No slave race: no evolution

[thaumaturgy]

I know the Bible is true because of its predictive quality. Evolution is quite poor at predicting things.

Please remind me again, which scientific predictions did the Bible make?

(I'm not interested in "prophecy", I'm interested in scientific predictions that the Bible can claim exclusive priority on)

During the 1920s and 1930s, people (evolutionists) were concerned about aliens invading from Mars.

This was somehow part of "evolution"? Hmmm. Didn't realize that.

Then evolutionist expectations were reduced to finding signs that intelligent life used to be there, then finding life of any sort, then finding organic compounds, then finding water, then finding signs that water used to be there. These diminishing expectations are extremely well documented, as is the skepticism of Creationists.

Creationists are skeptical of anything they don't, technically speaking, bother to learn about. That's why Creationists are "skeptical" of the fossil record despite abysmally failing to look at it. That's why Creationists are "skeptical" of standard geology despite their alarming lack of even a modest training in it (at least among those on this board that I've interacted with).

I take "Creationist Skepticism" with a grain of salt.

Here's an example to contrast: I am skeptical of religious claims not because I have failed to attempt to look for proof of religious claims, but precisely in my many years of attempting to find proof of religious claims I have failed to see any evidence for their veracity.

IF, however, I were completely unfamiliar with Christianity or the Bible and I claimed to be skeptical of it, I would be acting in the same manner as many Creationists (especially on this board). I would be ignorant of the actual facts and simply cling to the gainsaying of someone else's claim that I was not really familiar with in detail.

There's a difference there.

The record is replete with the failure of evolutionists to make accurate predictions, and the corresponding success of Creationists.

Creationists have predicted something??? Something SCIENTIFIC??? I'm impressed. Could you point us in the direction of a citation? Because all I ever see from "Creationist research" is attempts to poke holes in other research and then insert their personal "wish list" in the holes. Creationists usually lack...scientific discipline sufficient to do science or "make predictions" that are in any way robust.

Remember, a broken clock is "right" 2 times a day.

If a monkey-human hybrid could be created without truly massive genetic engineering, yes, I would definitely consider taking evolution seriously. I would still believe in God because of my experiences with Him.

I can't speak to the monkey-human hybrid stuff, but indeed you'll find (if you actually care to look), that most christians have no problem with being christian and believing in evolution.

I spent more than a decade with geologists and many if not most of them were Christians and I never met one who was a Creationist. Not that I asked everyone. But in 3 universities and teaching in a couple other colleges I never ran into one.

At the moment, I don’t view evolution as a credible theory, and therefore I don’t view evolution as a threat to the efficacy of the Bible.

That's probably because the Bible isn't a "science book". People who attempt to use it as such may as well be doing nuclear physics with the phone book and Grimms Fairy Tales.

People who discount evolution, however, usually don't have a more robustly defensible hypothesis to explain the massive (and I'm talking gigantic) pile of data in support of "descent with modifcation" over time.

From my experience the fossil record shows massive changes in life over time, my limited training in biology, biochem, paleontology, zoology and botany indicate that genetic drift and mutation provide a reasonable explanation for changes introduced and natural selection is patently obvious to everyone as a reasonable filter.

To question evolution is fine, but what's the alternative?

To answer your multiple choice question, we are eternal, spiritual beings trapped inside a body. I would classify human beings in their own separate kingdom all by themselves.

In order to know how old rocks are, you need to have a known frame of reference. You can’t look at a mountain and know how old it is just by looking at it. I don’t look at rocks and think “Wow—that rock is millions of years old!” Only evolutionists do that. I look at rocks and know they are older than I am. I also look at jagged peaks and cliffs and recognize that they are very young compared to how old evolutionists think they are.

Be honest with yourself--evolution is a religion.

I put my arguments in this thread because people like you read this thread. My intent is to somehow persuade you and others to turn away from evolution and accept Christ. To my knowledge, I have not succeeded in that particular mission, but who knows.

Finally, I don't think it is accurate to judge a person's education by how closely their beliefs map to university dogma.

 

[thaumaturgy]

My probability theory does not apply to that post, nor do I believe it germane to the discussion. My answer to Temperate is N/A.

Actually True_Blue, you brought up the thread that included Temperate's Challenge which, by your repeated failure to address it substantively, showed how your "idea" on "origins" was underlain by a fundamental failure to understand the requisite chemistry involved.

Indeed, origins is often a theologically fraught topic, but your attempt to "disprove" abiogenesis showed your failure to understand the chemistry that would have provided a key part of the debate.

So, indeed, your "answer" (such as it was) to Temperate's Challenge and Vene's raising it again, was all because you brought up the thread again and is therefore APPLICABLE.

If you wish to try to answer the question at this time, I'm sure we will all be very interested. However, since you are again running away from it with yet another "excuse" we are lead to believe that your ideas on "life origins" may not be as interesting as those from people who have bothered to learn the chemistry.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I do believe it is very easy to disprove evolution. The problem this that this ultimately a spiritual discussion, which is deeply related to our self-identity. If you attack a person’s conception about origins, you are attacking their religion and their self-identity.

