Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

1453454456458459822

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    J C wrote: »
    I too will give myself a rest (....)history.

    'And behold, he did debate by C&P spam, and saw that it was good.'


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    J C wrote: »
    I too will give myself a rest ... and give you the answer which AIG gives to such questions:-

    Thanks that was funny.

    No no evidence whatsoever then. Those missing 'pre flood' humans fossils are a pretty big gap in the creation fossil record wouldn't you say :eek:.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭rockbeer


    Interesting reading, J C, and rather missing the point. Human and dinosaur fossils don't need to be found 'together' as in lying next to each other to contradict evolutionary theory. In rocks of the same age anywhere in the world would do it. So the whole convoluted argument about them inhabiting different regions is nonsense. The question your c & p conspicuously fails to address is why human fossils have never been found in rocks of the same age as those that contain dinosaur fossils. Agreed that fossilization is a difficult process, numbers are small etc. etc., but to give substance to your theory you only need to produce one human fossil in a rock old enough to contain a dinosaur fossil. Or a dinosaur fossil in rocks young enough to contain humans for that matter.

    Better get out your pick and shovel :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    rockbeer wrote: »
    Interesting reading, J C, and rather missing the point. Human and dinosaur fossils don't need to be found 'together' as in lying next to each other to contradict evolutionary theory. In rocks of the same age anywhere in the world would do it. So the whole convoluted argument about them inhabiting different regions is nonsense. The question your c & p conspicuously fails to address is why human fossils have never been found in rocks of the same age as those that contain dinosaur fossils. Agreed that fossilization is a difficult process, numbers are small etc. etc., but to give substance to your theory you only need to produce one human fossil in a rock old enough to contain a dinosaur fossil. Or a dinosaur fossil in rocks young enough to contain humans for that matter.

    Better get out your pick and shovel :)

    Nicely put. I'd also once again point to question 5 on our list of unanswered questions. This also represents evidence in the fossil record which contradicts the creation model.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    marco_polo said:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    Sure Gee doesn't like evolution being exposed by his comments. Certainly he wants us to believe in the Big Picture even if the fossil evidence does not contribute to it. Tough.

    We are perfectly entitled to say, as JC did, that the acknowledged absence of fossil evidence to support evolution is a major problem for the theory.

    Atomic Horror accepts what Gee says, that the fossil evidence is not a sequential chain, but just dots in the ocean. AH says he can join the dots to give the evolutionary story - but we can join the dots to give the creation story. The picture is all in the mind, a fitting of the evidence into a preconceived narrative.

    Yourself and JC can say it as often as you like. But that is not what you are doing now is it?

    You are certainly not entitled to do is say that Gee is arguing that fossil evidence is a major problem for the theory evolution, because as has been explained to you multiple times this is not what he is talking about at all.
    Apologies to all for not getting back sooner. I've been busy on other threads, and also reflecting on why I can't see what you seem to so clearly regarding Gee's wording.

    I'm not sure I'm any clearer, but here's the best I can come up with:

    You assert that is not arguing that fossil evidence is a major problem for the theory evolution, because you and he holds that the absence of descent linkage of the fossils is not the basis of your claim that the fossil record supports evolution. Instead, your claim rests on the sequence of layers they are found in.

    I had assumed that evolutionists claimed both the sequence of layers and a descent linkage. It certainly seems to feature in the popular evolutionary presentation. I also would have assumed one would expect such a linkage if evolution were true.

    Hence, For Gee to point out this absence was to me to acknowledge a major problem for the evolutionary model. But I can see how any who never held to such an expectation would not be too concerned about it.

    Is that any clearer?


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    marco_polo said:

    Apologies to all for not getting back sooner. I've been busy on other threads, and also reflecting on why I can't see what you seem to so clearly regarding Gee's wording.

    I'm not sure I'm any clearer, but here's the best I can come up with:

    You assert that is not arguing that fossil evidence is a major problem for the theory evolution, because you and he holds that the absence of descent linkage of the fossils is not the basis of your claim that the fossil record supports evolution. Instead, your claim rests on the sequence of layers they are found in.

    I had assumed that evolutionists claimed both the sequence of layers and a descent linkage. It certainly seems to feature in the popular evolutionary presentation. I also would have assumed one would expect such a linkage if evolution were true.

    Hence, For Gee to point out this absence was to me to acknowledge a major problem for the evolutionary model. But I can see how any who never held to such an expectation would not be too concerned about it.

