RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (18) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: AFDave Wants You to Prove Evolution to Him< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 11120
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2006,14:08   

Quote
Comment #97009

Posted by afdave on April 17, 2006 06:58 PM (e)

I can see that the Flank and Davidson have read the book ‘How to Win Friends and Influence People’ … I have an idea for a simple, fun exercise. I’m an Electrical Engineer and business man and I used to fly AF jets. I like simple, uncomplicated arguments and I like people to cut to the chase … fast. Let’s say I was undecided about where life on earth came from or how it began. I hear the YECs and the ID people saying it came from an Intelligent Agent/God or whatever. I hear the Darwinists saying it happened by chance evolution. And everybody quotes all these long-winded academic sources. I would love to hear from each of you, everybody in YOUR OWN WORDS, not referring to a single outside source what YOUR theory is and WHY you believe it in 5 simple statements, i.e. the top 5 reasons for your belief. Take me from when and how it all began to where you think its going and why … very short and simple so my pea brain can understand it … try explaining it nicely and politely.

   
Corkscrew



Posts: 20
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2006,14:33   

I'm afraid I'm going to go a couple over the five-statement limit - sorry about that :(

1) We know that artificial selective pressures (with a few random mutations thrown in) can give rise to substantial changes in organisms (e.g. chihuahuas vs great danes).

2) We know that the various natural selective pressures can give rise to similar changes, albeit (usually) more slowly (e.g. finch beaks, moth colour schemes, etc).

3) We have a fossil record in which many quite radical transitions are documented in sufficient detail that the individual steps are quite obviously within the scope of the aformentioned selective pressures (e.g. mesonychids to whales).

4) We can even make and confirm non-trivial predictions based on the premise that life is limited to naturalistic evolutionary processes (e.g. the resemblance between one human chromosome and two chimp chromosomes, haemocyanin in stoneflies, Tiktaalik). In other words, it's extremely useful.

5) There is no direct scientific evidence for the presence of a Designer of any sort.

6) The premise that an unspecified intelligent designer did something unspecified at some unspecified point in the process (which is all that ID claims) hasn't given rise to any testable predictions whatsoever. In other words, it's bloody useless.

7) Hence, it's fairly sensible to affirm evolution as a useful scientific concept, and fairly daft to affirm Intelligent Design as a useful scientific concept.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5138
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2006,17:48   

Re "what YOUR theory is and WHY you believe it in 5 simple statements"

I don't have a theory that could be called mine.

But as to why I accept the core conclusions of the current theory-

Theory predicts several places in which unexplained contrary evidence could be found*; any such find would put limits on usefulness of the theory. Lots of such finds together would eventually lead to rewrite of theory.

Antievolutionists aren't publishing lists of verifiable contrary evidence.

*Fossils of a taxonomic group way earlier than expected for that taxa; extensive similarity of DNA between one species and a distant taxa, that doesn't show up in closer relatives of that species; close relatives far outside geographic range of their presumed ancestors; a member of a species giving birth to something in a distant taxa.

Henry

  
UnMark



Posts: 97
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2006,18:26   

5 easy steps....  Harumph!  That's today's American society for you: 10 second news bites because that's the duration of a typical person's attention span.  It's so much easier to believe than to actually think and learn the truth.

Hey, what's that shiny thing? :D

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 18 2006,00:41   

If I were to play devil's advocate here, could I come up with 5 reasons to accept ID?  Hmmm, maybe I should try...

1.  Um, goddidit.

2.  Evilutionists are just church-burnin', ebola-spreadin', atheists (and atheism is evil, evil, evil!;)

3.  Jesus loves you.

4.  I just can't believe that evolution could be true and my personal disbelief is stronger than any evidence you could come up with.

5.  Goddidit...and did I mention how evil the atheists are?

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 18 2006,03:32   

Thankyou, corkscrew and Henry J for your polite answers.  I would think you other folks would also want to give polite answers if you want others to see the truth of your viewpoint ... just a suggestion!

To answer corkscrew ... I agree with (1) and (2) except that I have never heard of a random mutation that could be considered beneficial.

As for (3), I'm not aware of A SINGLE fossil that can be considered transitional ... my understanding of mesonychids and whales can be found here http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter5.asp.  To me the evidence of zillions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth fits the idea of a global flood quite much better than the alternatives.

I don't quite follow (4)

I would agree with (5) that the evidence for a Designer is not scientific in the sense that you can demonstrate it in the lab.  The reasons I believe there is one are more like the reasons I believe George Washington existed.  

I would also agree that ID is useless by itself because it stops short of identifying a designer.  I am a creationist which means I believe I can identify the designer as the God of the Bible.  This is incredibly useful if you believe as I do that this God wants a relationship with the humans he created and will someday make a new world.  Of course, to arrive at all these conclusions requires much evidence from several disciplines ... science only goes so far.  But contrary to the mudslingers, there is excellent evidence available ... I would never just say something non-sensical like "You just have to have faith".  Many organized religions have done a disservice to lots of people by making statements like this.

A basic outline of my line of reasoning is this (keep in mind I have an Electrical Engineering degree, so I think like an engineer) ...

1)  I see highly sophisticated, biological machines at every level in nature, macro to micro.
2)  I know from my engineering experience that sophisticated, non-biological machines that actually work require enormous amounts of intelligence (not to mention effort) to get them designed well enough to where they will work and continue working for a long time.  I have no reason to believe that biological machines would be otherwise--they are made of the same stuff--it all comes from the same periodic table.
3)  Knowing this, it makes sense to me that there COULD be a designer somewhere--space alien, God, supercomputer in some galaxy--apparently Francis Crick went for the Space Alien/Panspermia idea, so I guess I'm not totally crazy with this idea.
4)  Next, I look at the fossil record with the zillions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth, and I conclude that there must have been a massive, global flood which buried all those fossils.
5)  Now I pick up a Bible and I find a book that claims that (a) a Designer created life on earth and (b) there was a global flood which buried all these critters I find in the rock layers ... interesting
6)  I'm skeptical of the Bible at first because everyone says "that's just a religious book full of myths", but on closer inspection, I find it to be accurate in every historical detail which is possible to be verified by archaeology.  I read it from cover to cover to give it a fair analysis and I am struck by the accuracy with which it describes human behaviour.  I'm also fascinated with the apparent fulfilled prophecies which involve the rise and fall of major nations and also this incredibly influential person--Jesus of Nazareth.  To be sure, there are things I don't understand, but I'm not so arrogant as to write them off without evidence for doing so.  I know from history that multitudes of people have blindly accepted statements like "that book is just a myth" only to be proven wrong by some guy willing to work hard enough to really examine the evidence.  Of course, many DO turn out to be myths, but I have done my own thorough examination of the Bible, and I have not found it to be a myth.
7)  I put this (and some other factors ... admittedly, this is abbreviated) all together and in my mind and it all adds up to me to make a pretty good case that the Bible is literally true--complete with a real God, the Creation, the Flood, Moses, Jesus ... the whole deal.

I think you will find that there are many folks out there who followed similar lines of reasoning and wound up with the same conclusion.  C.S. Lewis is one prominent individual who was a skeptic for many years, but eventually became a loud proclaimer of Christian tenets.  Lee Stoebel, author of Case for Faith and Case for Christ is another agnostic-turned-Christian.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Aardvark



Posts: 134
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 18 2006,04:20   

afdave Says:
April 17th, 2006 at 1:16 pm

Quote
My personal opinion is that our educational institutions–from the public schools to the Ivy League universities have been gradually taken over in the past hundred years or so by the anti-God (anti-supernatural if you will) crowd, basically because good, competent people like our present ID people were not very involved and let them do it. The results in the public schools are obvious and similar results are beginning to show at the college level as well.


http://telicthoughts.com/?p=640

Looks like afdave is not so neutral after all.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 18 2006,04:20   

Quote
2)  I know from my engineering experience that sophisticated, non-biological machines that actually work require enormous amounts of intelligence (not to mention effort) to get them designed well enough to where they will work and continue working for a long time.  I have no reason to believe that biological machines would be otherwise--they are made of the same stuff--it all comes from the same periodic table.
This is the same argument Intelligent design supporters use, and is simply an argument from ignorance, why deosn't fly as proof in science. Many of the people who work with these 'machines'  and help to show how they have evolved are engineers by training.

Quote
apparently Francis Crick went for the Space Alien/Panspermia idea
Panspermia has nothing to do with intelligent aliens, it simply states living matter has been deposited on earth one or more times e.g. on meteorites.

Quote
4)  Next, I look at the fossil record with the zillions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth, and I conclude that there must have been a massive, global flood which buried all those fossils.
The fossil record does not look like what we expect if the foold were true, but it does fit in with what we would expect from what we understand from geology and evolution, and if these fossils were deposited over millions of years.

Quote
I have never heard of a random mutation that could be considered beneficial.
Mutations in bacteria and other pathogens confer resistance. Some humans have mutations which give them resistance to AIDS and other diseases, and others that generally make their immune system stronger. Other people have mutations that make their bones stronger.

Quote
I'm not aware of A SINGLE fossil that can be considered transitional
The link you gave doesn't seem to work. Firstly a loose definition of a transitional fossil is one that has some features of one species and some of another, it does not mean the direct desendent of one and the direct ancestor of another. I am not sure about the specific problems you have with the whales, but we have good reason to believe that our current idea of evolution is correct.Each of these fossils get less 'whale like' the further back we go, so the phylogenetic tree fits in with evolution. Constructing the phylogenetic tree when we just had some of the fossils told us where to look for the rest. Also, using the fossil skulls it was possible to reconstruct the acoustics of the ears of these creatures and see that the ears got progressively better at hearing underwater, which is what evolution would predict.

Also with Tiktaalik evolution told us exactly where to look to find the fossil based on where it would fit in the phylogeny. This is why evolution is the best scientific theory because it makes the best predictions. Creation science has made predictions, especially based on flood geology, but these have been shown to be wrong. The fossil record supports a gradual sedimentation, and features such as the grand canyon would look quite different if they were caused by the flood.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 18 2006,04:21   

afdave:

Well, one small point. Nobody will (I hope) contest that magic is the one-size-fits-all universal all-purpose explanation for everything. It's simple, it requires no knowledge, research, study, or work. And accordingly, no matter how compelling any alternative explanation might be, magic is STILL simpler and easier to understand. And furthermore, no  matter how accurate any alternative might be, magic can't ever be ruled out.

To address some of your other points:

Quote
I have never heard of a random mutation that could be considered beneficial.

No doubt you haven't. And perhaps there's no doubt you ever will. But your inability to hear really has nothing to do with whether these things happen. I suggest that a mutation is beneficial or not within a context. Let's try a wild example: Let's say you suddenly mutated and became 5 feet taller. Would this be "beneficial"? Well, yes for some purposes, no for others. For sure you would have to change your lifestyle; your new height would be a considerable handicap otherwise. But your NEW lifestyle might be entirely viable, maybe even fabulous. So was this mutation beneficial?

Quote
I'm not aware of A SINGLE fossil that can be considered transitional

While, once again, your awareness doesn't much matter, you may also have a viewpoint issue here. From a more evolutionary viewpoint, ALL fossils are transitional, and indeed ALL organisms alive today are ALSO transitional. Evolution is a constant, permanent state of transition. Granted, it's a very very slow process.

Quote
1)  I see highly sophisticated, biological machines at every level in nature, macro to micro.

Yes, we all do. Of course, you might be trying to stack the deck with the word 'machines'. Let's call a machine, anything with any mechanics.

Quote
I know from my engineering experience that sophisticated, non-biological machines that actually work require enormous amounts of intelligence (not to mention effort) to get them designed well enough to where they will work and continue working for a long time.

Yes, I'm an engineer as well, and nothing I create works well without a lot of effort. However, I can notice that the *process* of creation is very different. Give me a billion years to throw darts, and kill off every throw that misses the bullseye, and by golly, what's left is nothing but bullseyes. Must be a miracle, yes?

Quote
it makes sense to me that there COULD be a designer somewhere

Yes, of course there could. And there we stop, dead-ended. Yep, could be. Can we ever disprove this, even in principle? Nope, we never can. End of the line.

Quote
I look at the fossil record with the zillions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth, and I conclude that there must have been a massive, global flood which buried all those fossils.

With all due respect, you are kidding yourself. You have a *magic book* which TOLD you a flood did it, and you don't know enough geology or hydrology to realize this couldn't possibly explain the evidence. But for people not pre-convinced otherwise, this isn't very hard. Floods are common. The effects of floods are thoroughly observed and understood. What floods can and cannot do is beyond any informed dispute. What we observe is the *exact opposite* of what a flood would produce.

Quote
Now I pick up a Bible

Perhaps doing so has caused your inability to understand floods, your inability to understand transitions, your inability to hear about beneficial mutations, etc. At least, this is something to be concerned about.

Quote
on closer inspection, I find it to be accurate in every historical detail which is possible to be verified by archaeology.  I read it from cover to cover to give it a fair analysis and I am struck by the accuracy with which it describes human behaviour.

Well, yes, I would agree. The Bible, as far as we can tell today, contains much of historical accuracy, and people understood other people back then just as they do today. But there is a critical difference between the facts, and the conclusions from the facts. For example, lightning hits a tree. No dispute. Now, WHY did lightning hit that tree? A scientist might talk about differential voltages, leaders coming up from the tree, completed circuits, etc. A theologist might say "God is warning us". Whose interpretation is correct? Who knows?

So we have a very big problem here. You have decided that we cannot (for the most part) dismiss any of the facts in the Bible, and therefore you have decided that the conclusions based on those facts are equally correct. But these are only interpretations, and the distinction needs to be kept clear. We know for a fact that lightning hit the tree. We cannot therefore accept as a fact that some god was trying to tell us anything. It's very different to think the Bible tells deliberate historical falsehoods, and to think that history was filtered through the religious beliefs of the authors. Their beliefs are a different kind of fact.

  
ToSeek



Posts: 33
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 18 2006,04:34   

Well, I'll just put down the key one for me, but it takes some explaining:

1. There are many potential findings that would blow the theory of evolution completely out of the water. None of these have been found. For example:

- Fossils go neatly from less complex to more complex as time goes by. There are no - none, zero, nada, zilch - anachronisms to be found: rabbits in the Silurian era or human skeletons alongside dinosaurs. How does your flood do that?

- Every living thing ever found can be placed neatly into a family tree. There are no gryphons or centaurs or half-bird, half-mammals.

- Every living things features are consistent with its position in the family tree, from its body plan to its biochemistry to its genetic sequence. (For just one example, the odds of humans and chimpanzees having the same Cytochrome C is something like 1 in 10^90. But they do.) You come up with the same tree no matter what. The odds of that are beyond astronomical, while a single organism that didn't fit would be the death knell for evolution.

- Every living thing uses the same genetic code. One organism with a different code would be an utter failure for evolution.

There's plenty more I could say, but that's the clincher for me.

  
Corkscrew



Posts: 20
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 18 2006,06:20   

Quote
To answer corkscrew ... I agree with (1) and (2) except that I have never heard of a random mutation that could be considered beneficial.


The classic example here is the "nylon bug" bacterium, in which a single frame shift mutation has apparently transformed a well-documented gene for digesting sugar into an equally well-documented gene for digesting nylon. The interesting thing here is that the modified gene couldn't have existed before nylon was invented, as it completely destroys the bacterium's sugar-eating capability (which would, of course, be instantly fatal in the absence of nylon).

Quote
As for (3), I'm not aware of A SINGLE fossil that can be considered transitional ... my understanding of mesonychids and whales can be found here http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter5.asp.  To me the evidence of zillions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth fits the idea of a global flood quite much better than the alternatives.


Disclaimer: I have no interest whatsoever in attacking your religious beliefs. However, the scientific claims of flood geology that are made on the basis of those religious beliefs are, to the best of my understanding, complete mince. The idea is apparently that a massive worldwide flood somehow managed to sort zillions of fossils into exactly the order that would be predicted on the basis of potassium-40 and uranium-235 dating, and no other characteristic. For some unspecified reason, this corresponded very well with the arrangement that would be predicted by species, genus, etc - members of the same species, regardless of age, sex, size or any other factor, always end up in strata that return approximately the same apparent ages when dated.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no physical process that can achieve this. Of course, if you think God was directly involved then that's not a problem - but if you can't make testable hypotheses about how exactly God was involved then your conjectures can't be considered scientific.

Back to the whale evolution. The transition described here looks like:
- Sinonyx
- Pakicetus
- Ambulocetus
- Rodhocetus
- Basilosaurus (note especially that it had land-animal-like feet)
- Dorudon

The only gap there that's significantly bigger than that between a Great Dane and a Chihuahua is the one between Rodhocetus and Basilosaurus. I'm no palaeontologist, but apparently other similarities (such as inner-ear structure) are sufficient to demonstrate a close relationship.

Obviously I can't really reply to the entire Answers in Genesis article here (although if you have any specific questions I'll go away and do the research), but I'd particularly like to critique one comment they make:

Basilosaurus did have small hind limbs (certainly too small for walking), and Teaching Evolution says ‘they were thought to be non-functional.’ But they were probably used for grasping during copulation, according to even other evolutionists.

The claim here appears to be that the fact that Basilosaurus's legs had some purpose means that they can't be pointed to as being vestigial. This is bonkers. Of all the myriad different forms that such graspers could have taken (pincers, tentacles, hooks, suckers, etc.), Basilosaurus just happened to pick a variant that was massively similar in both appearance and structure to limbs used for a completely different purpose by other animals?

Quote
I don't quite follow (4)


I said:
4) We can even make and confirm non-trivial predictions based on the premise that life is limited to naturalistic evolutionary processes (e.g. the resemblance between one human chromosome and two chimp chromosomes, haemocyanin in stoneflies, Tiktaalik). In other words, it's extremely useful.

The hypothesis that species originate only through naturalistic evolutionary processes (rather than divine intervention) can be used to make predictions that can then be tested. Specific examples of these are:

1) It was noted that humans have 23 chromosomes per haploid whereas all our nearest relations have 24. We know from investigation that it's practically impossible to just lose a chromosome's worth of genetic material - that kills the organism quite fast. Thus it was hypothesised that one of the human chromosomes must have resulted from the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes. To test this prediction, a comparison was done of chimpanzee chromosomes and human chromosomes. One human chromosome turned out to be effectively identical to two chimp chromosomes (or, at least, to what they'd look like if they'd fused together)

2) Haemocyanin is used by the majority of non-winged arthropods to transport oxygen around their bodies. Winged arthropods use a different system involving tiny capillaries. Since, on other grounds, stoneflies were considered to be "primitive" in comparison to other winged arthropods, it was proposed that they might have vestigial features - such as haemocyanin. This was checked and found to be correct. IIRC, stoneflies are the only winged arthropods known to possess haemocyanin.

3) The recent discovery of Tiktaalik was a classic example of evolutionary predictivity. Based on their hypotheses about the evolutionary path from fish to amphibians, scientists were able to figure out exactly where they should look (in terms of location and strata) if they wanted to find a transitional fossil. They found a transitional fossil. To quote from Nature:
Tiktaalik retains primitive tetrapodomorph features such as dorsal scale cover, paired fins with lepidotrichia, a generalized lower jaw, and separated entopterygoids in the palate, but also possesses a number of derived features of the skull, pectoral girdle and fin, and ribs that are shared with stem tetrapods such as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega.
(Quote taken from here)

In short, even if a chorus of angels appeared tomorrow and announced that God had indeed created the world in six days and that evolution had nothing to do with it, scientists would probably still keep using the evolutionary premise because it's so darn useful. In science, predictivity is king, and evolution has a heck of a lot of it.

Quote
I would agree with (5) that the evidence for a Designer is not scientific in the sense that you can demonstrate it in the lab.  The reasons I believe there is one are more like the reasons I believe George Washington existed.


That's fair enough. But, if you don't believe that there's necessarily scientific evidence for a Designer, why support ID? Just to clarify: ID does not just say "there's a Designer"; it says "there's a Designer, and His presence is scientifically detectable". The problem with that is that the vast majority of actual scientists in the relevant fields feel that the ID mob are, uh, not talking via the usual orifice.

Believe whatever you like. Claiming that your beliefs are scientific when they're not, though, is profoundly dishonest, and that's precisely what the DI and co. are doing.

