RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (5) < [1] 2 3 4 5 >   
  Topic: Dgszweda Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,13:42   

so we don't use up AFDave's thread too quickly.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,13:50   

dgsweda:
Quote
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2007,13:15)
 
Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 02 2007,14:03)
2) Question 2: If the universe is so ordered why is randomness so prevalant in Quantum Mechanics .  There are these randomness calculations in Quantum Mechanics, I agree.  But the randomness is more of because of our inability to calculate or understand the variables than it is of true randomness.

The majority belief among physicists is that this is wrong, and the randomness of QM is true randomness. A minority of physicists holds out hope for a hidden variable theory.

Can you provide some quotes or sources for this?  I provided a quote for Feynman.


steve:
Quote
Have you studied physics? I mean, other than reading pop sci books about it?

EDIT: I'm moving the dgszweda stuff to its own thread.


JohnW:
Quote
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2007,13:22)
Have you studied physics? I mean, other than reading pop sci books about it?

Shouldn't dgszweda get his own thread?  His lack of understanding of quantum physics has nothing directly to do with afdave's nonsense, and I hate to use up the last few posts of this thread on something else entirely.


richard simons:
Quote
Dgszweda, do you seriously consider Isaac Newton to be a credible source on aspects of modern biology? He wasn't even a credible source on the biology of his day. Bourdreaux, and Damadian may well be respected in their respective fields, but it is significant that neither of them are biologists either.

Dave, if you had paid attention to the posts of a couple of months ago trying to explain heterozygosity and alleles to you, you would realize that what you have been writing about it is complete and utter rubbish. I can't be bothered to go through it again as it is obviously a waste of time trying to get you to modify your views on anything, no matter how strong the evidence and no matter how mutually contradictory your views are.


improvius:
Quote
Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 02 2007,14:03)
I encourage you to truly examine the pictures of the entire bone collections of some of these hominid species and just logically think about whether they were even hominid or if there was enough there to even make a determination.  Ramapithecus was based on a few teeth, which 20 years later is beginning to be thought of as an extinct primate.  Most of the hominid species have only been developed based off a few fragments of bones discovered in the last 10-20 years.  Even Homo Erectus was basically only classified to be an earlier hominid because of it's cranial capacity.  Essentially three skulls are being used to create a new species, when it has been easily shown that the cranial capacity of Homo Erectus fits into the cranial capacity of some European groups.  I guess I miss how we can develop a whole species based on a few bones, when modern asians and modern Europeans share different characteristics in their facial and skull features.  If I found 5 asian skulls it would be unfair to characterize the entire modern human race based on those features.  It isn't representative of the human race.  So how can we take two partial skulls and 5 teeth and develop a species of hominids from it?

And how would you classify these skulls?


scaryfacts:
Quote
Dgszweda

I want to start off by telling you that I am a Christian and believe the Bible to be a reliable source for learning about man’s relationship with the Judeo/Christian deity.

I am a little at odds with your explanation of the “apparent age” of the universe—i.e.: God made the light already hitting the earth, etc.

The Bible is pretty clear that God does not lie and that we can learn about God by studying his creation.  You are saying God intentionally misleads through the creation.

Let’s take your approach using an analogy:

Suppose I offered you a great reward for learning about me and I told you to look through my house to learn as much as you can about me.  I will also penalize you if you get it wrong.

In the house I’ve placed a number of items:

A dog bowl
A picture of two elderly people with a frame that says “mom and dad”
A business card with my name on it saying I am an Executive VP at Xerox
I leave on the coffee table a book showing my genealogy back 5 generations

Based on my instructions you would assume:

I have a dog
The picture is of my parents
I work at Xerox
You knew the names of my ancestors for the last several generations

I then come back to see how you’ve done and give you either your reward or punishment.

You rattle off your conclusions and I say, “Sorry, I intentionally made it look like I had a dog, but I don’t.  I made it appear as if those people are my parents, but they’re not.  I made it look like I work at Xerox but I don’t.  The genealogy was a fake I planted.
Now you will be punished for getting it wrong."

I don’t see how that can be consistent for the Biblical God.

If God tells us to look at the creation to learn about Him, I believe he didn’t lie.

You seem to think He did.


improvius:
Quote
Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 02 2007,14:37)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2007,13:22)
Have you studied physics? I mean, other than reading pop sci books about it?

Shouldn't dgszweda get his own thread?  His lack of understanding of quantum physics has nothing directly to do with afdave's nonsense, and I hate to use up the last few posts of this thread on something else entirely.

I agree, and suggest that these last few posts be moved - especially since he doesn't seem interested in reviewing previous posts in this thread so as to avoid things that have already been well-covered.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,13:55   

Quote
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2007,13:22)
Have you studied physics? I mean, other than reading pop sci books about it?

Yes I have at the college level.  In addition I have 3 years experience as a nuclear physicist at General Engineering Laboratories in Charleston SC, working on contract work for the naval base in Charleston.  In addition I have a few years experience as a particle physicist at Fermilab National Accelerator Labatory in Batavia, IL on a small team under the direction of Nobel Prize winning Leon Lederman.

One of the goals for quantum mechanics is to better define the models.  When you say randomness, I guess we need to be more specific, since there are various probability variables within many of the various equations.  The probabilistic component for most of the equations are mostly rooted in the influence of the "observer" to the observation.  We currently cannot tell how much manipulation the observer contributed to the final observation.

Please point me to the quoted source that states that Quantum mechanics is the final endpoint of our understanding of the universe, and please point me in the direction of the individual who doesn't believe that the major weakness of our understanding of quantum mechanics is because of inability to calculate the probability component of our equations.

Local hidden variable theories are considered extinct according to the Bell inequality (I hesitate to say extinct, because as we all know science and mathematics is a changing field).  For non-local hidden variable theories, there is no known law that contradicts them.  Einstein still disagreed with Heisenberg until his death.  Time will tell whether a new theory will develop surrounding this or other hidden variable theories.  Please tell me the theory that disproves the presence of non-local variable theories?  I provided the theory that disproved the presence of one of the variable theories.


You're not being careful with your arguments. "Please point me to the quoted source that states that Quantum mechanics is the final endpoint of our understanding of the universe" no one ever said that, and "Please tell me the theory that disproves the presence of non-local variable theories?" no one said that either. What was said, was that the majority view is that hidden variable theories are wrong.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,13:59   

dgszveda:
Quote
Quote
Dgszweda, do you seriously consider Isaac Newton to be a credible source on aspects of modern biology? He wasn't even a credible source on the biology of his day. Bourdreaux, and Damadian may well be respected in their respective fields, but it is significant that neither of them are biologists either.


No I do not consider any of them to be a credible source as a biologist, but that wasn't the question.  You need to look at the quote I responded to.  The quote was that no creationist was credible.  If you want me to answer more specifically than everyone needs to question more specifically.  Not give blatant overgeneralizations made to belittle posters.

And no sorry I didn't get to read the last 5,000 posts on this thread.


eric:
Quote
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2007,11:15)
   
Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 02 2007,14:03)
2) Question 2: If the universe is so ordered why is randomness so prevalant in Quantum Mechanics .  There are these randomness calculations in Quantum Mechanics, I agree.  But the randomness is more of because of our inability to calculate or understand the variables than it is of true randomness.

The majority belief among physicists is that this is wrong, and the randomness of QM is true randomness. A minority of physicists holds out hope for a hidden variable theory.

I believe that Bell's Theorem, which was proven in the early nineties, rules out the possibility of "hidden variables." Here's the Wikipedia entry.
Bell's only rules out local hidden variables.

   
dgszweda



Posts: 34
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,14:06   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2007,13:55)
Quote

You're not being careful with your arguments. "Please point me to the quoted source that states that Quantum mechanics is the final endpoint of our understanding of the universe" no one ever said that, and "Please tell me the theory that disproves the presence of non-local variable theories?" no one said that either. What was said, was that the majority view is that hidden variable theories are wrong.

Without any factual information behind it than it is just one person arguing with another.  There is some great research going on in regards to non-local wave theories as it relates to High Energy Physics, and there are many great scientist that lean toward Einstein's belief.  I guess I have never statistically marked out who was for and against and what the percentages they might be.

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,14:13   

Quote
No I do not consider any of them to be a credible source as a biologist, but that wasn't the question.  You need to look at the quote I responded to.  The quote was that no creationist was credible.  If you want me to answer more specifically than everyone needs to question more specifically.  Not give blatant overgeneralizations made to belittle posters.

I don't think anyone here has argued that creationists have never made significant contributions to science.  I think it was understood by everyone else that the original statement was limited to the topics at hand.

Quote
And no sorry I didn't get to read the last 5,000 posts on this thread.

You should, if you are genuinely interested in learning about things like evolution and geology.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,14:14   

I don't have any real authoritative data either. Just my impressions from 3 QM classes, knowing a bunch of physicists, and wikipedia:

Quote
Most physicists however are of the position that the true theory of the universe is not a hidden variable theory and that particles do not have any extra information which is not present in their quantum mechanics description. These other interpretations of quantum mechanics have their own philosophical issues. A very small number of physicists believe that local realism is correct and that quantum mechanics is ultimately incorrect.


It's mostly over my head anyway.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,14:25   

Deadman:
Quote
I'll take a little time to critique your claims on "hominids " first, szweda. You're sadly uninformed on multiple levels here. Additionally, I'll be "fisking" ( critiquing point-by-point) some of your claims later.
 
Quote
 In total there are only about 1,400 hominid skulls that have been found, of which about 700 come from Magaliesberg region of Africa.

Where did you get that quote from? I'd LOVE to know the source of it. Provide it, since you saw fit to use it. Don't fail to do that, since your claims rest on it.


(1) A hominid is any member of the biological family Hominidae (the "great apes"), including the extinct and extant humans ( Homo sapiens, H. erectus, H. Neanderthalensis and H. habilis) , chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. Are you insane in claiming that we only have 1700 skulls of H. sapiens sapiens available?  

The Magliesberg mountain range is in South Africa, where Phil Tobias invited me to work. There are caves near there that have produced examples of Australopithecus africanus, such as Sterkfontein and Kromdraai, Swartkrans and Makapansgatt -- but I challenge you to find me 700 **whole** skulls from these locales in the Magliesberg.

Or do you mean fragments? If you want to include cranial fragments, calvaria, teeth, post-cranial remain, etc, you'd have a lot more than that, but I'm curious why you think  A. africanus remains constitute more than half the number of your TOTAL claimed "hominid" remains.


 
Quote
Most early hominid species come from very few bone fragments and most features are developed as a result of indirect evidence.  Most of all of the early and mid hominids and many of the late hominids are based on just a few bones.  Forget full skeletons.  Yet with great certainty of a jaw bone and 3 teeth we can determine that they were a hominid and they went extinct due to X,Y,Z.....  The chimpanzees still exist so why don't we see any homo sapiens neanderthalensis around.


Gee,Szweda, thatt's a lot of jumping around and running-together of issues you just did in that "paragraph" First of all, you're wrong that early hominid species such as H. Habilis and H. erectus and Neandertalensis are based on " a few bones" which you then try to compare to " a jaw and three teeth" . This is an utter lie, Szweda.

We have hundreds of examples of Neanders and H. erectus. HUNDREDS...not "a jaw and three teeth" https://nespos-live01.pxpgroup.com/display/openspace/Site+List

As to why neanders are extinct and chimps are not, well, maybe you might want to look at where each existed/exists. You think environment might have something to do with it? Like rain forests being easier to become isolated and "hide" in?  

 
Quote
Neanderthalensis and sapien sapien exists together for at least 150,000 years.


Well, let's see...the earliest DEFINITIVELY KNOWN neander that I can think of is from about 130,000 years ago...and neanders die off (I'll be generous) 28KYA ago...uh, your math seems to be off, not that THAT alone is important. Care to cite sources?



 
Quote
Ramapithecus was based on a few teeth, which 20 years later is beginning to be thought of as an extinct primate.

Uh, I hate to break this to you, goober, but it was always thought of as an extinct primate. The only question was if it was in the human ancestral lineage. And the INITIAL find of Ramapiths was not MERELY based on a few teeth, but upper jaw fragments as well, in 1932. Since then lots more cranial and post-cranial remains have been found, and it has largely been "lumped in" with the Sivapiths.

This final quote is the one that really tells me about your willingness to bulshit, szweda:    
Quote
Even Homo Erectus was basically only classified to be an earlier hominid because of it's cranial capacity.  Essentially three skulls are being used to create a new species, when it has been easily shown that the cranial capacity of Homo Erectus fits into the cranial capacity of some European groups.

1) Erectus was not classified as a non-H. sapiens sapiens based only on cranial capacity. This is an utter lie. I suggest you read about Dubois, Davidson Black, Leakey, Weidenreich, and perhaps the work of one of my department profs, Gail Kennedy.
2) The notion that 3 skulls alone are what created a new taxon and continue to support the validity of that taxon is shameful.
3) you said the average cranial capacity of erectus matches the cranial capacity of "some European groups." Can you name one? I'd love to see your reference on that. Please don't fail to provide THAT data, either.   Homo erectus had a brain (950 to 1200 cc, avg. 1020 cc ) which is about 75% of the size of that of a modern human, on average. Even WIKIPEDIA of all things, gets THAT right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus So, show me this population of modern europeans that has a 1020 cc average cranial capacity.

If you really think that "cranial capacity " is all that differentiates erectus from sapiens sapiens ( you and me) then talk to me about cortical thickness, dentition, prognathism, postorbital constriction with supraorbital sulcus, pentagonal-shaped skull with a nuchal ridge, and all the other MANY diagnostic traits associated with H. erectus. See   G. Philip Rightmire. (1992) The Evolution of Homo Erectus: Comparative Anatomical Studies of an Extinct Human Species, Cambridge University Press  and Narikotome Homo Erectus Skeleton available at : http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/WALNAR.html

And for those that want to actually view hominid and hominoid fossil material, here are some links, perhaps  sweda might get a clue from some of these, but I doubt it, given what is pretty evident willingness to engage in AFDave-like twisting of fact and blindness.

http://www.wsu.edu/gened....w1.html (human)  
http://www.stanford.edu/~harryg/protected/evolve5.htm (human)  
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/illustr.html (human)  
http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html (human)  
http://www.bioanth.org/ (human)  
http://doherty.ldgo.columbia.edu/~peter....ol.html (human)
http://www.antiquityofman.com/

Images of erectus skulls, narikotome
http://www.msu.edu/~heslip....ide.jpg
http://www.msu.edu/~heslip....ide.jpg
http://www.msu.edu/~heslip....ton.jpg
http://www.science.mcmaster.ca/geo/research/age/skull.htm
http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~reffla....o3.html
http://www.science.mcmaster.ca/geo/research/age/skull.htm
http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/homo_2%20.htm erectus morphology

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,14:28   

Thanks for moving this over here, steve: I didn't notice your comment about it. Cheers.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,14:44   

Posted by dgszweda on the AFDave thread:
   
Quote
That is the one of the points of perceived age.  My contention as well as YEC, is that God created the stars with their light shining on the earth already.  Even if the sun was shining on the earth the second He created it, it had a perceived age of at least 8 minutes.  Did God violate scientific laws?  Yes, but of course a creationists belief is that the laws were established by God and that God is omnipotent, and therefore can subvert His laws for His glory.  His laws for this physical realm (and yes I believe it is a finite closed system and not an open system) were fully established on the 6th day of creation. Can I prove this scientifically.  No.  Is God a Liar as you state.  No.  Where did God state otherwise?

(Bolded emphasis mine)

Well, that's the end of any serious scientific debate right there, isn't it?  If you can play the 'God changes the laws of physics at his whim' card (also known as the "...and then a miracle occurs..." card), then all bets are off.  Any biblical story - the Flood, Tower of Babel, etc. - can be explained away with that bit of hand waving.

Personally, I think it's great that you are honest enough to just admit your belief in miracles, instead of pulling an AFDave and lying/squirming/evading to try and and make Biblical literalism fit known, existing physical laws.

I also have no problems with you believing this, as long as we agree it's not science and doesn't belong in a science classroom.

What else is there to discuss?

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
dgszweda



Posts: 34
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,15:14   

Quote (improvius @ Jan. 02 2007,14:13)
You should, if you are genuinely interested in learning about things like evolution and geology.

I would but I don't think I even have that amount of time.  I might develop into another species if I took that much time. :) Although for many of you, you might think it would be an improvement :)

  
dgszweda



Posts: 34
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,15:19   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2007,13:50)
I want to start off by telling you that I am a Christian and believe the Bible to be a reliable source for learning about man’s relationship with the Judeo/Christian deity.

I am a little at odds with your explanation of the “apparent age” of the universe—i.e.: God made the light already hitting the earth, etc.

The Bible is pretty clear that God does not lie and that we can learn about God by studying his creation.  You are saying God intentionally misleads through the creation.

Let’s take your approach using an analogy:

Suppose I offered you a great reward for learning about me and I told you to look through my house to learn as much as you can about me.  I will also penalize you if you get it wrong.

In the house I’ve placed a number of items:

A dog bowl
A picture of two elderly people with a frame that says “mom and dad”
A business card with my name on it saying I am an Executive VP at Xerox
I leave on the coffee table a book showing my genealogy back 5 generations

Based on my instructions you would assume:

I have a dog
The picture is of my parents
I work at Xerox
You knew the names of my ancestors for the last several generations

I then come back to see how you’ve done and give you either your reward or punishment.

You rattle off your conclusions and I say, “Sorry, I intentionally made it look like I had a dog, but I don’t.  I made it appear as if those people are my parents, but they’re not.  I made it look like I work at Xerox but I don’t.  The genealogy was a fake I planted.
Now you will be punished for getting it wrong."

I don’t see how that can be consistent for the Biblical God.

If God tells us to look at the creation to learn about Him, I believe he didn’t lie.

You seem to think He did.

I am sorry I don't know who posted this because it was compilation thread.  I am not sure if we want to get into theology here, since for many on this forum a literal interpretation of the Bible is not a conclusion.  I offered up a theory as too why the light got there.  In actuality I have no idea.  But regardless, the stars were created on a single day, that is pretty clear in the Bible.  Regardless of how they were created in order to see them and hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible than apparent age had to be included in the creation.  Just as Adam was created as an adult and the animals were created as alive not just as hatchlings with no parents.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,15:22   

As dgsvweda would say, please provide a reference that shows that I don't admit miracles and that Biblical literalism has to fit known, existing physical laws, or else stop saying it.  Thx!

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,15:28   

Quote (afdave @ Jan. 02 2007,15:22)
As dgsvweda would say, please provide a reference that shows that I don't admit miracles and that Biblical literalism has to fit known, existing physical laws, or else stop saying it.  Thx!

In other words, please stop hammering me with the rock and instead smack me against the hard place. Thx!

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,15:28   

Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 02 2007,13:19)
I am sorry I don't know who posted this because it was compilation thread.  I am not sure if we want to get into theology here, since for many on this forum a literal interpretation of the Bible is not a conclusion.  I offered up a theory as too why the light got there.  In actuality I have no idea.  But regardless, the stars were created on a single day, that is pretty clear in the Bible.  Regardless of how they were created in order to see them and hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible than apparent age had to be included in the creation.  Just as Adam was created as an adult and the animals were created as alive not just as hatchlings with no parents.

See, Dave, this is where I have the problem. And it's why it's ultimately even less worthwhile to debate you than the other Dave.

If you take biblical literalism as a given (and saying:
 
Quote
But regardless, the stars were created on a single day, that is pretty clear in the Bible.  Regardless of how they were created in order to see them and hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible than apparent age had to be included in the creation.

is hard to interpret any other way), then what is there to argue about? The biblical account of creation is contradicted by just about every single observation one cares to make about the external world. The evidence that the biblical account is wrong is simply overwhelming.

But if you take the position that the Bible must be right, and any observation that contradicts it must therefore be wrong, I simply fail to see how you can ever learn anything. And I fail to see how anyone can argue with you. I say the evidence that the universe is billions of years old is indisputable. You say that cannot be true because the Bible says otherwise. What more is there to say? My next question would be, how do you know the Bible is accurate? You say, my faith tells me so.

At that point we've come to a parting of the ways.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
ScaryFacts



Posts: 337
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,15:46   

Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 02 2007,16:19)
I am sorry I don't know who posted this because it was compilation thread.  I am not sure if we want to get into theology here, since for many on this forum a literal interpretation of the Bible is not a conclusion.  I offered up a theory as too why the light got there.  In actuality I have no idea.  But regardless, the stars were created on a single day, that is pretty clear in the Bible.  Regardless of how they were created in order to see them and hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible than apparent age had to be included in the creation.  Just as Adam was created as an adult and the animals were created as alive not just as hatchlings with no parents.

If this is your response then you aren't ever going to discuss science--it appears all you have is scientifically unsupported theology.  Why do you believe the stars were created in a literal 24 hour day?  The scrolls tell you.  What evidence do you have?  The scrolls say so.  Why doesn't the observed world fit your belief?  Beats you--all you know is the scrolls.

I would recommend you go to one of the many Christian forums.

If, on the other hand, you can point to genuine observation that provides for a 6K old earth, light before sun, life beginning as fully formed humans, etc.  We will listen intently to your evidence.  If you are about handwaving and scripture quoting you need to go back to the AFDave thread and spend time reading--these guys have refuted already the YEC arguments.

Up is up and down is down
No matter what the scrolls

   
dgszweda



Posts: 34
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,15:50   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2007,14:25)

Deadman,

Thanks for your comments.  Hopefully I can answer all of them.

Quote
of which about 700 come from Magaliesberg region of Africa.


