Coral Ridge Ministries and CSI

[Stratnerd]

I sort of wondered at how this guy has gotten under your skin.

perhaps its the fact that he only tells part of the story that tends to skew his presentation.

But I would still be very interested in getting your ( john's and Strat's) ideas on how you felt it all started. Surely you have given it thought.

"all" as in the cosmos? I can't answer that and I don't think it is answerable.

So in essence the "anscestor" slots of the evo tree are empty?

nope

However, it appears because I don't see the evidence that men and apes share a common anscestor, nor birds and dinos, I'm pretty much blasted for it.

it's simple.... YOU CAN'T

If the evidence were there my opinion could change.

doubtful... since the Bible is the Truth how can it possibly change? Or do you not accept the Bible as Truth... or is it conditional?

But "if", "maybe", "could be" isn't enough to change my view.

sorry that is the language of science regardless of how confident we are in a particular hypothesis.

 

[docpotato]

Originally posted by Nineveh

How is understanding what we know about gravity starting in the middle?

Well let's paraphrase your next sentence after this one:

Once again I am drawn to the question, where did the material come from for GRAVITY to start? Is it starting with a single cell? A whole star? The solar system? Where?

And to continue on:


Beside the the missing parts of the story like where did the material come from and how did it get in a form to have GRAVITY. Those are points I can't ignore.

And yet you do....

Evolution is a not a theory on the origins of the universe no matter how much you wish it be. the "story" of evolution begins AFTER life has been created SOMEHOW. If you still don't understand, think of the literary concept of in media res which means "Into the middle things". It means starting in the middle after things in the narrative have already taken place. Examples include the Odyssey, Paradise Lost and Star Wars.

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by Nineveh

No, I said what I had to say about it over here.

Which was nothing. Could you please at least answer the last set of questions?

Originally posted by Nineveh

When I saw your new thread though, I sort of wondered at how this guy has gotten under your skin. A guy who is just as, if not more qualified doesn't have faith in evo. I just figure there are more than Brewer at AiG that would have the same effect on you.

Cute. I'd never even heard of the guy until you trotted him and his paper as shining examples of a real, credentialled scientist doing real, creationist research. So, on your recommendation, I checked it out, and saw the game he was playing. So I pointed out that credentials don't guarantee good science, especially when religion clouds the scientific mind. However, I didn't just rant about the poor science, I showed you my work. So you don't have to rely on my word for it, or my credentials, you can see for yourself.

And what happens? Nothing. Not a peep. No YEC has dared to take it on. Brewer is not the one who's gotten my skin, it's you guys who make all kinds of grand, definitive, unsupported statements, but when you get a chance to actually show that you are capable of understanding basic elements of scientific analysis, or to show that you are at all interested in evaluating the merits of an argument that draws conclusions you like, you absolutely clam up. It's okay, though. It's been interesting watching what happens to a thread when an argument seems to be heading into potentially difficult territory for the YEC perspective.

As an aside, I contacted Greg Brewer directly and sent him a copy of my analysis. He just contacted me, and hopes to get back to me in a couple weeks. The first time a creationist scientist has ever actually answered one of my emails! So far, then, Greg Brewer actually rates okay with me!

Originally posted by Nineveh

I'm sorry, but that isn't true. My interests lie elsewhere, so this particular topic hasn't given me reason to investigate much further than to satify my own mind. I found a couple of links I think are well more stated than I could ever be. I find them resonable and expresses my thoughts. Perhaps you would care to look at them, perhaps not, but here they are:

1st
2nd

Familiar with them both. The former one doesn't seem to exist anymore, though. These are superficial analyses; the one by Wood et al. is much more intensive (and trust me, completely enthusiastic about the reality of the Biblical kind!). Nonetheless, the bottom line remains that the only fundamental biological difference between YEC and evolutionary biologists is the notion of the Biblical kind, and until YEC can come up with a scientifically robust way of dealing with kinds, it has no chance as a legitimate alternative to evolutionary theory.

Originally posted by Nineveh

How do you mean, "all life is related"?

In whatever way you used the phrase. Well, okay, better be more specific. To biologists, "related" means "share a common ancestor." That's why if we know that all life shares a common ancestor then life must have developed only once.

Originally posted by Nineveh

So in essence the "anscestor" slots of the evo tree are empty?

Not at all. Look, I assume you have no trouble with the "Cain's wife" question, even though the Bible doesn't specifically tell you who she was or where the heck she came from. The "ancestor slots" of the evolutionary tree are 'empty' in pretty much the same way as the "Cain's wife" slot of the Biblical geneological tree.

Originally posted by Nineveh

No. I assumed you meant "scientific guide book" as in, "look here in Hezakiah 5 v 3 the workings of the atom!". You explained that is not what you meant. So my argument that I don't know anyone who believes the Bible is used as a "scientific text book" is still accurate but it's an argument that doesn't fit because you didn't mean "guide" in a "scientific text book" sense.

Which means that you can show us examples of evolutionary biologists who have claimed that YECs use the Bible to explain science at, just to use your example, the workings of the atom? If not, then your whole argument here is specious.

Originally posted by Nineveh

But to make my stand absolutely clear:
The results of labwork need no slant. Describing 60,000 differences in a comparison can stand on it's own. It needs neither evo to give a slant, nor the Bible to give a slant. The fact is there are X number of differences. The rest is trying to get the facts to fit into either a naturalistic world view or a Biblical world view.

Interesting. That's all the information you need to draw your conclusions? Does it matter to you whether we're talking about 60,000 differences out of 100,000 comparisons vs. oh, say, 30,000,000 comparisons? Wouldn't you in addition need some sort of expectation to make any sense of that number? What if the evolutionary model predicted between 40,000 and 100,000 differences?

Originally posted by Nineveh

So fruiflies really don't have 50% unique sequences?

Assuming Brewer got his numbers right, I'm still willing to bet that the number is now lower than 50%. Remember, his article was 'published' in 2001, a lot of sequences have been added since then, and it is theoretically impossible for any of them to increase the proportion of unique sequences.

Originally posted by Nineveh

How is understanding what we know about gravity starting in the middle?

I'm just using your logic, Nin. Gravitational theory does not explain the origin of the universe, nor even the origin of gravity, and barely explains what gravity even is. And yet you don't seem to be troubled by this. Why are you, in this and every other nonevolutionary theory, comfortable with a theory about something that does not explain where that something came from?

Originally posted by Nineveh

No, and I never claimed such a thing.

Not in those words exactly, but you, more than anyone here, constantly fault evolution for not explaining where it all began. Cosmology is the discipline concerned with "where it all began." Therefore, you are faulting evolutionary theory for not being cosmology. And please don't be disingenuous and claim that you never said this was a problem with evolutionary theory, it's just something you personally have been interested in!

Originally posted by Nineveh

I think you are taking a leap there. I have no problems with science in general. I love science, it's fun, fascinating, and useful.

So therefore it's only evolutionary biology that gets faulted because it is not cosmology, eh? Look, it would be perfectly legit in my book if you just said that under no conditions could you accept evolutionary theory because, unlike gravitational theory, atomic theory, etc., it conflicts with your interpretation of Genesis. If, on the other hand, you're going to claim that that's not why you reject evolution, and that your rejection has a scientific basis, then it seems reasonable to expect that you'll be asked what that basis might be. I spend too much time on this forum, but almost none of it talking about the mountains of evidence supporting the evolutionary model. Why? Because the logical basis for anti-evolutionary arguments I've seen here are suspect enough to keep me busy.