Quote
I would also agree that ID is useless by itself because it stops short of identifying a designer.  I am a creationist which means I believe I can identify the designer as the God of the Bible.  This is incredibly useful if you believe as I do that this God wants a relationship with the humans he created and will someday make a new world.  Of course, to arrive at all these conclusions requires much evidence from several disciplines ... science only goes so far.  But contrary to the mudslingers, there is excellent evidence available ... I would never just say something non-sensical like "You just have to have faith".  Many organized religions have done a disservice to lots of people by making statements like this.


I'm sorry, I didn't go into sufficient detail on what I meant by "useful". When referring to science, this term means "can be used to generate testable predictions". Your belief that the God of the Bible created the world is indeed useful to you, but not in this specific scientific sense. It is not scientifically useful. It makes no testable predictions that have subsequently been confirmed, and as such it can't be evaluated using the scientific method of hypothesis testing and peer review- it's not scientifically tractable.

The reason this is an issue is that this scientific method is specifically tailored so as to home in on highly accurate solutions to scientifically-tractable questions. It homed in on evolutionary biology over 100 years ago, and has since been homing in on increasingly detailed evolutionary descriptions of species' origins. Whether you feel the scientific method is applicable in a given situation is a philosophical question rather than a strictly scientific one, but the fact that science has indeed converged on one solution strongly suggests that this is a scientifically tractable problem - if it weren't, you'd expect the scientific community to be all over the place on this issue, which it manifestly is not.

Quote
A basic outline of my line of reasoning is this (keep in mind I have an Electrical Engineering degree, so I think like an engineer) ...


You might be interested to know that evolutionary processes also function very well as electrical engineers. In particular, genetic algorithms have recently been harnessed to produce highly-efficient chips. This science is still in its infancy, but appears very promising. See this guy's website for more details (I recommend starting with the paper at the bottom of the list).

Evolutionary processes also operate very well at optimising the structure of things like wings and engines, and can be surprisingly good at writing computer programs. Here is a great example - for more, I recommend browsing outwards from the wikipedia page

Quote
2)  I know from my engineering experience that sophisticated, non-biological machines that actually work require enormous amounts of intelligence (not to mention effort) to get them designed well enough to where they will work and continue working for a long time.  I have no reason to believe that biological machines would be otherwise--they are made of the same stuff--it all comes from the same periodic table.


As I mentioned, it's entirely possible to evolve solutions to quite complex problems - no intelligence required. The reason why this doesn't occur with non-biological machines is that non-biological machines don't reproduce in any meaningful sense, and hence evolutionary effects can't kick in.

Quote
3)  Knowing this, it makes sense to me that there COULD be a designer somewhere--space alien, God, supercomputer in some galaxy--apparently Francis Crick went for the Space Alien/Panspermia idea, so I guess I'm not totally crazy with this idea.


You may be pleased to hear that that's not something that science can in any way disprove - one would not expect a sufficiently secretive God to be scientifically detectable. There's even an entire theological position about origins known as theistic evolution that proposes that God used evolution to His own ends. It may interest you to know that C. S. Lewis was (broadly speaking) a theistic evolutionist.

Quote
4)  Next, I look at the fossil record with the zillions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth, and I conclude that there must have been a massive, global flood which buried all those fossils.


To the best of my knowledge, no geologist has ever come to that conclusion without already having decided that the Bible is literally true. I'm no geologist, but the inference I'd draw from this is that the evidence does not in fact support this viewpoint. I already mentioned one problem (the sorting of fossils); I can look up more if you're interested.

I hope the above verbiage has been vaguely informative for you :)

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 18 2006,06:51   

Quote (Aardvark @ April 18 2006,09:20)
afdave Says:
April 17th, 2006 at 1:16 pm

Quote
My personal opinion is that our educational institutions–from the public schools to the Ivy League universities have been gradually taken over in the past hundred years or so by the anti-God (anti-supernatural if you will) crowd, basically because good, competent people like our present ID people were not very involved and let them do it. The results in the public schools are obvious and similar results are beginning to show at the college level as well.


http://telicthoughts.com/?p=640

Looks like afdave is not so neutral after all.


Who said anything about me being neutral?  I'm an active Creationist and very involved politically.  I am also an Electrical Engineer, former AF jet pilot, very successful business man, and a large contributor to various causes ... maybe yours if you're nice to me and convince me why I should.  But I try to be polite and I honestly like to hear evolutionists state, in their own words, why they believe in macro-evolution.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 18 2006,07:06   

Quote (afdave @ April 18 2006,08:32)
I would never just say something non-sensical like "You just have to have faith".  

This is the part that fascinates me.  When I were but a whippersnapper, many decades ago, "Faith" was one of the basic tenets of religion.  In fact, many current theologians still believe that to be true, and think that the search for "proof" of God harms religion more than it helps.

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 18 2006,07:29   

Quote
But I try to be polite and I honestly like to hear evolutionists state, in their own words, why they believe in macro-evolution.

Well, it's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of evidence. Incredible as it may sound to the unaided ear, opinions based on evidence, tested and honed by reality, are qualitatively different from "beliefs" that people hold because, well, because people hold beliefs.

As a rule, people accept "macro-evolution" because that's the inevitable conclusion supported by all available evidence. People reject it because their religious doctrine can't tolerate it. I have never seen an *informed* rejection (as opposed to a maze of misrepresentations) except on religious grounds. I can respect Kurt Wise, saying that his interpretation of selected scripture trumps reality. Evidence either matters or it does not. Evidence says macroevolution not only happens, but can't be avoided. But if evidence does not matter, then of course belief is all that's left.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 18 2006,12:02   

Quote (afdave @ April 18 2006,11:51)
...

Who said anything about me being neutral?  I'm an active Creationist and very involved politically.  I am also an Electrical Engineer, former AF jet pilot, very successful business man, and a large contributor to various causes ... maybe yours if you're nice to me and convince me why I should.  But I try to be polite and I honestly like to hear evolutionists state, in their own words, why they believe in macro-evolution.

Hi,

I believe evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life we see on Earth.

The main reason that I think this way is that evolution exposes itself to the scientific method and is falsifiable.

If you are talking "origin of life", then evolution has little/nothing to say about that, atm.

Macro-evolution is just micro-evolution over a longer period.

BTW afdave. I came to this argument from the ID POV. So far I have found the "pro-evolutionists" far more honest, open minded and humorous than the ID mob.

In fact, what most anoyed me about ID was the sheer dishonesty of its main suporters.

Have you read the "wedge document"? How unscientific is that?

EDIT: BTW. All fossils are transitional.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 3057
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 18 2006,16:11   

AFD said:

Quote
To answer corkscrew ... I agree with (1) and (2) except that I have never heard of a random mutation that could be considered beneficial.


Here is a beneficial mutation to a protein that was documented in a population in Italy.  It helps reduce the risk of arteriosclerosis (clogged arteries), heart attack, and stroke. The mutation is now becoming fixed in the local population.  There are many others if you cared to look for them - Google is your friend.

beneficial mutation

AFD said:

Quote
As for (3), I'm not aware of A SINGLE fossil that can be considered transitional ... my understanding of mesonychids and whales can be found here


There are literally hundreds of lineages in the fossil record that are considered "transitional" form. Here are but a few:

transitional fossils list

How could you miss the big excitement about the latest tetrapod transitional announced earlier this month, Tiktaalik?  It was in all the papers.

Tiktaalik discovery


For me, the most compelling evidence for the veracity of ToE is the twin nested hierarchies of life:  the tree of ancestry derived from the molecular evidence matches perfectly with the tree of ancestry from the fossil record.  Two completely independent lines of evidence that point unmistakably to the conclusion of common descent.

You can read more about it, and plenty of other evidence here

Evidence for common descent

Note that unlike your AnswersInGenesis source, virtually every article at TalkOrigins is backed up by references and citations to actual peer reviewed scientific research, so you can check the original data yourself.

Combat pilots are supposed to have good situational awareness.  Do you?  Let's see you assess the situation honestly after reading ALL the available evidence.

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"Global warming can't be real because it still gets cooler at night"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"

Whizz-dumb from Joe Gallien, world's dumbest YEC

  
Henry J



Posts: 5138
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 18 2006,16:21   

To add to my previous comments, one thing evolution explains even more directly than it explains origins, is the interrelatedness of species, anatomically, genetically, and geographically. (The only thing Creationism or I.D. even address is why there's life at all.)

Henry

  
UnMark



Posts: 97
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 18 2006,17:56   

Quote (afdave @ April 18 2006,08:32)
I would also agree that ID is useless by itself because it stops short of identifying a designer.  I am a creationist which means I believe I can identify the designer as the God of the Bible.

Intelligent Design has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, no siree!  </sarcasm>  Would you care to explain why your religious opinion is any better than my own and why I should be forced to adhere to your religious beliefs (learning ID, a religious conjecture, as scientific fact)?

Quote (afdave @ April 18 2006,08:32)
3)  Knowing this, it makes sense to me that there COULD be a designer somewhere--space alien, God, supercomputer in some galaxy--apparently Francis Crick went for the Space Alien/Panspermia idea, so I guess I'm not totally crazy with this idea.

Deism has always appealed to me. . . .

Quote (afdave @ April 18 2006,08:32)
6)  I'm skeptical of the Bible at first because everyone says "that's just a religious book full of myths", but on closer inspection, I find it to be accurate in every historical detail which is possible to be verified by archaeology.  I read it from cover to cover to give it a fair analysis. . . .

Could you please provide the evidence for the Jewish Exodus from Egypt?  Could you please provide the evidence that Jesus actually lived (outside the Bible, and the Josephus forgery doesn't count)?  As far as a fair analysis, could you please analyze and interpret Deut 20:10-14 for me?

If you'd like, I could recommend a couple "anti-Bible" and/or skeptic sites if you'd like to really learn about the other side of the controversy that is religion.

As far as evolution goes: I don't "believe" it to be true, I "accept" it as true based upon the mountain of evidence in its favor.  Here's a link to a page describing the speciation (macro-evolution) of one salmon species into two in Washington State. Here's 29 evidences of macro-evolution.  Also, here is a comprehensive list of Creationist Claims and their refutations.

I hope everyone can eventually shrug off their religous beliefs and accept science, but I've found that most creationists are unable to accept any inputs that don't affirm their narrow and rigidly-defined worldview.  Therefore, I've encountered very few ex-creationists who accepted the evidence and "switched sides."  I hope, Dave, that you aren't so entrenched in your worldview that you, too, are unable to change it.

Best regards!

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 18 2006,22:19   

I feel that Afdave would be somewhat put out if we asked him to prove that he could fly a plane, without reference to any outside evidence, nor having the plane with him to demonstrate it, etc etc.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2006,01:00   

I didn't say "prove" ... obviously, this would require outside sources ... I said I would like to HEAR your theory in your own words and the 5 top reasons WHY you believe it

To those who have been polite enough to accomodate my request, thanks!  Believe it or not, it is quite rare to find unless you specifically ask.

BTW- does anyone know of a good online chart or tree showing current evolutionary understanding of how life developed which covers it all, from single-celled organism to humans, preferably from a well-recognized source?

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Jay Ray



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2006,01:12   

Quote
does anyone know of a good online chart or tree showing current evolutionary understanding of how life developed which covers it all, from single-celled organism to humans, preferably from a well-recognized source?



This is the best example that I know of.  Obviously, the gazillions of different organisms aren't going to fit on single page, so this tree is clickable, entering into higher and higher categories with each click.

I'm not sure what you consider to be "well recognized", but I hope you find this adequate.  If you should find other trees that surpass this one in either accuracy or thoroughness, please post it. :)

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2006,01:53   

In return, perhaps AFdave can tell us what kind or level of scientific information it would take for him to change his mind about creationism being correct?

  
Reluctant Cannibal



Posts: 36
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2006,02:03   

Hello AFDave,

Rather than answer your original question as asked, I will step back and address a more fundamental point. What is an explanation, and why are some explanations more satisfying than others? My apologies if I appear to be wasting your time on something so basic and obvious, but it is usually the unexamined background ideas that give rise to such different views of the world.

You may not be a scientist in a formal way, but all of us act as scientists as we seek explanations in our day to day lives. A good explanation explains why something is the way it is, and more importantly, why it is not different. A truly satisfying explanation fits together logically, gives a deeper understanding of the thing explained, and sometimes illuminates things that might have appeared unrelated. In nature there are alway deeper levels of explanation -- for example, you can understand aerodynamics in terms of fluid mechanics, and fluid mechanics in terms of the physics of molecules. A satisfying explanation leads to more explanations at the deeper level, and suggests new avenues of investigation. An unsatisfying explanation is sterile -- it leads nowhere.

People who accept the evolutionary explanations for the complexity and diversity of life, and who have thought them through and understood them, find those explanations the most satisfying. To them, the alternatives are too simple and superficial, and don't really function as explanations at all.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2006,05:46   

Quote (afdave @ April 18 2006,08:32)
Thankyou, corkscrew and Henry J for your polite answers.  I would think you other folks would also want to give polite answers if you want others to see the truth of your viewpoint ... just a suggestion!

Hey, lighten up, I was just joking.  Geez.

Quote
I would also agree that ID is useless by itself because it stops short of identifying a designer.  I am a creationist which means I believe I can identify the designer as the God of the Bible.  This is incredibly useful if you believe as I do that this God wants a relationship with the humans he created and will someday make a new world.  Of course, to arrive at all these conclusions requires much evidence from several disciplines ... science only goes so far.  But contrary to the mudslingers, there is excellent evidence available ... I would never just say something non-sensical like "You just have to have faith".  Many organized religions have done a disservice to lots of people by making statements like this.

Perhaps you could tell us what evidence you have available and how you think it qualifies as evidence?  Note: I'm not attacking your religion, but it may be helpful to differentiate between what you see as "evidence" and what science can accept as "evidence."

Quote
1)  I see highly sophisticated, biological machines at every level in nature, macro to micro.

Are you sure of that?

Quote
2)  I know from my engineering experience that sophisticated, non-biological machines that actually work require enormous amounts of intelligence (not to mention effort) to get them designed well enough to where they will work and continue working for a long time.  I have no reason to believe that biological machines would be otherwise--they are made of the same stuff--it all comes from the same periodic table.

It has been said that more scientific advances come from "Oops" moments than from "Eureka" moments.

Quote
3)  Knowing this, it makes sense to me that there COULD be a designer somewhere--space alien, God, supercomputer in some galaxy--apparently Francis Crick went for the Space Alien/Panspermia idea, so I guess I'm not totally crazy with this idea.

I don't think anyone here is disputing that the could be a designer.  The trick is to show some evidence for it.

Quote
6)  I'm skeptical of the Bible at first because everyone says "that's just a religious book full of myths", but on closer inspection, I find it to be accurate in every historical detail which is possible to be verified by archaeology.  I read it from cover to cover to give it a fair analysis and I am struck by the accuracy with which it describes human behaviour.  I'm also fascinated with the apparent fulfilled prophecies which involve the rise and fall of major nations and also this incredibly influential person--Jesus of Nazareth.  To be sure, there are things I don't understand, but I'm not so arrogant as to write them off without evidence for doing so.  I know from history that multitudes of people have blindly accepted statements like "that book is just a myth" only to be proven wrong by some guy willing to work hard enough to really examine the evidence.  Of course, many DO turn out to be myths, but I have done my own thorough examination of the Bible, and I have not found it to be a myth.

Are you USAF?  I'm just wondering what country you came from where they told you the Bible was a myth.  In this country, we are inundated with Christianity and most don't have the stones to call it a myth.  Also, prophecies are tricky things, considering they usually take a measure of interpretation.  And, it would once again be useful to define "evidence."

Quote
7)  I put this (and some other factors ... admittedly, this is abbreviated) all together and in my mind and it all adds up to me to make a pretty good case that the Bible is literally true--complete with a real God, the Creation, the Flood, Moses, Jesus ... the whole deal.

This is logical fallacy.  If I factually report that a meeting took place at 5, that doesn't mean that I will necessarily factually report what happened at the meeting.  Because some details are correct, doesn't mean that god exists, caused creation in 6 literal days, flooded the world, etc.

  
stevestory



Posts: 11120
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2006,05:57   

It looks to me like AFDave is really MCDave.

   
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2006,08:05   

Perhaps the most common pattern, let's call it pattern #1:

1) Make statements/ask questions
2) Get tons of excellent replies
3) Either vanish entirely, or ignore all replies and change the subject.

Maybe there's supposed to be a call-and-response, but this congregation is giving the wrong response?

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2006,11:51   

Every head bowed ... every eye closed ... repeat after me ... homina, homina ...

Hey I like that ... MC Dave ...

No seriously, I am an honest-to-goodness Creationist (gasp) with a neck shade other than red and I don't live in a trailer in the South ... oh, to the guy asking about which nationality of AF I was in ... USA ... I flew T-38's and I hear all kinds of people in this country say the Bible is a myth ... co-workers, relatives, you name it ... I am not kidding when I say that I appreciate all you people giving me serious answers on why you believe in (oops ... accept) evolution.  I'll take as many as I can get ...

One more question though ... some guy on the main PT site was insulted that I called him a Darwinist ... said that's like calling an African-American a "nigger" ... what's up with that?

Pretty soon I'll reciprocate and give my 7 points on why I'm a Creationist ... hopefully I won't get too many rotten tomatoes

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2006,11:54   

Oops ... I forgot I already posted my 7 points earlier ... I'll try to answer objections soon ...

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
ToSeek



Posts: 33
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2006,12:00   

Quote (afdave @ April 19 2006,16:51)
One more question though ... some guy on the main PT site was insulted that I called him a Darwinist ... said that's like calling an African-American a "nigger" ... what's up with that?

Well, I'd say that's rather an overreaction, but, still, about the only people who use the term "Darwinists" are creationists. I don't know of anyone who would call themselves a Darwinist.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2006,12:30   

So what's the proper term?  Evolutionist?

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Tom Ames



Posts: 238
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2006,12:39   

Quote (afdave @ April 19 2006,15:30)
So what's the proper term?  Evolutionist?

You wouldn't call an astrophysicist an "Einsteinian" or "big-banger".

Similarly, for biologists at least, the proper term is not "Evolutionist" or "Dawinian", it's "biologist". Or maybe "immunologist", "geneticist", etc.

There are only a very few, mostly cranky, exceptions to this labeling scheme.

--------------
-Tom Ames

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2006,12:41   

Personally, I've always thought the specific objections to the term "Darwinist" were a little silly. And comparing it to a racial slur is beyond silly.

"Evolutionist" is really no better, though, and I'll tell you why. It's the "ism". Using terms like this for the opposition gives the creationist a little boost from the outset. It amounts to an unstated premise: There are two worldviews here, two "isms" on equal footing, and you have to choose which to believe.

As folks have been telling you here, "belief" is not at issue when assessing the relative merits of scientific hypotheses. And, further, evolution does not come with a worldview. Its adherents run the gamut, politically, religiously, morally, etc. Follow the evidence, all the evidence, not just the bits and peces that can be twisted into supporting a foregone conclusion, and evolution's the only game in town.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
stevestory



Posts: 11120
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2006,12:41   

Quote

Pretty soon I'll reciprocate and give my 7 points on why I'm a Creationist


Too much jesus, too little science. All done.

   
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2006,13:04   

Quote
So what's the proper term?  Evolutionist?
An evolutionist is another term for someone who studies evolutionary biology, like someone who studies genetics is a geneticist. Darwinism if you really stretch the definition can refer to the modern synthesis as it existed in the early part of the last century. There is not really a word for someone who accepts modern science who is not a scientist, only for someone like yourself who does not.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2006,17:06   

Quote
Too much jesus, too little science. All done.


Steve keeps bebopping into this thread with one-liners because secretly he wants a little more Jesus, a little instruction in capitalization rules, and a little less science ...

Hmmmm ...

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
bourgeois_rage



Posts: 117
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2006,02:39   

I am a computer engineer and was brought to this debate by the ID side trying to convince me that biologists were hiding facts. After some very convincing arguments and actually beginning to doubt the biologist's explanation, I started to do some of my own research.

What I found was that the ID community was primarily driven not by evidence, but religion. In fact the people who originaly tried to convince me of ID (and claimed that it wasn't religious) were clearly very religious people. ID could very well have some good points, but they try to claim things that they cannot prove. Plus instead of releasing studies, often they only released press releases in response to scientist's studies.

Evolution does not make any claims beyond that which they can show within reason. ID activists claim that Evolution wants to make claims about the origins of life, but the evidence for the origins of life is very sparse and the theory of evolution doesn't touch it because it is so sparse. Occasionally someone does some experiements on how life could have intially formed, but as of yet no conclusions have been drawn, and certainly this is outside of the scope of evolution.