That's an issue creationists will just have to come to terms with. Evolution, despite your claim, is certainly not "very easy to disprove". Especially so given that everything you argue against is actually real-world applied science in modern industries like agriculture and medicine. Yes, the very concept and resulting data set derived from evolutionary ancestry between organisms is useful. And not only that, it's funded by both private and public funds (i.e. VC firms, government grants, etc).

As long as its useful, evolution is never going away despite all the creationist protests to the contrary. Creationists are just going to have to get used to that.

 

[Split Rock]

Split-Rock, I’m not wrong about my bald-faced statement that a human-monkey hybrid could not form by comingling. I don’t have the funding to test the experiment in a lab, and I have no desire to test the theory in other ways either. I know the Bible is true because of its predictive quality. Evolution is quite poor at predicting things. During the 1920s and 1930s, people (evolutionists) were concerned about aliens invading from Mars. Then evolutionist expectations were reduced to finding signs that intelligent life used to be there, then finding life of any sort, then finding organic compounds, then finding water, then finding signs that water used to be there. These diminishing expectations are extremely well documented, as is the skepticism of Creationists.

Wow. You critisize "evolutionists," but apparently don't even know what they do. The people examining Mars are called astronomers. Their specialty is called astronomy. Yes, biologists helped them in doing tests for life on Mars, but not with the other stuff you mentioned. I do not believe that attacks from Martians was a position ever held by the astronomical community. I think you are confusing them with another group who call themselves, science fiction writers. They write science fiction.

I would love to hear about some predictions made by creationists (not Christians in general). It is my understanding that creationism makes no predictions whatsoever. God did things the way He did because He did, is their answer to every question.

The record is replete with the failure of evolutionists to make accurate predictions, and the corresponding success of Creationists.

Do you mean like finding the Transitional fossil species Tiktaalik ?
http://www.devoniantimes.org/Order/re-tiktaalik.html

Give us some examples of predictions made by creationists.

I am absolutely sure that my prediction regarding monkeys and humans is accurate, even though I have done absolutely no research or study to back it up. If a monkey-human hybrid could be created without truly massive genetic engineering, yes, I would definitely consider taking evolution seriously. I would still believe in God because of my experiences with Him.

Well, at least you would reconsider your interpretation of scripture. I am glad to see that.

At the moment, I don’t view evolution as a credible theory, and therefore I don’t view evolution as a threat to the efficacy of the Bible.

It was never intended as a threat to the efficacy of the Bible.

To answer your multiple choice question, we are eternal, spiritual beings trapped inside a body. I would classify human beings in their own separate kingdom all by themselves.

I am referring to our physical bodies. We cannot examine human souls, if they exist, so they are outside the realm of science. As far as our physical bodies are concerned, are we animals?

In order to know how old rocks are, you need to have a known frame of reference. You can’t look at a mountain and know how old it is just by looking at it. I don’t look at rocks and think “Wow—that rock is millions of years old!” Only evolutionists do that. I look at rocks and know they are older than I am. I also look at jagged peaks and cliffs and recognize that they are very young compared to how old evolutionists think they are.

Again, "evolutionists" don't do this. Scientists who study rocks are called geologists. Their specialty is called geology. Sure. there are young as well as old geological formations. If we look at the Himalayas, for example, we see young mountains still rising up. If on the otherhand, we look at the Appalacians, we see worn down old mountains. If we look at the Canadian Shield in Northern Labrador, we see very old worn down hills. Absolute dating of these structures must be accomplished by radioisotope dating, and these complementary techniques all point to a very old planet.

Be honest with yourself--evolution is a religion.

I am honest with myself. Please do not assume you understand my beliefs or motivations. I can assure you that you do not. It has become apparent to me after years of interacting with creationists that they assume everyone else thinks like they do. If an "evolutionist" accepts common descent, or an old earth, it must be because they want to believe such things, or because they hate God and want to sin. Wrong. I accept common descent (I do not "believe" in it as you believe Jesus is your savior) because that is what the physical evidence infers. Period.

I put my arguments in this thread because people like you read this thread. My intent is to somehow persuade you and others to turn away from evolution and accept Christ. To my knowledge, I have not succeeded in that particular mission, but who knows.

Evolution is NOT Atheism. Please get that straight. Most Christians on this planet accept evolution. They do not see it (as you do) as a problem for Christianity.

Finally, I don't think it is accurate to judge a person's education by how closely their beliefs map to university dogma.

I am referring to your understanding of "university dogma." If you do not understand the theory of evolution, or the concept of deep time, how can you critisize it?

 

[TheGnome]

Microevolution is the process of living organisms of a particular "kind" developing new racial characteristics.

I've been training in population genetics, getting my fair share of lab experience. Microevolution is much simpler than that, it's actually the change in allele frequency from one generation to the next--even if there is no phenotypic change.