Originally posted by Nineveh

However, it appears because I don't see the evidence that men and apes share a common anscestor, nor birds and dinos, I'm pretty much blasted for it. But, I guess I would be more worried if someone who has devoted their life to evo-biology didn't put up a fight to at least justify the time and money they have spent on attaining a degree in it.

Any blasting I've done has nothing to do with your inability to see said evidence. I'd be happy if you would just do a little critical, unbiased thinking.

Originally posted by Nineveh

If the evidence were there my opinion could change. But "if", "maybe", "could be" isn't enough to change my view. Beside the the missing parts of the story like where did the material come from and how did it get in a form to be useful to darwin. Those are points I can't ignore.

You can't ignore those points, eh? So then you must actually hold creation science and the intelligent design hypothesis in utter contempt, since virtually the entire story, not just "parts", are completely missing in those two perspectives, and absolutely every bit of their "evidence" is either an attack on evolutionary theory (which isn't actually evidence for their version) or completely bounded by "if", "maybe", and "could be."

Originally posted by Nineveh

As usual, I won't be on for the next couple of days, so any replies from me will be Sunday evening. I'll be out enjoying the weekend I hope yours is enjoyable, too.

Have fun. Hey, what part of Indiana do you hail from? Ever hear of Dugger?

 

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by Nineveh

The rest is trying to get the facts to fit into either a naturalistic world view or a Biblical world view.

This critique is straight from the so-called "Wedge of Truth" agenda proposed and trumpeted by Phillip E. Johnson. According to people like Johnson evolutionary scientists are so beholden to godless materialism that they can only view the evidence through materialistic lenses. This critique, for the most part, appeals to Thomas Kuhn's vision of paradigmatic change to substantiate how operating within a false "paradigm" can skew one's interpretation of evidence because it has to "fit" (Nin's word) the paradigm. I can't tell you how many times I've read in some of the ID literature (even in some YEC stuff, like Ariel Roth) the appeal to Kuhn's work on paradigmatic change. It all seems so reasonable, until one actually reads Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions and sees that the ID/YEC relaince on paradigmatic change misrepresents (at best) or abuses (at worst) Kuhn's conclusions. A scientific paradigm is a system of interpretation of data that is commonly-accepted and representative of a body of rules that may or may not be discoverable. Scientific paradigms are not simply "fashions in thinking" as Ariel Roth treats the subject. For example, even though the paradigm of the workings of the universe as deterministically mechanical under Newtonian physics has been supplanted by Einstein and others after him, Newton’s formulas still more than adequately reflect the reality of rules that govern the trajectories of earthly projectiles.

So in response to Nin I'd say: Yes, YECs do try to "fit" the evidence to "a Biblical world view," but that's not the problem in and of itself if one is trying to do apologetics for biblical literalism. If one is trying to do science, however, one will try to "fit" the facts, the evidence together first and then later worry about how the image of the overall puzzle looks once that pieced-together patch is placed within the pieced-together border of the "worldview."

 

[Stratnerd]

CDH,

Also, and please correct me if I'm wrong, Kuhn sees new paradigms as ab- or adsorbing old paradigms. I would find it hard to reconcile ID with evolution unless ID starts way back with the origin of life and evolution takes over from then (an idea that seems popular among many college kids). Certainly there can be no reconciliation between YE creationism and evolution as historical paradigms.

 

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

CDH,

Also, and please correct me if I'm wrong, Kuhn sees new paradigms as ab- or adsorbing old paradigms. I would find it hard to reconcile ID with evolution unless ID starts way back with the origin of life and evolution takes over from then (an idea that seems popular among many college kids). Certainly there can be no reconciliation between YE creationism and evolution as historical paradigms.

Right. The problem, of course, is that Kuhn is talking about scientific paradigms, not metaphysical or philosophical paradigms. If God "poofed" (as you like to say, I think) animals into being, fully-formed as with Adam in Genesis 2 (from a YEC perspective), then I just don't see how we could ever have empirical evidence of that "poofing." The only so-called evidence for God poofing Adam into existence that way is the Genesis account. And as I have tried so desparately to do on the "Cain built a city" thread (BTW, making very little ground with OEJ), interpreting the Bible in the YEC manner runs contrary to common sense, literary analysis, and the insights of cultural historiagraphers.

An example I often like to use to illustrate the difference between what IDs and YECs want to do with paradigmatic change and what Kuhn concluded is the myth of a flat earth and people reportedly sailing off its edge and the reality that the earth is a sphere. The flat earth myth may have been "common knowledge," but there was, of course, never any empirical evidence of people sailing off the edge of the flat earth. Nevertheless, people believed the earth was flat and that mythical creatures awaited them at the edges of the earth. Despite the inability of the flat earth myth to act as a workable scientific paradigm, the myth's power and meaning never rested on its ability to act that way. So to say that the flat earth "paradigm" was overthrown or replaced by the spherical earth "paradigm" would simply be ridiculous, especially since there are so many ways to empirically verify the spherical nature of the earth. Besides, I seriously question whether any educated person has ever believed the earth was flat in the first place. Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth 300 years before Jesus was even born, and within 100 miles at that!

A proper example of scientific paradigmatic change would be geocentrism to heliocentrism. The celestial equations to explain the movements of the heavens got so ridiculously complex (but worked nevertheless), that the heliocentric paradigm and its equations easily blew away tons of unnecessary and ad hoc complexity. The same type of scientific change applies to Newtonian physics and Einsteinian relativity. The new absorbed the old. And thus the process of acquiring scientific knowledge rolls on...

But God still reigns, and Jesus is Lord, despite however many paradigmatic changes we go through.

 

[Stratnerd]

BTW, making very little ground with OEJ

yup, I tried to warn you ("like pulling teeth from a horse with its mouth closed").

I think these arguments should start with an epistemological decision about revelation vs. rationalism/empericism. Because, as we've seen here and any creation/evolution debate, creationists have accepted literalism as Truth and such a position cannot be shown to be false to those that hold such a position. I think the problems is, at least for me, I approach the subject from a weight of evidence - something literalists do not and cannot do.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by aharvey

Which was nothing. Could you please at least answer the last set of questions?

Skipping the 50% on fruitflies?

Cute. I'd never even heard of the guy until you trotted him and his paper as shining examples of a real, credentialled scientist doing real, creationist research.

He isn't the only one there, yet I keep hearing there are none. Perhaps you might have heard of him sooner had you taken the time to look.

So, on your recommendation, I checked it out, and saw the game he was playing. So I pointed out that credentials don't guarantee good science, especially when religion clouds the scientific mind. However, I didn't just rant about the poor science, I showed you my work. So you don't have to rely on my word for it, or my credentials, you can see for yourself.

You take issue about his article on AiG, have you bothered to look at the credntials page? His publised works? His grants? Seems this bad example of a scientists has quite a few people in cancer research behind him who don't agree with your assesment.

And what happens? Nothing. Not a peep. No YEC has dared to take it on. Brewer is not the one who's gotten my skin, it's you guys who make all kinds of grand, definitive, unsupported statements, but when you get a chance to actually show that you are capable of understanding basic elements of scientific analysis, or to show that you are at all interested in evaluating the merits of an argument that draws conclusions you like, you absolutely clam up. It's okay, though. It's been interesting watching what happens to a thread when an argument seems to be heading into potentially difficult territory for the YEC perspective.

