Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::Thread for Christopher Gieschen

Posted: Oct. 01 2007,16:57

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,14:33)

Jim,

I was under the impression when you said that you have produced evidence, that you did an experiment or something.

I have--many of them.

Quote

I think you meant that you can show your evidence for millions of years based upon stratagraphic layers.

No, I meant that I can show my evidence, as well as evidence from thousands of others, that is easier to interpret than fossils and geology. I bet that you're afraid to examine any evidence for which you can't regurgitate a creationist explanation, and I bet that you're afraid to make predictions about evidence that will be found in the future.

Quote

1. Dr. Berthalt's work which shows laminations can result that appear to suggest individual layering of a horizontal event one at a time.

The laminations would be evidence, but what they suggest is interpretation. What predictions do you make?

Quote

2. Dougals Erwin's quote from Geotimes Feb. 1991, "Resolving many evolutionary...problems... assumes that the stratigraphic order of fossils bears some relationship to their choronological order." �The deleted words do nothing to influence the main point he is making.

Quotes aren't evidence.

Quote

3. Polystrate fossils which have been explained by your side, but that does not mean the explanation is correct.

Explanations aren't evidence. Only the evidence is evidence. Why do you so dishonestly conflate evidence with its interpretation, Chris?

I'll ask again:
Have you ever examined any sequence evidence--not someone else's interpretation of it--for yourself, or are you afraid that you can't make it fit your worldview?

Why do people on our side produce evidence, while people on your side run away from evidence, and project this pathological fear onto us?

Jim_Wynne

Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

Posted: Oct. 01 2007,17:27

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,14:33)

If you don't accept Mr. Strobel's evidence, then what about Mr. Josh Mc Dowell?

I'm not familiar with McDowell's ~~lies~~ evidence. Is it substantially different from the garden variety ~~ignorance and dishonesty~~ apologetics?

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

JAM

Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

Posted: Oct. 01 2007,18:00

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 01 2007,17:27)

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,14:33)

If you don't accept Mr. Strobel's evidence, then what about Mr. Josh Mc Dowell?

I'm not familiar with McDowell's ~~lies~~ evidence. Is it substantially different from the garden variety ~~ignorance and dishonesty~~ apologetics?

Jim, we also should note that real scientists describe the evidence instead of quoting the interpreter of the evidence.

Chris, appeals to authority are always fallacious in science, but they are simply dishonest when such appeals come from someone who pretends to be interested in examining actual evidence. I suspect that you are incapable of resisting your impulse to appeal to authority.

If you disagree, try filling out this form with only evidence and predicted evidence, and without using a single name, quote, or opinion:

1) Evidence supporting an old Earth:
2) Evidence supporting a young Earth:
3) Predictions of an old Earth hypothesis:
4) Predictions of a young Earth hypothesis:

Jim_Wynne

Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

Posted: Oct. 01 2007,19:54

Quote (JAM @ Oct. 01 2007,18:00)

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 01 2007,17:27)

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,14:33)

If you don't accept Mr. Strobel's evidence, then what about Mr. Josh Mc Dowell?

I'm not familiar with McDowell's ~~lies~~ evidence. Is it substantially different from the garden variety ~~ignorance and dishonesty~~ apologetics?

Jim, we also should note that real scientists describe the evidence instead of quoting the interpreter of the evidence.

I understand, but The junk that Chris is referring to doesn't amount to anything approaching evidence at any level. The primary literature for Chris is the King James version.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

JAM

Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

Posted: Oct. 02 2007,01:01

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 01 2007,19:54)

Quote (JAM @ Oct. 01 2007,18:00)

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 01 2007,17:27)

�

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,14:33)

If you don't accept Mr. Strobel's evidence, then what about Mr. Josh Mc Dowell?

I'm not familiar with McDowell's ~~lies~~ evidence. Is it substantially different from the garden variety ~~ignorance and dishonesty~~ apologetics?

Jim, we also should note that real scientists describe the evidence instead of quoting the interpreter of the evidence.

I understand, but The junk that Chris is referring to doesn't amount to anything approaching evidence at any level. �The primary literature for Chris is the King James version.

Oh, I know that. What I find amazing is that no matter how many times we point out that opinions aren't evidence, Chris and his ilk will try to maliciously conflate the two, because in their hearts, they know that real evidence won't support their position.