After doing my own research I found that ID's view of evolution tends to be mostly misconceptions and strawmen. To me, this is not a convincing argument, and if I may be so bold, it should not be a convincing argument to anyone. The people who believe in ID WANT to believe. Scientists should not allow their emotions to become involved with the search for facts.

As for myself, I attend church weekly, but remain agnostic. I could probably discuss the Bible and philosophy with the best if I were so inclined, but I find that my perspective tends to only brings out anger with some people so I keep it to myself. I have found that no matter how much arguing I do with someone, I'm never going to change their religious views. People have to want to change their views themselves.

I know this is going to lead nowhere. You, afdave, will not change your opinion. In fact, anyone posting on this forum will probably not change their opinion. We have done all the searching that we need to form our opinions, and drawn our conclusions. I think that here are those of us who wish to be told what to think and then there are those of us who wish to draw their own conclusions. Most people on here try to draw their own conclusions (even you afdave). Of those who wish to draw their own conclusions, some try to be objective and weigh all the evidence while some try to do that while also bringing in a belief system, which really isn't proven by any objective means (at this point in history). The latter method isn't good enough for me.

--------------
Overwhelming Evidence: Apply directly to the forehead.

   
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2006,05:14   

bourgeois_rage:

May I suggest a slightly different emphasis? I don't think you're necessarily wrong, but you might try a different view on for size anyway:

Quote
After doing my own research I found that ID's view of evolution tends to be mostly misconceptions and strawmen. To me, this is not a convincing argument...I think that here are those of us who wish to be told what to think and then there are those of us who wish to draw their own conclusions.

My observation is that the two use methods exactly inverse of one another. Biologists base their conclusions on what their research reveals, and often disagree vociferously on how that evidence is best interpreted. This is healthy, because the points of disagreement pinpoint where clarification is needed, and direct further research appropriately.

Creationists, exactly the contrary, start with their conclusions. The conclusions aren't lousy because they are based on misconceptions and strawmen; rather the misconceptions and strawmen were confected as required to justify foregone conclusions unfortunately refuted by reality.

In a nutshell, biologists draw conclusion from evidence, and creationists manufacture evidence from conclusions.

Quote
some try to be objective and weigh all the evidence while some try to do that while also bringing in a belief system

And so this is probably a misunderstanding. A belief system contrary to fact *prevents* one from weighing evidence, or often even recognizing evidence. The belief system dictates the "evidence". The chronological sequence matters. In biology, evidence->conclusions. In creationism, conclusions->misrepresentations and strawmen.

  
davidS



Posts: 1
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2006,09:00   

What AFDave requests: to summarize in 5 easy steps 150 years of scientific discovery, reminds me of a parable.

Around 2,000 years ago there were two prominent rabbis, Shamai and Hillel, who led two competing schools of Jewish thought.  A gentile approached each one and asked this question.  "Please explain to me all the teaching of Judaism while I balance on one foot."  Shamai drove the man away from his door.  Hillel responded, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, the rest is commentary."

The Shamai in me wants to beat AFDave with sticks knowing that he is only putting everyone on.  If he were serious, he would not make this obviously ridiculous demand, but first devote himself to true study. The Hillel in me knows this too, but says okay, if I give him my best answer maybe mockery can be converted to thoughtfulness.

And I do think, AFDave, that you have been answered in that spirit in these posts.  I will contribute 3 easy steps.

1) Evolution is simply a description of the natural world connecting all living things through descent from a common ancestor.  The rest is mere detail that changes with new discoveries.

2) Render unto science what is scientific understanding of the material and natural world; render unto God what is religious thought, faith and understanding of the spiritual or supernatural world.

3)  Once you allow your faith to encompass the wisdom of 1 & 2, by the grace of Darwin, you are saved.

  
bourgeois_rage



Posts: 117
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2006,09:40   

Right you are, Flint.

I've never been the best writer in the world, so sometimes my arguments can be somewhat disjointed. I guess my closing line was trying to be somewhat diplomatic.
Quote
some try to be objective and weigh all the evidence while some try to do that while also bringing in a belief system

ID does try to address some of the evidence, but due to their belief system they throw out whatever does not fit in. For instance Carbon dating and radioactive decay seems to be a problem for them. Instead of trying to fit their theory around those tools (which is what scientific theories do), they claim the tools are broken and throw them away. The same can be said of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The sad/funny part is that for those who actually look into the claims, a lot of times the jumps in their logic/coverups are obvious. With ID proponents, they are actively trying to keep themselves in the dark or are being intentionally disingenuous.

Quote

In a nutshell, biologists draw conclusion from evidence, and creationists manufacture evidence from conclusions.

That's probably about as concise as one can be. I endorse this answer to afdave's question.

--------------
Overwhelming Evidence: Apply directly to the forehead.

   
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2006,10:05   

Quote
The sad/funny part is that for those who actually look into the claims, a lot of times the jumps in their logic/coverups are obvious.

One needn't spend a whole long time looking at "global flood" claims to realize that evidence simply doesn't matter. No biblical fable could be more emphatically fiction, in every way possible. Every single detail of the flood before, during, and after is not just impossible but flagrantly, preposterously, insanely impossible. Watching creationists defend the flood is a ringside seat into understanding what faith can do to the brain.

  
beervolcano



Posts: 147
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2006,10:37   

The thing about the flood, and people looking for physical evidence of it, fail to remember that it was a miracle.

You're probably not going to find physical evidence of something that it physically impossible.

Same goes for Jesus's ressurection. You're not going to prove scientifically that a miracle occured, I don't think.

And as far as machines go, a waterfall is a machine. A river is a machine. The hydrological cycle is a machine.

The sun is a machine. The solar system is a machine.

Hurricanes are machines.

And on and on and on.....

Are all these machines intelligently designed?

--------------
("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."--Jonathan Swift)

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2006,11:26   

Quote
You're probably not going to find physical evidence of something that it physically impossible.

Of course not. What's fascinating is that those who *expect* to find evidence of the impossible, *do* find it, and the very real evidence to the contrary, they do *not* find.

I have no problem with the notion that the flood was magic, happened in an alternate universe, or was fiction. Whatever renders it immune to actual observation is good enough for me. It's when creationists try to cram a flood into the actual observations that we get our key insight: evidence *does not matter*.

  
stevestory



Posts: 11120
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2006,12:29   

Quote
Watching creationists defend the flood is a ringside seat into understanding what faith can do to the brain.
Yep.
Quote
It's when creationists try to cram a flood into the actual observations that we get our key insight: evidence *does not matter*.
Exactly. Listen to a YEC like Salvador Cordova or Paul Nelson for ten minutes and you get the distinct impression their brains have been replaced with bags of kitty litter. If you believe in Noah's Ark and a 6,000 year old earth and a voice-activated nothingness creating elements of the universe on command, you are (at least) mildly insane.

   
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2006,03:34   

Afdave, I used to be a creationist (and fundie) for a long long time. I started doubting, did a lot of research and realised I had been lied to by the people I trusted most. Even more, I have been spreading their lies as if it was truth, and that made me a liar too. It is better to be honest than to believe. If you really want answers, go and find them for yourself (read, think, learn and repeat). Read the critic material instead of just pro-creationism lies. Gather enough knowledge to make informed choices. You don't even have to be open, just be honest.

If some people here respond to you with personal attacks, don't blame them. And just to repeat what Steven Elliot said, that pro-evolution people are more honest (and open) than creationist/pro-ID people. I'll second that.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2006,02:47   

Thanks for the explanations ... I wanted to see if there is anything new which might convince me that Macro-Evolution really happened, but there's apparently not ...

Corkscrew had some very thoughtful answers and I was particularly interested in his understanding about whale evolution ... but what I found appears to me to be another case of wishful thinking on the part of evolutionists ... non-existent skeleton parts drawn in to make the skeleton look the way they want it to, etc.  Darwin predicted an enormous number of transitional fossils ... but 140 years later, we only have a handful of disputable examples.  In my opinion, it is too early to draw conclusions about Tiktaalik

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i4/almostwhale.asp

I have not studied the nylon-eating bacteria, but it sounds interesting.  I guess I should revise my terminology regarding 'beneficial mutations'.  It can be very ambiguous to determine what exactly is 'beneficial.'  How about this?  <i>No one has ever shown me a mutation which INCREASES the information in the organism.</i>  This is probably a less ambiguous statement.

I agree that evolutionists' observation of variation within the living world is quite valid and can be very predictive. Creationists also observe this variation, but we realize that there is no NEW information being added to genomes.  There is only LOSS of information, hence the phenomenon of "dead-end" species, such as cardinals.  I had an interesting dialog one time with an evolutionist about Chihuahaus and Great Danes.  He basically said you could breed back a pair of Chihuahuas to eventually get a "mutt" or even a Great Dane and was citing evolutionary theory to support this.  I'm curious to know if there are other evolutionists who believe this?  All my observation tells me that you have to have the Great Dane info in some "mutt" parents rather far back in time in order to breed a Great Dane.  Once you breed down to a Chihuahua, the Great Dane info is gone--artificially selected out.  This understanding of breeding is why I believe it is entirely possible that all "dog-type" animals, for example--dogs, coyotes, wolves, etc. came from one, genetically rich "dog-kind" pair.

I like your link to the Genetic algorithm, but again, this kind of thing is not "Evolution" in the sense that any new information is being added.  The computer program is just selecting EXISTING information, just like what happens in nature.

It is also baffling to me how evolutionists cannot see evidence for a global flood.  One huge piece of evidence to me is the Grand Canyon.  To me it has always seemed absurd to assume that the Colorado river carved the canyon over millions of years.  A much more plausible explanation to me is that the whole region was laid down by water over a short period of time--after all, it is fossil-bearing, sedimentary rock.  Then as the water subsided, the canyon was carved in what was still soft sediments, then subsequently hardened.  What is so convincing about this hypothesis is that Mt. Saint Helens showed us precisely how this happens.  We have a "mini-Grand Canyon' right there at Mt. Saint Helens and it happened in 1980--no speculation needed at all.  How can evolutionists deny this evidence?  Fossil sorting is also interesting:  what we have in the fossil record is exactly what one would expect to find if there was a global flood due to hydraulic sorting.  

I think the whole Creation/Evolution debate is a very intersting topic and I think it involves a lot of science, philosophy, human prejudice and other factors.  I agree that many pro-evolution people are open-minded.  I think explains why so many excellent scientists are jumping the "Darwin ship" and turning into Creationists.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
stevestory



Posts: 11120
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2006,02:55   

Quote
No one has ever shown me a mutation which INCREASES the information in the organism.

I love how the Index of Creationist Claims says about this argument, ""It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim,...  

   
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2006,03:19   

Quote
No one has ever shown me a mutation which INCREASES the information in the organism.
First could you please define what you mean by information. If a gene duplication occurs and one of the proteins changes to perform a new function, is this not an increase of information?

Quote
This understanding of breeding is why I believe it is entirely possible that all "dog-type" animals, for example--dogs, coyotes, wolves, etc. came from one, genetically rich "dog-kind" pair.
No domestic dogs evolved from wolves. If you think that changes in morphology leading from wolves to other dogs could not have occurred without huge amounts of extra 'information' I suggest you google "evo-devo".

Quote
The computer program is just selecting EXISTING information, just like what happens in nature.
Could you also describe the difference between genotypic and phenotypic information and how we measure the two.

Quote
A much more plausible explanation to me is that the whole region was laid down by water over a short period of time--after all, it is fossil-bearing, sedimentary rock.  Then as the water subsided, the canyon was carved in what was still soft sediments, then subsequently hardened.
Could you please explain how a flood roduced a steep cayon and not a wide shallow one. Also how does the creationist model account for the meanders, and deep perpendicular tributaries.

Quote
Fossil sorting is also interesting:  what we have in the fossil record is exactly what one would expect to find if there was a global flood due to hydraulic sorting.
You convinienty left out microfossils, which are arranged exactly how we would expect if they were deposited gradually.

Quote
I agree that many pro-evolution people are open-minded.  I think explains why so many excellent scientists are jumping the "Darwin ship" and turning into Creationists.
Anyone I might have heard of who has jumped the ship recently?

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2006,03:32   

Quote
It is also baffling to me how evolutionists cannot see evidence for a global flood.

Because, of course, there is no such evidence. One must defend ignorance of hydrology and geology vigorously to maintain the pretense. This is really fascinating. If the bible hadn't mentioned a flood, nobody looking at the evidence on the ground would ever have had even the slightest cause to suspect one.

Ah well, faith is believing what you know ain't so. "It's when creationists try to cram a flood into the actual observations that we get our key insight: evidence *does not matter*." I see no reason to change this observation. We're not looking at stupid here, we're looking at genuine organic brain damage. Since the only weapon science has (evidence) is utterly useless against this sort of damage, why bother arguing?

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2006,04:02   

Quote (afdave @ April 24 2006,07:47)
I wanted to see if there is anything new which might convince me that Macro-Evolution really happened, but there's apparently not ...

I wish we had a :rofl: smiley  :D  That quote is so precious

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2006,05:17   

Voice:

Yes, it highlights the qualitative difference between persuasion and conversion.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2006,06:18   

RE: "AFDave" ( = "Air Force Dave")

Interestingly, in the early days of Panda's Thumb, there was an obnoxious troll who called himself "Navy Davy". His "persona" on that occasion was the "open-minded evo-skeptic" - i.e. someone who had no particular reason to doubt evolution, but - as an objective outsider with "no dog in the fight" - thought that the case was far from proved, and that mainstream scientists were blinded by dogmatism.

It turns out it was one David Steele, who had previously made a name for himself as an internet troll, posing (?) as an "HIV-skeptic".  When confronted with this, he dissembled and prevaricated, and eventually disappeared.

What a jerk.

What do you think? AFDave, NavyDavy... weird coincidence or persistent troll?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2006,07:05   

Whoever he is, he is persistent and blinkered.  :)

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2006,07:57   

Quote
If the bible hadn't mentioned a flood, nobody looking at the evidence on the ground would ever have had even the slightest cause to suspect one.
Just to play devil's advocate, this isn't exactly true.  There are many, many independant flood stories in different cultures.  It's not just the Christian creationists that believe in a large flood.  And the reason is simple.  Almost every culture has come across a fossil of a seashell way up in the mountains somewhere.  Humans need answers to explain such puzzling phenomena.  Not knowing anything about geology, they do know that sea shells hang around bodies of water.  Conclusion: water must've been high to cover the mountians!  Hence, there must've been a big ol' flood at one point.  Everyone likes a good story.  Modern day creationists just prefer a good story over the cold hard facts.  There's something endearing about that.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2006,08:23   

Quote
Just to play devil's advocate, this isn't exactly true.

Yes, I suppose you're right. As I read it, the data were puzzling for a while. One the one hand, there were seashells on mountaintops, so the water must have got up there somehow. On the other hand, these shells were delicate items perfectly preserved, whereas floods invariably pulverize everything. Not an easy puzzle to solve, I admit.

Evidence of glaciation also has been confusing. Clearly glaciers have left behind the kinds of things floods do - moving large rocks long distances, causing water-type erosion, etc.

And of course, ancient peoples had a great deal of experience with floods - they lived in fertile flood plains, so floods were annual events and some of them were pretty serious. Given all this, it would be surprising if cultures worldwide did NOT have flood-oriented Pecos Bill and Paul Bunyan tales.

During the early 1800s, geologists took Noah's Flood for granted, and "found" it wherever they looked -- except for those little details like the perfectly preserved shells. But over the course of 50-60 years, the sheer number of confounding details got too extensive and  pervasive to tune out anymore. An explanation more consistent with all known evidence needed to be developed.

And so, we're back to the response of people when confronted with evidence. Does it matter, or not?

  
Corkscrew



Posts: 20
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2006,12:09   

Quote (afdave @ April 24 2006,07:47)
Thanks for the explanations ... I wanted to see if there is anything new which might convince me that Macro-Evolution really happened, but there's apparently not ...

Corkscrew had some very thoughtful answers and I was particularly interested in his understanding about whale evolution ... but what I found appears to me to be another case of wishful thinking on the part of evolutionists ... non-existent skeleton parts drawn in to make the skeleton look the way they want it to, etc.  Darwin predicted an enormous number of transitional fossils ... but 140 years later, we only have a handful of disputable examples.  In my opinion, it is too early to draw conclusions about Tiktaalik

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i4/almostwhale.asp

I have not studied the nylon-eating bacteria, but it sounds interesting.  I guess I should revise my terminology regarding 'beneficial mutations'.  It can be very ambiguous to determine what exactly is 'beneficial.'  How about this?  <i>No one has ever shown me a mutation which INCREASES the information in the organism.</i>  This is probably a less ambiguous statement.

I agree that evolutionists' observation of variation within the living world is quite valid and can be very predictive. Creationists also observe this variation, but we realize that there is no NEW information being added to genomes.  There is only LOSS of information, hence the phenomenon of "dead-end" species, such as cardinals.  I had an interesting dialog one time with an evolutionist about Chihuahaus and Great Danes.  He basically said you could breed back a pair of Chihuahuas to eventually get a "mutt" or even a Great Dane and was citing evolutionary theory to support this.  I'm curious to know if there are other evolutionists who believe this?  All my observation tells me that you have to have the Great Dane info in some "mutt" parents rather far back in time in order to breed a Great Dane.  Once you breed down to a Chihuahua, the Great Dane info is gone--artificially selected out.  This understanding of breeding is why I believe it is entirely possible that all "dog-type" animals, for example--dogs, coyotes, wolves, etc. came from one, genetically rich "dog-kind" pair.

I like your link to the Genetic algorithm, but again, this kind of thing is not "Evolution" in the sense that any new information is being added.  The computer program is just selecting EXISTING information, just like what happens in nature.

It is also baffling to me how evolutionists cannot see evidence for a global flood.  One huge piece of evidence to me is the Grand Canyon.  To me it has always seemed absurd to assume that the Colorado river carved the canyon over millions of years.  A much more plausible explanation to me is that the whole region was laid down by water over a short period of time--after all, it is fossil-bearing, sedimentary rock.  Then as the water subsided, the canyon was carved in what was still soft sediments, then subsequently hardened.  What is so convincing about this hypothesis is that Mt. Saint Helens showed us precisely how this happens.  We have a "mini-Grand Canyon' right there at Mt. Saint Helens and it happened in 1980--no speculation needed at all.  How can evolutionists deny this evidence?  Fossil sorting is also interesting:  what we have in the fossil record is exactly what one would expect to find if there was a global flood due to hydraulic sorting.  

I think the whole Creation/Evolution debate is a very intersting topic and I think it involves a lot of science, philosophy, human prejudice and other factors.  I agree that many pro-evolution people are open-minded.  I think explains why so many excellent scientists are jumping the "Darwin ship" and turning into Creationists.

Quote
Corkscrew had some very thoughtful answers and I was particularly interested in his understanding about whale evolution ... but what I found appears to me to be another case of wishful thinking on the part of evolutionists ... non-existent skeleton parts drawn in to make the skeleton look the way they want it to, etc.


I thought you might think that, which is why I carefully chose examples that referred to actual complete skeletons. To the best of my knowledge, none of the fossils I listed were mere "artists' impressions" - they were all either actual fossils or direct, unmodified drawings of the fossils. No parts were added or altered.

If you can see any linked pictures of which this isn't true, please point them out to me and I'll either find better images or retract my support for that fossil.

Quote
Darwin predicted an enormous number of transitional fossils ... but 140 years later, we only have a handful of disputable examples.


Well, technically speaking, according to Darwin every fossil is transitional. It'll take more time than I have at the moment to provide linkey support for this, but I'm given to understand that most of the major transitions are very thoroughly documented. The classic anecdote here is that palaeontologists working on the reptile/mammal transition actually spend hours arguing which of their fossils are reptile-like mammals and which are mammal-like reptiles. This makes no sense unless there's actually a continuum from one to the other.

Quote
I have not studied the nylon-eating bacteria, but it sounds interesting.  I guess I should revise my terminology regarding 'beneficial mutations'.  It can be very ambiguous to determine what exactly is 'beneficial.'  How about this?  <i>No one has ever shown me a mutation which INCREASES the information in the organism.</i>  This is probably a less ambiguous statement.


