the field increase upon thee.

    There is an almost identical contract made in Exodus:

    Exodus 23:29
    I will not drive them out from before thee in one year; lest the land become desolate, and the beast of the field multiply against thee.
    Exodus 23:30 By (little and little) I will drive them out from before thee, until thou be increased, and inherit the land.

    The common theme is if too much is taken in too little time (too quickly) you will have more problems to deal with. Just ask GW how that works. 🙂

    The logic you apply to this actually works against you. Why would anyone trying to write a story about an all powerful God, creator of the entire universe and everything in it, then present an instance where that God could not defeat a bunch of smelly desert dwellers because they have iron chariots?

    They wouldn’t.
    _____________________________________________
    See, you folks don’t read your bibles, do ya?
    _____________________________________________

    We do, just more than one verse at a time, and with comprehension mode set to the “ON” position.

  82. PC-Bash says:

    The logic you apply to this actually works against you. Why would anyone trying to write a story about an all powerful God, creator of the entire universe and everything in it, then present an instance where that God could not defeat a bunch of smelly desert dwellers because they have iron chariots?

    They wouldn’t

    and, more damning

    We do, just more than one verse at a time, and with comprehension mode set to the “ON” position.

    Finally. The truth comes out. You are a creationist. 😛

    Perhaps the reason why the stories go the way they do is because they are more entertaining that way. The bible is a work of fiction meant to give moral, social, and practical lessons (e.g. don’t eat pork, buy your slaves from neighboring lands, don’t practice incest, etc). Hence the term Christian mythology. The fact that people take these stories and parables literally is quite frightening.

    If you want to believe in God, Buddha, Satan, Allah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, that is your business. But, don’t expect the rest of us to see the world from your mythos literalist point of view.

    Moving on…

    Do you plan to answer my points above?

  83. E. Morriss says:

    firemancarl Says:

    February 5th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
    #1 I am not bitching if you quote pro evo. Why would you think that? The works I quoted support my position, even Coynes’ works.
    ____________

    When I quote an evolutionists and they are in *disagreement* with those you believe to be right, you bitch about it being a creationists invention.

    I try hard to find information everywhere else BUT creationist web sites, but that is not easy in some circumstances because there are not as many evolutionist sources (by observance of what appears in the Google search engine most of the time) that contain information or quotes of other evolutionist sources in opposition to an idea or particular work.

    When I find something on a creationists web site I dont use it if it does not have a reference, or I cannot verify the reference. I wouldn’t quote Judith Hooper saying the sky is blue because she is a nutcase.

    I may come across a reference somewhere else that Hooper has used, but that extremely circumstancial evidence does not mean I copied it from her (and I am not saying you said that, it is to illustrate that I dont use anything I can find).

    As for getting info from creationists web sites, it isn’t too hard to find in the mainstream journalism articles with evolutionists that have less than pleasant things to say about their evolutionist contemporaries.

  84. firemancarl says:

    Ah yes, but those very articles that you mention have for the most part been hacked and chopped up by apologists for use by the DI. Above all else, the facts are backed up by continual observation and retesting. Thats what makes science great. Case in point is the moths experiment. Majerus was able to redirect Kettlewells research so that instead of predation being the sole factor in the moths color change, it has now been determined that it is but one of several reasons for the change.

    And as I pointed out earlier, even the sceintists that disgree, and thats how change and discoveries are brought about, do not trash the previous works. They have found new information that shows some of the earlier works were incomplete, not false.

    You have not yet conceded that your , and creationist , labling of the Kettlewell experiments is wrong.

    About the bible,I dunno, you tell me why your god canna beat the smelly valley people. It says so in YOUR book for cryin out loud.

    It’s there. Right there! Judges 1:19. It doesn’t get any more clear than that!

    There are a lot of problems with the bible, and I have to agree with Jay Pinkertons back of the Bible webpage that the bible, especially the back of the old testament reads like a worn out A-Team plot or better yet, a Steven Segal movie, where he plays an ex-cop bent on revenge…for a change!

    http://www.jaypinkerton.com/backofthebible.html it’s good laugh!

  85. PC-Bash says:

    E. Morriss –

    You seemed to have missed my questions above, so I will repeat them to you again.

    Regarding A. afarensis:

    While you can contrast this specimen, there can be no doubt of the similarities. I never said that A. afarenis was a direct ancestor of man, but there can be no doubt that this specimen is related, as apes and chimps are related to us. Likely, this specimen is more related to us, even if it exists on the ape line after the split between man and ape. How do you account for the similarities? For that matter, how do you account for the similarities between chimps, apes, and humans? Did your designer decide to re-use DNA, or re-use some of his designs in both? You would be hard pressed to find a scientist who is taken seriously that believes that there is no relation between these species. If these species are related, then how did they becomes so without evolution, precisely?

  86. E. Morriss says:

    PC-Bash Says:

    February 5th, 2008 at 8:38 am
    “Sigh. You read some of talkorigins, but not the rest of it.”

    ___________________

    Sigh. You read one verse of the bible, but not the rest of it.
    ___________________

    PC-Bash Says:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_piths.html

    “Solly Zuckerman…”

    I didnt quote Zuckerman.

    “Zuckerman lost this debate in the 1950’s, and his position was abandoned by everyone else (Johanson and Edey 1981).”
    Charles Oxnard (1975),
    Howell et al.(1978) criticized …Oxnard’s results

    Amazing! You are quoting 50+ year old data as if that disproves the 2 year old (2006) data I gave you, which contradicts your 50+ year old data. That is something you guys hate (even TO pisses and moans about it) when creationists do it.

    Do you think you could use some information that is at least AFTER I was born?

    Hells bells, I even gave you one from April of 2007. This is the best you can do?

    “Finally, there is “an overwhelming body of evidence”, based on the work of nearly 30 scientists, which contradicts Oxnard’s work.”

    30 nameless scientists, wow. What convincing evidence! What a quorum!

    The teeth:

    “Creationists also rarely mention australopithecine teeth.

    [snip]

    “In fact, though the molars were larger than is now normal, most of the teeth [of the Taung child] could have belonged to a child of today.” (Campbell 1988) ”

    I didnt leave them out. In fact this is 19 year old data you quote, what I gave you was from 2006.

  87. E. Morriss says:

    PC-Bash Says:
    February 5th, 2008 at 9:52 pm

    “While you can contrast this specimen,”

    It is not me, I am agreeing with those in YOUR camp that contrast the specimen.

    “there can be no doubt of the similarities.”

    A number of YOUR camp disagree with you on many of those, therefore there is doubt.

    …”I never said that A. afarenis was a direct ancestor of man,”…

    I never said you did.

    “but there can be no doubt that this specimen is related, as apes and chimps are related to us.”

    Circumstantial at best.

    “Likely, this specimen is more related to us, even if it exists on the ape line after t”he split between man and ape.

    “A number of YOUR camp disagree with you”

    “How do you account for the similarities?”

    I dont have to, you do. It is not my claim to prove.

    “For that matter, how do you account for the similarities between chimps, apes, and humans?”

    I dont have to, you do. It is not my claim to prove. As far as similarities go, one sees what one wants to see. When your objectivty has been evicted and all other possibilities automatically ruled out, you have no other option but to see what your preconceptions will allow.

    “Did your designer decide to re-use DNA, or re-use some of his designs in both?”

    We reuse what we know everyday in design a watch, building a house, writing software, the list is endless. There is no reason why a designer could not, or would not reuse DNA for say, a hair folicle, eyelash, etc.

    Considering the staggering enormity of information capacity in DNA, even a 1% difference is not as small as evolutionists would like us to think. Some studies of so-called junk DNA are showing that some of it is not junk, it does serve a purpose. Just as most of the vestigial organs have been shown to serve a purpose, we may discover what was once considered leftover baggage, may well unlock some of the mysteries.

    “You would be hard pressed to find a scientist who is taken seriously that believes that there is no relation between these species. If these species are related, then how did they becomes so without evolution, precisely?”

    Like you said, arbitrary taxonomy.

  88. E. Morriss says:

    firemancarl Says:
    February 5th, 2008 at 8:17 pm

    “Ah yes, but those very articles that you mention have for the most part been hacked and chopped up by apologists for use by the DI.”

    I dont read the DI, didn’t like their stuff either.

    “Above all else, the facts are backed up by continual observation and retesting. Thats what makes science great. Case in point is the moths experiment. Majerus was able to redirect Kettlewells research so that instead of predation being the sole factor in the moths color change, it has now been determined that it is but one of several reasons for the change.”

    I didnt see the “one of several reasons” from the paper on his web site. he only talked about predation.

    http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html

    I just found this, and not from a creationist web site, and it is the first mention I have seen so far of :

    [1] we need better experiments to show that birds (in a natural environment) really do respond to camouflage in the ways we have presumed, that the primary reason the dark moths did better in polluted areas was because of camouflage (and not other factors like behavior),

    As I mentioned before, I disagree with the practice of altering the natural habitat and behaviour of the wildlife in the test area. You dont know to what degree doing so will affect the results.

    And

    [2] and that migration rates of moths from the surrounding countryside are not so great that they overwhelm the influence of selection in local regions by birds. Until these studies are done, the peppered moth story will be incomplete. Not wrong, but incomplete.

    And as I pointed out earlier, even the sceintists that disgree, and thats how change and discoveries are brought about, do not trash the previous works. They have found new information that shows some of the earlier works were incomplete, not false.

    You have not yet conceded that your , and creationist , labling of the Kettlewell experiments is wrong.

    I’ll acknowledge he does not deserve the label of hoax or fraud, and I will not repeat it again.

    About the bible,I dunno, you tell me why your god canna beat the smelly valley people. It says so in YOUR book for cryin out loud.

    I told you why. Now who is picking the questions they want to answer. I have gone to some lengths to answer your questions in spite of your predictions I would not. That type of response, simply to repeat your assertion in complete ignorance of the discussion is disingenuous.

  89. E. Morriss says:

    PC-Bash Says:

    February 5th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
    The logic you apply to this actually works against you. Why would anyone trying to write a story about an all powerful God, creator of the entire universe and everything in it, then present an instance where that God could not defeat a bunch of smelly desert dwellers because they have iron chariots?

    They wouldn’t

    and, more damning

    We do, just more than one verse at a time, and with comprehension mode set to the “ON” position.

    “Finally. The truth comes out. You are a creationist.”

    Which disproves your lie that I claimed no to be.

    “Perhaps the reason why the stories go the way they do is because they are more entertaining that way.”

    That logic fails also as it using the same intellectual dishonesty.

    “The bible is a work of fiction”

    Your reason for this opinion?

    “If you want to believe in God, Buddha, Satan, Allah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, that is your business. But, don’t expect the rest of us to see the world from your mythos literalist point of view.”

    There would be no point in expecting anyone to do that.

  90. PC-Bash says:

    E. Morriss –

    Alas, some entertainment. Your whole position falls to pieces.

    We reuse what we know everyday in design a watch, building a house, writing software, the list is endless. There is no reason why a designer could not, or would not reuse DNA for say, a hair folicle, eyelash, etc.

    There is absolutely no evidence anywhere to back up the dubious claim of the existence of a so-called “intelligent designer”. None.