C Gieschen

Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Oct. 02 2007,08:24

Fellow members of this thread,

Let's try backing up to my ultimate bottom line as far as science goes. Please answer this issue I have with the whole ball of wax and then we can tackle one item at a time.

To me it matters not where things come from in order to understand how they work. One need not visit Edison's lab or study the first light bulb to see how today's light bulbs work. Even if you can explain to me logically how the first living thing knew how to divide does not mean that you are right. I can believe that God originated the information in every cell's DNA to have the "machines" running at the time of creation. You choose to believe that a cell put itself together. I find no value of either belief in understanding how a cell divides today.

Again, don't pick apart the question, just the main point which is why is the past origin needed to understand the present?

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Oct. 02 2007,08:33

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 02 2007,08:24)

Again, don't pick apart the question, just the main point which is why is the past origin needed to understand the present?

Quote

The reason humans and guinea pigs cannot manufacture their own ascorbic acid is that they lack a functional gene encoding the enzyme protein known as L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase (GLO), which is required for synthesizing ascorbic acid. In most mammals functional GLO genes are present, inherited - according to the evolutionary hypothesis - from a functional GLO gene in a common ancestor of mammals. According to this view, GLO gene copies in the human and guinea pig lineages were inactivated by mutations.

Reason for deactivation of GLO:

Evolution: It was a random accident.

OR

God Did it: God is an idiot.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger�s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

Posted: Oct. 02 2007,09:03

In order to build the car that you drive on a daily basis, did someone have to invent the internal combustion engine?

In order to drink the pilsner style beer in the fridge, did someone have to invent refrigeration?

In order to understand the car you drive, do you have to understand the workings of an internal combustion engine?

In order to understand the Urquel in your hand, do you have to understand the principal of refrigeration?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

Posted: Oct. 02 2007,09:16

Christopher,

If ever we were bombed right to the brink of extinction, how would you propose that we rebuild the modern world?

Is it your belief that this could be done "without understanding where things come from"?

Just by looking at a computer (the hardware only) you could recreate one from scratch?

Just by looking a loaf of bread in its plastic bag, you could make one from scratch?

Just by once having drunk a bottle of wine you could make one from scratch?

Just because you've looked through a pane of tinted glass, you could recreate one right now?

Just because you own a lawn mower, you could build one from scratch just by looking at the exterior parts you are currently familiar with?

Just because you've used a wrench and held one in your hands, you can make one from scratch to help you in your reconquering of the world?

Or, do you think it might be helpful to know about where things come from: semi-conductors, the principle of electricity, how to use yeast, to smelt, to forge, etc.

I know ID supporters are always saying you don't need to know first principles in order to figure out everything about a thing. But, really, come on, do YOU believe that?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

C Gieschen

Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Oct. 02 2007,09:21

blipey,

All the examples are intelligently designed machines. Try again and relate it to mitosis.

C Gieschen

Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Oct. 02 2007,09:28

To oldmanin...

Read the quote you supplied again. Note the phrase used : "according to the evolutionary hypothesis" or this one : "According to this view, GLO gene copies in the human and guinea pig lineages were inactivated by mutations."

This is a prime example of why I say that worldview or paradigm shapes how we look at things like Stephan Gould said.

Try again and apply to mitosis.

Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

Posted: Oct. 02 2007,09:33

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 02 2007,09:21)

blipey,

All the examples are intelligently designed machines. Try again and relate it to mitosis.

Wow. Could you have missed the point any worse than that?

Before we discuss the point, how exactly is yeast an intelligently designed machine? Oh wait, I got it.

"According to Christopher's world view, yeast is an intelligently designed machine."

Got it.

Let's try it again, this time apply it to the actual point I was making. This was nicely laid out in the direct question at the end of my comment:

Do YOU believe that it is necessary to understand first principles in order to know how a thing works?

All of the examples are of processes, not machines.

Yeast is an intelligently designed machine....marf!

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Oct. 02 2007,09:36

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 02 2007,09:28)

To oldmanin...

Read the quote you supplied again. Note the phrase used : "according to the evolutionary hypothesis" or this one : "According to this view, GLO gene copies in the human and guinea pig lineages were inactivated by mutations."

This is a prime example of why I say that worldview or paradigm shapes how we look at things like Stephan Gould said.

Try again and apply to mitosis.

I will certainly try again, but only once you have given us the explanation for the GLO issue from your "designed" point of view.