Now, this is an interesting point for me - in fact, it's actually the one that brought me to this debate in the first place. See, I'm a maths student, and one of my courses is Coding and Cryptography - basically it's Information Theory 101. And the interesting thing about information is that mutations will nearly always increase it. This of course depends on your definition, so I'll run through a couple:

Mathematical definition 1: Shannon information

Shannon information is a measure of the amount of information that a given communication could contain. Say you wander down to breakfast and grunt "good morning" at your wife. That's something you do very often, so it doesn't really tell your wife much about your state of mind.

Now say you wander down, take one look at her and run screaming from the room. Your wife now knows:
a) there's something very unusual happening
b) you're sleeping on the couch
The rarity of this behaviour on your part makes it a high-information communication.

Now, let's say that your behaviour spontaneously mutates - in other words, you pick a random action from your repertoire to perform. There's going to be a half chance that you pick the low-information grunt and a half chance that you pick the high-information scream. Comparing this to your usual behaviour (the grunt), it's easy to see that a random behaviour is going to be higher-information than a "normal" behaviour. This result transfers directly across to study of genetic sequences.

Mathematical definition 2: Kolmogorov complexity

Kolmogorov complexity is, broadly speaking, the length of the shortest program that can generate a given communication. So, for example, the Kolmogorov complexity of "AAAAAAAA" would be very low by comparison to that of "NBCJEDFJLEDLAN". It's fairly easy to see that, going by this definition, most random strings will be higher-information than most non-random strings, since the latter will generally display patterns that can be exploited to reduce the K-complexity.

Layman's definition 1: Data that means something

Since meaning is a purely subjective measure, this is something that is unlikely to be produced by an objective process. One would not expect nature to produce works of Shakespeare, for example. Fortunately for evolution, there's no information of this sort in the genetic code of living creatures. No really. What there is, however, is...

Layman's definition 2: Data that does something

To anyone who isn't a mathematician, this is probably the most interesting definition, and it's undeniable that living systems have it in spades. Fortunately, functionality is a fairly objective measure, so it's entirely possible for objective processes to produce it. In fact, it turns out that this is something evolution is perfectly capable of producing.

In particular, it's fairly hard to deny that information of this sort is produced by genetic algorithms. What's really interesting is the fact that GAs apparently often come up with solutions that humans would never in a million years have considered.

If you can come up with another definition that you believe can't be produced by evolution, I'll happily discuss it.

Quote
I had an interesting dialog one time with an evolutionist about Chihuahaus and Great Danes.  He basically said you could breed back a pair of Chihuahuas to eventually get a "mutt" or even a Great Dane and was citing evolutionary theory to support this.


Well, you could certainly get back something that was Great Dane shaped, although in other, less obvious ways it would probably differ from the original. I'm rather intrigued by your idea that breeding from a wolf to a Chihuahua is possible but breeding from a Chihuahua to a Great Dane isn't - are you suggesting that wild wolves originally had some kind of essence-of-Chihuahua in them alongside the essence-of-Great-Dane?

Quote
Fossil sorting is also interesting:  what we have in the fossil record is exactly what one would expect to find if there was a global flood due to hydraulic sorting.  


Not being a geologist I can't speak about the Grand Canyon stuff, but I already discussed problems with hydraulic sorting. Can you please explain roughly what criteria you would expect a flood to sort carcasses by, so we can compare it to the evidence?

Quote
I agree that many pro-evolution people are open-minded.  I think explains why so many excellent scientists are jumping the "Darwin ship" and turning into Creationists.


I'd note that creationists have been saying this for about the last hundred and fifty years, and yet the overwhelming majority of reputable scientists in relevant fields still support evolution. That suggests that the claim is factually inaccurate.

Just out of interest, could you give a few examples?

  
Corkscrew



Posts: 20
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2006,12:23   

Regards the tree of life thing, this is the best example at present.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2006,12:46   

By the end of next year genome sequencing will be 100 times quicker and a helluva lot cheaper so that thing's going to grow pretty fast.

  
UnMark



Posts: 97
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2006,13:54   

Thanks, Corckscrew - that was most illuminating.  But you intended audience is deaf and blind to all that counter his narrow, flawed POV.

Dave, you mentioned "dog-kind."  I have yet to get a good, rigorous definition of "kind" as it relates to biological entities - do you have one?

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2006,14:17   

Thats easy:
Quote
Kind: A group of animals with similar characteristics for which it isn't possible to imagine how they could share a common ancestor without reading about evolution. Y'know; dogs, horses and stuff.

Similar to
Quote
Macroevolution: Evolution that seems implausible based on a series of mutations. Unless someone who is knowlegable about evolution is present in which case it is evolution that has not directly been observed.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,02:36   

WHALE FRAUD (Is that like Mail Fraud?)

Corkscrew said ...
Quote
Back to the whale evolution. The transition described here looks like:
- Sinonyx
- Pakicetus
- Ambulocetus
- Rodhocetus
- Basilosaurus (note especially that it had land-animal-like feet)
- Dorudon


Sinonyx -- So this is the starting point on the road to a whale?


Pakicetus
Top left:Gingerich’s first reconstruction
Bottom left: what he had actually found
Top right: more complete skeleton
Bottom right: more reasonable reconstruction


Ambulocetus -- The bones in (B) were what was really found (bones in red were 15 feet ABOVE the others), but the drawing in (A) is what the public sees


Rodhocetus -- Other that your link to an artist's reconstruction, here is all I could find on this one ... Wikipedia says ...
Quote
Rodhocetus balochistanensis is in fact believed to demonstrate a direct evolutionary link to artiodactyls (modern examples of which are hippopotamuses and pigs). This has largely overturned previous fossil-based theories that whales were directly descended from mesonychids, though it matches studies of the genetic relations between whales and other animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodhocetus

Basilosaurus was fully aquatic, so hardly transitional between land mammals and whales. Also, Barbara Stahl, a vertebrate paleontologist and evolutionist, points out:
Quote
The serpentine form of the body and the peculiar shape of the cheek teeth make it plain that these archaeocetes [like Basilosaurus] could not possibly have been the ancestor of modern whales.


Dorudon -- I was only able to find artist's RECONSTRUCTIONS of this fossil ... do you have any links to pictures of what was ACTUALLY found?

Sorry guys ... all this imaginitive artwork just isn't very convincing to me ... especially considering the other lines of evidence pointing to an Intelligent Creator.

Apparently it's not convincing to others either.  In spite of the virtual monopoly that evolution supporters have in schools, magazines, news media, encyclopedias, etc., the public is still not convinced ...

Quote
U.S. Majority Picks Creationism over Evolution
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseac…

Which of these views do you agree with the most? 1. Human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, and God did not directly guide this process; 2. Human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, but God guided this process; or 3. God created human beings in their present form.

Apr. 2006

God created humans in present form — 53%

Humans evolved, God guided the process — 23%

Humans evolved, God did not guide process — 17%

Source: CBS News
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 899 American adults, conducted from Apr. 6 to Apr. 9, 2006. Margin of error is 3 per cent.


--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
stevestory



Posts: 11120
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,02:55   

Quote
Comment #98294

Posted by ben on April 25, 2006 07:49 AM (e) | kill

    afdave:

   why do you still not have a maj ority of people that believe your theory?


Why don’t you have a majority of people who believe in your theory, i.e. that your christian god actually exists? Is your belief system really so poorly-supported by evidence and so poorly-taught that you can only convince 1/3 of people in the world that it has any validity at all?

It’s such a stupid question, afdave. Why don’t a majority of people know that gravity bends light? Why can’t even 1/2 of americans find Iraq on a map? Why do so many people believe in ghosts (48% according to this poll, vs. a 45% minority saying they don’t)?

Should we teach our children that gravity doesn’t bend light, that science can’t say for sure where Iraq is, and that ghosts are real? Who cares what polls say?

   
thurdl01



Posts: 99
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,03:03   

Ahh, poll data.  The single most meaningless argument "against" evolution.  And that's saying something, considering the mounds and mounds of meaningless arguments against evolution.  My favorite way of looking at public opinion polls comes from the fine Penn and Teller production called "Bullshit!"

Imagine a rabbit.  It's cute, furry, I believe the one on the show is black and white.  Now, let's all vote on the sex of the rabbit.  It'll probably end up about a 50/50 split, as ignorance of the subject leads to people making decisions based on their own preconceived predjudices.  But even if there was a clean majority one way or the other, it wouldn't actually affect the sex of the rabbit.  85% of the people voting could say it looks like a butch rabbit, so thus must be male, and be wrong.  However, a public opinion poll about the gender of the rabbit doesn't actually affect the fact of the gender of the rabbit.

Public opinion polls that show the country being "against" evolution do nothing to change the simple fact of evolution.  They just go to show that a frighteningly large percent of the population is sadly ignorant of the facts, whether by fault of their education or are even willfully ignorant, and are thus bringing their own preconceived prejudices to the table.

  
stevestory



Posts: 11120
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,03:23   

lol also from PT:

Quote
Comment #98297

Posted by afdave on April 25, 2006 08:15 AM (e) | kill

Clarification for ben …

All my references to the Creationist majority are applicable to the USA which is where the poll referred to was taken …

This should have been clear in the original reference to the poll …

Duh, Ben, obviously statistics only count when they support my belief, I mean duh...Ben, you just don't think very carefully.

   
thurdl01



Posts: 99
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,03:48   

Oh, and...

Quote
Dorudon -- I was only able to find artist's RECONSTRUCTIONS of this fossil ... do you have any links to pictures of what was ACTUALLY found?


Funny, took me very little search to find a link to this.  It's the University of Michigan paleontology site, showing the highlight of their collection: a quite complete Dorudon.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,03:49   

Quote (afdave @ April 25 2006,07:36)
Sorry guys ... all this imaginitive artwork just isn't very convincing to me ... especially considering the other lines of evidence pointing to an Intelligent Creator.

Ummm, what lines of evidence?  I have yet to see any.  Would you like to provide some?

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,04:40   

So all I get is rotten tomatoes and eggs?

Who is going to be manly enough to answer the obviously embarassing question of why most people in the USA are still creationists in spite of the evolutionists virtual monopoly over US schools, universities, publications and the media for at least 40 years?  

It's a really simple question, guys ...

Come on, you can do it ... Steve Story?  Moses? Lenny?  Anyone?

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,04:45   

Quote
Sorry guys ... all this imaginitive artwork just isn't very convincing to me ... especially considering the other lines of evidence pointing to an Intelligent Creator.

Firstly there have been several finds to create these reconstructions, for exapmle for Ambulocetus when you say all we found is what you have shown, you fail to include we also have this fossil:


You quote that these fossils could be ancestors on hippos and pigs, but this is because they share a common ancestor. Indeed molecular studies have shown that whales are more closely related to ungulates than they are to other mammals.

The geographic evidence of the fossils also fits (the land dwelling creatures were more isolated than their aquatic descendants), and dating of the fossils shows that they started becoming aquatic just after the large canivourus aquatic reptiles died out.

Modern whales have many vestigial trates including muscles for controling the outer ear, and whale embryos gain and loose many structures that their land dwelling ancestors would have had, including hind leg buds.

The envirmonments in which these creatures would have lived transistions from fully terrestrial to fully marine, and the fossils contain oxygen isotopes consistant with transitioning from drinking fresh water to drinking salt water.

A transitional fossil does not mean 'direct descendant of one species and driect ancestor of another', it means a fossil that shows transitional features between the two.

This is why we say the evidence points to evolution, becuase all the different evidence says the same thing, so you need more than 'some of the fossils were partially reconstructed' to prove creation.

I would love to see all the evidence pointing to a designer that isn't a negative argument from ignorance, but I have yet to be shown it. Perhaps you would be so kind.

Ps. you can get all this stuff from googling it's not like it's locked away in dusty journals.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,04:51   

Quote
It's a really simple question, guys

This is true, and the answer is equally simple. Superstition starts being taught MUCH younger than science. Even so, science is very much an acquired viewpoint, because it doesn't come easily to humans - science requires people to *admit error* and to *change their minds based on evidence*, something few people are willing to do.

And I notice we happen to have Exhibit A right here in this thread. By clear illustration, he answers his own question.

  
thurdl01



Posts: 99
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,05:20   

You've gotten some very reasonable answers over in PT to that question (evolution is a very difficult concept to fully grasp, and represents some advance biology, combined with childhood religious indoctrination beginning much earlier than biological study and a willing ignorance among the far right), so what reason do we have to think you'll listen to similar answers over here?  And did you go look at the Dorudon skeleton you demanded?  Seriously, I've seen the likes of you before.  You demand answers, then you ignore the answers, then you demand them again.  Then, when people stop answering demands that you've repeated, you say "aha!  So you have no answer!"

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,05:24   

You understand, wrong answers aren't answers at all. Only right answers are answers. And the pattern follows the lawyer's dictum: Never ask a question if you don't already know the answer.

  
stevestory



Posts: 11120
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,05:43   

Quote
Who is going to be manly enough to answer the obviously embarassing question of why most people in the USA are still creationists in spite of the evolutionists virtual monopoly over US schools, universities, publications and the media for at least 40 years?  

Same reason your evangelical buddies can't give a definition of molecule, or explain why it's cold in the winter and hot in the summer.

   
ToSeek



Posts: 33
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,05:59   

Quote (afdave @ April 25 2006,09:40)
So all I get is rotten tomatoes and eggs?

Who is going to be manly enough to answer the obviously embarassing question of why most people in the USA are still creationists in spite of the evolutionists virtual monopoly over US schools, universities, publications and the media for at least 40 years?  

It's a really simple question, guys ...

Come on, you can do it ... Steve Story?  Moses? Lenny?  Anyone?

The "virtual monopoly" business is a creationist myth. High school and university teachers are intimidated into not teaching views that disagree with creationism by parents and the administrations. (See here if you don't believe me, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.)  Popular books abound on why evolution is wrong and creationism is right, while most scientist think it's too obvious to address.

It is embarrassing that most Americans - unlike citizens of most other countries - are creationists, but only in the same way that it's embarrassing that only about three-fourths of them know that the Earth goes around the Sun, and that most of them can name more Simpsons characters than they can First Amendment rights.

  
Corkscrew



Posts: 20
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,07:17   

Huh, afdave may be right about a couple of my original links. I'd interpreted "reconstruction" as meaning only that the artists drew the bones in an anatomically-correct configuration rather than in exactly the configuration they were found, but on reflection I have no idea if this is correct. Can anyone with more knowledge confirm or refute this?

Afdave: I'd note that your comments about the ambulocetus skeleton are totally irrelevant since the one you discussed was considerably less complete than the one I actually linked to. It'd be good if you'd actually read my points before responding to them, rather than assuming that the AiG page has already covered the material - apart from anything else, this approach presupposes that there haven't been any recent palaeontological finds in the relevant areas.

I'd also prefer it if you left off the poll results. If your position is correct then they're irrelevant. If your position is incorrect then they're rubbing our noses in the fact that large numbers of our fellow human beings are credulous idiots. Either way, they come across as more snarky than helpful.

Any thoughts on my comments about information? I'd be interested to get some feedback on that, since it's something that seems to come up rather a lot.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,07:29   

Quote
Who is going to be manly enough to answer the obviously embarassing question of why most people in the USA are still creationists in spite of the evolutionists virtual monopoly over US schools, universities, publications and the media for at least 40 years?
I've generally found "afdave" eminently ignorable, but this really is amusing above and beyond the usual.

Quick quiz: where do Americans get more of their information: supermarket tabloids or the college bookstore?  Which of these is more friendly to the creationist perspective?

I suppose it's true, the "evolutionists" have a near-monopoly in the "intelligent and educated" segment of society. It's possible, however, that that suggests something other than bias and bigotry.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,08:03   

Quote
Any thoughts on my comments about information?
Well all the definitions you gave we can show mutations can produce. Thats why they have to invent their own definitions of information.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,14:15   

Quote (Russell @ April 25 2006,12:29)
I suppose it's true, the "evolutionists" have a near-monopoly in the "intelligent and educated" segment of society. It's possible, however, that that suggests something other than bias and bigotry.

What was it Mummert said?  "We are being attacked by the educated segment of society"??

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,15:06   

Indeed, that was the reference I had in mind:
Quote
"Christians are a lot more bold under Bush's leadership, he speaks what a lot of us believe," said [pastor and school parent Ray] Mummert.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture," he said, adding that the school board's declaration is just a first step.

A truly wonderful quote destined to hound creationists for generations to come. Illustrating the principle that many a true word is spoken in stupidity.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,16:06   

Quote (Russell @ April 25 2006,20:06)
Indeed, that was the reference I had in mind:
Quote
"Christians are a lot more bold under Bush's leadership, he speaks what a lot of us believe," said [pastor and school parent Ray] Mummert.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture," he said, adding that the school board's declaration is just a first step.

A truly wonderful quote destined to hound creationists for generations to come. Illustrating the principle that many a true word is spoken in stupidity.

Thank you - a quote for the ages that one  :D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
Henry J



Posts: 5138
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2006,16:34   

Wouldn't a viable refutation of evolution (or at least its universality) require evidence of species of complex life arising without having recent nearby predecessors very similar to themselves?

To me the lack of evidence of anything of that sort is a major part of the evidence for the current theory.

Henry

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,00:44   

Supposed Whale Evolution  Hopefully I got it right ... I'm actually trying to give you a fair shake.



Corkscrew--

Thankyou for the information on supposed whale evolution.  While I agree with you that there are some similarities that could be construed from the evidence, the problem (not just for whales, but for human evolution and other supposed progressions) for me has always been that the evidence is just not conclusive enough, and certainly can never be proved enough to teach our kids that it is a fact.  It also can be argued just as easily that the similarities were designed because the Designer wanted them to have similar functions.  No one can "prove" either assertion.

While it is obvious that some of these creatures are similar in form, just as it is obvious that a gorilla is similar in form to a human, there is just no way to prove that one is "more evolved" or "an ancestor or descendant" of the other.  Keep in mind also that fossils that can be considered "transitional" are very few in number.

One glaring difficulty remains for both points of view -- Evolution and Creationism -- we cannot prove either one of them in the sense of the scientific method, i.e. you cannot put a Sinonyx in a lab and observe it evolving into a Blue Whale.  Similarly, I cannot go back in time and observe God creating the universe out of nothing in six days.

However ... and this is VITALLY important ...

You and I make extremely important life and death decisions on a daily basis WITHOUT formal scientific proof ... have you ever thought about that?  If you are like me, you got married to a girl that you are pretty sure is not a mass murderer ... but can you prove she is not?  Well, you could do a criminal background check, I guess, but I didn't on my wife and I don't think many guys do.  So what do you do?  You form a hypothesis that "this is a good girl worthy of marrying." Then you simply collect as much evidence as you can about her (dating) and you make a decision ... to marry her or not.  Driving across bridges is another good one.  I always wonder if those engineers that designed that thing were competent.  Can I prove that they had the proper credentials and knew what they were doing?  Maybe, but it would be a lot of trouble and I don't.  Have there been bridges that broke b/c of poor design?  Yes.  But I drive on it anyway ... going on "faith" if you will.

And on and on we could go with examples of how we operate our lives by putting our "faith" in something or someone that we cannot prove all the facts about.

This is how it is for me with God, and I would have to say that the "God Hypothesis" or the "Creation Hypothesis" is actually one of the best supported hypotheses around.  Does it ultimately come down to faith?  Yes, but almost everything in life does too, so why should this be a surprise?  Evolutionists also exercise faith.  While their "Evolution Hypothesis" may have some support, no matter how much support they think it has, it ultimately comes down to faith also for reasons already mentioned.  Atheists also have "faith" that they will not burn in #### after they die.

So the debate to me really centers on how well your hypothesis is supported.  My hypothesis comes from a "holy book" --- the Bible.  I freely admit this and am not embarassed at all by it.  I hear that being criticized alot around here, but I can't see that it matters WHERE your hypothesis comes from.  What matters is "How well is your hypothesis supported by the evidence we find?"

In another post, I will outline the overwhelming  evidence from many different disciplines for my "Creator God Hypothesis."

Stay Tuned!

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
thurdl01



Posts: 99
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,01:12   

Is it too soon to link to talk.origin's refutation of standard creationist claims, or do I have to wait for afdave to trot out all the standard old canards first?

I mean, the canards he's promising for his next post, not the standard "evolution requires as much faith as creationism" canard, which I believe is CA612.

  
stevestory



Posts: 11120
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,01:59   

Quote
Atheists also have "faith" that they will not burn in #### after they die.
Oh I don't have any sort of faith that I won't burn in #### for eternity. I just don't have any evidence of an evil supernatural entity. Only a fantastically evil being could allow an ordinary person such as myself to be tortured eternally. Not being aware of any evil being, I have no worry about such a thing.

