Young earth evolutionism

[wienerdog]

This may be provocative, but I’d like to keep it civil, if we could. I know some Christians think the age of the earth is important, and I would ask them to try to not be offended by this. Except Socrates. I bequeath unto him the right to give me a sound thrashing.

This is a problem that has been bothering me for awhile about young earth creationism (I’m an old earther). In two scenarios, it seems to me that young earth creationists embrace Darwinian evolution.

First, it is claimed that the fall of humankind not only initiated human death but animal death as well. This, it is argued, is the source of carnivorous activity. So the carnivores evolved from the animals that God actually created.

Second, the number of animals Noah took on board the ark was much smaller than the number of different species currently alive which would have been killed by such a flood. Thus, the current abundance of species evolved from the animal types Noah took on board.

My objection to this is not biblical, but scientific. When I first began critically examining the evidence against evolution, one of the major points for me was the genetic discontinuity between types; that they show no evidence of having evolved from a common ancestor, but seem to be genetically "self-contained." However, the evidence I encountered said that this discontinuity extends to the level of specie—that is, to a level which would preclude the two scenarios above. One of the primary scientific reasons why I rejected young earth creationism then, was the evidence against evolution. The evidence that convinced me of creation, convinced me that the two scenarios above were scientifically invalid.

As an old earth creationist, I simply reject that nature has the evolutionary power claimed by Darwinists and young earth creationists.

I know that some young earth creationists take offense at Hugh Ross and Reasons to Believe, but I’ve seen them accused of essentially compromising with evolution, when they reject it more strenuously than young earth ministries do. The following is from a radio program available at RTB’s webiste (www.reasons.org).

[Interviewer]: Give me a textbook definition. I mean, you used to be an evolutionist, what do evolutionists say evolution is, and how does that compare with what Answers in Genesis says?

[Rana]: The comparison is identical. There are no differences. Evolutionists look at evolution as descent with modification where you have a population that is broken into sub-populations, they’re physically separated from one another, and through natural selection (or differential survival in the face of different pressures) and through mutations they evolve into independent species and later into different genera and then families.

[Ross]: They really are allying themselves with non-theistic evolutionists against our position on how life got here on planet earth. It’s amazing to me that they’re lining up with the same definitions, same arguments, same so-called evidences, to try to say that God didn’t do this.

[Interviewer]: So, if I hear both of you correctly, what you’re saying is this idea of sorting out genetic diversity versus what they’re saying the biological evolutionist’s position is—new information being added over time—you’re saying this is a distinction without a difference.

[Rana]: That’s right, there’s no difference. And we need to point out that our position is that God created polar bears: that polar bears are perfectly designed for their environment; that they were a direct creation of God. And that according to the young earth model and the evolutionary model, God never intended that there ever would be polar bears; they just happened by chance processes.

(This last part was in response to a young earth article about how polar bears evolved from an original bear "kind")

[QED]

wienerdog,

I am going to ignore arkloads of evidence and facts (and no small amount of logic), and I am going to adopt the YEC position for this thread.

God foresaw that bears would one day inhabit polar regions, and included in the genome of Noah's bear pair enough genetic information to include the later specializations of the polar bear. No new information was gained in the history of selection and mutation that led from the generic bears of Noah's age to the polar bears of today. Instead, information was lost: information that served to conceal those polar traits.

Ouch. That hurt. Last time I try to adopt a position that denies evolution whatsoever. Unless I change my mind after I hibernate.

[Gracchus]

The only real reason creationists deny evolution is that it destroys the argument from design, the last tenable "proof" of the existence of God. :eek: Do you suppose the creationists will ever learn to take God on faith? :rofl:

[Sher]

03-11-2003 @ 08:44 PM
wienerdog: First, it is claimed that the fall of humankind not only initiated human death but animal death as well. This, it is argued, is the source of carnivorous activity. So the carnivores evolved from the animals that God actually created.Yes and no. There is proof of changes (adaptations) within kinds, but this isn't evolution in the sense that evolutionists believe happens (the sidewalk of micro- to macro-) ... no matter how they play with the definitions. :juggle:

There is scriptural proof that animals were made to be herbivorous before the fall, and there appears to be a change afterward:

Gen 1:29-30 And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food"; and it was so.

Gen 3:17-19 Then to Adam He said, "Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat of it': "Cursed is the ground for your sake; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, and you shall eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for dust you are, and to dust you shall return."

While the second doesn't make a specific change to carnivorous behavior, it does show that there is a change in how the earth would affect a strictly herbivorous diet. The instructions for the eating of clean and unclean animals came later. Perhaps this change in diet was necessitated by decreased availablity of greens.Second, the number of animals Noah took on board the ark was much smaller than the number of different species currently alive which would have been killed by such a flood. Thus, the current abundance of species evolved from the animal types Noah took on board.Wasn't there a study (or several studies?) done that showed how this could have come about? Is your scientific objection to adaptation and breeding? Breeding that can produce, say, a Cock-a-poo from a Poodle and a Cocker Spaniel, or even your garden variety Heinz 57 mutt? These adaptations within kind and breeding differences can be observed today, but it still doesn't equal evolution in the "macroevolution" sense. More on Noah's ark point later.One of the primary scientific reasons why I rejected young earth creationism then, was the evidence against evolution. The evidence that convinced me of creation, convinced me that the two scenarios above were scientifically invalid.I can see why you would reject it ... based on misinformation as shown below:[Rana]: That’s right, there’s no difference. :hrm: New information? :doh: :argh: And we need to point out that our position is that God created polar bears: that polar bears are perfectly designed for their environment; that they were a direct creation of God. If God created every creature present yesterday and today, we have a bigger problem with reconciliation to Noah's ark than people try to make out of it now!And that according to the young earth model and the evolutionary model, God never intended that there ever would be polar bears; they just happened by chance processes.I personally have NEVER heard any YEC say anything close to "God never intended that there ..." The stance on that type of issue is basically what QED outlined above. That is changes within kind to adapt, because of breeding, etc.

Another example of this is blood types. Mom and Dad donate one of their two ABO alleles to their child and there exists certain possiblities of the blood type of the child. It isn't a case of added information, but a combination of the information portions received from the parents.03-11-2003 @ 08:59 PM
QED: Ouch. That hurt. Here's a band*aid, QED :rockon:

(boo-hiss :dufus: )

[Sher]

03-11-2003 @ 08:44 PM
wienerdog:

The following is from a radio program available at RTB’s webiste (www.reasons.org).PS. Where is this interview listed? Do you know when it took place?

The reason I ask is that in 1998, this was a point addressed in Creation Ex Nihilo as shown on AnswersInGensis.org here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4048.asp

"Creationists, however, while accepting that all of today’s bears probably descended from a single bear kind, do not believe that the information in the ‘recipes’ for all these design features arose by chance. No-one has ever observed any biological process adding information!

A better explanation is that virtually all the necessary information was already there in the genetic makeup of the first bears, a population created by God with vast genetic potential for variation.

This doesn’t mean that all of the features of today’s bears would have been on obvious display back then. A simple example would be the way in which mongrel dogs obviously had the potential to develop all the different breeds we see today. Thus, there was no actual poodle to be seen among mongrel dogs hundreds of years ago, but by looking closely at many of them, one would have seen at least some of the individual features found in today’s poodles popping up here and there.

Similarly, it is unlikely that there were polar bears before the Flood — however, since much of the information for their specialized features was already there, some of these features, in lesser form, would have also been apparent in a few individuals from time to time.

It takes selection (natural or artificial) to concentrate and enhance these features — however, this does not create anything really new, no new design information. If there were no genetic potential in the bear family to grow really thick fur, then no bears would ever have inhabited the Arctic."

You really should read this article. There is more information there regarding this topic than what I posted.

The mongrel dog analogy here is similar to the breeding one I gave above, with another valid point. Breeders often take dogs with less desirable traits and breed them to "pure breeds" to filter out those traits over successive generations ... loss of information that produces a different dog. Most AKC approved breeds are a result of that careful breeding ... even the weinerdog: http://www.petcrest.com/dachshi.html :cool:

[Gracchus]

Selection pressure, can indeed, cut down on the variability of genotypes in a population. Time and mutation can add variability. Or are you trying to say that left to themselves, Chihuahuas will start breeding with Great Danes? After all, they are both the dog "kind"? :ahem:

[Sher]

03-11-2003 @ 10:43 PM
Gracchus:

Selection pressure, can indeed, cut down on the variability of genotypes in a population. Time and mutation can add variability. Or are you trying to say that left to themselves, Chihuahuas will start breeding with Great Danes? After all, they are both the dog "kind"?Man, through selective breeding, developed both Chihuahuas and Great Danes. Left to their own devices in the wild, I doubt that either breed would survive long enough to worry about needing to breed with each other. ... And why a Great Dane would want to mate with such an ugly little dog is beyond me, anyway. :eww:

P.S. Since when is a lack of ability to procreate without assistance something that negates being the same kind? Two couples that we are friends with had to adopt for this very reason. Aren't they the same kind? :duh:

[Gracchus]

03-12-2003 @ 03:44 PM
SherBear:

Man, through selective breeding, developed both Chihuahuas and Great Danes. Left to their own devices in the wild, I doubt that either breed would survive long enough to worry about needing to breed with each other. ... And why a Great Dane would want to mate with such an ugly little dog is beyond me, anyway. :eww:

I have had friends of both breeds. If they were unknown except for fossils, they would undoubtedly be placed in separate species. Either or both might survive in the wild, but, and I think you will agree, it would be extremely unlikely that they would breed with each other.
They would be reproductively isolated although not geographically isolated. That is one criterion of a species.

P.S. Since when is a lack of ability to procreate without assistance something that negates being the same kind? Two couples that we are friends with had to adopt for this very reason. Aren't they the same kind? :duh:

The term "kind" is very imprecise. Biologists use the nested Linnaean hierarchy to classify organisms. Even so, they can have quite lovely debates about what goes where. This is because the real world is not considerate enough to arrange itself neatly in distinct taxa, based on morphology. Cladists propose that the arrangement should be based on ancestry (as determined by DNA) instead of morphology, though these methods do agree quite well.