I'm aware of the evolutionary scenario.

I'm not aware of what your explanation is.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger�s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Oct. 02 2007,09:37

Quote

The reason humans and guinea pigs cannot manufacture their own ascorbic acid is that they lack a functional gene encoding the enzyme protein known as L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase (GLO), which is required for synthesizing ascorbic acid. In most mammals functional GLO genes are present, inherited from a functional GLO gene in a common ancestor of mammals. GLO gene copies in the human and guinea pig lineages were inactivated by mutations.

Is that any better?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger�s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Erasmus, FCD

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Oct. 02 2007,09:48

OK so I will grant you legitimacy of your metaquestion, what does it matter if you don't beleeeeve in evolution, can you still do soil science or pest control management? Sure. Can you do biology? Maybe but I doubt it. I don't know any YEC biologists but I do know a fair number of theistic evolutionists.

YEC is a farily large obstacle to doing anything that even remotely refers to reality. With the exception of engineering, of course, but I think that is my point. Want to study geology? YEC is a shot in the big toe with a .50 caliber slug. Wish to study ecology? Fixity of species is voluntary castration. Taxonomy or systematics? Last I had heard Kurt Wise was getting nowhere with baraminology and my guess is he won't be anytime soon (hint: 'remotely refers to reality'). Wanna be a paleontologist? You'll never find the pre-flood sediments so that's a wash (hint: see above).

Casting your lot with a young earth and the rest of the hokum that goes along with it doesn't by default keep you from doing biology. I suppose you could study the mechanical aspects of animal locomotion, but you'd never understand your system with respect to other systems without the overwhelming realization that things are related by common descent. It will keep you from being able to deal with ideas that don't fit in your mythology, and tends to increase the likelihood of crankitude.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell.�Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Erasmus, FCD

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Oct. 02 2007,09:48

Oh I will take back soil science. I don't know a single YEC soil scientist. Duh Flud doesn't make sense when you look at dirt. Anywhere.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell.�Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

C Gieschen

Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Oct. 02 2007,09:48

To oldman...

I hope it's okay to shorten your screen name. I wish not to offend. I apologize for not asking before. The GLO question is not really a design question for me. This is the flaw I find with the IDers. The designer seems to be ineffiecient, cruel, etc. due to things like birth defects and other mutations.

The whole issue of mutations is due to the fact that we live in a fallen world which the Creator created fully good and functional.

So the issue of mutations does not explain the origin of mitosis. I've checked on the internet and have found no articles dealing with this. Any dources you have?

C Gieschen

Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Oct. 02 2007,09:51

blipey,

Since when is a lawn mower a process? I do not need to understand nor accept evolution to understand mitosis. I have not found internet articles that deal with the evo. explanation on the origin of mitosis.

Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

Posted: Oct. 02 2007,09:52

Christopher:

Since you are a proponent of front-loading, how does your stance that you have to know nothing of origins to understand current things even make sense? It would seem that front-loading would be the ultimate we-have-to-know-the-origins scenario.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Oct. 02 2007,09:54

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 02 2007,09:48)

To oldman...

I hope it's okay to shorten your screen name. I wish not to offend. I apologize for not asking before. The GLO question is not really a design question for me. This is the flaw I find with the IDers. The designer seems to be ineffiecient, cruel, etc. due to things like birth defects and other mutations.

The whole issue of mutations is due to the fact that we live in a fallen world which the Creator created fully good and functional.

So the issue of mutations does not explain the origin of mitosis. I've checked on the internet and have found no articles dealing with this. Any dources you have?

LOL, no problem at all :) Shorten away.

So your contention is that the GLO gene was active before "the fall"?

On what are you basing that exactly? I doubt the Bible makes mention of Vitamin C, so it's an inference right?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger�s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

Posted: Oct. 02 2007,09:54

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 02 2007,09:51)

blipey,

Since when is a lawn mower a process? I do not need to understand nor accept evolution to understand mitosis. I have not found internet articles that deal with the evo. explanation on the origin of mitosis.

The question was not "What is a lawn-mower"?

The question was "Without knowing anything about the origins of a lawnmower, how exactly would you reconstruct one?"

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

C Gieschen

Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Oct. 02 2007,10:09

blipey,

I will plea ignorance. What exactly is front-loading? I have never run across that concept. Thanks!