    Is that any clearer?

    Evolutionary scientists do indeed claim that there is a sequence of layers and a common descent. What is not claiming that we will ever know more than a fraction of all species that have ever lived.

    Here are his own words from the final chapter of the same book, this may give you a better idea of where he is coming from (It a book advocating a particular methodology of taxonomy called Cladistics, so one must also bear in mind that is not nescessarly a neutral point of view).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladistics
    The only solution is a pragmatic one. With no certain knowledge of what actually happened, all one can do is say species A and B (as represented by fossil a and fossil b) form a sister-group relationship. Species A could have evolved from B; B could have evolved from A; but both could have evolved from a common ancestor, which may have been a member of A or B, or another unknown species, C. We can never know for certain, but why worry: Cladistics makes all this speculation unnecessary by adopting the practical solution. Even if we can never know what actually happened, we do know that fossils a and b are somehow related through a shared common heritage, because such a relationship must be true for any pair of organisms. The sister-group relationship is a convenient summary not of what happened, but of all the things that might have happened.

    If you still think he is saying something else there is not much more I can do.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    I'm not sure I'm any clearer, but here's the best I can come up with:

    You assert that is not arguing that fossil evidence is a major problem for the theory evolution, because you and he holds that the absence of descent linkage of the fossils is not the basis of your claim that the fossil record supports evolution. Instead, your claim rests on the sequence of layers they are found in.

    I had assumed that evolutionists claimed both the sequence of layers and a descent linkage. It certainly seems to feature in the popular evolutionary presentation. I also would have assumed one would expect such a linkage if evolution were true.

    The sequence of layers is a solid piece of data. The fossils lie where they lie and this is not open to "modelling". Just as the data points on a scatter plot are located where they are located. There may be error, but this is why we always repeat observations. Linkage between the fossils, like the trend line between data points, is our model. When the fossil record was more paltry, this model was tenuous and best considered a hypothesis, perhaps one amongst several. Now there is so much data that we can say with confidence that our model represents reality. The linkage is there and in broad terms it appears to apply to all known fossils. There is no fossil so morphologically strange nor so strangely placed in time that it breaks our model.

    So the fossil record supports evolution. Alone, I'm not sure I would claim that it is sufficient enough to make us confident enough in the model to call it "theory", but I should stress that I say this merely because my knowledge of palaeontology is flimsy. Experts in that field might well disagree with me.

    In my view, it is when we combine the fossil record with genetic analysis that our model of evolution truly becomes theory. The density of "data points" becomes astoundingly convincing. When we add to this numerous laboratory experiments demonstrating specification in real time, along with simple observations of breeding and of course morphological analysis of the extant species, we see that all the data is pointing in the same direction.

    The theory is still falsifiable. But of course, it would now require a very large body of data to convincingly contradict all the rest.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Hence, For Gee to point out this absence was to me to acknowledge a major problem for the evolutionary model. But I can see how any who never held to such an expectation would not be too concerned about it.

    This could only be true if Gee were to claim that the record was insufficient to draw any connections at all. He's not doing so- he's instead cautioning against interpreting the data as a linear progression leading to humans. The data doesn't support such a simplified view (and indeed such a view doesn't make much sense in evolution). He was perhaps alluding to those classic "monkey to man" style diagrams which can be misinterpreted by some to indicate a linear, rather than multiply branching, descent.

    So basically, the subject ("this pre-existing story") of Gee's comment was the linear story of human evolution. A story that ignores branching and assumes that the fossil record can somehow be linearised to show man as the apex of evolution. This was a misguided notion that quite captured the public imagination in the early days of the theory, and which is probably still prevalent outside of the scientific community. This is why Gee and others often try to address the concept and explain why we don't consider it viable; because the data does not support it.

    J C presented the quote as if the subject were "spontaneous evolution", by which we can assume he means the theory of evolution.

    I could as easily quote you on the "symbolic language of heaven" and lead into the quote by saying "Here is what Wolfsbane thinks of literal interpretations of Genesis". It'd either be a very dishonest move (given that I know at the time that you were talking about a part of the bible not apparently taught by Jesus as literal) or it would be a lazy (or uncaring) misunderstanding on my part.

