Richard Leakey says debate over evolution will end soon

[Jorge]

Several posters have already sought to correct you on this yet you choose to ignore them and continue. In this way you and Jorge are very similar.

To quote Per Ahlberg (closely associated with several recent discoveries concerning early tetrapods), "First understand, then criticize; not the other way round!" That applies to more than just some YECs criticizing science as it can be equally applied to some atheists criticizing Christianity.

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

Good freagin' grief !!!

Jorge

[wattsr1]

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

Will your nonsense never cease?

In certain areas I do indeed have a 'black/white' thinking style because
as a Christian this is mandated. I doubt very much that you know what I'm
talking about, especially given the compromising/capitulating attitude of all TEs.
Uhmmm ... you did notice that I highlighted the words "in certain areas", right?

Believe me, you have far, FAR more in common with Eugenie Scott than I
have now or will ever have with phank. But, as always, you may believe
whatever makes you happy.

Jorge

So speaking of mandated black and white styles - are you ever going to get around to actually explaining how it is that on your True.Origins article, all the evidence shows that the Barringer Crater is not of meteoric impact origin, whereas on TWeb, the evidence shows that it probably is of meteoric impact origin.

The black and white issue is you actually explaining this contradiction of yours, as opposed to you simply calling people names instead, when they ask for your explanation.

Relative to you Jorge, I'm sure I'm stupid. But when some one asks me to explain I do know what they mean, and can offer such.

You OTOH calling us stupid, or clueless, is not you explaining this argument you make. It's simply you telling us what you think of us.

But that's not you explaining how you use the evidence re the Barringer crater, on two different forums.

[Jorge]

So speaking of mandated black and white styles - are you ever going to get around to actually explaining how it is that on your True.Origins article, all the evidence shows that the Barringer Crater is not of meteoric impact origin, whereas on TWeb, the evidence shows that it probably is of meteoric impact origin.

The black and white issue is you actually explaining this contradiction of yours, as opposed to you simply calling people names instead, when they ask for your explanation.

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

The image I get of you is that you post one of your obnoxious posts,
then you disappear to wolf-down a quart of vodka
then you reappear to post more obnoxious posts.
Yeah, that's the image that I have. Am I warm?

Jorge

[wattsr1]

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

Good freagin' grief !!!

Jorge

But you don't understand how we see ToE Jorge. Nor can you some up with consistent philosophical arguments as to why our acceptance of it as science is incorrect. And as posters are trying to point out to phank, he does not understand how they see Christianity - which is different to how he sees it.

[wattsr1]

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

The image I get of you is that you post one of your obnoxious posts,
then you disappear to wolf-down a quart of vodka
then you reappear to post more obnoxious posts.
Yeah, that's the image that I have. Am I warm?

Jorge

Some of my posts are obnoxious, I'll agree. I also often enjoy a couple of glasses of wine, and I love a bit of Scotch, or Brandy, etc.

Nevertheless, I note:-

1) At your True.Origins post, you claim that the evidence shows that the Barringer Crater is not from a meteoritic impact.

2) At Theology Web, you claim that the evidence shows that the Barringer crater probably is from a meteorite impact.

Can you explain this contradiction of yours?

This has nothing to do with my posts being obnoxious, me being hooked on vodka, me being an atheist who enjoys eating a sauced baby at least once a day, whatever.

It's a simple question Jorge.

Can you explain the contradiction in your claim on two different sites, re the Barringer Crater?

[wattsr1]

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

The image I get of you is that you post one of your obnoxious posts,
then you disappear to wolf-down a quart of vodka
then you reappear to post more obnoxious posts.
Yeah, that's the image that I have. Am I warm?

Jorge

At this article:-

http://www.trueorigin.org/acbc_impact_craters.asp

- you argue that if things like Barringer are true impact then we would have every reason to think that the earth is ancient. Here you are:-

if this 'impact craters' evidence is exactly what people claim or believe it to be then it would indeed be fairly conclusive. To wit: it is claimed that there are over 170 confirmed impact sites on Earth. If true, these impacts would have been from objects that ranged in size from a few meters up to several kilometers in diameter, traveling at speeds of multiple-kilometers per second, unleashing from tens to millions of megatons of energy upon impact while producing craters up to several hundreds of kilometers across.

Such events would undoubtedly have been noticed, recorded and would have changed the world very significantly had they occurred anytime in the last six thousand years. There is no historical account (that I'm aware of) of such events. The closest candidate would be the Tunguska Event in Russia, June 1908. However, this event did not produce any crater.