   
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,02:07   

there is just no way to prove that one is "more evolved" or "an ancestor or descendant" of the other.  Keep in mind also that fossils that can be considered "transitional" are very few in number.
Quote
While I agree with you that there are some similarities that could be construed from the evidence, the problem (not just for whales, but for human evolution and other supposed progressions) for me has always been that the evidence is just not conclusive enough, and certainly can never be proved enough to teach our kids that it is a fact.
We can't know that it's a fact with 100% certainty, but as I pointed out before when all the different evidence says the same thing its a pretty safe bet that its right.

Quote
It also can be argued just as easily that the similarities were designed because the Designer wanted them to have similar functions.  No one can "prove" either assertion.
But the point is that we understand much about the mechanisms of evolution, and they certainly are able to produce the morphological changes that we see in the whale lineage, same goes for humans. So it will take some positive proof to show that they were in fact created.

Quote
there is just no way to prove that one is "more evolved" or "an ancestor or descendant" of the other.  Keep in mind also that fossils that can be considered "transitional" are very few in number./QUOTE]a transitional fossil isn't supposed to be "an ancestor or descendant" or "more evolved". It is supposed to show characteristics of both.

[QUOTE]One glaring difficulty remains for both points of view -- Evolution and Creationism -- we cannot prove either one of them in the sense of the scientific method, i.e. you cannot put a Sinonyx in a lab and observe it evolving into a Blue Whale.
If you don't think evolution lends itself to the scientific method you either don't understand evolution or the scientific method. It does not require that things be directly observed. It is a matter of competing hypothesis and making predictions amongst other things. See here for more information.

Quote
Evolutionists also exercise faith.  While their "Evolution Hypothesis" may have some support, no matter how much support they think it has, it ultimately comes down to faith also for reasons already mentioned.
Quote
This is how it is for me with God, and I would have to say that the "God Hypothesis" or the "Creation Hypothesis" is actually one of the best supported hypotheses around.
I disagree based on the evidence. I used to know a creationist, in the sense that she didn't believe in evolution and believed in a young earth. But she was a scientist and she knew that the evidence did not support her beliefs, no matter how much she wanted it to. Everyone sees the world through a lense but with the exception of creationists this is not thick enough to stop science from working.

Quote
In another post, I will outline the overwhelming  evidence from many different disciplines for my "Creator God Hypothesis."
Before you do I would check talk.origins to see the evidence that we have already heard.

  
bourgeois_rage



Posts: 117
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,02:14   

Quote
Driving across bridges is another good one.  I always wonder if those engineers that designed that thing were competent.  Can I prove that they had the proper credentials and knew what they were doing?  Maybe, but it would be a lot of trouble and I don't.  Have there been bridges that broke b/c of poor design?  Yes.  But I drive on it anyway ... going on "faith" if you will.

I can see the bridge and observe the bridge's condition. If I wanted I could look up the previous inspection dates and engineering diagrams. And of course I can go and observe people crossing the bridge and make a judgment for myself on the safety of that bridge. I can also go out and stomp on the surface of the bridge to make sure that it is strong. Perhaps I could take smaples of the steel and concrete to analyse their strength. Show me something like that for God. Obviously we don't do this, but we could if we wanted. Because I drive over a bridge does not mean that I should worship your god.
I think a more appropriate analogy would be driving off a cliff expecting to make it to the other side smoothly because the road map (Road Bible?) says that there is a bridge there, even though you cannot clearly see a bridge.
Quote

This is how it is for me with God, and I would have to say that the "God Hypothesis" or the "Creation Hypothesis" is actually one of the best supported hypotheses around.  Does it ultimately come down to faith?  Yes...

Stop right there. It is the best supported hypothesis around? Then you say that it is supported by faith. I actually think that is the opposite of support. You have faith because there is no support.

--------------
Overwhelming Evidence: Apply directly to the forehead.

   
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,03:28   

Steve Story said--
Quote
Not being aware of any evil being, I have no worry about such a thing.

Sort of like all those people in WW2 that didn't think Hitler was a threat?

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,03:32   

Quote (afdave @ April 26 2006,08:28)
Sort of like all those people in WW2 that didn't think Hitler was a threat?

Yes, it's EXACTLY like all of those people in WW2 who thought Hitler was a mythical creature from a fairy tale.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,03:53   

Chris Hyland said--
Quote
But the point is that we understand much about the mechanisms of evolution, and they certainly are able to produce the morphological changes that we see in the whale lineage, same goes for humans.

You are correct that "micro-evolution" which I prefer to call "Programmed Adaptability" can produce morphological changes such as long beaks/short beaks, dark skin/light skin, straight hair/curly hair, flat nose/pointed nose, fat body/thin body, hairy body/smooth body, etc. etc.  Indeed, my hypothesis --strongly supported by my observation -- is that God designed creatures with this ability to help them survive in varying environments [no space here to prove this, just hold the thought, OK].   But to my knowledge no one has ever observed a gorilla evolving the ability to speak French, German and English.  I've never seen a female chimpanzee evolve to the point where a red-blooded, male college student would say "hubba-hubba" and ask one out on a date [actually, I've known some college students that just might be desperate enough to ask out a chimp, but that is beside the point].  I don't know of a single case where someone has observed legs dissappearing off a whale's body or wings being formed from scales.  And yes, I can conceive of this possibility theoretically, which is what I think evolutionists do, but it just seems incredibly unlikely, and I don't know of anyone who has observed it, all of which is part of why I don't believe it.
Quote
Is it too soon to link to talk.origin's refutation of standard creationist claims, or do I have to wait for afdave to trot out all the standard old canards first?

I would prefer that you give me YOUR arguments in YOUR own words.  I am learning that you guys don't like me to refer you to AIG, and in the same way I don't like to just be shoved off to TalkOrigins.   :)

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,04:28   

When I say 'understand' I don't mean 'have observed'. I don't expect to observe something occur that takes thousands or millions of years, unless someone discovers a way to speed up time. I am not talking about small 'traits' that people generally ascribe to particular alleles.

No one expects gorillas to evolve the ability to speak (insert planet of the apes joke here), but we have some good ideas how it happened, and can think of functional intermediates, for example some tribal languages that have a reduced number of vowel sounds would require a 'less evolved' larynx, and a language with just one less evolved still.

Quote
I don't know of a single case where someone has observed legs dissappearing off a whale's body or wings being formed from scales.
As I pointed out in a previous post whale embryos start to develop legs and then loose them. I assume you mean feathers evolving from scales, in which case evolutionary scenarios have been proposed, which fit in directly with recently found fossil intermediates.

Quote
I don't know of anyone who has observed it, all of which is part of why I don't believe it.
I will explain the difference again, we can concieve of how these things can be done by evolution. It does not require the generation of entirely novel genes (ie not duplications), it is mostly to do with the change in expression of genes during development. So large changes such as uses of limbs etc, we can now understand how evolution could have accomplished them. I am pretty sure that no one has observed God creating these things either.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,04:35   

Quote
I would prefer that you give me YOUR arguments in YOUR own words.  I am learning that you guys don't like me to refer you to AIG, and in the same way I don't like to just be shoved off to TalkOrigins.
And I would prefer that motorists invent their own wheels rather than sponging off the work of anonymous prehistoric inventors.

Hey, if AiG states your case, I have no problem with your linking to it. It saves me the trouble of finding out you don't have anything new to say. The TalkOrigins site is a great repository of well stated, well documented information.

You'll notice, too, this key difference between the two sources. The information on TO is continuous with the rest of science: what you might call consilient with the fabric of observations and theory you find in current university textbooks, professional journals, academic conferences, across all scientific disciplines. The AiG information is pretty much the opposite: you have to carefully avoid current research and entire disciplines in order not to see the obvious contradictions.

Sure! Go ahead and cite AiG, if that's your best case. Just don't be all hurt when everyone laughs.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,04:42   

Quote
But to my knowledge no one has ever observed a gorilla evolving the ability to speak French, German and English.  I've never seen a female chimpanzee evolve to the point where a red-blooded, male college student would say "hubba-hubba" and ask one out on a date

Buried in here is the ever-underlying presumption that evolution is the morphing of some existing organism into another existing organism. In this case, afdave is complaining that gorillas haven't evolved the human ability to speak, or that chimpanzees haven't evolved human sexual cues. But humans are NOT the "evolutionary model" which gorillas and chimps have so far failed to achieve.

Creationists have difficulty with more than the slow rate of evolution (few clearly new species have evolved since humans have even existed at all; that's MUCH too short a time to see any extensive biological change). They also seem unable to comprehend that all lifeforms that have ever existed (including all those existing today) are evolving into something never seen before, entirely novel. They NEVER evolve into one another.

  
thurdl01



Posts: 99
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,05:11   

Quote (afdave @ April 26 2006,09:53)
I would prefer that you give me YOUR arguments in YOUR own words.  I am learning that you guys don't like me to refer you to AIG, and in the same way I don't like to just be shoved off to TalkOrigins.   :)

To me this says you want us to argue with our hands tied behind our backs by not using established research and sources.  But that's not the way science works, and evolution is a science.  Science is built on the research and findings of those who have gone before.  If you're going to challenge us about the evolution of whales but then say that you don't want to be linked anywhere, well, what are we supposed to do?  Each and every one who wishes to refute you has to what...go dig up for him or her self a complete evolutionary history of the whale?

And can we trust that your promised arguments that will scientifically prove creationism are yours and yours alone, and that you aren't getting any outside help?

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,05:45   

Quote
When I say 'understand' I don't mean 'have observed'. I don't expect to observe something occur that takes thousands or millions of years,

Precisely ... DING DING DING.  I think we are finally getting on the same page here ... I have NOT observed "God creating it" and you have NOT observed "Evolution creating it" -- i.e. big morphological changes like scales to wings, new hands where there were no hands, etc.

So ... all I am asking is why can't we agree to just teach the school children something like this ...

"Explaining the origin of life has been attempted by scientists, theologians and philosophers.  The majority of scientists in universities around the world believe life developed from a common ancestor by natural processes over millions of years ... blah, blah, blah.  However, a minority of scientists, a fair number of theologians and philosophers and about half the public believes that life was specially created by a supernatural agent such as the Christian God, the Hindu [whatever--not up on my Hindu deities], the Islamic Allah, etc.  There is much evidence which is routinely marshalled to support both naturalistic and super-naturalistic views, but nothing can ultimately be proven on either side, since the origin of life has never been directly observed.  It is ultimately a matter of personal belief."

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,05:48   

Quote (Flint @ April 26 2006,09:42)
Quote
But to my knowledge no one has ever observed a gorilla evolving the ability to speak French, German and English.  I've never seen a female chimpanzee evolve to the point where a red-blooded, male college student would say "hubba-hubba" and ask one out on a date

Buried in here is the ever-underlying presumption that evolution is the morphing of some existing organism into another existing organism. In this case, afdave is complaining that gorillas haven't evolved the human ability to speak, or that chimpanzees haven't evolved human sexual cues. But humans are NOT the "evolutionary model" which gorillas and chimps have so far failed to achieve.

Creationists have difficulty with more than the slow rate of evolution (few clearly new species have evolved since humans have even existed at all; that's MUCH too short a time to see any extensive biological change). They also seem unable to comprehend that all lifeforms that have ever existed (including all those existing today) are evolving into something never seen before, entirely novel. They NEVER evolve into one another.

The reason for that is that creationists cannot escape their way of thinking, even when they "try". For them, Humans are the pinnacle of creation, sitting on the throne of life. We are perfect in structure and ability, made in the image of our, er, Designer, representing His ultimate and most priceless product. IF evolution were true, shouldn't all living things "aspire" to gain enough XPs to reach our level, so to speak?

Um, sorry about the lame RPG analogy, but I think it shows clearly how creationists must perceive the evolutionary process. In all their supposed humility, they are too arrogant to drop the notion that everything in life has rulers and servants, with themselves on the appropriate side. It's too deep inside their subconcious.

Pathetic, really.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,05:58   

OK, fine, Faid, put the chimps at the top of the heap ... or the mosquitos for all I care ...

The logic works anyway ...

Nice try though!

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,06:01   

Quote
"The majority of scientists in universities around the world believe the Pyramids were created by the ancient Egyptians as tombs for their Pharaohs, using the means and knowledge available at the time... blah, blah, blah.  However, a minority of scientists, a fair number of writers and researchers and a substantial portion of the public believes that the Pyramids were created by aliens -from Mars, Venus, the Goa 'Ould [whatever--not up on my Sci-Fi series], Alpha Centaurians, etc.  There is much evidence which is routinely marshalled to support both terrestrial and extra-terrestrial views, but nothing can ultimately be proven on either side, since the construction of the Pyramids has never been directly observed.  It is ultimately a matter of personal belief."


Aaaah... What an interesting world this would be, if only afdave was even remotely right...

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,06:05   

Quote (afdave @ April 26 2006,10:58)
OK, fine, Faid, put the chimps at the top of the heap ... or the mosquitos for all I care ...

The logic works anyway ...

Nice try though!

So, life on Earth is a "heap", and it has a "top".

Thanks for making my point clearer, afd.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,06:07   

Yeah, and it would be a pretty groovy world as well with Faid's idea of the food chain order ...

Maybe we could then elect chimps to public office ...

[Yes, I know some would say we did in 2000 ... and I would reply that we did in 1992 ... OK ... OK ... back to the topic]

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,06:27   

Whaaa?

My idea of the "food chain order"?

Food chain? That's what you think evolution is all about- animals getting on top of the "food chain"?

Oh man, and you wanted us to explain evolution to you in 5 sentences?

Tell you what: Next time you go swimming, if you happen to see a white shark, tell him he's got your vote for public office and maybe he'll let you go.
After all, sharks in public office are quite common...

Keep it up, man, it gets better with each of your posts.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,07:04   

AFDave, as has been said, you are spouting boilerplate. There is nothing here but stale rhetoric. However, a couple of points need to be made as often and as forcefully as possible.
Quote
There is much evidence which is routinely marshalled to support both naturalistic and super-naturalistic views,

It's all the same evidence. The difference is that science looks at the evidence in its totality, integrates it with the larger totality of everything that is known, and tries to draw the conclusion that makes the best fit. Creationism proceeds from the conclusion, and cherry-picks anomolous or misconstrued results out of the evidence in order to support that conclusion for the benefit of the credulous.
Creationists want to have 'their own evidence,' but science does not, and could not, proceed on such a basis. The upshot is that a young earth is flatly contradicted by ALL of science.
Quote
but nothing can ultimately be proven on either side,

This is trivially true, as science is not in the business of 'proving' anything.
Quote
since the origin of life has never been directly observed.

ALL observations are mediated to some degree. You're harping on this point as if it weren't true of all science. Whether the observation is a fossil of a fifty-million year dead creature, or the track made by a particle that died a nanosecond after the result was recorded, all obswervations are indirect, and concern past phenomena. If you like, Dave, you can try to argue that the degree to which evolutionary observations are separated in time from the events in question is terribly significant, but you cannot get away with construing it as a difference in kind from any other scientific observation, in any other field.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,07:09   

I will say again, science can deal with historical processes and can test hypothesis based predictions we can make from those processes.

Quote
"Explaining the origin of life has been attempted by scientists, theologians and philosophers.  The majority of scientists in universities around the world believe life developed from a common ancestor by natural processes over millions of years ... blah, blah, blah.  However, a minority of scientists, a fair number of theologians and philosophers and about half the public believes that life was specially created by a supernatural agent such as the Christian God, the Hindu [whatever--not up on my Hindu deities], the Islamic Allah, etc.  There is much evidence which is routinely marshalled to support both naturalistic and super-naturalistic views, but nothing can ultimately be proven on either side, since the origin of life has never been directly observed.  It is ultimately a matter of personal belief."


Firstly the origin of life is not taught in schools. What the public believes is irrelevant to a science class, although maybe not a philosophy of science class, same with theologians and philosophers. I have not seen any evidence to support the supernatural side, and masses of evidence to support the natural side, and like Ken Ham says, we all use the same evidence. To teach this statement would be dishonest, I would prefer:

"The vast majority of scientists believe that life on earth has evolved from one or more common ancestors over the course of billions of years. Although there are a small minority who doubt this view the masses of evidence collected in the past 150 years since the theory was first proposed support it. Although events that occured in the past cannot be proved with 100% accuracy there is no other theory that fits the data and makes predictions better than, and no evidence yet discovered that contradicts evolution. While there are questions regarding the specific mechanisms involved, there is no controvesy among scientists as to whether evolution occurred."

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,08:11   

As often as it has been pointed out, it's still interesting that even the most religion-addled creationist lives 99+% of their lives by drawing probabilistic conclusions from evidence and acting accordingly. If this were not the case, they couldn't function even to the point of swallowing food.

So what we have is narrowly constrained territories of reflexive denial, where the normal process is simply not permitted to be considered. Territories where predefined absolutes are simply beyond anything resembling question, analysis, or reason.

For the terminally creationist, evolution is one of those territories. It can't be true because it IS NOT TRUE. Period. Evidence and the implications of evidence are powerless to cross the border into this territory.

And so it's amusing to watch people deploy evidence and reason against positions evidence and reason played no part in cementing. These are the wrong weapons. The way out of these black holes isn't through persuasion, but through conversion.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,11:02   

Flint-- It's not a black hole ... it's the light of truth finally being turned on again ... one of your buddies on the main PT blog was lamenting that there were something like 3 conversions from Evolution to Creationism for every 1 the other direction ...

There's a reason for that ...

People are starting not only to see the falsity of blind secularism, but they are also beginning to see its bad fruits.  The 20th century in many ways was a grand experiment in secularism in science and in many other areas and it failed miserably.  Why do you think all these mega-churches are springing up everywhere?  I mean 20,000 people going to ONE CHURCH in a single city!!  These people have heard the Carl Sagans and the Richard Dawkins' and the Stephen Hawkings of the world spout their arrogant, empty atheist tripe and they are just not buying it (Stephen Hawking's own wife didn't buy it).  And its good for YOUR political freedom and mine that they are not.  We've already seen the principles of the "Evolution Religion" implemented in several countries and it was not pretty.  Just think for a moment if people like Faid were rewriting our constitution or making laws ... he thinks the idea of humans sitting on the throne of life is misguided.  Think of the implications of that!

You all are right about one thing ... academia is almost a complete monolith, at least in the area of what you call Science and I call Evolutionary Dogma.  And a such, there is probably no repairing it--replacement is probably required.

But that's OK.

It remains a historical fact that it was BL Creationists (BL=Biblical Literalist) who INVENTED the universities which you and I benefit from today, it was BL Creationists (Newton included) who founded most of the major branches of modern science which you and I also benefit from.  It was BL Creationists who founded Oxford, Cambridge, Princeton, Harvard, Yale, and many others to study and proclaim the Truth of Scripture and of Science.

And it will be the BL Creationists who RE-invent both the universities and the disciplines studied within their walls if and when the current ones become unsalvageable.  Not saying we are there yet, but listening to some of you here makes me think it may not be far off.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,11:11   

Quote
20th century in many ways was a grand experiment in secularism in science and in many other areas and it failed miserably.
Wow. That's right up there with
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture"

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,11:23   

dave:

Science, to work at all, requires people to be able to admit error and change their minds. For this reason, I think those who can draw conclusions from evidence rather than vice versa will forever be in the tiny minority. Those in the black hole you so enjoy, surrounded by warm fuzzy ignorance, will of course continue to feast on the fruits of science while biting the hand that feeds them that fruit.

So those who value knowledge (and actually know what it is) may be employing the wrong strategy here. Trying to break through the nearly-impermeable barriers of ignorance you gloat about and penetrate all the way to the brains of every student is perhaps philosophically misinformed - it treats all citizens as potential scientists, when in reality very few can ever qualify.

So perhaps we should have two "tracks" in public school, one for those who wish to learn, and one for those who think they already know all they need to. The latter group can drop out as young as possible and attend the mega-church of their choice - which are designed by, and built of materials invented by, those former few who actually learned something.

Cyril Kornbluth suggested something similar long ago, of course.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,11:24   

Oxford university was founded over 800 years ago. I do not blame those people for assuming that the bible was scientifically accurate, there was not enough evidence to the contrary. Do you see the difference in positions here, it always happens in these kinds of arguments, just look at the thread with Shi for an example. Eventually you see that the evidence does not support your views, so you have to claim atheist conspircay and make sweeping claims about the evils of secularism and how only religion can sort it all out. Even Richard Dawkins has never said that evolution is true because there is no god. We teach evolution because it fits the evidence and makes predictions that help us understand life on earth and cure diseases. If you have any evidence that it is entirely based on secularism I suggest you present it.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,11:42   

:02-->
Quote (afdave @ April 26 2006,16:02)
Just think for a moment if people like Faid were rewriting our constitution or making laws ... he thinks the idea of humans sitting on the throne of life is misguided.  Think of the implications of that!