    Now I happen to think that this confusion arose because J C merely copied and pasted a quote from a creationist website without delving any deeper. Either way, he has made an error and if he is actually interested in addressing the truth, should correct himself. He would have lost no face in doing so at the outset, but now he appears deliberately evasive and dishonest. His behaviour is also at odds with his claims to be a scientist, since scientists are attacked on their assertions constantly and are expected to react by clarification or retraction, not evasion or flat denial.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    ....here are some more 'mind expanding' quotes for Evolutionists from Evolutionists on Evolution.........

    The following quote comes from a time when Intelligent Design hadn't yet become a 'dirty word' amongst Evolutionists:-

    Prof Pierre Grasse (1895 - 1985) Editor of the 28-volume "Traite de Zoologie" and Late Chair of Evolution at Sorbonne University

    "Any living thing possesses an enormous amount of 'intelligence'... Today, this 'intelligence' is called 'information,' but it is still the same thing... This 'intelligence' is the sine qua non of life. If absent, no living being is imaginable. Where does it come from? This is a problem which concerns both biologists and philosophers, and, at present, science seems incapable of solving it." Evolution of Living Organisms (1977) p.2

    ....Creation Scientists HAVE solved where all of this information has come from!!!!:D

    .....any chance that they will get a Nobel Prize for their breakthrough?????:eek::):D


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    In the following quotes Prof Pierre Grasse goes from claiming that Evolution is a fact.........

    "Zoologists and botanists are nearly unanimous in considering evolution as a fact and not a hypothesis. I agree with this position and base it primarily on documents provided by paleontology, i.e., the history of the living world." Evolution of Living Organisms (1977) p.3


    ......to stating that caution must be exercised when making any conclusions about Evolution:-

    "Naturalists must remember that the process of evolution is revealed only through fossil forms. A knowledge of paleontology is, therefore, a prerequisite; only paleontology can provide them with the evidence of evolution and reveal its course or mechanisms. Neither the examination of present beings, nor imagination, nor theories can serve as a substitute for paleontological documents. If they ignore them, biologists, the philosophers of nature, indulge in numerous commentaries and can only come up with hypotheses. That is why we constantly have recourse to paleontology, the only true science of evolution. From it we learn how to interpret present occurrences cautiously; it reveals that certain hypotheses considered certainties by their authors are in fact questionable or even illegitimate." Evolution of Living Organisms (1977) p.4


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    ..and here Prof Pierre Grasse has a salutory word of warning for all of the Darwinists and "incompletely informed biologists" on this thread:eek::D

    .....he even goes as far as calling aspects of Biological Evolution a 'pseudoscience'!!!!!:D:):eek:

    ...the great Prof Grasse also illustrates the fundamental difference between 'varying' and 'evolving'.....a distinction which the Evolutionists on this thread have had particular difficulties in understanding ... and accepting!!!:)

    "Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations. … For millions or even billions of years, bacteria have not transgressed the structural frame within which they have always fluctuated and still do. It is a fact that microbiologists can see in their cultures species of bacteria oscillating around an intermediate form, but this does not mean that two phenomena, which are quite distinct, should be confused; the variation of the genetic code because of a DNA copy error, and evolution. To vary and to evolve are two different things; this can never be sufficiently emphasized ... Bacteria, which are both the first and the most simple living beings to have appeared, are excellent subject material for genetic and biochemical study, but they are of little evolutionary value.

    Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case."
    Evolution of Living Organisms (1977) p.6


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    .... and here Prof Grasse discusses the infamous circular reasoning of Darwinists.....so amply illustrated over the past 911 pages of this thread!!!!:-


    "Biochemists and biologists who adhere blindly to the Darwinism theory search for results that will be in agreement with their theories and consequently orient their research in a given direction ... This intrusion of theories has unfortunate results: it deprives observations and experiments of their objectivity, makes them biased, and, moreover, creates false problems. ... Assuming that the Darwinian hypothesis is correct, they interpret fossil data according to it; it is only logical that they should confirm it: the premises imply the conclusions. The error in method is obvious." Evolution of Living Organisms (1977) p.7:pac::):D:eek:


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    ...and here Prof Grasse proposes it as a DUTY to destroy the 'myth of evolution'....which is that it is a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us.....a myth that many of the Evolutionists on this thread have continued to promote!!!!
    :pac::):D

    ...he explains the reason why some Evolutionists continue to believe in the myth of Evolution is because with evolution, it is not easy to have access to reality!!!!!!:D:eek:

    .....I couldn't have said it better myself!!!!:)


    "Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs.