    So, on the one hand, I have the option of believing in an all-powerful, all-knowing, theistic being… or I can extrapolate based on lab results, DNA evidence, and fossil evidence. Over time, science will change, it will become more accurate as more evidence is discovered. On the other hand, scripture will continue to rot in its scrolls, and will continue to become less and less applicable to modern life. The Judeo-Christian creation myth is allegory at best, a (vaguely) entertaining story at worst. It cannot change to meet new data, either you accept it or you don’t. I’m certain that you don’t accept 90% of the Book of Genesis anyway, yet strangely you find it important to accept the first part of it about how this Yaweh/Jehovah somehow created the world in six days, and rested on the seventh.

    Considering the staggering enormity of information capacity in DNA, even a 1% difference is not as small as evolutionists would like us to think. Some studies of so-called junk DNA are showing that some of it is not junk, it does serve a purpose. Just as most of the vestigial organs have been shown to serve a purpose, we may discover what was once considered leftover baggage, may well unlock some of the mysteries.

    All DNA has a purpose. Some of it is historical. Some of it is practical. For instance, our DNA has a near-complete replica of bacterial DNA. How it got there, scientists haven’t a clue yet. It is a rich area of research. However, the difference between chimps and humans is not as important as the similarity. The brain structure of the chimp is nearly identical to our own, save for volume. Chimps are capable of abstract thought, of reasoning, of bartering (although, we have to show them the habit as they do not barter on their own). No one who has had the chance to work with a chimp as I have would have any doubt of their similarity to humans. It isn’t necessary to anthromorphize a chimp, they do quite a good job imitating humans without us projecting this through wishful thinking. 🙂

    Are there differences between chimps, apes, and humans? Obviously. Of course, I need not argue the differences with you. You grasp the differences, even if you are a bit over-enthusiastic about them. It is not the differences that frighten you, it is the similarity. Why is that? Is it abhorrent that we are related? Do you fear the moral implications, as many creationists do? Does it honestly matter in a philosophical sense?

    Scientists don’t have all the answers, and they are willing to admit this. Not having all of the answers is okay. Likewise, a mythical book written thousands of years ago does not have all the answers, although few of the evangelicals would be willing to admit this. Interesting indeed.

    Like you said, arbitrary taxonomy.

    Taxonomy? Honestly, that’s your answer? But, previously you said that macroevolution was tied to taxonomy. In your words, you said that microevolution could give rise to new species, but macroevolution was needed to describe similarities between different genera. Yet, now you trivialize taxonomy, using my words to call it “arbitrary”. Interesting.

    So, I answered in kind. You assumed, of course, that I was going to claim that A. afarenus was an ancestor of humans, something that you quickly pulled citations against. I did not make this claim, instead I motioned to show that this primate is related to both apes and humans. Whether if Lucy is a distant cousin or a great-grandmother, I did not imply, nor need I. Modern science acknowledges this to be the case, even if scientists don’t all agree on which branch of the family tree these fossils belong. The only thing that is obvious here is that these fossils are related to both apes and humans, something that should make it apparent that evolution is at play here, be it “macro-” evolution.

    Of course, this is one of thousands of examples I have to pull from. I could have just as easily chosen whale fossils, or mycology (a pasttime of mine). See, I only need to show evidence for one of these to dash your position to pieces. You have to disprove all of these to maintain your position, which is looking ever more brittle indeed.

    Which disproves your lie that I claimed no to be.

    All crafted to get you to admit to being a creationist, which helps to shrink your argument even more. 🙂

    That logic fails also as it using the same intellectual dishonesty. (re: the bible is entertaining)

    Not really, no. See, Christians have a history of making stories entertaining in order to convert “heathens”. Consider the story of Beowulf, a Christian story written to convert the Norse into good Christians. To believe that the bible was not written in an entertaining way definitely defeats most of the latter half of the Old Testament. Consider the story of Hosea. The dude marries a prostitute, who is of course unfaithful to him. This is allegory to how the Israelites were unfaithful to Jehovah. It’s an entertaining story. Are we really to believe that Hosea married a prostitute? Should we honestly take this story as literal?

    Your reason for this opinion? (re: the bible is a work of fiction)

    Other than dubious historical stories in the bible, which correspond more to the “alternate history” genre than actual history, most of the old and new testaments are allegorical. They are stories written with a moral at the end (or in the middle, or sideways). Do you believe that the remnants of the works of Ba’al or Mithras are truth as well? How about the Hindu mythos? Islam? I’m sure that you are just as atheistic about these stories as I am. You are 99% as much atheist as I am, I just take it one god further (or in the case of the Catholic mythos, 3.5 gods further, since I don’t believe in the father, the son, the holy ghost, or the Virgin Mary who sort-of counts as a goddess).

    There would be no point in expecting anyone to do that. (Re: making others see the world from your mythos literalist point of view)

    So, you have no desire to see ID taught in schools, or in telling kids that evolution is “just a theory” so it doesn’t leave a possibility of disproving the creationist myth? Now, who’s being the intellectually dishonest one?

  91. firemancarl says:

    So, the real question we must have answered is why these xtians deem it so important to teach dogma in schools Are they losing that much ground that they are now attacking the constitution and the educational system?

  92. PC-Bash says:

    firemancarl –

    Yes. That is essentially what is the case, based on reading the Wedge document, and reading between the lines. The churches are losing people at a record rate, and they are looking for someone to blame.

    There is a constituent of people that believe that we are losing morality as a society, and that is because we are turning our backs on religious faith. Instead of seeing this as a cultural awakening, they choose to see this as a conspiracy, and they choose to blame the education system, specifically science education. What is the term now that they call atheists? “Secular Humanist Materialism” or some other nonsense.

    After all, the old and new testaments are such shining examples of morality. For instance, Job who was essentially tortured by Jehovah for being faithful. Another great example is Lot, who offered up his daughters to be raped and humiliated. Abraham, who was nearly driven to torture and kill his son by religious fervor. Of course, this is only the old testament. The new testament as some great gems as well.

    All of this, of course, is not at all germane to the issue of whether we should teach evolution in schools. The fundies believe it is, but it is not. If it wasn’t how they thought, I would think of it as an elaborate strawman argument. Of course, the Wedge strategy makes all of this painfully clear.

  93. firemancarl says:

    Well PC when you talk like that, may I offer you a video on Lot and Job?

    Lots story-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gpy4Y2OdzY

    Jobs story-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPg3kjKBRc

    I hope you enjoy these two beautiful tutorials on life in the OT

  94. E. Morriss says:

    PC-Bash Says:

    February 6th, 2008 at 6:59 am
    E. Morriss –

    [snip]

    “There is absolutely no evidence anywhere to back up the dubious claim of the existence of a so-called “intelligent designer”. None.”

    A common and tired parroting of an old atheist lie.

    You cannot see a black hole, you cannot make one in a lab, you cant get close to one, but you can prove it exists by observing the effects it has on its surroundings.

    The evidence for a creator abounds, some refuse to see it, some are intellectually honest enough to consider the evidence regardless of the outcome. The same test used to authenticate all documents of antiquity have been applied to the Bible by historians (atheist, agnostic, Christian and others) and it is has been clearly proven to be authentic, consistent and unchanged from the original writings.

    No other literary work of antiquity comes close to the huge volume of MSS or distribution that validates the historiography of the Bible.

    The verification of the historicity of the Bible is increasing with the passage of time. Many of the previous historical references in the Bible once claimed as myth have been confirmed via historical and archeological discoveries.

    _______________________________
    PC-Bash Says:
    On the other hand, scripture will continue to rot in its scrolls, and will continue to become less and less applicable to modern life.
    _______________________________

    It is always applicable, that never changes. The people who use this argument are really saying it so they will not have to be accountable for what they do.

    _______________________________
    PC-Bash Says:
    The Judeo-Christian creation myth is allegory at best
    _______________________________

    Scientists long held fast to the static model of the universe. Imagine their dismay when Einstein’s theory of relativity predicted the universe had a beginning. It so disturbed Einstein that he introduce a false cosmological constant to save the paradigm of a static, infinitely old universe. It failed, and Einstein admitted it was the greatest blunder of his career.

    Since then some scientists have worked hard to either disprove the Big Bang (a tiny number of holdouts), or concoct a new hypothesis of a natural cause for the beginning of the universe. In other words, from nothing time, space, and all matter came into existence by a natural process.

    Evolutionists do not want to talk about the origin of life on Earth by a natural process because it is not their field. They dismiss it with the wave of a hand and use yet another piece of circular logic “we exist, so that proves it happened”. or they claim that even though an experiment was wrong, such as the Urey-Miller experiment, the fact they got a few amino acids is proof it happened.

    The reality is that all attempts to prove life arose naturally have failed.

    Where does that leave evolution? How long do you keep trying to prove life arose naturally? There are numerous new ideas about how a living cell could occur naturally, however it is noted that all of them suffer from the same problems as the Urey-Miller experiment from 1953. Evolutionists will no doubt deny it is a problem for them to be concerned about.

    If you cannot prove life arose naturally, evolution being the mechanism of all life forms is just wishful thinking. The root of the tree is dead.

    I haven’t seen this many strawmen in one response in a long time.

    Strawman #1, combined with a lie, and fuzzy logic:

    _______________________________
    PC-Bash Says:
    I’m certain that you don’t accept 90% of the Book of Genesis anyway, yet strangely you find it important to accept the first part of it about how this Yaweh/Jehovah somehow created the world in six days, and rested on the seventh.
    _______________________________

    [1] Sets up the false premise that I reject most of Genesis while accepting only a part of it (lets see how many strawmen come out of that). It is a strawman of his own invention so he can make the claim I dont believe most of the source of my faith. During this entire thread I have never even mentioned Genesis much less how much of it I believe. PC does this repeatedly throughout his posts. In fact the vast majority of the substance of his responses are strawmen and outright lies claiming I said things I never said.

    This practice is an excellent example of why PC wants the Bible “to become less and less applicable to modern life”- so he does not have to have a conscience.

    [2] “…yet strangely you find it important…”

    Once again another lie and the remainder of the strawman. This is another topic we have not discussed in any way, however PC claims to know some fact about my beliefs.

    [3] The fuzzy logic (as if there has not been enough).

    PC implies a God could not create the world in only 6 days (“somehow”) by using man’s inability to do so to falsify A God having the ability.

    ——————————-

    E. Morriss –
    Considering the staggering enormity of information capacity in DNA, even a 1% difference is not as small as evolutionists would like us to think. Some studies of so-called junk DNA are showing that some of it is not junk, it does serve a purpose. Just as most of the vestigial organs have been shown to serve a purpose, we may discover what was once considered leftover baggage, may well unlock some of the mysteries.

    [snip]

    Strawman #2:

    _______________________________
    PC-Bash Says:
    It is not the differences that frighten you, it is the similarity. Why is that? Is it abhorrent that we are related? Do you fear the moral implications, as many creationists do? Does it honestly matter in a philosophical sense?
    _______________________________

    The strawman is setup by saying I am frightened by the similarities, then confirms the assertion as if I admitted it with the “why is that?” That relieves him from the responsibility of real discussion since he can preemptively tear down the strawman with the “questions” that follow. Those are not questions, they are simply PC answering himself so he can tell yet another lie in a subsequent post claiming *I* admitted to his strawman.

