Define 'species'

[Vance]

Hey! I'll be honest, when asked to define what a human, as opposed to a monkey is, I am left a little baffled. One thing I have no confusion about, each and every one of you knows the difference when you see it.

But the problem is that so many of the fossils are SO transitional that even Creation "scientists" disagree on whether certains skulls are human or ape. So much for that idea.

Do you really believe the nonesense that we are evolved from apes because of the evidence, or because of the consequences of believing otherwise?

Well, the evidence, of course. What consequences of "otherwise" would I be worried about?

 

[Aron-Ra]

Henry Morris comes to mind

He was the only Ph.D. I could think of in that early lot too. But his degree isn't in any relevant field, and he wasn't around early enough to start this movement.

but you brought up something more important. Theistic reasoning-Reasoning with God in mind.

Translation: Blame/credit magical entities regardless what the evidence shows. Do this, and we'll never need to try and understand how anything really works. Unless, however it really works is the way your god wanted it to. That is the position of theistic evolutionists.

We have allready discussed at length what happens when God is rejected and I know you are no fan of Hitler. The divine attributes and eternal nature of God are primary considerations, and oh yea...the fact that you will ansewer for every word spoken.

If you raise any point I can't either accept or refute, then my position is inaccurate to some degree and needs to be improved. If I had to ignore critical points, evidence and challenges as you do, then I would know I was wrong. If I were proven wrong on every single point, as you have been, it would mean that my whole position is wrong.

Why would you ever need a definition for Theistic or reasoning?

Because I don't know what you're talking about. For example, these last few sentences don't make sense to me when placed together. The eternal nature of God may be a primary consideration for you, but you've yet to explain why it should be for me. Hitler didn't exclude God in anything he did, so I don't know why you keep bringing him up.

I was wondering if you where actually being objective but I think this puts things in perspective.

By what you say below, I would say not.

For one thing, you never bothered to define the various species that you brought up.

Name one, and explain what it is you think I should have defined about it.

You just keep asking how I would define them and this is bogus. You have neglected to define any of the various species that you go on and on about. It's obviously a call for the positive statement so you can rationalize it away.

The things that supposedly obvious to you aren't even evident to me. In order for me to show you what you need to see, I need to have you define them, because you've already rejected every definition of them I have provided.

What you have failed to understand is that the actual science does not have to be rewritten. PubMed is not about what you're conception is before you look at the evidence, it's about the actual evidence.

Right. But you said they didn't support common ancestry when I have shown that they definitely do, because that's what the actual evidence demands.

I posted a link in the formal debate where the human and the ape genome are demonstrated to be different. You made an elaborate rationalization about what might have happened for the retro virus to be apparent for the ape while it was absent in humans. Honest?

Certainly, especially since my "elaborate rationalization" was nothing more than further quotes from the same page of the same site! Words you either didn't read, or chose to ignore when you cited it.

You could be talking to other scientists about what our origins where, but you choose to debate a creationist. Why is that Aron-Ra, why do you waste so much time with a world view that you believe is wrong every time? Could it be that you secretly think they might be right?

And you accuse me of rationalizing? You creationists are masters of irony. I believe I have already explained my position to you. But I would be happy to do it again. Understand this: gods may or may not exist, and supernatural forces may or may not be in play, though there's no reason to believe they are. But there is not a chance that Biblical creationism could be right.

I debate creationists for several reasons, most of them political. With all the preachers and websites giving one-sided rationalizations unsupported by anything, I want undecided lurkers to see just how baseless and weak the creationist position really is. Its my way of doing what I can to counter an anti-American political lobby called the Christian Right. Plus, I admit there is a morbid curiosity in whether it is really possible to reason with someone who's belief system actually requires the suspension and rejection of reason.

"Reason should be destroyed in all Christians. Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his Reason. There is on earth among all dangers no more dangerous thing than a richly endowed and adroit reason... Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees it must put out of sight, and wish to know nothing but the word of god. Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but - more frequently than not - struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God."
--Collected comments from the sermons of Martin Luther, pre-Darwinian Protestant revolutionary

No one is questioning the mechanisms, just the implications.

You questioned the mechanisms several times. You agreed with each of the ones I showed you, and then said I hadn't shown you any.

The single common ancestor model is not providing the burden of proof and the explicit proof is screaming for design.

Not from where I'm standing. I see profound evidence of a trial-and-error system, and one that implies that if there are gods, there must be lots of them competing with each other in committees without any real idea what they're doing.

Darwin was voiceing a world view who's time is running out. You are the last of you're breed, the red in tooth and claw thinkers that preceded you all fell and you're world view will as well.

You know, your ilk has been broadcasting that claim since Darwin's day. But since that time, there have been progressively fewer of you, and increasingly more of us.

In fact, Vol. 394, of Nature, (No. 6691) page 313, reports that 27.7% of the scientists polled in 1914 believed in God, while only 15% were still believers in 1933 and only 7% were still keeping the faith in 1998. Now since Nature is the most respected of the peer-reviewed scientific journals, it occurs to me that if most scientists were believers, and all of them read this document, as they're supposed to, then (if you were right) someone would have "reviewed" this article rather harshly by now, don't you think?
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/1/story_193_1.html

Very few creationists believe as you do, so don't claim they all do.

Oh brother, this was rich.

Its true though.

The New Testament is not a popularity contest, it's about what God has said and done.

Except that we can't get theists to agree on exactly what that was. That's why there are so many different religions, each with variant denominations, and wildly variable beliefs even within every single congregation, everyone saying that all the others are deceived. There's no consistency.

Don't you get it yet, if God was busy in the creation then he is still concerned about you.

If God were concerned about me, then he couldn't be the god you think he is.

I know that creationism isn't mainstream but it got you're attention. Why not argue against the genetics that are unraveling much of Darwinian paleontology instead of wasting you're time with a world view that is wrong everytime (as you tell it) unless there is a chance that they are right?

Because genetics consistently confirm evolution from common ancestry at ever turn. Nothing but nothing is "unraveling" that, and if there was something, you would have posted it by now.

To be honest I had no idea what you intended in the debate. I just knew that you belived in the universal common ancestor model and I am convinced that this is absurd.

And believing in magic without reason and against all reason isn't absurd to you, right? But if you would answer the questions you agreed to answer, it would all become quite clear that evolution is the only reasonable option.

You ask some really convoluted questions that lead me through a labyrinth of semanitcs that are never defined.

Except that I have defined everything you should ever need a definition for...including the species in my lists. What specifically did you think I had not defined? Name one of those species, and give me some idea what you thought I should have explained.

I know where this comes from, in a word, it's Darwin.

Then you still don't know where this is coming from. Because it sure ain't Darwin.

Has it ever occured to you that there is a chance that we are both wrong?

Certainly. But that obviously hasn't occured to you yet, since you still insist on a failed dichotomy of only two options, when there are many more, and you refuse to consider that you could be wrong under any circumstances. Your faith doesn't permit that kind of objectivity.

What if we had this debate 500 years ago, what would you have been arguing then?

500 years ago, I would have cited St. Augustine, Ecclesiastes, and Anaximander among others.

Correct me if I'm wrong, you're an atheist right?

Yes, sir. Though it took me a long time to realize that, or to accept it, having believed in spiritual things all my life. But I am finally comfortable with that label.

I know that evolution is perfectly compatable with theistic reasoning but the universal common ancestor model is not.

Wrong. Many theologies can and do accept evolution without comprimise.

Christians accept many of the things that the natural science implies about our origins and, of course, they compromise a little. The truth is that God is not going anywhere and there are people that realize that.

You "realize" that a being who never existed isn't leaving? That's funny.

Naturalistic implications of Genesis? This is a new concept. Explain.

Are you putting me on? There are only two explanations for our origns, an omnipotent God created life fully formed or we are the result of purely naturalistic mechanisms. For real, this question has to be the most bogus.

Your answer certainly is! First, it didn't answer my question. Second, if we could pretend that Biblical creationism was in any equal standing with biological evolution, then there are many other options we must consider also.

3. One or more less-than-omnipotent gods brought about life on this planet, either fully-formed or (infinitely more likely) evolved by design, -but this (or these) god(s) did not create the whole universe. This is according to all the collective polytheist religions including Wicca.

4. Aliens seeded this planet, as explained by Scientologists, Zacharia Sitchin, L. Ron Hubbard, and Erich Von Daniken. Panspermia doesn't exclude supernatural intervention either, and most of its supporters plead for a god's involvement even in that.

5. The spirit of the Earth itself seeded its own life as a deliberate act, according to the worship of Ghaia.

6. The clash of two oppositely charged supernatural energies created the universe. All life evolved since then, both physically and spiritually. Souls exist of course, but no gods do. And when we die, we are recombined with the Dharma, the astral plane, the sphere of supernatural consciousness surrounding the Earth, and which may have a form of communal intelligence. This would be consistent with Taoist, Druidic, Buddhist, and Shamanic beliefs.

7. An omnipotent god created the entire multiverse, all at once, billions of years ago, just like it says in the Bhagavad-Gita.

8. An omnipotent god created life the way the Bible said; by allowing the Earth to bring it forth. This variant of Judeo/Christian/Islamic/Bahá'í faith is perfectly consistent with special creation, and evolution from common ancestry, and is easily the most popular concept in modern theism worldwide, and particularly mainstream Christianity.

9. The Zen Buddhists are right. There is no reality. Existence is only an illusion constructed to appear real, and may be a dream we create ourselves without need of any god.

10. Supernatural elements are responsible for the formation of living things. They are created, but appear to have evolved because they're created by competing entities working like corporations, each interested only in the line of organisms their division is responsible for. Some limited degree of evolution would still be possible, but it too would be intelligently-guided. This would actually match the evidence also, and does so much better than any other variant of Intelligent Design "theory".

 

[Aron-Ra]

Aristotle's classification system was the standard for a thousand years and no one argued it.

There was nothing to argue with, as Aristotle never gave us any way to discern a monkey from a dog either.

Linneaus came along and said that this classification system isn't working and took it to the next level. Sure he had some questions about the difference between man and ape but there were no apes asking the questions, much less answering them. I think the difference between apes and men are obvious, there is no behavior that distinquishes divergent species as much as the one between men and apes. I have no idea why there is even a question.

While I certainly agree that there are differences between men and other apes, there are also obvious differences between penguins and other birds, tuna and other fish, dachshunds and other dogs, Cadillacs and other cars. And all these differences are indeed obvious. But Cadillacs are still cars, penguins are still birds, even diamonds are still rocks, and men are still apes. A Rolex may be 80% better than any other watch, and we may be 80% smarter than any other ape, but a Rolex is still one of many brands of watches, and we're is still one of many species of ape.

You do realize that monkey is not a taxonomic term right?

Of course. Don't you remember when I explained this to you before? The correct taxonomic term for "monkeys" is "Haplorhini", just like the taxonomic term for "ape" is "hominoidea". "Monkey" is a non-phyletic grade term which applies to all haplorhines except the apes. That means that gibbons, chimpanzees orangutans and gorillas are not monkeys any more than we are.

When I speak of monkeys I am talking about all the primates that are apelike with the excepting of humans.

So when you speak of monkeys, you're not talking about monkeys at all. No wonder you're so confusing.

We don't need a good working defintion of monkey,

Yes we do. When something is over your head, you claim it is beneath you. Typical. But we definitely do need a good definition of monkey or that word is meaningless. You can't say whether we or anything else is or not one without that definition. Words are supposed to mean things, aren't they? Or is it the very fact that language has meaning that you think reduces it to mere semantics?

we need a good working definition of human. What's you're's

Any species of the genus, Homo, definitely. But I might also include some of the other, more recent Hominine species as well. As I said, there's some consideration that Australopithecus africanis through Homo erectus are a sort of chronologically-divided ring species, meaning that they're really the same species, almost like bloodhounds are to dachshunds.

I've already explained this to you before. But since you're having so much trouble with this, here it is again.

Humans are biological organisms of the domain, Eukarya. Or more specifically:
Kingdom Animalia (organisms with metazoic cells)
Subkingdom Bilateria (bilateral animals)
Phylum Chordata (animals with spinal chords)
Infraphylum Craniata (animals with skulls)
Subphylum Vertebrata (animals with spines)
Superclass Gnathostomata (animals with jaws)
Infraclass Amniota (tetrapods which develop in an amnion)
Class Mammalia (hemothermic, hair-baring synapsid tetrapods with mammae)
Subclass Eutheria (mammals with a placenta)
Order Anthropoidea (Primates)
Infraorder Haplorhini (monkeys)
Suborder Catarrhini (Old World monkeys)
Superfamily Hominoidea (apes)
Family Hominidae (great apes)
Subfamily/Tribe Hominini (humans and humanoids)
Genus Homo (man) By far the most intelligent and complex of all animal species.

What I need is a definition of any particular species that you make a major point of contention. There are at least 20 that you never bothered to define and I went to some lengths to point that out.

What a double-standard you have here. I defined everything I mentioned as much as I thought necessary, and you've still never indicated any specific one where I didn't. But I gave you very specific requests to define about twenty different organisms which you have repeatedly refused to define, or realize that you've defined incorrectly, even according to your own terms.

Hitler's emphasis was identical to

Darwin's and I wanted you to realize that.

They're not. You need to realize that. Niether would it be relevant in any even if they were. You need to realize that too, especially since one of your own rules in this debate was to address the arguments themselves, not the man who proposed them.

I know that we have finally come to the conclusion that their is no such thing as lessor of greater humans, or have we?

What do you mean, "finally"? That's what I said in the my very first post in our debate!

I apologize that I can't answer each and every objection but I think I made my point by starting this thread.

You made my point by starting this thread. Biological species and Biblical kinds are not the same thing and cannot be, as I have already demonstrated with my explanation of cattle.

Now since you apparently already know you can never define what a monkey is without shooting yourself in the foot, then obviously we will not be able to continue the formal debate, since you've given me nothing of substance to reply to. But I will at least answer that question for you here.

I debated the definition of monkey with a professional systematist a couple of years ago. At that time, I discovered that dictionary definitions are not at all adequate here, since many of them forget that many monkeys don't have tails. Consequently, this was the only definition of that word that was acceptible: "Any Haplorhine primate, (exclusive of Hominoidea) and expressed as a grade between the two; specifically, all Platyrrhines and both Propliopithecoidea (except for apes) and Cercopithecoidea (except for baboons) among Catarrhines especially where either may be treated as a non-phyletic (or paraphyletic) derived character-based description as opposed to a cladistic taxon."

I put up a good argument, but in reflection, I realize he did too, and I now concede that he was right after all, at least about the consistency of this term. The problem with this definition being of course is that it is paraphyletic. Any classification of organisms which includes "all of these ....except ________" - is inconsistent and virtually pointless except (perhaps) as an expression of grade, which of course means that gorillas and chimpanzees are no more monkeys than we are. Not only that, but because of the pointless exceptions, this definition is way too complicated.

The Linnean system of classification is even more complicated, since it doesn't rely on phylogeny at all, but entirely on character-based associations instead, (some of which I have already shown you) -measuring and naming all the specifics particular only to that group as compared to their nearest relatives, which weren't seen as relatives at the time. The problem with that description was just as Linneaus said; it meant that we were apes. Not similar to apes, but actually apes ourselves. Either that, he said, or apes were humans. Either way, this creationist said we were both one and the same.