    It is true that, with regard to evolution, it is not easy to have access to reality; the past does not lend itself easily to our research, and experiments do not have any hold over it. "
    Evolution of Living Organisms (1977) p.8


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    ...and in the following quotes Prof Grasse is starting to sound like an Intelligent Design Proponent:-:eek::eek::D

    ....and if you are tempted to make the routine allegation that this automtically makes him a Creationist......do bear in mind that Prof Grasse DID occupy the Chair of Evolution at the Sorbonne University in Paris!!!!:eek::D


    "It follows that any explanation of the mechanism in creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypotheses. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formation of pure conjectures as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct. " Evolution of Living Organisms (1977) p.31

    "In his theoretical discussion, Simpson does not linger over the structure of the hoof; yet it is the result of a very innovative and precise evolution. Such a hoof, which is fitted to the limb like a die protecting the third phalanx, can without rubber or springs buffer impacts which sometimes exceed one ton. It could not have formed by mere chance: a close examination of the structure of the hoof reveals that it is a storehouse of coaptations and of organic novelties. The horny wall, by its vertical keratophyl laminae, is fused with the podophyl laminae of the keratogenous layer. The respective lengths of the bones, their mode of articulation, the curves and shapes of the articular surfaces, the structure of bones (orientation, arrangement of the bony layers), the presence of ligaments, tendons sliding with sheaths, buffer cushions, navicular bone, synovial membranes with their serous lubricating liquid, all imply a continuity in the construction which random events, necessarily chaotic and incomplete, could not have produced and maintained. This description does not go into the detail of the ultrastructure where the adaptations are even more remarkable." Evolution of Living Organisms (1977) p.51


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    J C wrote: »
    any chance that they will get a Nobel Prize for their breakthrough?????:eek::):D
    JC, my dear, great to see you back again!

    You've no doubt forgotten, but I recommended last year that you contact the Nobel people to let them know of your great work in disproving Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

    Or are you still too frightened to give them a shout? Or can I do it for you?


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    robindch wrote: »
    JC, my dear, great to see you back again!

    You've no doubt forgotten, but I recommended last year that you contact the Nobel people to let them know of your great work in disproving Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

    Or are you still too frightened to give them a shout? Or can I do it for you?
    .....do you have nomination rights???:eek::pac::):D


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    ....and here Prof Grasse raises a very important question which Creation Science has since answered:-


    "Evolution has not only slowed down, but with the aging of the biosphere, it has also decreased in scope and in extent. We are certain that it does not operate today as it did in the remote past. Something has changed. It is of the utmost importance to determine what has changed; this should shed light upon the internal mechanisms of the phenomena. The structural plans no longer undergo complete reorganization; novelties are no longer plentiful. Evolution, after its last enormous effort to form the mammalian orders and man, seems to be out of breath and drowsing off." Evolution of Living Organisms (1977) p.71

    .....the reason that Speciation started off rapidly but then greatly decreased in recent times, is because the design specifiation was for initial rapid and profuse speciation after Creation and in the wake of the Flood....with a decrease to almost zero as at present!!!!!:pac::):D


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    J C wrote: »
    ...and in the following quotes Prof Grasse is starting to sound like an Intelligent Design Proponent:-:eek::eek::D

    ....and if you are tempted to make the routine allegation that this automtically makes him a Creationist......do bear in mind that Prof Grasse DID occupy the Chair of Evolution at the Sorbonne University in Paris!!!!:eek::D

    Well at least you have stopped finally quoting evolutionists. If you had bothered to read up on him rather that blindly copying and pasting random passages, you would know that Prof Grasse was an avid supporter of the now widely discredited theory of Lamarckism and not Darwinian evolution?

    As you seem to take as fact everything he has written, I presume you also share the Lamarckian belief that an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring?
    J C wrote: »

    .....the reason that Speciation started off rapidly but then greatly decreased in recent times, is because the design specifiation was for initial rapid and profuse speciation after Creation and in the wake of the Flood....with a decrease to almost zero as the Rapture approaches!!!!!:pac::):D

    Any evidence?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    J C wrote: »
    ....

    Prof Pierre Grasse (1895 - 1985) Editor of the 28-volume "Traite de Zoologie" and Late Chair of Evolution at Sorbonne University

    The appeal to authority.