But there is a species of barnacle for instance, that lives as an obligate parasite in a crab. It resembles nothing so much on gross examination as an amorphous group of cells. It is nevertheless a barnacle. (Did you know that Darwin wrote 17 volumes on barnacles, which are still useful today?)

In any case, it is descent from common ancestry that determines at least one basis of classification.

Non-breeding populations can contribute to the effective fitness of breeding populations. (e.g. worker ants and bees and humans who adopt.)

The distinction between human selective breeding and natural selection is operationally insignificant. Either way, some traits are selected out, resulting in change in the allele frequency in the breeding population. The result is evolution.

[QED]

I will post twice, to keep separate thoughts, well... separate.

No new information:
Whether we are talking polar bears or poodles, the SC contention is that there is no new information in a descendant population. Sherber suggests that we coud find each individual trait that now define "poodle" in the original "dog" kind. This is really a very bold contention. It can be restated that any modern dog could have been bred from the original "dog" population with the benefit only of mutations that "remove information".

An illustration of this hypothesis:
http://soulcare.org/images/Poodle-Kind.jpg

Consider Dingoes. They only breed once per year. Is this more information, or less information than the more frequent breeding cycle of other dogs?

Black-backed Jackals scavenge for food, often following lions and tigers to scavenge their kills. This behavior seems to be fairly unique. Other dogs tend to shy away from predators. Which version is more information?

Most dogs have "dew-claws". Some lack them. The lack would ordinarily be considered "less information," right? But due clause are a hindrance, so perhaps their formation is "less information"?

Untrained dogs respond to human stimuli better than untrained wolves. Which is more information?

Bassett hounds have ears down to their feet. How long would we have to look in the initial dog population for a dog with ears that hung down to its feet?

These are all common sense questions we should ask ourselves before accepting the hypothesis that the original dog kind contained enough information that mere recombination and reduction could produce all known dog breeds.

Is that hypthosesis testable? I think it is. I'm going on a hunt.

[QED]

What are kinds, and how do they relate to reproductive isolation?

Creationists will usually only define kinds as organisms which share a common ancestor. They insist that reproductive isolation does not necessarily distinguish kinds, but that that each kind must be reproductively isolated from each other kind.

What we have is a descriptive, not diagnostic, definition of kinds.
What we need is a diagnostic definition of kinds. Until we have it, we will have evolutionists trying to use a purely descriptive definition for the purpose of diagnosing kinds (as Gracchus has done in his last post). The idea that the central term of an hypothesis is not well enough defined to be used as a criterion for testing (with potential falsification) that hypothesis is completely foreign to most of those with a scientific bent.

The creationist notion of kinds will never be defined in a way suitable for diagnostic use. The idea of making a creationist hypothesis testable (with potential falsification) is completely foreign to many creationists.

Would someone who is willing to stick their neck out define "kind" in a way that separate created kinds is an hypothesis that can be tested, and potentially falsified?

[Gracchus]

QED: I seem to remember from my genetics class, that the allele for hairless, in the Mexican Hairless breed is lethal if both alleles are present, while if only one allele is present the dog is hairless. This is a point mutation, and a change, if not strictly, an increase in information. Breeders usually select for a whole suite of alleles, which increases the information content of the genome by reducing variability. This can happen in nature, by near extinction events. Cheetahs, for instance, have almost no genetic variability at all. Still, given time, such a condition will be ameliorated by new point mutations, reduplications, inversions and cross-overs. Thus, a new range of variability will be produced, allowing for further speciation, by selection. Strangely enough, in a technical sense, the increase in variability is a decrease in information.
A geographically isolated small breeding population can speciate rapidly by genetic drift, like Darwin's finches. It is easier to shift the allele frequency of a small gene pool than a large one. This is called the "founder effect" and is an instance of "allopatric" speciation. In "sympatric" speciation, the two gene pools share the same geographical are but are nevertheless reproductively isolated.

I got a little off topic, but let it stand.

[Stratnerd]

is a point mutation, and a change, if not strictly, an increase in information. Breeders usually select for a whole suite of alleles, which increases the information content of the genome by reducing variability. If think IDist would measure the individual information content not necessarily the content of the population so the amount of genetic variation among individuals doesn't play into their calculations. Hard to say though, I can't seem to get any conversations going on information.

[QED]

QED: I seem to remember from my genetics class, that the allele for hairless, in the Mexican Hairless breed is lethal if both alleles are present, while if only one allele is present the dog is hairless.

<YEC> Therefore it is obvious that the hairless allele represents a loss of information </YEC>

[Gracchus]

03-13-2003 @ 02:50 AM
QED:



&lt;YEC&gt; Therefore it is obvious that the hairless allele represents a loss of information &lt;/YEC&gt;

Actually, the hairless gene, as I understand it, is neither a loss nor a gain of information.

It goes something like this:

Suppose I say, either statement A is true, or statement B is true, or statement C is true. My assertion allows three possibilities. It has two degrees of freedom. Now I say, either A is true, or B is true. There are now only two possibilities or one degree of freedom. In the technical sense of information theory, as it was explained to be by someone who could be expected to know, the second statement, because it is more constrained has more information than the first statement. It's kind of counter-intuitive, I know. But "information" in formal information theory means one thing and no other. Just as the term "theory" in science means in a technical sense, something more closely defined than it means in everyday discourse. It is more closely constrained in definition, and so contains more information. Now if I said, "information in the technical sense.", this carries no more meaning than "information" if you already understand that I mean information in the technical sense.
You can find out more by doing a search on the web. If you find, I am mistaken, please get back to me.

[QED]

Oh, no Gracchus, I quite understand and agree. You notice that I put <YEC> tags around my contentious remark. However, there is more than one "technical" definition of information, and few care when they have "common sense" definitions of information that serve their purposes. In their defense, they are really talking about the information in the allele, not in the population. And though it is difficult to quantify, the information in the hairless allele, most likely representing interruption in the expression of other genes that would initiate an important developmental sequence in dermal tissue, might actually contain less information than the more common alleles that code that development uninterrupted.

Where it concerns the evolution of novel structures, it is important that we address this development and allelle-specific information - even if we must begin by demanding that it be adequately defined. The hairless gene introduces information to a population, but reduces information in a developmental program.

[TheFiveSolas]

Gracchus wrote:

The only real reason creationists deny evolution is that it destroys the argument from design, the last tenable "proof" of the existence of God.


Actually I have a number of reasons for denying evolution.

One of which is that IF evolution were true then our thinking would not be controlled by us. Rather, it would be the fixed (in the sense of being COMPLETELY GOVERNED by the laws of chemistry and physics) interaction of our brain molecules with external stimuli (i.e., other molecules). In other words, no one would be able to choose how they thought or acted. Neither molecules nor atoms, no matter HOW you arrange them, are able to choose for themselves how they will react. ALL physical matter (in its various forms including energy) acts the way it does due to its inherent physical properties of size, shape, mass, electron charge, etc. There exists, in an evolutionary worldview, NOTHING more that is involved in explaining WHY atoms/molecules act the way they do.

Therefore, if I want to be rational in my assertion that we have freedom of choice/will (and also the existence of logic and reason) I must first deny the fundamental philosophical assumption of evolution, namely, strict materialism.

[Socrates]

Wienerdog:
This may be provocative, but I’d like to keep it civil, if we could. I know some Christians think the age of the earth is important, and I would ask them to try to not be offended by this. Except Socrates. I bequeath unto him the right to give me a sound thrashing.Yes, but SherBear has already done so. All you've done is parroted the deceitful arguments by Ross's crowd and ignored the responses by YECs. It's a pity to see this, since I thought better of you.This is a problem that has been bothering me for awhile about young earth creationism (I’m an old earther). In two scenarios, it seems to me that young earth creationists embrace Darwinian evolution. That's a typical Rossite smear. He's just as bad as the evolutionists, resorting to deceitful equivocation about the meaning of "evolution" -- see "Definitions as slippery as eels" http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp#Definitions. It's a shame to see Wienerdog perpetuating this false witness.First, it is claimed that the fall of humankind not only initiated human death but animal death as well. This, it is argued, is the source of carnivorous activity. So the carnivores evolved from the animals that God actually created.No, they CHANGED. Not all change is evolution, despite what misotheists and Rossites claim. See "Did God create carnivory?" http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0927ep4.asp#carnivory. The Bible is clear that both humans and animals were created vegetarian (Gen. 1:29-30).Second, the number of animals Noah took on board the ark was much smaller than the number of different species currently alive which would have been killed by such a flood. Thus, the current abundance of species evolved from the animal types Noah took on board.Once again, it's a shame if WD believes in fixity of species like Ross does, and just believes that everything currently CLASSIFIED as a species really is a separate biological species let alone a different KIND. Have you read about ligers and wholphins http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n3_liger.asp, or AiG's article about Noah's Ark's cargo http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Magazines/docs/cen_v19n2_animals_ark.asp ?

There is absolutely nothing in the creation model that forbids separation of the kinds into separate varieties by SORTING or LOSS of ALREADY-EXISTING genetic information. Evolution requires NEW information!

Also, Ross, like most of the anticreationists he parrots, attacks YEC by overloading the Ark with millions of species, although Noah had to take only land vertebrates. Ross claims that the fossil record demonstrates that half-billion to a billion species once existed and would have to fill the Ark under YEC. But there are only about 250,000 fossil species ACTUALLY catalogued, and of them, only about 10,000 are vetebrates. Why trust such an unreliable source??

Reasons to Believe also once sold a tape where Ross claimed six times that the word "high" was absent from the Hebrew of Gen. 7:19, so we should all cross it out from our English Bibles. Complete bunk, as is most of his stuff. [Hugh Ross, The Flood, Reasons to Believe tape A8712, Part 1, 1990 (transcript available from James Stambaugh, ICR.)] He withdrew this eventually when a creationist exposed his error. See http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-043a.htm In fact, he doesn't even know the Hebrew words for "yes" and "no", but he spruiks forth the most egregious nonsense about Hebrew as if he were an authority.