Giraffes, horses, zebras, and donkeys are all of the same "kind" even though scientists have unwittingly classified them in different orders and families. My definition of a "kind" is whether the egg and sperm of the animals, if placed in a test tube or petri dish, could combine and create a viable embryo.

A horse and a donkey could reproduce successfully to make a mule or a hinny. A mule and a mule cannot form a viable embryo, therefore making it a different kind? I think you need a new definition of a kind.

This is a better definition than looking at spots and stripes and the overall phenotype because it's a rigorous and uniform definition.

It doesn't make any sense. Very related organisms may not produce embryos due to the inability for chromosomes to line up properly. They may be very closely related otherwise.

Also, they don't just look at phenotype. There is an entire field called Molecular Systematics that use molecular techniques for classification.

It should be obvious that a wolf and a chihuahua would never mate in the wild, even though they are both properly dogs. The differentiation of the original canine pair into wolves, chihuahuas, and all other sorts of dogs is what creationists call microevolution. The differentiation of the human race into whites, blacks, Hispanics, etc. is exactly the same thing.
It's tempting to believe that because we've made hundreds of dog breeds, the rest of life could have arisen by the same process.

I'm not really sure what your argument is here. Yes, microevolution takes place, and microevolution then leads to speciation, with more microevolution following.

"Macroevolution" as I use the term is the process of a bunch of chemicals combining to form anything with any cognizable type of organization, like even one base pair of DNA, and base pair of DNA forming any sort of organized higher order life precursor, those precursors forming a viable life form, that hypothetical first cell becoming multicellular, and the multicellular life form reversing its metabolism to consume its own waste, a unicellular life form becoming multicellular, and the first multicellular form moving from plants to animals to humans.

Macroevolution is speciation. Morphological changes are due to microevolutionary events. The importance of speciation is that, in animals, it puts up a biological wall where changes in morphology increases in degree.

Maybe some of you will immediately want to fire back with points regarding semantics, but the bottom line is that you can't believe in human evolution without importing all the baggage that comes with it, including the baggage of abiogenesis.

Where does abiogenesis factor in all of this? Also, what other baggage are you talking about? There's no doubt humans evolved. All the evidence is there.

Each of those discrete steps above is utterly impossible from a scientific perspective, and it takes a great amount of faith to suppose that any of those steps could occur in the absence of a guiding Hand. I've written on these points ad nauseam. Since the Bible says that God did not create life via an evolutionary process, I do not believe this process took place.

You make all sorts of claims and never, ever back them up. It's annoying. I remember you were calculating the odds of abiogenesis happening and you completely dismissed chemistry. That's horrible. I can't take your claims seriously because all you do is make things up and call it an argument. Put up or shut up.

 

[Naraoia]

My observation is that there is little variability in animal intelligence, only a variability in their ability to express their intelligence in a way that humans understand. I would be entirely unsurprised if octopuses were more "intelligent" than chimps, given their remarkable ability to escape from aquariums. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4007016107763801953&q=octopus<video>

Waaait, what does the ability to squeeze through small holes have to do with intelligence? I thought it was something about bones

 

[True_Blue]

Gnome, you didn't really say anything that I disagreed with. With respect to abiogenesis, if you're comfortable with chemistry, and I certainly am not, use your chemical knowledge to support abiogenesis and show us your work.

 

[True_Blue]

Please remind me again, which scientific predictions did the Bible make?

(I'm not interested in "prophecy", I'm interested in scientific predictions that the Bible can claim exclusive priority on)



This was somehow part of "evolution"? Hmmm. Didn't realize that.




Creationists are skeptical of anything they don't, technically speaking, bother to learn about. That's why Creationists are "skeptical" of the fossil record despite abysmally failing to look at it. That's why Creationists are "skeptical" of standard geology despite their alarming lack of even a modest training in it (at least among those on this board that I've interacted with).

I take "Creationist Skepticism" with a grain of salt.

Here's an example to contrast: I am skeptical of religious claims not because I have failed to attempt to look for proof of religious claims, but precisely in my many years of attempting to find proof of religious claims I have failed to see any evidence for their veracity.

IF, however, I were completely unfamiliar with Christianity or the Bible and I claimed to be skeptical of it, I would be acting in the same manner as many Creationists (especially on this board). I would be ignorant of the actual facts and simply cling to the gainsaying of someone else's claim that I was not really familiar with in detail.

There's a difference there.



Creationists have predicted something??? Something SCIENTIFIC??? I'm impressed. Could you point us in the direction of a citation? Because all I ever see from "Creationist research" is attempts to poke holes in other research and then insert their personal "wish list" in the holes. Creationists usually lack...scientific discipline sufficient to do science or "make predictions" that are in any way robust.

Remember, a broken clock is "right" 2 times a day.

I can't speak to the monkey-human hybrid stuff, but indeed you'll find (if you actually care to look), that most christians have no problem with being christian and believing in evolution.