Clearly, from the above, you cannot afford to let Barringer by of meteorite impact origin. The reason for this is that, if they are impacts then we actually have good evidence for an ancient earth.

So you look at all of the evidence for Barrigner, and other things like it, being of impact origin, and you dismiss all the evidence as necessarily or likely pointing to an impact.

In your conclusion you write:-

Upon close and careful examination I find that the 'impact craters' evidence is not compelling, and even less conclusive, than may appear at first sight.

[and]

In short, and with all things considered, the impact craters argument for an old Earth does not compel, not by any reasonably-critical standard.

[and]

Here the person has to ask whether abandoning the plain reading of Scripture is warranted by 'evidence' that is ambiguous, flimsy and inconclusive. The answer to that question should be abundantly obvious.

Given that you cannot afford for big meteorite impacts, otherwise, as you write at the start, it would be compelling evidence for an old earth, then the answer is indeed obvious, isn't it Jorge? Your argument is that the evidence is not that those craters are of impact origin, otherwise, even you would have to admit to there being good evidence for an ancient earth.

Go back and look at what you wrote at the beginning.

So, at True.Origins, you do say, without saying it, that the evidence for impact origin is not there. Here at TWeb you say that it is.

Can you explain this contradiction?

Or, when you wrote this:-

"The answer to that question should be abundantly obvious. "

- did you actually mean that:-

"The answer to that question should be abundantly obvious. [Some of those humungous craters might not be of impact origin, but others like Barringer probably are, and so, going by my argument at the start, we really do have evidence for an ancient earth]"


If there are always these other interpretations, am I to conclude then, that whenever you tell me how stupid I am, that you are really trying to tell me how stupid you are?

[phank]

Virgin births are possible. If whiptailed lizards can do it, and it happens occasionally among sharks, why should it be impossible in humans?

Roy

Uh, because human biology doesn't work that way? In fact, there are a great many organisms that reproduce sexually but ALSO reproduce asexually, producing genetic clones. So I guess I should have specfied humans, but this should be clear from the context.

(And some common aquarium fish like swordtails commonly change sex as adults, depending on whether the needed sex is available. Biology can be very messy.)

[rogue06]

Uh, because human biology doesn't work that way?

I think Roy had his tongue firmly wedged into his cheek

[phank]

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

Will your nonsense never cease?

In certain areas I do indeed have a 'black/white' thinking style because
as a Christian this is mandated. I doubt very much that you know what I'm
talking about, especially given the compromising/capitulating attitude of all TEs.
Uhmmm ... you did notice that I highlighted the words "in certain areas", right?

Believe me, you have far, FAR more in common with Eugenie Scott than I
have now or will ever have with phank. But, as always, you may believe
whatever makes you happy.

Jorge

Come now, Jorge, you and I have some things in common in a very general sense. I regard reality (as currently understood) as the final arbiter, and you regard the Word of God (your interpretation) as the final arbiter. Both of us are uncomfortable with those who CLAIM to use reality (in my case) or scripture (in your case) to determine what's correct, but who in fact "mix and match" according to shifting patterns of preference. Your god is said to have claimed all sorts of things, and if your god is who you think he is, then either ALL of those things MUST be correct, or it's all just someone's opinion. How is a mere mortal supposed to honestly decide, well, HERE god was speaking ex cathedra and infallible, but over HERE god was, uh, just kidding, or later changed his mind?

What both of us see here is a bunch of cafeteria believers, picking some stuff to believe, but discarding others as, well, not picked (I can't say not plausible, since NONE of it is plausible.) So we see this the same way - in the case of Jesus, either biology is a bunch of nonsense (your belief), or else it isn't and the Jesus fable IS (my belief). But biology can't be "real" except where being real is inconvenient, and then it becomes magical (or miraculous, or whatever the right verbiage might be).

Then again, maybe the kernel of most people's faith, the very key to their beliefs, is that when conclusions are forgone, no rationalization no matter how farfetched can be dismissed, but rather it becomes a "finer point of theology", used to keep the Great Unwashed from getting uppity and asking questions better left alone.

[phank]

I think Roy had his tongue firmly wedged into his cheek

He raised an idea not unheard of in the real world, which is something YOU have yet to do. But we're waiting, just like we wait for Jorge when he gets questions he doesn't wish to answer.