Then Wienerdog cites a transcript from RTB, but IGNORES the response by AiG at http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/ross_hovind_analysis.asp which has a section directly addressing the misinformation by Ross and Rana
(This last part was in response to a young earth article about how polar bears evolved from an original bear "kind").And as shown in the response and the original article, they ARE the same kind because they can hybridize. And the polar bear is the result of information-LOSING mutations:
Loss of skin pigmentation, enabling camouflage as they snuck up on prey. In a post-Fall world, this would have been a great selective advantage. And once again, natural selection is NOT evolution!
Loss of information in the process that normally divides digits, so the division was incomplete, so webbing formed. See how mammalian digits are normally formed, and how this is the opposite way from frog digits -- another huge problem for goo-to-you evolution http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0822_ostrich_dino.aspYou were right not to debate the days of creation with me -- since you obviously rely heavily on the demonstrably incompetent Hebrew ignoramus Hugh Ross, you would have been crushed. But I'd rather not do this to you, since you have been deceived by Ross, and the fault is with the deceiver.

[Stratnerd]

And as shown in the response and the original article, they ARE the same kind because they can hybridize. And the polar bear is the result of information-LOSING mutations

But their skin is pigmented unlike other bears. So did they lose some information but gain it somewhere else? Also the hairs are tubular unlike most bears, eh? Was this a gain or a loss of info?

Evolution requires NEW information and this can't happen because......???????

[Socrates]

Socrates:
And as shown in the response and the original article, they ARE the same kind because they can hybridize. And the polar bear is the result of information-LOSING mutations.
But their skin is pigmented unlike other bears. So did they lose some information but gain it somewhere else?White is absence of pigmentation! That's why albinos are so pale.
Also the hairs are tubular unlike most bears, eh? Was this a gain or a loss of info?That's an urban myth actually -- see Daniel W. Koon, ‘Power of the polar myth’ New Scientist, April 25, 1998, p. 50.Evolution requires NEW information
and this can't happen because......???????I've shown this amply elsewhere. On this thread I am content simply to show that there is a difference in KIND in the change a YEC believes in and what goo-to-you evolution requires.

[Stratnerd]

White is absence of pigmentation! That's why albinos are so pale. The fur is white but the skin is black. So, again, is that a gain of information?

That's an urban myth actually -- see Daniel W. Koon, ‘Power of the polar myth’ New Scientist, April 25, 1998, p. the urban myth is that the hairs facilitate light and UV to the skin... not that the hairs are tubular. If this feature was gained by polar bears would it be a gain in information?

http://www.polarbearsalive.org/facts3.php#anchor768453

I've shown this amply elsewhere. sorry, haven't seen it... could you point to it? I've seen your posts where you suggest that studies that have purported to really have not shown a gain in information but I have yet to see a proper explanation of why a gain of information is impossible.

[Gracchus]

03-13-2003 @ 03:44 AM
TheFiveSolas:

Gracchus wrote:


Actually I have a number of reasons for denying evolution.

One of which is that IF evolution were true then our thinking would not be controlled by us. Rather, it would be the fixed (in the sense of being COMPLETELY GOVERNED by the laws of chemistry and physics) interaction of our brain molecules with external stimuli (i.e., other molecules). In other words, no one would be able to choose how they thought or acted. Neither molecules nor atoms, no matter HOW you arrange them, are able to choose for themselves how they will react. ALL physical matter (in its various forms including energy) acts the way it does due to its inherent physical properties of size, shape, mass, electron charge, etc. There exists, in an evolutionary worldview, NOTHING more that is involved in explaining WHY atoms/molecules act the way they do.

Therefore, if I want to be rational in my assertion that we have freedom of choice/will (and also the existence of logic and reason) I must first deny the fundamental philosophical assumption of evolution, namely, strict materialism.

I cannot prove that I have free will. I have argued in the past that such a thing does not, can not exist. Then again I could be a Turing program, mimicking human response, or a mindless zombie merely responding to stimuli like Pavlov's dogs. In fact I am not. There is something about me that still eludes my understanding. See my journal page, or start a thread.

[Socrates]

White is absence of pigmentation! That's why albinos are so pale.
The fur is white but the skin is black. So, again, is that a gain of information?
First, is this true? In any case, there is nothing more remarkable than the fact that Africans have black skin too. It's just the same pigment, and most likely just the result of natural variation.

That's an urban myth actually -- see Daniel W. Koon, ‘Power of the polar myth’ New Scientist, April 25, 1998the urban myth is that the hairs facilitate light and UV to the skin... not that the hairs are tubular. True enough. If this feature was gained by polar bears would it be a gain in information? I need more information to make a judgment. If hairs are anything like feathers, then they actually result from helical growth, so the hollowness of hairs could be the result of loss of information, like their webbed feet.

[Socratism]

One of the problems in these discussions is that the conversation moves too rapidly into side issues and/or minor points and never sticks to one subject long enough to establish the truth of major points such as :

Loss of information - Can this lead to variation and if so could this be confused with "evolution".?

Species - If a new "species" occurs is this "evolution" or merely variation?

Evolution - which of the many definitions do we mean when we use this word?

Mutation and information - Theoretically a mutation could add a tiny bit of information, but the odds of this happening are quite small (to say the least!!!). Can one really believe that such an unlikely chance event has the power to do what is claimed regardless of how much time would be available?

Any one of these issues would take a volume to understand adequately, but in this thread they are batted around back and forth so rapidly that all that is happeneing is that each side is expressing their preconceived beliefs.

[Stratnerd]

I need more information to make a judgment.

OF COURSE!!!! But the production of white fur is the loss of information? How do you know it isn't that the white fur is turned off by regulatory genes and not just a dysfunctional gene? Wouldn't the first case be an increase in information if it didn't exist before?

First, is this true? uhhh.... look it up it only takes a few seconds.
In any case, there is nothing more remarkable than the fact that Africans have black skin too. so you're saying that variation in a population can't be created by adding information?

Again, what precludes increasing information? If you've already posted it then just direct me to that post.

[Stratnerd]

Theoretically a mutation could add a tiny bit of information, but the odds of this happening are quite small (to say the least!!!). what are the Pr's?

[Socratism]

03-13-2003 @ 09:21 AM
Stratnerd:

what are the Pr's?

One can only estimate, but new research would appear to make the probability even less than was thought previously.

http://www.criticalgenetics.org/paradigm_shift.htm

http://www.criticalgenetics.org/Synopsis.htm

[Stratnerd]

One can only estimate, I know... that's why they call it probabilities.
but new research would appear to make the probability even less than was thought previously.
http://www.criticalgenetics.org/paradigm_shift.htm I'd seen some other creationist-types post this kind of stuff as if the complexity of genetic systems and their interaction with non-DNA material was news. But you can't garner anything from the article because it doesn't say anything specific. How does the article point out that the probability of increasing information is less than what was thought previously?

[Socratism]

03-13-2003 @ 09:37 AM
Stratnerd:
I'd seen some other creationist-types post this kind of stuff as if the complexity of genetic systems and their interaction with non-DNA material was news. But you can't garner anything from the article because it doesn't say anything specific. How does the article point out that the probability of increasing information is less than what was thought previously?

The article points out that the central dogma of genetics is faulty and hence there are other factors complicating the situation beyond random mutation of DNA.

Thus, a reasonable person might conclude that a strictly random process leading to not only DNA changes but to these other factors would reduce the overall probability of random change to generate creative novelty.

Of course I would not expect a person wedded to the random mutation paradigm to see it that way, since "given enough time anything can happen" is a powerful emotional appeal.

[Stratnerd]

Thus, a reasonable person might conclude that a strictly random process leading to not only DNA changes but to these other factors would reduce the overall probability of random change to generate creative novelty. how do you know those other factors might increase the Pr of generating novelty? What effects do they have on the generation of the phenotype. I reserve judgement but I'd like to hear why you think it reduces it.

Of course I would not expect a person wedded to what is it with creationists with unknown mental powers peering into the minds of other folks? Such presumptuous arrogance!

[Socratism]

03-13-2003 @ 10:12 AM
Stratnerd:

how do you know those other factors might increase the Pr of generating novelty? What effects do they have on the generation of the phenotype. I reserve judgement but I'd like to hear why you think it reduces it.

what is it with creationists with unknown mental powers peering into the minds of other folks? Such presumptuous arrogance!

Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black to me.

You're not getting emotional about this subject are you?

Not very scientific I would judge.

[Stratnerd]

Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black to me.

Have I made ANY claims as to what you believe or any statement about your faith.

You're not getting emotional about this subject are you? Not very scientific I would judge. only on matters that aren't scientific like when I get called "boy" or someone makes a presumption about what I'm thinking.

[Socrates]

Soc:
I need more information to make a judgment. OF COURSE!!!! But the production of white fur is the loss of information? How do you know it isn't that the white fur is turned off by regulatory genes and not just a dysfunctional gene? Maybe it is. But here again there is no NEW information, but information being switched off. Creationists are well aware that regulatory genes have a role in switching information on or or, but again this doesn't generate the information that is switched on or off.
Wouldn't the first case be an increase in information if it didn't exist before?How could it be, if it's switched off?

First, is this true?
uhhh.... look it up it only takes a few seconds. It wasn't in the reference you provided. So humor us and document YOUR claim.
In any case, there is nothing more remarkable than the fact that Africans have black skin too.
so you're saying that variation in a population can't be created by adding information? The probability is minute, and not necessary to explain dark skin. It's just sorting out the natural variation of melanin producing genes so that all the genes for producing lots of melanin are in one individual.

[Socrates]

Socratism asked:
Loss of information - Can this lead to variation and if so could this be confused with "evolution"?Yes,it can lead to variation, e.g. wingless beetles on windswept islands. No, it should not be confused with goo-to-you evolution, because this demands that mutation and natural selection can generate NEW information, e.g. for flight in the first place. See Beetle Bloopers (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/241.asp) http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/241.asp
Species - If a new "species" occurs is this "evolution" or merely variation? The latter. There are a number of ways in which reproductive isolation can happen without any new information. In fact, and Wienderdog take note, the creation model predicts rapid speciation to explain the proliferation of varieties from comparatively few kinds on board the Ark. See Speedy species surprise (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n2_speedy.asp) http://www.answersingenesis.org/speedy
Evolution - which of the many definitions do we mean when we use this word? That's very important to pin down. Let's get it straight. No-one denies that "gene frequency changes over time" or "descent with modification", so it's deceitful for evolutionary propagandists to use examples of these as proof of goo-to-you evolution and against Biblical creation. Italian Pyrite take note!