If you try to describe what an ape is, using characters that are consistent for all apes without exception, even for extinct species, you will inevitably end up describing humans at the same time. The same of course applies to monkeys too, as it does for primates, eutherians, tetrapods, vertebrates, bilateral animals, etc. This one fact alone implies common ancestry, as does nearly everything else in biology.

The Cladistic definition is monophyletic, and much more eloquent, concise and consistent, and it incorporates all of the dozens of Linean character descriptions per group without having to list them all, and without having to make any exclusions. The cladistic definition of "monkey" is simply "Haplorhine", a name which includes all Platyrhines (New Word monkeys) and Catarrhines, (Old World monkeys) and that of course also includes apes like us.

However, you define "monkey", either we are not monkeys, and neither are the other apes, or we are both monkeys along with the other apes. But the only way to define ape is to include ourselves in that group. Because saying "all of them except us" is still a confession that you do realize we are in that group, and that you just don't want to admit that.

 

[Aron-Ra]

While I do appreciate all the attention the thread is getting, I, like Aron-Ra have been left with the question of how you define species. I started this thread for one reason, and one reason only. I was pointing out that the leave 'species' undefined', even in paleontology leaves an awfull lot of room for speculation.

Which is fine in any investigation, although I know that dogmatic conviction can't accept that.

Hey! I'll be honest, when asked to define what a human, as opposed to a monkey is, I am left a little baffled. One thing I have no confusion about, each and every one of you knows the difference when you see it.

Do you know the difference between a diamond and a rock, Mark?

I went through the labyrinth of taxonomy and came away totally unconvinced.

Because you actively avoided ever entering that labyrinth. Who do you think you're kidding?

I'm still interested but I have yet to find a standard that applies to, now defunct, species. Now you can lead one another a merry chase speculating about what might have occured, but there is only one question.

Do you really believe the nonesense that we are evolved from apes because of the evidence, or because of the consequences of believing otherwise?

1. The evidence, which is unchallenged and overwhelming.
2. There is no consequence of believing otherwise, except for the fact that only accurate information can have practical application. Believing otherwise denies us either.

Now, why do you believe in your nonsense? Oh wait, that's another question you keep refusing to answer.

Real life is calling and I have things to do so I won't have as much time for this as I have had up till now. I can't wait for the next post in the formal debate forum because I am itching to sum up what I have been trying to say throughout the entire thing.

Won't ever happen. The debate was over several posts ago. You lost. And there is no point in going on since you're still breaking the rules of the engagement.

I have multiple exams coming up, and a whole lot to do in the meantime. So I don't have much time either. But if we ever have another debate, I have a suggestion. Since you've shown that you cannot be accountable, then I insist that you appoint moderators (anyone you like, as long as they're regulars on this board) who can step in to force you to concede the points you lose. If I can convince them that you lost, then you should be forced to accept that, admit it, and move on.

 

[mark kennedy]

Which is fine in any investigation, although I know that dogmatic conviction can't accept that.

Dogmatic? You never showed an actual interest about how I came to the conclusions I did. My research into the Bible as science did not start with Genesis, it started with the Gospels. We don't base our understanding of present truth on the primordial past, it has to start with recorded history.

Do you know the difference between a diamond and a rock, Mark?

I think I know that a natural diamond and an artificial one is readily discerned.

Because you actively avoided ever entering that labyrinth. Who do you think you're kidding?

That's right, because the clads are based on a presumption of descent from a single common ancestor. Of course they will be organized in this way and all evidence is interpruted as either a morphology (evolutionary change) or a homology (inherited characterisitic). As I not only pointed out, but proved, taxonomic semanitics are neither defined not definate. You're solution to this was to force a postive statement thus throwing the burden of proof on me. It's called syllogistic logic and the strategy is to ask the question in such a way as for any answer to agree with you before even asking. It's like asking someone if they still beat their wife. If they say yes then they admitt that they used to beat their wife, if they say no then they admitt that they used to. It's nothing more then argumentative, circular reasoning.

1. The evidence, which is unchallenged and overwhelming.

2. There is no consequence of believing otherwise, except for the fact that only accurate information can have practical application. Believing otherwise denies us either.

Ok, you must mean the funny footed people who demonstrate a benifical mutation. You never really offered any evidence or conceded the point that mutations are rare and most often harmfull. What's more, I offered irrefutable proof that there is a theological premise in evolutionary biology. What is far more important is that natural selection has far reaching influence in modern thought and characterizes the competition within a species as the war of nature. There are real world consequences for this philosophical concept and all the hair splitting over semantical terms does not change that. You are begging the question of proof and ignoring the enormous burden of proof that evolution brings upon itself.

Now, why do you believe in your nonsense? Oh wait, that's another question you keep refusing to answer.

In the first post I made a brief statement of how I came to believe in the Bible as historically reliable. You immediatly began you're attack saying that I had allready made up my mind which is completly untrue. I didn't start my investigation into the Bible as history by examining the fragmentary evidence of the primordial past. I started with the New Testament and once the veracity of the New Testament as history was estabished firmly in my mind, I developed an interest in natural science. So you are interested in evidence are you? Why don't you check this out and tell me I have fallen victim to uneducated charlatans?

"In examining the evidence of the Christian religion, it is essential to the discovery of truth that we bring to the investigation a mind freed, as far as possible, from existing prejudice, and open to conviction."

An Examination of the testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence

Won't ever happen. The debate was over several posts ago. You lost. And there is no point in going on since you're still breaking the rules of the engagement.

The debate was over before it ever started and you were begging the question of proof from the begining. You didn't even follow you're own rules since you never continued to the end. Just make you're summary and we can write our conclusions. Now I offered you a chance to to discuss the format and formal rules of the debate and you simply told me to post an opening statement. I should have insisted that you qualify you're questions and back them up with authoritive source material followed by a detailed treatment of the substantive issues.

One more thing you should be held accountable for. You agreed to the only rule I really cared about, the statement not the person should be addressed no matter what the infraction (of course I am paraphrasing) and you're arguments allmost allways started with a personal attack. There never was a debate, just one long argument and bear in mind I dismissed you're taxonomic questions before even answering them. I explained at length why these systematic organizations would never yeild anything definate since it is all in a state of flux.

I have multiple exams coming up, and a whole lot to do in the meantime. So I don't have much time either. But if we ever have another debate, I have a suggestion. Since you've shown that you cannot be accountable, then I insist that you appoint moderators (anyone you like, as long as they're regulars on this board) who can step in to force you to concede the points you lose. If I can convince them that you lost, then you should be forced to accept that, admit it, and move on.

Good luck with you're exams and I fully realize that you're busy right now. If you want to finish the one we started then I am more then willing to try another one with a panel appointed to moderate it. The truth is that we should both be held accountable for our behavior in that formal debate. I'm going to see if I can find some people who are willing to help discipline us in the next one.

Dispite what you might think I really enjoyed you're discussions related to taxonomy. What's more I probably should never of introduced the Hitler quote but it was fascinating how Mayr handled the racist implications of natural selection. It sent you off into a rant and guess it was unrealistic to expect you to have offered anything as well developed.

Do what you like in the formal debate but I was looking forward to at least finishing it.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Dogmatic? You never showed an actual interest about how I came to the conclusions I did.

Then why did I ask that question so many times? And why didn't you ever answer it?

My research into the Bible as science did not start with Genesis, it started with the Gospels. We don't base our understanding of present truth on the primordial past, it has to start with recorded history.

But you didn't have that. You only had the gospels. And these highly-charged, emotionally-subjective, unsupported, and extremely questionable accounts about Jesus have naught squat to do with what we're talking about.

Do you know the difference between a diamond and a rock, Mark?

I think I know that a natural diamond and an artificial one is readily discerned.

Not any more. And that wasn't the question I asked. The answer is that diamonds are rocks. There are differences between diamonds and other rocks just as there are differences between men and other apes. But men are still apes and diamonds are still rocks.

you actively avoided ever entering that labyrinth. Who do you think you're kidding?

That's right, because the clads are based on a presumption of descent from a single common ancestor. Of course they will be organized in this way and all evidence is interpruted as either a morphology (evolutionary change) or a homology (inherited characterisitic). As I not only pointed out, but proved, taxonomic semanitics are neither defined not definate. You're solution to this was to force a postive statement thus throwing the burden of proof on me. It's called syllogistic logic and the strategy is to ask the question in such a way as for any answer to agree with you before even asking. It's like asking someone if they still beat their wife. If they say yes then they admitt that they used to beat their wife, if they say no then they admitt that they used to. It's nothing more then argumentative, circular reasoning.

This is your most desparate rationalization yet. Your stories change all the time, and this is an example of that because you yourself agreed that taxonomy is where we would have to find the flaws in evolutionary theory, if they exist at all. As I not only pointed out, but proved, it doesn't matter how you interpret "indefinite semantics" in taxonomy because I simply asked you if this group was related to that one. This could be answered from a creationist perspective if (a) creationism had any real world validity at all, or (b) you were interested in an honest discussion. But the way you skirted and dodged every question proved you were not interested in that at all.

1. The evidence, which is unchallenged and overwhelming.

2. There is no consequence of believing otherwise, except for the fact that only accurate information can have practical application. Believing otherwise denies us either.

Ok, you must mean the funny footed people who demonstrate a benifical mutation.

That's right, Mark. Deliberately omit those families who were super strong, or had better oxygenated blood, unbreakable bones, and were immune to AIDS, impervious to heart disease, or had better vision than normal people. Mention only the "funny footed people", and pretend you haven't even seen these other groups, and no one will notice these other grossly dishonest omitions.

Just how stupid do you imagine other people reading these posts to be?

You never really offered any evidence or conceded the point that mutations are rare and most often harmfull.

In fact, what I did was to prove that mutations were numerous, (an average of 128 per human zygote) and that most were neutral. There are some deleterious ones, sure, and there are probably more of them than there are beneficial ones. But as I have also proved, there are beneficial ones, and these are the ones that are naturally-selected, so the point is still mine.

What's more, I offered irrefutable proof that there is a theological premise in evolutionary biology.

And then I refuted it easily, proving there was not one.

What is far more important is that natural selection has far reaching influence in modern thought and characterizes the competition within a species as the war of nature. There are real world consequences for this philosophical concept and all the hair splitting over semantical terms does not change that. You are begging the question of proof and ignoring the enormous burden of proof that evolution brings upon itself.

You're the one doing all the ignoring, sir. If you'll be specific on any point, I will address it appropriately. But you have demonstrated repeatedly that you will not.

What is important is that dogmatism has far reaching influence in modern thoughtlessness. And it is a serious threat to the natural science you falsely claim to be interested in. What is also important is that you control your hypocrisy. While you accuse me of not defining the things I have defined, you refuse to define any of your own terms. For example, you freely state what is or is not a monkey, but adamantly refuse to define what a monkey is. How then could you claim what is or is not one?

In the first post I made a brief statement of how I came to believe in the Bible as historically reliable. You immediatly began you're attack saying that I had allready made up my mind which is completly untrue.

But that's what you said, then and again now!

I didn't start my investigation into the Bible as history by examining the fragmentary evidence of the primordial past.

Instead you ignored all that evidence and read only the mythology.

I started with the New Testament and once the veracity of the New Testament as history was estabished firmly in my mind, I developed an interest in natural science.

See? Here you admit that you had already made up your mind before you even knew about the evidence against you.

And you're still not interested in natural science. Natural science is all about objective inquiry, critical analysis, and peer-review. You're not capable of any of that, and must rely only on theistic reasoning instead, which has no place in any of the natural sciences. And most Christian scientists will tell you that.

So you are interested in evidence are you? Why don't you check this out and tell me I have fallen victim to uneducated charlatans?

"In examining the evidence of the Christian religion, it is essential to the discovery of truth that we bring to the investigation a mind freed, as far as possible, from existing prejudice, and open to conviction."

An Examination of the testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence

Yes you have, largely by ignoring the meaning of passages like this one, which are philosophies you've never yet demonstrated in this forum.

The debate was over before it ever started and you were begging the question of proof from the begining.

I must not understand what you're talking about. I asked you for the reasoning behind your position with perfectly valid questions, which you repeatedly refused to answer.

You didn't even follow you're own rules since you never continued to the end.

Read them again. My rules never required us to reach the end. All I had to do was to get you to admit that our species had evolved from another one by or before the 12th mutual exchange. You've done that already, so the debate is over.

Just make you're summary and we can write our conclusions.

Once again, I specifically explained that my debate didn't require conclusions. All I required was:
(1) that you answer every direct question. You skipped almost all of them.
(2) that you honestly concede any points clearly lost. You still haven't, even though you've definitely lost almost every point you tried to make.
(3) that repeatedly ignoring queries or challenges results in a loss by default. Which is why the debate can't continue any more from this point. I can't post anything else if you won't give me something to reply to by answering the questions I have already asked you over and over and over again.

Now I offered you a chance to to discuss the format and formal rules of the debate and you simply told me to post an opening statement.

Because I had already explained my rules and didn't need to negotiate new ones since you didn't bring any to the table.

I should have insisted that you qualify you're questions and back them up with authoritive source material followed by a detailed treatment of the substantive issues.

But fortunately, I did that anyway as a matter of simple intellectual courtesy without needing to be asked. Why didn't you do the same?

One more thing you should be held accountable for. You agreed to the only rule I really cared about, the statement not the person should be addressed no matter what the infraction (of course I am paraphrasing) and you're arguments allmost allways started with a personal attack.

Most of that attack was in response to your attacks, sir. The rest of it were reminders to control your conduct. But there was never a time that I criticized you instead of your argument. Your arguments always receieved priori treatment.

There never was a debate, just one long argument

True. But how different it would have been if you had conducted yourself more appropriately, by not seeking to attack me and my perspective on personal, emotional levels with all sorts of insulting false associations and attacks against each of my sources personally, rather than dealing with the substance of their arguments. You violated your own rules there.

and bear in mind I dismissed you're taxonomic questions before even answering them.

I know. That was one of my complaints. Unlike you, I can be objective. But let's be accurate here. You didn't automatically reject before answering them. You automatically rejected them without answering them.

I explained at length why these systematic organizations would never yeild anything definate since it is all in a state of flux.

And I explained at length why you were wrong about that. Not only that, but I also pointed out that the proposed alternative had never and could never produce anything of substance where evolution definitely does!

Good luck with you're exams and I fully realize that you're busy right now. If you want to finish the one we started then I am more then willing to try another one with a panel appointed to moderate it. The truth is that we should both be held accountable for our behavior in that formal debate. I'm going to see if I can find some people who are willing to help discipline us in the next one.

Thank you. The one we started is already finished, all goals in it having been met. But another could be fun, especially if we have moderators while we debate the flood! I hope you understand though that I will still insist on every direct question being answered, no matter what other rules apply. I'm tired of my evidence and arguments being ignored and "automatically rejected".

Dispite what you might think I really enjoyed you're discussions related to taxonomy. What's more I probably should never of introduced the Hitler quote but it was fascinating how Mayr handled the racist implications of natural selection. It sent you off into a rant and guess it was unrealistic to expect you to have offered anything as well developed.