As an aside, I contacted Greg Brewer directly and sent him a copy of my analysis. He just contacted me, and hopes to get back to me in a couple weeks. The first time a creationist scientist has ever actually answered one of my emails! So far, then, Greg Brewer actually rates okay with me!

You'll have to let me know what he says.

Familiar with them both. The former one doesn't seem to exist anymore, though. These are superficial analyses; the one by Wood et al. is much more intensive (and trust me, completely enthusiastic about the reality of the Biblical kind!). Nonetheless, the bottom line remains that the only fundamental biological difference between YEC and evolutionary biologists is the notion of the Biblical kind, and until YEC can come up with a scientifically robust way of dealing with kinds, it has no chance as a legitimate alternative to evolutionary theory.

Because kind isn't as cut and dried as you want it to be, that means men and apes had a shared anscestor, regarless of the lack of physical evidence. I see.

In whatever way you used the phrase. Well, okay, better be more specific. To biologists, "related" means "share a common ancestor." That's why if we know that all life shares a common ancestor then life must have developed only once.

I take it you don't buy into everything getting wiped out then.

Let me get this straight, "because everything is here it all came from common anscestors." Is that correct?

Not at all. Look, I assume you have no trouble with the "Cain's wife" question, even though the Bible doesn't specifically tell you who she was or where the heck she came from. The "ancestor slots" of the evolutionary tree are 'empty' in pretty much the same way as the "Cain's wife" slot of the Biblical geneological tree.

Cains wife came from the same place Cain did. Adam and Eve had "other sons and daughters". So not the same.

Which means that you can show us examples of evolutionary biologists who have claimed that YECs use the Bible to explain science at, just to use your example, the workings of the atom? If not, then your whole argument here is specious.

I'm not about to dig through years of TOL to look for them. I guess at this point you are free to believe as you like.

Interesting. That's all the information you need to draw your conclusions? Does it matter to you whether we're talking about 60,000 differences out of 100,000 comparisons vs. oh, say, 30,000,000 comparisons? Wouldn't you in addition need some sort of expectation to make any sense of that number? What if the evolutionary model predicted between 40,000 and 100,000 differences?

You know what's funny?

I just found an article where the scientist who did the work said it did make a big deal and an evo-biologist who had nothing to do with the work sounded just like you.

We can safely assume the guy who did the work was an evo, the whole comparison was brought about for more "evidence" of human and ape "anscestry".

Take a look: cite

Assuming Brewer got his numbers right, I'm still willing to bet that the number is now lower than 50%. Remember, his article was 'published' in 2001, a lot of sequences have been added since then, and it is theoretically impossible for any of them to increase the proportion of unique sequences.

Ok, lemme know when you find out

I'm just using your logic, Nin. Gravitational theory does not explain the origin of the universe, nor even the origin of gravity, and barely explains what gravity even is. And yet you don't seem to be troubled by this. Why are you, in this and every other nonevolutionary theory, comfortable with a theory about something that does not explain where that something came from?

I see evidence for gravity. I don't see any for common descent for a man and monkey. I don't believe gravity is said to explain the origins of the universe, but evo does try to expalin the origins of species.

Not in those words exactly, but you, more than anyone here, constantly fault evolution for not explaining where it all began.

Hold the phone.
This thread wasn't even about evo. To find fault with me at this stage of the game is finding fault with mere rebuttle.

Cosmology is the discipline concerned with "where it all began." Therefore, you are faulting evolutionary theory for not being cosmology. And please don't be disingenuous and claim that you never said this was a problem with evolutionary theory, it's just something you personally have been interested in!

I think its a problem for evos personally, for themselves.

So therefore it's only evolutionary biology that gets faulted because it is not cosmology, eh? Look, it would be perfectly legit in my book if you just said that under no conditions could you accept evolutionary theory because, unlike gravitational theory, atomic theory, etc., it conflicts with your interpretation of Genesis. If, on the other hand, you're going to claim that that's not why you reject evolution, and that your rejection has a scientific basis, then it seems reasonable to expect that you'll be asked what that basis might be. I spend too much time on this forum, but almost none of it talking about the mountains of evidence supporting the evolutionary model. Why? Because the logical basis for anti-evolutionary arguments I've seen here are suspect enough to keep me busy.

I have answered the question how many times now? Stat just asked a few pages ago why I have no faith in dino to bird evo, it's for the same reason. "If", "could be", "might have" isn't filling in enough gaps for the lack of physical evidence for me.

Who is stopping you from starting a thread on it?

Any blasting I've done has nothing to do with your inability to see said evidence. I'd be happy if you would just do a little critical, unbiased thinking.

You mean "skip over where the phisical evidence is lacking and just believe that birds came from dinos"?

You can't ignore those points, eh? So then you must actually hold creation science and the intelligent design hypothesis in utter contempt, since virtually the entire story, not just "parts", are completely missing in those two perspectives, and absolutely every bit of their "evidence" is either an attack on evolutionary theory (which isn't actually evidence for their version) or completely bounded by "if", "maybe", and "could be."

I see the physical evidence from this perseptive, and you see it from yours. That's where we are, and likely to remain.

I still would dearly love to hear what you and the rest believe, though. Why does this question remain answered with silence for so long? For all your time and effort talking about critical thinking and reasoning, etc, surely you guys have some idea what happened to at least get matter here and reasoning for how it got into useful forms for darwin to pick up.

Have fun. Hey, what part of Indiana do you hail from? Ever hear of Dugger?

Yep.

 

[Stratnerd]

You take issue about his article on AiG, have you bothered to look at the credntials page? His publised works? His grants? Seems this bad example of a scientists has quite a few people in cancer research behind him who don't agree with your assesment.

sounds like your saying that this article was sent out for anonymous review by a number of peers (which is the normal process for publication). AH's was tryong to point out the difference between scientific work (say microbiology) and one's work with creationism. You keep missing his point.

For the sake of hearing it myself once again: creationists cannot do science because the basic process of science, falsification, is not allowed. This guy might do science involving cells but he takes off his science hat when you deals with creationism.

 

[Stratnerd]

You mean "skip over where the phisical evidence is lacking and just believe that birds came from dinos"?

sorry there is no lacking evidence.

 

[docpotato]

Originally posted by Nineveh

I don't believe gravity is said to explain the origins of the universe, but evo does try to expalin the origins of species.

You're correct. Gravity is not said to explain the origins of the universe. Neither is evolution. As you say above, Evolution does try to explain the origins of species. The unvierse and species are not the same.
:thumb:

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by Nineveh

Skipping the 50% on fruitflies?

Nope. I’ve answered that one too, despite it representing an obvious ploy by you to avoid answering the 4-bacteria question, which, of course, you still haven’t addressed.

Originally posted by Nineveh

He isn't the only one there, yet I keep hearing there are none. Perhaps you might have heard of him sooner had you taken the time to look.

Sorry, he only fits half the description: "real, credentialled scientist;" neither he, nor anyone else on the list fits the other half: "doing real, creationist research."

Originally posted by Nineveh

You take issue about his article on AiG, have you bothered to look at the credntials page? His publised works? His grants? Seems this bad example of a scientists has quite a few people in cancer research behind him who don't agree with your assesment.

Ah, here’s the Nin we all know so well! How many times have Strat, John, and I said that Brewer’s science may be perfectly respectable, but that doesn’t exempt him from critical review? I’ll bet his cancer research papers still go out for peer review, even though he has (ooh! ahhh!) credentials! You know what peer reviewers do? They make sure the paper makes sense, the experimental design and analyses were properly done, that the author doesn’t draw unwarranted conclusions, etc.