You asked me where I got this quote.  I agree these aren't whole skulls.  I am not intimately familiar with all of them, but from my research in years past, I believe there are very few if any entirely intact skulls.  With that said, I got the quote from the tourism bureau of that region (http://www.sustainable-futures.com/ecotourism/ecotourism2.html) about half way down.  Maybe it is incorrect, please point me to a source that says differently.  It actually seems high unless they are discussing fragments.

Quote
Are you insane in claiming that we only have 1700 skulls of H. sapiens sapiens available?


You are totally right.  I do not mean H. Sapiens sapiens or the great apes.  Only the hominid transitional species between the great apes and H. Sapiens sapiens.

Quote
Gee,Szweda, thatt's a lot of jumping around and running-together of issues you just did in that "paragraph" First of all, you're wrong that early hominid species such as H. Habilis and H. erectus and Neandertalensis are based on " a few bones" which you then try to compare to " a jaw and three teeth" . This is an utter lie, Szweda.


That is a lot of jumping around, I admit and maybe it is all confusing in how I structured it.  I was not making mention of H. habilis or H. Erectus, but of course I didn't make that clear.  I was talking about species like Australopithecus anamensis which consists of 9 bones, or Australopithecus garhi which consists of a partial skull.

Quote
As to why neanders are extinct and chimps are not, well, maybe you might want to look at where each existed/exists. You think environment might have something to do with it? Like rain forests being easier to become isolated and "hide" in?  


But is that conclusive?  You are answering my question with a question, not a conclusive theory, or even any kind of theory that is supported.

Quote
Well, let's see...the earliest DEFINITIVELY KNOWN neander that I can think of is from about 130,000 years ago...and neanders die off (I'll be generous) 28KYA ago...uh, your math seems to be off, not that THAT alone is important. Care to cite sources?


From what I remembered in the past I had the date 240,000 years ago in my mind.  Since everyone likes to quote from wikipedia, it states 350,000 from an article in the Journal of Archealogical Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal).  I agree with you on the date of about 28,000 years ago, but I am having trouble finding sources quickly.  I had H. Sapien Sapien at about 100,000 years ago.  So that is about 150,000+ years.  The problem is that it is hard to find concrete dates for any of these.

Quote
Uh, I hate to break this to you, goober, but it was always thought of as an extinct primate.


Actually it wasn't until 1976 about 43 years after it was first discovered in 1932 according to the Columbia Encyclopedia (http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/society/A0841053.html)  Of course everything was changed because it was only partial bones.

I will get to Homo Erectus but I have to run out for some errands.  But I think I at least answered some of your comments/questions.

  
dgszweda



Posts: 34
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,15:55   

Quote (ScaryFacts @ Jan. 02 2007,15:46)
I would recommend you go to one of the many Christian forums.

If, on the other hand, you can point to genuine observation that provides for a 6K old earth, light before sun, life beginning as fully formed humans, etc.  We will listen intently to your evidence.  

My argument is not to prove the Bible.  That is for other forums.  We will all know the proof the second our life ends on this earth.  Than the arguments will cease until then we may always just argue.

My point was to show that evolution isn't any more conclusive, such as how selective adaptation can make a species jump.  We can't even make a cat become a cow with genetic manipulation when we are trying let alone have one occur through mutations based on environmental influences.

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,16:07   

Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 02 2007,16:55)
My point was to show that evolution isn't any more conclusive, such as how selective adaptation can make a species jump.  We can't even make a cat become a cow with genetic manipulation when we are trying let alone have one occur through mutations based on environmental influences.

I don't see how the lack of conclusive evidence for how neanderthals became extinct is supposed to discount the theory of evolution.  And your comment about making a "cat become a cow" suggests that you are grossly ignorant as to what any theory of evolution actually predicts.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,16:30   

Oi, man. Where to begin.

Szweda, I thought that tourism site was where you got that hominid fossil "data" from. You'll also notice that the tourism site doesn't include a single citation. BUT ...at least you were honest enough to post WHERE you got it from , instead of trying to hide it.

I'll just point out a very OLD quote that I use (note that the author is using "hominid" to mean "ancestral-lineage prehumans" as you did:)

 
Quote
"I was surprised to find that instead of enough fossils barely to fit into a coffin, as one evolutionist once stated [in 1982], there were over 4,000 hominid fossils as of 1976. Over 200 specimens have been classified as Neandertal and about one hundred as Homo erectus. More of these fossils have been found since 1976. "
Michael J. Oard " A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils,"  in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 30, March 1994, p. 222 and

"The current figures [circa 1994] are even more impressive: over 220 Homo erectus fossil individuals discovered to date, possibly as many as 80 archaic Homo sapiens fossil individuals discovered to date, and well over 300 Neandertal fossil individuals discovered to date."
Marvin L. Lubenow [creationist], author of Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils,

in a letter to the editor of the Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 31, Sept. 1994, p. 70

That was again, quite a while ago. More have been added, as you might guess. As far as the total number of Africanus fossils, eh, it may be 700 from the locations in South Africa, I'd have to look it up. BUT the relevant point to me is that you implied a great deal in your claims, and you were relying on ...a tourist site with no citations? That's pretty shoddy research there, for such strong claims.
************************************************************************
In response to my statement about WHY chimps still exist and Neanders don't, you argue:
 
Quote
But is that conclusive?  You are answering my question with a question, not a conclusive theory, or even any kind of theory that is supported.

It is supported by data showing that jungles offer and have offered a very good environment for species such as chimpanzees, gorillas and the okapi to exist in before being found by modern humans and reduced to near-extinction. Europe is not and was not a jungle. Neanders probably died off from a number of causes, but science doesn't pretend to a "definitive" theory of it, no...nor does science pretend towards "definitive" theories in general, since DEFINITIVE means "Supplying or being a final settlement or decision; conclusive."
From the National Academy of Science: "Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow."
*************************************************************************
You said that a Wikipedia article on neanderthals  gives  
Quote
350,000 from an article in the Journal of Archealogical Science
and somehow reason that what Wikipedia  means "this is the earliest Neanderthal"...when in fact what it says is:
 
Quote
The first **PROTO**-Neanderthal traits appeared in Europe as early as 350,000 years ago.

My emphasis. "Proto-neanderthal traits" doesn't mean what you think it means, or what you want it to mean.  
*************************************************************************
In discussing Ramapithecus , you claimed that it is "20 years later, beginning to be thought of as an extinct primate" and I pointed out that it was always considered a primate.
YOU are a primate, a chimp is a primate. The word PRIMATE has a meaning that you cannot simply ignore. Furthermore, your cited reference ( http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/society/A0841053.html ) says this:
 
Quote
for a time regarded as a possible ancestor of Australopithecus and, therefore, of modern humans. Fossils of Ramapithecus were discovered in N India and in E Africa, beginning in 1932. Although it was generally an apelike creature, Ramapithecus was considered a possible human ancestor on the basis of the reconstructed jaw and dental characteristics of fragmentary fossils. A complete jaw discovered in 1976 was clearly nonhominid, however, and Ramapithecus is now regarded by many as a member of Sivapithecus, a genus considered to be an ancestor of the orangutan.
So even this doesn't jibe with your previous claim, anyway. You really need to look at primary literature concerning disputes in Paleoanthro, since it was only a minority that was claiming ramapiths ancestral to australopiths. It was viewed as NON-ancestral long before 1974 by MANY people and even MORE people thought it was simply impossible to tell phylogenetic relationships, and I don't think I'd trust The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia that this site refers to (and the article was drawn from)...as a "definitive" source on science.  
Feel free to deal with your H. erectus claims anytime.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,16:40   

Oh,and yes, "whole" A. africanus skulls have been found...in fact the first one ever found -- Raymond Dart's "Taung baby" is effectively complete. You might also want to look up "Mrs. Ples" (STS 5) and lots of other complete or near-complete skulls from africanus. Try doing research BEFORE making overarching claims.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,18:41   

AFDave who just can't contain himself says
   
Quote
As dgsvweda would say, please provide a reference that shows that I don't admit miracles and that Biblical literalism has to fit known, existing physical laws, or else stop saying it.  Thx!

OK Dave, according to your account of the literal Flood, Pangaea broke apart during the upheaval and all the continents moved to their present location in just one day at a speed well over 100 MPH.

By the *known, existing* laws of physics, accelerating and then stopping that much mass that quickly would produce enough heat energy to vaporize the oceans and melt most of the planet into slag.

Feel free to show calculation based on *known, existing* laws of physics that indicate otherwise.  But please do it on your own thread.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,19:11   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 02 2007,16:41)
AFDave who just can't contain himself says
       
Quote
As dgsvweda would say, please provide a reference that shows that I don't admit miracles and that Biblical literalism has to fit known, existing physical laws, or else stop saying it.  Thx!

OK Dave, according to your account of the literal Flood, Pangaea broke apart during the upheaval and all the continents moved to their present location in just one day at a speed well over 100 MPH.

By the *known, existing* laws of physics, accelerating and then stopping that much mass that quickly would produce enough heat energy to vaporize the oceans and melt most of the planet into slag.

Feel free to show calculation based on *known, existing* laws of physics that indicate otherwise.  But please do it on your own thread.

Actually, I think this is an admission that his "hypothesis" is entirely unscientific, because he has no compunction about using miracles to paper over the gaping holes in his theory, and he has no problem admitting that his biblical literalism cannot fit known, existing physical laws. In fact, it cannot exist without breaking known physical laws.

Should I cross-post this to Dave's thread to increase the message count there? I stopped worrying if he'd answer my questions before he ran out of posts. That ain't gonna happen.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,20:08   

Quote
was not making mention of H. habilis or H. Erectus, but of course I didn't make that clear.  I was talking about species like Australopithecus anamensis which consists of 9 bones, or Australopithecus garhi which consists of a partial skull.

I didn't bother with this earlier, since it seemed trivial, but it has some bearing on your research methods and presentation of "facts."

Anamensis has 21 bones assigned to it. Mandible, maxilla, skull fragments, upper and lower tibia and part of a humerus (If I wanted to be picky, I could put 38 total "finds" to it, including single teeth). http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/anamensis.htm

The "type" specimen of A. garhi is a partial cranium --  BOU-VP-12/130, an associated set of cranial fragments comprising the frontal, parietals, and maxilla with dentition. A fragment of a second cranium, and two mandibles (one fairly complete) are assigned to it: BOU-VP-12/87. Postcranial bones include : BOU-VP-35/1 Humeral Shaft,  MAT-VP-1/1 Distal Left Humerus , BOU-VP-12/1A-G Proximal Femur and Associated Forearm Elements, BOU-VP-11/1 Proximal Fragment of Ulna.

Paleoanthropologists are often labelled as "splitters or lumpers". I'm personally a "lumper" and don't neccessarily accept the taxa (until more is known), just as I tend to view ergaster as a regional variation on erectus (although ergaster has came first historically in discovery, I just prefer "erectus" as an encompassing taxon).
Regardless, I believe that if one is going to minimalize the validity of data, one should get the data right.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,20:31   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 02 2007,16:30)
Oi, man. Where to begin.

How about here?

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,20:51   

Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 02 2007,15:19)
But regardless, the stars were created on a single day, that is pretty clear in the Bible.  Regardless of how they were created in order to see them and hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible than apparent age had to be included in the creation.  Just as Adam was created as an adult and the animals were created as alive not just as hatchlings with no parents.

Thanks for sharing your religious opinions with us.  Your religious opinuions are, of course, no more authoritative than mine, my next door neighbor's, my car mechan ic's, my veterinarian's, or the kid who delivers my pizzas.  (shrug)

But since your creationism apparently consists solely of "the Bible says this" and "the Bible says that", then that begs a very simple question:

*ahem*

The creation 'scientists' and ID 'theorists' have told us over and over again (and have testified in court) that creation 'science' and ID 'theory' are not religion and are not based on any religious texts.

Are they just lying to us (under oath) when they say that?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,20:58   

Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 02 2007,14:06)
there are many great scientist that lean toward Einstein's belief.

Name five.

And tell us, please, how they explain the results of the Aspect experiments.


By the way, there are also PhD scientists who believe in Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monsters, ESP and alien abductions.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,22:29   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 02 2007,20:31)
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 02 2007,16:30)
Oi, man. Where to begin.

How about here?

I hate you, Lou. Hate, hate, hate, hate.  :angry:  :angry:
But I luuuuuuuv Janie and Kate. Luv, luv, luv, luv   :p  :p

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,23:23   

In regard to randomness, that's what came to my mind immediately: Bohr, Bell, Aspect, Bohm, (and a host of others) , the entanglement that people like Henry Stapp says basically pervades everything, since all quanta have interacted in Bell-like ways in the past, if we are to accept current cosmology. Randomness certainly appears built-in on multiple fronts, though, from virtual particles to Uncertainty, decay, Brownian motion, Lorentz non-linearity, etc.

I'm just not sure what to make of it and didn't want to pretend I knew more about QM than I do. I DO think I've read enough on it to say that it seems logical to **assume** that "hidden variables" would likely be emergent properties of THIS system itself and unprovable (Goedel?)...such a view doesn't support (or refute, really)  ALL conceptions of design, meaning, purpose, intent or plan associated with any mytho-religious heritage, but I think all those terms are loaded with the kind of slipperiness Wittgenstein found so weird to deal with and that Heisenberg called "metaphors at best. " What I DO know is at this time, randomness appears to be quite real, quite present and unaccounted for. Does this mean it'll NEVER be accounted for in all aspects? No...but it sure is a black cow at this time, not a white one. It's cool with me NOT to pretend that I "know" anything more about it.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Malum Regnat



Posts: 98
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,23:27   

Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 02 2007,13:19)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2007,13:50)
I want to start off by telling you that I am a Christian and believe the Bible to be a reliable source for learning about man’s relationship with the Judeo/Christian deity.

I am a little at odds with your explanation of the “apparent age” of the universe—i.e.: God made the light already hitting the earth, etc.

The Bible is pretty clear that God does not lie and that we can learn about God by studying his creation.  You are saying God intentionally misleads through the creation.

Let’s take your approach using an analogy:

Suppose I offered you a great reward for learning about me and I told you to look through my house to learn as much as you can about me.  I will also penalize you if you get it wrong.

In the house I’ve placed a number of items:

A dog bowl
A picture of two elderly people with a frame that says “mom and dad”
A business card with my name on it saying I am an Executive VP at Xerox
I leave on the coffee table a book showing my genealogy back 5 generations

Based on my instructions you would assume:

I have a dog
The picture is of my parents
I work at Xerox
You knew the names of my ancestors for the last several generations

I then come back to see how you’ve done and give you either your reward or punishment.

You rattle off your conclusions and I say, “Sorry, I intentionally made it look like I had a dog, but I don’t.  I made it appear as if those people are my parents, but they’re not.  I made it look like I work at Xerox but I don’t.  The genealogy was a fake I planted.
Now you will be punished for getting it wrong."

I don’t see how that can be consistent for the Biblical God.

If God tells us to look at the creation to learn about Him, I believe he didn’t lie.

You seem to think He did.

I am sorry I don't know who posted this because it was compilation thread.  I am not sure if we want to get into theology here, since for many on this forum a literal interpretation of the Bible is not a conclusion.  I offered up a theory as too why the light got there.  In actuality I have no idea.  But regardless, the stars were created on a single day, that is pretty clear in the Bible.  Regardless of how they were created in order to see them and hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible than apparent age had to be included in the creation.  Just as Adam was created as an adult and the animals were created as alive not just as hatchlings with no parents.

It’s a bit more than ‘god’ creating an ‘appearance’ of age, ‘god’ apparently made up a whole fictional history for this universe.  We regularly receive light from novae and super novae that are astronomically :D  further away than 6k light years.  This would indicate that ‘god’ created ‘light’ from a super nova that never happened.  That’s really going a long way for a practical joke. :p

--------------
This universe as explained by the 'other' Hawkins

Blah Hi-tech blah blah blah blah ... DESIGNED.
Blah Hi-tech blah blah blah blah ... NOT DESIGNED.

;-}>

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,23:34   

Quote (Malum Regnat @ Jan. 03 2007,00:27)
It’s a bit more than ‘god’ creating an ‘appearance’ of age, ‘god’ apparently made up a whole fictional history for this universe.  We regularly receive light from novae and super novae that are astronomically :D  further away than 6k light years.  This would indicate that ‘god’ created ‘light’ from a super nova that never happened.  That’s really going a long way for a practical joke. :p

There's a former YEC who changed his mind due to exactly that point. Some supernova happened, and he realized that if god'd made the light of the event in transit, god was creating evidence for an event which had never occured. The guy could not accept a such a lying god, and left YEC behind. I wish I could remember his name.

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,00:28   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2007,23:34)
 
Quote (Malum Regnat @ Jan. 03 2007,00:27)
It’s a bit more than ‘god’ creating an ‘appearance’ of age, ‘god’ apparently made up a whole fictional history for this universe.  We regularly receive light from novae and super novae that are astronomically :D  further away than 6k light years.  This would indicate that ‘god’ created ‘light’ from a super nova that never happened.  That’s really going a long way for a practical joke. :p

There's a former YEC who changed his mind due to exactly that point. Some supernova happened, and he realized that if god'd made the light of the event in transit, god was creating evidence for an event which had never occured. The guy could not accept a such a lying god, and left YEC behind. I wish I could remember his name.

And yet this guy claims to be a 'nuclear physicist' a child can understand cause and effect but not someone who claims to be a 'nuclear physicist' apparently.

Didn't L Ron Hubbard claim to be a 'nuclear physicist'? Go check out his wikipedia page, Sweda.
Note Hubbard's other claims such as being a war hero etc and come back here and without the slightest irony repeat the statement that 'god' created the universe 6000 or so years ago AND you are not a dickhead. I need a good laugh.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
dgszweda



Posts: 34
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,06:20   

Quote (improvius @ Jan. 02 2007,16:07)
I don't see how the lack of conclusive evidence for how neanderthals became extinct is supposed to discount the theory of evolution.  And your comment about making a "cat become a cow" suggests that you are grossly ignorant as to what any theory of evolution actually predicts.

The lack of conclusive evidence was just one example.  There is no detailed "Theory of Evolution", except that all creatures were the result of changes from a single species.  To get to that Theory there are hundreds and hundreds of hypothesis all being worked on to support that.  My point was that there are more questions than answers and that their is not as much evidence as many would have people believe.

My comment about making a cat become a cow was not ignorance but overgeneralization.  The fact is that species had to jump to other species, and that hasn't been shown anywhere.  Only changes within a species has been shown.  Please show me the conclusive proof of a species jumping to another species.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,06:33   

........ooops looks like I found conclusive evidence g$d does exist.

Thank god you called

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Reluctant Cannibal



Posts: 36
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,06:49   

Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 03 2007,06:20)
 
Quote (improvius @ Jan. 02 2007,16:07)
I don't see how the lack of conclusive evidence for how neanderthals became extinct is supposed to discount the theory of evolution.  And your comment about making a "cat become a cow" suggests that you are grossly ignorant as to what any theory of evolution actually predicts.

The lack of conclusive evidence was just one example.  There is no detailed "Theory of Evolution", except that all creatures were the result of changes from a single species.  To get to that Theory there are hundreds and hundreds of hypothesis all being worked on to support that.  My point was that there are more questions than answers and that their is not as much evidence as many would have people believe.

My comment about making a cat become a cow was not ignorance but overgeneralization.  The fact is that species had to jump to other species, and that hasn't been shown anywhere.  Only changes within a species has been shown.  Please show me the conclusive proof of a species jumping to another species.

Rev. Szweda,

I realise this isn't your area of expertise, but you need to study up on creationism a bit more. It isn't speciation that you are supposed to be denying, but transitions between kinds. Otherwise you will get into all sorts of trouble with stuff like the Ark's bill of lading, and Adam's naming of the animals.

HTH,

Richard

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,07:22   

Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 03 2007,06:20)
The fact is that species had to jump to other species, and that hasn't been shown anywhere.  Only changes within a species has been shown.  Please show me the conclusive proof of a species jumping to another species.

<sigh>

You know, I'm not at all surprised when creationists prove themselves to be crushingly uneducated and ignorant about basic biology and evolution.  But I *am* mildly surprised (and a little annoyed) when they turn out to be too stupid and uninformed to even get the basic CREATIONIST arguments straight.

This is from the website of Answers in Genesis, one of the largest creationist organizations in the world:

"Poorly-informed anti-creationist scoffers occasionally think they will 'floor' creation apologists with examples of 'new species forming' in nature. They are often surprised at the reaction they get from the better-informed creationists, namely that the creation model depends heavily on speciation."

Let me repeat that, in case you're not bright enough to get it.  Answers in Genesis says that not only does creationism itself "depend heavily on speciation", but they also say that those who argue that there are NO "new species forming in nature" are "poorly informed".

Guess that means YOU, huh.  By arguing that new species cannot evolve, you are not only demonstrating that you are completely ignorant of basic biology, but you're also demonstrating that you're too stupid and uninformed to even understand the most elementary CREATIONIST arguments.

Anyway, you want some examples of observed speciation events?  Sure.  Will 90 of them be enough for you?


Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.

Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.

Baum, D. 1992. Phylogenetic species concepts. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 7:1-3.

Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.

Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Microorganisms associated with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two insect species. Nature. 346:558-560.

Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal organisms -- a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15:166-171.

Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.

Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.

Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.

Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ.

Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436.

Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Species usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.

Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174.

Cracraft, J. 1989. Speciation and its ontology: the empirical consequences of alternative species concepts for understanding patterns and processes of differentiation. In Otte, E. and J. A. Endler [eds.] Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 28-59.