I thought what I offered was better. I didn't think Mayr dealt with that adequately at all.

Do what you like in the formal debate but I was looking forward to at least finishing it.

Then why didn't you answer my questions like you promised you would?

 

[mark kennedy]

Then why did I ask that question so many times? And why didn't you ever answer it?
But you didn't have that. You only had the gospels. And these highly-charged, emotionally-subjective, unsupported, and extremely questionable accounts about Jesus have naught squat to do with what we're talking about.

You are completly oblivious to the enormous amount of scholarship that went into the Bible aren't you Aron-Ra? You're the one being highly-charged, emotionally-subjective, and giving highly questionable accounts of history. Now I know it doesn't matter what the actual evidence is, you are obviously not interested in looking at it.

Not any more. And that wasn't the question I asked. The answer is that diamonds are rocks. There are differences between diamonds and other rocks just as there are differences between men and other apes. But men are still apes and diamonds are still rocks.

Take that philosophy to a jewlry store and tell the salesperson that you should not have to pay thousands of dollars because a diamond is still just a rock.

This is your most desparate rationalization yet. Your stories change all the time, and this is an example of that because you yourself agreed that taxonomy is where we would have to find the flaws in evolutionary theory, if they exist at all. As I not only pointed out, but proved, it doesn't matter how you interpret "indefinite semantics" in taxonomy because I simply asked you if this group was related to that one. This could be answered from a creationist perspective if (a) creationism had any real world validity at all, or (b) you were interested in an honest discussion. But the way you skirted and dodged every question proved you were not interested in that at all.

Semantics is what this has been about from the begining and you won't define species. You have went to systematics that continually redefine what is considered a species and it's this nebulas rationalization that is making everything so confusing. I never dodged you're questions, you just never defined you're terms, that's an omission you don't have an answer for so you resort to personal attacks. Very unimpressive.

That's right, Mark. Deliberately omit those families who were super strong, or had better oxygenated blood, unbreakable bones, and were immune to AIDS, impervious to heart disease, or had better vision than normal people. Mention only the "funny footed people", and pretend you haven't even seen these other groups, and no one will notice these other grossly dishonest omitions.

They are rare anomolies, nothing more. I was never convinced that mutations are the holy grail for evolution and you are avoiding the central question:

Since natural selection kills off the inferior organisms and deletes mutations then what is the demonstrated mechanism? Talk about omissions...

Just how stupid do you imagine other people reading these posts to be?

I wouldn't know since we never had a peanut gallery, mainly because there was never a debate.

In fact, what I did was to prove that mutations were numerous, (an average of 128 per human zygote) and that most were neutral. There are some deleterious ones, sure, and there are probably more of them than there are beneficial ones. But as I have also proved, there are beneficial ones, and these are the ones that are naturally-selected, so the point is still mine.
And then I refuted it easily, proving there was not one.

So in the zygote there are mutations, of the 128 how many are retained in the fully formed organism? You have no point here given the enormous weight evolution must put on mutations and you can't change just one trait at a time, you have to change everything.

You're the one doing all the ignoring, sir. If you'll be specific on any point, I will address it appropriately. But you have demonstrated repeatedly that you will not.

I was specific about how the sythesis was formed and it's central tenants. Genetics is a fine science and I even have some respect for paleontology, but what you are doing is pure dogmatism.

What is important is that dogmatism has far reaching influence in modern thoughtlessness. And it is a serious threat to the natural science you falsely claim to be interested in. What is also important is that you control your hypocrisy. While you accuse me of not defining the things I have defined, you refuse to define any of your own terms. For example, you freely state what is or is not a monkey, but adamantly refuse to define what a monkey is. How then could you claim what is or is not one?
But that's what you said, then and again now!

Why would you care if you were not just trying to get me to make a postitive statement you don't have? How do we know the difference between man and monkeys, or better yet, how do we know anything Aron-Ra?

Instead you ignored all that evidence and read only the mythology.
See? Here you admit that you had already made up your mind before you even knew about the evidence against you.

Read the Simon Greenleaf peice and then tell me that I am buying into a mythology.

And you're still not interested in natural science. Natural science is all about objective inquiry, critical analysis, and peer-review. You're not capable of any of that, and must rely only on theistic reasoning instead, which has no place in any of the natural sciences. And most Christian scientists will tell you that.

I am very interested in natural science just as everyone is. I have serious reservations about the antitheistic rationalizations of key people in the scientific world who obviously hate everything about religion. Do you think that Henry Morris was a scientist, if so, why was he never published?

Yes you have, largely by ignoring the meaning of passages like this one, which are philosophies you've never yet demonstrated in this forum.
I must not understand what you're talking about. I asked you for the reasoning behind your position with perfectly valid questions, which you repeatedly refused to answer.

Then why do you bother with me if I can't help you? I told you how I came to believe what I do and I said that my research started with the New Testament. Since we can't go back in time we must make judgments based on what still remains. You'll never convince me based on taxonomy and according to you're own rules all I have to do is to make it to the end of the debate and still hold a creationist position to win the debate. Is that why you won't finish the formal debate? Just summarize the questions that you think I have failed to answer and I will summarize my answers, that is all you have to do.

Read them again. My rules never required us to reach the end. All I had to do was to get you to admit that our species had evolved from another one by or before the 12th mutual exchange. You've done that already, so the debate is over.

The debate was over when you started addressing me rather then my statements. You lost for that reason.

Once again, I specifically explained that my debate didn't require conclusions. All I required was:
(1) that you answer every direct question. You skipped almost all of them.
(2) that you honestly concede any points clearly lost. You still haven't, even though you've definitely lost almost every point you tried to make.
(3) that repeatedly ignoring queries or challenges results in a loss by default.

Ug says the caveman and he means it.

The rest is more of the same. You are right about one thing, we need to be moderated and I am working on that. Finish the debate you started and we can do another one. Don't take it too hard, you only lost this one because the truth is not on you're side.

Edited to add:

Here is a list of Creation scientists:

Creation scientists

 

[Aron-Ra]

You are completly oblivious to the enormous amount of scholarship that went into the Bible aren't you Aron-Ra?

I know that whatever happened in the 1st century isn't at all related to what happened millions of years before that, if that's what you mean. I also know enough of the "scholarship" to know that the Old Testament (as you would recognize it) didn't even exist as a compilation until just a couple centuries before Jesus' time. And I know that the sholarly position is that the very oldest book of the whole thing isn't even Genesis, but Job, and that is only 3,500 years old, which is of course younger than many of the stories in Exodus, which were already known from pagan sources hundreds of years earlier. Do explain to me how anything in the New Testament could possibly be relevant to what we were discussing, please.

You're the one being highly-charged, emotionally-subjective, and giving highly questionable accounts of history.

Why do you keep saying that? I've told you time and again that you can't rile me, though you've certainly tried to do with your many insinuations, negative associations, and instigative accusations. I didn't do any of that and was never interested in tactics like that. I was actually trying to reason with you, and asked you many many times to drop the offensive attacks so you could discuss this rationally.

Now I know it doesn't matter what the actual evidence is, you are obviously not interested in looking at it.

You've made that admission about yourself, sir. But that has never applied to me.

Take that philosophy to a jewlry store and tell the salesperson that you should not have to pay thousands of dollars because a diamond is still just a rock.

I suggest you try that. If the jeweler doesn't laugh, its only because he's heard the joke so many times. Every jeweler knows that a diamond is a rock. Specifically, it is a single massive molecule of covalently linked carbon. Is carbon a rock, Mark?

Semantics is what this has been about from the begining and you won't define species.

Semantics were never at issue here, and I did define species, with the best, and most detailed definition available, in message #6. I do wish you would stop pretending otherwise.

You have went to systematics that continually redefine what is considered a species and it's this nebulas rationalization that is making everything so confusing.

Wait, first I never defined species, and now you think I've re-defined it? When did you think that happened? What were both of the definitions I gave? Or do you think there were more than just two?

I never dodged you're questions, you just never defined you're terms, that's an omission you don't have an answer for so you resort to personal attacks. Very unimpressive.

Except that I never "resorted" to personal attacks. I did cite your hypocrisy after you had attacked me a number of times. But that's it. And I still addressed your arguments first and foremost even then. I also defined every term I used, and asked you to ask me if there were any other terms you need defined. You still haven't pointed out any one I've missed or explained what you think I should have said about it.

That's right, Mark. Deliberately omit those families who were super strong, or had better oxygenated blood, unbreakable bones, and were immune to AIDS, impervious to heart disease, or had better vision than normal people. Mention only the "funny footed people", and pretend you haven't even seen these other groups, and no one will notice these other grossly dishonest omitions.

They are rare anomolies, nothing more.

Well, there's the voice of denial. Anamolies can't be inherited and spread throughout the subsequent population. This is just one of many points you solidly lost but will not admit without moderators.

I was never convinced that mutations are the holy grail for evolution and you are avoiding the central question:

Since natural selection kills off the inferior organisms and deletes mutations then what is the demonstrated mechanism? Talk about omissions...

If that was the central question, then why is this the first time I've seen it? Wouldn't it have been a good idea to ask me the "central question" before now?

Also, where did you get the idea that natural selection deletes mutations? I'll ignore the comment about "inferior" organisms because that just seems to be the way you think. But these other points need answers.

I wouldn't know since we never had a peanut gallery, mainly because there was never a debate.

I've gotten messages from some of the folks following that debate, all of whom told me I was wasting my time trying to get you think or to be accountable.

So in the zygote there are mutations, of the 128 how many are retained in the fully formed organism?

I don't know. Why wouldn't they all be expressed?

You have no point here given the enormous weight evolution must put on mutations and you can't change just one trait at a time, you have to change everything.

Where did you get that idea??? Yes you definitely can change one trait at a time, and in very tiny incriments too.

You're the one doing all the ignoring, sir. If you'll be specific on any point, I will address it appropriately. But you have demonstrated repeatedly that you will not.

I was specific about how the sythesis was formed and it's central tenants.

Great. But that was never important to our discussion, and you still snipped and skipped everything that was.

Genetics is a fine science and I even have some respect for paleontology, but what you are doing is pure dogmatism.

[/quote]Of course I disagree. But then I'm not the one praising the science while countering everthing that science says.

Remember when you said "All mutations were deleterious or harmful"?

Why would you care if you were not just trying to get me to make a postitive statement you don't have?

I do have that. And I care because I genuinely want to know how you arrived at any of the conclusions you did. Because none of your position makes any sense to me at all, and I don't know how anyone could ever believe as you do. So it is a genuine curiosity.

How do we know the difference between man and monkeys,

That depends on what a monkey is, doesn't it?

or better yet, how do we know anything Aron-Ra?

That is a really good question. Are you referring to the difference between knowledge and belief? Because knowledge can be demonstrated and tested where belief can't be. Or could you be insinuating that we don't really know what we think we do, because reality may be illusory. If so, then I would still knowledge is testible, even if we live in a video game. Like Morpheus said in The Matrix, even that world had rules, so knowledge of that world and those rules could still be tested there, even if the rules were only writtin in. I really don't know what you're referring to. Since you view everything about reality wholly differently than I do, I guess I'm going to have to hear your answer to that question.

Read the Simon Greenleaf peice and then tell me that I am buying into a mythology.

Yes, definitely. Why did you want me to read all that? I saw error after error and assumptions compiled atop stacks of assumptions, all without sound basis. Why did any of it have meaning to you? Why did you think it would mean anything to me?

I am very interested in natural science just as everyone is.

Surprisingly few people are, where I always thought most people would be.

I have serious reservations about the antitheistic rationalizations of key people in the scientific world who obviously hate everything about religion.

Once again, what you think is obvious may not even be apparent. I do not recognize any "antitheistic rationalizations". Perhaps you give me just one for an example?

Do you think that Henry Morris was a scientist, if so, why was he never published?

He was an engineer, and many of them call themselves scientists, which is fine with me, if they actually do science, which Morris evidently didn't.

Then why do you bother with me if I can't help you?

There's another interesting notion. How did you imagine you could "help" me?

you how I came to believe what I do and I said that my research started with the New Testament.

Which leaves me wondering why how you came to believe as you do, since you never explained it.

Since we can't go back in time we must make judgments based on what still remains. You'll never convince me based on taxonomy and according to you're own rules all I have to do is to make it to the end of the debate and still hold a creationist position to win the debate. Is that why you won't finish the formal debate? Just summarize the questions that you think I have failed to answer and I will summarize my answers, that is all you have to do.

When I laid out this challenge, I calculated how many exchanges I thought it would reasonably take to convince someone such as yourself, based on my former experience debating YECs to this point. I gave myself some leeway because creationists habitually refuse to answer critical questions. And although you answered all of yours wrong, even according to your own terms, you did make one single attempt to answer one set of them. However, all my subsequent posts were dependant upon your actually answering the remaining questions that would have been dependant on those answers. You never provided them, and dodged every attempt after that. So now we're at the point where I have nothing to go on and no reason to continue since you insist on breaking that rule clear to the end.

The debate was over when you started addressing me rather then my statements. You lost for that reason.

Except that never happened. I did point out your hypocrisy a couple of times while trying to get you to stop attacking me, but even then I continued to concentrate on your arguments as priori. I won for several reasons, not the least of which being that you agreed with both of the initial premises to this debate, but also because you broke all of the rules, including those which specifically stated that breaking them would constitute a loss by default. Your rule never carried that qualification, but it wouldn't have mattered if it did, since I never broke that rule anyway.

Don't take it too hard, you only lost this one because there was nothing like truth on you're side.

Edited to add:

Here is a list of Creation scientists:

Creation scientists

How many of them are named Steve?
I'm actively associated with the NCSE, so this is a very laughable list for me, especially as I am familiar with several of these people. Did you know for example that Andrew Snelling wrote Young Earth articles for creationist rags while he also published in the mainstream proclaiming multi-million-year ages for various rock formations both at the same time!

Seriously though, I don't care how many people you amass who let their previously held religious notions cloud their perspectives. All that matters is whether their arguments hold up, and I've yet to see any YEC who could ever conjure a logical argument supported by evidence. I even debated Dr. Luke Randall, a professional microbiologist and Young Earth Creationist. Even he was immediately reduced to sad, out-of-context quotes when my pathetic understanding of his own field showed him up.

 

[mark kennedy]

I know that whatever happened in the 1st century isn't at all related to what happened millions of years before that, if that's what you mean. I also know enough of the "scholarship" to know that the Old Testament (as you would recognize it) didn't even exist as a compilation until just a couple centuries before Jesus' time. And I know that the sholarly position is that the very oldest book of the whole thing isn't even Genesis, but Job, and that is only 3,500 years old, which is of course younger than many of the stories in Exodus, which were already known from pagan sources hundreds of years earlier.

The way the documents were copied should tell you something. No documents from antiquity have enjoyed so much attention. You are right that the book of Job is older the Genesis but wrong that the accounts in Exodus are younger. You are grasping at straws here but lets look at the rest of this.

Do explain to me how anything in the New Testament could possibly be relevant to what we were discussing, please.

Of course, the word is evidence. Do you rely exclusivly on dry bones or the living wittness of people who experienced things first hand? Did you even bother to read the piece Simon Greenleaf wrote? Do you see that I did not base my convictions on mythology but on evidence?