Oh, stop it, afd. People will think I've deliberately hired you to make my point clearer with every post you make.

Is it really that hard to realize that there is no "Throne of Life" for anyone to sit, humans, or chimps, or mosquitoes - or the worms that will devour us when we die? Do you really believe that we have a divine right -sorry, a Designer-derived right- of absolute rule over all life because we're the "best"? That all living things were meant by right to serve us, the Designer's favorite species? And you say my views have "implications"?
How many years of indoctrination does it take to develop this selective disengaging of the brain?

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
thurdl01



Posts: 99
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,11:43   

Yes.  Please.  We're all waiting and anxious for the evidence that you've been promising us.  You seem to have plenty of time to build strawmen versions of Faid to knock down.  Surely that requires new effort, whereas I'm sure you already have all your evidence that's going to turn the scientific world on its ears.

Though...though why are you going to tell it to us?  Shouldn't you be rushing to the press?  To the nobel committee?  You can disprove 150 years of biological science, and you're going to waste it on us?  I guess we should be honored.

  
Drew Headley



Posts: 152
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,12:13   

afdave,
Since your statements seem to be indicating that you are a creationist, would you describe yourself as a young Earth or old Earth creationist?

   
UnMark



Posts: 97
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,13:08   

It seems to me we're taking the wrong tack with Dave (and most other creationists, too).

Let's agree on a couple things:
1. Biological entities do change over long periods of time (evolution happens).
2. The theory of evolution is a well-tested, predictive framework that describes how biological things change over time.

et us all assume, for the sake of argument, that evolution is false.  Dave, what is your testable, predictive framework that describes how biological things change over time that accounts for ALL the evidences that the theory of evolution does, only better?


As for your religious rantings, may I kindly suggest you go read Evil Bible for a while.  In fact, feel free to sign up there and post on the forums.

  
UnMark



Posts: 97
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,13:32   

Double post - two separate thoughts deserved two separate posts. . . .

All this talk of not personally witnessing evolution (or the pyramids being built) reminds me of a good analogy.

A good friend's house was broken into one night while he was out of town.  He lives a ways out in the country and therefore has no neighbors who could see anything.  The police came out and scoured the house for clues, and found a fingerprint and a shoe print that didn't belong to him.  The fingerprint was run through AFID and a match was found.  Searching the suspect's house turned up a shoe that matched the shoe print, and one of my missing articles.  The suspect was arrested and convicted based only on the evidence.

Dave, according to your, um, logic, the perp should have been let go: no one was there to personally witness him/her commit the crime, so we cannot be certain the person in fact is guilty.  Please explain why.

  
Drew Headley



Posts: 152
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,14:02   

Quote (UnMark @ April 26 2006,18:32)
A good friend's house was broken into one night ....and one of my missing articles.  

Either you keep stuff at your friends house or you have an interesting way of referring to yourself. :)

   
UnMark



Posts: 97
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,14:56   

Blech.  I started writing first person, but decided to switch at the end to skip the antisympathy "this is just a story" stuff.  I guess I missed a pronoun in my reread. . . .  I hope it didn't detract too much from the message.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,17:05   

Quote
Dave, according to your, um, logic, the perp should have been let go: no one was there to personally witness him/her commit the crime, so we cannot be certain the person in fact is guilty.  Please explain why.

Hmmm ... where did I say that?  No, I agree the perp is guilty ... we have good evidence.  And in the same way, we also have good evidence for the existence of the God described in the Christian Bible even though we cannot see Him or "prove" He is there.  

You also have evidence that leads you to believe that all life derived from a common ancestor over millions of years even though you didn't watch it happen.

Where we differ is that I believe you have come to a conclusion from the evidence which is not as well supported as my conclusion is.  

I'll elaborate tomorrow morning as promised!  It's been fun!  See you then!

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
UnMark



Posts: 97
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,18:13   

Dave, you said that you don't believe in evolution because no one was around to witness it.  (We'll ignore the several obvious cases of speciation that have actually happened while scientists WERE watching.)  Using this philosophy, since no one saw the person break into my home, the forensic evidence cannot be conclusively used to determine the accused's guilt.

I look forward to your evidence for God's existence.  My searching has turned up exactly none, and I'd like to at least know why.  Since you're willingly putting your beliefs up for scientific review, let me ask you a question: if God is omnipotent, can He create a better God?

Parting thought: God hates people

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2006,19:06   

...and can He microwave a burrito so hot that even He can't eat it?

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,07:10   

I just posted "AF Dave's God Hypothesis"  as a new topic ... check it out ...

This post, and a fairly recent picture is also at my recently revived blog site airdave.blogspot.com ...

I welcome your comments!

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,08:44   

Quote
one of your buddies on the main PT blog was lamenting that there were something like 3 conversions from Evolution to Creationism for every 1 the other direction ...

Love to see some documentation on this.  You are on a debating website.  Don't pull statistics out of your hat.
Quote

People are starting not only to see the falsity of blind secularism, but they are also beginning to see its bad fruits.  The 20th century in many ways was a grand experiment in secularism in science and in many other areas and it failed miserably.  Why do you think all these mega-churches are springing up everywhere?
Breathtaking.  The MegaChurch seen as proof of the fall of Eviloution and science.  What does NASCAR and pork rinds prove then?
Quote
These people have heard the Carl Sagans and the Richard Dawkins' and the Stephen Hawkings of the world spout their arrogant, empty atheist tripe
You are making the mistake of catogorizing confidence in well researched science you don't understand as arrogance.  Don't blame science for not talking slowly enough!  Blame your biology teachers for that.
Quote
We've already seen the principles of the "Evolution Religion" implemented in several countries and it was not pretty.
Yes, here in the USA.  And we have the vaccines to prove it.  Not like in theocracies. Read Flint's excellent post. (Quite right Flint!;)
Quote
Just think for a moment if people like Faid were rewriting our constitution or making laws ... he thinks the idea of humans sitting on the throne of life is misguided.  Think of the implications of that!

Yeah.  He might do something outrageous like taking a stand against torture.  BAD FAID, NO donut for YOU.
Quote
You all are right about one thing ... academia is almost a complete monolith, at least in the area of what you call Science
 Yes, despit the fact that the country is turning to God, the best educated and argueably the brightest minds still belive in their testable theory.  Says volumes, I think.  They stick by their guns and tell the hard truth to the ignorant.  This is not true of the creationists trying to sneak the bible into schools as ID.  I remember the perjury that went on in the Kitzmiller trial.  Lying for Jesus. Ignoring Proverbs 6:16-19 "These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren."
Link to perjury by Allan Bonsell.
Quote

And it will be the BL Creationists who RE-invent both the universities and the disciplines studied within their walls if and when the current ones become unsalvageable.

Well perhaps.  And after that, we will have a renaissance.  Maybe the church will condem scientists again.  But in the end, religion will have to admit that the scientists were right.
Is there any chance that evolution could be explained to you in a manner that you might belive it? Because if not, you are wasting time as a troll.  A closed mind, howling at the intelectual elites.  In the meantime, you are still welcome to vaccines.

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,16:30   

Calm down, Seven Popes, we're not planning on condemning scientists ... we're just planning on putting a little balance back into academia ... you know, like Rush Limbaugh balances the libs in politics?

And can I be an intellectual elite also if I can spell "intellectual" and "categorizing" correctly?

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,16:47   

What exactly do you mean by balance? Most of the scientists I work with are religious. I have also worked with a biblical literalist but she would at least admit that the scientific evidence does not support her beliefs and that is the point here.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,17:14   

Quote (afdave @ April 26 2006,10:58)
OK, fine, Faid, put the chimps at the top of the heap ... or the mosquitos for all I care ...

The logic works anyway ...

Dave, there is no top of the heap.

This is one of the many places where Creationists just go completely off the rails.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,01:10   

Eric, care to follow me in my "chimps for public office" campaign?

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,01:18   

Hey Seven Popes ... here's your documentation you asked for ...
Quote
Comment #98068
Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 23, 2006 12:06 PM (e) (This is on the 'Of Storks and Babies' Thread on the main PT blog)

What if a few of the “already-converted” start to think a little more deeply about the human condition and, as a result, start to open their minds a bit?

The costs outweigh the benefits.

As I’ve noted, in 20-plus years of anti-creationist organizing, I can count on the fingers of one hand the sum total of all the creationists I’ve ever seen be “converted”.

And indeed, for every one that gives up ID/creationism, there are three or four more ready to take his place. It just doesn’t matter how many ID/creationists we convert —- that simply will not weaken or cripple their movement. No political movement in history has ever been beaten by converting all its members to another view.

We can only beat them as a political movement, by out-ORGANIZING them.


Quote
Dave, there is no top of the heap.

Wow ... that's TWO people now who think there is no 'top of the heap.'  My mind just WHIRLS with fun possibilities for debating this topic ... maybe soon!

Quote
What exactly do you mean by balance?

What I mean by 'balance' is simply that there IS an alternative for explaining origins (besides evolution) that is very plausible to at least half the public.  To me this requires that universities at least allow students to HEAR some of the more common alternatives, such as ID and Creationism.  I see this is happening at Cornell and this is a good start.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
thurdl01



Posts: 99
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,01:25   

You realize you've completely misread that post, don't you?  The good Rev Dr wasn't saying that for every one person converted to the side of reason three more get converted towards Creationism.  He's saying for every one who embraces reason, three more who are already on the side of Creationism show up to take that person's place.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,02:04   

Quote (afdave @ April 28 2006,06:18)
Quote
Dave, there is no top of the heap.

Wow ... that's TWO people now who think there is no 'top of the heap.'  My mind just WHIRLS with fun possibilities for debating this topic ...

...Four more years?    :D



To be honest, I was a little surprised at first... I didn't know there were actually any people who thought the process of evolution was a struggle to be crowned "King of All Life".


...But then I remembered you're a YEC.

Whenever you're ready, head-in-the-clouds-dave: Let the fun begin!

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,02:26   

Quote (thurdl01 @ April 28 2006,06:25)
You realize you've completely misread that post, don't you?  The good Rev Dr wasn't saying that for every one person converted to the side of reason three more get converted towards Creationism.  He's saying for every one who embraces reason, three more who are already on the side of Creationism show up to take that person's place.

Seconded.

Although I'm sure Lenny would have a laugh at being quoted as an infallible source.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,05:12   

Lenny's not infallible, just assumed to be a good "sample" of majority PT thought ... and I like his title ... Oh, and I forgot ... where should I send my interpretations of certain posts to have them receive the "official, approved PT interpretation"? :-)

Faid said ...
Quote
To be honest, I was a little surprised at first... I didn't know there were actually any people who thought the process of evolution was a struggle to be crowned "King of All Life".

I don't know of anyone like that either.  I don't think this.  I think humans were CREATED as the "rulers" over all other non-human life.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,05:14   

Quote
I think humans were CREATED as the "rulers" over all other non-human life.

We seem to have nailed the heart of the problem here. Clearly, we have two totally different, mutually exclusive and incompatible conceptions of what the word "think" actually refers to. For some of us, it's a process. For others, it's the total absence of that very process.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,05:28   

Quote (Faid @ April 28 2006,06:10)
Eric, care to follow me in my "chimps for public office" campaign?

I don't know; the last chimp we elected didn't work out so well…

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,07:12   

You're right ... Clinton was a disaster ...

Hey Flint, if you want some good thinking, go look at  my new thread "AFDave's Creator God Hypothesis" where I posted my Testable Predictions for Point 1

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,07:17   

Wait ... let me be more specific, Flint, if you want to get that process you were talking about re-started in your own head, go over to my new thread ...

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,07:28   

Quote (afdave @ April 28 2006,12:12)
You're right ... Clinton was a disaster ...

I said the "last chimp," not the second-to-last chimp.

Given the relative state of the union in both administrations, I'm flabberghasted that you'd confuse the two.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
thurdl01



Posts: 99
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,08:17   

Quote (afdave @ April 28 2006,11:12)
Lenny's not infallible, just assumed to be a good "sample" of majority PT thought ... and I like his title ... Oh, and I forgot ... where should I send my interpretations of certain posts to have them receive the "official, approved PT interpretation"? :-)

You make it sound like I'm trying to apply some kind of spin on the statement, but I'm not.  It's just simple reading comprehension.  The good Rev Dr did not say

"And indeed, for every one that gives up ID/creationism, there are three or four more who give up on evolution."

He said

"And indeed, for every one that gives up ID/creationism, there are three or four more ready to take his place."

And the two statements are not equal.  "Ready" implies a pre existance, not a conversion.  This isn't about official interpretations or trying to get PT's approval on things, but I have so little doubt that you've misread what the good Rev Dr said that I have no hesitation to call you on it, even without his official take on it.

Just, ya know, get some reading comprehension skills, that's all you need in this instance.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,11:54   

Quote (afdave @ April 26 2006,05:44)
 Atheists also have "faith" that they will not burn in #### after they die.

Your ignorance on most subjects is indeed profound, but that little tidbit simply made me laugh :-)

Chris

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,15:44   

Quote (afdave @ April 28 2006,10:12)
Faid said ...
Quote
To be honest, I was a little surprised at first... I didn't know there were actually any people who thought the process of evolution was a struggle to be crowned "King of All Life".

I don't know of anyone like that either.  I don't think this.  I think humans were CREATED as the "rulers" over all other non-human life.

Precisely. And that's why you can't even begin to understand how evolution works, and think it's illogical: You won't stop thinking in terms of masters and servants. That was my point from the beginning.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,16:23   

Well, Corkscrew had some fairly convincing arguments on this thread ... and we had a good little dialog ...

I'm glad to hear any you might want to put forward ... and I do actually agree with your point about debating ME, not some PhD that was converted to AIGism ...

I would be interested in seeing how YOU would put forward a basic hypothesis for explaining the universe ... people here accuse me of all kinds of logic and parsimony errors and so on, so it would be interesting to see the shoe on the other foot and see how YOU do would do it ...

Cheers!

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Carol Clouser



Posts: 29
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,16:52   

What you really need to do, Afdave, is read some insightful literature on the Bible, such as Judah Landa's IN THE BEGINNING OF, available on Amazon. You will find it to be an eye-openning enlightening experience.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,17:02   

Thanks.  I'll check it out.

Here's a question for people with er ... more of an Evolutionary mindset ...

How many cultures around the world practice a 7 day week and why?  

I honestly have not studied this, but would like to know ... Of course I know why Western Society does, but I'm curious about other cultures ...

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Aardvark



Posts: 134
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,18:52   

[quote=afdave,April 29 2006,22:02][/quote]
Quote
How many cultures around the world practice a 7 day week and why?


Most cultures have seperate cultural calenders.  The 7-day week is thought to have originated in ancient Rome and was then spread worldwide by the British Empire.  There are thoughts that it is linked to ancient Astrology.

The 7-day week has been adopted worldwide primarily for business and snychronisation reasons.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,23:39   

Quote (afdave @ April 29 2006,22:02)
Thanks.  I'll check it out.

Here's a question for people with er ... more of an Evolutionary mindset ...

How many cultures around the world practice a 7 day week and why?  

I honestly have not studied this, but would like to know ... Of course I know why Western Society does, but I'm curious about other cultures ...

Sheesh.

Sure, dave. You have not studied this at all. You just thought you'd suddenly drop this genuine question that's been puzzling you all this time in the middle of an evolution debate, however irrelevant it may seem. Riiight.
Anyway, I'll bite:

Any standard google search should provide you with a multitude of sites concerning the days of the week, if you really wanted to know... Anyway, from the first page: Here's a small summary of the reasons a seven-day week originated in the  early middle-eastern civilizations and also why the weeks of other, culturally separate civilizations that measured time, like the Mayans, are completely different (although equally arbitrary).

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,23:51   

Yes.  I do Google searches about 40 times a day ... but I wanted to know what sources YOU would refer me to ... I've never figured out how to make Google do that for me ...

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,23:57   

So, you already knew the answers, you just wanted to know what answers we would point you to? And why is that, if I may ask?

Anyway, I hope BBC was to your liking.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2006,00:47   

One of the reasons I am here at PT is to try and understand how people think who have a different view of life than me ... it is interesting even if I don't agree

Yes, BBC gave me some new information I had not heard before ... as I said, I'm familiar with the Jewish, Roman, Western society reasons for the 7 day week, but not other cultures ...

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2006,01:16   

what I don't get is why anyone is giving this afdave turd the time of day, let alone actually arguing with him.  he's clearly not here to learn anything, doesn't have anything to teach anyone else, and doesn't contribute anything but a bunch of irrelevant non-sequiturs, unfunny jokey asides, and empty promises that he might eventually participate in a real debate about any of the issues he pretends to think are in question. why bother?  at least with idiots like Ghost of Paley you get the illusion of an actual discussion about issues this board exists to explore; afdave isn 't even pretending to discuss anything, he just aspires to be a provocative #######.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2006,01:56   

Quote (afdave @ April 30 2006,05:47)
One of the reasons I am here at PT is to try and understand how people think who have a different view of life than me ... it is interesting even if I don't agree

Yes, BBC gave me some new information I had not heard before ... as I said, I'm familiar with the Jewish, Roman, Western society reasons for the 7 day week, but not other cultures ...

Sorry, I think I should explain why I was a bit snappy:
In forums like this, we often have somebody appear, say that he's new in the evolution/creation debate, and has no real opinion... Then he posts some (usually quite peculiar) question, that he says he would really like to understand and that he hopes we can help him.
Many of us patiently try to answer his question, and explain some basic consepts of evolution to him.
Then he starts to argue, and we see that he is not a sincere person at all: He is another apologetic trying to pass as some neutral inquiring individual, and he tries to catch us with our guard down and twist and manipulate our arguments to what he likes.
Now, of course I know you are not one of those: You were honest and declared your beliefs from the beginning, while they belong to the "Liars for Jesus" variety.
I just think it's important to understand why some of us might have a knee-jerk reaction to someone posting a seemingly irrelevant question out of the blue, saying they are actually looking for an answer- even if his intentions are honest.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,01:34   

Yes.  I understand  there are a lot of "Liars and Scheisters for Jesus" in the world and I try very hard not to be one of them.  I am very sincere about what I believe and I think it is the most rational position, amazing as that may sound to modern scientific ears.  

But I am also very sincere that IF a person from the "Evolution Camp" was to offer a very convincing argument for the fine-tuning of the cosmos, the amazing biological machines, etc., etc., I would adopt that belief and become an Atheist.  My problem is that so far, despite the mass of literature advocating the postion, none of it has been very convincing to me.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,02:35   

Quote
But I am also very sincere that IF a person from the "Evolution Camp" was to offer a very convincing argument for the fine-tuning of the cosmos
Thats more a question for someone form the cosmology campl don't you think. Don't confuse evolution with atheism, it says nothing about the origin of the universe or whether or not some kind of God exists.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,03:13   

Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,06:34)
 But I am also very sincere that IF a person from the "Evolution Camp" was to offer a very convincing argument for the fine-tuning of the cosmos, the amazing biological machines, etc., etc., I would adopt that belief and become an Atheist.  

Why?  You seem under the terribly mistaken and totally confused and irrational belief that someone who believes in evolution cannot believe in God.  And quite honestly, I don't think God would be very ompressed with that attitude.

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,03:41   

Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,06:34)
But I am also very sincere that IF a person from the "Evolution Camp" was to offer a very convincing argument for the fine-tuning of the cosmos, the amazing biological machines, etc., etc., I would adopt that belief and become an Atheist.  My problem is that so far, despite the mass of literature advocating the postion, none of it has been very convincing to me.

I believe you are being sincere to us, dave. I'm just not sure that you are being sincere to yourself when you say that.

Try to conduct an "experiment" on yourself and the way you think: You previously thought (and correct me if I'm wrong, which is quite possible) that the fact all these cultures have a seven-day week is a good argument for it's divine origin.
Now that you were pointed to all the historical evidence that show the concept of a seven day week is of human devise, has your belief in its divine roots been questioned in your mind, even in the slightest?
Can you think of any argument, or proof, empirical data, or even supernatural revelation, that would do that to any aspect of your beliefs?