Craig, T. P., J. K. Itami, W. G. Abrahamson and J. D. Horner. 1993. Behavioral evidence for host-race fromation in Eurosta solidaginis. Evolution. 47:1696-1710.

Cronquist, A. 1978. Once again, what is a species? Biosystematics in agriculture. Beltsville Symposia in Agricultural Research 2:3-20.

Cronquist, A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants (2nd edition). The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.

Crossley, S. A. 1974. Changes in mating behavior produced by selection for ethological isolation between ebony and vestigial mutants of Drosophilia melanogaster. Evolution. 28:631-647.

de Oliveira, A. K. and A. R. Cordeiro. 1980. Adaptation of Drosophila willistoni experimental populations to extreme pH medium. II. Development of incipient reproductive isolation. Heredity. 44:123-130.

de Queiroz, K. and M. Donoghue. 1988. Phylogenetic systematics and the species problem. Cladistics. 4:317-338.

de Queiroz, K. and M. Donoghue. 1990. Phylogenetic systematics and species revisited. Cladistics. 6:83-90.

de Vries, H. 1905. Species and varieties, their origin by mutation.

de Wet, J. M. J. 1971. Polyploidy and evolution in plants. Taxon. 20:29-35.

del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.

Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.

Dobzhansky, T. 1937. Genetics and the origin of species. Columbia University Press, New York.

Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species (3rd edition). Columbia University Press, New York.

Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.

Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669.

Dodd, D. M. B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1308-1311.

Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392.

Donoghue, M. J. 1985. A critique of the biological species concept and recommendations for a phylogenetic alternative. Bryologist 88:172-181.

Du Rietz, G. E. 1930. The fundamental units of biological taxonomy. Svensk. Bot. Tidskr. 24:333-428.

Ehrman, E. 1971. Natural selection for the origin of reproductive isolation. The American Naturalist. 105:479-483.

Ehrman, E. 1973. More on natural selection for the origin of reproductive isolation. The American Naturalist. 107:318-319.

Feder, J. L., C. A. Chilcote and G. L. Bush. 1988. Genetic differentiation between sympatric host races of the apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:61-64.

Feder, J. L. and G. L. Bush. 1989. A field test of differential host-plant usage between two sibling species of Rhagoletis pomonella fruit flies (Diptera:Tephritidae) and its consequences for sympatric models of speciation. Evolution 43:1813-1819.

Frandsen, K. J. 1943. The experimental formation of Brassica juncea Czern. et Coss. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 4, 11:1-17.

Frandsen, K. J. 1947. The experimental formation of Brassica napus L. var. oleifera DC and Brassica carinata Braun. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 7, 12:1-16.

Galiana, A., A. Moya and F. J. Alaya. 1993. Founder-flush speciation in Drosophila pseudoobscura: a large scale experiment. Evolution. 47432-444.

Gottleib, L. D. 1973. Genetic differentiation, sympatric speciation, and the origin of a diploid species of Stephanomeira. American Journal of Botany. 60: 545-553.

Halliburton, R. and G. A. E. Gall. 1981. Disruptive selection and assortative mating in Tribolium castaneum. Evolution. 35:829-843.

Hurd, L. E., and R. M. Eisenberg. 1975. Divergent selection for geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric and allopatric populations of houseflies. The American Naturalist. 109:353-358.

Karpchenko, G. D. 1927. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Bull. Appl. Botany. 17:305-408.

Karpchenko, G. D. 1928. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Z. Indukt. Abstami-a Verenbungsi. 48:1-85.

Kilias, G., S. N. Alahiotis and M. Delecanos. 1980. A multifactorial investigation of speciation theory using Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution. 34:730-737.

Knight, G. R., A. Robertson and C. H. Waddington. 1956. Selection for sexual isolation within a species. Evolution. 10:14-22.

Koopman, K. F. 1950. Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudoobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution. 4:135-148.

Lee, R. E. 1989. Phycology (2nd edition) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

Levin, D. A. 1979. The nature of plant species. Science 204:381-384.

Lokki, J. and A. Saura. 1980. Polyploidy in insect evolution. In: W. H. Lewis (ed.) Polyploidy: Biological Relevance. Plenum Press, New York.

Macnair, M. R. 1981. Tolerance of higher plants to toxic materials. In: J. A. Bishop and L. M. Cook (eds.). Genetic consequences of man made change. Pp.177-297. Academic Press, New York.

Macnair, M. R. and P. Christie. 1983. Reproductive isolation as a pleiotropic effect of copper tolerance in Mimulus guttatus. Heredity. 50:295-302.

Manhart, J. R. and R. M. McCourt. 1992. Molecular data and species concepts in the algae. Journal of Phycology. 28:730-737.

Mayr, E. 1942. Systematics and the origin of species from the viewpoint of a zoologist. Columbia University Press, New York.

Mayr, E. 1982. The growth of biological thought: diversity, evolution and inheritance. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. McCourt, R. M. and R. W. Hoshaw. 1990. Noncorrespondence of breeding groups, morphology and monophyletic groups in Spirogyra (Zygnemataceae; Chlorophyta) and the application of species concepts. Systematic Botany. 15:69-78.

McPheron, B. A., D. C. Smith and S. H. Berlocher. 1988. Genetic differentiation between host races of Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:64-66.

Meffert, L. M. and E. H. Bryant. 1991. Mating propensity and courtship behavior in serially bottlenecked lines of the housefly. Evolution 45:293-306.

Mishler, B. D. 1985. The morphological, developmental and phylogenetic basis of species concepts in the bryophytes. Bryologist. 88:207-214.

Mishler, B. D. and M. J. Donoghue. 1982. Species concepts: a case for pluralism. Systematic Zoology. 31:491-503.

Muntzing, A. 1932. Cytogenetic investigations on the synthetic Galeopsis tetrahit. Hereditas. 16:105-154.

Nelson, G. 1989. Cladistics and evolutionary models. Cladistics. 5:275-289.

Newton, W. C. F. and C. Pellew. 1929. Primula kewensis and its derivatives. J. Genetics. 20:405-467.

Otte, E. and J. A. Endler (eds.). 1989. Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates. Sunderland, MA.

Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37:487-499.

Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23:534-547.

Powell, J. R. 1978. The founder-flush speciation theory: an experimental approach. Evolution. 32:465-474.

Prokopy, R. J., S. R. Diehl, and S. H. Cooley. 1988. Oecologia. 76:138.

Rabe, E. W. and C. H. Haufler. 1992. Incipient polyploid speciation in the maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum, adiantaceae)? American Journal of Botany. 79:701-707.

Rice, W. R. 1985. Disruptive selection on habitat preference and the evolution of reproductive isolation: an exploratory experiment. Evolution. 39:645-646.

Rice, W. R. and E. E. Hostert. 1993. Laboratory experiments on speciation: What have we learned in forty years? Evolution. 47:1637-1653.

Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.

Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution. 44:1140-1152.

Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation. The American Naturalist. 126:642-661.

Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.

Shikano, S., L. S. Luckinbill and Y. Kurihara. 1990. Changes of traits in a bacterial population associated with protozoal predation. Microbial Ecology. 20:75-84.

Smith, D. C. 1988. Heritable divergence of Rhagoletis pomonella host races by seasonal asynchrony. Nature. 336:66-67.

Soans, A. B., D. Pimentel and J. S. Soans. 1974. Evolution of reproductive isolation in allopatric and sympatric populations. The American Naturalist. 108:117-124.

Sokal, R. R. and T. J. Crovello. 1970. The biological species concept: a critical evaluation. The American Naturalist. 104:127-153.

Soltis, D. E. and P. S. Soltis. 1989. Allopolyploid speciation in Tragopogon: Insights from chloroplast DNA. American Journal of Botany. 76:1119-1124.

Stuessy, T. F. 1990. Plant taxonomy. Columbia University Press, New York.

Thoday, J. M. and J. B. Gibson. 1962. Isolation by disruptive selection. Nature. 193:1164-1166.

Thoday, J. M. and J. B. Gibson. 1970. The probability of isolation by disruptive selection. The American Naturalist. 104:219-230.

Thompson, J. N. 1987. Symbiont-induced speciation. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 32:385-393.

Vrijenhoek, R. C. 1994. Unisexual fish: Model systems for studying ecology and evolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 25:71-96.

Waring, G. L., W. G. Abrahamson and D. J. Howard. 1990. Genetic differentiation in the gall former Eurosta solidaginis (Diptera:Tephritidae) along host plant lines. Evolution. 44:1648-1655.

Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.

Wood, A. M. and T. Leatham. 1992. The species concept in phytoplankton ecology. Journal of Phycology. 28:723-729.

Yen, J. H. and A. R. Barr. 1971. New hypotheses of the cause of cytoplasmic incompatability in Culex pipiens L.




Feel free to pick one -- any one --- and show us why it's not an example of observed speciation.

Put up or shut up.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,07:26   

You seem not to have answered my simple question (surprise, surprise), so I'll ask again.  And again.  And again and again and again and again, as many times as I need to, until you either answer or run away.

*ahem*

Since your creationism apparently consists solely of "the Bible says this" and "the Bible says that", then that begs a very simple question:

*ahem*

The creation 'scientists' and ID 'theorists' have told us over and over again (and have testified in court) that creation 'science' and ID 'theory' are not religion and are not based on any religious texts.

Are they just lying to us (under oath) when they say that?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,07:30   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 02 2007,22:29)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 02 2007,20:31)
   
Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 02 2007,16:30)
Oi, man. Where to begin.

How about here?

I hate you, Lou. Hate, hate, hate, hate.  :angry:  :angry:
But I luuuuuuuv Janie and Kate. Luv, luv, luv, luv   :p  :p

Well they'd like to know why, if that's true, you never come calling anymore.

:p

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
dgszweda



Posts: 34
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,08:29   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 02 2007,16:30)
Oi, man. Where to begin.

Szweda, I thought that tourism site was where you got that hominid fossil "data" from. You'll also notice that the tourism site doesn't include a single citation. BUT ...at least you were honest enough to post WHERE you got it from , instead of trying to hide it.

I'll just point out a very OLD quote that I use (note that the author is using "hominid" to mean "ancestral-lineage prehumans" as you did:)

 
Quote
"I was surprised to find that instead of enough fossils barely to fit into a coffin, as one evolutionist once stated [in 1982], there were over 4,000 hominid fossils as of 1976. Over 200 specimens have been classified as Neandertal and about one hundred as Homo erectus. More of these fossils have been found since 1976. "
Michael J. Oard " A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils,"  in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 30, March 1994, p. 222 and

"The current figures [circa 1994] are even more impressive: over 220 Homo erectus fossil individuals discovered to date, possibly as many as 80 archaic Homo sapiens fossil individuals discovered to date, and well over 300 Neandertal fossil individuals discovered to date."
Marvin L. Lubenow [creationist], author of Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils,

in a letter to the editor of the Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 31, Sept. 1994, p. 70

That was again, quite a while ago. More have been added, as you might guess. As far as the total number of Africanus fossils, eh, it may be 700 from the locations in South Africa, I'd have to look it up. BUT the relevant point to me is that you implied a great deal in your claims, and you were relying on ...a tourist site with no citations? That's pretty shoddy research there, for such strong claims.
************************************************************************
In response to my statement about WHY chimps still exist and Neanders don't, you argue:
 
Quote
But is that conclusive?  You are answering my question with a question, not a conclusive theory, or even any kind of theory that is supported.

It is supported by data showing that jungles offer and have offered a very good environment for species such as chimpanzees, gorillas and the okapi to exist in before being found by modern humans and reduced to near-extinction. Europe is not and was not a jungle. Neanders probably died off from a number of causes, but science doesn't pretend to a "definitive" theory of it, no...nor does science pretend towards "definitive" theories in general, since DEFINITIVE means "Supplying or being a final settlement or decision; conclusive."
From the National Academy of Science: "Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow."
*************************************************************************
You said that a Wikipedia article on neanderthals  gives    
Quote
350,000 from an article in the Journal of Archealogical Science
and somehow reason that what Wikipedia  means "this is the earliest Neanderthal"...when in fact what it says is:
 
Quote
The first **PROTO**-Neanderthal traits appeared in Europe as early as 350,000 years ago.

My emphasis. "Proto-neanderthal traits" doesn't mean what you think it means, or what you want it to mean.  
*************************************************************************
In discussing Ramapithecus , you claimed that it is "20 years later, beginning to be thought of as an extinct primate" and I pointed out that it was always considered a primate.
YOU are a primate, a chimp is a primate. The word PRIMATE has a meaning that you cannot simply ignore. Furthermore, your cited reference ( http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/society/A0841053.html ) says this:
 
Quote
for a time regarded as a possible ancestor of Australopithecus and, therefore, of modern humans. Fossils of Ramapithecus were discovered in N India and in E Africa, beginning in 1932. Although it was generally an apelike creature, Ramapithecus was considered a possible human ancestor on the basis of the reconstructed jaw and dental characteristics of fragmentary fossils. A complete jaw discovered in 1976 was clearly nonhominid, however, and Ramapithecus is now regarded by many as a member of Sivapithecus, a genus considered to be an ancestor of the orangutan.
So even this doesn't jibe with your previous claim, anyway. You really need to look at primary literature concerning disputes in Paleoanthro, since it was only a minority that was claiming ramapiths ancestral to australopiths. It was viewed as NON-ancestral long before 1974 by MANY people and even MORE people thought it was simply impossible to tell phylogenetic relationships, and I don't think I'd trust The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia that this site refers to (and the article was drawn from)...as a "definitive" source on science.  
Feel free to deal with your H. erectus claims anytime.

Quote
I was surprised to find that instead of enough fossils barely to fit into a coffin, as one evolutionist once stated [in 1982], there were over 4,000 hominid fossils as of 1976.


Than I don't find the claim of 1,400 skulls to be that far off.  You quote states fossils, mine only claims skulls.  Unless you can show me a quote which states there are more than @1,400 skulls, than I think my quotation is still valid, regardless of whether it was from a governmental agency or not.  One of the bedrocks of science literature is quotation from sources.  You can question my source, which is legitimate question, but unless you can provide your own credentials to negate my quotation or provide a quotation that directly refutes it than it should stand.  I didn't solely rely on just a tourist site, but my own memory from past readings and I only found the site to help refresh my memory.  I did use the exact figures found on the site.  I don't hide from that, but I don't think it was shoddy research either.  Your quotations don't negate my claim of 1,400 skull fragments.  If you were to say three times the number of bones have been found since 1976, I don't think the fact that 10% were only cranium pieces would be way out there.


Quote
It is supported by data showing that jungles offer and have offered a very good environment for species such as chimpanzees, gorillas and the okapi to exist in before being found by modern humans and reduced to near-extinction.


I am not sure I have seen the fact that monkeys lived in forests as an argument for why Neanderthals became extinct, but maybe someone holds to that belief.  The point I was ultimately trying to convey is that every every evolutionist timeline that I have seen shows overlaps between populations of hominids and that the theory is often conveyed that one species either destroyed the other or interbred with the other.  Yet we are suppose to believe in the Year 2007 that not a single overlap exists for any of the @1.6million species that exists today (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources )

There is still great conjecture for when the first Neanderthal appeared and where the first H. Sapiens Sapiens appeared as there is still some confusion over a few of the bone specimens and whether they were cross breeds or single species.  I didn't use the Wikipedia article as my source, only my knowledge of what I had looked at before, the Wikipedia showed a greater overlap than I was willing to concede as I stated earlier.  Time in it's January 17, 2000 article on "How Humans Evolved" indicated about a 100,000 or so year crossover where they both existed.

Quote
So even this doesn't jibe with your previous claim, anyway. You really need to look at primary literature concerning disputes in Paleoanthro, since it was only a minority that was claiming ramapiths ancestral to australopiths


The Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britiain and Ireland in their Journal JSTOR (Man, New Series, Vol. 6, No. 1 (March 1971) pp 118-120.  It states,
Quote
"Although the fossil record demonstrates that man evolved as an Old World Primate, it does not reveal when the initial hominid line diverged from its more conservative primate progenitors.  So far, Ramapithecus appears as the earliest candidate fro the inclusion in an exclusively hominid line.....The taxonomic justification for placing Ramapithecus in the hominid category stems from the morphological features of his jaws and teeth.  Human jaws are parabolic in shape, while ape jaws are U-shaped.  Moreover, human teeth reveal reduced canines and incisors, while those found in apes are comparitivley enlarged.  The jaws of Ramapithecus were parabolic in shape and the teeth revealed anterior reduction."


This shows conclusively that within the scientific community as late as 1971 it was still well considered that Ramapithicus was a divergence from the primate line into a hominid line.  This is a primary source with cross references to Simons and Leakey.  So while a few of my sources have been shakey I think it is an incorrect characterization to state that I have no research or no basis for my statements.

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,08:43   

Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 03 2007,09:29)
The point I was ultimately trying to convey is that every every evolutionist timeline that I have seen shows overlaps between populations of hominids and that the theory is often conveyed that one species either destroyed the other or interbred with the other.  Yet we are suppose to believe in the Year 2007 that not a single overlap exists for any of the @1.6million species that exists today (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources )

How are you defining "overlap"?

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,08:47   

I didn't think creatures had to *jump* to new species, I thought they drifted... or at most, they moseyed or sauntered...

  
dgszweda



Posts: 34
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,08:59   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 03 2007,07:26)
The creation 'scientists' and ID 'theorists' have told us over and over again (and have testified in court) that creation 'science' and ID 'theory' are not religion and are not based on any religious texts.

Are they just lying to us (under oath) when they say that?

Lying would have to infer deception.  Are they being deceptive?  I am not sure you will have to ask them what they believe.  Deception involves some who believes on thing, but states another.  I am not sure what each of these scientists or theorists believe personally.  Some theories and arguments could be ascertained as not having been derived of a particular religous text.  I think the fact that both rely on some form of a Supreme Being drives the fact that both are religious in nature.  Which religion?  That could probably be argued.  I think creation scientists rely much more on the religous text of the Bible, so a Judeo-Christian view, while ID is much more generalist in nature.  I am not sure which specific religion you can pin on ID.

I for one disagree with the claim from creation scientists and ID theorists as you call them in pushing for a scientific explanation for creationism.  I think if you are going to push creationism you have to believe in a God, and that begins to fall under religion.

Are they lying?  I don't know, but I don't agree with them.

I am not sure if you are an atheist or if others on this board are an atheist.  That is your right.  I for one am a religious person who believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible.  I am not alone.  Richard Dawkins, an atheist, references a recent Gallup poll in which nearly 50% of Americans believe in a Young Earth.  Those who hold to science as a "god", gnash their teeth at these types of numbers.  How can so many people be "fooled" they think.  But if you are a Christian, I think the only road you can lead is one in which you hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible.  I have no qualms with the science around us not matching with the Bible.  Not that long ago the greatest minds of the world believed the earth was flat.  I think in the next 100 years we will leave our current scientific thinking in the dust.  If I believe in an omnipotent God who transcends time, than how possibly do I expect that all of the scientific thinking since the beginning of time is any step closer to the knowledge of God than the knowledge contained in a newborn babies mind.  In the next 10 million years (if the world still exists), we will be no closer to the knowledge of God than we were in 700 B.C.  He is "I AM".

I do not believe that creationism or ID should be taught in the public school system.  I think it should be mentioned on the basis of an alternative theory, but that is it.  I do not want non-believers to be teaching something like creationism to my child.  My personal belief is that creationism at it's core is a religious belief.  I do not self identify with the ID crowd.  I applaud them for trying, but I believe they are misled.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,09:00   

Come on dgszweda don't be coy how were the photons, x-rays, gamma rays and microwaves from exploding stars  millions of light years away created 6000 years ago in extant 6000 light years away.....as an *ahem* 'nuclear physicist' you will have no trouble with the calculations that show how much energy is required and the souces for that energy which should still be there 6000 light years away...right.

A side note on the observed effects from the gravitational forces from those vast masses that produced that energy would nice too.

You know with claring holes in creationist 'scientific (koff)theory' you being a 'nuclear physicist' an' all must have most of those answers all sorted out by now...right.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
dgszweda



Posts: 34
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,09:07   

Quote (k.e @ Jan. 03 2007,09:00)
You know with claring holes in creationist 'scientific (koff)theory' you being a 'nuclear physicist' an' all must have most of those answers all sorted out by now...right.


Nope!  Not anymore than the scientists have Time 0 worked out on the Big Bang theory.  You come up with a theory on what happened prior to the big bang and at Time zero of the Big Bang and I will come up with a theory of what happened after the Big Bang.

Ohh and by the way if you could develop how universal laws were developed that would be good to.

  
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,09:16   

"I do not believe that creationism or ID should be taught in the public school system.  I think it should be mentioned on the basis of an alternative theory, but that is it.  I do not want non-believers to be teaching something like creationism to my child.  My personal belief is that creationism at it's core is a religious belief.  I do not self identify with the ID crowd.  I applaud them for trying, but I believe they are misled."

Using the word "Theory" implies scientific or provable facts are being used to support this concept.  It would imply that Creation carries as much, or should carry as much weight as the Theory of Evolution.  That's just not the case.

Creation is not supported by any scientific/testable data or evidence henceforth, is not a theory.  It is at best, a concept.  And, as such, it has no place being taught or even mentioned in a science classroom.

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,09:31   

Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 03 2007,09:07)
Quote (k.e @ Jan. 03 2007,09:00)
You know with claring holes in creationist 'scientific (koff)theory' you being a 'nuclear physicist' an' all must have most of those answers all sorted out by now...right.


Nope!  Not anymore than the scientists have Time 0 worked out on the Big Bang theory.  You come up with a theory on what happened prior to the big bang and at Time zero of the Big Bang and I will come up with a theory of what happened after the Big Bang.

Ohh and by the way if you could develop how universal laws were developed that would be good to.

Here is my theory on the big bang or more correctly directly after it.

1. If god existed he blew himself up and ALL that was left was hot hydrogen that cooled and formed stars.

OR

2. If god did not exist  all that was left was hot hydrogen that cooled and formed stars.

Are you sure you're not an atheist?

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,09:38   

Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 03 2007,09:59)
I do not believe that creationism or ID should be taught in the public school system.  I think it should be mentioned on the basis of an alternative theory, but that is it.

So would you be in favor of something like:

"All of the scientific evidence indicates that humans, chimps, gorillas, etc. evolved from ape-like ancestors.  But some people disagree for religious reasons."

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
dgszweda



Posts: 34
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,10:03   

Quote (k.e @ Jan. 03 2007,09:31)
Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 03 2007,09:07)
Quote (k.e @ Jan. 03 2007,09:00)
You know with claring holes in creationist 'scientific (koff)theory' you being a 'nuclear physicist' an' all must have most of those answers all sorted out by now...right.


Nope!  Not anymore than the scientists have Time 0 worked out on the Big Bang theory.  You come up with a theory on what happened prior to the big bang and at Time zero of the Big Bang and I will come up with a theory of what happened after the Big Bang.

Ohh and by the way if you could develop how universal laws were developed that would be good to.

Here is my theory on the big bang or more correctly directly after it.

1. If god existed he blew himself up and ALL that was left was hot hydrogen that cooled and formed stars.

OR

2. If god did not exist  all that was left was hot hydrogen that cooled and formed stars.

Are you sure you're not an atheist?

You can't tell me what happened before 10(-43) seconds after the Big Bang.  It is all a nice picture story book.  No math or observations or scientific laws can delve any further back.

The potential of the universe to cause itself into existence at the same instance that it is caused is impossible to believe and even more impossible to explain.  It cannot cause itself before it's existence.

  
ScaryFacts



Posts: 337
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,10:38   

Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 03 2007,09:59)
 But if you are a Christian, I think the only road you can lead is one in which you hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible.  I have no qualms with the science around us not matching with the Bible.


What is the basis for your infallible interpretation of your infallible Bible?

I often ask literalists if Herod was indeed a fox because Jesus said he is in Luke 13:32.

They typically reply:  Of course not—it’s obviously meant to be figurative.  Herod was a person.

But then I ask:  Why then do you think it’s not figurative when you have an account of a snake talking in Genesis 3?  Do you really believe Satan was a physical snake?  Do you believe all snakes are Satan or his demons today?  Where do you see the literally interpreted Bible saying at some point Satan stopped being a snake?

I do believe the Bible is a reliable record of man’s experience with and understanding of the Judeo/Christian God.  I believe it is reliable mostly because the canon was not settled until the 17th century and that meant the books that were eventually canonized had, over hundreds of years, become known throughout the church as those that best represented their faith.

Edit:

Up is up and down is down
No matter what the scrolls

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,10:41   

Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 03 2007,10:03)
The potential of the universe to cause itself into existence at the same instance that it is caused is impossible to believe and even more impossible to explain.  It cannot cause itself before it's existence.

The fact that it hasn't been explained yet does not mean it's impossible.

That would be why scientists have jobs.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,11:02   

"The potential of the universe to cause itself into existence at the same instance that it is caused is impossible to believe and even more impossible to explain.  It cannot cause itself before it's existence. "

And the Bible offers a more plausable explanation?  Based on what???

You suffer from the basic "argument from incredulity".

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,11:41   

Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 03 2007,08:29)
Yet we are suppose to believe in the Year 2007 that not a single overlap exists for any of the @1.6million species that exists today (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources )

No, we're not supposed to believe that.  It isn't true.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,11:51   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 03 2007,10:41)
Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 03 2007,10:03)
The potential of the universe to cause itself into existence at the same instance that it is caused is impossible to believe and even more impossible to explain.  It cannot cause itself before it's existence.

The fact that it hasn't been explained yet does not mean it's impossible.

That would be why scientists have jobs.

What happened in the first 10^-43 seconds may actually be impossible to know, even in principle.  Quantum mechanics is a very well-tested theory at this point, and it's held up extraordinarily well.  This could be the last refuge of god-of-the-gaps-ists.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,12:31   

A bit of a digression, but it's been my experience that digressions are the occasional wheat grain in the vast heap of chaff that is an evo/creo "debate".

I'm no expert on quantum - or any other kind - of physics. But I have read the occasional popular version, like Stephen Hawking or Stephen Weinberg or Brian Greene. And one thing, if I ever did get it, has totally escaped my feeble grasp. What does time even mean in the earliest phase of the theoretical Big Bang? Time, to me, means how long does something take, compared with how long something else takes (revolutions of clock hands, or of planets; decay of radioisotopes, the thing, whatever it is, that cesium does so regularly to make cesium clocks, whatever they are...). But I've never heard of any thing in the earliest phases of the Big Bang that does something that I can relate to. How do you tell the difference between 10^-43 seconds and 10^-3 seconds? ? ?

(Probably this is all in Weinberg's "The First Three Seconds" - but I've already got 5 books in my spare-time reading queue, so if someone can indulge me, I'll be grateful)

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,12:37   

Quote (Russell @ Jan. 03 2007,12:31)
How do you tell the difference between 10^-43 seconds and 10^-3 seconds? ? ?

If you train yourself to count really, really fast, in 10^-3 seconds, you can count up to 10^-40.  But in 10^-43 seconds, no matter how fast you count, you can never count more than 1.

Hope that helps.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
dgszweda



Posts: 34
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,12:53   

Quote (ScaryFacts @ Jan. 03 2007,10:38)
I do believe the Bible is a reliable record of man’s experience with and understanding of the Judeo/Christian God.  I believe it is reliable mostly because the canon was not settled until the 17th century and that meant the books that were eventually canonized had, over hundreds of years, become known throughout the church as those that best represented their faith.

You may believe that but your belief is not biblical.  II Timothy 3:16 states, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God".  The scripture was inspired or in Greek theopneustos, or literally "God breathed". The Bible was settled immediately after it's writing.  It was scripture the second the pen began to write on the parchment.  It was not written by the will of man, "but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:21).  It is not a record of man's experience, but a record of God from God.  

We did not need to wait until the 17th century nor was it settled in the 17th century.  The Old Testament was self authenticated by Christ, through His use of the scriptures while on earth.  The New Testament Cannon was agreed upon long before the 3rd century A.D, and in many cases was self authenticated by the apostles by quoting from earlier New Testament Scriptures.  The apocrypha and Gnostic gospels were never in question, not even at the Council of Nicea.

While the Da Vinci Code might have been good fiction it was not an accurate potrayal of scripture.

  
Malum Regnat



Posts: 98
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,12:57   

Quote
Not that long ago the greatest minds of the world believed the earth was flat.


Not to be overly picky but 'the greatest minds of the world' haven't believed that the world was flat since at least the time of the ancient Greeks.

--------------
This universe as explained by the 'other' Hawkins

Blah Hi-tech blah blah blah blah ... DESIGNED.
Blah Hi-tech blah blah blah blah ... NOT DESIGNED.

;-}>

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,13:02   

David-  Here's where I hang my hat on the starlight thing ...
Quote
Humphreys, “Starlight Wars: Starlight and Time Withstands Attacks”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4389starlight10-10-2000.asp

Humphreys, “Humphreys Answers Various Critics”
http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp

Humphreys, “Seven Years of Starlight and Time”
http://www.icr.org/index.p....&ID=446

Humphreys, “Spiral Galaxies and Supernova Remnants”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/starlight_snr.asp

Humphreys, “Our Galaxy Is the Centre of the Universe”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home....TRE.pdf


From http://www.trueorigin.org/camplist.asp

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

And my opinion is that Lenny is right on the speciation thing.  Speciation is no problem for the Biblical worldview ... in fact, it is required.  I copied his list and will be using it in the future to show him and others the plausibility of the Biblical account.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,13:05   

Are we really going to do this again for another 11,000 comments?

Just wonderin'.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,13:10   

Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 03 2007,10:53)
Quote (ScaryFacts @ Jan. 03 2007,10:38)
I do believe the Bible is a reliable record of man’s experience with and understanding of the Judeo/Christian God.  I believe it is reliable mostly because the canon was not settled until the 17th century and that meant the books that were eventually canonized had, over hundreds of years, become known throughout the church as those that best represented their faith.

You may believe that but your belief is not biblical.  II Timothy 3:16 states, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God".  The scripture was inspired or in Greek theopneustos, or literally "God breathed". The Bible was settled immediately after it's writing.  It was scripture the second the pen began to write on the parchment.  It was not written by the will of man, "but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:21).  It is not a record of man's experience, but a record of God from God.  

We did not need to wait until the 17th century nor was it settled in the 17th century.  The Old Testament was self authenticated by Christ, through His use of the scriptures while on earth.  The New Testament Cannon was agreed upon long before the 3rd century A.D, and in many cases was self authenticated by the apostles by quoting from earlier New Testament Scriptures.  The apocrypha and Gnostic gospels were never in question, not even at the Council of Nicea.

While the Da Vinci Code might have been good fiction it was not an accurate potrayal of scripture.

If you think Doc Scary gets all his bible info from Da Da Vinci code, boy are you in for a surprise!

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,13:12   

Quote
Hope that helps.
ummm... not really.

Quite possibly it's the smartass answer my dumb question deserves. Or possibly you're trying to tell me that 10^-43 seconds is that quantized unit of time, the Planck moment, or interval, or whatever it's called. In which case, it's unfortunate that I picked that as an example. Because in the confusion of the earliest phases of the Big Bang - in comparison with which I imagine holiday shopping would seem orderly - I still don't get how time is measured without clocks, planets or cesium atoms, in the first few seconds. What are the "givens"? (e.g. "we can calculate from theory that it would take 10^-7 seconds for X to happen")

(Feel free to tell me to just add Weinberg's book to my queue, and hope I live long enough to get to it, if this question is too stupid or difficult to address in this format. Unlike some people around here, I don't expect every scientific concept to be comprehensively explained in a conveniently minable quote.)

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,13:17   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 03 2007,13:05)
Are we really going to do this again for another 11,000 comments?

Just wonderin'.

I think this is looking bleak too.  As far as I can tell, Dgszweda's cosmology is entirely based on religious faith, impervious to evidence, and indistinguishable from last-Thursdayism.  So there's no ground on which to debate science.  And it looks like this may be the new place for afdave to shovel his, um, stuff...

Maybe we should sit back and watch the Daves throw pies at each other over speciation.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
dgszweda



Posts: 34
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,13:17   

Quote (Russell @ Jan. 03 2007,12:31)
(Probably this is all in Weinberg's "The First Three Seconds" - but I've already got 5 books in my spare-time reading queue, so if someone can indulge me, I'll be grateful)

You are like me.  Too many books and not enough time to read.  Space-Time in it's simplest form is the measurement of movement.  I know that is very simplistic, but maybe it helps.  The beginning of the Big Bang it is theorized that all space-time existed as a singularity.  A casuality occured in which the singularity rapidly expanded.  This rapidly expanding space was the universe as represented by Space-Time.  The 10^-43 is important because that is considerd the end of the Plank Epoch, that is where the quantum effects of gravity was just as strong as the other fundamental forces, and so doesn't fit into Quantum Mechanics, Theory of Relativity or anything else.

The problem still exists on how causality occured on a singular event when time, space and nothing else existed.

  
heddle



Posts: 124
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,13:21   

This sure is an interesting thread. Wish I spotted it sooner. But bring on the QM!

BTW I agree with steve_s, hidden variable proponents are a rather small minority in the world of professional physicists.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,13:27   

Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 03 2007,13:10)
 
Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 03 2007,10:53)
   
Quote (ScaryFacts @ Jan. 03 2007,10:38)
I do believe the Bible is a reliable record of man’s experience with and understanding of the Judeo/Christian God.  I believe it is reliable mostly because the canon was not settled until the 17th century and that meant the books that were eventually canonized had, over hundreds of years, become known throughout the church as those that best represented their faith.

You may believe that but your belief is not biblical.  II Timothy 3:16 states, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God".

If you think Doc Scary gets all his bible info from Da Da Vinci code, boy are you in for a surprise!

You know, this thread was boring from the git-go and I was about to leave it behind.  But, I think I'll stay around a bit and watch ole Scary take this fellow to school.

EDIT:  And now Heddle, a working physicist, shows up.  Dave, you may want to buckle your seatbelt.  you are about to experience some turbulence.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,13:34   

Quote (Russell @ Jan. 03 2007,13:12)
 
Quote
Hope that helps.
ummm... not really.

Quite possibly it's the smartass answer my dumb question deserves. Or possibly you're trying to tell me that 10^-43 seconds is that quantized unit of time, the Planck moment, or interval, or whatever it's called. In which case, it's unfortunate that I picked that as an example. Because in the confusion of the earliest phases of the Big Bang - in comparison with which I imagine holiday shopping would seem orderly - I still don't get how time is measured without clocks, planets or cesium atoms, in the first few seconds. What are the "givens"? (e.g. "we can calculate from theory that it would take 10^-7 seconds for X to happen")

(Feel free to tell me to just add Weinberg's book to my queue, and hope I live long enough to get to it, if this question is too stupid or difficult to address in this format. Unlike some people around here, I don't expect every scientific concept to be comprehensively explained in a conveniently minable quote.)

Sorry, Russell.  Couldn't resist.

Trying to be more helpful... the Planck time, 10^-43 seconds (approximately) is the shortest time it's theoretically possible to measure, and indeed the shortest timescale at which the laws of physics can be applied (provisionally, in the all-science-is-provisional) sense.  Here is a Wikipedia article, which also links to this BBC story about the measurement of very short - 10^-16s - time intervals.

At times shorter than the Planck time, and distances shorter than the Planck length, things get very strange indeed.  But the effects are real and measurable.

Therefore God. :)

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Malum Regnat



Posts: 98
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,13:39   

Quote
Not that long ago the greatest minds of the world believed the earth was flat.


Not to be overly picky but 'the greatest minds of the world' haven't believed that the world was flat since at least the time of the ancient Greeks.

--------------
This universe as explained by the 'other' Hawkins

Blah Hi-tech blah blah blah blah ... DESIGNED.
Blah Hi-tech blah blah blah blah ... NOT DESIGNED.

;-}>

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,13:53   

Quote (dgszweda @ ,)
The problem still exists on how causality occured on a singular event when time, space and nothing else existed.

Sure it's an interesting problem. But don't you have a similar but more complex problem in how an uncaused cause (being) caused time/space/matter/energy to come into existence?

Oh, and not to pooh-pooh the big bang discussion, but it seems silly to debate someone about it who doesn't think that it happened. The more relevant stuff came billions of years later, when our solar system and planet formed. I assume dgszweda disputes those events too?

  
dgszweda



Posts: 34
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,13:56   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 03 2007,13:27)
If you think Doc Scary gets all his bible info from Da Da Vinci code, boy are you in for a surprise![/quote]
You know, this thread was boring from the git-go and I was about to leave it behind.  But, I think I'll stay around a bit and watch ole Scary take this fellow to school.

EDIT:  And now Heddle, a working physicist, shows up.  Dave, you may want to buckle your seatbelt.  you are about to experience some turbulence.

See we can have fun on this thread after all.  Besides I never said that Doc Scary got all his bible info from the Da Vinci code, only that the movie propogated a lot of false facts regarding how the scripture was cannonized.  The point of contention that I had with Doc Scary was that the Bible was based on man's view and that the scripture was finalized in the 17th century.

I don't necessarily disagree with Heddle, I am not sure what the ratios are or aren't.  I fully understand Heisenberg and probability constants.  I just side with Einstein on this.  I think ultimately it is measurable, somebody needs to figure it out, just not me, because I am not smart enough.

  
heddle



Posts: 124
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,14:21   

dgszweda is correct--the New Testament canon was established long before the 17th century.

From the earliest days of the Christianity, most of the books in the New Testament were recognized as scripture. Only a handful were ever the subject of any real debate: Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation.

We have a list of books that represents the canon near the end of the second century. It was discovered by L. A. Muratori in 1740. The beginning is missing, and the first book mentioned is the gospel of Luke and it’s called the third, so it is reasonable to assume that it included Matthew and Mark as the first and second books. From this we see what books are in the canon around A.D. 200. The four gospels, Acts, Paul’s thirteen letters, Jude, two epistles of John (the second of which is possibly what we now consider the second and third.) Revelation, and a second Revelation due to Peter. This book is known to have been read in some churches –its graphic treatment of the state of the damned might be the basis for Dante’s Inferno.

All disputes were settled by the fourth century. In AD 363 The Council of Laodicia listed all the New Testament books except Revelation. In AD 367 Athanasius of Alexandria cited all 27 New Testament books in a (bishop's) letter. And in AD 397, the Third Council of Carthage became the first ecumenical council to list all 27 books.

Not sure where Scary comes up with the 17th century.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,14:55   

Quote (afdave @ Jan. 03 2007,13:02)
David-  Here's where I hang my hat on the starlight thing ...  
Quote
Humphreys, “Starlight Wars: Starlight and Time Withstands Attacks”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4389starlight10-10-2000.asp

Humphreys, “Humphreys Answers Various Critics”
http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp

Humphreys, “Seven Years of Starlight and Time”
http://www.icr.org/index.p....&ID=446

Humphreys, “Spiral Galaxies and Supernova Remnants”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/starlight_snr.asp

Humphreys, “Our Galaxy Is the Centre of the Universe”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home....TRE.pdf


From http://www.trueorigin.org/camplist.asp

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

And my opinion is that Lenny is right on the speciation thing.  Speciation is no problem for the Biblical worldview ... in fact, it is required.  I copied his list and will be using it in the future to show him and others the plausibility of the Biblical account.

Quote
The main feature is the large ‘timeless zone’ in gray which expands out from the center and then inward back toward it. Inside the zone, nothing happens. Clocks don’t tick, and physical processes are stopped at whatever state they were in when the zone engulfed them. Billions of years worth of events occur in the distant cosmos while the earth experiences no time at all. After the earth’s clocks resume again, they measure only twenty-four ordinary hours total during the fourth day.



WTF? davey, your boys at AIG must be tripping when they wrote this utter bullshit.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,15:02   

Ved (from the previous page):
Quote
I didn't think creatures had to *jump* to new species, I thought they drifted... or at most, they moseyed or sauntered...


Wouldn't that be species dependent?
I mean, if we're talking slug transitions, then maybe "slimed" would be appropriate.
But if we're talking, er, the kangaroo "kind," furzample, then certainly "jump" might be an appropriate termitage, no?

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,15:10   

Quote
My comment about making a cat become a cow was not ignorance but overgeneralization. The fact is that species had to jump to other species, and that hasn't been shown anywhere. Only changes within a species has been shown. Please show me the conclusive proof of a species jumping to another species.

Lenny gave you a nice list, to which I can add a few: (Thanks, Lenny!, I am stealing yours for future use)

Bush, G.L. (1975) Sympatric Speciation in Phytophagous Parasitic Insects. In: Evolutionary Strategies of Parasitic Insects and Mites, edited by Price, P.W., Plenum Press, N.Y (western cherry fruitfly R. indifferens)

Endler, J.A. (1977) Geographic Variation, Speciation, and Clines. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J (Xiphoporus maculatus)

Keast, A. (1961) Bird Speciation on the Australian Continent, Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 123:305-495 (Thickheaded Malee)

Knowlton, Nancy  and Lee A. Weigt. (1998). "New dates and new rates for divergence across the Isthmus of Panama". Proceedings of the Royal Society (London) B. 265: 2257-2263 .

Knowlton, Nancy and Lee A. Weigt (2001). Evidence for three major clades within the snapping shrimp genus Alpheus inferred from nuclear and mitochondiral gene sequence data., Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 20:375-389

Mayr, E. (1963), Populations, Species, And Evolution Harvard University Press. p.281
points out:   "Here then we have a series of related, allopatric populations showing every stage from the local genetic race, to the ordinary subspecies, to the almost specifically distinct subspecies (Xipophorus xiphidium), to the full species (couchianus)."

Mosquin, T., (1967). Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae). Evolution 21:713-719

Near, Thomas J. and Michael F. Benard. (2004) Rapid Allopatric Speciation In Logperch Darters. Evolution: Vol. 58, No. 12, pp. 2798-2808.
************************************************************************
Just on Cichlids:

Albertson RC, Markert JA, Danley PD and Kocher TD. (1999). Phylogeny of a rapidly evolving clade: the cichlid fishes of Lake Malawi, East Africa. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 96(9): 5107-5110

Arnegard ME, Markert JA, Danley PD, Stauffer JR Jr., Ambali AJ and Kocher TD. (1999). Population structure and colour variation of the cichlid fish Labeotropheus fuelleborni Ahl along a recently formed achipelago of rocky habitat patches in southern Lake Malawi. Proceedings Royal Society London B 266: 119-130.

Bowers N, Stauffer JR, and Kocher TD. (1994). Intra- and interspecific mitochondrial DNA sequence variation within two species of rock-dwelling cichlids (Teleostei: Cichlidae) from Lake Malawi, Africa. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 3:75-82

Danley PD, Markert JA, Arnegard ME, and Kocher TD. (2000). Divergence with gene flow in the rock-dwelling cichlids of Lake Malawi. Evolution 54(5):1725-37.

Joyce DA, Lunt DH, Bills R, Turner GF, Katongo C, et al. (2005) An extant cichlid fish radiation emerged in an extinct Pleistocene lake. Nature 435: 90-95.

Kocher TD (2004) Adaptive evolution and explosive speciation: The cichlid fish model. Nat Rev Genet 5: 288-298.

Kocher TD. (2003). Evolutionary biology: Fractious phylogenies (News and Views). Nature 423: 489 - 491

Kocher TD, Conroy JA, McKaye KR, Stauffer JR and Lockwood SF. (1995). Evolution of the ND2 gene in East African cichlids. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 4:420-432.

Kornfield I, McKaye K and Kocher T. (1985). Evidence for the immigration hypothesis in the endemic cichlid fauna of Lake Tanganyika. Isozyme Bulletin 18:76

Markert, JA, Arnegard ME, Danley PD and Kocher TD. (1999). Biogeography and population genetics of the Lake Malawi cichlid Melanochromis auratus: habitat transience, philopatry and speciation. Mol. Ecol. 8(6): 1013-1026

Mayr, E., (1970). Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348

McKaye KR, Kocher T, Reinthal P, Harrison R and Kornfield I. (1984). Genetic evidence of allopatric and sympatric differentiation among color morphs of a Lake Malawi cichlid fish. Evolution 38:215-219.

McKaye KR, Kocher T, Reinthal P, Harrison R and Kornfield I. (1982). A sympatric sibling species complex of Petrotilapia trewavas (Cichlidae) from Lake Malawi analyzed by enzyme electrophoresis. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 76:91-96.

Meyer A, Kocher TD and Wilson AC. (1992). African fishes. Nature 350:467-468.Meyer A, Kocher TD, Basaibwaki P and Wilson AC. 1990. Monophyletic origin of Lake Victoria cichlid fishes suggested by mitochondrial DNA sequences. Nature 347:550-553

Stauffer JR Jr, Bowers NJ, Kocher TD and McKaye KR. (1995). Hybridization between Cynotilapia afra and Pseudotropheus zebra (Teleostei: Cichlidae) following an intralacustrine introduction in Lake Malawi, Africa. Copeia 1996: 203-208.

Wilkins, Sabine (2001) The Evolution of Cichlids. A talk presented at the June 2001 meeting of the Cichlid Society of NSW, Australia
 
Quote
Unless you can show me a quote which states there are more than @1,400 skulls, than I think my quotation is still valid, regardless of whether it was from a governmental agency or not. One of the bedrocks of science literature is quotation from sources. You can question my source, which is legitimate question, but unless you can provide your own credentials to negate my quotation or provide a quotation that directly refutes it than it should stand. I didn't solely rely on just a tourist site, but my own memory from past readings and I only found the site to help refresh my memory. I did use the exact figures found on the site. I don't hide from that, but I don't think it was shoddy research either. Your quotations don't negate my claim of 1,400 skull fragments.

1. Your source claimed HOMINID skulls...and not "fragments" and it was wrong on both counts. YOU made the initial claim, therefore the burden of evidence is on you...and YOU provided a "source" that simply makes unsupported ( and false, as shown,) assertions WITHOUT citations. Then you try to shift the burden to me while claiming YOUR "figures" should stand? How transparent.
2. My professional credentials are that I am an archaeologist and minored in paleoanth, (taught it as a TA at UCLA). You have a bachelor's from Bob Jones U. in chemistry.  
3. In looking at your posts, you seem to use this ploy of " well I read it somewhere" quite a bit...and then offer no support. This is bad form, considering you are stressing that quotes from sources are a "bedrock" of science, no?  Quoting from a TOURIST site with NO cited references IS SHODDY. Your claim about fossils of hominids is simply false...just on the facts I have given. YOU MADE THE INITIAL CLAIM, REMEMBER?

 
Quote
Ramapithecus was based on a few teeth, which 20 years later is beginning to be thought of as an extinct primate.

Then:
Quote
This shows conclusively that within the scientific community as late as 1971 it was still well considered that Ramapithicus was a divergence from the primate line into a hominid line.  This is a primary source with cross references to Simons and Leakey.  So while a few of my sources have been shakey I think it is an incorrect characterization to state that I have no research or no basis for my statements


As I said, YOU are a primate, a CHIMP is a primate, a HOMINID is a Primate, BY DEFINITION. Ramapiths were NEVER thought of as ANYTHING BUT A PRIMATE. You then try to post some JSTOR article...not talking about anything showing they were NOT primates. Primates include humans, apes ( by the way, chimps and gorillas are not MONKEYS, either, as you called them) new world and old world monkeys and prosimians. If you're not doing shoddy work here, what DO you call it?

I'll get to the rest of your "stuff" shortly. Quit using the standard creationist ploys, please.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,15:11   

dog'sweeds (or whatever--no disrespect intended but I'm just not going to learn to spell that):
Quote
The New Testament Cannon

Well, there you have it.
If the New Testament Cannon wouldn't make a Big Bang, then nothing would...

  
ScaryFacts



Posts: 337
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,15:29   

Warning:  Impossibly long post ahead

Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 03 2007,13:53)
 You may believe that but your belief is not biblical.  II Timothy 3:16 states, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God".  The scripture was inspired or in Greek theopneustos, or literally "God breathed". The Bible was settled immediately after it's writing.  It was scripture the second the pen began to write on the parchment.  It was not written by the will of man, "but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:21).  It is not a record of man's experience, but a record of God from God.


A few of points...

First:  When both Paul and Peter wrote these passages, what books were they referring to?  Especially considering some of the New Testament had not yet been written.

Second:  If they became scripture the moment they were penned, why was there any further debate over which books to include in the canon?  (More on this in a minute)

Third:  "God Breathed" is an accurate translation for the Greek in II Tim 3:16, and Christians are taught that really means "God Dictated"--the autographs (the original writings) were dictated word by word from God.

However there is no other passage in Koine NT we can look at and see a parallel to give us further insight into the meaning of "God Breathed."  It might mean "God Inspired" which is far different than "God dictated."

(Note:  There not being another occurrence in the NT is based on my memory from Greek class 25 years ago—if I am wrong feel free to correct me and I will examine the other passage.)

And once one has read through the Bible many times it becomes obvious there are stylistic differences between the various authors, why would this occur with God dictation?

Different writers call God by different names.  Some books are written in a distinctly Greek style while others come from a Hebrew mindset.

The common argument here goes something like this:  Well, God dictated his words to the writer, but the writer “filtered” them through his own mind.

Hmmmm…so that means exactly what I contend:  Men wrote as they experienced God.  It was their understanding of what God was saying and doing around them.

Fourth:  When Peter writes “God Inspired” how to you take the leap to say it means “God dictated”?  Why can’t it mean what it says? They were inspired by God to write.

On my 10th wedding anniversary I was so moved by my wife that I was inspired by her to write a love song.  Did she dictate the words because she was the inspiration or did the words describe how I viewed her?

Fifth:  Who was right about divorce, Moses or Jesus?

 
Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 03 2007,13:53)
We did not need to wait until the 17th century nor was it settled in the 17th century.  The Old Testament was self authenticated by Christ, through His use of the scriptures while on earth.
 

One of the common arguments “proving” the inspiration of the Pentateuch are the quotations Jesus makes from it in the Gospels.  The argument is:  Because Jesus quoted from Moses, it proves Moses writings were scripture.

Just look at Moses’ and Jesus’ teaching on divorce:

Moses:

 
Quote

Deuteronomy 24
1 If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.


Jesus:

 
Quote

Matthew 19:7-9 7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."


So all those folks who were following Moses “inspired” commandments were actually committing adultery according to Jesus.

Sixth:  While I don't have time to document them today, any neutral observer can see many contradictions in today's Bible.  They were either there in the autographs or they were later added through scribal errors--but either way it means the omnipotent God did not preserve his inerrant word.

(If anyone wants me to document dozens of controversial passages I will be happy to do so later – I’m supposed to be writing for money today…)

 
Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 03 2007,13:53)
The New Testament Cannon was agreed upon long before the 3rd century A.D, and in many cases was self authenticated by the apostles by quoting from earlier New Testament Scriptures.  The apocrypha and Gnostic gospels were never in question, not even at the Council of Nicea.


Even to the 3rd century CE, Origin questioned the value of Paul’s letters (though he did believe Paul’s teachings were authoritative) and there was no clear consensus on the New Testament canon.

The earliest NT canon is dated between 170 and 400 CE (scholars disagree on date), but contains some books which are not a part of our current canon and leaves out some that are.

Eusebius (c. 300) wrote that James, Jude, II Peter, II & III John were still in dispute as to their authority. At that time the authority of Revelation and Hebrews were still in dispute among the church fathers.

Even into the 9th century the book of Revelation was not accepted by a large number of Christians as part of the canon. (See the Catalog of 60 and the Stichometry of Nicephorus.)

During the reformation Luther (16th century) argued against Esther, Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation being inspired.

The Council of Trent made the Roman Catholic canon official in 1546. Interestingly, this vote was far from unanimous. To these Christian leaders, the canon was not obvious.

In 1870 Vatican I added previously disputed passages to Mark, Luke and John.

This is all pretty easy to Google, but here are a couple of links:

http://www.ntcanon.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_of_the_New_Testament_Canon

Imagine you went in a time machine to 1520 and made that statement to Luther—“unless you accept Esther, Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation as divinely inspired then your faith is not Biblical”—which is what I believe you said to me.

If you are going to create litmus tests for salvation, why not use scripture? I don’t know of any verse teaching inerrancy as necessary for salvation—especially considering the length of time without an official canon and honest dispute about the content of the canon.

   
Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 03 2007,13:53)
While the Da Vinci Code might have been good fiction it was not an accurate potrayal of scripture.


Awe, shucks, you just destroyed my faith…you mean Jesus didn’t have any kids?

Heddle:

 
Quote

From the earliest days of the Christianity, most of the books in the New Testament were recognized as scripture. Only a handful were ever the subject of any real debate: Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation.

We have a list of books that represents the canon near the end of the second century. It was discovered by L. A. Muratori in 1740. The beginning is missing, and the first book mentioned is the gospel of Luke and it’s called the third, so it is reasonable to assume that it included Matthew and Mark as the first and second books. From this we see what books are in the canon around A.D. 200. The four gospels, Acts, Paul’s thirteen letters, Jude, two epistles of John (the second of which is possibly what we now consider the second and third.) Revelation, and a second Revelation due to Peter. This book is known to have been read in some churches –its graphic treatment of the state of the damned might be the basis for Dante’s Inferno.

All disputes were settled by the fourth century. In AD 363 The Council of Laodicia listed all the New Testament books except Revelation. In AD 367 Athanasius of Alexandria cited all 27 New Testament books in a (bishop's) letter. And in AD 397, the Third Council of Carthage became the first ecumenical council to list all 27 books.

Not sure where Scary comes up with the 17th century.


One correction--it was the 16th century (as above).

I think the difference between you and I is one of interpretation--you take the earliest listings of canonical books and because they are substantially intact, you say the canon was settled.  But there was serious debate (as I've noted above) about some of the books even at the time of the reformation.

But even if the canon was settled by 300 CE, it still negates the argument that one must believe these particular books were divinely dictated in order to have Christian faith.

   
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,15:40   

Before we waste too much time on Mr. D. Weeds, maybe we could get a coherent statement of what he's hoping to accomplish.

Y'know, so we don't do the DaveyDance, where he promised to support his hypnosis-thingey, but all he did for page after page was recycle misinformation and disinformation "challenging" "Darwinism," as if that got him any closer to supporting the hypno-dealey...

So Mr. Wheeze admits that everything looks billions of years old, but claims to disbelieve his own eyes based on scripture--whoever canonized it whenever, as if any of that proves it was dictated by Dog.  So why'ze he here, exactly?

On top of his faith, does he have what he imagines to be "scientific" proof of a Young Earth, of a Six-Day Creation, of an Ark Story?  If so, baby, sling that hash out there so we can sample the tard.

But don't just keep pointing at scripture--that's not "scientific" proof (except in DaveWorld and other backwater corners of Tardmania [thought to be an island off of Awe's Trailer, y'all]).

Or--since Gee Whiz already conceded that, from the "sciencey" point-a-view, things sure do appear old--is he here only to advance his personal incredulity about "Darwinism."  Which, so far, he has done only by invoking the theoretical limits on observing matters within the Planck scale or the first weeny-seconds of the Big Bang, by displaying his cluelessness about speciation and species "jumps," and such other trifles and foolieries.

Thus far, the only thing worse than DaveTard might well be EarnestDaveTard.

So how'z about it, Mr. Wheezer?  What are your goals here?  Support Creationism with "science"?  Attack evolutionary biology with "science"?  In which case, no, you don't get to keep retreating into scripture.

Or just to apologetically apologize for the scriptural account on the basis of, well, nothing but the scriptural account?  In which case, atheists or mere consensual-reality-ists, we're probably not really going to be interested.

Give it a thunk or two and then Planck it down so we's kin take a gander at The Plan.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,15:46   

I think dgszweda's arguments provide enough comedy material.  No need to make fun of his name.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,15:58   

I'm not "making fun" of his name (well, okay, I could've picked somewhat more sober sound-alikes...).

But, in a medium where one gets to choose one's screen-name, ones's insistence on choosing an unpronouceable and unspellable one is just that--a unilateral choice.  It does not compel my assent to use said unpronounceable, unspellable screen-name.  

If he wants to re-name himself DaveyDoodles or Arden Horseapples or Ghost of Memory or DaveyShortBrow, or something with a little pizzazz to it, then we can talk.

Until then, I'll just stick with, um, Mr. D, I reckon.

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,16:21   

That was a great lil tirade Mr Pin. And to offer a suggestion on spelling wierdness: cut and paste is your friend. No muss, no fuss.

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,16:31   

You know how I hate to use my cranial "challenge" as a crutch.

But, frankly, cutting and pasting has given me fits going all the way back to pre-school.

Uh, so there!  Mr. D it will be, forever and always, amen!  Or at least for the few posts for which I remember what I just said...

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,16:42   

Quote (Steviepinhead @ Jan. 03 2007,15:58)
If he wants to re-name himself DaveyDoodles or Arden Horseapples or Ghost of Memory or DaveyShortBrow, or something with a little pizzazz to it, then we can talk.

Until then, I'll just stick with, um, Mr. D, I reckon.

I liked "Wheezy." Better yet, "Weezy," 'cause we're movin' on Up, To the God side, To a deee-luxe apartment in the skyyy.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,17:26   

I enjoy this comic strip about a harried office worker who loves to make himself huge sandwiches.  No negative connotations for me, whatsoever.

I'm willing to compromise on "Dagwood."  Or even Mr. Right Hon. Dagwood...

Just to get to the real, er, meat of the matter.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,18:20   

Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 03 2007,08:59)
Lying would have to infer deception.  Are they being deceptive?

Um, if it's based on religion, and they say under oath that it ain't, that sure sounds to ME like "lying".

What does it, uh, sound like to YOU?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,18:26   

Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 03 2007,12:53)
You may believe that but your belief is not biblical.

Says you.  (shrug)

Is it your opinion that not only is the Bible infallible, but YOUR INTERPRETATIONS OF IT are also infallible?  Sorry, my fundie friend, but I simply do not believe that you are infallible.

In any case, thanks for sharing your religious opinions with us.  They are, of course, just that -- your opinions.  They are no more authoritative than my religious opinions or my next door neighbor's or my car mechanic's or the kid who delivers my pizzas.

After all, you aren't any holier than anyone else, you don't know any more about God than anyone else does, and your interpretations of the Bible aren't any more infallible than anyone else's.

(shrug)

By the way, next time you read your Bible, you might want to do a search for the phrase "the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life".

You might learn something.

But I kinda doubt it . . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,18:32   

Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 03 2007,13:17)
The problem still exists on how causality occured on a singular event when time, space and nothing else existed.

Well, when you learn something about quantum mechanics, you'll understand that "causality" doesn't operate that the quantum level.  The universe is, at the quantum level, probabilistic, indeterministic, and fundamentally (pardon the pun) unpredictable.

If the universe is a quantum fluctuation, then nothing "caused" it, any more than anything "causes" a radionuclide to decay at a particular instant and not another.

But I'm curious, since you seem to have your god staked inside a particular gap.  If physics DOES develop a testable and verified theory of quantum gravity, would that mean, in your opinion, that there is no god . . . .?

If so, I feel very sorry for your lack of faith.

If not, then . .  uh. . .  what the #### are you bitching about?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,18:39   

Quote (heddle @ Jan. 03 2007,14:21)
All disputes were settled by the fourth century.

Um, then why are there still so many different versions of the Bible, with different books that are accepted or not as canonical . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
shadowcatdancing



Posts: 7
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,18:39   

Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 03 2007,06:59)
Lying would have to infer deception.

Just to have an English teacher moment here...
Lying would imply deception.

If I read your posts and decide that you were trying to indicate that someone was dishonest but didn't quite say so, I am inferring that you meant to call him liar.

You, however, were implying he was a liar.

We now return you to our regularly scheduled...

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,18:43   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 03 2007,15:10)
Lenny gave you a nice list, to which I can add a few: (Thanks, Lenny!, I am stealing yours for future use)

Well ####, I stole mine from the Talk.Origins archive.  

So now I'll be stealing yours, too.   ;)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
ScaryFacts



Posts: 337
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,19:13   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 03 2007,19:26)
 
Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 03 2007,12:53)
You may believe that but your belief is not biblical.

Says you.  (shrug)

Is it your opinion that not only is the Bible infallible, but YOUR INTERPRETATIONS OF IT are also infallible?  Sorry, my fundie friend, but I simply do not believe that you are infallible.

Thanks for the defense Lenny.  I do appreciate it.

I don't really understand the need so many Christians have to jump right in and say things like this without taking any time to explore who the person is they are attacking.  At least he didn't do what usually happens when I get around fundies--they usually tell me I'm going to ####.

When I read dgszwebda's comment I was certainly offended.  But I don't want an apology, I would rather he just answer the comments in my post.

But I expect after reading this he will still just apologize--or maybe not, you never know.

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,19:24   

I don't think I'm going to be posting much to this thread.

I'm not sure that will precipitate the shedding of crocodile tears (or at least tears from the reptile "kind") but I just can't see arguing with someone who's final argument always is, "But it says right here in the Bible..."

I can't seem to get across to people named Dave the point that the Bible is not self-authenticating. Sure, the Bible claims to be the literal word of God, but what external evidence do we have of that? Other people's believe that it's the word of God?

And what happens when observation conflicts with the Bible, as it almost always does? We accept the Bible's account over our own senses why? Because our faith tells us so? But where does our faith get its information? From the Bible. How do we know what the Bible says is true? Our faith tells us so.

Around and around in circles, swirling around the drain of rationality...

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,19:24   

Quote (ScaryFacts @ Jan. 03 2007,19:13)
At least he didn't do what usually happens when I get around fundies--they usually tell me I'm going to ####.

He just hasn't gotten 'round to that yet.  Give 'em time.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
ScaryFacts



Posts: 337
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,19:38   

Quote (ericmurphy @ Jan. 03 2007,20:24)
And what happens when observation conflicts with the Bible, as it almost always does? We accept the Bible's account over our own senses why? Because our faith tells us so? But where does our faith get its information? From the Bible. How do we know what the Bible says is true? Our faith tells us so.

Maybe we should have a thread exploring just these issues.  Almost all of the Christian forums have one, but as soon as you say, "Yeah, but the evidence is..."  You are told you're apostate.

It gets old pretty quickly.

But I do know I am not the only one here with Christian faith and a thread might allow us to honestly see how to reconcile some of our faith with observed nature.  Those who don't want to hear our Christian blatherings can avoid the thread.  Those who have an axe to grind get a place to vent.

Lou:  Yeah, I know.  It's only a matter of time.

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,21:14   

Do any YEC whackos read any responses to any other YEC whackos?

Couldn't we just round them all up and put them in the same rubber room?  We could play continuous loops of science lectures.  Either they'd listen or they wouldn't, and an almost infinite amount of energy could be redirected to usefulwork.

Alternately, dgszweda could read the GoP Geocentric Crap Thread or the AFdave BS Thread.

Or, he could ignore everything that has gone on before and continue to wallow in willful ignorance.  There's money to be had in choice B.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
ScaryFacts



Posts: 337
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,21:34   

Quote (blipey @ Jan. 03 2007,22:14)
Do any YEC whackos read any responses to any other YEC whackos?

Couldn't we just round them all up and put them in the same rubber room?  We could play continuous loops of science lectures.  Either they'd listen or they wouldn't, and an almost infinite amount of energy could be redirected to usefulwork.

Alternately, dgszweda could read the GoP Geocentric Crap Thread or the AFdave BS Thread.

Or, he could ignore everything that has gone on before and continue to wallow in willful ignorance.  There's money to be had in choice B.

Blipey,

I agree (to a degree), but I am also aware of my personal history.  I was, years ago, a Biblical literist.  The final nail in the coffin of literalism for me was coming to AtBC.  While there are the AFDaves out there, you will also find people who are able to see truth v. falsehood--which is why I suggest a thread for Christians or other religious people interested in the truth of evolution.

My 2 cents...

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,01:09   

Quote
I was, years ago, a Biblical literist.  The final nail in the coffin of literalism for me was coming to AtBC.


Thats the difference between the whackos and the non-whackos (such as yourself).  dgszweda was invited to read the threads, but apparently had better things to do.  I know it's an awfully lot of work to do so, but if you are truly interested you wouldn't dismiss the reading out of hand.

That's why I said willful ignorance.  He won't learn becausehe isn't interested.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,07:35   

Quote (blipey @ Jan. 03 2007,21:14)
Do any YEC whackos read any responses to any other YEC whackos?

Couldn't we just round them all up and put them in the same rubber room?  We could play continuous loops of science lectures.  Either they'd listen or they wouldn't, and an almost infinite amount of energy could be redirected to usefulwork.

Alternately, dgszweda could read the GoP Geocentric Crap Thread or the AFdave BS Thread.

Or, he could ignore everything that has gone on before and continue to wallow in willful ignorance.  There's money to be had in choice B.

It doesn't matter how many newtons you got. without movement you got no joules. Night.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
dgszweda



Posts: 34
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,07:59   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 03 2007,18:20)
Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 03 2007,08:59)
Lying would have to infer deception.  Are they being deceptive?

Um, if it's based on religion, and they say under oath that it ain't, that sure sounds to ME like "lying".

What does it, uh, sound like to YOU?

Rev Dr,

I can not tell the truth and still not be lying.  For example, if I believe the sky to be green because I am color blind I could still not be telling the truth, but I wouldn't be lying.  If you had picked up a dictionary you would realize that lying is "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth".  I don't know any Id'ers and I don't know any of the Creation Scientist who are on the witness stand.  Maybe they believe what they are saying.  I they are not intending to deceive than they aren't lying.  They may be misinformed or not presenting the facts correctly.  I don't know.  You are asking me to make a personal judgement call on something I haven't read about or a person I haven't met.  I haven't seen a single quote from someone who espouses Intelligent Design.  You pressed me and said you wouldn't stop until you got an answer, so I gave you something.  Maybe you know these people better.  If you do and you think they are intentionally deceiving people, than I won't argue with you on it.

  
dgszweda



Posts: 34
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,08:04   

Quote (blipey @ Jan. 03 2007,21:14)
Do any YEC whackos read any responses to any other YEC whackos?

I enjoy the people who come onto these threads offering no real substance but like to call people names.  The intolerance from such a group of people who espouse tolerance is stunning.

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,08:19   

It's an intolerance born in a humid environment. Things grow well there.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
ScaryFacts



Posts: 337
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,08:57   

Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 04 2007,09:04)
 
Quote (blipey @ Jan. 03 2007,21:14)
Do any YEC whackos read any responses to any other YEC whackos?

I enjoy the people who come onto these threads offering no real substance but like to call people names.  The intolerance from such a group of people who espouse tolerance is stunning.

With all due respect...

If you expect, as a Christian, to have even a remote possibility to tell non-Christians about your faith you will need to develop a thicker skin.

You came here, to a science board, saying science is wrong and your proof was the Bible and that no matter what observable nature says you are going to trust the Bible is infallible.

After telling me I don't have Biblical faith you then fail to respond to my reasoning well written and thoughtful post.

You can call names but when others do the same to you, you get offended.

Please understand that when you come to this board and say "evolution is full of problems" with no more than your faith, you might as well be saying "2+2=5"

Without taking time to develop a relationship with the people on this board you aren’t going to be treated seriously any more than a first time visitor to your church would be treated seriously if they came in saying “your Bible is wrong.”

You even have the balls to say you didn’t have time to read the refutations to many of your arguments already thoughtfully presented by numerous contributors.  It takes time for us to make thoughtful, meaningful posts.  You ignore them.

Humility comes before honor.

   
ScaryFacts



Posts: 337
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,09:30   

Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 04 2007,08:59)
I don't know any Id'ers and I don't know any of the Creation Scientist who are on the witness stand.  Maybe they believe what they are saying.  I they are not intending to deceive than they aren't lying.  They may be misinformed or not presenting the facts correctly.

If one represents himself as an expert in a field to a large group of laymen then presents falsehoods as if they are true it may not technically be lying, but it is certainly deceptive in the worst possible way.

Diploma mill, honorary doctorates do not create expertise.  Doctorates in philosophy or theology do not qualify one to speak as an expert in biology.  Yet, because many of the "leaders" in the creationist movement have a Dr. before their name and claim to be Christians, the church, in general, treats them as well meaning, qualified experts.

No one sees their OWN false teacher as a false teacher.

If a person wants to teach "creation science" then they have a responsibility to either get the credentials or to openly admit they have no background and are just a layman.  To do less is hardly Christian.

Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 04 2007,08:59)
You are asking me to make a personal judgement call on something I haven't read about or a person I haven't met.


Yet you were perfectly willing to do that in my case.

   
dgszweda



Posts: 34
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,10:24   

I could write very extensively on this, but the text would consume many pages of this thread.  So I will hit the highlights as concisely as I can.

Quote
First:  When both Paul and Peter wrote these passages, what books were they referring to?  Especially considering some of the New Testament had not yet been written.


They were speaking of the entire cannon of scripture including those which were not written.  I think the trouble you and I are having is that you believe that the Word of God was driven my man's experience, and I believe it was driven by God.  If you take the belief that it was driven by man's experience, than the difficulty arises in how they dealt with the future of scripture which had not been written yet.  In II Timothy 3:16, the term All (Greek: pas) refers to every all.  It is not related to that which is only known at the time, but the entire collection.

2Peter 1:20-21 states  
Quote
"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpreation.  For prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
 These were not their words, but the words of God himself.  Since they were the words of God, as II Timothy 3:16 concurs as well and we know that God never changes as confirmed by Hebrews 13:8  
Quote
"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever."  
 Then the words are consistent through any time period of the Bible through any age.

Quote
Second:  If they became scripture the moment they were penned, why was there any further debate over which books to include in the canon?  (More on this in a minute)


This is a common mistake that many make.  The fact that there was a debate amongst men is irrelevant on whether the the scripture was actually cannon.  There is still debate amongst some people who claim to be Christian on whether Jesus ever existed.  The fact that there is still debate doesn't mean that it isn't settled for the Church.  Here is a good article on why the Church believes it had the cannon from the beginning (http://www.baptistbulletin.org/?p=16)

Quote
Third:  "God Breathed" is an accurate translation for the Greek in II Tim 3:16, and Christians are taught that really means "God Dictated"--the autographs (the original writings) were dictated word by word from God.

However there is no other passage in Koine NT we can look at and see a parallel to give us further insight into the meaning of "God Breathed."  It might mean "God Inspired" which is far different than "God dictated."

(Note:  There not being another occurrence in the NT is based on my memory from Greek class 25 years ago—if I am wrong feel free to correct me and I will examine the other passage.)


Since I am younger and I still study both Greek and Hebrew, maybe it is more fresh in my memory.

Both II Timothy 3:16 and I Peter 1:20-21 are Locus Classicus for the Key Apostillic witness of inspiration.

No we are not taught it was God dictated.  Maybe you might have been, but the accurate wording is theopneustos which is literally God breathed or breathed out by God.  The word inspired was taken from the Latin Word Inspiratus a Deo which was found in the Latin Vulgate and used in the KJV.  This made more sense in Old English, but inspired has changed meaning considerably in modern times.  Both the NIV and ESV handle the translation much better.  Warfield stated in his commentary,
Quote
The traditional translation of the word by the Latin inspiratus a Deo is no doubt also discredited, it we are to take it at the foot of the letter. It does not express a breathing into the Scriptures by God. But the ordinary conception attached to it, whether among the Fathers or the Dognaticians, is in general vindicated. What it affirms is that the Scriptures owe their origin to an activity of God the Holy Ghost and are in the highest and truest sense His creation. It is on this foundation of Divine origin that all the high attributes of Scripture are built.



The other scripture that confirms the Bible is God's Word as noted above is II Peter 1:20-21.  Let's look at these two verses.

1)no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation, or ou pas propheteia graphe ginomai idios epilusis.  Ginomai is written in a Present Passive Deponent Indicative Tense.  It does not have it's origin in a private interpretation.

2)as they were moved.  This is the Greek word phero.  In this passage it is used as in the Present Passive Particple tense.  The voice of passive clearly indicates that the authors are passive.  It is the Holy Ghost doing the moving.  The authors are receiving.

3)Neither II Timothy or I Peter deal with or mention the Divine/Human Relation of Scripture.  Both scriptures emphasis is on the fact that God has spoken.

Quote
Fourth:  When Peter writes “God Inspired” how to you take the leap to say it means “God dictated”?  Why can’t it mean what it says? They were inspired by God to write.


I think that I have shown above that your definition of inspired does not coincide with the Biblical text, nor does it coincide with what the Early church fathers wrote as well.  Since they were trained by the apostles themselves, than their writings should dictate other beliefs in regard to scripture, but they don't.  They all coincide with the interpretations given above.

Quote
Fifth:  Who was right about divorce, Moses or Jesus?


Both.  I don't want to waste a lot of space, so I will just point you to one article about this (http://www.westpalmbeachchurchofchrist.com/articles/mark/mark_10.html)  It is easier than me writing out my explanation.  Much has been written about this.  Although I have never really heard much contention about this passage.  It has never been one in which I heard someone using to argue against scripture being the Word of God.

Quote
The Council of Trent made the Roman Catholic canon official in 1546. Interestingly, this vote was far from unanimous. To these Christian leaders, the canon was not obvious.


I won't go into each of the people you mention, but I wouldn't include the Council of Trent as speaking for the Church.  You call your blog the WhoreChurch and yet you use the Councils of the Roman Catholic church as Mind of the Christ's Church?  I am confused by your disparity.  Were their people who argued against certain books?  Yes for sure, even today there are.  The fact that you said it was settled in the 17th century because no one else argued is false.  There are still those today who argue against certain passages and even certain books.  People argue against certain passages within Mark and certain books like Esther.  To use your reasoning than even your statement of the 17th century is false by your own admission.

The Old Testament in my mind and many other scholars is not even questionable.  All of the books in the Old Testament were in the Septuagint and the Masoretic Texts that were the texts that Jesus quoted from.  If the Septuagint was not God's Word than Christ would have stated it, instead he quoted from it.  You will probably try to go down the road that the Septuagint had Aprochryphal books in it.  That is true, but they were never regarded as scripture, and the Orthodox Jews never considered them scripture, they were only historical writings in much the same way our current translations have commentaries and such added to them.

My link above clearly shows how the Church Fathers analyticaly followed the Holy Spirit in seeking out the scripture.  The fact that fringe groups have insisted on various things doesn't deviate from what is known and what even Heddle posted.

Quote
unless you accept Esther, Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation as divinely inspired then your faith is not Biblical”—which is what I believe you said to me.


I never said that to you, I said that I didn't believe your statements were supported by scripture.  Which I don't believe you have shown any.  Just ancedotal analysis of some English words and how you might use them.

Quote
But even if the canon was settled by 300 CE, it still negates the argument that one must believe these particular books were divinely dictated in order to have Christian faith.


If you do not believe they were divinely dictated than what is correct in scripture and what are the mistakes.  If we must suffer an interpretation of man than we are doomed.  We must believe scripture is the divine Word of God because the Bible teaches us it is the Word of God.  Which scripture teaches otherwise?

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,10:24   

Quote (ScaryFacts @ Jan. 04 2007,09:30)
Diploma mill, honorary doctorates do not create expertise.  Doctorates in philosophy or theology do not qualify one to speak as an expert in biology.  Yet, because many of the "leaders" in the creationist movement have a Dr. before their name and claim to be Christians, the church, in general, treats them as well meaning, qualified experts.

And also when it comes to scientists, you get people like me with doctorates in biochemistry, who quite happily admit they are not experts in evolution.  :D

Interesting, isn't it?

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
dgszweda



Posts: 34
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,10:32   

Quote (ScaryFacts @ Jan. 03 2007,19:38)
But I do know I am not the only one here with Christian faith and a thread might allow us to honestly see how to reconcile some of our faith with observed nature.  Those who don't want to hear our Christian blatherings can avoid the thread.  Those who have an axe to grind get a place to vent.

This actually sounds like a good idea.  I would truly be willing to listen intently to what is discussed.  Even though I am derided here, I do learn from everything that is said.  I would find one that is rooted in faith to be even more pertinent.  The fact is that we all have faith in certain areas of our life, not just religious faith, and we hold to that faith sometimes when the fact say differently.  I know some on here don't hold to a faith, but science doesn't explain everything.  Many of us have hold to a faith in varying degrees.  Some of us have faith and try to mold science around that faith and let faith be the leading element in our lives.  Others have faith and try to mold their faith around what they see and let their observations and even science be the leading element in their lives.

  
dgszweda



Posts: 34
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,10:50   

Quote (ScaryFacts @ Jan. 04 2007,09:30)

Quote
Diploma mill, honorary doctorates do not create expertise.  Doctorates in philosophy or theology do not qualify one to speak as an expert in biology.  Yet, because many of the "leaders" in the creationist movement have a Dr. before their name and claim to be Christians, the church, in general, treats them as well meaning, qualified experts.


I agree.  I would even go so far as to say just because you have a doctorate in biology doesn't make you an expert in biology.  I am not ripping apart doctorates, but just because you take two more years of classes and write a thesis, I am not sure how that imparts a great sense of knowledge on you.  It is definitely hard work and you for sure learn a lot.  But how is that a whole lot different than someone with a Bachelors degree working with a team of PhD's at a research facility for 6 years and co-authoring 6 peer reviewed articles?  A great deal of my friends have PhD's so I am in no way downplaying the degree, just how high we actually exalt it.

Quote
Yet you were perfectly willing to do that in my case.


Show me where I made a personal judgement against you?  Maybe I stated it wrong.  I was questioning your statement as not being Biblical.  I believe I have shown a case on why it was not Biblical.  You may disagree with it, but I am not making a judgement to you as a person only to your statement.

You guys criticize me for not wanting to call someone a liar that I have never met or have never even read a statement from them.  How is that fair.  I even said I wouldn't argue if you called them liars.  Not telling the truth is not necessarily lying.  My son may run downstairs utterly terrified that a monster is in his closet.  Is he telling the truth?  No.  Is he lying?  No.  He may believe in all his heart that there is a monster in his closet.  In his mind it is as real as the sky is blue and the grass is green.  He is not deceiving me, but that doesn't mean it is truthful.  Monster is not in his closet so we know it is not true.  On the other hand if my son came to me and said the next door neighbor, Johnny, lied to him, do I rush next door and start yelling at the parent or the kid?  I can't make the judgement so I will reserve the reaction.  We do this everyday in our lives but somehow we need to treat someone else differently?  I would hate to see how some of you may react in the situation above.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,11:37   

faith
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY  b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>



Equivocation is when two differing meanings of the same word are evoked in ambiguously-structured sentences or phrases. A river bank is not the same as a financial institution, and faith in religion is, as a rule, not the same thing as "faith" in gravity or science or affairs OUTSIDE of religion.

I often hear religious people say things like "well, science is based on faith, too" as if attempting to equate the two. This is deceptive at best because it equivocates between specific MEANINGS of the word "faith."

Using equivocation in this way, the speaker hopes to imply in effect that "science and religion are equivalent in this regard" so my word as a religious practitioner carries equal weight or value since we both rely on faith.

Faith in religion is belief without evidence, though, or so it has been said -- even by Jesus. Science is faith based on evidence...and this difference makes ALL the difference in exposing the equivocation at the heart of such attempts to equate them.

"Faith" that gravity will cause a smaller less massive object to be drawn towards a larger heavier object in space-time...is simply NOT the same thing as religious faith. Period. One is based on evidence, the other is not, and there are a host of other important differences, too.

"The evidence that makes me believe in evolution is not only overwhelmingly strong; it is freely available to anyone who takes the trouble to read up on it. Anyone can study the same evidence that I have and presumably come to the same conclusion. But if you have a belief that is based solely on faith, I can't examine your reasons. You can retreat behind the private wall of faith where I can't reach you. " .......(R. Dawkins..oh, and don't say I'm quoting him as some prophet...I'm just using this because it is something he wrote about and it was easy to find)

And "There is a very, very important difference between feeling strongly, even passionately, about something because we have thought about and examined the evidence for it on the one hand, and feeling strongly about something because it has been internally revealed to us, or internally revealed to somebody else in history and subsequently hallowed by tradition.
There's all the difference in the world between a belief that one is prepared to defend by quoting evidence and logic and a belief that is supported by nothing more than tradition, authority, or revelation. "

You came to this forum, dgszweda, claiming a lot of things about which it turned out you were simply wrong. You made overarching claims such as "Evolution is not a fact, it is just a theory that is in fact just a host of theories" that you say has no evidence to support it in regard to speciation. Why not address those citations you were given , and DEFINE "speciation" while you're at it?

Also, you might want to know that in biology, the field in which biological evolution applies..."evolution"  can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next." - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974 and " Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual.. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. "- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Malum Regnat



Posts: 98
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,12:02   

Quote
The fact that there is still debate doesn't mean that it isn't settled for the Church.


The fact that there is still debate (withen the 'church';) doesn't mean that it isn't settled for the Church.

I assume that when you refer to the 'Church' you are refering to your own particular veriant of Christianity and not to the worldwide 'church' of all Christian believers.  If not then you're statement is obvious nonsense since the worldwide 'church' of all Christian believers has yet to settle on just one cannon of scripture.

Or perhaps what you really mean is that anyone who disagrees with your own particular veriant of Christianity is not a real Christian?

--------------
This universe as explained by the 'other' Hawkins

Blah Hi-tech blah blah blah blah ... DESIGNED.
Blah Hi-tech blah blah blah blah ... NOT DESIGNED.

;-}>

  
ScaryFacts



Posts: 337
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,12:13   

dgszweda

Before I reply to your posts, please give me your defintion of inerrant.  Specifically:

* How you view the autographs
* What MSS you believe are inerrant (if any) or authoritative (in not inerrant)

It will be either late tonight before I can get to this or in the morning.  Sorry for the delay.

Scary

   
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,13:06   

Quote
Since I am younger and I still study both Greek and Hebrew, maybe it is more fresh in my memory.
I'm going to have to call bullsh!t here.  
Quote
...The other scripture that confirms the Bible is God's Word as noted above is II Peter 1:20-21.  Let's look at these two verses.

1)no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation, or ou pas propheteia graphe ginomai idios epilusis.  Ginomai is written in a Present Passive Deponent Indicative Tense.  It does not have it's origin in a private interpretation.
First of all, the passage is "touto prwton ginwskontes hoti pasa prophëteia graphës idias epilysews ou ginetai". (Where "w" = omega, "ë" = eta, and the other transliteration is straightforward). Whom do you think you're kidding when you just list the dictionary entries for the words in question? Second, with respect to "ginomai", the word is used twice: "ginwskontes" and "ginetai". Assuming you're talking about the latter, since that requires the fewer corrections, the tense is Present, the mood is Indicative, and the verb itself is deponent, which means that there is no "passive", but that the passive form is the only one used, but is actually active in meaning.
Pedantic nitpicking? Perhaps. But he who liveth by the snowjob, also perisheth by the snowjob, if I may paraphrase the Big Guy.

On another note:  
Quote
...just because you have a doctorate in biology doesn't make you an expert in biology.  I am not ripping apart doctorates, but just because you take two more years of classes and write a thesis, I am not sure how that imparts a great sense of knowledge on you.  It is definitely hard work and you for sure learn a lot.  But how is that a whole lot different than someone with a Bachelors degree working with a team of PhD's at a research facility for 6 years and co-authoring 6 peer reviewed articles?
Well, there's the little matter of getting accepted into a doctoral program in the first place, the qualifying exam (the dreaded "orals"), the definition of a research problem (and defense thereof), devising a research plan by which to address said problem (and, again, defense thereof), the actual performance of said research, complete with ability to roll with the punches (punches like things not often, let alone always, working as well in practice as on paper, or getting "scooped" by the intense competition), the continuous critical reading in your field, so your hypothesis isn't embarrassingly obsolete by the time you present your conclusions, the fact that "writing" a thesis involves a lot more than just assembling words or telling a story, and last, maybe indeed least, but hardly negligibly, the requirement that you defend your dissertation before a panel of knowledgeable academics. "Co-authoring"? Let's get real here. Does that mean "contributing to devising the experimental approach, analysis of the data, research of the relevant literature, and writing up the results and discussion, all more or less equally with the primary authors", or does that mean "being acknowledged for significant contributions to the execution of the experiments"?  
Quote
A great deal of my friends have PhD's so I am in no way downplaying the degree,
Yes, you are. But perhaps we should forgive you, for you know not that you do.  
Quote
just how high we actually exalt it.
There's an important difference between "exalting" and "having a clue what you're talking about".

Now why, the peanut gallery might be asking itself, is Russell bothering with this guy, given his much trumpeted New Year's Resolution of not wasting time on creationists, of which his new sig should continually remind him?

Excellent question, peanut gallery. Let me just point out that I have succeeded for 4 days in resisting the temptation to argue any science with them, and that pretty much fulfills the spirit (or "pneuma", as we pretentious pedants like to say) if not the letter of the resolution.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,13:15   

Quote (Russell @ Jan. 04 2007,14:06)
Now why, the peanut gallery might be asking itself, is Russell bothering with this guy, given his much trumpeted New Year's Resolution of not wasting time on creationists, of which his new sig should continually remind him?

Excellent question, peanut gallery. Let me just point out that I have succeeded for 4 days in resisting the temptation to argue any science with them, and that pretty much fulfills the spirit (or "pneuma", as we pretentious pedants like to say) if not the letter of the resolution.

Addict.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,13:35   

Quote
Addict.
Busted.
But look... no contributions to the afdave trainwreck. Think of dgszweda as methadone.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
dgszweda



Posts: 34
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,14:13   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 04 2007,11:37)

Quote
Faith in religion is belief without evidence, though, or so it has been said -- even by Jesus. Science is faith based on evidence...and this difference makes ALL the difference in exposing the equivocation at the heart of such attempts to equate them.


The Bible states that "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."  I would say that science is belief based on evidence, not faith.  Faith is based on evidence, just a different type of evidence.  All of you believe in evolution not because of what you have seen or known as fact but on the belief of the evidence that has been presented to you.

I say it is not fact, because as most of you have said, science is constantly being evaluated, tested and new hypothesis are generated in order to better develop new statements to better describe what is seen.  At the time of Newton, newtonian physics accurately described gravity as it was seen by man at that time.  As time progressed and new instruments were developed, man further explored the world and the cosmos around him, his hypothesis had to change.  No longer did Newtonian physics explain the world that he saw.  The theory of general relativity was developed and that theory was tested on what was seen, and it better explained things like gravity.  Was Newtonian physics wrong.  Not necessarily.  I can use the newtonian model of gravity to accurately describe the speed that an apple will attain before it hits the earth.  But did it describe the impacts of a black hole?  No way!  It wasn't that Newton was wrong it was that his mind saw a very limited view of the world around him.  He saw everything that everyone in the world saw before him.  That wasn't the problem.  He made a great leap in explaining it.  That wasn't the problem.  His problem was an utter and complete lack of understanding for the universe.  At this point in time, scientist have made leaps and bounds in their explanation of certain events and what they see around them.  The problem is that they are limited only by what they see and the model that they can place it into.  In most ways we are no closer to explaining the beginning of the world or the universe than Newton was.  Sure we are farther along, but there is still so much more than we will ever understand in our lifetime.

Each and everyone of you have never tested every theory, observed every fossil, read every article that has ever been written on evolution.  Most of you haven't read much, you just like to criticize others :).  You base your belief in evolution on the faith of science and specifically on the faith of the scientists that have developed the scientific models.  You believe evolution, because you believe in the scientists and the scientific theory that backs the science.  You believe in these scientists because they have knowledge and expertise in their fields.  They have looked at these bones, and written articles, and developed theories.  And from their understanding of what they have seen and the conclusion of  information from other scientists they have developed theories.  You hold onto those theories because of the people backing those theories.  Yes some of you understand those theories, maybe a few of you have touch some bones, seen or worked on some archeological finds, maybe even one or two of you have written a peer reviewed scientific argument, but for the vaste number of you your belief is based on the faith you have in the scientists that make up the scientific community.  Sometimes these scientists have flawed (Piltdown Man), and sometimes they have succeeded.  But your faith is that ultimately science will paint the correct picture.  It will eventually self authenticate itself through time and continued scientific challenges.  The fact is that the view of scientist and science is limited by it's ability to understand and explain.

I have chosen to believe in a living Book and a living God.  A God who has existed before time and understands all things.  I have not seen God physically, in much the same way that any of you have seen physically all of science.  I have seen God in my life, and I have seen Him work in my life.  I cannot abandon my belief in a God who has never abandoned me.  So I will stand by my belief in a literal God and a literal Bible.  I will stand by my belief in a 6 literal 24 hour day creation.  I will stand by my belief that the Bible is the only Truth by which all truth should be measured.  Just like you stand by your belief based on the authority of science, a science that is fallable and created by scientists that are mortal, I will stand by my belief based on a God that makes no mistakes and is omnipotent and omniscient.  My faith is in that which transcends the limitations of science.

You are correct there is a difference between science and faith in the Bible.  Science provide an explanation of what you see around you and observe, the Bible provides an answer to what I see around me and observe.  Science will still be searching for an answer.  Science doesn't provide an ultimate answer, it is always searching.  I have my answer and ultimately my peace and I am no longer searching.

John 14:6 - "I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

John 8:31-32 -  "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

I must leave this thread, as the time it consumes from my day is too great.  I have learned much from each of these posts.  I thank those who were sincere in providing information and responses to my posts.  I would love to continue conversing, but alas my time is limited.  I may try to post again in the future.

Til we meet again.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,14:24   

Quote
"All of you believe in evolution not because of what you have seen or known as fact but on the belief of the evidence that has been presented to you...You hold onto those theories because of the people backing those theories. "


Why is it that you and AFDave both presume to tell others what they have and have not done? WITHOUT KNOWING THE PERSON?

Yes, I advise you do leave this thread, dgszweda. You just did what AFDave did to piss me off, you insulted me then LIED utterly about ME right now. **I** am one of the people you are talking about in your ALL-INCLUSIVE generalizations above.

Here's a few more of your claims that I would call BULLSHIT on as well ---THESE ARE ALL QUOTES FROM YOU, SOME LIES, SOME JUST WRONG, SOME JUST UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS:  

YOU don't know ANYTHING about me other than what you have read here..you have no clue about OTHERS here, either, but BOY YOU PRETEND TO KNOW.    
Quote
In total there are only about 1,400 hominid skulls that have been found, of which about 700 come from Magaliesberg region of Africa. Not a very good sampling for 6-7 million years of evolution.

Homo Erectus fits into the cranial capacity of some European groups.

Homo Erectus was basically only classified to be an earlier hominid because of it's cranial capacity

Most of all of the early and mid hominids and many of the late hominids are based on just a few bones. Forget full skeletons

Does sexual enjoyment among humans relate to a selective advantage? Animals do not share this enjoyment, yet produce just as many if not more young than humans.

Evolution must follow a single ordered path. If evolution was random you would still see evidences of it occuring today on a much grander scale. Why do we not see one example of an Australopithecus ramidus. Can't the jump still be made? Why is evolution forward movement if it is only random based. Why are all hominids based on a single lineage?

There is no concerted explanation amongst evolutionists on why Ardipithecus ramidus went extinct never more to come about except for the idea that the next jump was made which in essence made ramidus obsolete. Intelligence must even be ascribed to evolution if one is to hold fully to that belief.

How is good behavior a selective advantage unless it relies on some intelligence to guide the behavior.
why don't we see any evolutionary jumps between species right now?

One thing that frusturates me is that we have evolution based textbooks showing dinosaurs with feathers, or scales and we have movies showing how certain dinosaurs hunted in packs. Where is this stuff coming from. It is guesses based on bones that are found.

There are these randomness calculations in Quantum Mechanics, I agree. But the randomness is more of because of our inability to calculate or understand the variables than it is of true randomness.

You asked specifically what parts of the Theory of Evolution could not be tested. I showed one hypothesis that could not be tested. That is what the great majority of the ToE covers. Hypothesis. They cannot determine whether the creature existed for a certain time period, but they will draw a hypothesis and from the hypothesis draw other hypothesis.

I use to eat lunch at a research institute with a bunch of evolutionary archeologists. I don't remember them agreeing on a whole lot

This idea that many of you have that evolution is such a developed "science", I find funny. It is much more fragmented than many would believe. p.149

I find the idea of evolution to require just as much faith to believe in as creationism.  AFDave thread, p. 147

I am unable to understand how randomness allows me to determine that an eclipse will occur on a certain date 10,000 years from now and which set of cities will be impacted by the eclipse. How can randomness create gravity,time, heat, math.... Everything around us is based on order. And the order is intricately weaved throughout the entire universe.

My contention as well as YEC, is that God created the stars with their light shining on the earth already.

I hold to a young earth because of my faith, and solely my faith. The problem is that neither are fully scientifically testable. True science requires you to observe the activities, recreate them and develop hypothesis or laws based on testable and observable means. The truth is that many of the evolutionary theories are not testable and are built on top of other theories

I cannot hold the Bible as partial truth or some truth sprinkled through fiction. The Bible is either truth or it is blasphemy. I must hold to one or the other. I believe that an omnipotent God miraculously created the universe with apparent age


My personal opinion is that you couldn't back your claims and realized you were in over your head...and unlike AFDave who is even more stupid --you were just bright enough to run like he11. Good riddance, too, slanderer and hypocrite.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,14:56   

Too late now, but one thing that gets me is that the creo's love to point out gaps in our understanding in science, however, there is no way they can support the literalist's view of the world. Except for a brief quote from AIG on fossil sorting which is so bad it is not even wrong, they have no explanation for the fossil record and the rock strata in general. AFDave would babble on about everything else but refused to address fossil sorting and I am sure that dgszweda is the same.

Isn't there a saying about taking out the log in your eye before the splinter in your brother's eye.

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,14:56   

Quote
Good riddance

Given that last post of his especially, I'm inclined to agree.

dgzweda is welcome to believe what he does about himself and his god, but if he's not inclined to learn anything about us, and science, and instead just spout crap about both, well... deadman said it best.

  
dgszweda



Posts: 34
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,14:57   

Quote (Russell @ Jan. 04 2007,13:06)

Quote
I'm going to have to call bullsh!t here.


I am 35, went to Bob Jones University which by default gives me a minor in Bible with the electives that I chose (Greek 1 and 2 and Hebrews 1) and I use an interlinear Bible in church.  So I am younger, have a college education in Bible and use Greek at home during my Bible study on a daily basis.  Call it whatever you want, I stand by my statement.  Someone already did research and posted the college I went to on this thread.  I am not the best greek scholar but I am not ignorant on it.

Quote
Second, with respect to "ginomai", the word is used twice: "ginwskontes" and "ginetai"
 

I used the Greek Root Form from Stephen's Textus Receptus.  The root is ginomai and it carries a Strong's concordance of 1096.  I am assuming that you are using ginwskontes for Knowing which is Strong's Concordance Number 1097.  You missed the voice for ginomai.  The voice is passive.  I am not sure where you received your verbs from.  I would suggest studying it a little more and looking it up in a Greek Lexicon with Strong's reference numbers.  That might help you some.

Thanks and take it easy.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,15:07   

What deadman said, dgszweda.  This is the part that really made my blood boil:
Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 04 2007,14:13)
Most of you haven't read much, you just like to criticize others :).

:) indeed, you hypocrite.

This from someone who has demonstrated his abysmal lack of knowledge of evolution in every post in which he's tried to educate us all on the subject.  Not to mention a pretty shaky knowledge of physics, in which you claim to be an expert.

Take the pig you rode in on and go back to the swamp.  Goodbye.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,15:45   

dgszveda:

Russel is right about ginetai. the other verb is gignwskw (know), different altogether; but ginomai means "become".

The verb Ginomai has no active voice, and the passive one is the only one used. The meaning is the same as in become; it does not necessarily imply an external cause.



Not sure what this is about, just thought I'd tell you.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,16:00   

I think Russell's post set him off. dgszweda used Strong's and "translated" foolishly at BEST. Again, evidence of his slipshod and mediocre approach towards things.

Kinda like the rest of the crap he spewed out that I had listed above. Ah, well, it's not like he was any more of a challenge than AFDave, his doppelganger.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,16:05   

dgs:
From someone who is not embarrassed to produce this:
Quote
Most of you haven't read much, you just like to criticize others .
, I'm not expecting much. But
Quote
You missed the voice for ginomai.  The voice is passive.  I am not sure where you received your verbs from.  I would suggest studying it a little more and looking it up in a Greek Lexicon with Strong's reference numbers.  That might help you some.
It's the smugness, see. That's the really off-putting thing about afdave, too. Not only off-putting, but very unChristian, I would think. Not the sort of thing Jesus would be proud of.

mea culpa on ginwskontes. I am a little rusty. The scriptural passage used ginwskontes (no second gamma) which threw me. As would Faid, I would expect "knowing" to be "gignwskontes". But on ginetai - I think we can trust Faid. He is, you know, Greek. And you do know what "deponent" means, don't you? I mean, you did use the word, albeit incorrectly, in your little Greek lesson, above.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
mitschlag



Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,16:11   

What drives these people to make such asses of themselves?

Edit: I mean "people like dgszweda"

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

  
Malum Regnat



Posts: 98
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,16:55   

Quote
I have not seen God physically, in much the same way that any of you have seen physically all of science.


Anyone who cares to look will see a lot more 'science' than you ever will 'god'.  IIRC in the New Testament we are advised to gudge things according to their 'fruits' the 'fruits' of science are very convencing to anyone who has not been rendered blind by their fundamentalist beliefs.

--------------
This universe as explained by the 'other' Hawkins

Blah Hi-tech blah blah blah blah ... DESIGNED.
Blah Hi-tech blah blah blah blah ... NOT DESIGNED.

;-}>

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,16:58   

That's what I get for caving and trying to be more polite.

Dagwood, indeed!  Not hardly--this guy was all mayo and no meat, all sizzle and no steak, all hot air and no "spirit."

Bleh.

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,17:09   

I just want to ask Mr. BJU physicist one question.

Ahem.....

Looking at an Rb-Sr Isochron plot of meteorites....


Scanned from Dalrymples Age of the Earth. 1991

At what point was the radioactive decay "alterred" by Gawd to give apparrent rather than actual age?

Here's a simpler graph from the RATE I book I beleive.


Simple question for someone with such solid faith.

Mike PSS

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,17:17   

Quote (Mike PSS @ Jan. 04 2007,15:09)
I just want to ask Mr. BJU physicist one question.

Ahem.....

Looking at an Rb-Sr Isochron plot of meteorites....


Scanned from Dalrymples Age of the Earth. 1991

At what point was the radioactive decay "alterred" by Gawd to give apparrent rather than actual age?

Here's a simpler graph from the RATE I book I beleive.


Simple question for someone with such solid faith.

Mike PSS

You liar and fraud. You took out the red dots!

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,17:31   

Quote (Mike PSS @ Jan. 04 2007,17:09)
I just want to ask Mr. BJU physicist one question.

Ahem.....

Looking at an Rb-Sr Isochron plot of meteorites....



At what point was the radioactive decay "alterred" by Gawd to give apparrent rather than actual age?
Mike PSS

He's a lastthursdayist.  God created the meteorites with these isotopic ratios.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,18:19   

Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 04 2007,18:17)
You liar and fraud. You took out the red dots!

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I'm just trying to see if Dave Szweda has the same fantasy leanings as Mr. Hawkins.

From the BJU undergrad physics overview...
Quote
Physics-College of Arts & Science >> Division of Natural Science
The Physics major introduces you to a world of experimental, observational, and theoretical studies of the physical nature of God's universe. Courses in general physics, optics, thermodynamics, electrodynamics, theoretical mechanics, astronomy, modern physics and quantum mechanics provide the student with a basic understanding of the nature of the physical universe. A Christian worldview is stressed.

http://www.bju.edu/academics/cas/undergrad/divns/physics.html

Hmmmmm...  I wonder if we can determine which physics information that Dave Szweda learned has a "Christian World View" basis and which information has a "experimentally determined world view"?

Let's see what he says (if anything) about these meteorites.

Also, the ciriculum has a course on "Modern Physics" which is...
Quote
This course investigates the elementary structure of matter, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, the nature of radioactivity, and the issues involved in estimating the age of the earth.


I "wonder" why that course only includes those specific topics?

I "wonder"?

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,18:29   

Ahhhh...  The interesting quotes from the BJU site are limitless.

Quote
The Christian Teaching of Science
The Christian teaching of science requires not only a good command of basic subject matter, but also the spiritual perception to discern truth from error in a great variety of contexts. As a prerequisite for this, the Christian teacher of science must be thoroughly grounded in the Word of God. Moreover, he must have firmly implanted in his mind a biblical framework of truth which serves as the touchstone for his decision making. True science will fit that framework; anything that fails to fit the biblical framework must be rejected as erroneous. The present discussion demonstrates the need for a distinctively Christian philosophy of science teaching and surveys the differences between Christian and secular science education.

http://www.bju.edu/academics/cas/undergrad/divns/teaching/
Y-i-i-i-i-i-i-k-e-s!!!!!

Orwell comes to mind with that type of indoctrination.

Read and comment for yourself.  Don't just take my word for it.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,19:04   

Bob Jones University.

I'm not sure our international readers know what we're talking about, so a little background might be in order.

It's an institution established by some fundamentalist preacher named, obviously, Bob Jones. That tells you most of what you need to know right there. Most of the rest you can probably get from Mike PSS's links.

But you may not remember that this was one of the first stops on George W. Bush's 2000 presidential campaign. I believe he gave the commencement address there. It was all the negative attention that that event attracted that finally shamed BJU into relaxing its prohibition of interracial dating!. That's right. Interracial dating was a violation of school rules, through the year 2000. (C.E., that is; or A.D. if you prefer).

I knew BJU was not at the cutting edge of science. Or social policy. It's news to me they can't even teach Greek to their bible scholars.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,19:19   

Russell points out:
Quote
But you may not remember that this was one of the first stops on George W. Bush's 2000 presidential campaign. I believe he gave the commencement address there. It was all the negative attention that that event attracted that finally shamed BJU into relaxing its prohibition of interracial dating!. That's right. Interracial dating was a violation of school rules, through the year 2000. (C.E., that is; or A.D. if you prefer).


So there is a god?



Quote
I knew BJU was not at the cutting edge of science. Or social policy. It's news to me they can't even teach Greek to their bible scholars.


Hmmmmmm...as soon as I saw dgszweda claim he was a 'nuclear physicist' while claiming to be a YEC I smelled a rat now it becomes clear ....he learned 'christian physics'.

OK dgszweda if the fastest thing in the known universe is light how far away is christ on his journey to god?

The answer in miles or kilometers please.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,19:24   

Not to be harsh but,

"I have chosen to believe in a living Book and a living God.  A God who has existed before time and understands all things.  I have not seen God physically, in much the same way that any of you have seen physically all of science.  I have seen God in my life, and I have seen Him work in my life.  I cannot abandon my belief in a God who has never abandoned me.  So I will stand by my belief in a literal God and a literal Bible.  I will stand by my belief in a 6 literal 24 hour day creation.  I will stand by my belief that the Bible is the only Truth by which all truth should be measured.  Just like you stand by your belief based on the authority of science, a science that is fallable and created by scientists that are mortal, I will stand by my belief based on a God that makes no mistakes and is omnipotent and omniscient.  My faith is in that which transcends the limitations of science."

What a full of sh!t statement.  While you may believe you have been touched or can attest to God in your life, the fact remains you have absolutely no proof other than your emotional desire to believe God has touched your life.

Your "witness" is nothing more than an appeal to an emotion.

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
ScaryFacts



Posts: 337
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,20:23   

Quote (Steverino @ Jan. 04 2007,20:24)
What a full of sh!t statement.  While you may believe you have been touched or can attest to God in your life, the fact remains you have absolutely no proof other than your emotional desire to believe God has touched your life.

Your "witness" is nothing more than an appeal to an emotion.

One of the things I believe hurts the cause of Christianity are people who come to "save the lost" and take no time to build relationships or wait for anyone to ask them for reasons for their faith.

They barge in, preach an unkind, prideful message and then leave.  Somehow it scores them salvation points.

I'm thankful almost everyone on this board understands that is an aberration rather than dogma.

   
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,20:46   

And, meanwhile, over on the afdavey thread, we're down to ~24 comments remaining, which apparently everybody is holding off consuming, hoping davey will be unable to resist using to overtop himself with still more effusive stupidities...

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,21:49   

OK, Mr DG-whatever.  I want to see just how nutty you really are . . . .

Do you think supernatural witches and witchcraft exist?

Do you think people are possessedby devils or demons?

Do you think women should be allowed to speak in church?


Think carefully before you answer . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
ScaryFacts



Posts: 337
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,22:27   

Quote (Russell @ Jan. 04 2007,17:05)
dgs:
From someone who is not embarrassed to produce this:  
Quote
Most of you haven't read much, you just like to criticize others .
, I'm not expecting much. But  
Quote
You missed the voice for ginomai.  The voice is passive.  I am not sure where you received your verbs from.  I would suggest studying it a little more and looking it up in a Greek Lexicon with Strong's reference numbers.  That might help you some.
It's the smugness, see. That's the really off-putting thing about afdave, too. Not only off-putting, but very unChristian, I would think. Not the sort of thing Jesus would be proud of.

mea culpa on ginwskontes. I am a little rusty. The scriptural passage used ginwskontes (no second gamma) which threw me. As would Faid, I would expect "knowing" to be "gignwskontes". But on ginetai - I think we can trust Faid. He is, you know, Greek. And you do know what "deponent" means, don't you? I mean, you did use the word, albeit incorrectly, in your little Greek lesson, above.

A tip of the hat to you, Russell and Faid for the Greek.  Don't tell our young friend, but my Greek is more than rusty.

   
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2007,17:23   

Quote (ScaryFacts @ Jan. 04 2007,21:23)
Quote (Steverino @ Jan. 04 2007,20:24)
What a full of sh!t statement.  While you may believe you have been touched or can attest to God in your life, the fact remains you have absolutely no proof other than your emotional desire to believe God has touched your life.

Your "witness" is nothing more than an appeal to an emotion.

One of the things I believe hurts the cause of Christianity are people who come to "save the lost" and take no time to build relationships or wait for anyone to ask them for reasons for their faith.

They barge in, preach an unkind, prideful message and then leave.  Somehow it scores them salvation points.

I'm thankful almost everyone on this board understands that is an aberration rather than dogma.

What I find disturbing in all this is the institutionalized brainwashing that occurs out in the open.

It's disturbing to think that BJU could be accreddited to issue degrees in science in fields like physics, astronomy, biology, etc. when there is a dogmatic axe to grind in what is taught in those courses.

I work in industry (in a privately held corporation) and my measure of the people working around me is HOW they practice the skills they are taught in school or on the job.  If someone like Mr. Szweda appears before me with a BJU accredited degree then my initial thoughts are that this person has certain boundry limits to his work practices because not only the teachings/cirriculum are limited in scope but the perceived world view are a limiting factor too.  Depending on the work we're doing these boundry limits may never be tested, but they are there all the same.

In this case, WHO do these perceived limits affect more?
Me?  In my job?
Or Mr. Szweda.  In his pursuit of professional accomplishment in his field.

I don't hold it against Mr. Szweda for his education choices nearly as much as I hold it against BJU for the twisted way in which they handle education in the first place.

Mike PSS

[/rant]

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2007,20:19   

While I certainly pity some of the folks who get run through the BJU grinders, my impression of Mr. Dagwood is that he was very much a willing victim...

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2007,21:35   

Quote (Steviepinhead @ Jan. 05 2007,21:19)
While I certainly pity some of the folks who get run through the BJU grinders, my impression of Mr. Dagwood is that he was very much a willing victim...

At what point is a participant in a group following endowed with free will w.r.t. "the message".  I will agree with your point if Mr. Szweda declares that he chose BJU over a state-supported university system that offerred scholerships/grants.

My impression of the BJU system is only a logical follow-up to those participants lives at the "university" level.  At the BJU level I suspect that only willing victims students that have already fully accepted the caveats of attendence (meaning the BJU disclaimers about teaching in the Christian perspective) will attend this institution.  The "message" is only a continuance of a pre-existing world view brought to the institution already by the students BUT actively reinforced in every facet of the cirriculum.

I don't pity Mr. Szweda.  I only want to point out that in my eyes his choices carry baggage far beyond what he may have considered.

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2007,00:10   

Quote (Mike PSS @ Jan. 05 2007,17:23)
 
What I find disturbing in all this is the institutionalized brainwashing that occurs out in the open.

It's disturbing to think that BJU could be accreddited to issue degrees in science in fields like physics, astronomy, biology, etc. when there is a dogmatic axe to grind in what is taught in those courses...
[/rant]

 
Quote
University Accreditation

Bob Jones University is a member of the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools (TRACS) [PO Box 328, Forest, VA 24551; Telephone: 434.525.9539; info@tracs.org] having been awarded Accredited status as a Category IV institution by the TRACS Accreditation Commission on November 8, 2006; this status is effective for a period of five years.

TRACS is recognized by the United States Department of Education (USDE), the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) and the International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE).

link
I know it is long but this from the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools (the accrediting organization)  
Quote
I. FOUNDATIONAL STANDARDS
This section describes the foundational accreditation standards which address the
nature and purpose of the institution, namely: (A) Biblical Foundations, (B) Purpose and
Objectives, © Philosophy of Education, (D) Ethical Values and Standards. Institutions
should ensure that these statements are consistent and that together they clearly define
their educational identity. Each begins with a general descriptive statement that will
serve as a beginning point in assessment and is followed by the Standards and
Evaluative Criteria Statement.
A. Biblical Foundations
The Biblical Foundations Statement of an institution defines its Christian nature by
affirming those doctrinal matters to be true which identify it as part of the evangelical
tradition in education. It must be written so as to conform to the historic creeds and
statements of Christianity, and thus reflect a careful and precise theological statement,
but also accurately state the current position of the institution as set down by the board
and administration. In addition, it must be written lucidly in order to inform prospective
students, faculty, administrators and board members, as well as external constituencies,
regarding the religious identity of the institution.
This statement provides the context from which the other three foundational statements
must logically follow. It may be referred to by different titles, depending on the
institution's tradition, such as Biblical Foundations Statement, Doctrinal Statement,
Theological Position, Statement of Faith, et al. It may be supplied to the institution by its
sponsoring or affiliated denomination or church, or it may be individually and originally
composed by the institution.
Biblical Foundations Statements may also differ in length and comprehensiveness. It
may be very brief, covering the most essential items and allowing for broad evangelical
application, or it may be lengthy and very specific to a particular tradition. In either case,
it must be comprehensive enough to include all affirmations, which are, in fact, expected
for faculty and others, but also concise enough that it does not include matters, which
are actually overlooked, not enforced, or regarded as nonessential.
Standards and Evaluative Criteria
1.1 The institution must have a Biblical Foundations Statement that includes
affirmations of tenets such as the following:
1.1.1 the Trinitarian nature of God;
1.1.2 the full deity and humanity of Christ;
1.1.3 the inerrancy and historicity of the Bible;
1.1.4 the divine work of non-evolutionary creation including persons in
God's image;
1.1.5 the redemptive work of Jesus through his death and resurrection;
1.1.6 salvation by grace through faith;
1.1.7 the Second Coming of Christ;
1.1.8 the reality of heaven and ####;
1.1.9 the existence of Satan.
1.2 The Biblical Foundations Statement of the institution must be readily
available and included in appropriate official publications.
1.3 Students must be required to read and respect the institution's Biblical
Foundations Statement and be provided with the means to understand it.
1.4 Board members, administrators, and faculty must be in agreement with
the Biblical Foundations Statement of the institution.
1.5 The Board must approve the Biblical Foundations Statement, and official
documents must include a policy regarding its assessment and measures
by which it can be revised.
In the institution's Biblical Foundations Statement, the TRACS Biblical Foundations
Statement should be affirmed as a general model, but it is not expected to be used
verbatim. TRACS offers the following tenets:
The Bible. The unique divine inspiration of all the canonical books of the Old and New
Testaments as originally given, so that they are infallibly and uniquely authoritative and
free from error of any sort in all matters with which they deal, scientific, historical, moral,
and theological.
The Trinity. The triune, Godhead—one eternal, transcendent, omnipotent, personal
God existing in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
The Father. God the Father, the first person of the Divine Trinity, is infinite Spirit—
sovereign, eternal, and unchangeable in all His attributes. He is worthy of honor,
adoration, and obedience.
The Son. The Perfect, sinless humanity and the absolute, full deity of the Lord Jesus
Christ, indissolubly united in one divine-human person since His unique incarnation by
miraculous conception and virgin birth.
Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Godhead who convicts,
regenerates, indwells, seals all believers in Christ, and fills those who yield to Him. The
Holy Spirit gives spiritual gifts to all believers; however, the manifestation of any
particular gift is not required as evidence of salvation.
Historicity. The full historicity and perspicuity of the biblical record of primeval history,
including the literal existence of Adam and Eve as the progenitors of all people, the
literal fall and resultant divine curse on the creation, the worldwide cataclysmic deluge,
and the origin of nations and languages at the tower of Babel.
Redemption. The substitutionary and redemptive sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the sin of
the world, through His literal physical death, burial, and resurrection, followed by His
bodily ascension into heaven.
Salvation. Personal salvation from the eternal penalty of sin provided solely by the
grace of God on the basis of the atoning death and resurrection of Christ, to be received
only through personal faith in His person and work.
Last Things. The future, personal, bodily return of Jesus Christ to the earth to judge
and purge sin, to establish His eternal Kingdom, and to consummate and fulfill His
purposes in the works of creation and redemption with eternal rewards and
punishments.
Biblical Creation. Special creation of the existing space-time universe and all its basic
systems and kinds of organisms in the six literal days of the creation week.
Satan. The existence of a personal, malevolent being called Satan who acts as tempter
and accuser, for whom the place of eternal punishment was prepared, where all who die
outside of Christ shall be confined in conscious torment for eternity.


So... accredited means what? Asphinctersays what?

Wow.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2007,06:10   

wow, indeed.
And that's recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. Are we sure that's entirely constitutional? I'm not a lawyer, but...

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2007,11:13   

Quote (BWE @ Jan. 08 2007,01:10)
 
Quote
I. FOUNDATIONAL STANDARDS
{snip}
In the institution's Biblical Foundations Statement, the TRACS Biblical Foundations
Statement should be affirmed as a general model, but it is not expected to be used
verbatim. TRACS offers the following tenets:


The deeper you dig, the more shit gets on your finger.  I like that TRACS doesn't want the affiliated institutions to quote everything verbatim.  That would be... like... Orwellian or something.  TRACS "seems" to give free will for the institution to interpret the bible.  Uh Huh...

And lest we forget.  If we fail our "tests" at school.
Quote
Satan. The existence of a personal, malevolent being called Satan who acts as tempter
and accuser, for whom the place of eternal punishment was prepared, where all who die
outside of Christ shall be confined in conscious torment for eternity.

So if I shout "Beelzebub!" or "Mephistophiles!" in the assembly hall then that's alright?

I guess ONLY if the institution takes the verbatim tenent description from TRACS.

This is screwed up at a whole different level.

Thanks BWE for the information.

Mike PSS

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2007,12:27   

My amazement is so deep I have to invent a geometry to describe it.

Wiki link seems a good place to start but ... egads. They don't have a marine biology or ecology program I hope.

I think, since NCSE seems to have done well with this type of thing, maybe this is a cause to take up???


Hint???

Jeez. This is as much a blow to science education as a raving loony creationist writing biology texts.

I am seriously disturbed.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2007,18:30   

Quote (Russell @ Jan. 04 2007,19:04)
Bob Jones University.

I'm not sure our international readers know what we're talking about, so a little background might be in order.

It's an institution established by some fundamentalist preacher named, obviously, Bob Jones. That tells you most of what you need to know right there. Most of the rest you can probably get from Mike PSS's links.

But you may not remember that this was one of the first stops on George W. Bush's 2000 presidential campaign. I believe he gave the commencement address there. It was all the negative attention that that event attracted that finally shamed BJU into relaxing its prohibition of interracial dating!. That's right. Interracial dating was a violation of school rules, through the year 2000. (C.E., that is; or A.D. if you prefer).

I knew BJU was not at the cutting edge of science. Or social policy. It's news to me they can't even teach Greek to their bible scholars.

Worse than that --- BJU actually BANNED black students, for decades, until desegregation -- at which point BJU sued the Feds in an effort to be able to CONTINUE banning black students.  They lost.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2007,19:03   

Yeah but we knew they were crazy. What's up with them being accredited? That's a problem. NCSE might should have something to say about that.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2007,11:45   

So, I've been reading up on accreditation and this seems like a strange anomaly. Does anyone know how the process works internally?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2007,16:55   

Quote (BWE @ Jan. 09 2007,12:45)
So, I've been reading up on accreditation and this seems like a strange anomaly. Does anyone know how the process works internally?

I read through some of the Google links related to TRACS and found they were denied status as an accreditation body until father banana-boy and his minions came into office.  TRACS was recognized by the USDE in 1991.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRACS

Apparently, once TRACS is recognized as an accreditation orginization by the USDE and the CHEA it only must pass audit to maintain its status.  Therefore the universities that have been "blessed" by TRACS continue in their accredited status.

But what about professional degrees, or those degrees that require a certain cirriculum fullfillment to a national/international orginization.

Most engineering degrees must have the degree meet criteria based upon the engineering associations (AIChE, ASME, IEEE, etc...).  And I think that most science degrees must have a similar structure for the degree to have meaning.

I started a search on the BJU physics degree program but have come up blank on whether the American Physics Society actually critiques school cirriculums or not.

More searching needed I'm sure.

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2007,17:20   

Quote
Graduate School of Education
Elementary Education

The Master of Arts in Teaching degree program in Elementary Education is designed to provide those with baccalaureate degrees outside the field of education with the professional preparation needed for classroom teaching. This program has been approved for certification in South Carolina. With this degree we are trying to produce thinking teachers knowledgeable in their subject matter area. We want teachers to be able to prepare fresh, original lessons and not be bound to structured teacher's manuals. Your training in this program will equip you to evaluate academic curricula as well as to formulate a strong Christian philosophy of education....

Career Opportunities

You could have as many as three good teaching opportunities to choose from as you look for a place to teach. We receive over three times as many requests for teachers as we have teachers to fill those requests. And, in the future, this ratio is going to increase as we, as a nation, face a national teacher shortage. You will be qualified to help meet this need and train young people both in the states and abroad.

bju link
I feel dirty

 
Quote

Master of Education in Secondary Education
Graduate School of Education

The Master of Education degree in Secondary Education is designed to prepare teachers, department chairmen, and supervisors for a dynamic ministry in the Christian school. Certification or public school preparation is not a goal for this program. With this degree we are trying to produce thinking teachers knowledgeable in their subject matter area. We want teachers to be able to prepare fresh, original lessons and not be bound to structured teacher's manuals. Your training in this program will equip you to evaluate academic curricula as well as to formulate a strong Christian philosophy of education. This program does not lead to certification.

I feel better
 
Quote
The Physics major introduces you to a world of experimental, observational, and theoretical studies of the physical nature of God's universe. Courses in general physics, optics, thermodynamics, electrodynamics, theoretical mechanics, astronomy, modern physics and quantum mechanics provide the student with a basic understanding of the nature of the physical universe. A Christian worldview is stressed. This major provides the necessary background to work in industry as a physicist or physical scientist, while opening the door of opportunity for graduate work in all areas of physics and related disciplines including astrophysics, biophysics, medical physics, atmospheric physics, geophysics, nuclear physics, meteorology, and astronomy...

Modern Physics: This course investigates the elementary structure of matter, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, the nature of radioactivity, and the issues involved in estimating the age of the earth.
My bold. Where would you go?

 
Quote
Career Opportunities

With a major in Broadcast Journalism, you will be prepared to enter a number of fields in mass communications and, as a Christian, make your impact felt...

I feel icky again.

But the money shot comes from the wiki article you posted:
Quote
While TRACS started in 1979, it only applied for federal recognition in 1987.[1] In 1987, recognition was denied, but in 1991, "Education Secretary Lamar Alexander approved TRACS, despite his advisory panel's repeatedly recommending against recognition."[1]

In 1993, Steve Levicoff published a book-length critical discussion of TRACS, When the TRACS Stop Short: An Evaluation and Critique of the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, through the Institute on Religion and Law. According to a Usenet post from Levicoff, the book occasioned a twenty minute telephone call from pastor and Liberty University educator Jerry Falwell, in which Falwell asked Levicoff to withdraw the book. Levicoff refused, and in the post credited the book with "hanging TRACS' reapproval by the U.S. Department of Education up for almost two years. In time, Levicoff said, TRACS "straightened out its act somewhat." [1]

Of the things criticized, TRACS gave accreditation to Jerry Falwell's Liberty University and "created a category for schools which it called associate schools." While this category "was not considered an official accreditation," according to Levicoff, TRACS lent its name to a number of "blatantly fraudulent institutions.".[1]

Another criticism was the 1991 granting of accreditation to the Institute for Creation Research. One of TRACS' board members was Henry M. Morris, founder of ICR. Timothy Sandefur, a fellow at the Claremont Institute, has called Morris's position "highly questionable".[2]

In 1995, a federal review was conducted and resulted in probation which gave TRACS eighteen months to improve or be removed from the list of official accreditors. These improvements were made, including eliminating the 'associate schools' category and changing chairmen.[1]

In 2002, Timothy Sandefur argued that TRACS is "establishing criteria for accreditation which go beyond those standards arguably connected with the educational mission of a school." He cites the 1991 incident when Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools required racial diversity as a criteria for accreditation.[1] Sandefur argues that TRACS goes beyond the educational accreditation mission, when they expect people to believe in some of their biblical foundations. He argues that if MSACS had to drop non-educational criteria TRACS should too.


--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2007,17:30   

Quote
Most of you have probably already heard of this insane California lawsuit—creationists are demanding that legitimate universities accept transfer credits from Christian schools' "science" classes that use substandard textbooks and don't meet the standards of the University of California. You really must take a look inside one of these Bob Jones University-quality textbooks:

   The people who prepared this book have tried consistently to put the Word of God first and science second…If…at any point God's Word is not put first, the authors apologize.

Case closed.

This is something we have to deal with at universities all the time. We get transfer students, too, and we have to evaluate how their prior classwork corresponds to our requirements—after all, if they transfer to this university, and are planning to get a degree from this university, we're not going to give the degree to them because they met the standards of some other random university. Every year we get several students who want transfer credit from a community college or some other institution, and we review their class syllabus, look at the textbook used, ask whether it was a lab course or not, etc., and make decisions about whether it's good enough for UMM.

Looking at those excerpts, there's no way we'd accept a course taught with that book here. If this lawsuit isn't laughed out of court, I know what I'm going to have to do: set up a mail-order university in my basement, offer courses in Advanced Molecular Biology and Molecular Genetics taught out of comic books, and tell people all they have to do is give me $200, I give them 100 credits in basic and upper level biology courses, and then they transfer to UC Berkeley, take a few basket-weaving courses, and graduate with a prestigious Berkeley biology degree. They have to accept any ol' trashy transfer credits, after all.

pharyngula '05
And one beautiful reply:
Quote
#37814: jay denari — 08/28  at  12:42 PM
I agree entirely, but one element you've written is wrong, PZ. It's NOT about college transfer credits... it's about woefully undereducated high school graduates starting college. The textbooks in question are for 10th graders.

Of course, there is a solution: let the kids come to college, but require them to take a real biology class taught by a real biologist to graduate. Given today's scientific climate, requiring Bio 101 for EVERYONE, rather than just a generic science requirement, in all colleges would probably be a good thing.

Link

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2007,17:30   

Quote (BWE @ Jan. 09 2007,18:20)
Quote
Graduate School of Education
Elementary Education

The Master of Arts in Teaching degree program in Elementary Education is designed to provide those with baccalaureate degrees outside the field of education with the professional preparation needed for classroom teaching. This program has been approved for certification in South Carolina. With this degree we are trying to produce thinking teachers knowledgeable in their subject matter area. We want teachers to be able to prepare fresh, original lessons and not be bound to structured teacher's manuals. Your training in this program will equip you to evaluate academic curricula as well as to formulate a strong Christian philosophy of education....

Career Opportunities

You could have as many as three good teaching opportunities to choose from as you look for a place to teach. We receive over three times as many requests for teachers as we have teachers to fill those requests. And, in the future, this ratio is going to increase as we, as a nation, face a national teacher shortage. You will be qualified to help meet this need and train young people both in the states and abroad.

bju link
I feel dirty

 
Quote

Master of Education in Secondary Education
Graduate School of Education

The Master of Education degree in Secondary Education is designed to prepare teachers, department chairmen, and supervisors for a dynamic ministry in the Christian school. Certification or public school preparation is not a goal for this program. With this degree we are trying to produce thinking teachers knowledgeable in their subject matter area. We want teachers to be able to prepare fresh, original lessons and not be bound to structured teacher's manuals. Your training in this program will equip you to evaluate academic curricula as well as to formulate a strong Christian philosophy of education. This program does not lead to certification.

I feel better
 
Quote
The Physics major introduces you to a world of experimental, observational, and theoretical studies of the physical nature of God's universe. Courses in general physics, optics, thermodynamics, electrodynamics, theoretical mechanics, astronomy, modern physics and quantum mechanics provide the student with a basic understanding of the nature of the physical universe. A Christian worldview is stressed. This major provides the necessary background to work in industry as a physicist or physical scientist, while opening the door of opportunity for graduate work in all areas of physics and related disciplines including astrophysics, biophysics, medical physics, atmospheric physics, geophysics, nuclear physics, meteorology, and astronomy...

Modern Physics: This course investigates the elementary structure of matter, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, the nature of radioactivity, and the issues involved in estimating the age of the earth.
My bold. Where would you go?

 
Quote
Career Opportunities

With a major in Broadcast Journalism, you will be prepared to enter a number of fields in mass communications and, as a Christian, make your impact felt...

I feel icky again.

But the money shot comes from the wiki article you posted:
 
Quote
While TRACS started in 1979, it only applied for federal recognition in 1987.[1] In 1987, recognition was denied, but in 1991, "Education Secretary Lamar Alexander approved TRACS, despite his advisory panel's repeatedly recommending against recognition."[1]

In 1993, Steve Levicoff published a book-length critical discussion of TRACS, When the TRACS Stop Short: An Evaluation and Critique of the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, through the Institute on Religion and Law. According to a Usenet post from Levicoff, the book occasioned a twenty minute telephone call from pastor and Liberty University educator Jerry Falwell, in which Falwell asked Levicoff to withdraw the book. Levicoff refused, and in the post credited the book with "hanging TRACS' reapproval by the U.S. Department of Education up for almost two years. In time, Levicoff said, TRACS "straightened out its act somewhat." [1]

Of the things criticized, TRACS gave accreditation to Jerry Falwell's Liberty University and "created a category for schools which it called associate schools." While this category "was not considered an official accreditation," according to Levicoff, TRACS lent its name to a number of "blatantly fraudulent institutions.".[1]

Another criticism was the 1991 granting of accreditation to the Institute for Creation Research. One of TRACS' board members was Henry M. Morris, founder of ICR. Timothy Sandefur, a fellow at the Claremont Institute, has called Morris's position "highly questionable".[2]

In 1995, a federal review was conducted and resulted in probation which gave TRACS eighteen months to improve or be removed from the list of official accreditors. These improvements were made, including eliminating the 'associate schools' category and changing chairmen.[1]

In 2002, Timothy Sandefur argued that TRACS is "establishing criteria for accreditation which go beyond those standards arguably connected with the educational mission of a school." He cites the 1991 incident when Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools required racial diversity as a criteria for accreditation.[1] Sandefur argues that TRACS goes beyond the educational accreditation mission, when they expect people to believe in some of their biblical foundations. He argues that if MSACS had to drop non-educational criteria TRACS should too.

Universities will allow grad students who take remedial courses. NCSU, where I got my undergrad, was pretty lenient about that. They had pretty strict standards in their undergrad program, and the same in the grad programs, but I knew several grad students from second-tier schools who were admitted on the requirement that they take whatever undergrad NCSU courses it took to get up to speed. By my junior and senior year it was pretty typical to see a handful of grad students in the 400- level QM and EM classes.

   
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2007,17:39   

Yeah, I had to do that too. A little over a year of remedial coursework. Ahh but it was more time in Bellingham, the most beautiful place I've ever lived.

In fact, getting accepted without a science undergrad was pretty darn hard. Fortunately, I knew people. :)

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
  149 replies since Jan. 02 2007,13:42 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (5) < [1] 2 3 4 5 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]