Yecch

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

What Notto said - and to add, that someone who supports ICR and AiG has a low opinion of me is virtually a compliment.

 

[Numenor]

To say that we ignore Genesis is false, To say we wish to steer Christians away from the Bible is false.

Yet this is what they persist in doing, despite past protestations that they don't. Makes me wonder about their sincerity.

 

[Micaiah]

It demonstrates one of the mechanisms of evolution which is all it ever claimed to do. It is deceitful to take the research and claim that it tried to show anything outside of its predictions and conclusions. You claimed that somehow the research was discredited.

Which of the following claims have been discredited?

1. The peppered moth exists in two forms, one light and one dark.
2. Prior to the industrial revolution, the dark form was a prized collector's item due to its rarity--less than 5% of the total pepper moth population.
3. During the industrial revolution the dark variety became much more common in regions of heavy industrialization, reaching at peak 95% of the affected population.
4. Since pollution controls have been established, the occurence of the dark form has been decreasing.
5. Dark colour provides better camouflage on soot-blackened trees, while light colour provides better camouflage on non-blackened trees.
6. A major predator of the moths in daylight hours are birds.
7. Birds are more likely to find and eat moths without camouflage rather than those which are well camouflaged.
8. Selective bird predation on non-camouflaged moths tends to make the non-camouflaged form rarer in each generation.

Oh so it demostrates a mechanism of evolution. What mechanism would that be?

 

[notto]

Oh so it demostrates a mechanism of evolution. What mechanism would that be?

Natural selection acting on variation within a population. At the time, there were still some who considered Lamarckism to be the mechanism (that moths 'willed' themselves to change in light of environmental changes or that the specific variation came about due to specific environmental changes). The study showed that this was not the case and that over time a trait can become dominant in a population when acted on by environmental pressure (selection due to predators).

You can read up on what the study was really about here:
http://genbiol.cbs.umn.edu/peppmoth/peppmoth.html

The mechansism of mutation plus natural selection leads to [size=-1]changes in allele frequencies in a population of organisms over time. The peppered moth observation confirmed this mechanism of evolution.

Now if we look again at your original claim:
[/size] How many times have we shown that the peppered moths story is not evidence for evolution and demonstrated that the claims made about the moths have been thoroughtly discredited, and yet it persists to be used by TE's

Can you show us how the claims made about the moths have been discredited?

 

[Critias]

AIG and ICR are deities now are they?

If a new Christian asks me 'Who made the universe?' I will point them to Genesis 1-3. If they ask me 'How was it made?' I will not send them to AiG or ICR. Yes, a new low for Christian Forums indeed.

Lol! Numenor, you love to take things out of context don't you. Either you are impaired in your reading or you like to take what I say out of context.

 

[Critias]

Yet this is what they persist in doing, despite past protestations that they don't. Makes me wonder about their sincerity.

Just like the other thread where I told you 5 or so times I wasn't saying what you said I was? You continued to tell me I was wrong about what I meant and that you knew what I meant better than I.

Yes, your continued persistance on misrepresenting your fellow Christians does show your sincerity towards those who don't think just like you.

 

[Critias]

...

 

[artybloke]

Just like the other thread where I told you 5 or so times I wasn't saying what you said I was?

Then you should be careful about how you word what you say. Too often I've read things - by you as well as others - that may not mean that you think non-fundies are second-class Christians, but certainly imply it.

 

[Critias]

Gotta love the irony of when Arty is mispresented it is other peoples fault, but when Arty misrepresents others it is their fault not his.

 

[artybloke]

No - if I see a creationist lying I'll tell them to their face that they are.

 

[Critias]

Whatever makes you feel good Arty.

 

[Micaiah]

Oh so it demostrates a mechanism of evolution. What mechanism would that be?

I believe that characteristics of animal populations may vary due to the selective forces of nature. I believe God made the world in six days. No conflict there.

Is this the kind of evidence that convinces scientists that 'slime to scientist' evolution is fact?

 

[notto]

I believe that characteristics of animal populations may vary due to the selective forces of nature. I believe God made the world in six days. No conflict there.

Is this the kind of evidence that convinces scientists that 'slime to scientist' evolution is fact?

No, as has been explained to you a few times, it is evidence of one of the mechanisms of evolution. At the time of the research, that mechanism was in doubt and there were several different possible explanations. The research falsified a few of them and confirmed the mechanism that was responsible. That was all it was intended to do.

The evidence that leads to the conclusion of common ancestry comes from several other independent lines of evidence.

You can read about those independent lines of evidence here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

You will notices that none of this rests on the peppered moths study. It is not used to come to the conclusion of common ancestry. Each conclusion is supported by evidence, well referenced, and provides the line of reasoning that would falsify it.

[size=-1] Now if we look again at your original claim:
[/size] How many times have we shown that the peppered moths story is not evidence for evolution and demonstrated that the claims made about the moths have been thoroughtly discredited, and yet it persists to be used by TE's

Can you show us how the claims made about the moths have been discredited or will you withdraw your claim?