I spent more than a decade with geologists and many if not most of them were Christians and I never met one who was a Creationist. Not that I asked everyone. But in 3 universities and teaching in a couple other colleges I never ran into one.

Thaumaturgy, skepticism is where the rubber of science meets the road. My earlier post proposes a radically improved methodology to classify sexually reproducing life forms. It's improved because it uses an inherently objective rather than an inherently subjective methodology, stripping politics and egos out of the classification process. In my view, this is what science is all about. I invite any of you pursuing graduate degrees in biology to take this idea and run with it.

Thaumaturgy, if you accept the Bible, you are importing an entire world view into your philosophy. Let’s say that the puzzle of life has 1000 pieces. If you believe the Bible, you are fitting perhaps 100 pieces into the puzzle in a particular way, and by doing so, you set yourself up to fit the remaining pieces the same way as well. The Bible doesn’t have much to say on a variety of topics, but the paradigm that comes with belief in the Bible does. For example, belief in the Bible implies skepticism that UFOs are the basis of the weird experiences and sights that people in the United States talk about with some regularity. In other posts, I’ve made a whole bunch of predictions about a bunch of scientific things, usually regarding things that will NOT happen (like creating a sentient computer program, for example). Those predictions tend to be unpersuasive. With respect to UFOs, it is reasonable for the Creationist to predict that human or alien technology will never result in the interaction of a human with an extra-terrestrial form of life.

With respect to Creationist predictions that have come true, I’ve mentioned a few, such as the lack of any shred of evidence that life or even a tiny organic molecule ever existed on Mars. It appears there is no evidence that liquid water ever existed on Mars either. My other favorite prediction is related to the moon. Evolutionists predicted that the moon would be covered by meters of dust. That’s why they placed large disks on each of the legs of the lunar lander (Eagle)—to keep it from settling into the dust when it landed, much like snowshoes. They then discovered that only an inch or two of dust coats the moon, which is far more consistent with creationist thought. By the way, I use that prediction to criticize the conspiracy theorists who believe we never went to the moon in the first place, and that the Apollo missions were a fraud.

We’re in essence arguing over something that we have no data on—none of us were around 6000 years ago. All we have are rocks and meager scraps of data, plus really old books to which a few “quacks” ascribe a divine origin. One of my bases for believing the Bible and disbelieving evolution relates to prophecy, Thaumaturgy. I would think you would be interested in prophecy on that basis. I don’t know of any other religion with a good prophetic basis.

Thaumaturgy, with respect to Creationists in the field of science, the university and scientific community is diametrically opposed to Creationism. Most of my professional career is in finance. I happen to believe that the federal reserve system should be abolished because I think it is harmful for the federal government to fix interest rates. Do you think I would succeed and rise through the ranks of the Federal Reserve, given that I think the whole institution should be abolished? Absolutely not. I would never join the Federal Reserve, and if I did, I would hate my job, and if I in fact enjoyed my job, I would never get promoted. In law school, I wrote a paper against the recognition of transsexual sex changes in the law. There were perhaps a 1000 papers written nationwide in favor of legal recognition of sex changes, and zero against, despite the overwhelming scientific data that transsexuals cannot change their sex. My paper would have been the first from this perspective ever published by a law school. My paper was selected for publication, then deselected after a faculty member who litigated in favor of transsexuals got wind of it, and pressured the law review board to deselect my paper. I learned very quickly that I would never succeed in law school academia, even if I so desired. People who want to be tenured geology professors in main line universities will never do so as long as they try to publish Creationist-oriented articles. Don’t kid yourself, Thaumaturgy.

 

[plindboe]

You make all sorts of claims and never, ever back them up. It's annoying. I remember you were calculating the odds of abiogenesis happening and you completely dismissed chemistry. That's horrible. I can't take your claims seriously because all you do is make things up and call it an argument.

Gnome, you didn't really say anything that I disagreed with.

Looks like an admission to me.

Peter

 

[Vene]

Gnome, you didn't really say anything that I disagreed with. With respect to abiogenesis, if you're comfortable with chemistry, and I certainly am not, use your chemical knowledge to support abiogenesis and show us your work.

Why? Somebody else already did a good job.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhWds7djuWo
By the way, I picked this particular video over cdk's because DonExodus is a Christian. Amazingly the science is the same and they reached the same conclusions.

 

[Psudopod]

Thaumaturgy, skepticism is where the rubber of science meets the road. My earlier post proposes a radically improved methodology to classify sexually reproducing life forms. It's improved because it uses an inherently objective rather than an inherently subjective methodology, stripping politics and egos out of the classification process. In my view, this is what science is all about. I invite any of you pursuing graduate degrees in biology to take this idea and run with it.

Why would we run with something that is wrong? Giraffes don't breed with horses so your system has fallen on the first hurdle. Also, please explain to me how shoehorning into a literal interpretation of the bible makes for a more objective classification.

With respect to Creationist predictions that have come true, I&#8217;ve mentioned a few, such as the lack of any shred of evidence that life or even a tiny organic molecule ever existed on Mars.