    A question within a field does not nessecarily question the validity of the theory itself. This has been pointed out already.
    J C wrote: »
    ....
    ....Creation Scientists HAVE solved where all of this information has come from!!!!:D

    No, they've merely said "God did it".
    J C wrote: »
    .....any chance that they will get a Nobel Prize for their breakthrough?????:eek::):D

    Odin did it. See? I've done the same thing. Now get me a Nobel.
    J C wrote: »
    ......to stating that caution must be exercised when making any conclusions about Evolution

    Quote mining. Thats not what he's trying to get at all.
    J C wrote: »
    ...and here Prof Grasse proposes it as a DUTY to destroy the 'myth of evolution'....

    You really have no shame, do you?
    J C wrote: »
    ....and if you are tempted to make the routine allegation that this automtically makes him a Creationist......do bear in mind that Prof Grasse DID occupy the Chair of Evolution at the Sorbonne University in Paris!!!!
    .

    About that. If he occupied that chair, logically, there'd be a massive row if he turned round and said - as your posts imply - that there was no truth to it. Yet nowhere can it be seen here.......

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Paul_Grass%C3%A9

    Why?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    J C wrote: »
    .....do you have nomination rights?
    No, but I know people who do. Would you like me to pass along your name?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    J C wrote: »
    ....and here Prof Grasse raises a very important question which Creation Science has since answered:-


    "Evolution has not only slowed down, but with the aging of the biosphere, it has also decreased in scope and in extent. We are certain that it does not operate today as it did in the remote past. Something has changed. It is of the utmost importance to determine what has changed; this should shed light upon the internal mechanisms of the phenomena. The structural plans no longer undergo complete reorganization; novelties are no longer plentiful. Evolution, after its last enormous effort to form the mammalian orders and man, seems to be out of breath and drowsing off." Evolution of Living Organisms (1977) p.71

    .....the reason that Speciation started off rapidly but then greatly decreased in recent times, is because the design specifiation was for initial rapid and profuse speciation after Creation and in the wake of the Flood....with a decrease to almost zero as the Rapture approaches!!!!!:pac::):D

    Hello J C and welcome back after your week-long absence. I note that your breaks from us are becoming more frequent. I also note that you return not offer rebuttals to our arguments but merely to continue your panicked quote spamming. I guess we're causing you to pause for thought, which can only be a good thing.

    I remind you once again that paragraphs clipped from a creationist website, without appropriate context, do no qualify as valid points in a debate. Even if they were in context, they'd amount to little more than the opinion of that person. Science is not about opinions or interpretations, but about data and the models built upon them.

    I also remind you that we've asked you to limit the amount of quote spamming that you do as it obscures relevant posts. I count six pasted posts in succession on the last page.

    Finally, I remind you that there is a growing body of questions which you are steadfastly refusing to address.

    1. Provide a genetic test for Created Kinds. According to you, the taxa is both real and fundamental, so it should be innately more testable than any element of Linnean taxonomy, which is merely a labelling system.

    2. Define "Created Pair" in biological and genetic terms. As with 1, this should be easy.

    3. Explain whether you intentionally or unintentionally misquoted Dr. Gee in a context suggesting that he was talking about a topic that he was not actually addressing. Justify whichever choice you made in terms of your morals.

    4. Please name some scientists currently engaged in creation research. Preferably provide examples of research papers (not reviews or essays) published in the last two years.

    5. Please provide an example of the "downward mixing" that should be visible in the fossil record if it is actually evidence of a turbulent flood. We will accept any organism that should only have emerged in the last 100 million years being found at any dated layer below 400 million years. This would be rather modest mixing in the top 10% of layers, but one irrefutable example will suffice.

    6. Please clearly confirm that you have now accepted that either a) Your Designer is inept b) your Designer is disinterested in individual human survival c) irreducible complexity is not evidence of design but of mutation or d) redundancy (and thus new function) can arise by mutation. This is not an arbitrary four-way choice, the logic is explained here.

    7. Please provide data confirming the rapid sedimentation/rock formation processes that you describe as occurring during the The Flood. The data may be from any primary source but must be based upon wet lab or field work data, rather than a mathematical model or simulation. Since you describe the process as having taken only a few years, this should be testable.

    8. Please provide data demonstrating the mathematical, chemical or biological impossibility of the process of evolution. Some conditions: Whether the process did or did not occur is not relevant to the "possibility". Please confine your data to the process of evolution. Abiogenesis is not a consideration. Data supporting Creation also does not impact on "possibility".