 

[Numenor]

Yes, your continued persistance on misrepresenting your fellow Christians does show your sincerity towards those who don't think just like you.

So man's fallible interpretation of the Bible is to be discounted while his infallible interpretation of nature is to be lifted up. Interesting!!!

I think vossler's comment speaks for itself. You still thiunk YECs don't accuse TEs of not believing the Bible?

 

[Critias]

Numenor, you do it to others, why are you surprised if it happens to you?

You get what you give Numenor, you are not a victim.

Sometimes I wonder if people understand how to read on this forum. Can you show me where Vossler says "TEs do not believe the Bible"?

Vossler didn't state this, you implied that he did. It may or may not be what he meant, but it wasn't what he actually said. You ought to ask him before you accuse him, don't you think?

Or do you prefer to just come out shooting and ask questions later?

 

[Floodnut]

This thread demonstrates conclusively that the trend among opponents of YEC is the same: ridicule, mock, belittle, dismiss, berate, talk down to, chastise, discipline, patronize, and so on. TE's do not believe the Bible in the simple and plain sense. They do not follow the conservative approach known as the grammatical historical approach. Yet somehow they do manage to reject Science and still hold to the truths that are contrary to Science like: Regeneration, Atonement, the Resurrection of Christ, the Coming of the Holy Spirit, so it is possible for one who holds TE to be a atrue believer, and therefore my brother or sister in Christ, even if they don't believe that they were my brother and sister through a literal Noah who was the lone ancestor of all of humanity after he survived a literal global Flood.

 

[artybloke]

This thread demonstrates conclusively that the trend among opponents of YEC is the same: ridicule, mock, belittle, dismiss, berate, talk down to, chastise, discipline, patronize, and so on.

That's exactly what we get from creationists: constant accusations that we're not really Christians. I'm sorry, but before you start looking to other peoples' faults, put your own house in order. Even here there is the blazing arrogance of thinking that your interpretation is the "simple and plain sense." It isn't; it's merely taking the Bible as if it was written yesterday and in English, with all the assumptions about truth of a 19th Century positivist added on. It's not how the ancient writers intended it to be read, especially as none of them were scientists and science as a concept wasn't even a gleam in anyone's eye until the Rennaisance.

Yet somehow they do manage to reject Science and still hold to the truths that are contrary to Science like: Regeneration, Atonement, the Resurrection of Christ, the Coming of the Holy Spirit,

None of these are contrary to science. They are unprovable by science, as they are theological concepts, but they are no more contrary to science than poetry is.

Creationism continues to be full of lies, distortion and downright dumbness, and there's nothing you can do to make it better.

 

[Micaiah]

No, as has been explained to you a few times, it is evidence of one of the mechanisms of evolution. At the time of the research, that mechanism was in doubt and there were several different possible explanations. The research falsified a few of them and confirmed the mechanism that was responsible. That was all it was intended to do.

The evidence that leads to the conclusion of common ancestry comes from several other independent lines of evidence.

You can read about those independent lines of evidence here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

You will notices that none of this rests on the peppered moths study. It is not used to come to the conclusion of common ancestry. Each conclusion is supported by evidence, well referenced, and provides the line of reasoning that would falsify it.

[size=-1]Now if we look again at your original claim:
[/size]How many times have we shown that the peppered moths story is not evidence for evolution and demonstrated that the claims made about the moths have been thoroughtly discredited, and yet it persists to be used by TE's

Can you show us how the claims made about the moths have been discredited or will you withdraw your claim?

Is this the kind of evidence that convinces scientists that 'slime to scientist' evolution is fact?

 

[notto]

Is this the kind of evidence that convinces scientists that 'slime to scientist' evolution is fact?

The evidence in the common ancestry link, yes. You will notice that it is well documented, includes observations and potential falsifications, and that there are several independent lines of evidence.

None of which relys on the Peppered Moth.

[size=-1] Now if we look again at your original claim:
[/size] How many times have we shown that the peppered moths story is not evidence for evolution and demonstrated that the claims made about the moths have been thoroughtly discredited, and yet it persists to be used by TE's

Can you show us how the claims made about the moths have been discredited or will you withdraw your claim?

 

[Micaiah]

The article you sited indicates the colour variation was not scientifically verified to be a mutation. At best you can say that the scientist witnessed variations in gene frequencies in a population. Creationists have no problem accepting this happens. I think we agreee that to claim the experiment proves what Darwin theorised about common ancestory would be an overstatement.

Here is a statement by the scientist in question:

The story has generated boundless evolutionary enthusiasm. H.B. Kettlewell, who performed most of the classic experiments, said that if Darwin had seen this, ‘He would have witnessed the consummation and confirmation of his life’s work.’1

Taken from this AIG site.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/moths.asp

Reference:

H. Kettlewell (1959), ‘Darwin’s missing evidence’ in Evolution and the fossil record, readings from Scientific American, W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, p. 23, 1978.