Get it? Brewer’s cancer papers still, to this day, go through that process, even though he has (ooh! ahhh!) credentials! Obviously, his ICR paper did not benefit from such a process, so I provided a sample of what should have happened. Too bad for him. And too bad for every paper on that list you are so fond of, because I’ll bet dollars to donuts none of them had proper peer review either.

Originally posted by Nineveh

quote from aharvey:
And what happens? Nothing. Not a peep. No YEC has dared to take it on. Brewer is not the one who's gotten my skin, it's you guys who make all kinds of grand, definitive, unsupported statements, but when you get a chance to actually show that you are capable of understanding basic elements of scientific analysis, or to show that you are at all interested in evaluating the merits of an argument that draws conclusions you like, you absolutely clam up. It's okay, though. It's been interesting watching what happens to a thread when an argument seems to be heading into potentially difficult territory for the YEC perspective.

As an aside, I contacted Greg Brewer directly and sent him a copy of my analysis. He just contacted me, and hopes to get back to me in a couple weeks. The first time a creationist scientist has ever actually answered one of my emails! So far, then, Greg Brewer actually rates okay with me!

You'll have to let me know what he says.

Thanks for grouping these two paragraphs together and only answering the second one. Classic illustration of the point I was making in the first one!

Originally posted by Nineveh

Because kind isn't as cut and dried as you want it to be, that means men and apes had a shared anscestor, regarless of the lack of physical evidence. I see.

Nope, doesn’t mean that at all. Where’d you get your logic, Sears? The fundamental definition of ‘kinds’ is in fact absolutely cut and dried, and yet there seems to be no way to operationally define or recognize them. This inability to produce a robust version of the only fundamental biological difference between YEC and evolutionary biologists (i.e., the notion of the Biblical kind) rather torpedoes your desire to replace evolutionary theory with YEC. “Kinds�-less YEC offers nothing that evolutionary theory doesn’t already provide.

Originally posted by Nineveh

I take it you don't buy into everything getting wiped out then.

Are you talking about Noah's Ark here? If so, then you're correct.

Originally posted by Nineveh

Let me get this straight, "because everything is here it all came from common anscestors." Is that correct?

I am familiar with your stubborn resistance to thinking things through, but this one is quite simple, really. From your post #738: “And in evo we don't know how many we have to start with we only know they all must be related.� This statement is wrong. If “we know they all must be related,� then we know we must have started with one (i.e., the original common ancestor). If we don’t know they all must be related, then we don’t know how many times life appeared. If you can’t understand this, then no wonder you’re having trouble with evolutionary theory!

Originally posted by Nineveh

Cains wife came from the same place Cain did. Adam and Eve had "other sons and daughters". So not the same.

Yeah, but nowhere does the Bible say that this is where Cain’s wife came from, nor does it give her a name. Rather, the Bible makes two unconnected sets of statements, and you inferred a relationship between them. So, even though you don’t know her name, and can’t produce a line in the Bible that specifically tells us where she came from, you have pretty good evidence that she existed and where she came from. Just like those “missing ancestors� in our phylogenetic tree.

Originally posted by Nineveh

I'm not about to dig through years of TOL to look for them. I guess at this point you are free to believe as you like.

In other words, you are free to make insulting, illogical statements about evolutionary biologists without having to back them up (who can forget the classic Not all scientists are liars and fools?).

Originally posted by Nineveh

You know what's funny?

I just found an article where the scientist who did the work said it did make a big deal and an evo-biologist who had nothing to do with the work sounded just like you.

We can safely assume the guy who did the work was an evo, the whole comparison was brought about for more "evidence" of human and ape "anscestry".

Take a look: cite

You still don’t get it, do you? (Oh, wait, why didn’t I feel any sort of surprise when I typed that?) Why does the fact that Sakaki saw more differences than he expected provide even the most miniscule support for the YEC / ID perspective? Why does it provide even the most miniscule problem for the evolutionary model? Until we have some idea what these two perspectives would have predicted, Sakaki’s data, and his emotional response to them, really don’t support one model over another. How many differences would you and your oh-so-robust ID model have expected out of 30,000,000 comparisons?

Originally posted by Nineveh

Ok, lemme know when you find out

Alas, if you understand the logic of my argument, then there would be no need for me to update Brewer’s data and recalculate the new value, right? So do you disagree with the logic of my argument, or are you trying to bail on this topic in such a way that you still sound righteous and correct?

Originally posted by Nineveh

I see evidence for gravity. I don't see any for common descent for a man and monkey. I don't believe gravity is said to explain the origins of the universe, but evo does try to expalin the origins of species.

Well, you may be kicking and screaming about it, but we’re getting closer. I agree with you that gravitational theory shouldn’t be faulted because doesn’t try to explain the origin of the universe. Neither gravitational theory nor evolutionary theory tries to explain the origins of the universe. Why do you insist that only one of these is obligated to do so? Oh, and remember, gravitational theory doesn’t try to explain the origin of gravity, either.

Originally posted by Nineveh

Hold the phone.
This thread wasn't even about evo. To find fault with me at this stage of the game is finding fault with mere rebuttle.

That doesn’t even make any sense.

Originally posted by Nineveh

I think its a problem for evos personally, for themselves.

That doesn’t even make any sense. You must have had a wild weekend!

Originally posted by Nineveh

I have answered the question how many times now? Stat just asked a few pages ago why I have no faith in dino to bird evo, it's for the same reason. "If", "could be", "might have" isn't filling in enough gaps for the lack of physical evidence for me.

You mean "skip over where the phisical evidence is lacking and just believe that birds came from dinos"?

Nin, get real. First of all, what possible data would you even acknowledge to be evidence for dino to bird? Obviously not the long list of derived features shared by birds and dinosaurs. Obviously not fossils of dinosaurs with feathers. We have these already. And yes, I know you personally haven’t seen them yourself, but even if a museum curator showed up to your door personally and showed them to you, would that really influence you in the slightest? Come on, admit it; it’s not that you don’t believe it because there’s no evidence, you don’t believe it therefore there is no evidence! And if you don’t agree with this, then please tell me what would you consider to be evidence for dino to bird?

Second, you are in fact perfectly comfortable with "if,� "could be", "might have," and a complete lack of physical evidence when it comes to your favorite story. You know why science favors evolutionary model over the YEC version? We may not have all the evidence for every facet of the evolutionary interpretation of the origin of biodiversity, but we have a lot. We have no evidence for the special creation model of biodiversity. So you’d be well advised to drop this particular argument.

Originally posted by Nineveh

I see the physical evidence from this perseptive, and you see it from yours. That's where we are, and likely to remain.

Small difference: I’ve actually seen the physical evidence. What physical evidence have you even seen? And how carefully do you think about it before you conclude it supports your worldview?

Originally posted by Nineveh

I still would dearly love to hear what you and the rest believe, though. Why does this question remain answered with silence for so long? For all your time and effort talking about critical thinking and reasoning, etc, surely you guys have some idea what happened to at least get matter here and reasoning for how it got into useful forms for darwin to pick up.

Well, I can’t speak for anyone else here, but I personally have trouble forming strong beliefs about things that are far beyond my comprehension.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by aharvey

Nope. I’ve answered that one too, despite it representing an obvious ploy by you to avoid answering the 4-bacteria question, which, of course, you still haven’t addressed.