    Strawman #3:
    _______________________________
    PC-Bash Says:
    So, I answered in kind. You assumed, of course, that I was going to claim that A. afarenus was an ancestor of humans, something that you quickly pulled citations against. I did not make this claim, instead I motioned to show that this primate is related to both apes and humans. Whether if Lucy is a distant cousin or a great-grandmother, I did not imply, nor need I.
    _______________________________

    I didn’t assume or claim he used or would use the word “ancestor”. This is the second time he made this strawman, and I responded the first time:

    …”I never said that A. afarenis was a direct ancestor of man,”…

    I never said you did.

    The data I provided from *evolutionists* researching A. aferensis used the word ancestor. It is apparent from reading the numerous papers on “Lucy” that evolutionists WANT her to be an ancestor, including Johanson who discovered the remains of Lucy. At the time I didn’t come across one that used the word “relative”, so he thinks it is my fault. His complaint is nothing but another strawman to divert attention away from discussion of the evolutionist data I provided.

    Instead of commenting on the data I provided PC provides quotes from evolutionists dating from 1988 to the 1950’s as a refutation of the data I provided, all of which was from 2006 and 2007. That is a tactic the evolutionists loudly complain about when it is done by creationists.

    [snip]

    Strawman #4 and an attempt to redirect:
    _______________________________
    PC-Bash Says:
    Not really, no. See, Christians have a history of making stories entertaining in order to convert “heathens”. Consider the story of Beowulf, a Christian story written to convert the Norse into good Christians.
    _______________________________

    A Christian story? The author is unknown, but this is not important anyway. Beowulf is not from the bible so there is no direct correlation. This is an attempt to redirect attention.

    Strawman #5:
    _______________________________
    PC-Bash Says:
    To believe that the bible was not written in an entertaining way definitely defeats most of the latter half of the Old Testament.

    I have not made any statement about this, one way or the other.

    Strawman #6, argument by omission and removal from context.
    _______________________________
    PC-Bash Says:
    Consider the story of Hosea. The dude marries a prostitute, who is of course unfaithful to him. This is allegory to how the Israelites were unfaithful to Jehovah. It’s an entertaining story. Are we really to believe that Hosea married a prostitute? Should we honestly take this story as literal?
    _______________________________

    To consider the story of Hosea, one has to truthfully convey the story instead of intentionally omitting facts critical to the story, AND if you are going to discuss the story of Hosea you must consider all possible arguments.

    The most common tactic of critics is to snip a word, sentence or verse from a story that may cover an entire chapter, and complain about some problem.

    The dude didn’t just marry a prosty, he was *commanded* to marry a prosty. This story is both literal and allegory, and there is no reason to doubt Hosea would have done as commanded. “I wouldn’t have married a prosty for any reason” is arguing the other person as yourself, which is a fallacy.

    PC’s noting the allegory part (to how the Israelites were unfaithful to Jehovah) is accurate in the sense that it is symbolic, but ignores the rest of the story which reveals the *purpose* of Hosea being commanded to marry a prosty. You might say it is a parallel to live by the sword, die by the sword.

    Given the length of the Bible, one could spend a lifetime trying to refute the endless strawmen of the critics and never get close to covering all of them.

    _______________________________

    PC-Bash Says:

    Other than dubious historical stories in the bible, which correspond more to the “alternate history” genre than actual history,

    Historical and archeological findings are revealing more and more the accuracy of the historical references in the Bible once claimed to be myths by critics. They really hate that. These include places, people, events, structures and even entire civilizations once claimed by critics to be made up by the authors of the Bible.

    PC-Bash Says:
    most of the old and new testaments are allegorical. They are stories written with a moral at the end (or in the middle, or sideways).

    See reference to history and archeology above.

    PC-Bash Says:
    Do you believe that the remnants of the works of Ba’al or Mithras are truth as well? How about the Hindu mythos? Islam? I’m sure that you are just as atheistic about these stories as I am. You are 99% as much atheist as I am, I just take it one god further

    Is it atheistic to disbelieve something that is known and proven to be false? Of course not. It is atheistic to disbelieve something known to be true via historical and archeological (scientific) means. I think your math is a bit off in this case.

    Strawman #7 & 8, a two-fer, and he changes his own words!
    _______________________________
    PC-Bash Says:
    But, don’t expect the rest of us to see the world from your mythos literalist point of view.”

    E. Morriss –
    There would be no point in expecting anyone to do that. (Re: making others see the world from your mythos literalist point of view)

    PC-Bash Says:
    So, you have no desire to see ID taught in schools, or in telling kids that evolution is “just a theory” so it doesn’t leave a possibility of disproving the creationist myth? Now, who’s being the intellectually dishonest one?
    _______________________________

    What an incredible stretch.

    (Watch, now he will claim I just stated something else)

    First, you said “expect the rest of us”, now you change it to “Re: making others”. Interesting, very interesting.

    It would be pointless for a teacher to *expect* students to believe evolution or creation, or X or Y. It would be reasonable for a teacher to expect you to pass a test, but that is all. (I wonder if I will be accused of claiming to be a teacher?)

  95. PC-Bash says:

    A common and tired parroting of an old atheist lie. (Re: no evidence for an intelligent designer)

    You have mentioned some dating of the bible and various scrolls. This does not at all back up your assertion that there is an intelligent designer. All it shows is that the bible is old. How this could be “evidence”, I have no idea.

    It is always applicable, that never changes. The people who use this argument are really saying it so they will not have to be accountable for what they do.

    and

    This practice is an excellent example of why PC wants the Bible “to become less and less applicable to modern life”- so he does not have to have a conscience.

    Tell me, when was the last time you decided to purchase a slave? When was the last time you stoned to death your child for being disrespectful? Both in the bible, both outdated.

    You are attempting to invoke a garbage religious argument that religion, specifically the bible, is the basis of morality. This simply is not the case. It is possible to be moral outside of religion. This has always been a rich subject for philosophers, who have no need to invoke a spiritual authority figure. So, claiming that I am making this argument so I don’t have to be accountable for what I do is nothing more than ignorance. Nice ad hominem, but your point is entirely irrelevant.

    How long do you keep trying to prove life arose naturally?

    You are referring to abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution explains how life evolved, not how it began. Also, your paragraph about the Big Bang is also meaningless to the discussion of evolution.

    You still dodged the question of whether A. afarenus was related to humans or not.

    A Christian story? The author is unknown, but this is not important anyway. Beowulf is not from the bible so there is no direct correlation. This is an attempt to redirect attention.

    It is a well known Christian story. Perhaps you should try reading it. This was not an attempt to redirect attention, I was answering your question. The bible is entertainment, how else are you going to get people to sit through a bunch of boring social rules, without some allegorical stories? Don’t take my word for it, perhaps you should read what biblical scholars have to say about it.

    Historical and archeological findings are revealing more and more the accuracy of the historical references in the Bible once claimed to be myths by critics. They really hate that. These include places, people, events, structures and even entire civilizations once claimed by critics to be made up by the authors of the Bible.

    Of course, they also tack on things like “God smote this village or that village”. Taking a historical event and weaving it into a story is a well known technique of story telling. The “alternate” part here is invoking a fictional theistic being as the cause of these events.

    Is it atheistic to disbelieve something that is known and proven to be false? Of course not. It is atheistic to disbelieve something known to be true via historical and archeological (scientific) means. I think your math is a bit off in this case.

    How can you disprove the existence of Mithras or Ba’al? You cannot disprove the existence of either, just the same as I cannot disprove the existence of your god. However, just because I can’t disprove something shouldn’t mean that I should believe it. Why don’t you believe in other gods, they aren’t disproved like you claim?

    It would be pointless for a teacher to *expect* students to believe evolution or creation, or X or Y. It would be reasonable for a teacher to expect you to pass a test, but that is all.

    When the teacher is teaching impressionable young children religious principles on the basis of belief and not verifiable truth, I expect children to see their teacher as an authority figure, and to believe what the teacher says implicitly. Here lies the danger in teaching religious garbage like ID.

    So, essentially, as usual, your comments have said nothing of worth.

    You have admitted to being a creationist, you have shown your ignorance of both modern science and of mainstream interpretation of the bible, and you still continue to troll here.

  96. PC-Bash says:

    To expand on something you said.

    It is atheistic to disbelieve something known to be true via historical and archeological (scientific) means.

    This statement is nonsense. Atheism is not the wanton disbelief of things known to be true. There is absolutely no evidence of the existence of your Judeo-Christian god. None. There is also no evidence that so-called “bible history” actually happened the way it was recorded in the bible. Considering that much of the allegory in the bible tried to interpret and color events based on the influence of a fictional being, I would doubt the veracity of anything in the bible, especially of any conclusions that it draws based on these colorful historic depictions. By not believing in your mystic authority figure, I am not disbelieving something known to be true. There is absolutely no evidence here of worth. Go fish.

  97. PC-Bash says:

    The dude didn’t just marry a prosty, he was *commanded* to marry a prosty.

    Oh. Sorry. The voice in his head, who he believed to be God, told him to marry a prostitute. Yeah, that’s much better. Glad you cleared that up. 😛

    This story is both literal and allegory, and there is no reason to doubt Hosea would have done as commanded.

    Yes, there’s no doubt that he would listen to the voice in his head. How you get that this story is literal, I have no idea. The problem here is how can you tell the difference between what is supposed to be taken literally, and what isn’t? How do you know that the creation myth in Genesis is supposed to be taken literally, or partially literally, and other parts aren’t? There is no decoder ring to tell the difference, and the bible speaks as if the whole thing is true. So, where do you draw the line? If you believe the whole bible to be literal, then take up snakes like it tells you to.

  98. firemancarl says:

    E MOrriss,

    You brought up black holes as proof for your god. Unlike your god however, black holes can be studied-by watching star movement, their size can be determined-by their effect on surrounding stars-etc. God cannot be tested in anyway shape or form.

    Simply looking around you and saying “Wow, it sure seems complex, god musta didit!” is not, repeat not a case for a creator.

  99. firemancarl says:

    E Morriss,

    Since you have such a hard time with evo(evil, in your case )lution, you might enjoy this snippet

    from an ID conference in 2007.
    http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/02/id-intelligent.html

    She was then prompted by one of her colleagues to regale us with some new experimental finds. She gave what amounted to a second presentation, during which she discussed “leaky growth,” in microbial colonies at high densities, leading to horizontal transfer of genetic information, and announced that under such conditions she had actually found a novel variant that seemed to lead to enhanced colony growth. Gunther Wagner said, “So, a beneficial mutation happened right in your lab?” at which point the moderator halted questioning. We shuffled off for a coffee break with the admission hanging in the air that natural processes could not only produce new information, they could produce beneficial new information.