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    JC, please try not to spam the forum with multiple posts. You have been around long enough to realise that people consider this rude. Less is more.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    1. Provide a genetic test for Created Kinds. According to you, the taxa is both real and fundamental, so it should be innately more testable than any element of Linnean taxonomy, which is merely a labelling system.
    .....I have told you (several times) already that the ability to cross-breed or cross-breed with an intermediary, is the definitive test for Created Kinds.....and that is quite adequate in my opinion.

    2. Define "Created Pair" in biological and genetic terms. As with 1, this should be easy.
    A Created Pair was an originally created pair of organisms from which all members of a Created Kind is descended...and that is quite an adequate definition in my opinion.

    3. Explain whether you intentionally or unintentionally misquoted Dr. Gee in a context suggesting that he was talking about a topic that he was not actually addressing. Justify whichever choice you made in terms of your morals.
    I didn't misquote Dr Gee....I quoted him verbatim. Many leading Evolutionists HAVE reservations about particular aspects of Evolution....and it is YOU that is trying to 'put words in Dr Gee's mouth'!!!
    Such reservations don't necessarily invalidate Evolution and they certainly don't mean that Dr Gee isn't an Evolutionist...but these reservations are important because they often support various contentions of Creation Scientists in relation to Evolution....such as the paucity of fossil evidence for Human Evolution....or indeed the paucity of fossil evidence for ANY Evolution at all!!!


    4. Please name some scientists currently engaged in creation research. Preferably provide examples of research papers (not reviews or essays) published in the last two years.
    .....Not going to.....I would be wasting my time ....because you don't accept that a Conventionally Qualified Scientist can be a Creation Scientist....and I would be needlessly exposing a Creation Scientist to God only knows what!!!

    5. Please provide an example of the "downward mixing" that should be visible in the fossil record if it is actually evidence of a turbulent flood. We will accept any organism that should only have emerged in the last 100 million years being found at any dated layer below 400 million years. This would be rather modest mixing in the top 10% of layers, but one irrefutable example will suffice.
    Your demand is pure tautology ... there are many examples of so-called 'younger' fossils being found underneath layers where 'older' fossils arre found ... and Evolutionists explain this away by claiming that the 'younger' fossil creatures were living contemporaneously with the 'older' fossils ... in some cases the 'older' fossil creatures are even still alive today!!!!


    6. Please clearly confirm that you have now accepted that either a) Your Designer is inept b) your Designer is disinterested in individual human survival c) irreducible complexity is not evidence of design but of mutation or d) redundancy (and thus new function) can arise by mutation. This is not an arbitrary four-way choice, the logic is explained here.
    My Creator is both adept and interested in EVERY Human Being.
    Irreducible Complexity proves that it mathematically impossible that the complex specified genetic information found in living creatures could be produced by undirected non-intelligent processes!!!!
    All redundant systems are themselves Irreducibly Complex and therefore their production by undirected non-intelligent processes is ALSO mathematically impossible !!!


    7. Please provide data confirming the rapid sedimentation/rock formation processes that you describe as occurring during the The Flood. The data may be from any primary source but must be based upon wet lab or field work data, rather than a mathematical model or simulation. Since you describe the process as having taken only a few years, this should be testable.
    ....you are becoming needlessly pedantic on me!!!!!

    ....go look at concrete being poured on any local building site....and come back the next day and jump up and down on it!!!!!
    .....equally look at ephimeral fossilised creatures like fossil Jellyfish....whose perfect fossilisation indicates rapid setting of these rocks in minutes or hours AT MOST!!!!


    8. Please provide data demonstrating the mathematical, chemical or biological impossibility of the process of evolution. Some conditions: Whether the process did or did not occur is not relevant to the "possibility". Please confine your data to the process of evolution. Abiogenesis is not a consideration. Data supporting Creation also does not impact on "possibility".
    .....the production of a specific 100 chain of Amino Acids required for a specific functional protein using undirected processes is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE...even if you had all of the matter and supposed time in the 'Big Bang' Universe....and the non-intelligent production of everything else is even more impossible!!!!!
    :eek::D


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    robindch wrote: »
    No, but I know people who do. Would you like me to pass along your name?
    ......I'm sure you would like to 'pass along my name'.....