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,11:47   

Quote
what I don't get is why anyone is giving this afdave turd the time of day, let alone actually arguing with him.  he's clearly not here to learn anything, doesn't have anything to teach anyone else, and doesn't contribute anything but a bunch of irrelevant non-sequiturs, unfunny jokey asides, and empty promises that he might eventually participate in a real debate about any of the issues he pretends to think are in question. why bother?


Comedy value, and since the regular trolls have been a bit silent.

  
TCE



Posts: 3
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,06:53   

:00-->
Quote (afdave @ April 19 2006,06:00)
I didn't say "prove" ... obviously, this would require outside sources ... I said I would like to HEAR your theory in your own words and the 5 top reasons WHY you believe it

To those who have been polite enough to accomodate my request, thanks!  Believe it or not, it is quite rare to find unless you specifically ask.

BTW- does anyone know of a good online chart or tree showing current evolutionary understanding of how life developed which covers it all, from single-celled organism to humans, preferably from a well-recognized source?


BTW - does anyone know of a good online chart or tree showing current biblical understanding of how life developed which covers it all, from Adam and Eve to this generation, complete with each family name, preferably from a well-recognized source?

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,07:27   

Quote
BTW - does anyone know of a good online chart or tree showing current biblical understanding...

There are probably as many of these as there are religious sects - well over 10,000. Your error lies in the misuse of the word "understanding." Anyone who understood anything wouldn't bother with any such exercise.

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,15:20   

Quote (Faid @ April 28 2006,07:04)
I didn't know there were actually any people who thought the process of evolution was a struggle to be crowned "King of All Life".

That's why the  bacteria beat us to the title; "King of all Life," because you didn't even know you were  playing -- and even the creationists who thought we were playing got the rules wrong.

Next time -- PAY ATTENTION!

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,16:41   

Quote (afdave @ April 29 2006,22:02)
Thanks.  I'll check it out.

Here's a question for people with er ... more of an Evolutionary mindset ...

How many cultures around the world practice a 7 day week and why?  

I honestly have not studied this, but would like to know ... Of course I know why Western Society does, but I'm curious about other cultures ...

Dave would it surprise you to know that the seven day week occurs because there are seven planets visible to the naked eye.  The ancients associated a planet with each day of the week.  If you spoke any romance language (French, Spanish, Italien) this would be much more obvious to you.  The seven day week predated the abrahamic tradition which borrowed the concept from pagan babylon.
Google:  days of the week named after planets

Edit:  Ok so I didn't read far enough before posting.  Aardvark and Faid already hit this.

PS Dave, the key to a good google search is using more relevant words than just one or two.

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,17:21   

Well, well ... the old 'Prove Evolution to AFD' thread came back from the dead ...

Don't tell Wesley!  He thinks I have too many balls in the air already!

Yes.  I knew about the planet thing.  I actually speak quite a bit of Spanish and Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed).

I'm not sure which is the older tradition ... the planet thing or the 'God made the world in seven days' thing.  Nice item for study some time though.

I've pretty much got Google down pat ... sometimes I just like to hear what links you guys refer me to, but thanks for the tip!

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,17:26   

Quote (afdave @ May 18 2006,22:21)
Well, well ... the old 'Prove Evolution to AFD' thread came back from the dead ...

Don't tell Wesley!  He thinks I have too many balls in the air already!

Yes.  I knew about the planet thing.  I actually speak quite a bit of Spanish and Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed).

I'm not sure which is the older tradition ... the planet thing or the 'God made the world in seven days' thing.  Nice item for study some time though.

I've pretty much got Google down pat ... sometimes I just like to hear what links you guys refer me to, but thanks for the tip!

Uh, Dave?  If you knew how to google, you'd have found out that Portuguese is not Spanish and French mixed.  
Quote
Portuguese developed in the Western Iberian Peninsula from Latin brought there by Roman soldiers and colonists starting in the 3rd century BC. The language began to diverge from other Romance languages after the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the barbarian invasions in the 5th century, and started to be used in written documents around the 9th century. By the 15th century it had become a mature language with a rich literature. In all aspects — phonology, morphology, lexicon and syntax — Portuguese is essentially the result of an organic evolution of Vulgar Latin, with relatively minor influences from other languages.
from a source that even you can probably find.

Idiot.

And from a historical point of view, the Babylonians (who developed the seven day week) predate the Jewish scriptures by a thousand years or so.

Do try to learn something from all that 'googling' you do, won't you?  Thanks.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,17:31   

####, you beat me to it.  I was kinda hoping he would expound on the history of the portuguese language for us.

oh well.

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,17:35   

Quote (sir_toejam @ May 18 2006,22:31)
####, you beat me to it.  I was kinda hoping he would expound on the history of the portuguese language for us.

oh well.

My apologies, sir.  'twas a moment of weekness on my part....

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,18:27   

meh, no worries.

I'm actually hoping Dave will entertain my request to show us his thinking on other issues anyway.

Dave - take a gander at the discussion between Steve and I over on the other thread for background.

once you have looked at that:

could you link to somewhere where you have threads or written discussion documenting your thoughts in an area where you have some expertise?

you said you had an engineering degree.  Is there somewhere you have discussed a topic in engineering where your knowledge base is more detailed than on the topic of ToE?

you could show us you actually DO have the capacity for rational argument, at least with topics you have familiarity with.

humor me?

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,00:26   

Quote
Uh, Dave?  If you knew how to google, you'd have found out that Portuguese is not Spanish and French mixed.   Quote  
Portuguese developed in the Western Iberian Peninsula from Latin brought there by Roman soldiers and colonists starting in the 3rd century BC. The language began to diverge from other Romance languages after the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the barbarian invasions in the 5th century, and started to be used in written documents around the 9th century. By the 15th century it had become a mature language with a rich literature. In all aspects — phonology, morphology, lexicon and syntax — Portuguese is essentially the result of an organic evolution of Vulgar Latin, with relatively minor influences from other languages.
from a source that even you can probably find.

Idiot.


Oh really?  How much money do you want to risk that I'm wrong?  Here's the specific statement that I am defending:

1)  AF Dave says that Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control under a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy.  From this point on, the languages diverged into the modern situation.  The primary influence on the linguistic divergence was the French language.

2)  Rilke and Toejam say I am wrong

How much are you willing to bet?  

(You need a Paypal account to be eligible)

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,00:57   

Quote (afdave @ May 19 2006,05:26)
Quote
Uh, Dave?  If you knew how to google, you'd have found out that Portuguese is not Spanish and French mixed.   Quote  
Portuguese developed in the Western Iberian Peninsula from Latin brought there by Roman soldiers and colonists starting in the 3rd century BC. The language began to diverge from other Romance languages after the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the barbarian invasions in the 5th century, and started to be used in written documents around the 9th century. By the 15th century it had become a mature language with a rich literature. In all aspects — phonology, morphology, lexicon and syntax — Portuguese is essentially the result of an organic evolution of Vulgar Latin, with relatively minor influences from other languages.
from a source that even you can probably find.

Idiot.


Oh really?  How much money do you want to risk that I'm wrong?  Here's the specific statement that I am defending:

1)  AF Dave says that Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control under a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy.  From this point on, the languages diverged into the modern situation.  The primary influence on the linguistic divergence was the French language.

2)  Rilke and Toejam say I am wrong

How much are you willing to bet?

I don't think either side is completely wrong -- but I'm not willing to bet.

Spanish and Portuguese are certainly very close relatives (relative to any other languages) but you probably can't really set a year for the split, as Dave does by saying it happened in 1143 AD.

When it is said that Portuguese developed from Latin brought there by Roman soldiers and colonists and diverged from other Romance languages after the fall of the Western Roman Empire ... well, check to see if that doesn't also describe Spanish -- if not also most other European languages.

You think defining when species finally split apart is hard when you've got ring species and jackasses? I'm sure defining language species is even harder.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,02:24   

Quote (Faid @ May 01 2006,08:41)
Try to conduct an "experiment" on yourself and the way you think: You previously thought (and correct me if I'm wrong, which is quite possible) that the fact all these cultures have a seven-day week is a good argument for it's divine origin.
Now that you were pointed to all the historical evidence that show the concept of a seven day week is of human devise, has your belief in its divine roots been questioned in your mind, even in the slightest?
Can you think of any argument, or proof, empirical data, or even supernatural revelation, that would do that to any aspect of your beliefs?

Quote
I'm not sure which is the older tradition ... the planet thing or the 'God made the world in seven days' thing.  Nice item for study some time though.


Well, it seems my old question was finally answered. Thanks Dave.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,03:13   

Dave, this was your statement:
Quote
Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed).


As I pointed out in my citation, you are blatantly, embarrassingly, painfully wrong.

But like most fundies, your ego doesn't permit you to admit that you could ever be wrong.  So you lie about it by claiming something different:
Quote
AF Dave says that Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control under a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy.  From this point on, the languages diverged into the modern situation.  The primary influence on the linguistic divergence was the French language.


So now you are lying about what you said because you're not man enough to admit to being mistaken.

You're hilarious Dave.  Dumb, but hilarious.  You're not related to Dave Scot "Springer-Spaniel", are you?

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,03:26   

Oh, and Dave, when you wrote "googling", perhaps you meant "goggling"?  It would explain why you got the break-out of Portugal wrong.
Quote
Portugal traces its national origin to 24 June 1128 with the Battle of São Mamede. Afonso proclaimed himself first Prince of Portugal and in 1139 the first King of Portugal. By 1143, with the assistance of a representant of the Holy See at the conference of Zamora, Portugal was formally recognized as independent, with the prince recognized as Dux Portucalensis. In 1179, Afonso I was declared, by the Pope, as king. After the Battle of São Mamede, the first capital of Portugal was Guimarães, from which the first king ruled. Later, when Portugal was already officially independent, he ruled from Coimbra.
also from Wikipedia.  Henry was already dead.

Admitting that you made a stupid statement is quite easy Dave; and it would demonstrate that you have some shred of intellectual integrity.

But if you really wish to continue to dig this particular grave for yourself, you go right ahead.

Oh, and remember: the seven day week preceeds the Bible by a thousand years or so.  And remember the Jews went into exile in... Babylon - where that week was invented.

It's fairly clear what a rational person would conclude from that.  Let's see what you conclude, shall we?

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,03:37   

Rilke--

You keep saying I'm wrong, but you haven't put your money where your mouth is.  Just tell me how much money it's going to be ...

$500 says I can prove my statement (my later, more specific statement).  Are you willing to put up $500 and prove me wrong?

You know the wager ... it's as clear as a bell ...

Now are you going to back up your claim?  Or are you going to retract it and apologize?  Or shall I embarrass you publicly in front of all your friends?

Your choice, sweetie.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,04:02   

Quote (afdave @ May 19 2006,05:26)
Oh really?  How much money do you want to risk that I'm wrong?  Here's the specific statement that I am defending:

1)  AF Dave says that Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control under a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy.  From this point on, the languages diverged into the modern situation.  The primary influence on the linguistic divergence was the French language.

2)  Rilke and Toejam say I am wrong

How much are you willing to bet?  

(You need a Paypal account to be eligible)

That depends.  Are we allowed to use the same "arguments" and "logic" to establish the complete and utter independence of the Portuguese and French languages as you use in the apes/humans thread?

After all, while French and Portuguese share many, many letter combinations, I can show you that the word "idiot", common to both languages, is also common to German and English. Since no one in his right mind would argue that these languages are related to French and Portuguese, it is obvious that any and all shared letter combinations (and word meanings, grammar, etc.) could arise independently in each language, and there is absolutely no reason to infer common descent ("common design" theory is just as good!;).

When do I get my money?

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,04:07   

Quote (afdave @ May 19 2006,08:37)
Rilke--

You keep saying I'm wrong, but you haven't put your money where your mouth is.  Just tell me how much money it's going to be ...

$500 says I can prove my statement (my later, more specific statement).  Are you willing to put up $500 and prove me wrong?

You know the wager ... it's as clear as a bell ...

Now are you going to back up your claim?  Or are you going to retract it and apologize?  Or shall I embarrass you publicly in front of all your friends?

Your choice, sweetie.

Embarass me?  When you're the one who made the bone-headed statement?

To paraphrase out local village idiot: what planet are you on, my child?

Besides, you haven't addressed the fact that you're changing your story again.

Why should I take your money when you can't even tell the truth about what you've said?  No statement you've made to date can be considered reliable.

Admit it: you're just a sixteen-year old who can't get a date.  :D

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,04:17   

Hmm.

Quote
Main article: History of Portuguese
Portuguese developed in the Western Iberian Peninsula from Latin brought there by Roman soldiers and colonists starting in the 3rd century BC. The language began to diverge from other Romance languages after the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the barbarian invasions in the 5th century, and started to be used in written documents around the 9th century. By the 15th century it had become a mature language with a rich literature. In all aspects — phonology, morphology, lexicon and syntax — Portuguese is essentially the result of an organic evolution of Vulgar Latin, with relatively minor influences from other languages.


...Oh, what do I care. Fine Dave, Wikipedia is wrong (won't be the first time) and you're right (that, however)...
So, how 'bout proving that "young earth" story now?

incorygible:   :D  :D  :D

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,04:40   

Rilke--

Here's my statement again ...  
Quote
AF Dave says that Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control under a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy.  From this point on, the languages diverged into the modern situation.  The primary influence on the linguistic divergence was the French language.


In short, Portuguese is a mixture of Spanish and French, which is what I said at first.

Are you going to challenge me or not?

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,05:41   

Um... Dave...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Portuguese_language

http://www.instituto-camoes.pt/cvc/literatura/eng/LINGUA.HTM

http://www.orbilat.com/Languages/Portuguese/Portuguese.html

http://www.linguaportuguesa.ufrn.br/en_2.php

http://www.krysstal.com/langfams_indoeuro.html

...There doesn't seem to be much dispute over this issue.
Unless you know something the rest of the world does not.

BTW, I think that challenging people on their views in internet debates with money bets is kinda lame.
Even Dembski just wagered a bottle of scotch (not that he ever delivered).
Just FYI  :(

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,05:57   

Quote (afdave @ May 19 2006,09:40)
Rilke--

Here's my statement again ...  
Quote
AF Dave says that Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control under a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy.  From this point on, the languages diverged into the modern situation.  The primary influence on the linguistic divergence was the French language.


In short, Portuguese is a mixture of Spanish and French, which is what I said at first.

Are you going to challenge me or not?

Are you repeating your factually incorrect statement for some reason, Dave?  Argument ad nauseum, perhaps?

You should save your money for your goggling habit; you would lose it.  is that what guys do?  Assuage their loss of manhood by offering money?  Tacky.

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,06:04   

I really should take your money, but I know you need the pocket change:
Quote
1137   Moors attack Leiria and Dom Afonso Henriques fails to conquer Lisbon from Moors
1139 26th July - Battle of Ourique - Dom Afonso Henriques defeats on the Almoravids army led by Ali ibn Yusuf and four other Emirs - Dom Henriques Afonso declares himself King of Portugal and its independence from the Kingdom of León and Castile
1139 1st November - Dom Afonso Henriques (Afonso I), crowned King of Portugal in Bragança (1139 - 1185) - Reign of House of Burgundy
1140 The Knights "Hospitalier" receive lands and privileges from Dom Afonso Henriques
1140 Tournament and Armistice of Arcos de Valdevez - Dom Afonso Henriques takes possession of southern Galicia which causes Don Alfonso VII to invade Portugal. After a joust between the Knights the Portuguese win and are granted part of southern Galicia
1142 Leiria receives town rights and privileges from Dom Afonso Henriques
1143 Treaty of Zamora - Don Alfonso VII of Castile and León recognises the Kingdom of Portugal and both Kings agree to a peace period
1143 Afonso I declares his allegiance with a payment of money to Pope Innocent II and places his kingdom under the protection of Saint Peter and the Holy See
1144 The Muridun (Disciples) led by Abul-Qasim Ahmad ibn al-Husayn al-Quasi rebel in the Algarve against power of Seville - Ibn al-Mundhir takes Silves with the support of the Governor of Beja, Sidray ibn Wazir. Ibn al-Mubndhir and Sidray ibn Wazir take Monchique castle - and with only a further 20 men they take by surprise the castle of Mértola - the Taifas of Mértola and Silves return to independence from Seville
1144 The Order of Cistercians is installed at Tarouca
1145 Moor army retakes Leiria
1145 Taifa of Badajoz becomes independent and conquers the Taifa of Mértola
1146 Taifa of Mértola in the Alentejo regains its independence from Taifa of Badajoz
1146 Marriage of Dom Afonso Henriques with Dona Mafalda of Savoy
1147 March - Dom Afonso Henriques captures Óbidos, Santarém, Tomar and Torres Novas from Moors
1147 Crusader Fleet on route to the Holy Land arrives in Porto and are convinced by Bishop of Porto to sail onto Lisbon to assist Dom Afonso Henriques
1147 October - Capture from Moors of town of Lisbon with assistance from Gilbert of Hastings and the Crusaders. Gilbert appointed Bishop of Lisbon
1147 Dom Afonso Henriques orders construction of Church and Monastery of São Vicente de Fora
1147 Dom Afonso Henriques captures Almada, Palmela and Sintra from Moors
1149 New Berber Dynasty of the Almohades conquers north Africa and invades Iberian Peninsular
Hm. No Henry in there, Dave.

Here's the thing: a real man would simply admit error, and we could move on.  But you can't do that, can you?  Your fundie-ego won't let you admit that you made a goof; inerrancy is your stock in trade.

But just think of the intellectual integrity you'd display if you were to do so!  From 0 to 0.000005 in only a single statement!

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,06:33   

Quote (Faid @ a couple posts up, a few minutes ago)
BTW, I think that challenging people on their views in internet debates with money bets is kinda lame.

Especially for a self proclaimed Christian.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,08:44   

Quote
Portugal traces its national origin to 24 June 1128 with the Battle of São Mamede. Afonso proclaimed himself first Prince of Portugal and in 1139 the first King of Portugal. By 1143, with the assistance of a representant of the Holy See at the conference of Zamora, Portugal was formally recognized as independent, with the prince recognized as Dux Portucalensis. In 1179, Afonso I was declared, by the Pope, as king. After the Battle of São Mamede, the first capital of Portugal was Guimarães, from which the first king ruled. Later, when Portugal was already officially independent, he ruled from Coimbra.


Rilke--  Check to see who Afonso's father was.  You'll find in was Henry of Burgundy, a French nobleman who helped fight the Muslims.

Now, since everybody is whining on your behalf, I'll lower the wager.  You tell me what you are willing to risk to prove you superiority and my idiocy.

I wouldn't hold your feet to the fire, Rilke, but you were pretty rash and blatant and bold.  I'll give you a hint ... Sometimes you get what you pay for on Wikipedia.

If you want to keep being a jerk, I'm going to shine a bigger and bigger spotlight on you ... otherwise, I'll drop it and we'll move on.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,08:50   

Quote (afdave @ May 19 2006,13:44)
Rilke--  Check to see who Afonso's father was.  You'll find in was Henry of Burgundy, a French nobleman who helped fight the Muslims.

I don't know anything about the history of Portugal, and hardly anything about linguistics, but I do know this: Dave's original claim was that Portuguese is a mixture of French and Spanish. Arguing about who ruled Portugal when, and where that person was originally from, advances Dave's argument not a bit.

If you're going to have an argument about linguistics, have an argument about linguistics, not about medieval European history.

And in the meantime, how are you doing with the Theobald article, Dave?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,08:57   

My reference book agrees with Rilkes Grandaughter.  Its "The Pimlico encycolpaedia of the Middle Ages", published in 1999.  

What it also says about the formation of Portugal is that the Northern part of what we now knwo as POrtugal was first reffered to by that name in the mid 800's, when it had its own governor.  In the eearly 1000's Ferdidnand the first of Castile and Leon took control, and then his Kingdom was divided amongst his children after his death.  So, in the early 1100's, feuding was going on, ldeaing to Alfonso seizing the throne from his mother in 1128.
Now, even if some Henry bloke was Alfonsos dad, that has nothing whatsoever to do with Daves claimed date of 1143, since by that time Alfonso was in charge, and that date was when Spain recognised Portugal as a country in its own right.