  100. E. Morriss says:

    PC-Bash Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 6:18 pm

    You have mentioned some dating of the bible and various scrolls. This does not at all back up your assertion that there is an intelligent designer. All it shows is that the bible is old. How this could be “evidence”, I have no idea.
    ___________________

    It is one piece of the the total evidence. You are correct that this alone is not proof, there is much more to the evidence.

    historiography

    1. The principles, theories, or methodology of scholarly historical research and presentation.
    2. The writing of history based on a critical analysis, evaluation, and selection of authentic source materials and composition of these materials into a narrative subject to scholarly methods of criticism.
    3. A body of historical literature.

    Historiography proves much more than something is old. This is not a creationist principle, it is one of the most frequently used processes to determine the historical authenticity of the documents of antiquity. This process is used to determine whether a document of antiquity has remained consistent from the original to the extant. It does not prove the content and in the case of the Bible it does not prove the inspiration.

    [1] The bibliographical test (textual transmission), how many copies were made, the time interval between the original and the extant, and the reliability (accuracy) of the copies over that time when compared to each other.

    [2] The internal evidence test.

    John Warwick Montgomery writes that literary critics still follow Aristotles dictum that:
    ________________________________________________
    “…the benefit of the doubt is to be given to
    the document itself, not arrogated by the critic
    to himself.”

    Therefore, “one must listen to to the claims of
    the document under analysis, and not assume fraud
    or error unless the author disqualified himself
    by contradictions or known factual inaccuracies”.
    ________________________________________________

    Dr Gleason Archer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleason_Archer)

    Encylopedia of Bible Difficulties

    “As I have dealt with one apparent discrepancy after another and have studied the alleged contradictions between the biblical record and the evidence of linguistics, archeology, or science, my confidence in the trustworthiness od Scripture has been repeatedly verified and strengthened by the discovery that almost every problem in Scripture that has been discovered by man, from ancient times until now, has been dealt with in a completely staisfatory manner by the biblical text itself- or else by objective archeological information. The deductions that may be validly drawn from ancient Egyptian, Sumerian, or Akkadian documents all harmonize with the biblical record.”

    [3] The external evidence test: Do other historical materials confirm or deny the internal testimony provided by the documents themselves?

    This includes Christian sources outside of the bible and non Christian sources.Some critics claim there are no extra Biblical sources that confirm anything in the Bible, especially Jesus or the New Testament events. This is simply false to fact.

    Non Christian historians of the time confirming Jesus and events in the New Testament include Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Emperor Tajan, the Talmud, Lucian and Mara Bar-Serapion.

    One of the critics claims shattered by archeology: The crucifiction story was made up because the Romans never used nails on anyone.

    In 1968 an ancient burial site containing about 35 bodies was found. One of those bodies still had a 7 inch spike driven through the heel (the feet had been turned outward) just inside the Achilles tendon. The spike had gone through a wedge of acacia wood, then through the heels, then into an olive wood beam A spike was also apparently driven through the two bones of the lower arm. The bones were worn smooth as the victim tried to raise himslef to breath.

    No, it wasn’t Jesus, the body was identified as Yohanan Ben Ha’galgol and he had a cleft palate.

    Erastus: Mentioned by Paul as the city treasurer of Corinth, but not mentioned anywhere else. It was claimed Erastus was made up as a part of the “fairy tale”. In 1929, during the excavation of Corinth, a paving stone was found in one of the ancient streets with the inscription “Erastus, curator of public buildings, laid this pavement at his own expense”.

    In my opinion, one of the greatest finds was the Hittites (OT). Once thought to be fictional and an invention of the Bible authors, the Hittites were discovered along with about 1200 years of their history. A history that ran before and after Moses.

    Bible scholars agree that:

    Jesus lived
    Jesus was tried and convicted by Pilate
    Jesus was crucified
    Jesus was buried
    Jesus was resurrected.

    There is no doubt of the first 3.

    Was he buried? Some critics claim the family carried him away and buried him in private, then claimed the resurrection and took people to a different tomb.

    Hardly. The Romans, at the behest of the Sanhedrin, sent guards with the family and made sure Jesus was buried and the tomb was sealed.

    Was he resurrected? Critics claim someone took the body to make the resurrection look real. They forgot about the guards, so the next claim was they bribed the guards. Not likely. The guards knew the penalty for failing in their duty or falling asleep on duty- death!

    If the apostles just made up the story and the body was still in the tomb that would be the most stupid thing to do. The Romans would have been only to happy to open the toomb and drag the festering body around the city to prove to everyone that he was indeed dead.

    If the Tomb was not empty, why did the Sanhedrin make up a story about the guards being bribed and the body stolen?

    Jesus met with hundreds of people after he was resurrected. If that was a lie it would have been revealed immediately.

    _________________________
    PC-Bash Says:
    Tell me, when was the last time you decided to purchase a slave?
    _________________________

    The first mistake is not knowing what is God’s Law, and what is not. God’s instructions about buying servants was not God’s Law. Don’t blather about about everything God says is law.

    One of the mistakes, and sometimes intentional tactics, is to apply modern meanings, customs and culture to ancient words and times. The other is not knowing, or intentionally ignoring, the fact that the words you read in an English version are translations from Hebrew, Greek, etc. Not all words of a language have an exact counterpart in another language. Sometimes that can cause confusion, but that is not the fault of the original Word.

    The term “slavery” is evocative rather than analytical for those who don’t know, or refuse to know, to look deeper to find the true meaning.

    The Hebrew words used in the verses to which you refer is ‘ebed and ‘amah. As in many languages, Hebrew words had many meanings that could apply dependent on context.

    ‘ebed manservant
    1) slave, servant
    a) slave, servant, man-servant
    b) subjects
    c) servants, worshippers (of God)
    d) servant (in special sense as prophets, Levites etc)
    e) servant (of Israel)
    f) servant (as form of address between equals)

    ‘amah handmaid
    maid-servant, female slave, maid, handmaid, concubine
    a) of humility (fig.)

    While each word can be used to mean slave, the actual practise among the Israelites was not the slavery you imply.

    The practice you call slavery is not the slavery practiced by the Romans or by the plantation owners of the south.

    _________________________

    Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology (4 vols), David Levinson and Melvin Ember (eds), HenryHolt:1996

    “Scholars do not agree on a definition of “slavery.” The term has been used at various times for a wide range of institutions, including plantation slavery, forced labor, the drudgery of factories and sweatshops, child labor, semivoluntary prostitution, bride-price marriage, child adoption for payment, and paid-for surrogate motherhood. Somewhere within this range, the literal meaning of “slavery” shifts into metaphorical meaning, but it is not entirely clear at what point. A similar problem arises when we look at other cultures. The reason is that the term “Slavery” is evocative rather than analytical, calling to mind a loose bundle of diagnostic features. These features are mainly derived from the most recent direct Western experience with slavery, that of the southern United States, the Caribbean, and Latin America. The present Western image of slavery has been haphazardly constructed out of the representations of that experience in nineteenth-century abolitionist literature, and later novels, textbooks, and films…From a global cross-cultural and historical perspective, however, New World slavery was a unique conjunction of features…
    ========================================
    In brief, most varieties of slavery did
    not exhibit the three elements that were
    dominant in the New World: slaves as
    property and commodities; their use
    exclusively as labor; and their lack
    of freedom…”
    ========================================

    In almost all cases it was voluntary, or used as a last resort means of paying a debt. Sometimes people would sell themselves as a servant because they had no way to care for themselves.

    A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law (2 vols). Raymond Westbrook (ed). Brill:2003

    “Freedom in the ancient Near East was a relative, not an absolute state, as the ambiguity of the term for “slave” in all the region’s languages illustrates. “Slave” could be used to refer to a subordinate in the social ladder. Thus the subjects of a king were called his “slaves,” even though they were free citizens. The king himself, if a vassal, was the “slave” of his emperor; kings, emperors, and commoners alike were “slaves” of the gods. Even a social inferior, when addressing a social superior, referred to himself out of politeness as “your slave.” There were, moreover, a plethora of servile conditions that were not regarded as slavery, such as son, daughter, wife, serf, or human pledge.”
    _________________________
    Anchor Bible Dictionary, David Noel Freedman (main ed.), DoubleDay:1992

    “The word >ebed, however, denoted not only actual slaves occupied in production or in the household but also persons in subordinate positions (mainly subordinate with regard to the king and his higher officials). Thus the term >ebed is sometimes translated as “servant.”

    Besides, the term was used as a sign of servility in reference to oneself when addressing persons of higher rank. Finally, the same term was also used in the figurative meaning “the slave (or servant) of God.” Thus, the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, prophets, David, Solomon and other kings are regularly called slaves of Yahweh (Exod 32:13; Lev 25:55; 1 Sam 3:9; Ezra 9:11, etc.). Similarly, all the subjects of Israel and Judah are called slaves of their kings, including even wives, sons, and brothers of the latter (1 Sam 17:8; 29:3; 2 Sam 19:5, etc.; cf. also Gen 27:37; 32:4).

    Addressing Moses and prophets, the Israelites called themselves their slaves (Num 32:25; 1 Sam 12:19, etc.). Ruth refers to herself as a slave girl of her relative Boaz (Ruth 3:9). Being a vassal of the Philistine king Achish, David called himself his slave (1 Sam 28:2). It is natural that the same vague and inexplicitly formulated social terminology characteristic of the ANE is also used in the Bible in relation to the subjects of foreign rulers. For example, courtiers of an Aramean ruler or the soldiers of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II were considered slaves of their monarchs (2 Kgs 6:11; 24:10–11). It is natural that kings of Judah depending on more powerful rulers of neighboring countries were considered their slaves.

    Thus, Ahaz is referred to as a slave of the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III (2 Kgs 16:7). In modern translations of the Bible >ebed/doulos and several other similar terms are rendered “slave” as well as “servant,” “attendant,” etc. Such translations, however, might create some confusion and give the incorrect impression that special terms for the designation of servants and slaves are attested in the Bible…

    However, selecting the proper meaning from such a broad metaphorical application of the term designating a general dependence rarely presents great difficulty. For example, Abimelech, king of Gerar, called up his slaves and told them his dream (Gen 20:8). Apparently, these “slaves” were royal courtiers and officials. Abraham gathered 318 of his slaves, born in his household, in order to recover his kinsman Lot who had been captured by Chedorlaomer and three Mesopotamian kings (Gen 14:14).

    At least, a part of these persons constituted freeborn members of Abraham’s family. Upon ascending the throne of Judah, Amaziah executed his slaves who had murdered his father, the former king (2 Chr 25:3). These slaves were certainly royal dignitaries. When Josiah, king of Judah, had been killed at Megiddo, his body was taken in a chariot to Jerusalem by his slaves (2 Kgs 23:30).

    It is quite evident that these slaves were royal soldiers. In a number of cases, however, the interpretation of the actual meaning of the ambiguous >ebed may be disputed. For instance, the steward of Abraham’s household who was in charge of all his possessions is called his slave (Gen 24:2). His status can only conjecturally be interpreted as an indication of actual slavery and, of course, he could have been a freeborn person.”
    _________________________

    There were strict rules as to how these people were treated. They were not to be abused, they were to be cared for, provided food, shelter, education, clothing, and medical attention (such that it was). They could earn money, own property, buy and sell, participate in politics, vote, travel, learn trades, etc.