[Stratnerd]

But here again there is no NEW information, but information being switched off. Are you saying that a novel regulatory gene that turns off melanization wouldn't be added information. But more importantly, if this conversation means anything - it must be demonstrated that new information is cannot be generated.
It wasn't in the reference you provided. So humor us and document YOUR claim.

Black skin and tubular hair of polar bears:

http://www.chaffeezoo.org/animals/polarBear.html
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/mammals/bear/Polarbearcoloring.shtml
http://www.polarbearsalive.org/facts3.htm

The probability is minute, why? and if you say because evolution can't produce or it's rare to produce information then why? It's just sorting out the natural variation of melanin producing genes so that all the genes for producing lots of melanin are in one individual. so you're saying the 2 original humans were highly melanated and had the ability to tan and then were lost in different populations accordingly? And this is what you've come up with because the evidence points to the these two types of people?

[Socrates]

Socrates:
The probability is minute,
Stratnerd:
why? and if you say because evolution can't produce or it's rare to produce information then why?Have a look at this article on the Weasel program http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tj_v16n2_weasel_program.asp which quantifies when mutation/selection can work.

It's just sorting out the natural variation of melanin producing genes so that all the genes for producing lots of melanin are in one individual.
so you're saying the 2 original humans were highly melanated and had the ability to tan and then were lost in different populations accordingly? And this is what you've come up with because the evidence points to the these two types of people?No, that Adam and Eve had both genes for high melanation and genes for low melanation. So do mulattos today, and it's well known that the offspring of two mulattos can have a wide range of melanization.

[RufusAtticus]

Since no-new-information claims have popped up again, I'll post this here too.

Individuals don't evolve. Populations do. So in linking information theory to evolution, one must consider the information in the population, which creationists do not do. Biologically, information can refer to different things. Pseudogenes, contain information about evolutionary history but not information that can be selected upon. In the context of this discussion, it would be best right now to consider the genetic information underlying traits, with an interest in adaptable traits. It is difficult to determine a way to measure the amount of this information, but one possibility is the size of the proteome. This is the number of unique proteins produced in the population and includes all loci and alleles. Whenever a mutation produces a novel allele, it adds information to the population. In other words, there is a new trait for selection to act upon. Here are two examples of the effects of information in a population.

Jeff knows something about Gina: "Gina is neat." Thus he has information about Gina. Before he leaves town, Jeff replicates this information by telling it to two people, Nick and Randy. Because neither of them pays attention, they don’t replicate the information exactly. Nick thinks "Gina is sweat," and Randy thinks "Gina is near." We can measure the about of information about Gina by the number of non-redundant attributes people ascribe to her. Here, the amount of information about Gina has doubled: from "neat" to "sweat and near." Clearly when we remember that it is the population that’s important to evolution, it is obvious how mutations can add information for selection to act upon.

Take this example retrieved from LocusLink [1], the only difference occurs in the 7th codon (6th amino acid because the first one, 'm,' gets cut off). The letters refer to amino acids [2].

Human Beta-hemoglobin (HBB)
1 mvhltpeeks avtalwgkvn vdevggealg rllvvypwtq rffesfgdls tpdavmgnpk
61 vkahgkkvlg afsdglahld nlkgtfatls elhcdklhvd penfrllgnv lvcvlahhfg
121 keftppvqaa yqkvvagvan alahkyh


HBB-S
1 mvhltpveks avtalwgkvn vdevggealg rllvvypwtq rffesfgdls tpdavmgnpk
61 vkahgkkvlg afsdglahld nlkgtfatls elhcdklhvd penfrllgnv lvcvlahhfg
121 keftppvqaa yqkvvagvan alahkyh


HBB-C
1 mvhltpkeks avtalwgkvn vdevggealg rllvvypwtq rffesfgdls tpdavmgnpk
61 vkahgkkvlg afsdglahld nlkgtfatls elhcdklhvd penfrllgnv lvcvlahhfg
121 keftppvqaa yqkvvagvan alahkyh


Each allele does not encode the exact same information since each one produces a distinctly different product. A single point mutation has enough effect on the information contained in the genome that it can determine whether an individual dies from malaria or not. In the presence of malaria, HBB-S is maintained because of heterozygote advantage. However, HBB-C also offers resistance to malaria, but the most fit genotype is the homozygote.[3] It is expected to become the most common allele in parts of Africa if the environment stays the same. These mutations have clearly added new information to the population. Selection then acts on this new information, changing the make up of the population. Thus, evolution happens.

It is important to realize that evolution occurs even if information is lost. It also occurs when information is gained or without any change in the amount of information at all. Thus no-new-information arguments do not actually address evolutionary theory. By focusing on individuals and not populations, no-new-information claims never even get close to disproving evolution. In fact, the actual claim, when applied to biology, is that the information capacity of an individual's genome cannot increase. However, this claim is false because there are known types of mutations that can increase the length of the genome and thus its capacity to hold information. Ernst Mayr discusses this origin of new genes in his latest book:

Bacteria and even the oldest eukaryotes (protists) have a rather small genome. . . . This raises the question: By what process is a new gene produced? This occurs, most frequently, by the doubling of an existing gene and its insertion in the chromosome in tandem next to the parental gene. In due time the new gene may adopt a new function and the ancestral gene with its traditional function will then be referred to as the orthologous gene. It is through orthologous genes that the phylogeny of genes is traced. The derived gene, coexisting with the ancestral gene, is called paralogous. Evolutionary diversification is, to a large extent, effected by the production of paralogous genes. The doubling sometimes affects not merely a single gene, but a whole chromosome set or even an entire genome.[4]

1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/LocusLink/
2. http://www.chem.qmul.ac.uk/iupac/AminoAcid/AA1n2.html
3. Modiano D. et al. (2001) Haemoglobin C protects against clinical plasmodium falciparum malaria. Nature: 414 pp 305-308
4. Mayr E. (2001) What Evolution Is. Basic Books.

[Stratnerd]

Does anyone here have a clue why mutations can't produce information?

[Gracchus]

03-14-2003 @ 02:46 AM
Socrates:

Socratism asked:
Loss of information - Can this lead to variation and if so could this be confused with &quot;evolution&quot;?Yes,it can lead to variation, e.g. wingless beetles on windswept islands. No, it should not be confused with goo-to-you evolution, because this demands that mutation and natural selection can generate NEW information, e.g. for flight in the first place. See Beetle Bloopers (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/241.asp) http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/241.asp
Species - If a new &quot;species&quot; occurs is this &quot;evolution&quot; or merely variation? The latter. There are a number of ways in which reproductive isolation can happen without any new information. In fact, and Wienderdog take note, the creation model predicts rapid speciation to explain the proliferation of varieties from comparatively few kinds on board the Ark. See Speedy species surprise (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n2_speedy.asp) http://www.answersingenesis.org/speedy
Evolution - which of the many definitions do we mean when we use this word? That's very important to pin down. Let's get it straight. No-one denies that &quot;gene frequency changes over time&quot; or &quot;descent with modification&quot;, so it's deceitful for evolutionary propagandists to use examples of these as proof of goo-to-you evolution and against Biblical creation. Italian Pyrite take note!

Uh, Socrates? :hrm:
You do know that a point mutation adding an allele to a locus is a loss of information? And you do know that deleting an allele by selection results in the gain of information? :huh:
You seem to be assuming the opposite. :eek:
Could you clarify? Thank you. :smile:

[ItalianGold]

Sherbear:P.S. Since when is a lack of ability to procreate without assistance something that negates being the same kind? Two couples that we are friends with had to adopt for this very reason. Aren't they the same kind?

If this were an original argument from you, I'd take the opportunity to chastise you personally. But it isn't. It's just another in a long line of silly quotes in the new pop-theology circles. I will, however give you a chance to restore your integrity here and now. You will have to publically admit though that the statement is deliberately misleading. (though no one but the simplest of minds are fooled by it) Yes, dear, obviously your barren friends are the same species. Did anyone suggest they were not? That the reason they could not have children was somehow because they weren't the same "kind?" No, of course not. And most members of their species mate quite successfully. Therefore, it's safe to assume (and your "friends" can probably document with medical reports) that there is a physical problem with one of them and that is the simple reason they cannot conceive. Now, the creationists used to argue that there could be small changes but no new species. And one of the criteria the scientific community used for species differentiation was the ability to reproduce. But since anti-evolutionists have decided to accept the idea that Noah's boat was too small to hold all the different species we now have (nevermind the millions that are extinct) they have embraced this new pop term "kinds." Thus, we are to believe that one "cat kind" on the arc is responsible for sabre-toothed tigers, spotted leopards, striped tigers, hairless Egyptian cats, lions and my little calico kitten. Yeah, right - no new information there!

Then comes Socrates who honestly believes that if he says something enough times, it will somehow evolve into truth - so he has convinced you that his pop line line of "goo to you" 1. means something and 2. that it represents an evolutionist's theory. It does not. Origins is a whole different science/belief system.

By the way Soc, I'm not going to go back to quote you exactly, but do I see a trend in your arguments now to justify feathers on critters that aren't birds? :rofl: Could that be because archeologists now have several excellent fossils of animals that are reptiles in every respect except they have feathers? And that the logical conclusion is we're gathering more and more so called "links?"

Just curious.

[Stratnerd]

I'm probably wrong but you'all might be talking about measuring information at two different levels. That is, I think creationists look at a lineage of individuals by decent (so no information can be gained from parent to offspring) whereas I think Gracchus is looking at the population level where information is measured as genetic variance (or the inverse thereof).

[ItalianGold]

Stratnerd:Does anyone here have a clue why mutations can't produce information?

Nope - but I'd love to know the answer.

Of course, that sabre-toothed cat kind that only ate berries and tossed green salad in Eden might not have needed new "information" to wake up one morning with a growling belly and instantly know how to stalk prey, kill and devour meat. Probably it had all the genes for predation...they were just "switched off" there for a while by all that high fiber diet. Yeah, that's the ticket.