C Gieschen

Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Oct. 02 2007,10:13

To improvius

Here is the full quote : "Resolving many evolutionary, biostratigraphic, and paleoecogic questions requires detailed stratigraphic sampling and assumes that the stratigraphic oder of fossils bears some relationship to their chronological order."

Note the critical word assumes. By definition an assumption cannot be proven right or wrong, so how does one test it as we weren't there when they became fossils?

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Oct. 02 2007,10:17

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 02 2007,10:13)

To improvius

Here is the full quote : "Resolving many evolutionary, biostratigraphic, and paleoecogic questions requires detailed stratigraphic sampling and assumes that the stratigraphic oder of fossils bears some relationship to their chronological order."

Note the critical word assumes. By definition an assumption cannot be proven right or wrong, so how does one test it as we weren't there when they became fossils?

Likewise it's an assumption that before "the fall" Man had a "perfect" genome.

It's a further assumption that it's been degenerating since then.

You said

Quote

The whole issue of mutations is due to the fact that we live in a fallen world which the Creator created fully good and functional.

Which should have been written like so

The whole issue of mutations is (I assume) due to the fact that we live in a fallen world (I assume) which the Creator created fully good (I assume) and functional (I assume).

Don't accuse one side of making unwarranted assumptions when you have nothing but unwarranted assumptions to support your case.

Tell me where in the bible it talks about genetic degradation.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger�s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

improvius

Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 02 2007,10:36

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 02 2007,11:13)

To improvius

Here is the full quote : "Resolving many evolutionary, biostratigraphic, and paleoecogic questions requires detailed stratigraphic sampling and assumes that the stratigraphic oder of fossils bears some relationship to their chronological order."

Note the critical word assumes. By definition an assumption cannot be proven right or wrong, so how does one test it as we weren't there when they became fossils?

I notice that your original quote included the word "problems". I will "assume" that was an honest mistake, though I suspect others will be less charitable. And in any case, it is still difficult to discern Erwin's intent without having the rest of the context.

But as for your notion that this particular assumption is impossible to test? Ridiculous. Do you need someone to provide a list of various dating methods?

--------------

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.

JohnW

Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

Posted: Oct. 02 2007,11:33

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 02 2007,08:13)

To improvius

Here is the full quote : "Resolving many evolutionary, biostratigraphic, and paleoecogic questions requires detailed stratigraphic sampling and assumes that the stratigraphic oder of fossils bears some relationship to their chronological order."

Note the critical word assumes. �By definition an assumption cannot be proven right or wrong, so how does one test it as we weren't there when they became fossils?

An assumption cannot be proven right or wrong? Nonsense! We all do this all the time. This morning, I assumed there was milk in the fridge, I assumed my son's preschool would be open when I dropped him off, I assumed my bus would show up on time, I assumed John downstairs would know my coffee order without my having to say anything...

All assumptions, in the sense that I didn't carefully think through all the possibilities before making any decisions. All informed by prior evidence. All subject to revision in the light of new evidence.

Just like the fossil record. The ages of fossils and/or their surrounding rocks can be dated radiometrically, and hence we have a pretty good idea of the age of any rocks that we find containing, say, Triassic fossils. That means (our assumption) we don't have to date every single Triassic fossil we ever find. Just like I don't have to check the date on the milk every single morning.

But our assumption can easily be tested. We could date the rocks, but we could also falsify our assumption in other ways. For example, if we found Triassic rocks with Oligocene strata below them and Cretaceous strata above them, or typical Oligocene, Cretaceous and Triassic fossils in the same rock (as the global-flood hypothesis would predict), we'd have a serious problem.

So how do you explain the stratigraphic order of fossils?

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

Posted: Oct. 02 2007,11:47

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 02 2007,10:09)

blipey,

I will plea ignorance. What exactly is front-loading? I have never run across that concept. Thanks!

Okay, I'll assume that you are telling the truth; but I am tickled pink every time I read that.

Front-loading is the concept that God (or really smart aliens who are slightly off-beige) loaded all the information that could possibly be needed into the very first thing (being, human, amoeba, whatever). All of the information ever needed was loaded into this thing on the front end. It has been as ever spiraling degeneration since then.

Look here for the discussion at AtBC.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

C Gieschen

Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Oct. 02 2007,12:05

John W

Then why did he say assumes if we know what the dates are automatically? What is meant by assumes?

To oldman

Is it unwarrented when the text explicitly states that it was good?

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006