    This is the slavery you think it means:

    _________________________

    A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law (2 vols). Raymond Westbrook (ed). Brill:2003

    Entry: Slavery was overwhelmingly involuntary. Humans were captured by force and sold via slave-traders.

    This was true both for the Islamic slave trade and the European trade. So, Britannica:

    Slaves have been owned in black Africa throughout recorded history. In many areas there were large-scale slave societies, while in others there were slave-owning societies. Slavery was practiced everywhere even before the rise of Islam, and black slaves exported from Africa were widely traded throughout the Islamic world. Approximately 18,000,000 Africans were delivered into the Islamic trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean slave trades between 650 and 1905. In the second half of the 15th century Europeans began to trade along the west coast of Africa, and by 1867 between 7,000,000 and 10,000,000 Africans had been shipped as slaves to the New World…. The relationship between African and New World slavery was highly complementary. African slave owners demanded primarily women and children for labour and lineage incorporation and tended to kill males because they were troublesome and likely to flee. The transatlantic trade, on the other hand, demanded primarily adult males for labour and thus saved from certain death many adult males who otherwise would have been slaughtered outright by their African captors.”
    _________________________

    It is easy to be critical in the manner you use. The truth sometimes requires sweat.
    _________________________

    Regarding the Beowulf story:

    PC-Bash Says:

    “It is a well known Christian story. Perhaps you should try reading it. This was not an attempt to redirect attention, I was answering your question. The bible is entertainment,…”

    Please cite the book, chapter and verse telling the Beowulf story in the Bible. It has nothing to do with the Bible.

    PC-Bash Says:
    “How can you disprove the existence of Mithras or Ba’al? You cannot disprove the existence of either, just the same as I cannot disprove the existence of your god. However, just because I can’t disprove something shouldn’t mean that I should believe it. Why don’t you believe in other gods, they aren’t disproved like you claim?”

    Historiography, as explained above. The same tests applied to all of the documents of antiquity. Neither Mithras or Ba’al can pass the test.

    The critics list of issues to be resolved by scholars is growing shorter and shorter. So short in fact, about all they have left are strawmen.

  101. E. Morriss says:

    firemancarl Says:

    February 8th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
    E Morriss,

    Since you have such a hard time with evo(evil, in your case )lution, you might enjoy this snippet

    from an ID conference in 2007.
    http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/02/id-intelligent.html

    She was then prompted by one of her colleagues to regale us with some new experimental finds. She gave what amounted to a second presentation, during which she discussed “leaky growth,” in microbial colonies at high densities, leading to horizontal transfer of genetic information, and announced that under such conditions she had actually found a novel variant that seemed to lead to enhanced colony growth. Gunther Wagner said, “So, a beneficial mutation happened right in your lab?” at which point the moderator halted questioning. We shuffled off for a coffee break with the admission hanging in the air that natural processes could not only produce new information, they could produce beneficial new information.

    And?

    I dont have a problem with that. When you find someone that can prove I had a horizontal transfer of genetic information from the hamburger I had today, then we can talk.

  102. E. Morriss says:

    And?

    I dont have a problem with that. When you find someone that can prove I had a horizontal transfer of genetic information from the hamburger I had today, then we can talk.
    ——-

    I am about to go and have a vertical transfer of the junk genetic material from the hamburger, does that count?

  103. firemancarl says:

    Sure, and since you are refering to Lemarkian theory which is been widely abondoned by evolutioary scientists, i’ll have tripple with cheese and bacon.

    How, about your claim that god created everything. If you can show me, using the scientific method, how you believe a creator created everyting, then I will give full thought to your side of the issue.

  104. PC-Bash says:

    E. Morriss –

    What a load of crap.

    You are correct that this alone is not proof, there is much more to the evidence.

    So, if I write a story that includes historic events, but I claim that an advanced race of lizard men were involved, and weaved them into this story… and managed to get other people to write stories with elements of the lizard men fiction in them, I would have just as much evidence as you have for the bible three thousand years from now.

    The practice you call slavery is not the slavery practiced by the Romans or by the plantation owners of the south.

    Regarding slavery… everything you have provided is nothing more than apologist garbage.

    Exodus 21:20-21 “And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property].”
    bullet Exodus 21:26-27 “And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake. And if he smite out his manservant’s tooth, or his maidservant’s tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake.”

    Yes. How often does one beat a servant or employee?

    Leviticus 25:44-46: “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.” (NIV)

    Maybe you should try reading the bible instead of claiming that you are an expert of it.

    From your quoted material:
    In brief, most varieties of slavery did
    not exhibit the three elements that were
    dominant in the New World: slaves as
    property and commodities; their use
    exclusively as labor; and their lack
    of freedom

    This would be blasphemy, according to the quotes from the bible I pulled out. Slaves were property, an owner could smite his slave. Go fish.

    Please cite the book, chapter and verse telling the Beowulf story in the Bible. It has nothing to do with the Bible.

    I never said it did. I said, and I quote: “Not really, no. See, Christians have a history of making stories entertaining in order to convert “heathens”.”

    Note that the original pre-Christian story of Beowulf did not have all of the Christian allegory that was tacked onto the later tale. Beowulf touching Grendel’s hand, Grendel seeing Jesus and the Virgin Mary, Grendel’s mother copulating with Cain.

    I go back to my original point. The bible is (vaguely) entertaining. It uses allegory to teach morals lessons.

    Regarding all of your historical points, none of these prove the existence of anything in the bible. It only makes sense that the authors would tie in current events, that makes their fabrications that much more believable. Just because some of these current events happen does not mean that your god was behind it. That would be a fallacy, to assume that correlation means causation.

    Regarding Jesus, there is no evidence that he ever existed. As far as anyone can tell, he is an urban legend. Sure, they crucified people. The Romans did lots of crucifixions, many many thousands. That doesn’t mean that Jesus existed. Go fish.

    Historiography, as explained above. The same tests applied to all of the documents of antiquity. Neither Mithras or Ba’al can pass the test.

    Umm, I would disagree here. Every writing I can find on either of these gods has just as much of your “evidence” to back it up. You seem to have missed the point, though. Your so-called “evidence” does not, by any means, make the existence of your god any more likely. Nothing that you have provided has been verifiable evidence of any miracle.

    This side-track should show something very telling. There is as much evidence for a Christian god as there is for ID, by the very definition of ID given by the DI: none. Go fish.

    The critics list of issues to be resolved by scholars is growing shorter and shorter. So short in fact, about all they have left are strawmen.

    You like to use the term “strawman”, but I am getting the impression that you have no idea what it means.

  105. PC-Bash says:

    Is it not annoying that an atheist knows more about your book than you do? 😀

  106. firemancarl says:

    Personally, I like the story of Apalonius of Tyanna who could walk through walls, heal the sick, and walk on water etc etc.

    You would honestly have to think that if Jesus was real, that the Greeks and Romans and the Egyptians would have written about him, but from everything that i’ve ever heard or seen or read, there is no mention of him.

    “If the Tomb was not empty, why did the Sanhedrin make up a story about the guards being bribed and the body stolen?”

    Lets look at that bullshit carefully shall we?

    The Romans who would have been assigned to guard that tomb would have known the penalty for leaving their post or whatever you wanna call it, would have been death. The Romans did not screw around, and they would nip that type of shite in the bud lest anyone else think they could abandon their post.

  107. firemancarl says:

    Paul mentions an Erastus from Corinth in his Letter to the Romans (16:23) and identifies him as “the city treasurer” (oikonomos), which is not the Greek equivalent of the Latin aedilis; rather the oikonomos is equivalent to the lesser office of arcarius. If the Erastus of Rom 16:23 is to be identified with the man of the inscription, then he was aedilis either before or after Paul wrote his letter.

  108. E. Morriss says:

    PC-Bash Says:

    “Yes. How often does one beat a servant or employee?”
    ___

    SPLORF! So you think this is condoning mistreatment, but then it prescribes punishment for the mistreatment. Sharp thinking.

    PC-Bash Says:
    From your quoted material:
    In brief, most varieties of slavery did
    not exhibit the three elements that were
    dominant in the New World: slaves as
    property and commodities; their use
    exclusively as labor; and their lack
    of freedom

    This would be blasphemy, according to the quotes from the bible I pulled out. Slaves were property, an owner could smite his slave. Go fish.
    ___

    You are being intentionally obtuse. “Sure son go ride your bike, and when you do I am going to punish you for it”. Sharp thinking.

    Even an atheist bible scholar can explain to you the difference between God’s Laws, covenents, and instructions, and he/she can also explain to you the actual practice by the Israelites for what you falsely imply is the same as that practiced by the Romans and the Americans of the old south.

    “I go back to my original point. The bible is (vaguely) entertaining. It uses allegory to teach morals lessons.”

    Sometimes it does, but there is nothing wrong with that, and by itself does not disprove anything. The degree of its entertainment value is not relevant to its authenticity.

    “Regarding all of your historical points, none of these prove the existence of anything in the bible.”

    Uh huh. So for centuries critics having been saying the Bible cannot be true *because* (i.e.) the Hittites never existed. Now that we know the Bible was telling the truth, critics put their fingers in their ears and say *that* does not prove anything either.

    Sharp thinking.

  109. E. Morriss says:

    firemancarl Says:

    February 8th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
    E MOrriss,

    “You brought up black holes as proof for your god.”

    No.

    “Unlike your god however, black holes can be studied-by watching star movement, their size can be determined-by their effect on surrounding stars-etc.”

    Gee, that seems very familiar, where did you read that? Was it in this very thread:

    E. Morriss Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 5:50 pm

    You cannot see a black hole, you cannot make one in a lab, you cant get close to one, but you can prove it exists by observing the effects it has on its surroundings.
    _______

    I used the black hole example to illustrate that somethings that cannot be seen can be proven to exist.

  110. E. Morriss says:

    firemancarl Says:

    February 8th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
    Personally, I like the story of Apalonius of Tyanna who could walk through walls, heal the sick, and walk on water etc etc.

    You would honestly have to think that if Jesus was real, that the Greeks and Romans and the Egyptians would have written about him, but from everything that i’ve ever heard or seen or read, there is no mention of him.

    I have already posted a list of the extra-biblical sources mentioning Jesus. The claim above is an old one, and also an argument from silence, which proves nothing.

    Jesus barely registered on the Roman radar, if at all, until the Sanhedrin made such a stink about it. Jesus was mentioned by the Roman historians more than Tiberius.

    “If the Tomb was not empty, why did the Sanhedrin make up a story about the guards being bribed and the body stolen?”

    “Lets look at that bullshit carefully shall we?”

    “The Romans who would have been assigned to guard that tomb would have known the penalty for leaving their post or whatever you wanna call it, would have been death. The Romans did not screw around, and they would nip that type of shite in the bud lest anyone else think they could abandon their post.”

    Exactly! Thanks. If the guards did not leave their posts the body would have still been there when the disciples began spreading the word about the resurrection.

    The Sanhedrin would have been all over that, and it is likley the Romans would at least open the tomb to prove it to everyone.

