stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,13:42    so we don't use up AFDave's thread too quickly.

stevestory Posts: 13407 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: 13407 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: 13407 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: 13407 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: 13407 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: 5286 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? -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

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: 5286 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. -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

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: 5452 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? -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

"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.     But I luuuuuuuv Janie and Kate. Luv, luv, luv, luv     -------------- 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  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. -------------- 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: 13407 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  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. 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  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. 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: 5452 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.     But I luuuuuuuv Janie and Kate. Luv, luv, luv, luv     Well they'd like to know why, if that's true, you never come calling anymore. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

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: 5452 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. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

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: 3217 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: 3217 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: 3217 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: 5452 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'. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

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: 3217 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: 3326 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: 3217 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: 3217 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: 5452 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. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

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: 1902 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: 1902 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?