Actually, cloning probably IS possible, and perhaps advanced techniques could produce a male clone from a female, with some really deep genetic tinkering. And perhaps advanced technology could have been applied by aliens, even if not as wild an alien as the Christian god. This is at least an idea with SOME basis in reality. Surely you can do better, since you know this stuff so much better.

[DuraGizer]

And the abrasiveness of phank increases tenfold ...

[phank]

And the abrasiveness of phank increases tenfold ...

While the substantive responses to phank increase zerofold.

But if asking questions Believers don't wish to think about is "abrasive", I can live with that. I know I'm true to myself, and I know who can't say the same.

[pancreasman]

While the substantive responses to phank increase zerofold.

But if asking questions Believers don't wish to think about is "abrasive", I can live with that. I know I'm true to myself, and I know who can't say the same.

I have no dog in this fight, but I can say you DO have a very unsophisticated view of Christianity in particular. You have now impugned the integrity of others whose only 'sin' is to think differently to you. Does that kind of thing sound familiar?

[phank]

I have no dog in this fight, but I can say you DO have a very unsophisticated view of Christianity in particular. You have now impugned the integrity of others whose only 'sin' is to think differently to you. Does that kind of thing sound familiar?

I encourage you to bring your dog to this fight, because I think it would be very helpful.

I have admitted I wasn't raised in the Christian tradition, so I come at it from the view of a complete oursider. I'm sure my view is unsophisticated, but in terms of how the objective universe works, I will protest that I have studied hard in many fields over many decades, I know how the theories fit together, I know the evidence on which they're based. No, I'm not an authority on all of them (nor is anyone else), but I know enough to recognize that the Christian tales are flat imaginary. There really isn't any question about this.

So I've been asking, perhaps not as poliitely as I should, how the fertilization producing Jesus physically happened. WHAT is the mechanism? You and others have been telling me that asking this simple question of human biology is "unsophisticated" and "ignorant", but I have yet to receive any explanation of the mechanism. And with no mechanism, let's be honest, all we have is unfounded assertion. And as I see it, assertion refuted by every basic observation ever verified holds very little of value.

I'm not expecting everyone to think the same way I do. I am expecting them to support their thoughts with, you know, at least a gesture in the direction of scientific observation and understanding. Perhaps I'm expecting too much? What do you think?

[pancreasman]

I encourage you to bring your dog to this fight, because I think it would be very helpful.

I have admitted I wasn't raised in the Christian tradition, so I come at it from the view of a complete oursider. I'm sure my view is unsophisticated, but in terms of how the objective universe works, I will protest that I have studied hard in many fields over many decades, I know how the theories fit together, I know the evidence on which they're based. No, I'm not an authority on all of them (nor is anyone else), but I know enough to recognize that the Christian tales are flat imaginary. There really isn't any question about this.

So I've been asking, perhaps not as poliitely as I should, how the fertilization producing Jesus physically happened. WHAT is the mechanism? You and others have been telling me that asking this simple question of human biology is "unsophisticated" and "ignorant", but I have yet to receive any explanation of the mechanism. And with no mechanism, let's be honest, all we have is unfounded assertion. And as I see it, assertion refuted by every basic observation ever verified holds very little of value.

I'm not expecting everyone to think the same way I do. I am expecting them to support their thoughts with, you know, at least a gesture in the direction of scientific observation and understanding. Perhaps I'm expecting too much? What do you think?

The short answer, from most Christians I would think, is that nobody knows what precise physical mechanism produced the embryo that grew into Jesus. Of course, for purposes of what Christianity is about no one much cares either. The whole idea is that it is a unique event. A miracle. Even in your philosophy rare unique miraculous events cannot be ruled out. Although others here might disagree, I don't think the virgin birth is particularly important to Christianity. In fact, I know and have read quite a few Christians who do not believe in it.

I think it is perfectly legitimate to say 'I hold the account of the Scriptures in high regard. Although the virgin birth is unlikely as a natural event, I believe it happened as a miraculous event. I do not claim to know the physical mechanism that was associated with this event.' The only 'attack' on this position I can see to insist human virgin birth is naturally impossible which implies you weren't paying attention to their answer, or to go further than science would allow us and insist virgin birth is impossible under any and all circumstances. A better (but longer course) might be to question the foundation of an inerrant scripture. But who cares? There are more important issues that I might dispute with Christians over.

By the way, I don't believe in the virgin birth.