  111. PC-Bash says:

    E. Morriss –

    SPLORF! So you think this is condoning mistreatment, but then it prescribes punishment for the mistreatment. Sharp thinking.

    and

    You are being intentionally obtuse. “Sure son go ride your bike, and when you do I am going to punish you for it”. Sharp thinking.

    The first verse claims that a slave is the same as a man’s money, beating him within an inch of his life is okay, if he dies because of his injuries but not on the same day it is just a waste of good money, but outright killing him is wrong. Yes, this certainly backs up your point. How do you interpret it differently than it is written there, precisely?

    It is damning to your argument that the bible says that a slave is a man’s property, which you have also evaded explanation on. To underline this, in other sections it says that it is okay for a man to rape a slave, and conceive child with a slave.

    Genesis 16:1-2: “Now Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.”

    If a man rapes a female slave who is engaged to another man / slave, he can redeem himself:

    Leviticus 19:20-22 “And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him.”

    No harm, no foul. Beat the woman, and sacrifice an animal on the altar. Then, this transgression is okay, because she is property. An employee / servant indeed.

    You tiptoe around the parts of the bible that you don’t believe in, yet you hold fast to your illogical believe that a magic fairy created the earth, because that is something literal that you don’t want to tiptoe around. In short, you are the one being obtuse.

    Uh huh. So for centuries critics having been saying the Bible cannot be true *because* (i.e.) the Hittites never existed. Now that we know the Bible was telling the truth, critics put their fingers in their ears and say *that* does not prove anything either.

    It’s like you are unable to comprehend the fact that “alternate history” incorporates real history to make a fictional story. “It must be real because there are historical facts in it!!!!1111one11eleven” — to paraphrase of your argument.

    To paraphrase my argument: just because there are some historical events mixed into the bible doesn’t mean the whole thing is true, especially the supernatural elements that can’t possibly be true. This point, you continue to evade.

    Please explain to me your logical jump from “Historical facts here have been verified” to “OMG, PONIES! This is one step closer to proving God exists!” Your logic is making correlation look like causation, which is nothing more than fallacy.

    Likewise, ID uses some of the same techniques as fallacy. It is the religious mind trying to grasp science in religious terms, something incompatible with logic and reasoning, basic tenants in science.

  112. PC-Bash says:

    E. Morriss –

    I used the black hole example to illustrate that somethings that cannot be seen can be proven to exist.

    This is a poor analogy indeed. Black holes are tangible. They are objects that can be measured. Most black holes in astronomy have been discovered by noting the gravitational abnormalities of its companion star, or in the case of massive black holes, the gravitational abnormalities of stars at the center of a galaxy.

    Your christian god has never been observed. He cannot be measured, because he is not tangible. Of course, many rational people understand that he is not tangible because he doesn’t exist.

    It does put a smile on my face to see Christians trying to use science to prove the existence of their god. It’s like watching a child pretend that his plastic tools are real, so he can help his father hammer nails. At the same time, it is a bit scary, because these are not children. They are citizens with an agenda, who want to force others to think like them, who want to force all children to be taught this sort of nonsense in the science classroom.

  113. E. Morriss says:

    PC-Bash Says:
    February 9th, 2008 at 4:34 am

    If a man rapes a female slave who is engaged to another man / slave, he can redeem himself:

    Leviticus 19:20-22 “And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman,
    _____

    This is not a description of rape. This is consensual adultery.

    Some think the punishments being different for men and women were unfair, but it is God’s decision to make. None of these things in the OT apply since the Mosaic law ended with Jesus dying on the cross.

    God’s Law, which does not change or become outdated, is the ten commandments. The Mosaic law, which was temporary and was added after God’s Law until Christ died on the cross:

    Gal 3:19
    Wherefore then [serveth] the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; [and it was] ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

    The “seed” was Jesus as shown in the verse before and after. When Jesus died on the cross the Mosaic law ended:

    Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

    Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

    Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

    For example, the law you have mentioned regarding eating pork (unclean beasts) ended when Jesus died on the cross. Previous covenants, which were not laws, such as circumcision also passed away when Jesus died on the cross.

    The ten commandments are still the valid law of God, but since no man can keep them, the only way to the Father is through faith in Jesus.

    You keep pointing to OT references that were once valid and claiming they dont keep up with a changing world, but you are wrong because the Mosaic laws no longer apply. Since the ten commandments are the most basic tenets for living they cannot be outdated.

    PC-Bash Says:

    To underline this, in other sections it says that it is okay for a man to rape a slave, and conceive child with a slave.

    Genesis 16:1-2: “Now Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.”
    _____

    Again, you pull one or two verses out of context, willfully lie about the meaning of the verse by claiming it says it is okay to rape. You conveniently avoided chapter 15 where God told Abraham he would have an heir:

    Gen 15:3 And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.

    Gen 15:4 And, behold, the word of the LORD [came] unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.

    You then pretend to miss Genesis 16:3-4:

    Gen 16:3 And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.
    Gen 16:4 And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes.
    _____

    No description of rape. It is this kind of blatant dishonesty that can be expected from the scientific community. I know you will just keep repeating the same assertion and making the same lies.

    You guys cry fowl when someone quotes a snippet of a “scientific” paper and twist the meaning outside the context of the entire paper. Then you do exactly the same thing yourselves.

    That is the kind of hypocrisy to be expected from the scientific community and you wonder why some do not want the fairy tale of evolution taught to our children.

    Who is forcing whom? You claim Christians are trying to force what gets taught in the classroom:

    PC-Bash Says:
    “who want to force all children… ”

    Since evolution is required to be taught by law, who is forcing whom?

  114. PC-Bash says:

    E. Morriss –

    As usual, you latch onto the most inconsequential piece of my points.

    Slaves were property in the old testament, which makes them equivalent to the slaves in the south and slaves in the sense of those captured by the corsairs. Hence, something that has been outdated and no longer applicable to modern life.

    Of course, this is not the only example, but it is (in my opinion) the most damning.

    As for OT versus NT, the creation myth, as quoted by the Discovery Institute and other nutjobs, is from the OT. So, the NT is really not germane to this discussion

    Since evolution is required to be taught by law, who is forcing whom?

    Well, let’s look at what the draft standard actually says about evolution.

    From the draft: “evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology and is supported by multiple forms of scientific evidence”, “Organisms are classified based on their evolutionary history.”, “Natural selection is a primary mechanism leading to evolutionary change.”

    You agree with the first and last concepts implicitly. I have given plenty of evidence supporting the middle concept, that you have been unable to refute. Feel free to correct me if you think my conclusions about your argument is invalid.

    The state standard is important, because as stated, evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of [modern] biology. The state is not forcing children to learn something that is in opposition of modern science. On the contrary, the state is bringing science education into alignment with current scientific understanding. This is a good standard: teaching children in the science classroom what modern science has shown to be true.

  115. E. Morriss says:

    PC-Bash Says:

    February 9th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
    E. Morriss –

    “As usual, you latch onto the most inconsequential piece of my points.”
    ______

    Rape is the most inconsequential piece of your points?

    “Slaves were property in the old testament, which makes them equivalent to the slaves in the south and slaves in the sense of those captured by the corsairs. Hence, something that has been outdated and no longer applicable to modern life.”

    If you apply a modern definition of property to a Hebrew term used thousands of years ago.

    To further disspell the myth that the Bible condones slavery American or Corsair style:

    Exd 21:16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

    That is slavery American style, which was clearly and without doubt NOT condoned. The verses you are quoting were also used by the American slave owners and traders to justify the practice.

    As to the definition of property:

    Almost all “slaves” (also referred to as bondsman, maidservant, manservant, etc) were obligated to servitude for one of several reasons:

    [1] To repay debt that could not be paid otherwise.
    [2] Initiated by the individual as a means of self support (they could not get a job or did not know a trade, etc).
    [3] Poor families would “sell” a family member to be a maid/manservant.
    [4] As a result of war, when a land was conquered, many people were taken to work as servants or serfs on farms, etc. This was considered more humane than leaving them in a country that could no longer support them. They were not slaves however, they were cared for, taught trades, could marry, own land, etc.

    Property meant the obligation to serve committed the servant to the “master”.

    In time this practice did become historically outdated, but it was never a requirement or admonition to go out and get “slaves” as we think of it today.

    The OT did not go into the fullest details of how things worked and how things were defined because the Mosaic law was given to those who already understood the context of terms like ‘property’ as it applied to them. To understand that today, you sometimes have to dig into other historical works.

    “Of course, this is not the only example, but it is (in my opinion) the most damning.”

    “As for OT versus NT, the creation myth, as quoted by the Discovery Institute and other nutjobs, is from the OT. So, the NT is really not germane to this discussion”

    Definitely germane in that the NT mentions creation several times.

  116. E. Morriss says:

    PC-Bash Says:
    February 9th, 2008 at 4:34 am

    in other sections it says that it is okay for a man to rape a slave, and conceive child with a slave.

    Genesis 16:1-2: “Now Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.”

    If a man rapes a female slave who is engaged to another man / slave, he can redeem himself:

    Leviticus 19:20-22 “And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband,

    **************************

    Now to finally squash (again) these two false claims:

    Rape:

    Deu 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

    Deu 22:26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; [there is] in the damsel no sin [worthy] of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so [is] this matter:

    Deu 22:27 For he found her in the field, [and] the betrothed damsel cried, and [there was] none to save her.

    Deu 22:28 If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

    Deu 22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

    Adultery:

    Deu 22:22 ¶ If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, [both] the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

    Deu 22:23 ¶ If a damsel [that is] a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

    Deu 22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, [being] in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

  117. PC-Bash says:

    Property meant the obligation to serve committed the servant to the “master”.

    You are arguing semantics, but you fail to see the point.

    If people were desperate, they could sell away their freedom, or have their freedom sold away. In war, people could be taken as slaves. The second point is important.

    The corsairs declared Jihad on non-muslims. This was war. They commandeered ships and towns during their war, and gave people the choice of being left to die in the ocean, being killed, or giving themselves into slavery. Similar to the OT. Either stay behind and starve, now that we’ve burned your city, or choose to be a slave. Neither is right, and claiming that the practice in the OT is right is making yourself sound dangerously like a slave revisionist.

    As per the African slave traders, they dealt in slaves captured because of border skirmishes between tribes (at least initially). This is very similar to the OT. A tribe would go in, lay waste to the village, round up all of the capable survivors, and take them as slaves. As they were property in the OT sense, they had the right to sell these slaves to the slave traders. Was either this practice or the OT practice right? Obviously not.

    The OT is largely inapplicable to modern life. Next, you are going to tell me that the flood myth and Noah building the ark was true, or that your god and your anti-god (e.g. Satan) used to hold bets over whether people would remain faithful, and that your god would condone the torture of people by Satan to prove their worth.

    The creation myth is yet another part of Christian mythology that should not be taken literally. Modern biology shows it to be impossible if taken in the literal sense. Come on, clay, ribs, trees of knowledge, and evil serpents? If not taken completely in the literal sense, then there is really no reason for a creationist to argue any part of evolution.

  118. firemancarl says:

    NO NO NO!!! The bible means whatevah they want it to. Killing all but the virgins and then making them sex slaves ( since they weren’t freed and they had to perform sex acts ) really means that Moses was just a really nice old dude who wanted to share his love of god with everyone!