Why do you keep saying that? I've told you time and again that you can't rile me, though you've certainly tried to do with your many insinuations, negative associations, and instigative accusations. I didn't do any of that and was never interested in tactics like that. I was actually trying to reason with you, and asked you many many times to drop the offensive attacks so you could discuss this rationally.

You have been riled throughout the debate and when you couldn't provide a positive statement you resorted to name calling. I reasoned with you and from the begining you started attacking my motivations, poor debate tacitic and an even worse scientific form of reasoning.

You've made that admission about yourself, sir. But that has never applied to me.

Strong words and very little substance. It does apply to you and for whatever reason you can't come to terms with it.

I suggest you try that. If the jeweler doesn't laugh, its only because he's heard the joke so many times. Every jeweler knows that a diamond is a rock. Specifically, it is a single massive molecule of covalently linked carbon. Is carbon a rock, Mark?

A diamond is just a rock is you're argument not mine...enough said about that.

Semantics were never at issue here, and I did define species, with the best, and most detailed definition available, in message #6. I do wish you would stop pretending otherwise.

You defined species in general terms but when you introduced dozens of terms you didn't bother to define them. A lie of omission is still a lie.

Wait, first I never defined species, and now you think I've re-defined it? When did you think that happened? What were both of the definitions I gave? Or do you think there were more than just two?

It has to include every species, that's the power of science, it can make universal statements like the ones for gravity and God. Theology is a science whether you want to admit that or not.

Except that I never "resorted" to personal attacks. I did cite your hypocrisy after you had attacked me a number of times. But that's it. And I still addressed your arguments first and foremost even then. I also defined every term I used, and asked you to ask me if there were any other terms you need defined. You still haven't pointed out any one I've missed or explained what you think I should have said about it.

Saying that something is hypocritical and calling someone a hypocrite is two different things. You cited nothing, you just attacked me on a personal level and it was out of line. Most of you're posts start with personal attacks and never get to the point. You started this in the first post when you characterized my research into the New Testament as prejudicial, that was wrong. We agreed that the statement not the person would be addressed and you abandoned this from the start.

Well, there's the voice of denial. Anamolies can't be inherited and spread throughout the subsequent population. This is just one of many points you solidly lost but will not admit without moderators.

I never lost this point, I proved it which is why you have abandoned this as a substantive point. We will have moderators next time or there won't be a next time. What is more, unless you finish the formal debate you allready started then there won't be a first time.

If that was the central question, then why is this the first time I've seen it? Wouldn't it have been a good idea to ask me the "central question" before now?

Wouldn't it be a good idea to answer it at least once, no matter how it is worded?

Also, where did you get the idea that natural selection deletes mutations? I'll ignore the comment about "inferior" organisms because that just seems to be the way you think. But these other points need answers.

From Mayr, don't you read Mayr? He said that natural selection was simplicity itself...Do you know what he said next?

I've gotten messages from some of the folks following that debate, all of whom told me I was wasting my time trying to get you think or to be accountable.

Funny, they never bother to message me. Tell them to post to the peanut gallery and stand by their convictions. I know you have a private peanut gallery but they never bothered to challenge me to a debate...why is that? This is not about accountability, it's about substance and evolution lacks substance at the heart of the emphasis.

I don't know. Why wouldn't they all be expressed?
Where did you get that idea??? Yes you definitely can change one trait at a time, and in very tiny incriments too.

That is microevolution, if that is all you have then I rest my case.

Great. But that was never important to our discussion, and you still snipped and skipped everything that was.
Of course I disagree. But then I'm not the one praising the science while countering everthing that science says.

No I don't counter science, I am counting on it.

Remember when you said "All mutations were deleterious or harmful"?
I do have that. And I care because I genuinely want to know how you arrived at any of the conclusions you did. Because none of your position makes any sense to me at all, and I don't know how anyone could ever believe as you do. So it is a genuine curiosity.

Then why did you not read the Simon Greenleaf peice? Why Aron-Ra, if you were interested in how I came to believe what I do? Why?

That depends on what a monkey is, doesn't it?

That and you're ability to discern the difference between a monkey and a man.

That is a really good question. Are you referring to the difference between knowledge and belief? Because knowledge can be demonstrated and tested where belief can't be. Or could you be insinuating that we don't really know what we think we do, because reality may be illusory. If so, then I would still knowledge is testible, even if we live in a video game. Like Morpheus said in The Matrix, even that world had rules, so knowledge of that world and those rules could still be tested there, even if the rules were only writtin in. I really don't know what you're referring to. Since you view everything about reality wholly differently than I do, I guess I'm going to have to hear your answer to that question.

Aron-Ra you have moments of pure brilliance and I hate to disturb the water when you are in full form. The question related to epistomology and it was just a tease. I realize that it will be years before you get into a philosophy of science but it is allways helpfull to dip you're toe in the water from time to time. Now as far as the Matrix there is a common thread throughout, the machines were the enemy. Consider the Scientific Revolution, it was largely a matter of developing tools was it not? We are not as far removed from one another as you might think. We just have views based on two sciences that cannot get along.

Yes, definitely. Why did you want me to read all that? I saw error after error and assumptions compiled atop stacks of assumptions, all without sound basis. Why did any of it have meaning to you? Why did you think it would mean anything to me?

I can't believe this, it's like talking to two different people. Simon Greenleaf set out to disprove that the New Testament was history and as a result became a Christian. History is laced with people like him, Paul is a prime example. I'm not asking you to convert but you would have to be mentally ill to claim that it is all just a farce.

Consider this, the power of the scientist is to be able to be published and critically peer reviewed, right. This makes it possible for him (or her of course) to avoid the trapings of blindspots. Don't you realize, the Bible has been critically peer reviewed from the begining.

Why would it have any meaning for you? Do you have any idea who Simon Greenleaf was and what he did? He did write a legal treatise for evidence you know.

Surprisingly few people are, where I always thought most people would be.
Once again, what you think is obvious may not even be apparent. I do not recognize any "antitheistic rationalizations". Perhaps you give me just one for an example?

Ok

"The proof that evolution, and not the fiat of a rational agent, has built organisms lies in the imperfections that record a history of descent and refute creation from nothing. ... Adaptation does not follow the blueprints of a perfect engineer." (. Stephen J. Gould, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes)

Here is another one:

" In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
(Dawkins, Rivers in Eden)

You're thoughts...

He was an engineer, and many of them call themselves scientists, which is fine with me, if they actually do science, which Morris evidently didn't.

He wrote a book on geology that is still used as a geology textbook. Better bone up on Morris and evolution for that matter. Most of evoltution is based on geology.

There's another interesting notion. How did you imagine you could "help" me?

Well you are debating me for a reason and I think you're motive must be personal. I was just asking what you hope to benifit from these lengthy discussions since you put so much effort into them.

Which leaves me wondering why how you came to believe as you do, since you never explained it.

I believe that the glory of God that raised Jesus Christ from the dead and created the world from nothing is available to us by faith. Don't you get it? This is not about what happened in primordial history, it about what is going on right now and the future. Look, I share you're concerns about our education system and I would not have creationism taught in the public schools. I believe that religion can only be pure if it is seperated from science and politics. I realize that you don't understand where I am coming from but that is exactly what I believe, even if I am not expressing it very well.

When I laid out this challenge, I calculated how many exchanges I thought it would reasonably take to convince someone such as yourself, based on my former experience debating YECs to this point. I gave myself some leeway because creationists habitually refuse to answer critical questions.

I did answer you critical questions as best I was able. I didn't understand the terms. No one is refusing to answer anything, you are losing people in the verbage and I have tried to show you that but you just keep refusing to demonstrate how a species is identified.

And although you answered all of yours wrong, even according to your own terms, you did make one single attempt to answer one set of them. However, all my subsequent posts were dependant upon your actually answering the remaining questions that would have been dependant on those answers. You never provided them, and dodged every attempt after that. So now we're at the point where I have nothing to go on and no reason to continue since you insist on breaking that rule clear to the end.

Then why don't you just summarize you're points and move on? Finish what you started and show me in the formal debate the questions I missed. That should be no problem with such a well read individule as yourself.

Of course you would never accept a creation scientist as a scientist but many of them are far more accomplished then either of us. I know now that you are aware of them, that is enough for now. See you in the formal debate you are trying to abandon.

 

[Aron-Ra]

The way the documents were copied should tell you something. No documents from antiquity have enjoyed so much attention. You are right that the book of Job is older the Genesis but wrong that the accounts in Exodus are younger. You are grasping at straws here but lets look at the rest of this.

To even make this accusation, you would have to imagine that I thought there to be some chance that you might be right about something somewhere. But your 100% failure rate to date is preceded by about five years worth of regular daily debates on Talk.Origins, alt.talk.creationism, creationtalk.com, the EVC forum and other sites where every YEC claim has been shown to be in an instant sham. Compared to yours my position has been proven unassailable. And I would never either need nor want straws to grasp. I'm interested in understanding, not belief. So I could never be in a situation where I would even consider grasping straws.

Exodus is younger than Job in that Job was supposedly written in 1500 BCE, but the events in Exodus weren't supposed to have happened for another couple centuries or so. However, even in the opinion of many rabbinical scholars, the events in Exodus didn't happen the way the Torah tells it, if they happened at all. Another problem is that at least two of the accounts in Exodus are borrowed from older stories even prior to Job. In one, the Pharoah, Seneferu has one of mages part the Red Sea when one of his maidens lost a torquoise ring over the side of the royal barge. In another, the Semitic hero, Hammurabi ventures up the mount to receive the famed Law Code from the Sun-God, Shamash. That Law Code is currently on display in the London Museum, but the Ark of the Covenant only exists in movies.

Do explain to me how anything in the New Testament could possibly be relevant to what we were discussing, please.

Of course, the word is evidence. Do you rely exclusivly on dry bones or the living wittness of people who experienced things first hand?

I'll have to take physical evidence every time. Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable, and seldom trustworthy, especially in such emotionally-charged matters as this. Have you ever heard of the term, "perjury"? Besides, much of the Book of Mormon is an eyewitness testimony too.

Did you even bother to read the piece Simon Greenleaf wrote?

Yes. And how dare you demand that I read anything so long and empty before I could even continue a discussion!

Do you see that I did not base my convictions on mythology but on evidence?

No. I see that you and Greenleaf both base your positions on mythology. Several times in that eternal rant, Greenleaf mentioned the words "evidence" and "proof", and a couple of times, he even said that he had successfully refuted all critics of his position. And on each of these occasions, I had to go back and read the paragraph again, thinking I must have missed something. But I didn't. He mentioned the words "evidence" and "proof", but that was all. He never actually provided any.

The specific mythology here is one that reads like a compilation of the most popular legends of the most popular gods of all the regions surrounding Judeah.

Jesus was heralded as the creator of all life on Earth and was associated with a holy trinity, just like Mithras and Krsna both were many centuries before.

Jesus' birth was heralded by a celestial event, just like Krsna's, Osiris', and Buddha's births were.

Jesus was said to be the son of a god and a mortal human girl. In fact, gods and mortal women were said to breed all the time. There are dozens of these kids throughout mythology including Gilgamesh, Hercules, Quetzalcoatle, Buddha, Dionysus, and Mithras

Jesus was said to have been born of a virgin, just like Mithras, Dionysus, Quetzalcoatle, Horus, Attis, Quirrnus, Indra, Zoroaster, and even Plato and Alexander the Great all were. Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha's) mother may have had other children previously, but she was said to have conceived Buddha without sexual intercourse. Buddha was born out of his mother's side, which is rather similar to Eve's "birth" from Adam's side, except that Buddha wasn't cloned and his mother was concious and standing at the time.

Buddha was born speaking, proclaiming himself to be the greatest of all men. Krsna was born laughing gleefully while angels sang. (OK I know these don't parallel Jesus, but they're interesting none the less).

Buddha, Hermea, Agni, and Adonis were born of mothers named Mary, or names similar to, or that translate into Mary.
Buddha's mother was Maia.
Hermea's mother was also named Maia
Agni's mother was too, but her name was spelled M-A-Y-A.
Adonis' mother was turned into a tree. Her name was then changed her name to Myrrha.
Osiris mother also had two names, Isis and Mari.

Osiris' father's name translates as a variant of Joseph. Osiris the son was an incarnation of the father. So it was with Krsna as well.

Buddha, Mithras, Osiris, and Dionysus were all born during Winter Solstace, ie late December, or December 25th specifically. Almost all the gods ever conceived were born on Christmas day, if their birthdate was known at all. It was Emporer Constantine who decided that Jesus would have been born on the same day as his former god, which I believe was Mithras, but may have been Apollo.

Buddha was visited by three wise men in infancy, who recognized his divinity. He was also presented with gifts of "costly jewels and precious substances" while in infancy.

Dionysus's, Buddha's, Krsna's, Quirinus', and even Moses' lives were threatened in childhood by the resident ruler, who feared an eventual overthrow at their hands. Dionysus was saved from this in exactly the same manner as Moses was; by being set adrift in a river.

Zoroaster was more learned than his masters.
Buddha was brought to the temple and was questioned by the elders.
Osiris was a teacher in the temple at age 12.
Osiris was missing for 18 years between 12 and 30.
Zoroaster began his ministry at age 30.
Zoroaster, Mithras, and Osiris were baptized in water.
The one who baptised Osiris was beheaded.

Quetzalcoatle, Zoroaster, and Buddha were each tempted by their resident forms of Satan. Mara [Satan] promised Buddha all the kingdoms of the world. Buddha refused in exactly the same manner as Jesus did.

Quetzalcoatle also fasted for forty days.
Buddha fasted for "a long period".

Mithras, Zoroaster, and Dionysius cured the sick.
Dionysus cured lepers specifically.
Zoroaster and Osiris cast out demons.
Zoroaster, Mithras and Krsna each made the blind see.
Osiris and Mithras raised the dead.
Mithras made the lame walk.

Buddha fed vast multitudes on only a meager amount of food
Dionysus (Bacchus) turned water into wine, and at a wedding, no less!

Osiris, Buddha, and Krshna walked on water. Indra also walked on the air.

Buddha was transfigured on the mount near the end of his terrestrial existence.

Mithras and Indra remained celibate throughout their lives.

Mithras had a last supper of wine and bread in the company of twelve desciples.
Osiris had a last supper that symbolized Osiris' eventual corpse.

Ba'al, Joseph Smith, and Bahá'u'lláh were taken prisoner, unjustly tried, and executed or murdered for their beliefs.

Ba'al, Atys, Tammuz, Osiris, and Adonis were crucified on or about Easter, ie the Vernal Equinox.

Mithras, Dionysius, and Indra were depicted in pre-Christian artifacts as crucified on a cross exactly as Jesus appears on a crucifix. Alcestis of Euripides was crucified on a cross also. Indra and Ba'al were pierced in the side. Prometheus was bound to a rock.

During the crucifixion, Krsna, Ba'al, and Buddha were mortally wounded in their sides.

Mithras was rendered with the same halo that later artists would adorn Jesus with.

Prometheus and Alcestis were both said to have been slain as a sacrifice for the sins of man

The dogma of Attis (Atys) and of Mithras mention sacrificial and baptismal blood specifically. Osiris' and Mithras' followers were cleansed of their sins in a baptismal of blood and were "born again."