Look, you say he is lying, it seems a simple matter, either fruitflies have unique sequences or they don't. That was the point of his article, his idea is that the "creation model" would have unique sequences in creatures. Either they do or they don't. Which is it?

Sorry, he only fits half the description: "real, credentialled scientist;" neither he, nor anyone else on the list fits the other half: "doing real, creationist research."

They do research in their field, and they happen to disbelieve evo.

Ah, here’s the Nin we all know so well! How many times have Strat, John, and I said that Brewer’s science may be perfectly respectable, but that doesn’t exempt him from critical review?

You haven't offered critical review of his research papers. You want to offer your view on one article from AiG. Do you want to critique his research on cancer?

Like it's been repeated forever in this thread, creation topics don't get published in mainstream journals.

I’ll bet his cancer research papers still go out for peer review, even though he has (ooh! ahhh!) credentials!

I'm sure they do

You know what peer reviewers do? They make sure the paper makes sense, the experimental design and analyses were properly done, that the author doesn’t draw unwarranted conclusions, etc.

Storrs blasted Nature for dropping that ball. But, yes, I understand "peer review".

Get it? Brewer’s cancer papers still, to this day, go through that process, even though he has (ooh! ahhh!) credentials! Obviously, his ICR paper did not benefit from such a process, so I provided a sample of what should have happened. Too bad for him. And too bad for every paper on that list you are so fond of, because I’ll bet dollars to donuts none of them had proper peer review either.

Well, it would be quite interesting to see your "critique" and the rebuttle at AiG. Perhaps, since you have contacted Dr. Brewer, you might also contact AiG and see if your correspondence with him would merit some space.

Thanks for grouping these two paragraphs together and only answering the second one. Classic illustration of the point I was making in the first one!

I take that to mean you won't let me know what he has to say in his own defence?

Nope, doesn’t mean that at all. Where’d you get your logic, Sears? The fundamental definition of ‘kinds’ is in fact absolutely cut and dried, and yet there seems to be no way to operationally define or recognize them. This inability to produce a robust version of the only fundamental biological difference between YEC and evolutionary biologists (i.e., the notion of the Biblical kind) rather torpedoes your desire to replace evolutionary theory with YEC. “Kinds�-less YEC offers nothing that evolutionary theory doesn’t already provide.

It is?

The fundamental diffrence is "anscestors" from what I can tell.

Are you talking about Noah's Ark here? If so, then you're correct.

No, I was asking about what john told Agent Smith way back about mass extinctions that have happend (I believe he said) 5 times or so.

I am familiar with your stubborn resistance to thinking things through,

I share that view of you. You want me to believe in your life's work, but remain silent about your theories as to where matter came from to begin with and how it got in a form for you to get at least one anscestor, then we can get to your life's passion.

but this one is quite simple, really. From your post #738: “And in evo we don't know how many we have to start with we only know they all must be related.� This statement is wrong. If “we know they all must be related,� then we know we must have started with one (i.e., the original common ancestor).

But you said you don't know if there was one or many. Should I assume one from now on?

If we don’t know they all must be related, then we don’t know how many times life appeared. If you can’t understand this, then no wonder you’re having trouble with evolutionary theory!

Yeah, it's sort of confusing when another evo talks about 5 mass extinctions... So what is right here?

It seems like you are saying, it started once because it's all related by anscestors. Am I close?

Yeah, but nowhere does the Bible say that this is where Cain’s wife came from, nor does it give her a name. Rather, the Bible makes two unconnected sets of statements, and you inferred a relationship between them. So, even though you don’t know her name, and can’t produce a line in the Bible that specifically tells us where she came from, you have pretty good evidence that she existed and where she came from. Just like those “missing ancestors� in our phylogenetic tree.

Considering the lineage from Cain and his mentioned wife, their children (all human) bear out the fact they were real. We have both parents spoken of. For you, it seems it's not necessary to even name one parent to assume an ansestor. ie: man and ape.

In other words, you are free to make insulting, illogical statements about evolutionary biologists without having to back them up (who can forget the classic Not all scientists are liars and fools?).

For crying out loud. I admit I assumed your use of a term, now I have to give evidence and proof of why I assumed your use? Simply, get over it already.

You still don’t get it, do you? (Oh, wait, why didn’t I feel any sort of surprise when I typed that?) Why does the fact that Sakaki saw more differences than he expected provide even the most miniscule support for the YEC / ID perspective?

And I am not suprised you set up yet one more strawman argument.

Why does it provide even the most miniscule problem for the evolutionary model?

It appears those two evo scientists can't even agree on what ramifications the study has.

Until we have some idea what these two perspectives would have predicted,

You mean to say they didn't even know why they were doing the comparison?

Sakaki’s data, and his emotional response to them, really don’t support one model over another. How many differences would you and your oh-so-robust ID model have expected out of 30,000,000 comparisons?

Why do you say Sakaki's responce is "emotional"? By the way, there wasn't 30,000,000 chromosome comparisons, there was one.

Alas, if you understand the logic of my argument, then there would be no need for me to update Brewer’s data and recalculate the new value, right? So do you disagree with the logic of my argument, or are you trying to bail on this topic in such a way that you still sound righteous and correct?

I've just been trying to get you to tell me if there are more/less/none unique sequences in a fruitfly than Brewer claims.

Well, you may be kicking and screaming about it, but we’re getting closer. I agree with you that gravitational theory shouldn’t be faulted because doesn’t try to explain the origin of the universe. Neither gravitational theory nor evolutionary theory tries to explain the origins of the universe.

What I said was evo claims to give us the "origins of species".

I have been asking you personally, (and all the other evoers) what do you intellectually think about before evo takes over? Where did the matter come from? How did it get into a form useful for evo to take over?

Why do you insist that only one of these is obligated to do so? Oh, and remember, gravitational theory doesn’t try to explain the origin of gravity, either.

Look, like I said earlier, either you believe someone plays into it all or nature is the agent. You pounced on that, yet, I still get silence on where "a god" might be found in your personal ideas of how everything got here. Or at least a third alternative.

That doesn’t even make any sense. You must have had a wild weekend!

Are those questions really that hard for you to grasp?

Nin, get real. First of all, what possible data would you even acknowledge to be evidence for dino to bird?

I tend to think something other than "if", "could be", "might have".

Obviously not the long list of derived features shared by birds and dinosaurs.

How does "shared features" assume "common anscestry"?

Obviously not fossils of dinosaurs with feathers.

So they are dinos with feathers? Is that all it takes to fly, feathers?

We have these already. And yes, I know you personally haven’t seen them yourself, but even if a museum curator showed up to your door personally and showed them to you, would that really influence you in the slightest? Come on, admit it; it’s not that you don’t believe it because there’s no evidence, you don’t believe it therefore there is no evidence! And if you don’t agree with this, then please tell me what would you consider to be evidence for dino to bird?

Actually Flipper (I believe) was the one giving me the link to one of the dinos with feathers. It said basically, well, it's a dino, and it had feathers, and maybe it could have flown, but it probably just glided.

Second, you are in fact perfectly comfortable with "if,� "could be", "might have," and a complete lack of physical evidence when it comes to your favorite story. You know why science favors evolutionary model over the YEC version? We may not have all the evidence for every facet of the evolutionary interpretation of the origin of biodiversity, but we have a lot. We have no evidence for the special creation model of biodiversity. So you’d be well advised to drop this particular argument.

Except of course that left handed amino acid thing. Guess you will read into the evidence what your schooling dictates.

Small difference: I’ve actually seen the physical evidence.

Which is?

What physical evidence have you even seen?

Again, I see evidence in the way the very cell is designed.

And how carefully do you think about it before you conclude it supports your worldview?

Obviously, as to where the matter came from and how it got in a useable form, no more than you do.

Well, I can’t speak for anyone else here, but I personally have trouble forming strong beliefs about things that are far beyond my comprehension.

I never asked you to asnwer for anyone else.

So the question of how it all got here never crossed your mind? Do you just assume it's always been here?

 

[Jukia]

Originally posted by Nineveh


Again, I see evidence in the way the very cell is designed.

Maybe I missed it, but what is your basis for making this observation? What is your science background, if any. And the comment sort of makes a bit of a circular argument--you are already assuming the cells were "designed".
Thanks

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by Nineveh

Look, you say he is lying, it seems a simple matter, either fruitflies have unique sequences or they don't. That was the point of his article, his idea is that the "creation model" would have unique sequences in creatures. Either they do or they don't. Which is it?

Sigh. I didn't say he was lying. It is no surprise that if your sample contains in complete genomes for less than 0.001% of all species you are likely to find unique sequences. This has nothing to do with YEC vs. evolutionary biology; it has to do with incomplete sampling. As you add more species to the comparison set, the number of apparently unique sequences can only decrease. Why do you pretend that I've never explained this, and keep asking me the same question over and over and over? But let me give you the chance to return the accusation, if you dare, by asking you the same question yet again. You, and Brewer, claim that the existence of unique sequences in fruit flies supports a creation model. Does that mean that evolutionary model predicts no unique sequences in fruit flies? Obviously not, but then the question, asked repeatedly but as yet unanswered, is "how unique a sequence do the two models predict?" Why does 50% uniqueness in fruit flies favor creation vs. evolution?

Originally posted by Nineveh

They do research in their field, and they happen to disbelieve evo.

Ah, well that's not what any of us are really interested in, is it? Creationist scientists, as I understand the term, refers not to scientists in other disciplines who happen to believe in YEC, but rather scientists doing reseach in creationism. Are you saying that the merits of someone's 'research' in one field depends not on the quality of that 'research,' but rather on their credentials in an unrelated field?

Originally posted by Nineveh

You haven't offered critical review of his research papers. You want to offer your view on one article from AiG. Do you want to critique his research on cancer?

If this were a cancer forum, I might be inclined to discuss his cancer research. His research on cancer is utterly irrelevant to his creationism paper(s). It's quite ironic that you've charged evolutionary biologists with withholding criticism of our "brothers" and yet you do absolutely everything in your power to divert attention away from serious consideration of Brewer's analysis.

Originally posted by Nineveh

Like it's been repeated forever in this thread, creation topics don't get published in mainstream journals.

Hmm, I don't see the relevance. Brewer got his paper out, we've all seen it, and it's bogus. Peer-review would probably have identified these problems, and they either would have been fixed or the paper would never have been published.

Originally posted by Nineveh

Well, it would be quite interesting to see your "critique" and the rebuttle at AiG. Perhaps, since you have contacted Dr. Brewer, you might also contact AiG and see if your correspondence with him would merit some space.

You mean ICR, don't you? Geez, it's hard for you to let go of even minor goofs like this, isn't it? In any case, these groups have made it clear that they are under no obligation, and have no interest, in publishing critiques of papers on their website.

Originally posted by Nineveh

I take that to mean you won't let me know what he has to say in his own defence?

There's that impeccable logic of yours again. Unless I get banned from TOL for relentless pursuit of rationale thought, I guarantee that I will post the outcome of my dialogue with Dr. Brewere. For example, his original response implied that I'd given much more thought to these issues than had he...

But your post is effective in further burying the more important point: "And what happens? Nothing. Not a peep. No YEC has dared to take it on. Brewer is not the one who's gotten my skin, it's you guys who make all kinds of grand, definitive, unsupported statements, but when you get a chance to actually show that you are capable of understanding basic elements of scientific analysis, or to show that you are at all interested in evaluating the merits of an argument that draws conclusions you like, you absolutely clam up. It's okay, though. It's been interesting watching what happens to a thread when an argument seems to be heading into potentially difficult territory for the YEC perspective."

Originally posted by Nineveh

It is?

The fundamental diffrence is "anscestors" from what I can tell.

Exactly. Under the evolutionary model, all organisms except the first had a living ancestor; under the YEC model, all organisms except (drumroll, please!) created kinds had a living ancestor. Funny how even when we are in agreement you sound like you disagree with me!

Originally posted by Nineveh

No, I was asking about what john told Agent Smith way back about mass extinctions that have happend (I believe he said) 5 times or so.

Oh, I wouldn't have guessed that. Mainly because mass extinctions didn't wipe everything out. Mass extinction refers to the sudden (geologically speaking) disappearance of a large fraction (but never 100%!) of taxa.

Originally posted by Nineveh

I share that view of you. You want me to believe in your life's work, but remain silent about your theories as to where matter came from to begin with and how it got in a form for you to get at least one anscestor, then we can get to your life's passion.

As I've said before, I do not expect to change anyone's beliefs. I have tried to be as clear, open, upfront as possible; I don't just complain, I show my work; I identify the logical steps in my argumentation. You can't honestly claim that you do any of these. Even now, you refuse to consider evolution-based ideas until you are satisfied with how evolution explains something it is not intended to explain (here, the origin of life, and of matter; elsewhere, the origin of the universe).

Originally posted by Nineveh

But you said you don't know if there was one or many. Should I assume one from now on?

If it will make you happy. There certainly isn't much evidence for a polyphetic origin of life.

Originally posted by Nineveh

Yeah, it's sort of confusing when another evo talks about 5 mass extinctions... So what is right here?

Again, you're overinterpreting "mass extinction." "Many rapid extinctions" is not the same as "Complete rapid extinction."

Originally posted by Nineveh

It seems like you are saying, it started once because it's all related by anscestors. Am I close?

Sounds like I'm lucky to have escaped from the southern Indiana school system! "If all are related, then, by definition, they must have one common ancestor. If all are not related, then they cannot possibly all share a single common ancestor."

Originally posted by Nineveh

Considering the lineage from Cain and his mentioned wife, their children (all human) bear out the fact they were real. We have both parents spoken of. For you, it seems it's not necessary to even name one parent to assume an ansestor. ie: man and ape.

Phylogenetic analyses do not need to name ancestors to determine the relationships among descendants. A good phylogenetic analysis will, however, allow one to make predictions about ancestors.

Originally posted by Nineveh

For crying out loud. I admit I assumed your use of a term, now I have to give evidence and proof of why I assumed your use? Simply, get over it already.

Not at all. Comparing your original and subsequent statements make it clear that you claim other evolutionary scientists have charged that YECs think the Bible explains natural phenomena at the level of (your example) the workings of the atom. I'm calling you on that.

Originally posted by Nineveh

And I am not suprised you set up yet one more strawman argument.

No strawmen from me.

Originally posted by Nineveh

It appears those two evo scientists can't even agree on what ramifications the study has.

... so?

Originally posted by Nineveh

Why do you say Sakaki's responce is "emotional"? By the way, there wasn't 30,000,000 chromosome comparisons, there was one.

"Surprise" is an emotion, is it not? Your entire rationale for running with this story has been his surprise at the results.

You need to keep your units straight. What do you mean when you refer to "60,000" differences (many such posts, most recently #740)? Did you mean 60,000 chromosomes?!? As the citation you provided makes clear, they found > 60,000 indels in 30,000,000 bases.

Originally posted by Nineveh

I've just been trying to get you to tell me if there are more/less/none unique sequences in a fruitfly than Brewer claims.

You've been trying, eh? Are you implying that I've been at all shy at answering this, you who still won't say a peep about Brewer's 4-bacteria game? You who first brings up the 50% issue in "response" to my question: "And he never tells us how unique either the evolutionary model or the ID model would predict, so how could he possibly claim his data favors one or the other?" How is your 50% claim anything but a feeble attempt to avoid answering my question?

In any case, maybe you've been trying so hard to get me to answer this question that you've overlooked my answer. How about my post #56 in the "Credentialled Creationist" thread, or my post #743 in this thread?

Originally posted by Nineveh

What I said was evo claims to give us the "origins of species".

Oh, you were the one saying that! I somehow thought you were the one saying that evo needs to explain the origin of the universe, the origin of matter, and the origin of life, and we were the ones saying that, no, evolutionary theory discusses the origin and differentiation of species.

Originally posted by Nineveh

I have been asking you personally, (and all the other evoers) what do you intellectually think about before evo takes over? Where did the matter come from? How did it get into a form useful for evo to take over?

Ah, see, it sounds like you're doing it again! And you won' take "I don't know" or "Ask a cosmologist" for answers.

Originally posted by Nineveh

Are those questions really that hard for you to grasp?

Let's trot those "questions" out for a second look, shall we?

"Hold the phone.
This thread wasn't even about evo. To find fault with me at this stage of the game is finding fault with mere rebuttle."

" I think its a problem for evos personally, for themselves."

Nope, after a second look, I still don't grasp these "questions." Sorry!

Originally posted by Nineveh

I tend to think something other than "if", "could be", "might have".

For example....? Don't worry, I don't really think you can answer this.

Originally posted by Nineveh

How does "shared features" assume "common anscestry"?

It doesn't. Much of systematics is concerned with distinguishing "shared due to common ancestry" with other kinds of "shared."

Originally posted by Nineveh

So they are dinos with feathers? Is that all it takes to fly, feathers?

Yeah, that's why bats and insects don't really fly. Or is it, Yeah, so ostriches and penguins don't really have feathers. Or is it, Yeah, so ostriches really can fly, they're just self-conscious. Nope, no coherent response to your statement. Don't you mean "Is that all it takes to be a bird, feathers?"

Originally posted by Nineveh

Actually Flipper (I believe) was the one giving me the link to one of the dinos with feathers. It said basically, well, it's a dino, and it had feathers, and maybe it could have flown, but it probably just glided.

Once again, let me ask what you would accept as evidence for dino to bird? So far you've told me nothing, which I'm willing to bet is really your answer!

Originally posted by Nineveh

Except of course that left handed amino acid thing. Guess you will read into the evidence what your schooling dictates.

Oops. I think you need to recheck that link that john2001 gave you about this. But maybe I'm missing some late breaking news. What is it about left-handed amino acids that is predicted by the YEC model but not by the evolutionary model?

Originally posted by Nineveh

Which is?

Phew! I've spent thousands of hours in the field, in the lab, in museums, looking at every aspect of the biology of plants and animals, freshwater, terrestrial, and marine, temperate and tropical. YECs tend to focus on the exceptions, but what I've seen, by the thousands, is the rule. Let me know what kind of evidence you're looking for. Kinda the same question as I'm asking re: dino to bird above.

Originally posted by Nineveh

Again, I see evidence in the way the very cell is designed.

See Jukia's comment. And how carefully have you looked at the morphology and function of cells?

Originally posted by Nineveh

Obviously, as to where the matter came from and how it got in a useable form, no more than you do.

Obviously. But somehow you interpret your lack of serious consideration to mean that evolution fails because it doesn't answer these very questions!

Originally posted by Nineveh

So the question of how it all got here never crossed your mind? Do you just assume it's always been here?

Sure, I think about it, but quickly realize that I don't have enough information to even make a defensible hypothesis. That's enough to prevent some people from expressing strong opinions.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by aharvey
Brewer, claim that the existence of unique sequences in fruit flies supports a creation model.

That would be one example he gave to support his argument, yes.

Does that mean that evolutionary model predicts no unique sequences in fruit flies? Obviously not, but then the question, asked repeatedly but as yet unanswered, is "how unique a sequence do the two models predict?" Why does 50% uniqueness in fruit flies favor creation vs. evolution?

Gee wiz, did you even get the point of his argument? After all this time it seems you would at least try.

Ah, well that's not what any of us are really interested in, is it? Creationist scientists, as I understand the term, refers not to scientists in other disciplines who happen to believe in YEC, but rather scientists doing reseach in creationism.

Since you have a dialog going with Dr. Brewer, why not ask him if he believes he is a "creationist scientist", or a "scientists that believes in creation".

If this were a cancer forum, I might be inclined to discuss his cancer research. His research on cancer is utterly irrelevant to his creationism paper(s).

No but it does hint at a level of intellegence.

Hmm, I don't see the relevance. Brewer got his paper out, we've all seen it, and it's bogus.

Is that what he has replied to you?

You mean ICR, don't you?

Yes.

I guarantee that I will post the outcome of my dialogue with Dr. Brewere.

Glad to hear you will share

Brewer is not the one who's gotten my skin, it's you guys who make all kinds of grand, definitive, unsupported statements,

It seems Brewer is the one who made the statements you are still taking issue with.

you absolutely clam up.

Same back atcha when asked to think beyond your learnin'.

Exactly. Under the evolutionary model, all organisms except the first had a living ancestor; under the YEC model, all organisms except (drumroll, please!) created kinds had a living ancestor. Funny how even when we are in agreement you sound like you disagree with me!

Creation seems to answer my question of where the "ancestor" came from. Yes, yes, yes, I realize that question isn't answerable with darwin, he gets to start with at least one ancestor. Would that be a cell?

Oh, I wouldn't have guessed that. Mainly because mass extinctions didn't wipe everything out. Mass extinction refers to the sudden (geologically speaking) disappearance of a large fraction (but never 100%!) of taxa.

Ok, thank you for answering.

As I've said before, I do not expect to change anyone's beliefs. I have tried to be as clear, open, upfront as possible; I don't just complain, I show my work; I identify the logical steps in my argumentation. You can't honestly claim that you do any of these. Even now, you refuse to consider evolution-based ideas until you are satisfied with how evolution explains something it is not intended to explain (here, the origin of life, and of matter; elsewhere, the origin of the universe).

Ok so you aren't trying to convince anyone about anything, you just like to argue...

Now that that is settled, once again I never claimed, in fact repeatedly stated I know darwin isn't expected to answer the question of where the matter came from, nor how it got into a useable state for darwin to take up.

You will have to forgive me asking the questions to evos, because at this point, even on a personal level it seems not one of you has a clue, at least that you have been willing to offer.

If it will make you happy. There certainly isn't much evidence for a polyphetic origin of life.

So there is more evidence life came from.. what? A single cell?

Sounds like I'm lucky to have escaped from the southern Indiana school system!

Looks like you assume too much

"If all are related, then, by definition, they must have one common ancestor.

Thanks for clearing that up. So that "if" is what you went to school to prove, right?

If all are not related, then they cannot possibly all share a single common ancestor."

Sounds logical.