    Num 31:18

    Yipppeee, everyone gets booty!

  119. PC-Bash says:

    There is honestly a part of me that wonders what works of fiction written in our lifetime will be taken as religious doctrine three thousand years from now. I wonder if Tolkien’s Silmarillion will be worshiped as unquestioningly as Christian mythology?

    It seems as if people are so desperate to believe in that which has been passed down from generations past as fact, that they are unwilling to open their eyes to the world around them. They are so afraid that their weak faith will be shattered, that they wish to prevent their children from seeing things from a different perspective, to shelter them from reality. It’s no wonder that so many children raised in Christian homes are not taking up the faith.

    It’s no wonder why so many of these biblical literalists are against evolution and science. Literal interpretation of the bible cannot co-exist with reality, and anything which studies reality must be shunned if they are to keep their brittle world view. They cannot except that life evolves over time, that new species are created, because this goes against Genesis. They cannot join the mainstream religion who views Genesis and other parts of the bible as allegory, because they choose to believe everything in the bible unquestioningly. Hence, this continual battle.

    Tell me, E. Morriss, do you believe that the earth is really less than six thousand years old? That’s in Genesis too.

  120. E. Morriss says:

    PC-Bash Says:

    February 10th, 2008 at 9:44 am
    Property meant the obligation to serve committed the servant to the “master”.

    “You are arguing semantics,”

    You aren’t? You fail to see the fact that modern meanings are not exactly the same due in part to the words used in the translation to English, and due in part that meanings were sometimes different 3000 years ago.

    You continue to insist on applying cross cultural, modern meanings to ancient words. Any historian would find that quite laughable.

    “If people were desperate, they could sell away their freedom, or have their freedom sold away.”

    How many Africans sold themselves to American slave traders? None. They were taken forcibly, totally against their will.

    “In war, people could be taken as slaves. The second point is important.”

    Some conquerors did that, but the Bible did not condone it. The Mosaic law was given to the Israelites and applicable only to them. The Corsairs and others acted on their own. Just as American slave traders used the same verses to justify their brand of slavery, others did also. Yet others did so without any knowledge of the Mosaic law. All of them were wrong.

    Did all Israelites obey the Mosaic law? Obviously not. No law has ever ensured everyone obeyed it, whether man’s or God’s. Individuals disobeying the law does not mean the law condones.

    The corsairs declared Jihad on non-muslims.

    Not condoned by the Bible, not relevant. These are the actions of men, not God.

    “This was war. They commandeered ships and towns during their war, and gave people the choice of being left to die in the ocean, being killed, or giving themselves into slavery.”

    A practice of the Corsairs not condoned in the Bible, not relevant.

    “Similar to the OT.”

    Not similar to the Mosaic law of the Israelites.

    “Either stay behind and starve, now that we’ve burned your city, or choose to be a slave.”

    No matter how many times you ignore extra-biblical history, no matter how many times you keep repeating the same asseriton it does not make it the same as American slavery.

    You have yet to cite any historical sources to support your claim that the Israelites, under the direction of the Mosaic law, took slaves and treated them as the American slave traders did. All you have done is make personal accusations without support.

    “As per the African slave traders,”

    Not relevant to the Mosaic law, they were wrong.

    “This is very similar to the OT.”

    By OT, do you mean as the Israelites were instructed in the Mosaic law? If not, it is not relevant. These are acts of men (non Israelites) that are contrary to the Mosaic law:

    Exd 21:16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

    Israelites were forbidden by the Mosaic law to forcibly take people. The penalty was death.

    “As they were property in the OT sense,”

    Incorrect. Extra-Biblical history proves you wrong. I have already cited sources.

    “The OT is largely inapplicable to modern life.”

    I have stated the same thing and shown you the NT verses which say the same thing. Except for the 10 commandments the OT is largely historical.

    As I said before, the Mosaic law NO LONGER APPLIES.

    “Next, you are going to tell me ”

    I was not planning on introducing any new topic. Ignoring extra-biblical history that proves you wrong is just “putting your hands to your ears and going “la la la la la”

  121. E. Morriss says:

    PC-Bash Says:
    February 10th, 2008 at 1:37 pm

    “Tell me, E. Morriss, do you believe that the earth is really less than six thousand years old? That’s in Genesis too.”

    It is? I dont recall seeing that. Oh, you mean adding up the years between Adam and who begat whom and all that.

    I don’t see that it matters as far as faith goes. There is no reason to believe the destiny of my soul depends on what I think of the age of the Earth. Other than that, I am not convinced the Earth is only 6-10KYO.

  122. PC-Bash says:

    I don’t see that it matters as far as faith goes. There is no reason to believe the destiny of my soul depends on what I think of the age of the Earth. Other than that, I am not convinced the Earth is only 6-10KYO.

    In other words, thus proving my point, you pick and choose what in the OT to take literally. Why is this trifle, but yet the literal interpretation of the creation myth so important?

  123. PC-Bash says:

    This whole foray into the OT is meant to show one thing. Creationists pick and choose what to take literally in the OT, especially in the Genesis story.

    If they simply admitted that the creation myth is largely infeasible, and should be treated as allegory, they would have no problem accepting evolution as it is defined in modern biology.

  124. PC-Bash says:

    Likewise, I am willing to admit that science has no answer to how life began. Perhaps the answer is in abiogenesis, perhaps life began off-world and somehow ended up here… I don’t know the answer to that.

    If you want to believe that life began through some allegorical interpretation of Genesis, there is (currently) nothing in science that discredits this belief. This is what the Catholics believe, at least according to doctrine.

    Science also does not (yet) answer how the universe began. We can peer back to when the universe was very young, and we can observe that the universe must have been very small at some point in the distant past. Other than this, there is only conjecture, and we move into theoretical physics. The math is pretty, but observations are still pretty dim.

    If you want to believe that the universe began through some allegorical interpretation of Genesis, there is (currently) nothing in science that discredits this belief. Many Christians do believe this.

    I have no opinion of how life or the universe began, I will remain somewhat open-minded. I personally find it highly unlikely that a mythical being created either, but you are willing to believe what you want. Either way, it does not affect the current Florida SBOE draft.

  125. PC-Bash says:

    To clarify, how life or the universe began has absolutely nothing to do with any aspect of evolution.

    All that we know from evolution is that life evolved and new species arose. Through evolution, we can trace life back very far, to single-celled organisms. How life began, evolution has no answer for, nor does it claim to have an answer for.

  126. E. Morriss says:

    PC-Bash Says:

    February 10th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
    I don’t see that it matters as far as faith goes. There is no reason to believe the destiny of my soul depends on what I think of the age of the Earth. Other than that, I am not convinced the Earth is only 6-10KYO.

    In other words, thus proving my point, you pick and choose what in the OT to take literally. Why is this trifle, but yet the literal interpretation of the creation myth so important?
    ***************

    Not convinved means undecided. I dont take everything literally, I dont believe it is black and white. The time it took has nothing to do with whether or not it was “feasible” from man’s view. If I never decide I dont think my salvation depends on it.

    Saying God could not do it in 6 days because we dont understand it scientifically is pretty silly. What matters is whether you believe. If you dont, then -duh- it is not possible.

    If one is going to seriously entertain the possibility of a creator, it would be pretty stupid, and arrogant to place human limitations on Him.

  127. E. Morriss says:

    PC-Bash Says:
    February 10th, 2008 at 4:52 pm

    “This whole foray into the OT is meant to show one thing. Creationists pick and choose what to take literally in the OT, especially in the Genesis story.”

    Odd thing human nature, ain’t it? Of course we know evolutionists are all in 100% agreement. Yes, I do know evolutionists who dont believe evolution goes as far as birds evolved from reptiles, and they are atheist. Go figure. I am not sure how they came about that thought.

    “If they simply admitted that the creation myth is largely infeasible,”

    And some scientists actually entertain infinite universes.

    “and should be treated as allegory, they would have no problem accepting evolution as it is defined in modern biology.”

    Well, like I said, if someone is going to seriously entertain an omnipotent creator, it would be be pretty brainless to set human limitations on Him.

    “Gee Parson, if I can’t make a woman, how can God?

    Ever wonder how much chaos, perhaps even serious worldwide economic risk there might be in actually getting a living cell from a Urey-Miller type contraption?

  128. PC-Bash says:

    Well, like I said, if someone is going to seriously entertain an omnipotent creator, it would be be pretty brainless to set human limitations on Him.

    Omnipotence is impossible. Can your god create a mountain that is too large for him to lift?

  129. PC-Bash says:

    And some scientists actually entertain infinite universes.

    and

    Ever wonder how much chaos, perhaps even serious worldwide economic risk there might be in actually getting a living cell from a Urey-Miller type contraption?

    Which has nothing to do with evolution.

  130. PC-Bash says:

    I dont take everything literally,

    Then why take the creation myth literally?

  131. E. Morriss says:

    PC-Bash Says:
    February 10th, 2008 at 6:53 pm

    “Omnipotence is impossible. Can your god create a mountain that is too large for him to lift?”

    Ah yes, the human arrogance paradox, except the paradox uses a rock, but the concept is the same.

    God is outside of time and space. As the Bible said he created the universe with his Word, not his muscles.

  132. E. Morriss says:

    PC-Bash Says:

    February 10th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
    I dont take everything literally,

    Then why take the creation myth literally?
    ****

    That does not mean all or nothing.

  133. PC-Bash says:

    Ah yes, the human arrogance paradox, except the paradox uses a rock, but the concept is the same.

    God is outside of time and space. As the Bible said he created the universe with his Word, not his muscles.

    Bad analogy, but you should get my point. I’ll clarify the analogy to fit your “god outside of time and space”. Can your god create a jewel with more facets than he can count? Can your god create a universe more complicated than he can fathom? Can your god make a god more powerful than he is?

    As you can see, I can come up with unlimited examples of reductio ad absurdum.

  134. PC-Bash says:

    I said “Then why take the creation myth literally?”

    To which you replied a seeming non sequitur:

    That does not mean all or nothing.

    I’ll ask again. If there are parts of the OT that you don’t take literally, then why must you take the creation myth literally? What possible harm is there in treating this myth as allegory, as the Catholics do?

  135. E. Morriss says:

    PC-Bash Says:
    February 10th, 2008 at 7:26 pm

    E. Morriss Says:
    God is outside of time and space. As the Bible said he created the universe with his Word, not his muscles.

    PC-Bash Says:
    Bad analogy, but you should get my point. I’ll clarify the analogy to fit your “god outside of time and space”. Can your god create a jewel with more facets than he can count? Can your god create a universe more complicated than he can fathom? Can your god make a god more powerful than he is?

    As you can see, I can come up with unlimited examples of reductio ad absurdum.
    *******

    All of which are grounded in Aristotelian science, which is within the limits of time and space.

    Apples and oranges. These things are paradoxes for us who are limited to our understanding, but we have no way to understand that which is outside of time and space.

  136. PC-Bash says:

    Apples and oranges. These things are paradoxes for us who are limited to our understanding, but we have no way to understand that which is outside of time and space.