:em7:

[TheFiveSolas]

For those interested in understanding what definition of information creationists like myself and Socrates are using see the following article:
http://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp

Also, in response to

"Does anyone here have a clue why mutations can't produce (new) information"

I'd recommend Dr. Lee Spetner's book, Not by Chance, and also his online debate with Dr. Edward Max.
See the following:
Part 1
http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner1.asp
Part 2
http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp

[Sher]

03-13-2003 @ 10:39 PM
ItalianGold:

I will, however give you a chance to restore your integrity here and now. You will have to publically admit though that the statement is deliberately misleading. (though no one but the simplest of minds are fooled by it) But a simple mind was confused as to how it was used retorically, wasn't it?Yes, dear, obviously your barren friends are the same species. Did anyone suggest they were not? That the reason they could not have children was somehow because they weren't the same &quot;kind?&quot; No, of course not.Your reason for sarcasm eludes me. Were you following the whole conversation? We were speaking about the dogs not being willing/able to reproduce without assistance. My counter-example was to show that without assistance, my friends could not reproduce either (the :duh: was the indicator that it was retorical). Actually it was due in each case to a medical reason. What is the point? It would still involve assistance. Are you asserting that artificial insemination of the dogs wouldn't produce offspring?

If you want to chastise anyone, it should be the originator of this worn-out dog mating argument :bonk:

Oh, and please do demonstrate the origin of this new pop term "kinds." I seem to recall a mention (or nearly 20) in Genesis that would show that it isn't a modern terminology. :rofl:

[Socrates]

The scientifically and historically ignorant Italian Pyrite ironically accuses me (after making inflammatory remarks about SherBear's integrity):

Then comes Socrates who honestly believes that if he says something enough times, it will somehow evolve into truth. Hey pot calling me black, are you on pot? You keep repeating the misinformation that all change is evolution, and other misinformation below:

Now, the creationists used to argue that there could be small changes but no new species. OK, WHERE!? As SherBear and I have pointed out, "Kind" is a Biblical term. The notion of "biological species" is far more recent.
And one of the criteria the scientific community used for species differentiation was the ability to reproduce.Actually, more than that -- it's reproductive isolation. The common hybridization criterion of "kind" (which is sufficient but not necessary) goes at least as far as 1941, when Dr Frank Marsh coined the term baramin (see Variation and Fixity in Nature, Pacific Press, CA, USA, p. 75, 1976). Marsh's ideas were incorporated into the Creation/Flood classic, The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Morris in 1961. Note, in case IP can't subtract :doh:, this means it's been mainstream creationist thinking for over 40 years!

So where does IP get off in his/her/its repeated claims that the idea of kinds is something creationists have just thought of. It's either incredibly sloppy research or blatant dishonesty since I've explained it before, with documentation!!:bonk:But since anti-evolutionists have decided to accept the idea that Noah's boat was too small to hold all the different species we now haveOK, please provide calculations. And don't include insects, plants or marine creatures. AiG HAS provided calculations that show the opposite of what you claim http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Magazines/docs/cen_v19n2_animals_ark.asp (nevermind the millions that are extinct)OK, please document this. A tall order, since there are onlyabout 250,000 KNOWN fossil species! And only about 10,000 are vertebrates. they have embraced this new pop term "kinds." Yeah, so new it's in Genesis :doh:Thus, we are to believe that one "cat kind" on the arc is responsible for sabre-toothed tigers, spotted leopards, striped tigers, hairless Egyptian cats, lions and my little calico kitten. Yeah, right - no new information there! As I've said, creationists tend to posit possibly two or three cat kinds. But as, say, tigers and lions produce hybrids, they are the same created kind.
Then comes Socrates ... his pop line line of "goo to you" 1. means something and 2. that it represents an evolutionist's theory. It does not. Once more, if evolution just meant "descent with modification" or "chagne in gene frequency over time", then I'd be an evolutionist too! I'd rather believe Prof. Kerkut than a demonstrable scientific ignoramus like IP.Origins is a whole different science/belief system. Origins is a whole different science/belief system.I quite agree, and that's my point. Change over time does NOT entail the TYPE of change required to change one kind into another, and turn goo into you via the zoo.
By the way Soc, I'm not going to go back to quote you exactly, but do I see a trend in your arguments now to justify feathers on critters that aren't birds? Could that be because archeologists now have several excellent fossils of animals that are reptiles in every respect except they have feathers? And that the logical conclusion is we're gathering more and more so called "links?"Does IP have any more substance besides elephant hurling? IP can't even tell the difference between archaeologists and paleontologists! :dufus: How about trying to refute, say, this AiG article on the latest four-winged dinosaur http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0128feathered.asp Or explain how a reptilian bellows-type lung turned into the unique flow-through avian lung http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4217cen_s1999.asp. Or how come dinosaurs and birds have a totally different embryology in developing digits http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0822_ostrich_dino.asp

[Socrates]

Italian Pyrite:Nope - but I'd love to know the answer. There was a time when I took IP at its word, and tried to provide polite answers to questions that seemed sincere. But as recent posts have shown, IP is not interested in answers, but any excuse to apostatize.Of course, that sabre-toothed cat kind that only ate berries and tossed green salad in Eden might not have needed new "information" to wake up one morning with a growling belly and instantly know how to stalk prey, kill and devour meat. Probably it had all the genes for predation...they were just "switched off" there for a while by all that high fiber diet. Yeah, that's the ticket.Does IP know about: the lion that would only eat meat http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n2_lion.asp
Dogs being fed mainly vegetables in Indonesia because meat is so expensive
spiders that eat pollen they catch in their webs http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n3_spiders.asp
the pacu, a relative of the piranha that uses its powerful jaws and teeth for hard lichen? The piranha probably arose from a population of pacus that lost the information for one row of teeth so it could no longer eat lichen http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n3_spiders.asp
The parasitic tiny organism Mycoplasma probably arose from genome decay, making parasitism necessary for survival http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-340.htm Also, God foreknew the Fall, so He programmed creatures with the information for design features for attack and defense that they would need in a cursed world. This information was ‘switched on’ at the Fall. Creationists would examine organisms on a case-by-case basis to determine whether their defense-attack structures are the result of latent genetic features being switched on, or simply a different use being put to structures designed for vegetarianism as in the examples above.

[ItalianGold]

Socrates,

Over the course of the last few weeks you have called me an idiot, insulted my reason, my beliefs and my vocabulary. You've called into question my motives, my honesty and now my gender?

Obviously you feel that Dee Dee's request that you lighten up on the name calling was simply to exercise her typing. Although she didn't actually say knock it off...only asked you to do it less. *sigh* I have tried several approaches with you. First, I tried humor...by responding lightly when you refused to call me by the nik I have chosen and instead called me Italian Pyrite. I think I even sent you a personal note commenting that it was clever and referred to you as Socra-tease. It was at that time that I told you quite clearly that I was a woman. Of course that just gave you more ammo.

Your tired and repeated attacks of everyone on this board who disagrees with you has cast you in the role of "boor." Your own fellow Christian conservatives are probably embarrased by your lack of common courtesy. I see many of them walking on eggshells around you, fearing that the least confrontation will earn them the title of idiot and heretic.

It is clear that you are a well read man, educated and articulate. But wisdom is not composed of clever quips, cruel comments and degrading characterizations. You are smart, but not wise. Quick but neither compassionate nor patient. And Sir, you are no gentleman.

I know that deep inside you wish that AiG were a more scholarly resource. It isn't though and your dependence on it to try to counter sound scientific knowledge with pithy aphorisms and pseudo science is just sad.

Yes, your "goo to you via the zoo" line is just another pop theology term. It has no meaning. Nor does your claim that "mainstream creationists" have been agreeing with evolution for 40 years...while refusing to call it that. NOW I'm hearing that only vertabrates (maybe 2 or 3 of a "kind" - a term co-opted by pop theologists to confuse the meaning of species) were aboard the global flood vehicle. Apparantly millions of insects were created after the flood? Plant life regenerated spontaneously? All the rotting corpses in the oceans and rivers and lakes somehow managed to be resurrected?

I'm actually sorry for you that your stubborness and contempt for a post Fall earth has made you such a cynic. You obviously believe that man and anmimal alike are evil, and no doubt are looking forward to having the lot of us destroyed... again. Well, don't hold your breath. I think mankind has a long run ahead of him. We're still a new "kind," having been around less than 500,000 years.

[Sher]

Although this was addressed to Socrates, and obviously there is history there, I felt I had to answer a few points and make a few comments here.03-14-2003 @ 03:57 AM
ItalianGold:

Over the course of the last few weeks you have called me an idiot, insulted my reason, my beliefs and my vocabulary. You've called into question my motives, my honesty and now my gender?Your history with Socrates aside, aren't you a wee bit guilty of this behavior yourself? :argue:

You have barely had any conversation with me, a newbie to this forum, and already you have disparaged me. You have told me that I needed to restore my integrity (honesty). You even attempted to provide a way that I could do so, telling me that I will "have to publically [sic] admit though that the statement is deliberately misleading" (attacking my motives). You have insulted my reasoning by saying "though no one but the simplest of minds are fooled by it". You acted with a patronizing, superior attitude toward me "Yes, dear, obviously...". And you insulted my beliefs: "the new pop-theology circles". About the only thing you didn't attack was my gender (and might I suggest you edit your profile so that there is no mistaking what gender you are?). And all the while you were the one in the wrong, missing the entire point of that part of the conversation. (I'm glad you didn't take the opportunity to chatise me personally :fight: )

While two wrongs don't make a right, and I apologize for my "simple mind" comment, I don't see how you can make this assertion while exhibiting the same behavior.And Sir, you are no gentleman.If this is the criteria, then you, Madam, are no lady.Nor does your claim that &quot;mainstream creationists&quot; have been agreeing with evolution for 40 years...while refusing to call it that.One can only assume from this that you are either very young, or misinformed. (Micro-)Evolution has been spoon-fed in public schools for at least that long (the 60's?). It is only in recent years that the terminology was shell-gamed to mean all the same thing. As Socrates said, if it were as simple as that, we would all be evolutionists. What reason do you see for all the controversy, if not for the disagreement re: macroevolution?