I'm not sure if organic compounds have been conclusivly discovered on Mars yet, but they have from comets.

It appears there is no evidence that liquid water ever existed on Mars either.

There is evidence for liquid water on mars. It might not be conclusive, but it is there.

My other favorite prediction is related to the moon. Evolutionists predicted that the moon would be covered by meters of dust. That&#8217;s why they placed large disks on each of the legs of the lunar lander (Eagle)&#8212;to keep it from settling into the dust when it landed, much like snowshoes. They then discovered that only an inch or two of dust coats the moon, which is far more consistent with creationist thought.

One, it wasn't evolutionists who calcuated the figures as it has nothing to do with evolution. Two, the story of them fearing the moonlander would sink is false. Three, this isn't a prediction. What figure for the volume of dust on the moon to creationists come up with?

We&#8217;re in essence arguing over something that we have no data on&#8212;none of us were around 6000 years ago.

We've got plenty of data. Eyewitness testimony is actually very poor evidence.

One of my bases for believing the Bible and disbelieving evolution relates to prophecy, Thaumaturgy. I would think you would be interested in prophecy on that basis. I don&#8217;t know of any other religion with a good prophetic basis.

If the prophesy was actually that good we'd all be Christians. Most people don't find it that convincing.

Thaumaturgy, with respect to Creationists in the field of science, the university and scientific community is diametrically opposed to Creationism.

Because they don't do science. If they did, the science comminity couldn;t have a problem with it. But creationists never do.

In law school, I wrote a paper against the recognition of transsexual sex changes in the law. There were perhaps a 1000 papers written nationwide in favor of legal recognition of sex changes, and zero against, despite the overwhelming scientific data that transsexuals cannot change their sex.

Yes, we've heard your sob story before. Given that you demonstrate about as much understanding of gender identity as you do evolution, I'm really not that surprised.

People who want to be tenured geology professors in main line universities will never do so as long as they try to publish Creationist-oriented articles. Don&#8217;t kid yourself, Thaumaturgy.

Please provide an example of someone denied tenure because they were a creationist, or had their paper rejected because it was a creationist paper, not becuase it was a poor paper.

 

[TheGnome]

Gnome, you didn't really say anything that I disagreed with. With respect to abiogenesis, if you're comfortable with chemistry, and I certainly am not, use your chemical knowledge to support abiogenesis and show us your work.

Did you bother to read my post, or was it a quick glance?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Thaumaturgy, skepticism is where the rubber of science meets the road.

GOSH! Ya think??? So you, in your logic classes, learned that merely being skeptical of something for wholly specious reasons (like being skeptical of scientific claims because it goes against someone's interpretation of the Bible) means that if, by accident, you stumble onto something that deserves skepticism that the skeptic is thus correct in their reasoning?

That's like saying I don't believe in the Higgs Boson because my alien friends from Neptune came to me in a dream last night and told me it was wrong. If the LHC fails to find the Higgs, does that mean I'm somehow reasoning correctly to disbelieve the Higgs?

(I really wonder if your legal training has prepared you to think this deeply on a logic proposition.)

Thaumaturgy, if you accept the Bible, you are importing an entire world view into your philosophy.

Well, there ya go. Error #1: you don't get to just randomly choose which single pieces of data are unquestionable.

Let&#8217;s say that the puzzle of life has 1000 pieces. If you believe the Bible, you are fitting perhaps 100 pieces into the puzzle in a particular way

Based solely on wish.

, and by doing so, you set yourself up to fit the remaining pieces the same way as well.

Called BIASING THE DATA. Hint: that isn't a good way to do science. It may be fine for religious faith, but it ain't science. In fact if you bias the data you have made an unrecoverable error. Your conclusions are automatically called into question.

The Bible doesn&#8217;t have much to say on a variety of topics, but the paradigm that comes with belief in the Bible does. For example, belief in the Bible implies skepticism that UFOs are the basis of the weird experiences and sights that people in the United States talk about with some regularity.

Have you read Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan? It does a nice bit about the UFO belief phenomenon and its analogues in previous supernatural attack beliefs in eras before UFO's.

Interesting how the Bible allows some people to think there are malevolent invisible spirits attacking people but would keep them skeptical of malevolent visitors from outside of the earth's atmosphere doing the same.

I hardly see one as superior to another. The only reason some Christians may disbelieve in UFO's is because they think God created life only on earth or some such limited P.O.V.

In other posts, I&#8217;ve made a whole bunch of predictions about a bunch of scientific things, usually regarding things that will NOT happen (like creating a sentient computer program, for example).

I haven't seen your sentient computer prediction, but I can tell you from your abiogenesis thread (which you raised earlier), that you are prone to make predictions in sciences you demonstrably don't understand. Ergo, by your fruits I know you.

Those predictions tend to be unpersuasive.

All I can speak to is the chemistry ones, so I'll just say "unpersuasive" is an understatement.

With respect to UFOs, it is reasonable for the Creationist to predict that human or alien technology will never result in the interaction of a human with an extra-terrestrial form of life.