    The last example should be a question that you can answer, as it deals with infinities, which are outside of time and space. One infinity can be larger than another infinity. Can your god create a god which is more powerful than himself?

  137. PC-Bash says:

    My point is that omnipotence raises a paradox, which cannot be explained away by the excuse “Well, my god exists outside of time and space.” This is meaningless.

    Still, I’m more interested to understand why you must believe that the creationist myth is literal, while most mainstream Christians do not?

  138. E. Morriss says:

    PC-Bash Says:
    February 10th, 2008 at 8:13 pm

    “My point is that omnipotence raises a paradox, which cannot be explained away by the excuse “Well, my god exists outside of time and space.” This is meaningless.”

    Before the universe came into existence, space and time did not exist. There is no way for us to understand how anything could work before space and time. To say that is not true brings you back to the steady state theory- the universe has always been and will always be (infinite time). Since the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. That cause, whatever it was, could only be outside of time and space.

    You often say something is meaningless but dont say why.

    “Still, I’m more interested to understand why you must believe that the creationist myth is literal, while most mainstream Christians do not?”

    Your wording still seems to be all of it is literal, or all of it is allegory. I dont know the source of your “most mainstream Christians” or what exactly you are saying they believe (all or none or part- and which part?).

    There are many parts of the Bible that are allegorical, metaphorical, and literal. It is not always easy to figure out which is which, but most of the time it is not difficult. Doing it one verse at a time however is not the right way.

    I believe God created the universe.

    I cannot be arrogant (as a believer) enough to say He did it out of order, for example, because that would put limits on Him based on my limited understanding and knowledge of what and how a God would do anything.

    The time of 6 days, I am not sure about. It certainly seems to describe 24 hour days (yowm), but other parts hint at these being time periods, which fits with the Hebrew word yowm which can be used to mean time periods or temporal references.

    Examples:

    Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void;

    To my knowledge, this is the only creation account that seems close to reality. Crude, but much more accurate than others. Sounds like an early Earth perhaps still shrouded in dust and gasses (without form, and void). Lucky guess?

    Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: and it was so.

    Could be a description of tectonics. A little too close perhaps to have been a lucky guess by someone writing this 1500 years ago, even more coincidental at 3500 YA. Tectonics takes time, lots of it.

    Another thing that lends credence to an old earth is there is no mention, at least not what one would expect, of dinosaurs such as the azdarchids found in Israel. I would think the giant flying meat eaters would have loved raiding flocks and villages, which would certainly get some press.

    There are some interesting arguments for a young Earth, but I haven’t worked through them yet. I am not in a rush for that since I don’t see it as crucial.

  139. PC-Bash says:

    Your wording still seems to be all of it is literal, or all of it is allegory. I dont know the source of your “most mainstream Christians” or what exactly you are saying they believe (all or none or part- and which part?).

    For the sake of this discussion, allow me to relax my position and say that at least some of the OT is allegory. We’ll leave atheism versus Christianity as a separate topic, as I have already made it obvious that I am a staunch atheist. However, it really is not germane to this discussion, as all I care about here is evolution. 🙂

    Most mainstream Christians, e.g. the Catholic Church, which makes up slightly more than fifty percent of Americans. Here’s where I got this statistic:
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_22_120/ai_110736471

    Catholics by themselves make up a very slim majority. Many other denominations have similar beliefs, but I am too lazy at the moment to track down official beliefs by denomination. For the sake of argument, let’s say the statistic above is accurate.

    As for what modern Catholics believe regarding evolution:
    http://www.catholic.com/library/adam_eve_and_evolution.asp

    “Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

    “Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that “the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.”

    In other words, the church wisely stays out of the discussion. Obviously, they don’t see completely eye-to-eye with science, but they are willing to concede that evolution is okay, as long as scientists stay away from the soul, and as long as scientists stay away from abiogenesis.

    I know that I have been a bit abusive to you, and I apologize for it. However, I do believe that we can agree that the wording of the state standard doesn’t go against mainstream Christian dogma, nor is it truly damaging to faith.

  140. E. Morriss says:

    PC-Bash Says:
    February 10th, 2008 at 11:16 pm

    [from a previous post]

    “Still, I’m more interested to understand why you must believe that the creationist myth is literal, while most mainstream Christians do not?”

    Article cited for above question:

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_22_120/ai_110736471

    _______________

    Maybe this was not the link you intended or it is not coming up right for me, but this is all I see:

    Global Christianity

    1900 2000

    Roman Catholics 50.8% 50.2%
    Orthodox 22.1 10.2
    Protestants * 19.6 16.2
    Angelicans 5.8 3.8
    Independents * 1.5 18.3
    Others 0.2 1.2

    * includes Pentecostals

    Source: Center for the Study of Global Christianity, Gordon-Conwell
    Theological Seminary/New York Times (October 14). World population
    during this span grew from 1.6 billion to 6.1 billion, and the
    Christian population grew from 0.6 billion to 2.0 billion.

    End

    I do not see any mention of how many believe in creation. Interesting stats in that they show a shift between groups, but other than that not worth much to this discussion.

    “I know that I have been a bit abusive to you, and I apologize for it.”

    Thanks, I appreciate that. Both of us have fired a few shots here, and likewise I will apologize for my part in that also.

    Time constraints today limit this response. More later.

  141. E. Morriss says:

    PC-Bash Says:
    February 10th, 2008 at 11:16 pm

    [snip]

    “Most mainstream Christians, e.g. the Catholic Church, which makes up slightly more than fifty percent of Americans. Here’s where I got this statistic:
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_22_120/ai_110736471

    Yes, I realized later in the day how you arrived at your point.

    As for what modern Catholics believe regarding evolution:
    http://www.catholic.com/library/adam_eve_and_evolution.asp

    “Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.”

    “Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that “the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.”

    In other words, the church wisely stays out of the discussion. Obviously, they don’t see completely eye-to-eye with science, but they are willing to concede that evolution is okay, as long as scientists stay away from the soul, and as long as scientists stay away from abiogenesis.

    Lets see what they said (leaving souls out intentionally):

    They take a hard line (infallibly defined ) position on:

    [1] God created everything.

    From there they allow that:

    [2] Life forms may have developed over time, but God guided the process.

    [3] Man’s body may have developed from a previous life form, but God guided the process.

    Again your question:

    “…why you must believe that the creationist myth is literal, while most mainstream Christians do not?”

    I think your question is, but perhaps not intentionally, misleading due to its limited scope.

    You also seem to focus on literalists, but not all Christians are literalists as you can see from the Catholic position.

    I dont think I have said I take the creation account literally in the sense of word for word exactly as it occurs. I think it is quite possible it is an over simplified explanation designed for the people of the day. Moses would not have understood a more technical explanation. The article you cite also explains that position (but not as a position of the Catholic church).

    Whether “mainstream Christians” take the account literally or not is not a free pass for the one form of evolution you left out of the article:

    “While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in

    >>-atheistic evolution.-

  142. E. Morriss says:

    For some reason the following did not get into the response here:

    http://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=409#comment-41759

    And should be tacked on after “>>-atheistic evolution.-

    Rest of the response:

    >>-atheistic evolution.-

  143. E. Morriss says:

    I think the application is parsing the characters I used as html

    http://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=409#comment-41759

    Rest of the response:

    From: atheistic evolution.

    So I am not sure where you were headed with the question, but the article you cite allows room for:

    Special or developmental creation directed by God.

    They sum it up nicely here:

    “Pope Pius XII warned us, “What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is in the works of our own time. For what they wished to express is not to be determined by the rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by the context; the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period would be likely to use, and in fact did use. For the ancient peoples of the East, in order to express their ideas, did not always employ those forms or kinds of speech which we use today; but rather those used by the men of their times and countries. What those exactly were the commentator cannot determine as it were in advance, but only after a careful examination of the ancient literature of the East” (Divino Afflante Spiritu 35–36).”

    Or more short and sweet as Aristotle said:

    “…the benefit of the doubt is to be given to
    the document itself, not arrogated by the critic
    to himself.”

  144. PC-Bash says:

    Their claim is that it is possible that the creation myth is indicating that the Christian god was perhaps involved in the initial creation of life, or in the decision to give a certain primate (e.g. humans) a soul. Both of these statements are outside of the scope of evolution. Evolution does not make any claims about how life began, nor does it recognize or disprove the existence of a “soul”.

    As such, a Catholic interpretation of the scriptures does not conflict with evolution, at least in the form it would be taught to Florida school students if this standard is approved.

  145. E. Morriss says:

    PC-Bash Says:
    February 12th, 2008 at 1:10 pm

    “Their claim is that it is possible that the creation myth is indicating that the Christian god was perhaps involved in the initial creation of life, or in the decision to give a certain primate (e.g. humans) a soul. Both of these statements are outside of the scope of evolution.”

    But you left out the third:

    _________________________
    “Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.”
    _________________________

    Thus, since science claims “life forms” (which would include humans) “developed over the course of time”, then the Church position is “then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God” and thus “their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.”

    Since, as you pointed out, the overwhelming majority is willing to support developmental evolution guided by God, the state of Florida should have the opportunity to consider the position of the majority. After all, only a very small minority supports atheistic evolution.

  146. PC-Bash says:

    the state of Florida should have the opportunity to consider the position of the majority.

    That would make sense in politics. Unfortunately, science and reality is not based upon the opinion of the majority, but rather the facts. What we decide to teach our children in the science classroom should reflect modern science, not what people believe or how they choose to interpret scripture.

    There are no facts that back up theistic design or the creation myth. Neither of these belong in the science classroom. What facts and trends we do have point towards evolution, the current theory of which does not go against Catholic beliefs.

    Catholics are free to believe what they want, as is any other religion. If they choose to believe that natural selection is somehow connected to their god, then there is nothing in the theory of evolution that completely dismisses this. There is obviously nothing in evolution or in science that supports this either. From what I can tell, if believing that a god or any other mythical being is driving evolution is all that it takes for an individual or church to believe in their god, then so be it. However, that sort of belief does not belong in the science classroom. Nothing in evolution itself would run completely contrary to this belief, however unlikely this belief actually is.

    My point in bringing this up was to show that there isn’t a dichotomy between evolution and religion, it is all a matter of interpretation. We cannot expect that the authors of the OT would have understood genetics, evolution, or any of the other advanced bodies of knowledge that we have today. They did as well as they could with what they had. Obviously, it would be a terrible mistake to take many parts of the OT as literal fact instead of allegory, and the Catholic church is under the impression that the creation myth should be taken as allegory as well. When taken as allegory, there really isn’t anything in evolution that conflicts with the creation myth, so the point is truly moot.

    We shouldn’t teach our children that there are “flaws” in evolution when there really aren’t, just for the sake of keeping the creation myth plausible. This goes against the very nature of science, it would be just as disastrous to change science or science education to reflect majority opinion. At one point, for instance, neither Einstein’s General Relativity or Quantum physics were of majority opinion. This is not to say that there are not gaps in evolution itself, but these gaps do not discredit evolution, they are simply things that have not yet been answered. To treat these gaps as anything more than this is to perform a great disservice to the scientific method, which may be more harmful to a child learning about science than good.

Comments are closed.