Osiris, Baal, Atys, Thammuz, Dionysius, Krsna, Hesus, Indra, Bali, Iao, Alcestis, Quetzalcoatle, Wittoba, Prometheus, Quirinus, and Mithras were sent by the father god as the savior of mankind. Each of them were believed to have died for our sins and are remembered in eucharist consumption.

The whole world was envoloped in darkness when Budda, Quirinus, and Krsna died. Prometheus never died, but there were still great Earthquakes when he was crucified.

Mithras, Dionysius, Krishna, Indra, Adonis, Thulis, Osiris, Baal, Alcestis, and Attis were physically resurrected after their deaths.

Buddha, Mithras, Osiris, Baal, Alcestis, and Attis were resurrected only after their bodies were buried.

Osiris, Baal, Alcestis, and Attis' were resurrected after exactly three days in the land of the dead

Attis' tomb was found to be empty.

Buddha, Mithras, Dionysius, Thulis, Osiris, and Quirinus ascended to a heavenly afterlife following resurrection.

Buddha, Mithras, and Quetzocoatle were destined to return and judge mankind and restore peace.
Osiris was expected to rule for 1,000 years.

Mexico's Quetzalcoatle, Mithras of Persia, Ba'al (Bel) of Syria, Gautama Buddha, Jesus of Nazareth, and Elvis Presley were all immortalized posthumously.

Attis of Phrygia was called "the Good Sheppard," the "Most High God," the "Only Begotten Son" and "Savior."

Gautama Buddha was called: "Good Shepherd," "Carpenter," "Alpha and Omega," "Sin Bearer," "Master," "Light of the World," "Redeemer," etc.

The Greek Dionysius was called "King of Kings," "Only Begotten Son," "Savior," "Redeemer," "Sin bearer," "Anointed One," the "Alpha and Omega."

Hecules was called "Savior," "Only begotten," "Prince of Peace," "Son of Righteousness."

Osiris of Egypt was called "KRST," the "Anointed One."

Zoroaster of Persia was called "The Word made flesh"

Moments before death, Jesus called out the name of El, the shared name of a half dozen different father-gods and supreme deities of numerous pantheons over the last few thousand years. And there are lots more similarities than just this. In short, every aspect of the Jesus story appears to have been borrowed from all the more popular myths of neighboring religions. It just doesn't make sense that the supreme original author of the whole universe would construct his son to appear as nothing more than a sequel of a mere man-made idea that had already been done to death a half dozen times before.

Without exception, each of these other myths was composed the same way, "according to" the accounts of testimonies of alleged eyewitnesses, even if those were delivered third-hand, as they appear to have been here. Among the many things Greenleaf neglected to mention in his hour-long rant was the fact that men moved by their involvement in any religious cult can no longer be considered reliable or credible for many reasons, even if (and especially if) their involvement in that cult had already compromised their standing in society. Also that these documents are of a highly-charged nature, pleading somewhat urgently for the belief of the reader. All of the gospels appear to have run through a series of other hands before becoming public, and that may be the very reason that they've incorporated so many of the other myths of neighboring regions at the time. Several other details don't seem to match at all, like Herod's reign matching Pilate's. And Greenleaf actually cites Josephas as if this traitor from a century later was any kind of reliable witness. Tacitus was, but what Tacitus had to say about Jesus and Christians, Greenleaf obviously didn't want to recount. Having read Tacitus myself, I'm not at all surprised.

So what I think is infinitely more likely is that some Yeshua bar Yosseff, carpenter turned political activist, was crushed by occupying forces, and his followers were unable to accept that, prompting some (but not all) of them to make up these grand exaggerations about him. This would explain why the testimony of the remaining 7 apostles never appeared anywhere, except for the gospel of Saint Thomas. And this would explain also why early Christians dismissed that testimony and had it stricken from the gospels.

So what we have here is a story that is highly-improbable to say the absolute least, and not corroborated by anything at all, including the fact that no astronomer or historian anywhere on Earth remembered any hours of inexplicable darkness anywhere near the time that Jesus was supposedly executed. And the sole source of this internally-inconsistent fable is also highly-questionable, as are all of Greenleaf's opening assumptions.

But the question I asked you still haven't answered: What could any of this possibly have to do with the origin of our species millions of years earlier?

 

[Aron-Ra]

You have been riled throughout the debate and when you couldn't provide a positive statement you resorted to name calling.

This never happened. I may have found your constant spelling errors, hypocrisy, and dishonest tactics annoying, but I never resorted to name-calling, could never have lacked a substantive argument against you, and could not be emotionally riled by anything you ever tried to do. I've told you this over and over, but you're unable to accept that, and will only claim otherwise because you think you have to. You amuse me as much as any other zealot ever did, because all your bizarre behaviours play into my hands. You can not emotionally rile me or threaten me in any way. Get over yourself.

I reasoned with you and from the begining you started attacking my motivations, poor debate tacitic and an even worse scientific form of reasoning.

This never happened either. In your first reply, you insinuated that I was a swine and a dog, a believer in baseless pagan myths, adhering to a flawed and unnecessary philisophical premise, which I seek to impose on legitimate science. All false accusations and "name-calling", and this is how you started out your debate. I remained civil even when you accused me of imposing a bogus fantasy misrepresented as a matter of course, even when you said that all this was obvious "to anyone who had a brain". I was still civil when you called my substantive arguments "patently absurd baloney", and when you falsely accused me of begging the question, ranting on a ridiculous tangent, and trying to piggyback my ""ridiculous, semantical word salad" onto legitimate science. All these insults you admitted when you said you had turned this into a "grudge match" even though I had yet to even bring up your hypocrisy, which was the one thing you could take as an insult. And you launched right back into them again after that with another barrage of constant negative associations and prejudiced assumptions of the worst of me. Only then did I ever cite any of your more reprehensible errors in conduct. But my argument never lacked substance and I never resorted to name-calling even though you already had.

You've made that admission about yourself, sir. But that has never applied to me.

Strong words and very little substance. It does apply to you and for whatever reason you can't come to terms with it.

I can't come to terms with anything that doesn't apply to me. I am interested in evidence, and this is another false accusation, which I suspect you've concocted to conceal the fact that you have none to show.

A diamond is just a rock is you're argument not mine...enough said about that.

Let's test your ability to answer questions, Mark. Is a diamond a rock? Yes or no?

You defined species in general terms but when you introduced dozens of terms you didn't bother to define them. A lie of omission is still a lie.

I never lied in any way, and I hope the lurkers noted that you've resorted to name-calling yet again. That's what hypocrisy means, Mark.

Once again, I defined every term I used, and explained that if there was anything else you needed you could either ask for further clarification, (which you still haven't done) or you could look up some of the definitions yourself just to get an objective as opposed to leading response. Every attempt to help you sent you into a rage, and you still haven't given me a single example of anything you thought I should have defined or what you think I should have said about it. Just what do you think I omitted, Mark? Be specific.

It has to include every species, that's the power of science, it can make universal statements like the ones for gravity and God.

Which my definitions did.

Theology is a science whether you want to admit that or not.

If it doesn't emply the scientific method, then it can't be science, whether you want to admit that or not.

Saying that something is hypocritical and calling someone a hypocrite is two different things. You cited nothing, you just attacked me on a personal level and it was out of line.

Dispite your many omissions and all the questions and points you had already snipped and ignored, you falsely accused me of having "blown off" your vague points and omitting whatever you thought your arguments were. What I said was not out of line, particularly considering all the libelous things you have already said about me.

Most of you're posts start with personal attacks and never get to the point.

That's your debate style, not mine. And don't forget we still have the whole discussion archived for all to see.

You started this in the first post when you characterized my research into the New Testament as prejudicial, that was wrong. We agreed that the statement not the person would be addressed and you abandoned this from the start.

No, I adhere to that still, and would even if it weren't one of the rules of the engagement because that's just one of my own staple rules anyway. In your case, it was no mere insult. I was stating a fact. You hadn't examine both sides of this issue, and still have never examined both sides of it where I have. You made your judgement against anything you deemed anti-Biblical, in advance, and without proper consideration. That is a prejudicial position. This statement of that fact was meant to alert you to the reality of your position.

Anamolies can't be inherited and spread throughout the subsequent population. This is just one of many points you solidly lost but will not admit without moderators.

I never lost this point, I proved it which is why you have abandoned this as a substantive point.

You did lose this point, just like you lost every other one, and won't admit it. You said all mutations were deleterious and harmful. When proven wrong, you lack the integrity to admit it, and conjure some undefined term "anamoly" instead. But we still know these are mutations, and that they can't be anamolies because they've been passed into the subsequent generations.

We will have moderators next time or there won't be a next time.

Damned skippy

What is more, unless you finish the formal debate you allready started then there won't be a first time.

As you said, we can't go back in time, so we can't make the debate we had not be there anymore. I already did finish what I started when I acheived both of my objectives, and you continued to lose by consistently breaking every single one of the rules, even your own.

If that was the central question, then why is this the first time I've seen it? Wouldn't it have been a good idea to ask me the "central question" before now?

Wouldn't it be a good idea to answer it at least once, no matter how it is worded?

Look who's talking! You creationists are masters of irony. I will answer the question as best I can, as soon as I get clarification of where you got the erroneous idea that natural selection deletes mutations, and how the various mechanisms you've already agreed to suddenly no longer apply.

From Mayr, don't you read Mayr? He said that natural selection was simplicity itself...Do you know what he said next?

No. I don't read Mayr. I do a lot of research, but I look at the facts themselves, and don't follow any supposed "authorities" on any of it. Do fill me in. Because to my knowledge, natural selection wouldn't delete mutations. Why should it?

Funny, they never bother to message me. Tell them to post to the peanut gallery and stand by their convictions. I know you have a private peanut gallery but they never bothered to challenge me to a debate...why is that?

Because you have a reputation for being dishonest, rude, and unaccountable. This is not an insult. That really is your reputation.

This is not about accountability, it's about substance and evolution lacks substance at the heart of the emphasis.

Yet you have already many times said you accept evolution and have no problem with it. If you were accountable, and would answer the simple questions I pose, then you know even better that evolution is the only concept of our origins that has any substance at all, and that it has quite a lot of it.

Yes you definitely can change one trait at a time, and in very tiny incriments too.

That is microevolution, if that is all you have then I rest my case.

But that's not all I have, and your case was already lost when you stated your belief in macroevolution at numerous taxonomic levels.

But then I'm not the one praising the science while countering everthing that science says.

No I don't counter science, I am counting on it. Nope. You said that evolution lacks substance, that there was never any hard, physical evidence of macroevolution, and that genetics did not imply common ancestry. I have disproved each of these comments with peer-reviewed scientific citation. If you're counting on science, then you're already out of options.

Then why did you not read the Simon Greenleaf peice? Why Aron-Ra, if you were interested in how I came to believe what I do? Why?

See what I mean about automatically jumping to negative assumptions, assuming the worst about me, pre-judging me? And every single time you've done that, you've been wrong. If I had a failure rate like yours, I wouldn't make such assumptions anymore.

I did read that amazingly long and vapid monologue. And I still don't understand how either you or he could believe as you do. Neither of you have explained that yet.

That depends on what a monkey is, doesn't it?

That and you're ability to discern the difference between a monkey and a man.

Oh I can tell the difference between a monkey and a man. But I'll bet even you can't tell the difference between all monkeys and all men, if you list all the characters we would use to identify a monkey and discern it from any other kind of animal.

Aron-Ra you have moments of pure brilliance and I hate to disturb the water when you are in full form. The question related to epistomology and it was just a tease. I realize that it will be years before you get into a philosophy of science but it is allways helpfull to dip you're toe in the water from time to time. Now as far as the Matrix there is a common thread throughout, the machines were the enemy. Consider the Scientific Revolution, it was largely a matter of developing tools was it not? We are not as far removed from one another as you might think. We just have views based on two sciences that cannot get along.

There's only one science here. The other is theology, and functions rather opposite from any science.

I can't believe this, it's like talking to two different people. Simon Greenleaf set out to disprove that the New Testament was history and as a result became a Christian. History is laced with people like him, Paul is a prime example. I'm not asking you to convert but you would have to be mentally ill to claim that it is all just a farce.

And yet I claim exactly that, so I must be mentally ill. Thanks for demonstrating another round of name-calling, Mark.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Consider this, the power of the scientist is to be able to be published and critically peer reviewed, right. This makes it possible for him (or her of course) to avoid the trapings of blindspots. Don't you realize, the Bible has been critically peer reviewed from the begining.

Yes I do. And as early as the 15th Century, accomplished theologians (like Augustine) were already stating that it couldn't be reduced to mere history, and couldn't be interpreted literally.

Not only that, but it has been subjected to such revision at the hand of man, with almost half of its total volume omitted at the whim of its human editors never to be read by anyone. These many other books are still referenced in other parts of the Bible, but they aren't in the Bible anymore, and no one knows what became of them. Obviously God hasn't done a bang-up job of preserving his precious document, has he? Because its looking more and more like the work of men.

Why would it have any meaning for you? Do you have any idea who Simon Greenleaf was and what he did? He did write a legal treatise for evidence you know.

I know he died in 1853, six years before Darwin published Origin of Species, and about 80 years before the discovery of Ashurburnipal's library. What evidence could he have had to go on? What he listed in his treatise is nothing but assuming the conclusion from the start. Where is the objective science in that?

I do not recognize any "antitheistic rationalizations". Perhaps you give me just one for an example?

Ok

"The proof that evolution, and not the fiat of a rational agent, has built organisms lies in the imperfections that record a history of descent and refute creation from nothing. ... Adaptation does not follow the blueprints of a perfect engineer." (. Stephen J. Gould, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes)

Here is another one:

" In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
(Dawkins, Rivers in Eden)

You're thoughts...

The statements of atheists are obviously non-theistic, I grant you. But I still don't see any evidence that even these men "hate everything about religion". Please try and remember that creationist dogmatism is not synonemous with Christianity. It is still possible to adhere to every tenet of the Nicene creed without worshipping the Bible as God. As other Christian scientists have already stated, the Bible is a work of men "moved by God". But that doesn't mean their interpretations were to be treated like the word of God himself. That doesn't make any sense on any level.

He wrote a book on geology that is still used as a geology textbook. Better bone up on Morris and evolution for that matter. Most of evoltution is based on geology.

I must point out someone from the modern day, 150 years after Greenleaf's time, to adequately respond to this. Dr. Glenn Morton was a Young Earth Creationist like yourself, trained and degreed by Henry Morris himself. But when he got into the field professionally, he discovered what all natural scientists who actually practice science inevitably find; that Young Earth Creationism and flood geology and hydroplates and all that nonsense just aren't supported by anything in the real world. The world of evolutionists is laced with people like him. Most atheists in fact are former creationists who've seen through the gaping holes they wished weren't there.

There's another interesting notion. How did you imagine you could "help" me?

Well you are debating me for a reason and I think you're motive must be personal. I was just asking what you hope to benifit from these lengthy discussions since you put so much effort into them.

I already told you; I'm using archived debates like this to show how baseless and weak the creationist position really is. And I can honestly say you've done more to demonstrate that than any creationist I've debated in the last or so at least.