Why? Is it somewhere in the Bible? Why believe the Bible? Is it part of the "world view" you arbitrarily take and bias your data with?

With respect to Creationist predictions that have come true, I&#8217;ve mentioned a few, such as the lack of any shred of evidence that life or even a tiny organic molecule ever existed on Mars.

Well, be fair, Martian soil appears to contain a strong oxidant which would render organic life somewhat difficult or the preservation of said life. That isn't really a prediction on Creationism's part. They didn't say "Life on Mars is impossible because the Bible says here in Genesis 3:18 that 'on the vast plains of arctic Mars one will find that perchlorate, a strong oxidant, exists at levels antithetical to God's organic life forms, selah!'". No, Creationists usually don't appear (at least here) to understand organic chemistry or even basic chemistry enough, and certainly the Bible provides them with a specious argument against life on Mars.

May as well claim that all paths lead to the same destination. Actually in science it usually matters how you got to the conclusion, not just that you randomly chose a conclusion and just by dumb luck happened to get it right.

(Oh and just to be clear on this: I don't yet dismiss the possibility of life on Mars past or present or life on Europa or other places in the universe. As has been pointed out to you already in your earlier "abiogenesis thread" the fundamental building blocks of life can be formed abiogenically and organics of some complexity are found in meteorites etc.)

It appears there is no evidence that liquid water ever existed on Mars either.

Please, then address this:

NASA Spacecraft Confirms Martian Water, Mission Extended

Maybe you meant flowing surface water? Has that been proven to have never been the case for Mars in the past? I'd be interested to see the data on that.

I did note that some of the recent thoughts on current "spurts" of water as found by evidence of gullies earlier this decade may not have been liquid water, but I don't see where that says surface water has never existed on mars.

So, again, I see no "Creationist Predictions", just ignorance-based guesses and hopes that somehow the failure to find water on Mars will make the Bible somehow "more true".

My other favorite prediction is related to the moon. Evolutionists predicted that the moon would be covered by meters of dust. That&#8217;s why they placed large disks on each of the legs of the lunar lander (Eagle)&#8212;to keep it from settling into the dust when it landed, much like snowshoes.

Interesting because I've read that Answers in Genesis says to definitely NOT use this argument:

&#8220;Moon-dust thickness proves a young moon.&#8221;

For a long time, creationists claimed that the dust layer on the moon was too thin if dust had truly been falling on it for billions of years. They based this claim on early estimates&#8212;by evolutionists&#8212;of the influx of moon dust, and worries that the moon landers would sink into this dust layer. But these early estimates were wrong, and by the time of the Apollo landings, NASA was not worried about sinking. So the dust layer thickness can&#8217;t be used as proof of a young moon (or of an old one, either). See Moon-dust argument no longer useful and Moon dust and the age of the solar system (Technical).
(SOURCE)

Oh my. Sounds like Creationists don't read their own stuff!

Color me surprised.

We&#8217;re in essence arguing over something that we have no data on&#8212;none of us were around 6000 years ago.

Humans were.

But more importantly rocks were that were recording what was going on quite fine, thank you.

All we have are rocks

Just because you can't understand what the rocks tell scientists doesn't mean everyone is equally ignorant.

Please don't confuse your limited knowledge with everyone else.

and meager scraps of data, plus really old books to which a few &#8220;quacks&#8221; ascribe a divine origin. One of my bases for believing the Bible and disbelieving evolution relates to prophecy, Thaumaturgy.

-yawn-

I would think you would be interested in prophecy on that basis.

I was until I started to learn more about what prophecies are in the Bible and how they are "interpretted".

I used to be similarly fascinated by Nostradamus' "prophecies". Then I started to read more.

I don&#8217;t know of any other religion with a good prophetic basis.

Christians say that all the time. But does anyone bother to discount the Islamic "prophecy" that Israel would be re-established?

Some believe that Sura 17:104 foretells the re-establishment of Israel. 'And we said to the Children of Israel afterwards, "Go live into this land. When the final prophecy comes to pass, we will summon you all in one group."'

Thaumaturgy, with respect to Creationists in the field of science, the university and scientific community is diametrically opposed to Creationism.

I've not read any good science for creationist scientists. I've read simplistic attempts to "poke holes" in standard science in hopes of using an "Excluded Middle" logicl fallacy to get their point pushed into schools. But other than poor science or misunderstood technical details, I've seen no valuable material come out Creationists scientists.

Maybe if they got their game together... And spent a wee less time proclaiming "persecution".

Most of my professional career is in finance.

And that means now I can make wholly uninformed complaints about our economy and blame it on "Mainstream Financial People" for keeping my unique and uninformed ideas on economics out of the main stream?

I happen to believe that the federal reserve system should be abolished because I think it is harmful for the federal government to fix interest rates. Do you think I would succeed and rise through the ranks of the Federal Reserve, given that I think the whole institution should be abolished?