[Socrates]

Italian Gold remonstrated with me (but as SherBear points out as well, IG is guilty of the same behavior she professes to despise in me. I would add that nothing I've said even remotely approaches the viciousness with which YEC is attacked by many evolutionists):Over the course of the last few weeks you have called me an idiot, insulted my reason, my beliefs and my vocabulary. You've called into question my motives, my honesty and now my gender?When someone keeps repeating the same tired old attacks against creation despite being informed otherwise, then said someone should not be surprised to have her honesty and motives questioned.I ... referred to you as Socra-tease.Not to mention a nastier one, but then I'm forgetting that there's one rule for YECs and another for their detractors.It was at that time that I told you quite clearly that I was a woman.In a roundabout way in PM -- I wasn't going to reveal something told to me in private. And wouldn't it be sexist for me to treat you differently because you're a woman? :brow:Your tired and repeated attacks of everyone on this board who disagrees with you has cast you in the role of "boor." Your own fellow Christian conservatives are probably embarrased by your lack of common courtesy. I see many of them walking on eggshells around you, fearing that the least confrontation will earn them the title of idiot and heretic. Not at all. I've teamed up with genuine Christians who disagree with me about creation to demolish atheism. But I will denounce as a heretic anyone who denies the Deity, Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Christ, as Spong does. And I will question the genuineness of any professing Christian who denies the authority of Scripture, which Christ said "cannot be broken" (John 10:35).I know that deep inside you wish that AiG were a more scholarly resource. It isn't though and your dependence on it to try to counter sound scientific knowledge with pithy aphorisms and pseudo science is just sad. More insulting elephant hurling without the slightest evidence. But any one of their staff scientists would have more scholarship in their little finger than you have in your whole body.Yes, your "goo to you via the zoo" line is just another pop theology term. It has no meaning.It means just what it says, in defining the evolutionary idea accepted by the establishment. They really DO believe that life started in a primordial soup (hence "goo") and arose by chemical evolution, and evolution continued to produce man via a lot of other animals (hence "zoo").Nor does your claim that "mainstream creationists" have been agreeing with evolution for 40 years...while refusing to call it that.Note, this was in response to your idea that creationists have only recently invented the concept of "kind". But once again you assert that all change is "evolution", but then AiG must be an evolutionary organization!!NOW I'm hearing that only vertabrates (maybe 2 or 3 of a "kind" - a term co-opted by pop theologists to confuse the meaning of species)...How many times do I have to tell you: the word "kind" is in the Bible, while the Biological Species concept was coined in the 20th century by Ernst Mayr, and based on reproductive isolation. It is roughly the same age as the term baramin coined by Frank Marsh and based on hybridization. I'm also not sure why a sub-population becoming reproductively isolated from a parent population should be a threat to Biblical creation.... were aboard the global flood vehicle. Only LAND vertebrates, because that's what the Hebrew has said for 4500 years!! I'm sorry that you have only recently heard this, but this is hardly the fault of the creationists.Apparantly millions of insects were created after the flood? No. Did you actually bother to READ the AiG article?? They could survive off the Ark on rafts of tangled mats of vegetation ripped up by the Flood, or floating pumice caused by the associated vulcanism.Plant life regenerated spontaneously?No, VEGETATIVELY. Also, even Darwin himself showed that many seeds could still germinate after being soaked in brine for months. I'm actually sorry for you that your stubborness and contempt for a post Fall earth has made you such a cynic. It's people like you who make me cynical, since you repeat tired old canards without any understanding, and worse, without any willingness to understand :frown:.

[Socratism]

It would be more productive for people to wipe the slate clean and get back to a calm discussion of the issues.

In my experience there are good arguments on both sides of these issues. Therefore it is not surprising there is such polarization.

Having accepted evolution as true in the past, I obviously do not believe that either side has a monopoly on intelligence.

In addition I believe that evidence is always neutral and is not inherently for or against any particular point of view. We all interpret the evidence using a particular framework and some people do change their minds from time to time, although it is probably fairly rare.

[Tycho]

03-14-2003 @ 12:06 PM
Socratism:
In addition I believe that evidence is always neutral and is not inherently for or against any particular point of view. We all interpret the evidence using a particular framework and some people do change their minds from time to time, although it is probably fairly rare.
Mr. Body's body is laying on the ground, a pool of blood surrounding him. There is a hole in his chest much like that of bullet wounds. He is neither breathing nor does he have a pulse. The body is approximately 24 degrees Centigrade.

Now, is this evidence neutral towards the hypothesis that Mr. Body is dead? Can we interpret this evidence using the "particular framework" that Mr. Body is now strolling through the park?

[Socratism]

Some people are always trying to read a newspaper by using a microscope. Is Tycho one of them?

To answer your question directly it is very possible that Mr. Body is strolling through the park if we know that the scene you describe is a "movie".

Special effects can do wonders these days.

I will admit that I was once as arrogant as Tycho in my belief that evolution was true and anybody who disagreed with me was certainly stupid.

All I can say is that it does take a lot for such a person to change their mind, and I am eternally grateful that circumstances conspired to effect such a transformation in my own case.

[Stratnerd]

and I am eternally grateful that circumstances conspired to effect such a transformation in my own case

if you don't mind us poking into your personal life.... what was it?

[Tycho]

03-14-2003 @ 12:51 PM
Socratism:

Some people are always trying to read a newspaper by using a microscope. Is Tycho one of them?
What are you talking about? All I'm trying to communicate is that theories must explain evidence, and that evidence obviously cannot be "interpretted" to fit any theory.
To answer your question directly it is very possible that Mr. Body is strolling through the park if we know that the scene you describe is a &quot;movie&quot;.
In the scenario I described, it's not. You only have the evidence I described. It's obvious that without some exceptional evidence to the contrary, Mr. Body is indeed dead. One cannot "interpret" the evidence arbitrarily.
I will admit that I was once as arrogant as Tycho in my belief that evolution was true and anybody who disagreed with me was certainly stupid.
After hanging around the United States, one doesn't exactly become enamored of Creationists trying to destroy science education. After reading some talk.origins, it quickly becomes obvious that Creationists are Creationists only because they have at least one of three attributes.

Unfortunately, Google's usenet archive is down, so I can't link to the "McCoy Challenge." However, I encourage you to check it out, and "Famous Quotes From Famous Evolutionists," when it's working again.
All I can say is that it does take a lot for such a person to change their mind, and I am eternally grateful that circumstances conspired to effect such a transformation in my own case.
I don't need a transformation to make me abandon evolution as a valid scientific theory--I need evidence.

[Socratism]

03-14-2003 @ 03:56 PM
Tycho:
I don't need a transformation to make me abandon evolution as a valid scientific theory--I need evidence.

There is already ample evidence.

"None are so blind as those who refuse to see".

[Tycho]

03-14-2003 @ 02:53 PM
Socratism:
There is already ample evidence.

&quot;None are so blind as those who refuse to see&quot;.
I see that there is so much evidence, you can't even cite a single example! I see that there is so much evidence, that the only ones denying evolution are religious zealots who deny evolution for religious and non-factual reasons.

Wow! I am truely impressed by the vast amounts of evidence NOT presented.

So, are you retracting your undefendable claim that evidence is neutral?

[Socratism]

03-14-2003 @ 05:01 PM
Tycho:


I see that there is so much evidence, you can't even cite a single example! I see that there is so much evidence, that the only ones denying evolution are religious zealots who deny evolution for religious and non-factual reasons.

If one calms down and removes the evolutionary blinders (almost impossible for a dogmatic evolutionist) there are many contradictions in the goo to you concept. Just listing them would never convince the "faithful", but it is fun to tease them with a few choice digs.

Punctuated equilibrium - we see no evolution today because it happens very slowly, but in the fossil record we see no evolutionary transitions because evolution happens too quickly to leave any such traces. Right, and I've got some great parcels of land for sale in southern Florida.

[Tycho]

Today @ 03:43 PM
Socratism:
If one calms down and removes the evolutionary blinders (almost impossible for a dogmatic evolutionist) there are many contradictions in the goo to you concept. Just listing them would never convince the &quot;faithful&quot;, but it is fun to tease them with a few choice digs.
Nice to see that you still haven't presented evidence and have fallen back on accusations.
Punctuated equilibrium - we see no evolution today because it happens very slowly, but in the fossil record we see no evolutionary transitions because evolution happens too quickly to leave any such traces. Right, and I've got some great parcels of land for sale in southern Florida.
Do you have even the most basic concept of what evolution, let alone Punctuated Equlibrium, is? Or is it about the same as your amazing relativity knowledge? Can you actually present evidence or will you continue your Gish Gallop?

By the way, are you retracting your indefensible claim that evidence is neutral toward theories?

[Stratnerd]

Punctuated equilibrium - we see no evolution today because it happens very slowly, but in the fossil record we see no evolutionary transitions because evolution happens too quickly to leave any such traces. and don't forget the other part of PE.. evolution happens in smaller peripheral populations which may also contribute to the lack of representation (along with the other factors that makes fossillization rare). But those time scales are a little different don't you think... of the diversity that's been described most of it has been recent and it only started 200 or so years ago. What percent is 200 of 3.5 billion years of history?

[Socratism]

Today @ 06:02 PM
Tycho:
Do you have even the most basic concept of what evolution, let alone Punctuated Equlibrium, is?

Well, it is hard to keep up with the latest twist. I doubt if evolution is even a coherent theory because there is so little consistency that almost every case seems to have its own rationale.

There is even no consistency in the derfinition of the terms used: evolution, species, etc. Sounds like a gigantic con game to me, and the majority of those conned are doing it to themselves.

[Socratism]

Today @ 06:05 PM
Stratnerd:

and don't forget the other part of PE.. evolution happens in smaller peripheral populations which may also contribute to the lack of representation (along with the other factors that makes fossillization rare). But those time scales are a little different don't you think... of the diversity that's been described most of it has been recent and it only started 200 or so years ago. What percent is 200 of 3.5 billion years of history?

Well, that is the current "story" that is told, but unfortunately it conflicts with findings in other fields that evolution happens less quickly in smaller populations. Pity.

Just one more example of the internal conflicts in the theory that are papered over to become "tradesecrets".