Phylogenetic analyses do not need to name ancestors to determine the relationships among descendants. A good phylogenetic analysis will, however, allow one to make predictions about ancestors.

Basically fill in the blank with theory until physical evidence is found. Am I close?

Not at all. Comparing your original and subsequent statements make it clear that you claim other evolutionary scientists have charged that YECs think the Bible explains natural phenomena at the level of (your example) the workings of the atom. I'm calling you on that.

You've already called me a liar, I'm not inclined to do all the digging to "prove my innocence of assumption". I've already invited you to believe as you like.

"Surprise" is an emotion, is it not? Your entire rationale for running with this story has been his surprise at the results.

lol loads of articles I've read have "shocked" scientists. Is that really new to you?

You need to keep your units straight. What do you mean when you refer to "60,000" differences (many such posts, most recently #740)? Did you mean 60,000 chromosomes?!? As the citation you provided makes clear, they found > 60,000 indels in 30,000,000 bases.

So help me "keep it straight" by not saying "30,000,000 comparisons". Remember it wasn't that long ago you were fighting for john's misunderstanding it wasn't just one comparison.

Oh, you were the one saying that! I somehow thought you were the one saying that evo needs to explain the origin of the universe, the origin of matter, and the origin of life, and we were the ones saying that, no, evolutionary theory discusses the origin and differentiation of species.

Pardon, but it took me 2 pages to get anyone to finally answer the question of "what happened first" a year or so ago. I believe it was Barbarian who finally told me about "abiogenesis". I shant ever forget that darwin only tries to cover the "origin of species".

I think you are confusing my questions to you about matter and it's form. But here again, believe as you like, but at least answer...

Ah, see, it sounds like you're doing it again! And you won' take "I don't know" or "Ask a cosmologist" for answers.

For your personal beliefs? Should I just call Ms. Cleo instead?

Let's trot those "questions" out for a second look, shall we?

Let's!

Where does matter come from?

How did it get in a usuable form for darwin to take over?

I still don't grasp these "questions." Sorry!

And you accuse me of being intellectually dishonest. My 4 year old had questions about where things come from. But a degreed scientists has never pondered such things? Really?

It doesn't. Much of systematics is concerned with distinguishing "shared due to common ancestry" with other kinds of "shared."

Good then, you won't mind if I don't assume.

Yeah, that's why bats and insects don't really fly. Or is it, Yeah, so ostriches and penguins don't really have feathers. Or is it, Yeah, so ostriches really can fly, they're just self-conscious. Nope, no coherent response to your statement. Don't you mean "Is that all it takes to be a bird, feathers?"

But a dino with feathers must have flown. I see.

Once again, let me ask what you would accept as evidence for dino to bird? So far you've told me nothing, which I'm willing to bet is really your answer!

Alright, here is a less satisfactory answer then, it will take more than bird fossils, dino fossils and a lot of hope.

Oops. I think you need to recheck that link that john2001 gave you about this. But maybe I'm missing some late breaking news. What is it about left-handed amino acids that is predicted by the YEC model but not by the evolutionary model?

Oh, they did get left handed amino acids to stick together in a lab? WOW!

Darwin already has his ancestor to start with, why would he need abiogenesis?

Phew! I've spent thousands of hours in the field, in the lab, in museums, looking at every aspect of the biology of plants and animals, freshwater, terrestrial, and marine, temperate and tropical. YECs tend to focus on the exceptions, but what I've seen, by the thousands, is the rule. Let me know what kind of evidence you're looking for. Kinda the same question as I'm asking re: dino to bird above.

And looking at all this stuff is evidence for you because?

Obviously. But somehow you interpret your lack of serious consideration to mean that evolution fails because it doesn't answer these very questions!

... here we go again.

No, I don't buy evo because the physical evidence doesn't appear to support everything came from (you still haven't filled me in on that... one cell?).

What I don't take seriously is you not at least giving me your ideas about those two questions.

Sure, I think about it, but quickly realize that I don't have enough information to even make a defensible hypothesis. That's enough to prevent some people from expressing strong opinions.

Wowzers. Unreal. You won't even try to go outside your career field to answer fundamental questions?

And to think, there are scientists, doctors, lawyers, teachers and even laymen who have no trouble at all giving voice to their beliefs on all manner of things.

 

[aharvey]

Okay, we're at that point again, Nin. You make a point, I respond, you take that response in a completely different context than your previous statement, reducing the entire conversation to a bunch of gibberish. If you think I'm off base here, take one of the little subthreads, build a little page that contains just the ancestors of that subthread. [edit: thought I should show you what I mean:

N: You said earlier today you haven't yet arrived at your conclusion on "how the ball got rolling". To me , what you do with the ball later has a lesser degree of importance.

A: I have no problem with your feeling that way. All that means is that evolutionary biology is a less important scientific discipline to you personally than cosmology. It doesn’t mean that evolutionary biology is wrong because it is not cosmology, does it?

N: No, and I never claimed such a thing.

A: (1) Not in those words exactly, but you, more than anyone here, constantly fault evolution for not explaining where it all began. (2) Cosmology is the discipline concerned with "where it all began." Therefore, you are faulting evolutionary theory for not being cosmology. And please don't be disingenuous and claim that you never said this was a problem with evolutionary theory, it's just something you personally have been interested in!

N (1): Hold the phone.
This thread wasn't even about evo. To find fault with me at this stage of the game is finding fault with mere rebuttle.

A (1): That doesn’t even make any sense.

N (2): I think its a problem for evos personally , for themselves .

A (2): That doesn’t even make any sense. You must have had a wild weekend!

N: Are those questions really that hard for you to grasp?

A: Let's trot those "questions" out for a second look, shall we?

"Hold the phone.
This thread wasn't even about evo. To find fault with me at this stage of the game is finding fault with mere rebuttle."

" I think its a problem for evos personally, for themselves."

Nope, after a second look, I still don't grasp these "questions." Sorry!

N: And you accuse me of being intellectually dishonest. My 4 year old had questions about where things come from. But a degreed scientists has never pondered such things? Really?]

Whew!

I'll let you know what Brewer says. He at least is likely to have some idea what his paper is about, what I'm talking about, and will be able to discuss issues about which we may disagree in an honest and forthright manner.

 

[Nineveh]

So your personal ideas about where matter came from and how it got into a form your schooling can pick up with are...?

 

[john2001]

Originally posted by Nineveh
(john2001: few earthscientists believe in a worldwide flood)
"Few" must be a relative term for you.

Not at all. The idea of a worldwide flood is dead among the community of more than 100,000 earth scientists. Sure, there are religious fundamentalists who cling to the idea, but it is not used in *science*.

Dr. Brewer can simply state what he finds without invoking God. God is his foundation, just as darwin is for evos, only evos feel the need to do a lot of evoking.

As with any scientist, his or her personal religious beliefs are their business. What we do in science is deal with the observable and the measurable, the things we can make sense of, and the things we can communicate to our fellow scientists.

This is where the ICR group diverges from the mainstream scientific community. The first big divergence is their statement of faith, which others have pointed you to. This amounts to a loyalty oath. It is not possible under their policy for an ICR member to publish materials through the ICR group that disagrees with their young-earth-global-flood view of geology.

Indeed, an ICR member named Gerald Aardsma was bumped from the ICR after he published an Impact article indicating that physical evidence suggested that the flood had to have happened at least 20,000 years ago. His IMPACT article was removed, subsequently.

 

[Nineveh]

john,

Are you implying being exclusive makes one wrong on the face of a matter?