Well, there was Russ Miller, the YEC Disc Jockey from Arizona. What a loon he was!

Which leaves me wondering why how you came to believe as you do, since you never explained it.

I believe that the glory of God that raised Jesus Christ from the dead and created the world from nothing is available to us by faith. Don't you get it?

Obviously not. Why do you believe that? I was once a Christian. I read the Bible. And I came away certain that the whole compilation was a crock of lies and rationalizations to justify man's inhumanity against his neighbor. There are a couple of points in the New Testament that could be noteworthy, but the entirety of the Old Testament is naught but inhuman atrocities, inconsistencies, absurditities, and extreme immorality amongst all the most revered figures. The beings that wrote that weren't even superior, much less supreme. So I have to wonder how you manage to see this any differently.

This is not about what happened in primordial history, it about what is going on right now and the future. Look, I share you're concerns about our education system and I would not have creationism taught in the public schools. I believe that religion can only be pure if it is seperated from science and politics. I realize that you don't understand where I am coming from but that is exactly what I believe, even if I am not expressing it very well.

Fine.

I did answer you critical questions as best I was able. I didn't understand the terms. No one is refusing to answer anything, you are losing people in the verbage and I have tried to show you that but you just keep refusing to demonstrate how a species is identified.

I not only repeatedly defined that for you, but I also pointed out where that definition wouldn't even matter, and I did that with demonstrations to prove the point.

 

[Aron-Ra]

all my subsequent posts were dependant upon your actually answering the remaining questions that would have been dependant on those answers. You never provided them, and dodged every attempt after that. So now we're at the point where I have nothing to go on and no reason to continue since you insist on breaking that rule clear to the end.

Then why don't you just summarize you're points and move on? Finish what you started and show me in the formal debate the questions I missed. That should be no problem with such a well read individule as yourself.

1. First, I am curious as to your perspective, and (more importantly) how you came to the conclusion(s) you did. Why should I believe anything about your position, whatever your exact position is?
This question, in addition to my 39 yes or no taxonomy questions was asked in my very first post, and still has never been answered! The 2nd mutual exchange began with none of the opening questions answered, and I was supposed to form the entire subsequent discussion on the answers I still didn't have. I still didn't have these answers even at the start of the 3rd mutual exchange because you were deliberately trying to dodge them.
2. To answer your question; Both dominant and recessive mutations can lead to morphological change, and virtually any variance could lead to a transitional form, since the form is only "transitional" between taxonomic classifications, which you say are only imaginary anyway. Perhaps if you could give me a specific example, like one from the list of questions you didn't answer?
3. how is any of this weird philosophyzing [about Darwin's Christiantiy] in any way related to whether changing alleles result in increased biodiversity? Or whether humans are evolving apes?
4. why is it that the concept of common ancestry is universally accepted by all the most celebrated minds of the modern era, including all the collective genius of the vast majority of scientific experts in any field, and every last one of the Nobel laureates?
5. when are you going to cough up some legitimate science to support your side of this argument?
6. "He also predicted that the Irish and the aboriginal would become extinct because the causation was the favored race. What's your point?" --That doesn’t make any sense. Give me a citation.
7. "I dare say that ancestorial to ape and humans and ancestorial to humans only is a definite line the scientist draws in the sand." --Can you explain that comment?
8. If you're only interested in the proof, then why did you twice refuse to answer my primary questions?
9. Regarding your claim that my definition of hominid was "bogus", I have already proved that they are not with substantive quotes from several major Universities and other science organizations. What do you have to back up your allegation?
10. "You give me a big build up for a question that creationist supposedly never answer and then just make a ridiculas statement." --Which was?

By the beginning of the fourth mutual exchange, you still hadn't answered any of my opening questions. But you did answer the bonus questions, which you seemed to do as an attempt to stall for more time. But as you answered a couple of the other questions, I continued and didn't yet call for a loss by default, though I normally would have by then. The few questions you did answer concerning the relationships of homoines, were all answered incorrectly since you still didn't understand the terms even after I had already explained them repeatedly. So I asked for you to answer them again, adhering to the proper terminology, since your answers made no sense as they were, and I made sure to define each of those terms very expicitly, though now you pretend I did not.

In the next round, I finally had some of the answers to the opening questions, but with 1/3 of the debate already behind us. Most of those answers were still wrong, but at least I had something to base the remaining 2/3rds of the debate on....if you would have answered the clarifying follow-up questions, which you didn't.

11. Imagine we find a new species of monkey, one we've never discovered before. How would we know if it really was a monkey or not? How would we know if was an ape or not? Imagine it is your job to describe these families according to some criteria which we could use to identify a monkey or an ape so that we could tell one apart from a dog or a camel or starfish.
Do I even need to remind you how many times you've ignored this question dispite many very specific definitions I have provided for every term relevant to this question?

12. As you can see, fossils for the non-human hominids are definitely not rare! I have already pointed out that nearly 1,000 individuals have been identified at minimum, with another 2,000 potential hominines yet to be positively identified. that's not exactly rare either, now is it? Which of us is ignoring these thousand or so Hominines, Mark?
13. it doesn't matter what sort of person Darwin was. If Ghengis Khan had discovered gravity, would gravity be any less valid?
All these unanswered questions were repeated in message #18. And since none of them were answered then either, then you had ignored all of them multiple times, in violation of the clause leading to a loss by default. However, I was patient, and didn't feel a need to call the debate on any such technicality.

14. You said you believed all the human demes were related. Could you find a "direct link" for them? If so, what was it? just what do you mean by a "direct link"?
15. Specially-created organisms wouldn't have to conform to any taxonomic structure, yet everything that has ever lived does conform to that perfectly, and without exception. Can you explain that?
16. How did you determine that any of these were specially-created separate from all these other similar organisms?
17. What about those Christian sites I referred you to attesting to the beliefs of his (Darwin's) youth? Were these sites lying? If so, then exactly where were these lies?
18. how do we determine the humanity of any fossil species if we don't happen to find their tools with them, as we usually won't?

By the 8th mutual exchange, I still didn't have any of your corrected answers regarding human relationships, and none of the answers to thes questions either. But by then I had already acheived both of my objectives when you admitted that our species had evolved from another less derived one, and when you admitted that biological evolution was the only concept of our origins with either evidentiary support or scientific validity. But I invited you to continue the discussion only because there were still some things I wanted you to address. Of course, you never did.

19. do we try to figure out how something really happens? Or do we just use the excuse that it must be magic? Do we examine the processes we can actually see, and know to be involved? Or do we make up something incredulous and wholly improbable, that doesn't make any sense, and can't be tested or evidenced in any way, -and believe that instead, for literally no reason at all?

20. "there is a limited gene pool that can account for all of the changes in populations over time given a universal ancestor model." --what is this limitation? And how do we know it really exists? Especially since you already said, earlier in this thread, that it didn't.
21. What falsifiable predictions have creation "scientists" ever published for peer-review?

21. Of course, if you accept this H. erectus as human,
then why wouldn't you accept this A. africanus as human too?

22. What would you accept?
23. science requires demonstrable evidence, objective experiments, testable hypotheses, and objectively falsifiable theories. What have you got?
24. Within the confines of this debate, I have given you everything you asked for. What exactly did you think I have yet to provide? What sort of definition are looking for, and for which examples?
25. How many apes or monkeys were there? (on board the ark) And how many marsupials?

Of course you would never accept a creation scientist as a scientist but many of them are far more accomplished then either of us. I know now that you are aware of them, that is enough for now. See you in the formal debate you are trying to abandon.

There is no reason to post there again. I've already met my objectives, and you've already lost by every means it was possible for you to lose. Upon my declaration of victory, you were ready to have the mods close the thread, but I invited you to continue, just to address some of the points you missed. Of course you still didn't address them, and instead called for a whole new debate. Well, that's fine, but it means that we'll have to start all over again. That one is over, and there is no doubt in anyone's mind that I won. I will see you in the formal debate forum only when we agree on a new set of rules and a new topic.

"Dear God, don't know if you noticed but...
Your name is on a lot of quotes in this book.
And us crazy humans wrote it.
You should take a look.
And all the people that you made in your image
still believing that junk is true.
Well I know it ain't, and so do you, dear God."
--Sarah McLachlan

 

[mark kennedy]

This never happened. I may have found your constant spelling errors, hypocrisy, and dishonest tactics annoying, but I never resorted to name-calling, could never have lacked a substantive argument against you, and could not be emotionally riled by anything you ever tried to do. I've told you this over and over, but you're unable to accept that, and will only claim otherwise because you think you have to. You amuse me as much as any other zealot ever did, because all your bizarre behaviours play into my hands. You can not emotionally rile me or threaten me in any way. Get over yourself.

Dishonesty, hypocrisy, bizzare, zealot... and you don't want to admitt to name calling. Top is off with 'get over yourself' and this is highly personel and inflamatory language. I'll give you one thing, I do have a problem with typos but given the enormous length of you're posts and the constant personal remarks I really get tired of editing posts that have to go on for pages just to address everything.

This never happened either. In your first reply, you insinuated that I was a swine and a dog, a believer in baseless pagan myths, adhering to a flawed and unnecessary philisophical premise, which I seek to impose on legitimate science. All false accusations and "name-calling", and this is how you started out your debate. I remained civil even when you accused me of imposing a bogus fantasy misrepresented as a matter of course, even when you said that all this was obvious "to anyone who had a brain". I was still civil when you called my substantive arguments "patently absurd baloney", and when you falsely accused me of begging the question, ranting on a ridiculous tangent, and trying to piggyback my ""ridiculous, semantical word salad" onto legitimate science. All these insults you admitted when you said you had turned this into a "grudge match" even though I had yet to even bring up your hypocrisy, which was the one thing you could take as an insult. And you launched right back into them again after that with another barrage of constant negative associations and prejudiced assumptions of the worst of me. Only then did I ever cite any of your more reprehensible errors in conduct. But my argument never lacked substance and I never resorted to name-calling even though you already had.

I never called you a pig or a dog, what I was saying was that there is a difference between being critical and being argumentative. Now what I said about these debates is that they often turn into 'grudge matches' and admitted that I was as bad as anybody. I have made the point that taxonomic relations are in a state of flux with many of the terms, especially terms you like to emphasis, are neither definite or determined.

I can't come to terms with anything that doesn't apply to me. I am interested in evidence, and this is another false accusation, which I suspect you've concocted to conceal the fact that you have none to show.
Let's test your ability to answer questions, Mark. Is a diamond a rock? Yes or no?

Now what do you expect me to say, no a diamond is not a rock? I never really cared much for this kind of pedantic rationalization but yea, it a rock...so what?

I never lied in any way, and I hope the lurkers noted that you've resorted to name-calling yet again. That's what hypocrisy means, Mark.

There you go again

Once again, I defined every term I used, and explained that if there was anything else you needed you could either ask for further clarification, (which you still haven't done) or you could look up some of the definitions yourself just to get an objective as opposed to leading response. Every attempt to help you sent you into a rage, and you still haven't given me a single example of anything you thought I should have defined or what you think I should have said about it. Just what do you think I omitted, Mark? Be specific.
Which my definitions did.

You omitted the definitions for the bulk of the taxonomic terms you were using in you list of questions. Assuming that each term represents a family, genus, species or the all important class you should have made more of a distinction. I really don't know why you think I am in a rage, I'm just bored with these endless rationalizations and would like to see this getting boiled down rather then continually expanded.

If it doesn't emply the scientific method, then it can't be science, whether you want to admit that or not.

The first philosophy of science has been considered math since Newton's Prinicipia. Now while theology is not an inductive science it is still a science since it establishes experiencial knowledge in a systematic way.

Dispite your many omissions and all the questions and points you had already snipped and ignored, you falsely accused me of having "blown off" your vague points and omitting whatever you thought your arguments were. What I said was not out of line, particularly considering all the libelous things you have already said about me.
That's your debate style, not mine. And don't forget we still have the whole discussion archived for all to see.
No, I adhere to that still, and would even if it weren't one of the rules of the engagement because that's just one of my own staple rules anyway. In your case, it was no mere insult. I was stating a fact. You hadn't examine both sides of this issue, and still have never examined both sides of it where I have. You made your judgement against anything you deemed anti-Biblical, in advance, and without proper consideration. That is a prejudicial position. This statement of that fact was meant to alert you to the reality of your position.

After agreeing that the statement, not the person, would be addressed I am addressed exclusivly in this section.

You did lose this point, just like you lost every other one, and won't admit it. You said all mutations were deleterious and harmful. When proven wrong, you lack the integrity to admit it, and conjure some undefined term "anamoly" instead. But we still know these are mutations, and that they can't be anamolies because they've been passed into the subsequent generations.

Mutations are most often of not effect at all. In most of the other occurances they are either deletreious or harmfull. Mutations are by definition a damaged DNA stand and while my hyperblole was a little over the top there was a reason for it. What you are calling a benifical mutation is actually an aquired trait, I was hoping to expand on this but there have been entirely too many personal remarks for that.

As you said, we can't go back in time, so we can't make the debate we had not be there anymore. I already did finish what I started when I acheived both of my objectives, and you continued to lose by consistently breaking every single one of the rules, even your own.

Ditto!

Look who's talking! You creationists are masters of irony. I will answer the question as best I can, as soon as I get clarification of where you got the erroneous idea that natural selection deletes mutations, and how the various mechanisms you've already agreed to suddenly no longer apply.

So now natural selection does not eliminate bad mutations and preserve good ones. I was thinking of the way DNA repairs itself but no matter you still haven't finished you rant yet.

No. I don't read Mayr. I do a lot of research, but I look at the facts themselves, and don't follow any supposed "authorities" on any of it. Do fill me in. Because to my knowledge, natural selection wouldn't delete mutations. Why should it?

Check the definition of mutation in my last submission to the last debate forum. Let's try this again, Mayr said, 'Natural selection is simplicity itself...' do you know what he said next?

Because you have a reputation for being dishonest, rude, and unaccountable. This is not an insult. That really is your reputation.

There you go again...

Yet you have already many times said you accept evolution and have no problem with it. If you were accountable, and would answer the simple questions I pose, then you know even better that evolution is the only concept of our origins that has any substance at all, and that it has quite a lot of it.

I qualified what I said about accepting evolution and even change on a very broad scale. It does not represent the only credible explanation for our origins, just the only one that is exclusivly naturalistic.

But that's not all I have, and your case was already lost when you stated your belief in macroevolution at numerous taxonomic levels.
[/i]No I don't counter science, I am counting on it. Nope. You said that evolution lacks substance, that there was never any hard, physical evidence of macroevolution, and that genetics did not imply common ancestry. I have disproved each of these comments with peer-reviewed scientific citation. If you're counting on science, then you're already out of options.

Suppositional systematics are not demonstrated proof and macroevolution is at best rare and cannot be readily discerned from microevolution since species has become a nebulas concept. Genetics is a remarkably pure science that has a great deal of trouble even finding benificial mutations. Most of the changes noted are due to random variations and does not rewrite the genetic code. I have read the critically peer-reviewed scientific discussions as well and the transition of metabolism is the weak link in the evolutionary change.