[Tycho]

Today @ 04:10 PM
Socratism:
Well, it is hard to keep up with the latest twist.
Especially when you insulate yourself from all data regarding the theory in question.
I doubt if evolution is even a coherent theory because there is so little consistency that almost every case seems to have its own rationale.
Of course, given that you can't even describe the basics of evolution, I find your personal incredulity regarding specifics unimpressive.
There is even no consistency in the derfinition of the terms used: evolution, species, etc. Sounds like a gigantic con game to me, and the majority of those conned are doing it to themselves.
The only inconsistency in the definitions of the terms comes from creationists, who must resort to equivocation, obfuscation, and misrepresentation to present their arguments.

[Tycho]

Today @ 04:15 PM
Socratism:
Well, that is the current &quot;story&quot; that is told, but unfortunately it conflicts with findings in other fields that evolution happens less quickly in smaller populations. Pity.

Just one more example of the internal conflicts in the theory that are papered over to become &quot;tradesecrets&quot;.
Just one more example of a creationist presenting a strawman with absolutely no reference to science. Unfortunately, you modus operandi is anything but a trade secret.

So, are you going to even try to show these "findings in other fields," or are you going to simply make another unsupported claim?

[ItalianGold]

Socrates,

I am weary of exchanging comments with you which are doing little to further the cause of this website.

Please see my post below to Sherbear.

Ciao,
ItalianGold

[ItalianGold]

Sherbear:Although this was addressed to Socrates, and obviously there is history there, I felt I had to answer a few points and make a few comments here.You are absolutly correct on two counts!

1.The post WAS addressed to Socrates. But since you feel you "had to answer and make a few points" I'll try to respond

ItalianGold to Socrates:Over the course of the last few weeks you have called me an idiot, insulted my reason, my beliefs and my vocabulary. You've called into question my motives, my honesty and now my gender?
Sherbear: Your history with Socrates aside, aren't you a wee bit guilty of this behavior yourself?
Yes, I suppose I am. Are you willing to admit to the same?

Sherbear(and might I suggest you edit your profile so that there is no mistaking what gender you are?).
Perhaps until I was called a "he/she/it" I felt no need to display a gender sign as I feel my identity should be private.

Sherbear:While two wrongs don't make a right, and I apologize for my "simple mind" comment, .....again, Sherbear, you deliberately choose to misconstrue my statement. I said quite clearly that your comment only fooled the simplest minds...NOT that you were simple minded. And for the record let's reiterate. The topic was criteria for distinguishing "species" and the fact that one standard which biologists have used was whether successful reproduction between apparantly different species was possible. You then used a popular but irrelevant comment to confuse the issue.

Sherbear:[quote]Since when is a lack of ability to procreate without assistance something that negates being the same kind? Two couples that we are friends with had to adopt for this very reason. Aren't they the same kind?I still submit that this is a disingenuous argument. I pointed out to you that the standard referred to whole groups, not individuals with a medical problem, but you already knew that, didn't you? That is what I called you on. And I still assert that only simple minds would be taken in by this red herring. But, you persist in pretending that I somehow missed the point AND called you simple-minded, thereby insulting you, which therefore gives you the right to say
Sherbear:I don't see how you can make this assertion (to Socrates) while exhibiting the same behavior, (to Socrates) "And Sir, you are no gentleman." If this is the criteria, then you, Madam, are no lady.
Well, you don't know me well enough to say that, however - One final, ego-driven attempt at my own defense: I'm not sure you can compare my admittedly argumentative and sometimes sarcastic remarks with direct name-calling and insults that are the hallmark of Socrates' posts. Ten minutes of searching a small percent of his contributions gives us these gems:[/b]

(quotes by Socrates, referring to others):

Was your degree from a degree mill?
Italian Pyrite makes another ridiculous claim
dunce
such crap
rabid atheist
God-hater
demented
troll
spitting venom
anti-Semite
easily enough to demolish you
Infudgels
Oh poor baby
I'd be surprised if anyone gave a monkey's about your opinion
You're getting boring
embittered turncoat
Moron
useful idiot
pillock like him is not someone worth wasting any time with
denseliberalcrap
the crass ignorance and anti-biblical bigotry he's demostrated
evidently needs remedial reading lessons
spruiking
rabid theistic evolutionist
idiot
your materialistic bigotry
do you believe that crap?
idiot
complete pillock, with his chronological snobbery
the height of arrogance
crybabyidiot
whinge
this presupposes that you have any intelligence to insult
morally twisted
stop whinging when I point out that no evidence would convince idiots and materialist bigots like you
and so on and so on...

I guess this brings me to my second point. Perhaps you are correct in observing that my debating standards have slipped and that I'm now guilty of being rude and mean-spirited as well. I find this upsetting as it has never been my intention to exchange insults instead of ideas. I can only conclude that posting on this forum has not helped me to explore my own beliefs and to understand others, but rather, it has brought out the worst in me. While I admit to being sure of almost nothing, I am sure that my personal spiritual beliefs are not consistant with deliberate attempts to hurt and belittle others. I have therefore decided to withdraw from TheologyWeb.

I wish you well. This is really a decent place with many open-minded and compassionate members.

Sincerely,
IG

[Sher]

Okay, IG, here is that portion of the conversation, in context:03-11-2003 @ 10:18 PM SherBear:

The reason I ask is that in 1998, this was a point addressed in Creation Ex Nihilo as shown on AnswersInGensis.org here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4048.aspFirst I provided a link to AIG regarding the polar bear subject we were discussing. Then I posted part of said article, including this portion that I later emphasized: "... No-one has ever observed any biological process adding information! .... This doesn’t mean that all of the features of today’s bears would have been on obvious display back then. A simple example would be the way in which mongrel dogs obviously had the potential to develop all the different breeds we see today. ... Similarly, it is unlikely that there were polar bears before the Flood — however, since much of the information for their specialized features was already there, some of these features, in lesser form, would have also been apparent in a few individuals from time to time. It takes selection (natural or artificial) to concentrate and enhance these features — however, this does not create anything really new, no new design information. ... " I then puncuated this with a comment of my own, saying: You really should read this article. There is more information there regarding this topic than what I posted.

The mongrel dog analogy here is similar to the breeding one I gave above, with another valid point. Breeders often take dogs with less desirable traits and breed them to &quot;pure breeds&quot; to filter out those traits over successive generations ... loss of information that produces a different dog. Most AKC approved breeds are a result of that careful breeding ... even the weinerdog: http://www.petcrest.com/dachshi.html :cool: My comments were related to dog breeding, which prompted: 03-11-2003 @ 10:43 PM
Gracchus: Selection pressure, can indeed, cut down on the variability of genotypes in a population. Time and mutation can add variability. Or are you trying to say that left to themselves, Chihuahuas will start breeding with Great Danes? After all, they are both the dog &quot;kind&quot;? :ahem: , to which I gave the reply: 03-12-2003 @ 10:44 AM SherBear: Man, through selective breeding, developed both Chihuahuas and Great Danes. Left to their own devices in the wild, I doubt that either breed would survive long enough to worry about needing to breed with each other. ... And why a Great Dane would want to mate with such an ugly little dog is beyond me, anyway. :eww:

P.S. Since when is a lack of ability to procreate without assistance something that negates being the same kind? Two couples that we are friends with had to adopt for this very reason. Aren't they the same kind? :duh: The P.S. was connected to the previous portion of the topic, again about dog breeding, but indicated as a P.S. because I edited it in after I posted. This P.S. is what you attacked, out of context. Today @ 06:45 PM ItalianGold: Sherbear:[b]You are absolutly correct on two counts!My reason for "answering and making points" was that I was going to ignore your attack on me, until you complained of the very same treatment that you showed me.Yes, I suppose I am. Are you willing to admit to the same?I believe I did apologize for my single comment to you in retaliation about a small mind. It was not well done of me.Perhaps until I was called a &quot;he/she/it&quot; I felt no need to display a gender sign as I feel my identity should be private.While I agree that the "it" was a bit over the top, the he/she is understandable without the indicator of gender.I still submit that this is a disingenuous argument. I pointed out to you that the standard referred to whole groups, not individuals with a medical problem... And I would point out to you that you missed the dog breeding portion of the topic, or chose to ignore the reference, opposed to general populations ... we were talking about two specific dogs not being able/willing to breed without assistance, and the comment was made implying that they may no longer be the same kind. Likewise, I responded with counterexample of how two human couples were not able to conceive, in one case even with assistance. ...but you already knew that, didn't you? That is what I called you on. And I still assert that only simple minds would be taken in by this red herring. But, you persist in pretending that I somehow missed the point AND called you simple-minded, thereby insulting you, which therefore gives you the right to sayAnd here again with your "you already knew that, didn't you?" you insult me by questioning my motives, implying I intended to decieve someone ... when it was you that missed the context of that portion of the conversation. I didn't say that you called *me* simple-minded. I said that you "have insulted my reasoning by saying 'though no one but the simplest of minds are fooled by it'." This gives the implication that my reasoning is so infantile (or similar synonym) that it can only fool the simplest of minds. You were pretty straight-forward in your critical, yet wrong, evaluation. There was no need to pretend anything (again questioning my motives, something you complained about). Well, you don't know me well enough to say that, however - One final, ego-driven attempt at my own defense: I'm not sure you can compare my admittedly argumentative and sometimes sarcastic remarks with direct name-calling and insults that are the hallmark of Socrates' posts.Yet, I didn't direct your remarks to Socrates' posts, did I? I only spoke about how you treated me in your post. Your argument with Socrates is between you both. My only point was that you acted toward me the very way that you complained about being treated (golden rule).I guess this brings me to my second point. Perhaps you are correct in observing that my debating standards have slipped and that I'm now guilty of being rude and mean-spirited as well. I cannot comment on your proposed explanation, not having spoken to you before now. I can only offer a suggestion that coupled with your comment: I have therefore decided to withdraw from TheologyWeb. that perhaps you should reconsider and simply press the ignore button on those that upset you, or you feel are insulting toward you personally. This will reduce who you speak with, but will perhaps give you a better experience on the forum. ::shrugs:: But it is your call. I sincerely wish you well and hope that you have not taken anything I have said in this explanation personally to heart, but rather as constructive criticism of your posts towards me. God bless you in your decision either way.