  
Shirley Knott



Posts: 148
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,09:06   

Just a suggestion, RGD -- better make dafve specify what he means by 'mixture'.
On the typical meaning of the word, his claim is false on the face of it -- Portugese is not a 'mixture' of French and English, any more than English is a mixture of Anglo-Saxon, French and Celtic.
And that was, after all, his specific claim.
Almost as ludicrous as his claims that an entity "outside" of space and time can nonetheless be a causal agent, or that a singular intelligence is possible, or that an intelligence without corporeality is possible.
Or that YEC makes sense and is plausible.
Or that the Bible has anything to do with morality in any positive sense.
The list is longer than he is...

hugs,
Shirley Knott

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,09:07   

Quote (ericmurphy @ May 19 2006,13:50)
[quote=afdave,May 19 2006,13:44]

If you're going to have an argument about linguistics, have an argument about linguistics, not about medieval European history.

I'm sure we'd like to, but so far Dave hasnt produced any arguments, just a bald statement.  

It seems that Henry of Burgundy was dead in 1112:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry%2C_Count_of_Portugal

Now, what was Daves statement again?

Quote
AF Dave says that Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control under a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy.

  
stevestory



Posts: 11120
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,09:15   

Quote
Oh really?  How much money do you want to risk that I'm wrong?  Here's the specific statement that I am defending:

1)  AF Dave says that Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control under a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy.  From this point on, the languages diverged into the modern situation.  The primary influence on the linguistic divergence was the French language.

2)  Rilke and Toejam say I am wrong

How much are you willing to bet?
AFDave, I have a Paypal account, and I will bet you $1000 that Portugal did not break away in 1143 under the control of Henry of Burgundy.

   
BWE



Posts: 1901
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,09:22   

Davey-dog. You are an idiot. Define Spanish. Be careful, that's a trick question. Next Define spanish around the time of song of roland.  

I'll take your bet. But the stakes are different. If I win, I get to write a post on your blog, if you win, you get to write a post for my blog. and one more thing, please answer some age of the earth questions.


Just because I think you are stupid, I am not going to do any preliminary research.

And I am making some assumptions about your claim:

1) the portuguese language substantially changed beginning in the year 1143.

2) The Spanish you are referring to is Castilian

3) The french language and the Castillian language are the major components of modern Portuguese.

4) the dialect of Portuguese you are referring to is the one spoken in Lisbon.

5) That you are making an all or nothing claim similar to  your others (there are no gray areas)

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,09:35   

While I have no immediate interest in Portuguese history, this little diversion does serve the purpose - who was it? - someone wanted to see the nature of afdave's discussion style on some subject other than evolution, as a kind of test as to whether he had a mental "blind spot" on that one subject, but was functional elsewhere. I think the answer's in.

From where I sit, afdave has made no attempt to support his original claim: that Portuguese is "a mixture of Spanish and French". While his contention about Henry of Burgundy does have some connection with reality, the specifics are wildly wrong.

So, what do we learn from this?

I see a lot of parallels between the two lines of argument - "shared errors", if you will - suggesting that, in fact, it's not just an evolutionary blind spot, but a pervasive flaw in reasoning tools.

Overconfidence
Reluctance to consider alternative views
Reluctance to acknowledge superior expertise
Inability to focus
Inability to define central question
Inability to acknowledge error and self-correct

Oh - and as BWE notes - typological thinking in the areas of biology and language

All characteristic of both discussions. If I were a career counselor, I would say this guy should not go into science.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
BWE



Posts: 1901
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,09:39   

I'd worry about a career involving dangerous equipment.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Drew Headley



Posts: 152
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,10:30   

Quote (afdave @ May 19 2006,09:40)
In short, Portuguese is a mixture of Spanish and French, which is what I said at first.

Are you going to challenge me or not?

My girlfriend is a linguist and so I have a good batch of langauge books on hand. One of them, The World's Major Languages edited by Bernard Comrie, has a chapter on Portuguese.

 
Quote
Portuguese, the national language of Portugal and Brazil, belongs to the Romance Language group. It is descended from the Vulgar Latin of the estern Iberian Peninsula (the regions of Gallaecia and Lusitania of the Roman Empire), as is Galician, often wrongly considered a dialect of Spanish.

It goes into the history of Portugal a bit, and then returns to the langauge's origins.
 
Quote
For several centuries after the independence of Portugal, the divergence of Portuguese and Galician was slight enough for them to be considered variants of the same language. Galician-Portuguese was generally preferred to Castilian as a medium for lyric poetry until the middle of the fourteenth century. Portuguese first appears as the language of legal documents at the beginning of the thirteenth century, coexisting with Latin throughout that century and finally replacing it during the reign of D. Dinis (1279-1325).


Hope this helps.

Edit: Further reading shows that it actually has a lot of influences from the Moors, which Arabized the language a bit.

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,10:43   

Quote (Drew Headley @ May 19 2006,15:30)
Edit: Further reading shows that it actually has a lot of influences from the Moors, which Arabized the language a bit.

And nothing about French, I take it?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Drew Headley



Posts: 152
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,10:47   

I have not seen French mentioned once in the chapter so far.

Edit: Just read through the syntax and lexicon sections. It is a very odd language the preserves a lot of pre-Roman Celtic and post-Roman German mixed with Arabic. No mention of French influence.

   
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,10:54   

But, clearly, it appears (if only to Dave) to be a mixture of French and Spanish.  And as we've seen in every one of his posts, that's really all the evidence Dave needs.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,11:20   

I've said before that I don't know anything about Portuguese history, and precious little about linguistics. But I do speak a little French (very little, and with an outrageous accent, you silly English knnnnnnnnniggits! ), and I used to work with a lot of Brazilians and your occasional Cape Verdean, who spoke Portuguese.

In my experience, Portuguese sounds quite a bit like Spanish, and nothing at all like French. So if "appearing to resemble" a mixture of Spanish and French does it for Dave in terms of proof, I'd have to say he's still wrong, even by his own standards.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,11:34   

Oh, and Dave—how are we doing with the Theobald?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,11:40   

In all the links I posted above (and they're much more than the inexact and flawed Wikipedia) there's not a single mention of French influence in Portuguese save the occasional borrowing of a word or two. They all say the same thing: That it originates from vulgar latin, and evolved (hah!;) parallel to Spanish. In fact, the last link claims that it's far closer to Latin (along with Italian, of course) than most other Romance languages.
Dave, if you have different data and evidence, why not share it? We're actually curious about this.
Unless you're still after our money, and looking to raise the stakes...  ???


<edit: even some sites for tourists say the same thing!!!1>

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,11:50   

Quote (afdave @ May 19 2006,13:44)
Quote
Portugal traces its national origin to 24 June 1128 with the Battle of São Mamede. Afonso proclaimed himself first Prince of Portugal and in 1139 the first King of Portugal. By 1143, with the assistance of a representant of the Holy See at the conference of Zamora, Portugal was formally recognized as independent, with the prince recognized as Dux Portucalensis. In 1179, Afonso I was declared, by the Pope, as king. After the Battle of São Mamede, the first capital of Portugal was Guimarães, from which the first king ruled. Later, when Portugal was already officially independent, he ruled from Coimbra.


Rilke--  Check to see who Afonso's father was.  You'll find in was Henry of Burgundy, a French nobleman who helped fight the Muslims.

Now, since everybody is whining on your behalf, I'll lower the wager.  You tell me what you are willing to risk to prove you superiority and my idiocy.

I wouldn't hold your feet to the fire, Rilke, but you were pretty rash and blatant and bold.  I'll give you a hint ... Sometimes you get what you pay for on Wikipedia.

If you want to keep being a jerk, I'm going to shine a bigger and bigger spotlight on you ... otherwise, I'll drop it and we'll move on.

Now Dave, lets be exact here.  You said several things:
Quote
Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed).
We can see from every single resource that you were lying.  Or fabricating nonsense.

When challenged on that particular piece of fatuous nonsense, you changed your story completely to
Quote
Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control under a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy.  From this point on, the languages diverged into the modern situation.  The primary influence on the linguistic divergence was the French language.
 But alas!  Once again we find that you were lying or fabricating: Henry was already dead by 1143.

Dave, you are the stupidest, clumsiest, most egotistical liar I've seen in years.  You don't know a single thing about Portuguese, and you're too vain to admit that you were completely wrong.

So let's see....

David makes a factually incorrect statement.

When caught, he changes the statement and lies.

When caught at that, he blusters and tries to bet his way out with more lies.

Dave - [i]this is flagrantly unChristian behavior.
 How can you call yourself a Christian when you're a liar, and stupid, and ignorant.  (Well, wait a minute, you could certainly be a Christian and the last two of those.  :D )

How can you do it, Dave?  How can you be a Christian and be so dishonest?

Idiot.  :p

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,11:53   

To the other posters: wow!  What an incredible yutz you've got here.  Amazing.

  
BWE



Posts: 1901
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,12:06   

Rilke,

Darnit. You took some of my thunder. How am I ever going to get dave to take part in a real debate if you spoil it for me?

(P.S. there is a french influence, but Davey-dog has his history messed up)

Davey-dog, you are an idiot. I rest my case.
But I am still having fun making fun of you.

And for anyone who harbored a doubt that Davey-dog was as fantastically stupid as he appears,...Well, I will continue to provide evidence to the contrary :)

OK Davey-dog, how come the Appalachians are low and the Himalayas are high?

Please tell me that you can prove that god made them that way.

By the way, forget what these other guys say, you are probably right on the portuguese thing. I am afraid that I will lose the bet I so foolishly made and you will be writing a post for my blog.

Anything I forgot? Oh yeah, you are an idiot.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,12:10   

BWE, my heartfelt apologies.  Go ahead and challenge Dave.

Hey, Dave!  If I'm right about the Portuguese thing (your original claim, mind you) then you have to have a one-on-one debate with BWE.

Actually, since you were wrong about your second claim as well, I guess you lose twice.  Debates all around!

I guess all that "goggling" really pays off, eh what?

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,12:14   

Quote (Rilke's Granddaughter @ May 19 2006,16:53)
To the other posters: wow!  What an incredible yutz you've got here.  Amazing.

I can't wait to see his "refutation" of radiometric dating.

But I think I'm going to have to. Long wait for a train don't come, I'm thinking.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,12:23   

OK, Dave-bashing aside, now I'm really curious.
The only French influence I can find is supposed to occur in the 18th century, creating the difference in syntax between Portugal and the colonies:

http://www.alsintl.com/languages/portuguese.htm

???

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,12:23   

Whats a "yutz"?  It sounds faintly disturbing.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,12:29   

Quote (guthrie @ May 19 2006,17:23)
Whats a "yutz"?  It sounds faintly disturbing.

I think it's basically Yiddish for "idiot."

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,13:04   

Quote (Faid @ May 19 2006,17:23)
OK, Dave-bashing aside, now I'm really curious.
The only French influence I can find is supposed to occur in the 18th century, creating the difference in syntax between Portugal and the colonies:

http://www.alsintl.com/languages/portuguese.htm

???

Yes.  Unfortunately, that still doesn't make it a mixture of French and Spanish.

Dave will, of course, find some way to twist his own words (and others) to try and avoid looking like an idiot, rather than displaying intellectual integrity and admittibg he was mistaken.  Any bets on that?

  
stevestory



Posts: 11120
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,13:45   

Ah, this is just so sweet. To recap, AFDave said he'd bet anybody that
Quote
AF Dave says that Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control under a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy.


Shortly afterward we find out that by 1143, Portuguese was already a language, and Henry of Burgundy was long dead.

At this point I have to chastise all of you mean AtBCers. He's already badly beaten, and you jerks are running up the score. Shame on you.

;-)

   
BWE



Posts: 1901
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,14:26   

He keeps coming back. Haven't you ever seen a 3 stooges episode?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
stevestory



Posts: 11120
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,14:30   

With Davetard and AFDave &c it's like we're amateur martial arts enthusiasts, and overweight smokers with bad eyesight keep running up and challenging us. Sure, we've got some skills, but under these circumstances we get to feel like Chuck Norris.

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,20:03   

as to Dave's "wager"  did i miss something or did anyone else immediately think

Hovind.

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear....nge.htm

No matter what is wagered, Dave will always claim to have won the wager, because he initially set himself up as the arbiter and the "decider" (pardon the pun).

Dave's entire worldview literally depends at this point on him being "right" about everything, or it collapses under its own weight.

Dave- you are in a very dangerous state of mind right now.  I highly suggest you take a look at what happens to folks juggling your type of worldview.

(hint: they go off the deep end)

seek medical treatment.

seriously.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,20:13   

@faid, who said:
Quote
Well, it seems my old question was finally answered. Thanks Dave.


it was?

unless your question really was, "will Dave give a non-response to even the simplest questions"

then I can't see how his answer addresses your qeustion.

seems all he did was say:

It's too hard for me to think about right now, maybe my strained brain will be able to think about it later.

do you see an answer there I don't?

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,06:22   

Is it too soon to wonder if the silence of the dave signals a long-overdue moment of reflection on the possibility he might be wrong?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
BWE



Posts: 1901
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,07:50   

I think I might have proved my point. Wow. Easier than I thought. And I didn't even have to trot out a single shred of evidence.

That, perhaps, is what AF Davey-dog was hoping to accomplish. Maybe fundies see the intelligent. educated segment of the population consistently doing that and they figure that's how debate works.

I was hoping for more of a challenge than that. Maybe Salvador.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,10:40   

Quote
Is it too soon to wonder if the silence of the dave signals a long-overdue moment of reflection on the possibility he might be wrong?


yes.  far too soon.
I think you might be waiting for an independent event to signal such.

something like...

He11 freezing over?

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,12:32   

Well, well, well ... It was good I went to the lake yesterday and didn't get to do any posting yet because I see a lot more people climbed onto Rilke's branch that I'm about to saw off ...

And I see Rilke is not willing to back up her outrageous claims of intellectual superiority with any money at all.

I do see that Steve has come up with his own little wager of $1000.

Let me deal with Steve's little deal first.  I won't bet you on that because you are correct that Henry was dead long before 1143.  I composed my sentence ambiguously ... it should have read "Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control.  The break away was begun by a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy" --  little more specific.

Again, what we are doing here, though is answering a claim by Rilke that I am an idiot for thinking Portuguese is a mix of Spanish and French.  There will be several lessons learned here.  One will be that I have met many people like Rilke on these threads who are very arrogant about their supposed intellectual superiority and at the same time are quite vehement about attacking the supposed lack of intelligence they see in YECs like me.

OK ... brace yourselves ... the branch is coming down ... everybody got your body padding on?

This from Rilke's source of choice (Wikipedia) ... I guess she just didn't read far enough ...

 
Quote
Although the vocabularies of Spanish and Portuguese are quite similar, phonetically Portuguese is somewhat closer to Catalan or to French. It is often claimed that the complex phonology of Portuguese compared to Spanish explains why it is generally not intelligible to Spanish speakers despite the strong lexical similarity between the two languages.Portuguese and French


Of course if you get a good Medieval History Encyclopedia, you can get all kinds of details about this period in history when Portuguese and Spanish diverged.  What you will see is massive Burgundian influence beginning with the influx of thousands of Burgundian knights in response to Alfonso VI who had a Burgundian wife, then the Burgundian Henry, grandson of Robert I of Burgundy then to Afonso Henriques, son of Henry.  [Oh ... by the way ... I guess I'd better fill you in that Burgundy is in France ... small detail].  Anyway, Afonso Henriques captures Lisbon and sets up his capital.  Then if you do some further reading, you find out that standard Portuguese is based on the dialect of Lisbon, according to Rilke's other favorite source, Encyclopedia Brittanica.  Can you guess that Lisbon probably had greater French influence than anywhere else in Portugal?  I hope I'm not moving too fast for anyone.

Hmmm ... let's think now ... a whole bunch of French knights come into western Spain to help out the king who has a French wife.  Another French guy comes into Spain and marries a Spanish wife.  They take over Lisbon and set up the Kingdom of Portugal.  Do you see what's happening?  This is not rocket science folks.   This is kind of like 1+2=3.  See?  Spanish + French = Portuguese.

Now if you have all three of these languages in your own family (my mother speaks fluent Portuguese and Spanish and my cousin speaks fluent French), you tend to have a little better overview of these languages than the average Joe (or Rilke).  I can tell you that if you have heard all three languages like I have, the mix is quite obvious.

And if you think and are honest (I'm finding this to be a slightly scarce combo here), instead of just shoot your mouth off about how all YECs are stupid idiots, you can see how Wikipedia would make a statement like ...

phonetically Portuguese is somewhat closer to Catalan or to French. (by the way, Catalan the language of Andorra -- just below France on the map)

RRRRRRR ... CREEEEK ... (noise of branch breaking) ... (whistling sound as branch accelerates toward ground) ... (screams of terror) ... WUMP! (branch loaded with arrogant evolutionists hits ground)

OK.  So now you have a choice.  You can get up, brush yourself off, wipe the egg off your face and go back to trying to make reasonable arguments in favor of evolution, which is what I would recommend if you want to help the "Evolution Cause"

OR ...

You can somehow try to weasel out of the fact that you've been had.  

Either choice you make, I'm going to take this thread back to it's intended content and expand it a bit.  I will pretty much abandon the Ape Thread now as it has served its purpose.  I have successfully shown that there is nothing more than flimsy evidence which could be construed as positive support for Common Descent of Apes and Humans, although there is excellent evidence for common ancestry within the Apes as well as within all the other originally created kinds.

(And while you are all at church tomorrow, you can confess all your arrogance and unkind words)

(Oh ... don't forget to thank Rilke for leading you into this mess!;)

(Rilke--you probably knew about this little detail in Wikipedia, but just withheld it, right?  Very honest of you)

(Oh ... BTW ... Faid-- you and some others have put words into my mouth about the 7 day week thing and I see you think I'm mistaken about that too ... would you like to pursue this further?  Maybe take a softer approach so that you don't fall so hard?)

Have a nice evening!

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
BWE



Posts: 1901
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,12:36   

So Davey-dog, Are you taking my wager? That is pretty darning evidence you've got there. I really wish I could retract my bet but, unfortunately, I already made it. I agree that Rilke was a little simplistic. It will be a hard debate, but I will do my best. So?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
stevestory



Posts: 11120
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,12:39   

So when you said the guy was living in 1143, and it turns out he'd been dead 31 years, you were being 'ambiguous'? Lemme help you with some definitions

Quote
  am·big·u·ous  
adj.

  1. Open to more than one interpretation: an ambiguous reply.
  2. Doubtful or uncertain: “The theatrical status of her frequently derided but constantly revived plays remained ambiguous” (Frank Rich).


Quote
  wrong (rông)
adj.

  1. Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous.
  2.
        1. Contrary to conscience, morality, or law; immoral or wicked.
        2. Unfair; unjust.

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,12:40   

Dave, I'm no etymologist (neither are you, obviously), but isn't assuming one language as derivative of another based on phonetic similarity kinda like assuming oranges are derived from lemons because they are both round?

think about it for a second.

when you say "portugeuse is a combination of french and spanish", you literally are saying that there is no distinct portugeuse language outside of these other two.

Is that what you really think?

I doubt many portugeuse linguisticians would agree with that statment.

would you say american english is a combination of french, german, spanish and UK english?

or is it really that culture influences all language to a greater or lesser extent, and so words are adopted into everybody's language that reflects this?

just for ONCE in your existence on ATBC, use your brain and work this out.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,12:47   

Quote
will pretty much abandon the Ape Thread now as it has served its purpose.  I have successfully shown that there is nothing more than flimsy evidence which could be construed as positive support for Common Descent of Apes and Humans, although there is excellent evidence for common ancestry within the Apes as well as within all the other originally created kinds.


I do hereby rest my case that what you have in fact shown is a complete inability to rationally parse any argument whatsoever, and even to recognize that fact.

I again ask you to provide evidence that you can form logical, evidence based, rational argumentation on any subject you have a more relevant background in.

engineering, perhaps?  didn't you say you had an engineering degree?

care to show us anyplace on the web where we can examine your ability to rationally parse arguments in engineering?

Quote
(And while you are all at church tomorrow, you can confess all your arrogance and unkind words)


there's that projection again.

Dave, I should have gotten your comments on the parallels drawn by this simple comic which perchance even your addled brain might grasp:


  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2006,13:49   

Quote
So when you said the guy was living in 1143, and it turns out he'd been dead 31 years, you were being 'ambiguous'? Lemme help you with some definitions


That's not what I said, Steve.  Lemme help you with some reading comprehension ...

I made an ambiguous statement, the detail of which that you are highliting doesn't matter a whit for my argument, and you know it.  But go ahead and dodge the bullet if you want to.  I've come to expect this kind of thing ...

Let's how creative other people can be in dodging the bullet.  Toejam's weighed in ... others?

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com