See what I mean about automatically jumping to negative assumptions, assuming the worst about me, pre-judging me? And every single time you've done that, you've been wrong. If I had a failure rate like yours, I wouldn't make such assumptions anymore.

Simon Greenleaf wrote a treatise on evidence that was used in courts, legal research and was a vital law library resourse for half a century. The man was the foremost legal expert of his time who examined the legal evidence for the New Testament. You claim to be interested in evidence and yet you make this statement:

I did read that amazingly long and vapid monologue. And I still don't understand how either you or he could believe as you do. Neither of you have explained that yet.

The introduction of the Greenleaf peice was another attempt to explain how I came to believe what I do. Of course you just railed against it and it you have been so consistant up to this point I knew you would reject it without reservation. Just gauging you're objectivity and you really don't get high marks for pedantic satire directed at Simon Greenleaf.

Oh I can tell the difference between a monkey and a man. But I'll bet even you can't tell the difference between all monkeys and all men, if you list all the characters we would use to identify a monkey and discern it from any other kind of animal.
There's only one science here. The other is theology, and functions rather opposite from any science.
And yet I claim exactly that, so I must be mentally ill. Thanks for demonstrating another round of name-calling, Mark.

My point was that if you think it's a farce you would have to be mentally ill. The scholarship that went into the Bible with regards to internal, external, and bibliographical evidence is unique and incomparable. It is staggering that you couldn't find some merit in such a well preserved and credible writing from antiquity.

My only real concern here is the questions you claim I don't answer. The earliest question about how I came to believe what I do set the tone for the entire debate. I answered it again and again but you claim I never did, that's telling me something. I also answered you're questions about the differences between monkey (not a scientific term really) and men and you responded in the exact same way. I worked all night and the Army thinks my duties here take preference over these debates. I'll get to the rest of it when I have had a little rest.

 

[mark kennedy]

Yes I do. And as early as the 15th Century, accomplished theologians (like Augustine) were already stating that it couldn't be reduced to mere history, and couldn't be interpreted literally.

Like the Greenleaf peice the credibility of the New Teatament wittness was the primary issue.

Far be it from us too deny, that we know what we have learned by the testimony of others: otherwise we know not that there is an ocean; we know not that the lands and cities exist which most copious report commends to us; we know not that those men were, and their works, which we have learned by reading history; we know not the news that is daily brought us from this quarter or that, and confirmed by consistent and conspiring evidence; lastly we know not at what place or from whom we have been born: since in all these things we have believed the testimony of others. And if it is most absurd to say this, then we must confess, that not only our own senses, but those of other persons also, have added very much indeed to our knowledge.

St. Augustine, On the Trinity, book 15, chap. 12

The Historicity of the Gospels

Agustine like the Puritans who would come later had a vision of the chruch as a city on the hill. He was never rejecting a literal history but in not taking the Scriptures to heart. The church has never seperated the events of redemptive history from its authority. What had to be emphasised was the way it convicts a person on a very personal level, this isn't cold academics but a living wittness.

Not only that, but it has been subjected to such revision at the hand of man, with almost half of its total volume omitted at the whim of its human editors never to be read by anyone. These many other books are still referenced in other parts of the Bible, but they aren't in the Bible anymore, and no one knows what became of them. Obviously God hasn't done a bang-up job of preserving his precious document, has he? Because its looking more and more like the work of men.

With some 30,000 extant copies of the originals that do not deviate from one another in any signifigant way I would say you are presuming a great deal here. We have copies that go all the way back to the first century and if you compare that to any other historical writting from antiquity you will find that the authographs are seperated from the originals by centuries and the copies never look identical. You simply don't have anything like that with the New Testament, the copies from all periods are virtually identical.

I know he died in 1853, six years before Darwin published Origin of Species, and about 80 years before the discovery of Ashurburnipal's library. What evidence could he have had to go on? What he listed in his treatise is nothing but assuming the conclusion from the start. Where is the objective science in that?

The Rules of Law he used are listed in the essay:

1. Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forger, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise.

2. In matters of public and general interest, all persons must be presumed to be conversant, on the principle that individuals are presumed to be conversant with their own affairs.

3. In trials of fact, by oral testimony, the proper inquiry is not whether is it possible that the testimony may be false, but whether there is sufficient probability that it is true.

4. A proposition of fact is proved, when its truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence.

5. In the absence of circumstances which generate suspicion, every witness is to be presumed credible, until the contrary is shown; the burden of impeaching his credibility lying on the objector.

6. The credit due to the testimony of witnesses depends upon, firstly, their honesty; secondly, their ability; thirdly, their number and the consistency of their testimony; fourthly, the conformity of their testimony with experience; and fifthly, the coincidence of their testimony with collateral circumstances.

He had set out to prove the New Testament was a myth, when he had finished his investigation he was a Christian. Darwin on the other hand did not offer a great deal of proof, although he had a gift for acute observations and a very readable style of writting. Darwin's philosophy began with primordial history and he proposed the tree of life diagram based on random variations and universal common ancestory.

Look at it this way, is there going to be more evidence for what happened 2 thousand years ago or two million?

The statements of atheists are obviously non-theistic, I grant you. But I still don't see any evidence that even these men "hate everything about religion". Please try and remember that creationist dogmatism is not synonemous with Christianity. It is still possible to adhere to every tenet of the Nicene creed without worshipping the Bible as God. As other Christian scientists have already stated, the Bible is a work of men "moved by God". But that doesn't mean their interpretations were to be treated like the word of God himself. That doesn't make any sense on any level.

I would ask you to understand that you can't seperate the Bible's accounts of redemptive history from it's moral influence. Look at the context that Dobzhansky and Mayr studied their perspective sciences in. Dobzhansky was in Germany as the politics of national socialism were about to plunge the world into another World War. Mayr went to Harvard when the Liberal Revolution had collapsed in Europe. Keep in mind that this is a concern for me and not a major issue, I would like to see the 'War of nature' as Huxley recieve less attention and the mutual cooperation in nature to be more stongly emphasised. I have dwelled on this a great deal and you seem to think it is an attack on natural science. I am a soilder and I while I make every effort to prepare for war, I never believed that there was anything natural about it.

I must point out someone from the modern day, 150 years after Greenleaf's time, to adequately respond to this. Dr. Glenn Morton was a Young Earth Creationist like yourself, trained and degreed by Henry Morris himself. But when he got into the field professionally, he discovered what all natural scientists who actually practice science inevitably find; that Young Earth Creationism and flood geology and hydroplates and all that nonsense just aren't supported by anything in the real world. The world of evolutionists is laced with people like him. Most atheists in fact are former creationists who've seen through the gaping holes they wished weren't there.

How well I know this and I would be lest then honest if I said that this is a small problem for me. To be completly honest absolute dating losses me, I have yet to figure out how the geologic clock is set back to zero.

I already told you; I'm using archived debates like this to show how baseless and weak the creationist position really is. And I can honestly say you've done more to demonstrate that than any creationist I've debated in the last or so at least.

I am a little tired of the personal remarks, I'll get to the questions at my first opportunity.

 

[herev]

*Mod hat on*
folks, there's been a lot of good debate in this thread, but there are beginning to be a number of personal comments aimed at each other. Let's keep it civil and keep it on the issues, or else this thread will be closed
*Mod hat off*

back to it

 

[mark kennedy]

1. First, I am curious as to your perspective, and (more importantly) how you came to the conclusion(s) you did. Why should I believe anything about your position, whatever your exact position is?

I started with the New Testament and I was very concerned about the extraordinary nature of the miralcles. The one that recieved the most attention was the ressurection and it became my central focus. In Romans 6 there is a lengthy discussion about the power of God as it relates to walking in faith. It discribes the ressurection as being brought about by the glory of God (which would be a topic in and of itself). This same power that raised Christ from the dead was exercised at the original creation and this is a common theme throughout the OT.

Almost by accident I happened into a creation/evolution thread on an exclusivly secular board and I was amazed at how stongly the Bible was rejected as history. Now I had been interested in Christian apologetics for years and had debated the New Testament as history many times. With evolution it was far different, natural history in particular was deeply embedded with not only an antibiblical central premise, it was antitheistic.

While researching for a paper on the Scientific Revolution I discovered the shift in reasoning was from inductive to deductive and it started with Bacon, and ended with Newton. I have allways been interested in philosophy and history so when I found a philosophy of natural history in Darwin's On the Origin of Species I found the combination of the two irresistable.

Over time I have become convinced that the central tenants of evolution are philosophical, and more importantly, over extended with regards to evidence. To be honest the human origins fossils are primary for me and I have yet to see a transitional that is beyond skepticism.

I came to my convictions based on the New Testament wittness and have come to find evolution to be severly flawed as a philosophy of science.

This question, in addition to my 39 yes or no taxonomy questions was asked in my very first post, and still has never been answered!

The first question was answered and I have elaborated on the explanation repeatedly. The taxonomic questions were first answered in a yes and no fashion which was all that was asked. Upon futher discussion I dismissed the taxonomic questions as speculative with regards to the origins of the human race. In accordance with the original conditions that I allow for dismissing a question, I am confident that I complied with the terms I originally agreed to.

The 2nd mutual exchange began with none of the opening questions answered, and I was supposed to form the entire subsequent discussion on the answers I still didn't have. I still didn't have these answers even at the start of the 3rd mutual exchange because you were deliberately trying to dodge them.

Not true...enough said.

2. To answer your question; Both dominant and recessive mutations can lead to morphological change, and virtually any variance could lead to a transitional form, since the form is only "transitional" between taxonomic classifications, which you say are only imaginary anyway. Perhaps if you could give me a specific example, like one from the list of questions you didn't answer?

There is no such thing as a dominant or recessive mutation, only dominant and recessive gene. What they lead to is not a transition but an inherited trait. I have treated each of the mutations listed in the formal debate at length and have yet to see a benificial trait as a result of any of these mutations specifically identified as an evolutionary change. There are very specific examples of harmfull mutations and the concerted opinion of noted scientists cited in the posts. Enough said about that as well.

3. how is any of this weird philosophyzing [about Darwin's Christiantiy] in any way related to whether changing alleles result in increased biodiversity? Or whether humans are evolving apes?

The philosophy of science that presupposes a common ancestory demands that the most simular living species have a common ancestor. In taxonomic relations the emphasis is put on the observer and is rightly called subjective. As opinions change and new evidence comes to light it is subjectivly minipulated to fit the model. Evolution is a philosophy of science based on a concept. Last chance before having to concede this point. Darwin's natural selection is simplicity it self....what did Ernst Mayr say next? Now, since the conclusion is unavoidable is this empirical or conceptual?

4. why is it that the concept of common ancestry is universally accepted by all the most celebrated minds of the modern era, including all the collective genius of the vast majority of scientific experts in any field, and every last one of the Nobel laureates?

Because the scientific communitty will not accept an alternative to the common ancestory model. In the face of conflicting evidence and alternative explanations God as an explanation for anything is rejected and unscientific.

5. when are you going to cough up some legitimate science to support your side of this argument?

Since the question is rethorical I will answer it with a counter question. When are you going to admitt that the philosophy of science, know as evolution, is based on a concept, not demonstrated science?

6. "He also predicted that the Irish and the aboriginal would become extinct because the causation was the favored race. What's your point?" --That doesn’t make any sense. Give me a citation.

"The enquirer would next come to the important point, whether man tends to increase at so rapid a rate, as to lead to occasional severe struggles for existence; and consequently to beneficial variations, whether in body or mind, being preserved, and injurious ones eliminated. Do the races or species of men, whichever term may be applied, encroach on and replace one another, so that some finally become extinct?"

...describing his dream of a future for mankind when the black races of man, as well as the mountain gorilla of Africa, will hopefully become extinct, thus enhancing the chances for the evolutionary advancement of the more "civilized" races of man: "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Descent of Man, Chapter Six: On the Affinities and Geneology of Man, On the Birthplace and Antiquity of Man)

Natural selection is not competition between the organism and the environment. It is not the influence of the environment on the organism. It is not the competion of one species with another, it is the war on nature between the strong and the weak within a species.

7. "I dare say that ancestorial to ape and humans and ancestorial to humans only is a definite line the scientist draws in the sand." --Can you explain that comment?

"Aegyptopithecus and other primates preceded the hominoids, which were ancestral to apes and humans. Honinids were ancestral to humans only."

This is yet another quote from Life (the textbook not the process) and I have elaborated on this at length. Where we focused exclusivly on human evolution and comparing it to that of Apes and other primates I would have elaborated on this a great deal more, in fact I am disappointed that I never had the opportunity.

8. If you're only interested in the proof, then why did you twice refuse to answer my primary questions?

Frankly I considered it a dead end and was sure no answer would ever satisfy you. I was warned by a couple of people that the evidence would never convince someone that had allready made a naturalistic assumption. Being a Calvinist I had allready heard this many times and known it to be true. However, in my former debate I found it an interesting exercise so I didn't mind being coxed into it. I have since come to the conclusion that much of the reasoning is suppositional.

9. Regarding your claim that my definition of hominid was "bogus", I have already proved that they are not with substantive quotes from several major Universities and other science organizations. What do you have to back up your allegation?

What I consider bogus is the supposition that we are apes when clearly apes do not have the creative capacity for analytical thought we do. They certainly don't have capacity for designing and creating tools, which is one of my primary contentions. There has been a change in the terminology and I even cited the textbook I was using to emphasis how the fossils were rare and the reason for the new terminology was due to the nebulous concept of species. I elaborated at length on why taxonomy was largely a matter of semantics and I am still convinced that this is true.

10. "You give me a big build up for a question that creationist supposedly never answer and then just make a ridiculas statement." --Which was?

You got me there, I am not sure of the context this statement was made in.

By the beginning of the fourth mutual exchange, you still hadn't answered any of my opening questions. But you did answer the bonus questions, which you seemed to do as an attempt to stall for more time. But as you answered a couple of the other questions, I continued and didn't yet call for a loss by default, though I normally would have by then. The few questions you did answer concerning the relationships of homoines, were all answered incorrectly since you still didn't understand the terms even after I had already explained them repeatedly. So I asked for you to answer them again, adhering to the proper terminology, since your answers made no sense as they were, and I made sure to define each of those terms very expicitly, though now you pretend I did not.

I never seen the need to come up with so many different terms when the actual focus should have been on the evidence. I was not, and I am not, interested in using precise terms when the actual fossils that are used to define species are ignored. I went to some trouble to elaborate on my problems with the Leaky find and I failed to receive a comment. There were a number of these fossils that raise more questions then answers and I cited a fairly reliable source for the statement. This point was never addressed very well and so I lost all interest in the semantics of taxonomy.

In the next round, I finally had some of the answers to the opening questions, but with 1/3 of the debate already behind us. Most of those answers were still wrong, but at least I had something to base the remaining 2/3rds of the debate on....if you would have answered the clarifying follow-up questions, which you didn't.

The taxonomic questions had allready been dismissed as subjective and were never tied directly to actuall evidence. Questions may be dismissed by you're own standard and the length of the posts made it hard to answer every question directly. Traditionally there are limits on the length and by the end the answers become more concise. We did the exact opposite and there was never a summary and may never even be a conclusion. That is not a debate, that is an argument.