[Socrates]

I should point out that I was always willing to courteously answer Italian Gold both publicly and privately when she had proper questions, and I kept her confidence when she hinted at her gender. It was only after she stopped asking questions and started making outrageous statements about me and creationists that I counter-attacked, but STILL did not reveal her gender,because as she says this is private. E.g.:
accused me of dishonesty of using a standard definition of the General Theory of Evolution by Prof. Gerald Kerkut,
asserted despite my patient explanations that all change is evolution and creationists are dishonest for denying this.
accusing creationists of only recently inventing the concept of "kinds"As for these supposedly horrible insults, lets put them in context (and I don't claim blamelessness in debate that's turned so sour, alas :bawl: ) :Was your degree from a degree mill?Umm, I think because it was a physicist who made a pathetic attack on the Bible by accusing it of error in Joshua 10, when a high school physics student would realise that ALL motion must be described RELATIVE TO a reference frame. I.e. the Bible is no more wrong to talk about the sun setting than a modern meterologist who tells us about a red SUNSET. And that telling the sun to stop RELATIVE TO THE EARTH is no more wrong than an red octagonal traffice sign telling cars to STOP, again RELATIVE TO THE EARTH.Italian Pyrite makes another ridiculous claimI can't remember, but claiming that creationists have only just thought of the word "kinds" is kinda ridiculous when it's in the Bible!rabid atheist
God-haterWhen applied to Richard Dawkins, I stand by this. He is so vitriolic towards theistic religion that he's called it "mental child abuse" and a "mind virus".trollHardly objectionable. There is a whole thread on whether the atheist Farrell Till is a troll, and started by a fellow atheist!spitting venomYes, that's exactly what many evolutionists do against creationists!anti-SemiteApplied to Cherith, who is so morally blinkered that he thinks that terrorists who deliberately blow up buses full of Jewish schoolchildren and send suicide bombers to Israeli shopping centers are on the same level as "freedom fighters". And he proclaims that Jews are Christ-killers (which would presuppose that they ARE real Jews), but then they are really Khazar converts (so are NOT real Jews). Many other people have reached this conclusion about Cherith.
easily enough to demolish youCan't remember, but anyone who relies on Hugh Ross would be.InfudgelsIf you knew anything about the Internet Imbeciles, oops sorry, Infidels, you'd see how apt this description is. I'm just sorry I didn't think of it first.I'd be surprised if anyone gave a monkey's about your opinionOf course, if someone spruiks forth the most fact-free anti-Christian post which is mainly argument from outrage, and says, "this is my opinion."
You're getting boringAnd they are, spruiking the same tired old canards.embittered turncoat
MoronYep, because that describes a man who spends all his energy attacking creationists, including calling the CEO of AiG(Australia) a "junkyard dog", although he's a highly honorable and gentle man. And when Moron isn't bothered in the slightest by rabid atheists using his articles to bash Christians, including a German atheist who couldn't believe his ears when told that Moron claims to be a born-again Christian.useful idiotBlame Lenin then -- he used this of the Western communist sympathizers who were useful to his cause, but too stupid to realise that they were chopping off the branch on which they sit. I.e. if Communism took over in their countries, the freedoms they operate under would be crushed. Similarly, so many leading evolutionists are atheists, but still try to persuade compromising pastors to say that one can believe in God and evolution. They realise that rank atheism would still repulse too many people. But the overwhelming result is that most people decide to ditch the Bible as a whole since not even their pastors really believe it in the very first book. So these pastors are actually undermining their own religion. But of course, the atheistic evolutionists hope one day to stand up en masse and explain what evolution really means (only a few like Dawkins does this now, and the rest despair that he gives the game away). Then they'll have a great laugh about the gullibility of the useful idiot clergy.denseliberalcrapRight, this was a very offensive website called Density Church, which made obscene attacks on Christian leaders. In fact, the TW moderators have banned posting from this website on TW.the crass ignorance and anti-biblical bigotry he's demostratedWould apply to a number here. Typical of atheists who think they can be experts on the Bible as well.evidently needs remedial reading lessonsBecause of a complete failure to understand what I plainly said.
spruikingHere, IG shows Americocentrism. This is a common term in my country for glibly speaking forth on something. It probably comes from the German sprüchen, since there were large areas of South Australia that were settled by Germans well before the World Wars.complete pillock, with his chronological snobbery Yeah, presupposing that ancient people were stupid, and our mores are better than those of Biblical times. And pillock is a fairly mild British insult.whingeMore Americocentrism. This is a common term in the Antipodes.this presupposes that you have any intelligence to insultFrom someone who insulted my intelligence simply because I am a Biblical Creationist.morally twistedYes, of someone equating a strike on a military target with ACCIDENTAL civilian causalties (mainly because despots use them as "human shields") and the DELIBERATE targeting of civilians by terrorists.stop whinging when I point out that no evidence would convince After quoting Richard Lewontin about his a priori "commitment to materialism" regardles of how silly it seemed, and Scott Todd who ruled out an intelligent designer as unscientific even if all the evidence pointed to one.

[Gracchus]

Socrates, :hi: in re your post of 3/15/03 5:29 AM

You're rare form today, Socrates, producing a masterpiece of self-revelation. Invective flies in all directions in a veritable explosion of defensive pique. Try for a little more creativity in your vituperation.

For example: "You are justified in the indignation you experienced when someone suggested you may be a diploma mill graduate. Every one knows, diploma mills don't have gymnasiums, and your faculty advisor was obviously the fellow who sweeps out the locker-room and cleans the toilets."

Do you realize you wrote that whole post without one evidence civility or ever addressing the topic of the thread? And you seem to have successfully dragged the whole thread off topic and into semi-automatic escalating recriminations! I'm impressed. If you can't win, stall. Maybe you can outlast the opposition.

Would you be interested in a little referreed one-on-one? We could work our way through Futuyma's "Evolutionary Biology", one complete match per chapter. Or if you prefer, we could use Morris's "Scientific Creationism", which, I just happen to have on hand.
If you're interested, let me know or issue a formal challenge yourself.

[TheFiveSolas]

Gracchus,
You are correct in pointing out that Socrates' last post was not on the topic of this thread. However, it was in reply to a post by ItalianGold where she listed (without any context) numerous statements made by Socrates. He then merely filled in the context and his justification for saying what he did.

[Gracchus]

Today @ 05:31 PM
TheFiveSolas:

Gracchus,
You are correct in pointing out that Socrates' last post was not on the topic of this thread. However, it was in reply to a post by ItalianGold where she listed (without any context) numerous statements made by Socrates. He then merely filled in the context and his justification for saying what he did.

His insults were taken out of context?

:eek::hrm: :huh: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[TheFiveSolas]

Gracchus wrote:

His insults were taken out of context?


As I pointed out, ItalianGold's post gave a list of various epithets with no surrounding context (Scroll up several posts to see what I'm referring to). Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this what constitutes taking a quote "out of context" :huh:

[Socratism]

Would you be interested in a little referreed one-on-one? We could work our way through Futuyma's "Evolutionary Biology",

If I had a copy handy I would take up such a challenge with relish.

[Gracchus]

Today @ 06:03 PM
TheFiveSolas:

Gracchus wrote:


As I pointed out, ItalianGold's post gave a list of various epithets with no surrounding context (Scroll up several posts to see what I'm referring to). Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this what constitutes taking a quote &quot;out of context&quot; :huh:

Only you, Socrates and others of your ilk would dare to pretend the context, in this case is relevent. Rudeness is not argument. Nor is pointing out rudeness a form of abuse. It's like a Plutocrat whose felonies are revealed accusing the whistle-blower of "trying to initiate class warfare". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to observe that Five, and Socrates are a few instruments short of a useful payload.

[TheFiveSolas]

Gracchus,
Your demeanor is quite revealing and your broad sweeping generalization of me is fallacious. Of course, your comments are still (as you pointed out to Socrates) off topic for this thread and so I will cease and desist from this type of nit-picking.

If you'd like to debate me on the subject of ethics and whether or not the atheistic view can rationally account for objective and universally binding ethical norms make a formal challenge in the Gym.

[Blake Reas]

Gracchus,

I have had enough of you, Socrates, Itailian Gold, Shebear and your stupid arguing over things. Either end the personal insultst to each other or this thread will be ended.
Also Gracchus I think you should stop misrepresenting what the FiveSolas said. I pose a challenge for the Creationist and Evolutionist camp. Go to the Gym and start a debate where there is no name calling or insults FROM EITHER SIDE and debate in a civilized manner.

Gracchus in your complaint to me you told me to check out the last page of this thread. Instead I decided to read through the whole thing and found that both sides are guilty. Like I said either stop the childish ignorance and go read the rules on Flaming, Satire, insults etc. I know I have let a lot go on but I find that this thread is teetering on going over the edge.

By His Grace For His Glory
Blake

P.S. one of the camps Creationist or Evolutionist go and pose a debate challenge in the Coacheds quarters.

Sorry Shebear that I wrongly included you in this.

[Socrates]

Gracchus, after a lot of whinging because I actually defended myself (thanx to SherBear and TheFiveSolas too :thumb:), then asks:
Or if you prefer, we could use Morris's "Scientific Creationism", which, I just happen to have on hand.How old is that?? If you want to get a good handle on creationist thinking, you should use something more up-to-date. Fair's fair.

[Sher]

Today @ 08:17 AM
Socrates:

How old is that?? If you want to get a good handle on creationist thinking, you should use something more up-to-date. Fair's fair. 1974, I believe. :hrm:

[Blake Reas]

Since this thread has gotten so far off course I think I am going to close it. Please start a new one if you are going to start discussing books, Thanks!

By His Grace, For His Glory
Blake

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 02:17 AM
Blake Reas:

Since this thread has gotten so far off course I think I am going to close it. Please start a new one if you are going to start discussing books, Thanks!

By His Grace, For His Glory
Blake

I apologize everyone I am going to open this thread back up. I feel that I over reacted I was just getting sick of all of the reported post. I repent of my actions:yipee:

:spam:

By His Grace For His Glory
Blake