Are we still talking science here? Or are you trying to divert the discussion into something you feel more comfortable in? Why don't you debate financial people over in "Financial Theology" forums?

Absolutely not. I would never join the Federal Reserve, and if I did, I would hate my job, and if I in fact enjoyed my job, I would never get promoted.

Are we still talking persecution here?

In law school, I wrote a paper against the recognition of transsexual sex changes in the law. There were perhaps a 1000 papers written nationwide in favor of legal recognition of sex changes, and zero against, despite the overwhelming scientific data that transsexuals cannot change their sex. My paper would have been the first from this perspective ever published by a law school. My paper was selected for publication, then deselected after a faculty member who litigated in favor of transsexuals got wind of it, and pressured the law review board to deselect my paper.

So you are saying because there are bad people out there who twist things to their own agenda that all of science is engaged in a systemic attack on valid creationist science?

Gee, if the creationists would just publish some good science somewhere it might make their argument more compelling. Do creationists have access to printing presses? They have access to the Intarwebs and yet all we see from them is poor science like the RATE Group publishes.

Oh well. Maybe the Vast International Interwebs Conspiracy of Atheists (VIICA) is keeping the good stuff of the servers and out of Google.

I learned very quickly that I would never succeed in law school academia, even if I so desired.

OK. I've read quite a few of your posts and...

People who want to be tenured geology professors in main line universities will never do so as long as they try to publish Creationist-oriented articles. Don&#8217;t kid yourself, Thaumaturgy.

Has a Creationist ever written a good solid robust scientific paper that was in any way compelling that didn't include a fundamental starting bias (Bible = De Facto Correct data point)? Please post the link! I think we'd all love to see it.

HINT: A person who writes learned articles on the genus and species of magical rainbow unicorns is also unlikely to get tenure in a biology program unless and until they prove such unicorns likely exist.

A person who writes learned articles about how the U.S. Constitution is based on Neptunian Glorzab Legal Systems brought here by Zervenzian the Gas Giant in 920 BC is unlikely to get tenure in a legal department unless and until he or she proves that Neptune was the source of any life that visited earth at any time and that such laws were brought to earth and that the Founding Fathers had access to those laws.

Just because someone wishes it earnestly isn't what earns tenure.

No one is arguing there isn't politics in any academic setting. But again, if Creationists were to start doing science and stop with the persecution complex then maybe they'd be taken seriously, but unfortunately most Creationists start with some serious and significant fundamental flaws and data biases which make their conclusions questionable from the start.

All Hail the VIICA!

 

[True_Blue]

Why? Somebody else already did a good job.
By the way, I picked this particular video over cdk's because DonExodus is a Christian. Amazingly the science is the same and they reached the same conclusions.

Vene, I watched the video, and it's clear that I have not adequately communicated my point. I spent several years in the Air Force reporting on life cycle costs of aircraft to senior leadership. I would interview engineers and convert their engineering knowledge into probabilities and numbers. The engineers supplied the assumptions and I supplied the resulting probability model. I didn't need to understand aeronautical engineering to figure out how much an aircraft might cost. It's a completely different exercise.

In abiogenesis, to figure out whether it's a feasible process or not, I don't need to understand protein folding or chemistry--I simply need to talk to someone who does understand such things and reduce their knowledge to numbers in the form of probability. Now, if you object to the impossible probability I derived, give me some assumptions, and I'll work with you or anyone else to convert those assumptions to a number. This video neither stated its assumptions in a useful form, nor did it run the numbers, nor did it link to a source that does so. In my earlier analysis, since I did not have an abiogenesis expert, I simply resolved all uncertainty in favor of abiogenesis and crunched the result on a spreadsheet. None of the so-called rebuttals were the least bit effective, in my mind. What I would find compelling would be your assumptions based on your knowledge and analysis of biochemistry.

 

[True_Blue]

Why would we run with something that is wrong? Giraffes don't breed with horses so your system has fallen on the first hurdle.

Pseudopod, you don’t understand my earlier points, or maybe you didn't read them—I was talking about placing egg and sperm together in a lab test tube or Petri dish and seeing if a proper, viable embryo forms, not trying to breed the animals themselves.

 

[Naraoia]

The engineers supplied the assumptions and I supplied the resulting probability model. I didn't need to understand aeronautical engineering to figure out how much an aircraft might cost.

As you said, the engineers supplied the assumptions. Supposedly the engineers did understand their job, right? Now that's the difference between this and your abiogenesis... "model". You don't understand the chemistry and don't listen to the ones who do.

In abiogenesis, to figure out whether it's a feasible process or not, I don't need to understand protein folding or chemistry--I simply need to talk to someone who does understand such things and reduce their knowledge to numbers in the form of probability. Now, if you object to the impossible probability I derived, give me some assumptions, and I'll work with you or anyone else to convert those assumptions to a number. This video neither stated its assumptions in a useful form, nor did it run the numbers, nor did it link to a source that does so. In my earlier analysis, since I did not have an abiogenesis expert, I simply resolved all uncertainty in favor of abiogenesis and crunched the result on a spreadsheet. None of the so-called rebuttals were the least bit effective, in my mind. What I would find compelling would be your assumptions based on your knowledge and analysis of biochemistry.

True Blue, in the abiogenesis thread you were been given the TalkOrigins probability calculations and all you could say to that is that they declared p = 1. One, they didn't actually do that, two, the p = 1 bit was preceded by a considerable amount of real assumption-making and number-crunching. I don't remember, have you addressed any of that?

 

[Split Rock]

Vene, I watched the video, and it's clear that I have not adequately communicated my point. I spent several years in the Air Force reporting on life cycle costs of aircraft to senior leadership. I would interview engineers and convert their engineering knowledge into probabilities and numbers. The engineers supplied the assumptions and I supplied the resulting probability model. I didn't need to understand aeronautical engineering to figure out how much an aircraft might cost. It's a completely different exercise.

Problem No. 1. These engineers built, designed, and/or maintained these aircraft. We have no one who has built, designed, or maintained primitive lifeforms to give you this information. Therefore, you have nothing to base your probability model on.

In abiogenesis, to figure out whether it's a feasible process or not, I don't need to understand protein folding or chemistry--I simply need to talk to someone who does understand such things and reduce their knowledge to numbers in the form of probability. Now, if you object to the impossible probability I derived, give me some assumptions, and I'll work with you or anyone else to convert those assumptions to a number. This video neither stated its assumptions in a useful form, nor did it run the numbers, nor did it link to a source that does so. In my earlier analysis, since I did not have an abiogenesis expert, I simply resolved all uncertainty in favor of abiogenesis and crunched the result on a spreadsheet. None of the so-called rebuttals were the least bit effective, in my mind. What I would find compelling would be your assumptions based on your knowledge and analysis of biochemistry.

Problem no. 2. You did not resolve all uncertainty in favor of abiogenesis. You ran your model based on a strawman that could never work. What you failed to take into account is that chemistry is not all based on random interactions! Atoms and molecules interact in specific ways governed by their chemistry and entropy consideractions that you ignored. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

 

[True_Blue]

By "water," I meant liquid water, not ice or vapor. The Phoenix lander found ice.

Thaumaturgy, notwithstanding the article you linked to, which I have read before, I believe the moon dust argument is very compelling. In no way does 1-3 inch lunar dust prove evolution. While 1-inch moon dust does not “prove” Creationism, it removes a potential source of evidence for evolutionists, and it is evidence of how Creationist extrapolations become proven out in the real world.

“Has a Creationist ever written a good solid robust scientific paper that was in any way compelling that didn't include a fundamental starting bias (Bible = De Facto Correct data point)? Please post the link! I think we'd all love to see it.” No, it is impossible to write a good scientific paper focusing on the topic of origins unless it was based on the Truth. Any benefit would be purely accidental and incidental. I recently went to a university looking for a scientist with a particular, rare, skill set, which could be very valuable if properly utilized. Half of the faculty in this particular department have devoted their lives to evolution, and their CVs reflected this. The scientists with evolutionist CVs didn’t have the background and the experience in the right areas needed for the creation of wealth. The scientist I choose happens to believe in evolution, but this person devoted his or her life to a field with actual value, and as a result, this person may be a huge blessing to others. How on earth can the study of Neanderthals lead to the creation of useful technology?

Most law professors nowadays seem to think that law should be evolutionary. I disagree—law should be static as much as possible so that people know what the law is. In part because the law today is so fluid and uncertain, only 1% of lawsuits go to trial. That percentage is the measure of usefulness of our legal system. Shortly after the Origin of Species was published, Harvard Law School ditched Blackstone and adopted the case study method—they applied evolution to law. One result is that lawyers and the legal system are now held in contempt. Another result is that most lawyers will agree that law school is mostly a waste of time.

 

[Nathan45]

Here's an except from the quoted article that makes me stroke my chin:

"They discovered that the brain at the time of birth was of exactly the same size as a typical human newborn. It had a volume of about 400 cubic centimetres. However, the skeleton was considerably more robustly formed than that of a modern human newborn."

It's rather difficult to study the cognitive function of Neanderthal newborns if all you have is a skull sans brain, and the brain is exactly the same size as a human baby. "Skeleton robustness" seems racial, not evolutionary.

"As far as birth, development of the brain and life history are concerned, we are astonishingly similar to each other", says Dr. Ponce de León.

hmmmmm......

See bolded section. LOL, irony meter is about to explode.

 

[True_Blue]

True Blue, in the abiogenesis thread you were been given the TalkOrigins probability calculations and all you could say to that is that they declared p = 1. One, they didn't actually do that, two, the p = 1 bit was preceded by a considerable amount of real assumption-making and number-crunching. I don't remember, have you addressed any of that?

Yes, Naraoia, I addressed it ad nauseam. P=1 assumes the answer. Assuming a 100% probability of evolution is like assuming that a jet fighter aircraft is free. It ain't.