 

[mark kennedy]

11. Imagine we find a new species of monkey, one we've never discovered before. How would we know if it really was a monkey or not? How would we know if was an ape or not? Imagine it is your job to describe these families according to some criteria which we could use to identify a monkey or an ape so that we could tell one apart from a dog or a camel or starfish.

That is an interesting proposition but it would seem that we allready know that it is a monkey. I guess it would depend on whether it is alive or dead for one thing. If all we have a fragmentary fossils then we are left with fragmentary conclusions. Now if we are talking about an extinct monkey then we can do no better then simply compare what we have to existing monkeys and see how many thing are simular. Where I have a problem is that often ancestory is presumed without a demonstrated mechanism. For instance, if we found a monkey with a larger skull, we should take into consideration every possible factor like the age, sex and possible disease or deformity.

I would need something more specific to be honest and some kind of a criteria for discerning that this is indeed a new species.

12. As you can see, fossils for the non-human hominids are definitely not rare! I have already pointed out that nearly 1,000 individuals have been identified at minimum, with another 2,000 potential hominines yet to be positively identified. that's not exactly rare either, now is it? Which of us is ignoring these thousand or so Hominines, Mark?

How many of these are complete and conclusive and how many are extant? What is even more important, how many years do these fossils account for?

13. it doesn't matter what sort of person Darwin was. If Ghengis Khan had discovered gravity, would gravity be any less valid?

This is not a question, its a statement and largely a matter of opinion and speculation. No one really discovered gravity, Newton demonstrated it based on the Y squared formula and predicted the course of a comet. What Newton did was to reduce a phenomenom to a precise formula. What Darwin did was to speculate on a conceptual philosophy of natural history. Big difference.

All these unanswered questions were repeated in message #18. And since none of them were answered then either, then you had ignored all of them multiple times, in violation of the clause leading to a loss by default. However, I was patient, and didn't feel a need to call the debate on any such technicality.

From the begining the standard has been what is considered a satisfactory answer. This like the taxonomic relations is too subjective to be considered an empirical standard. If you liked what you're opponent had to say then there would be no need for a debate, so it is wrong to reject their answer because you don't like it. I answered the first question not only once but repeatedly, I answered the taxonomic questions. I dismissed the followup questions for reasons stated repeatedly and that was well within the rules of debate we both agreed to.

14. You said you believed all the human demes were related. Could you find a "direct link" for them? If so, what was it? just what do you mean by a "direct link"?

This one had a link that showed me pictures of various faces from different parts of the world, if memory serves. To answer the question, no, hows that?

15. Specially-created organisms wouldn't have to conform to any taxonomic structure, yet everything that has ever lived does conform to that perfectly, and without exception. Can you explain that?

Because you can make it fit anyway you need to. Like I keep trying to tell you, these systematics are developed to be seen from the perspective of the observer.

16. How did you determine that any of these were specially-created separate from all these other similar organisms?

The 'specially-created' creatures are all dead and it would be next to impossible to find a speciman to identify each one. This is an impossible burden of proof and it doesn't mean that the universal common ancestor model is true my default. More suppositional systematics.

17. What about those Christian sites I referred you to attesting to the beliefs of his (Darwin's) youth? Were these sites lying? If so, then exactly where were these lies?

Think about how they described his faith for a minute. At a very early age he is running to keep from being late for school and he attributes his running as being more helpfull then his prayer. He argues with his shipmates about the Bible being an absolute standard for morality and they laugh at him. None of the things that I have read about him describe what he actually believed about the Gospel, the ressurection or the person and work of Jesus Christ. He may well have professed a faith in Christianity but he never demonstrated that he had any of the core convictions. He worshiped at the Temple of Nature, he demonstrated that he never lost faith with it.

18. how do we determine the humanity of any fossil species if we don't happen to find their tools with them, as we usually won't?

Now that would depend on what we are looking at wouldn't it? Again I would need a specific find to make any kind of a postive statement about this. When looking at the Leaky find, what was used to determine that that it was a human ancestor?

By the 8th mutual exchange, I still didn't have any of your corrected answers regarding human relationships, and none of the answers to thes questions either. But by then I had already acheived both of my objectives when you admitted that our species had evolved from another less derived one, and when you admitted that biological evolution was the only concept of our origins with either evidentiary support or scientific validity. But I invited you to continue the discussion only because there were still some things I wanted you to address. Of course, you never did.

I did get into the evidence but dismissed most of the taxonomic rationalizations. I tried to steer the conversation into genetics since it is the most viable scientific evidence available, in fact I still am as the opening section of my last unanswered post in that forum attests to.

19. do we try to figure out how something really happens? Or do we just use the excuse that it must be magic? Do we examine the processes we can actually see, and know to be involved? Or do we make up something incredulous and wholly improbable, that doesn't make any sense, and can't be tested or evidenced in any way, -and believe that instead, for literally no reason at all?

Such as...?

20. "there is a limited gene pool that can account for all of the changes in populations over time given a universal ancestor model." --what is this limitation? And how do we know it really exists? Especially since you already said, earlier in this thread, that it didn't.

The possible variations of the existing gene pool.

21. What falsifiable predictions have creation "scientists" ever published for peer-review?

Creation scientists have been published but anything that hints of creationism is rejected without qualification. It would be interesting to see what would happen if the work the did around Mt St Helens were critically peer reviewed though.

21. Of course, if you accept this H. erectus as human,
then why wouldn't you accept this A. africanus as human too?

Partly because of the skull size but mostly due to the use of tools and fire.

22. What would you accept?

I have no idea what you are expecting an answer to here.

23. science requires demonstrable evidence, objective experiments, testable hypotheses, and objectively falsifiable theories. What have you got?

For one thing, there is no way a new species can arise from a mutation of the DNA strand.

24. Within the confines of this debate, I have given you everything you asked for. What exactly did you think I have yet to provide? What sort of definition are looking for, and for which examples?

The terms and type specimans of the taxonomic terms you quized me on.

25. How many apes or monkeys were there? (on board the ark) And how many marsupials?

Don't know, the book of Genesis did not come with a list of the particular animals brought on board.

There is no reason to post there again. I've already met my objectives, and you've already lost by every means it was possible for you to lose. Upon my declaration of victory, you were ready to have the mods close the thread, but I invited you to continue, just to address some of the points you missed. Of course you still didn't address them, and instead called for a whole new debate. Well, that's fine, but it means that we'll have to start all over again. That one is over, and there is no doubt in anyone's mind that I won. I will see you in the formal debate forum only when we agree on a new set of rules and a new topic.

Now I am going to ask the thread be closed if you refuse to finish the debate. I think it is only fair to warn you that if I do I intend to write a conclusion first. It's you're choice if you want the last word or not.

Now we can discuss a new one in the invitation area. Go ahead and propose a list of rules and I'll ask the prospective moderators I am trying to enlist to check it out. That is, if I have agreed to them. Keep this in mind though, the formal debate rules are non-negotiable.

The poem was nice by the way, a little negative, but nice. See you in the peanut gallery

 

[Aron-Ra]

I never really cared much for this kind of pedantic rationalization but yea, it a rock...so what?

To understand taxonomy, you have to understand the concept of groups within groups. Diamonds are one kind of rock just as Cadillacs are one kind of car and men are one kind of ape.

I never lied in any way, and I hope the lurkers noted that you've resorted to name-calling yet again. That's what hypocrisy means, Mark.

There you go again

You call me names, ("liar" in this case) while accusing me of calling you names. But the only name I've called you is hypocrite, and what you're doing is hypocrisy. I however am not lying.

You omitted the definitions for the bulk of the taxonomic terms you were using in you list of questions. Assuming that each term represents a family, genus, species or the all important class you should have made more of a distinction.

I'm trying to avoid reducing this to mere semantics like you seem to want me to. These questions would still be yes or no answers regardless what the group was called or whether it was a sub-family, infraorder, superclass, or whatever. Those titles didn't matter to our conversation.

I really don't know why you think I am in a rage, I'm just bored with these endless rationalizations and would like to see this getting boiled down rather then continually expanded.

So would I. But you refuse to concede points clearly lost, and you've refused to pursue the lines of inquiry that would have boiled this down.

If it doesn't emply the scientific method, then it can't be science, whether you want to admit that or not.

The first philosophy of science has been considered math since Newton's Prinicipia. Now while theology is not an inductive science it is still a science since it establishes experiencial knowledge in a systematic way.

But it can't. Nothing in religion can be said to be systematic, and there is no "experiencial knowledge". Every religion claims to have experienced their gods and what not, but its all subjective, and every other group claims the others are deceived. Knowledge, as stated before, is demonstrable. But there's nothing about religion that is. Its all subjective, and can't be based on either experience or knowledge since both would stand counter to faith. If objective experience or knowledge were involved, you wouldn't need faith. In order to be science, you couldn't emply faith, because all of your "experiencial knowledge" would have to be testible in critical analysis and peer review, which nothing in religion ever is. It is not science and is nothing like science.

You made your judgement against anything you deemed anti-Biblical, in advance, and without proper consideration. That is a prejudicial position. This statement of that fact was meant to alert you to the reality of your position.

After agreeing that the statement, not the person, would be addressed I am addressed exclusivly in this section.

That's right. I alerted you to the nature of pre-determined positions, but I addressed your argument seperately. Understand this: As I have been saying over and over throughout this debate, I am not interested in inflammitory, instigative remarks. I have asked you to discuss this with me rationally, and that is what I have been trying to do also.

Mutations are most often of not effect at all. In most of the other occurances they are either deletreious or harmfull.

How do you explain the conflict with your statemtent here, and PubMed's position that nearly everyone is born with more than 100 mutations?

Mutations are by definition a damaged DNA stand and while my hyperblole was a little over the top there was a reason for it. What you are calling a benifical mutation is actually an aquired trait, I was hoping to expand on this but there have been entirely too many personal remarks for that.

I was hoping to expand on this but there have been entirely too many personal remarks for that. A mutation is defined as a change in DNA, an acquired trait that can be inherited by subsequent generations but which the parent did not aquire by inheritence or by the cross-coding of either of its parents. Each of the examples I gave you have been declared by medical professionals to definitely be the result of mutation.

I already did finish what I started when I acheived both of my objectives, and you continued to lose by consistently breaking every single one of the rules, even your own.

Ditto!

I haven't broken any of the rules I proposed, sir. Nor did I violate any of yours. You have broken every rule over and over again.

Check the definition of mutation in my last submission to the last debate forum. Let's try this again, Mayr said, 'Natural selection is simplicity itself...' do you know what he said next?

No. I shouldn't have to repeat things for you so often. But I did already tell you that I don't read Mayr.

I know you have a private peanut gallery but they never bothered to challenge me to a debate...why is that?

Because you have a reputation for being dishonest, rude, and unaccountable. This is not an insult. That really is your reputation.

There you go again...

What do you mean, "there I go again?". I gave you an honest answer. The only way I could have answered that question without offending you would have been to lie to you. So I told you the truth, and pointed out that I wasn't saying it to insult you. If the shoe was on the other foot, I would be upset, but I would still appreciate an honest reply.

I qualified what I said about accepting evolution and even change on a very broad scale.

How does evolution differ from change?

It does not represent the only credible explanation for our origins, just the only one that is exclusivly naturalistic.

It represents the only credible explanation because it is the only one with any demonstrable reason to back it up. Remember, faith is defined as a stoic conviction that is based on neither physical evidence nor logical proof.

You said that evolution lacks substance, that there was never any hard, physical evidence of macroevolution, and that genetics did not imply common ancestry. I have disproved each of these comments with peer-reviewed scientific citation. If you're counting on science, then you're already out of options.

Suppositional systematics are not demonstrated proof and macroevolution is at best rare and cannot be readily discerned from microevolution since species has become a nebulas concept.

But the definition of species that I have already provided is relevant here, and is definitey not a nebulous concept. Macroevolution is rarely observed, but it has been observed, directly and reliably, repeatedly.

Genetics is a remarkably pure science that has a great deal of trouble even finding benificial mutations. Most of the changes noted are due to random variations and does not rewrite the genetic code.

A random variation is a mutation. But how do you have a random variation that doesn't change the genetic code?

I have read the critically peer-reviewed scientific discussions as well and the transition of metabolism is the weak link in the evolutionary change.

I rather doubt that you have read anything that wasn't filtered through some creationist propaganda mill. What are you referring to here?

Simon Greenleaf wrote a treatise on evidence that was used in courts, legal research and was a vital law library resourse for half a century. The man was the foremost legal expert of his time who examined the legal evidence for the New Testament. You claim to be interested in evidence and yet you make this statement:

I did read that amazingly long and vapid monologue. And I still don't understand how either you or he could believe as you do. Neither of you have explained that yet.

The introduction of the Greenleaf peice was another attempt to explain how I came to believe what I do. Of course you just railed against it and it you have been so consistant up to this point I knew you would reject it without reservation. Just gauging you're objectivity and you really don't get high marks for pedantic satire directed at Simon Greenleaf.

[/quote]You made me read several pages written by a lawyer, and I didn't expect me to be bored by that? My criticism of Greenleaf's extremely limited available evidence is valid, as is my continuing inquiry as to why you think anything in the new testament is remotely relevant to Homo erectus or other evolutionary origins. One of the reasons I say that you still haven't explained this is that most Christians also agree that the New Testament is accurate, but most Christians are still evolutionists. Not only that, but I have personally met two former Baptist ministers who are now atheists. Obviously they too have reviewed the evidence you provide, in-depth, and have eventually rejected it even though they once adhered to it as you do now. This is actually a common occurance. Most atheists are former Christians.

My point was that if you think it's a farce you would have to be mentally ill.

My point is that I do think its a farce, as do many of the world's best and brightest minds, and niether I nor they are mentally ill. And I doubt they would appreciate your name-calling any more than I do.

The scholarship that went into the Bible with regards to internal, external, and bibliographical evidence is unique and incomparable. It is staggering that you couldn't find some merit in such a well preserved and credible writing from antiquity.

Hey, I'm definitely not alone in that, am I?
The Born Again Skeptic's Guide To The Bible by Ruth Hurmence Green
The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You to Read by Tim C. Leedom
Farewell to God : My Reasons for Rejecting the Christian Faith by Charles Templeton
Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist by Dan Barker

There are a whole lot of very credible scholarly experts who've concluded that the Bible is not very well preserved at all. Some still believe the New Testament, but want to sever that from the Old Testament because that was so ill-preserved, and can't it be considered credible on any point. Others maintain that the entire complilation of the 66 surviving books are little more than plagiarism of elder folklore. Having read some of these other better-preserved writings from antiquity myself, I'm inclined to agree.

My only real concern here is the questions you claim I don't answer. The earliest question about how I came to believe what I do set the tone for the entire debate. I answered it again and again but you claim I never did, that's telling me something.

It should be telling you that your explanation isn't answering anything I'm asking.

I also answered you're questions about the differences between monkey (not a scientific term really) and men and you responded in the exact same way.

Because you did not answer that question at all. I asked how you could tell a monkey from other kinds of animals, and you wouldn't answer that, even when I restated, paraphrased and explained the question in detail multiple times. All you would do is say that there are differences between us and other primates, just as there are differences between diamonds and other rocks.

I have very little time for this anymore. So please allow me a couple of days to complete this response.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Next post pending....