    ........but I doubt if it would be accompanied with a recommendation for a Nobel Prize!!!!:eek::eek::eek::eek:


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    marco_polo wrote: »
    Well at least you have stopped finally quoting evolutionists. If you had bothered to read up on him rather that blindly copying and pasting random passages, you would know that Prof Grasse was an avid supporter of the now widely discredited theory of Lamarckism and not Darwinian evolution?
    .....whether he was a Lamarkian or a Darwinian DOESN'T affect the fact that he was an EVOLUTIONIST and occupied the Chair of Evolutionary Biology at the Sorbonne in Paris!!!!!

    ....and BTW Darwinism is just as invalid as Lamarkism!!!!:)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    All that text and no answers. Wow.

    J C, are you a bot?


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    ....and if you are tempted to make the routine allegation that this automtically makes him a Creationist......do bear in mind that Prof Grasse DID occupy the Chair of Evolution at the Sorbonne University in Paris!!!!

    Nodin

    About that. If he occupied that chair, logically, there'd be a massive row if he turned round and said - as your posts imply - that there was no truth to it. Yet nowhere can it be seen here.......

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Paul_Grass%C3%A9

    Why?
    ....Prof Grasse DIDN'T say there was no truth to evolution....but he did ask serious questions about certain aspects of Evolution.....

    .......devastating questions like these:-

    "Bacteria, the study of which has formed a great part of the foundation of genetics and molecular biology, are the organisms which, because of their huge numbers, produce the most mutants. This is why they gave rise to an infinite variety of species, called strains, which can be revealed by breeding or tests. Like Erophila verna, bacteria, despite their great production of intraspecific varieties, exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus Escherichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago!

    What is the use of their unceasing mutations, if they do not change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect.

    Cockroaches, which are one of the most venerable living relict groups, have remained more or less unchanged since the Permian, yet they have undergone as many mutations as Drosophila, a Tertiary insect.

    It is important to note that relict species mutate as much as others do, but do not evolve, not even when they live in conditions favorable to change (diversity of environments, cosmopolitianism, large populations).

    How does the Darwinian mutational interpretation of evolution account for the fact that the species that have been the most stable-some of them for the last hundreds of millions of years have mutated as much as the others do? Once one has noticed microvariations (on the one hand) and specific stability (on the other), it seems very difficult to conclude that the former (microvariation) comes into play in the evolutionary process.

    Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve.

    This logical scheme is, however, unacceptable: first, because its major premise is neither obvious nor general; second, because its conclusion does not agree with the facts. No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution. "
    Evolution of Living Organisms (1977) p.87-8

    ....anybody care to provide any answers to Prof Gasse's questions??:confused:


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    All that text and no answers. Wow.

    J C, are you a bot?
    ......and you are a deeply loved child of God whom Jesus wants to Save from eternal perdition....but the decision is entirely up to you!!!!:)


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    J C wrote: »
    ....anybody care to provide any answers to Prof Gasse's questions??:confused:

    I don't really have the time to respond properly and to be honest it is quite underhanded debating tactics to post a massive block of text and just ask for answers.

    The best answer to the one of the main points raised would be Hox Genes, which were discovered quite some time after that paper was written.
    J C wrote:
    whether he was a Lamarkian or a Darwinian DOESN'T affect the fact that he was an EVOLUTIONIST and occupied the Chair of Evolutionary Biology at the Sorbonne in Paris!!!!!

    Appeal to authority ... check.
    J C wrote:
    ....and BTW Darwinism is just as invalid as Lamarkism!!!!

    Only one has been falsified. So don't worry the nobel prize can still be claimed by you :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    ....and BTW Darwinism is just as invalid as Lamarkism!!!!


    marco_polo
    Only one has been falsified. So don't worry the nobel prize can still be claimed by you :rolleyes:
    ....there are many eminent scientists, including Prof Grasse....who have ALREADY scientifically invalidated Darwinism....so perhaps THEY should be recommended for nomination for a Nobel Prize by Robin!!!!:pac::):D:eek:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    ....anybody care to provide any answers to Prof Gasse's questions??

    marco_polo

    I don't really have the time to respond properly and to be honest it is quite underhanded debating tactics to post a massive block of text and just ask for answers.
    ....ah go on, go on, go on.....you will, you will.....YOU WILL!!!!!!:eek::D

    ....and BTW I didn't collapse at the thoughts of answering AtomicHorror's equally 'massive block' of questions!!!!!:pac::):D:eek:

    ....and I don't share your belief that AH was in any way underhand in posting such a 'massive block' of text!!!

    ......mbeep.......mbeep!!!!:D


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement