The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
....whether (Prof Grasse) 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!!!!!

marco_polo
Appeal to authority ... check.

....and a very eminent Evolutionist authority at that!!!!!:pac::):D

Nodin

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!!!!!

Meaning, logically, that he doesnt hold the view you try to imply and therefore you're quoting him out of context. You didn't explain why no mention of his supposed anti-evolution stance appeared in the Wikipedia entry related to him.

J C wrote: »

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

....but not in the sense you imply.

J C wrote: »

.....
who have ALREADY scientifically invalidated Darwinism.....

The use and abuse of terms......

While the term has remained in use amongst scientific authors, it is increasingly regarded as an inappropriate description of modern evolutionary theory [4][5][6] For example, Darwin was unfamiliar with the work of Gregor Mendel, having as a result only a vague and inaccurate understanding of heredity, although he had an unopened copy of Mendel's works in his library (see Pangenesis), and knew nothing of genetic drift.[7] In modern usage, particularly in the United States, Darwinism is often used by creationists as a pejorative term.[8]

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

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....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!!!

You will note, J C, that in the absence of any response from you in several weeks of asking I have at most posted this "massive block" of questions once per page. If this is considered to constitute spamming, I will certainly desist immediately.

And now to your responses.

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.

This is not a genetic test. Adequate for a simple test perhaps. But you claim that Created Kind is a fundamental taxon- it should thus have a genetic component. You alluded to this and I am asking for clarification.

Question not answered.

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.

This is not a biological definition. It is not a genetic definition. It is thus not testable. It is thus not adequate.

Question not answered.

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'!!!

On the contrary, Gee’s meaning, and his subject, are clear from the context on that page. By suggesting he was addressing “spontaneous evolution” you either made an error or you lied. Misquote is perhaps the wrong word. Quoted out of context is correct. Or misrepresented. I’ll update the question, and I apologise for the poor choice of word.

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!!!

Paucity of evidence is such a vague term. It is also not a criticism of evolution or a factor that undermines it. If a model successful explains evidence (be it rare or common), and if it predicts the discovery of new such evidence, then that evidence supports the model. The paucity of that evidence cannot be said to represent a criticism, especially when the author recognises that the data source is not alone. We’d need contradictory data for that.

Question not answered. However, it will be rephrased.

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!!!

You’ve used that vague and ominous claim before. The suggestion being that creation scientists put their careers at risk by admitting to doing creation research. However, such research would have to be funded with full disclosure of the nature of the project (unless the researcher is committing fraud). Groups such as the Discovery Institute and AIG certainly draw enough funding to finance such work and simultaneously remove the perceived risk to the researcher. So where are these researchers?

Question not answered.

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

Underneath, perhaps. But we may find young rocks beneath old rocks on a beach, let alone in the turbulent crust. We have the means to determine the difference. So this is not at all a tautology. There exists a means to falsify the model. I am asking you to provide an example of what you describe above. Evidence of the flood-driven turbulent mixing acting to contradict the evolutionary model.

... in some cases the 'older' fossil creatures are even still alive today!!!!

This is not a falsification of evolution for reasons that have been explained to you many times. As a scientist, it should not be difficult for you to grasp the notion that selection does not need to drive change in all species at all times. If a selective pressure does not itself change, why would a species?

Question not answered.

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 (linked).
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 !!!

An irreducibly complex system cannot be redundant. You clearly do not understand the meaning of one or both of these terms. The terms are mutually exclusive. You are thus still left with a choice to make.

Question not answered.

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!!!!!

I’ll accept this as an attempted answer. However I was looking for something that could be reproduced often in nature- concrete uses no exotic materials but the mix is very specific indeed and we would not expect it to be often reproduced in nature. Of course it could well happen at a low frequency, but we are looking for something common enough to explain the entire fossil record being laid down as fast as concrete. Can you provide a common example of such a process occurring in nature? Can you demonstrate that the process is common enough to lay down many dozens of meters of sedimentary rock in a couple of thousand years?

.....equally look at ephimeral fossilised creatures like fossil Jellyfish....whose perfect fossilisation indicates rapid setting of these rocks in minutes or hours AT MOST!!!!

I’m no expert, but depending on the local conditions such as turbulence, wouldn’t they need to merely be covered in a few millimetres of protective sediment in order to be fossilised? The layer need not be solid immediately, but merely be dense enough to shelter the remains and to resist removal by turbulence. We would expect this to happen very rarely of course, but that is borne out by the fossil record. Between such events, the sediment is laid down by much more common, and slow, processes as we observe today.

8. Please provide data demonstrating the mathematical, chemical or biological impossibility of the process of evolution. Some conditions: a) Whether the process did or did not occur is not relevant to the "possibility". b)Please confine your data to the process of evolution. c) Abiogenesis is not a consideration. d) 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!!!!!

Failed on conditions b) and c): Random recombination of amino acids does not occur during evolution, abiogenesis is not a consideration. As it stands, the above is Hoyle’s terribly confused idea of abiogenesis that bares no resemblence to any of the hypotheses we consider plausible for that process. A straw man, essentially.

Question not answered.

So what we have is 7 unanswered questions. One partially answered, though it did not really address the core point. I’ll also change my suggestion that you misquoted Gee as in fact, you merely misrepresented his opinion.

The floor is yours, J C.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....and a very eminent Evolutionist authority at that!!!!!:pac::):D

As a scientist, you ought to know that information is not accepted on the basis of authority but on the basis of evidence. It's not surprising that you don't understand this, as that kind of thinking permeates your argument style and views.

wolfsbane

marco_polo said:

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


Quote:
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.

Thank you, that is helpful. It looks to me he is saying what I thought he was: that the fossils themselves offer no evidence for or against evolution.

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. I've highlighted the weakness of his argument in bold. The shared common heritage is taken as a given - but an entirely separate creation is just as logical an explanation for the origin of any organism. The butterfly and the bison come from the same original organism according to evolution - but they come from separate originals according to Creationism. The must is only in the model and cannot be used as proof of the model.

So Gee was conceding what I consider to be a major weakness in evolutionary theory. He was however confident that evolution was true, on the basis that all the fossils found in a layer must have a shared common heritage. His facts are good, his reasoning faulty.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

So what we have is 7 unanswered questions. One partially answered, though it did not really address the core point. I’ll also change my suggestion that you misquoted Gee as in fact, you merely misrepresented his opinion.

....Horse....Water....not drinking!!!!:pac::):D

.....in other words, I have comprehensively answered your seven questions.....you refuse to accept my answers....so there is nothing further that I can or should do in relation to these questions!!!!!:D

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

As a scientist, you ought to know that information is not accepted on the basis of authority but on the basis of evidence. It's not surprising that you don't understand this, as that kind of thinking permeates your argument style and views.

....actually it is the INTERPRETATION of the evidence that is the key factor.....and authority is a key component in the acceptabilty of the INTERPRETATION.

....for example, you go to a quack with a swollen leg and the quack interprets the evidence of a swollen leg as excess bodily fluids and recommends a laxative.

....or you go to a Medical Scientist AKA a Consultant ...who interprets the evidence of a swollen leg as Gangrene ...and proceeds to amputate thereby saving your life.

....don't tell me that scientific authority AND accurate interpretation of the evidence isn't an important issue in the scenarios described above!!!!!

....it would literally be a matter of life and death!!!!:)

J C

....and here are some juicy quotes from thr late great Prof Grasse:-


"The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: a single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur. " Evolution of Living Organisms (1977) p.103
....in other words neo-Darwinian Evolution, if it were to occur, would be a MIRACLE!!!!
.....isn't it great crack to see the neo-Darwinians all proclaiming their Atheism.....while simultaneously shouting about a miraculous Evolution!!!!!:pac::):D

.....and Prof Grasse had these words of wisdom for all of the believers in neo-Darwinian Evolution out there:-
"There is no law against day dreaming, but science must not indulge in it." Evolution of Living Organisms. (1977) p.104:D:eek:

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....Horse....Water....not drinking!!!!:pac::):D

.....in other words, I have comprehensively answered your seven questions.....you refuse to accept my answers....so there is nothing further that I can or should do in relation to these questions!!!!!:D

Rubbish, all you've done is side-stepped the answers. If someone asks for an explanation in terms of genetics and you respond with an answer in terms of interbreeding, you have not answered the question. The questions still stand.

J C wrote: »

....actually it is the INTERPRETATION of the evidence that is the key factor.....and authority is a key component in the acceptabilty of the INTERPRETATION.

I'd love to know where you got your science degree, assuming you have one.

Science is not about interpretation. It is about building models based on observations, on measurements. You can't "interpret" the measure of a thing. We can't interpret the distance from Dublin to Galway, or the height of a mountain. And despite your laughable efforts to do so, we cannot interpret the age of a rock. We can measure. There may be error, so when we build our models we account for this.

As to authority, were it really true that authority determined the acceptability of a model then evolution would never have been accepted. Relativity would never have been accepted. At its core, science rejects authority because authority is not amenable to change.

J C wrote: »

....for example, you go to a quack with a swollen leg and the quack interprets the evidence of a swollen leg as excess bodily fluids and recommends a laxative.

....or you go to a Medical Scientist AKA a Consultant ...who interprets the evidence of a swollen leg as Gangrene ...and proceeds to amputate thereby saving your life.

You've got it pretty entirely much backwards. Diagnosis and science are not the same thing. In diagnosis, measurements are taken and an attempt is made to fit the known data to a series of predetermined models (predetermined by actual science) by a process of elimination. This is very different from science. In science we make measurements and fit the model to the data. Data fit to model and model fit to data. Total opposites.

No wonder science confuses you.

J C wrote: »

....don't tell me that scientific authority AND accurate interpretation of the evidence isn't an important issue in the scenarios described above!!!!!

....it would literally be a matter of life and death!!!!:)

Scientific authority may have a place in diagnosis, as it may in public policy and other areas which are informed by science. But authority has no place in science itself.

I would say that those areas, though not science themselves, rely too much on authority. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

marco_polo said:
Thank you, that is helpful. It looks to me he is saying what I thought he was: that the fossils themselves offer no evidence for or against evolution.

How on Earth did you get that from what Gee said? We have a model that says we should see these fossils of certain morphologies within certain strata. We look and we find those fossils in those strata.

How is that not evidence for the model?

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

....there are many eminent scientists, including Prof Grasse....who have ALREADY scientifically invalidated Darwinism....

Where is their scientific evidence?

HouseHippo

he always says this and fails to provide any proof what so ever

Nodin

JC wrote:

.....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!!!

And thats deliberately being evasive. And you should know that its not fooling anyone.

JC wrote:

who have ALREADY scientifically invalidated Darwinism....

What journals have published their works and who are they?

AtomicHorror

HouseHippo wrote: »

he always says this and fails to provide any proof what so ever

Creationists? Making unsubstantiated claims? Surely not! :pac:

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....and here are some juicy quotes from thr late great Prof Grasse:[/COLOR] Evolution of Living Organisms. (1977) p.104:D:eek:

Let's imagine we cared about "opinion". Lets imagine authority mattered in a scientific debate. Would the opinion or authority of a Lamarckian mean anything at all to us? To "evolutionists" or to creationists? No.

You might as well have quoted a phrenologist or reflexologist.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Let's imagine we cared about "opinion". Lets imagine authority mattered in a scientific debate. Would the opinion or authority of a Lamarckian mean anything at all to us? To "evolutionists" or to creationists? No.

You might as well have quoted a phrenologist or reflexologist.

....you really should stop these ad hominem debating tactics....some people may accept your snide remarks when it comes to Creationists.....but such remarks begin to 'wear very thin' when you start applying them to eminent fellow Evolutionists....

.....you seem to be forgetting that Prof Grasse occupied the Chair of Evolutionary Biology at the Sorbonne in Paris....one of the most prestiguous CONVENTIONAL Universities in the World....and the Sorbonne has NEVER conferred qualifications, nor established a tenured professorship in phrenology or reflexology .... so Evolutionists SHOULD take Professor Grass's serious questions in relation to neo-Darwinian Evolution seriously!!!!!!:eek::):D

.....so rather than going into 'Ostrich' levels of denial.....could I suggest that you at least try to give neo-Darwinian Evolution some semblance of credibility .... by answering the following serious issues raised by Prof Grasse......
"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

....so could I ask AGAIN if anybody would care to provide any answers to Prof Grasse's questions??

....and while you are at it, perhaps you could escape from the 'land of denial' for long enough to also comment on Prof Grasse's juicy quotes.....like the following ones that I have posted without any substantive response:-

"The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: a single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur. " Evolution of Living Organisms (1977) p.103

....so Prof. Grasse has clamed that if neo-Darwinian Evolution were to occur, it would be a MIRACLE!!!!
.....isn't it great crack to see the neo-Darwinians all proudly proclaiming their Atheism.....while simultaneously believing in a miraculous Evolution...with no basis in material science or mathematical logic!!!!!:D

.....and the following words of wisdom from Prof Grasse now seem even more appropriate for the believers in neo-Darwinian Evolution on this thread:-
"There is no law against day dreaming, but science must not indulge in it." Evolution of Living Organisms. (1977) p.104

......right on Prof. Grasse!!!!!!:eek::D

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....you're forgetting that Prof Grasse occupied the Chair of Evolutionary Biology at the Sorbonne in Paris....one of the most prestiguous CONVENTIONAL Universities in the World....

I've not forgotten the position held by Grasse. Indeed he was the last Lamarckian to hold such an esteemed post. But what of it? We've already established that scientists have little time for authority.

J C wrote: »

and the Sorbonne has NEVER conferred qualifications, nor established a tenured professorship in phrenology or reflexology ....

What of it? They've never conferred degrees in Lamarckianism either, or certainly not in modern times. Nor was that an element of Grasse's post. My point was that Lamarckianism is long discredited. So we'd immediately take Grasse's opinion with a pinch of salt. A moot point, since we're not interested in opinions.

J C wrote: »

so Evolutionists SHOULD take Professor Grass's serious questions in relation to neo-Darwinian Evolution seriously!!!!!!:eek::):D

....so could I ask AGAIN if anybody would care to provide any answers to Prof Gasse's questions??

Why? His entire position is already refuted. You don't agree with it and neither do I. So why make it a part of the debate? If I start to quote Norse Creation mythology and demand you answer to its contradictions of Abrahamic Creationism would that make any sense?

This is a diversionary tactic. I politely request that you remain on topic.

However, if you'd like to start a new thread in defence of Lamarckianism I'll happily debate it with you in great detail. Sound fair?

AtomicHorror

Rather than answering questions on a long-dead theory, let's discuss Creationism and the theory of Evolution. Here is an updated list (once per page at most!) of some of the questions the "Evolutionists" would like answered regarding the Creation model:

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. Please refrain from scripture-based definitions.

3. Explain whether you intentionally or unintentionally quoted Dr. Gee out of context by suggesting that he was talking about a topic (the theory of evolution) 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. We will accept scientists engaged in primary research at any institution, whether their briefs specify creation science or not, if their work can be shown to be directly connected with creation science.

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. The process must be naturally-occurring, and be both fast enough and common enough to explain the build up of the entire fossil record within 10,000 years.

8. Please provide data demonstrating the mathematical, chemical or biological impossibility of the process of evolution. Some conditions: a) Whether the process did or did not occur is not relevant to the "possibility". b) Please confine your data to the process of evolution itself, that being the emergence of variation within life from a pre-formed common ancestor species. c) Abiogenesis is not a consideration. d) Data supporting Creation also does not impact on "possibility".

Nodin

J C wrote: »

....you really should stop these ad hominem debating tactics....some people may accept your snide remarks when it comes to Creationists.....but such remarks begin to wear very thin when you start applying them to eminent fellow Evolutionists....

Using an "evolutionist" to try and undermine evolution

---

wouldn't that require our old friends "quote mine" and "quote out of context"?

Why not just address AH's questions? And mine, while you're about it.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....you really should stop these ad hominem debating tactics....

An ad hominem argument suggests an attack on personality. I'm not attacking the man, but his adherence to a debunked theory. He's not arguging from a perspective relevant to this debate. Is it not appropriate to point this out? As I say, would you accept my presentation of a competing creation myth as a relevant argument against your position?

J C wrote: »

some people may accept your snide remarks when it comes to Creationists.....

I'm sorry J C but you've given little for me to respect. Where are the creation researchers? All I see is PR men claiming to be scientists. All I see is data forced into models. I'll be snide about anyone who devalues the business I have worked hard to contribute to. Refute me or live with it.

J C wrote: »

but such remarks begin to wear very thin when you start applying them to eminent fellow Evolutionists....

Grasse was not an "evolutionist" as I understand it. That said "evolutionist" is just another term on a vast list of terms that you redefine to suit your argument.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

An ad hominem argument suggests an attack on personality. I'm not attacking the man, but his adherence to a debunked theory. He's not arguging from a perspective relevant to this debate. Is it not appropriate to point this out? As I say, would you accept my presentation of a competing creation myth as a relevant argument against your position?.

....an ad hominem argument is an attack on any aspect of somebodys personality....including their views and background!!!!

In any event, I would point out that Prof Grasse's Lamarckism ISN'T the issue here ... it is his SCIENTIFIC QUESTIONS about neo-Dawinism that is at issue ... and you have retreated into an ad hominem argument over his Lamarckism....rather than answering his valid questions on Darwinism!!!!

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Rather than answering questions on a long-dead theory, let's discuss Creationism and the theory of Evolution.

....the questions posed by Prof Grasse related to neo-Darwinian Evolution .... and NOT Lamarckism...so I would have thought you would be first to the defence of neo-Darwinism...unless there is NO ANSWER to these questions....and Darwinism is just as scientifically defunct as Prof Grasse has claimed!!!!:eek::D

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Here is an updated list (once per page at most!) of some of the questions the "Evolutionists" would like answered regarding the Creation model:

....I've already answered your questions....you don't like the answers...and everybody else can make up their own minds about my answers!!!!!

.....repeatedly asking the same questions ... that I have ALREADY answered is a form of spamming !!!!:D:eek:

J C

Nodin wrote: »

Using an "evolutionist" to try and undermine evolution

---

wouldn't that require our old friends "quote mine" and "quote out of context"?.

....go answer Prof Grasse's valid questions about neo-Darwinian Evolution....and stop stalling!!!!:D:eek:

Nodin wrote: »

Why not just address AH's questions?

....I have ALREADY answered AH's questions ... HERE!!!!:):eek:

Originally Posted by AtomicHorror
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 (in the case of Dr Gee)....or (in the case of Dr Grasse) 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!!!!!

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....an ad hominem argument is an attack on any aspect of somebodys personality....including their views and background!!!!

In any event, I ALSO agree that Prof Grasse's Lamarckinsim ISN'T the issue here ... it is his SCIENTIFIC QUESTIONS about neo-Dawinism that is at issue ... and you have retreated into an ad hominem argument over his Lamarckinism....rather than answering his valid questions on Darwinism!!!!

....the questions posed by Prof Grasse related to neo-Darwinian Evolution .... and NOT Lamarckism...so I would have thought you would be first to the defence of neo-Darwinism...unless there is NO ANSWER to these questions....and Darwinism is just as scientifically defunct as Prof Grasse has claimed!!!!:eek::D

Fair enough. Could you perhaps summarise Grasse's issues in your own words and I'll address them? There's a lot in there and I'm not sure it all applies.

J C wrote: »

....I've already answered your questions....you don't like the answers...and everybody else can make up their own minds about my answers!!!!!

Not quite true J C. I certainly don't like the answers you gave because they did not actually address what I asked. When someone asks you a question about genetics and you reply in terms of breeding, or when someone asks about natural sedimentation and you talk about concrete, then you're not really answering the questions at all.

J C wrote: »

.....repeatedly asking the same questions ... that I have ALREADY answered is a form of spamming !!!!:D:eek:

If you don't want to answer the questions then that is just fine by me. However I'll continue to ask them until they are answered by somebody and I don't think that is unreasonable. If a moderator asks me to stop asking those questions, I'll certainly oblige.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Fair enough. Could you perhaps summarise Grasse's issues in your own words and I'll address them? There's a lot in there and I'm not sure it all applies.

....Prof Grasse's questions are clear enough...and I am not going to weaken their devastating effect by paraphrasing them!!!

....and I also don't want to paraphrase Prof Grasse's questions ... in order to avoid interminable arguments from you all, over whether 'my' questions perfectly reflect Prof Grasse's questions!!!!

AtomicHorror wrote: »

When someone asks you a question about genetics and you reply in terms of breeding, or when someone asks about natural sedimentation and you talk about concrete, then you're not really answering the questions at all.

....in the case of Created Kinds the definitive genetic proof is by way of inter-breeding ability!!!!:D

......and you asked me to provide data confirming the rapid sedimentation/rock formation processes that I have described as occurring during the The Flood ... and I gave you a repeatably observable chemical mechanism for rapid lithification (concrete setting)....
.....as well as fossil evidence in rocks that points towards rapid lithification...namely ephimeral fossilised creatures like fossil Jellyfish....whose perfect fossilisation indicates rapid setting of these rocks in minutes or hours AT MOST!!!!:D

...I really don't know what more you could want!!!!!

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....Prof Grasse's questions are clear enough...and I am not going to weaken their devastating effect by para-phrasing them!!!

Ok, I'll go through the quotes and see if I can figure out what point you're making through the medium of someone else's words. Awkward though, and not very fair given that you won't do me the favour of responding to some of my questions.

J C wrote: »

....in the case of Created Kinds the definitive genetic proof is by way of inter-breeding ability!!!!:D

Interbreedability is not all that definitive and will not be practically testable in most cases. Far easier to take blood samples and do genetic analysis. You suggested that this may be happening. So I am asking for clarification. You didn't answer the question. How do we do that genetic test?

J C wrote: »

......and you asked me to provide data confirming the rapid sedimentation/rock formation processes that I have described as occurring during the The Flood ... and I gave you a repeatably observable chemical mechanism for rapid lithification (concrete setting)....

Indeed and I conceded that my question was not comprehensive enough. You'll note that the new version asks for a naturally-occurring process. Concrete also fails several other criteria, but I basically accepted that you'd answered 1 of the 8 questions reasonably well and replaced that question with a more specific version. Fair enough?

J C wrote: »

.....as well as fossil evidence in rocks that points towards rapid lithification...namely ephimeral fossilised creatures like fossil Jellyfish....whose perfect fossilisation indicates rapid setting of these rocks in minutes or hours AT MOST!!!!:D

Not really true but I've already responded on that point.

J C wrote: »

...I really don't know what more you could want!!!!!

Answers to 7 of the 8 questions that you did not answer plus an answer to the rephrased version of the one you did answer. If you have no answers this does not bother me, but I will continue to seek answers to them.

rockbeer

J C wrote: »

....Prof Grasse's questions are clear enough...and I am not going to weaken their devastating effect by para-phrasing them!!!

Translation: er, I can't do this because I don't really know what he's talking about.

J C wrote: »

....in the case of Created Kinds the definitive genetic proof is by way of inter-breeding ability!!!!:D

Please elaborate. In exactly what way is interbreeding ability a 'genetic proof'?

J C wrote: »

......and you asked me to provide data confirming the rapid sedimentation/rock formation processes that I have described as occurring during the The Flood ... and I gave you a repeatably observable chemical mechanism for rapid lithification (concrete setting)....
.....as well as fossil evidence in rocks that points towards rapid lithification...namely ephimeral fossilised creatures like fossil Jellyfish....whose perfect fossilisation indicates rapid setting of these rocks in minutes or hours AT MOST!!!!:D

...I really don't know what more you could want!!!!!

How about rather than waving a 'process' at us you provide some data to support the contention that this process is observable in nature and is capable of producing the outcomes you claim for it?

Has anyone done the science?

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

If you have no answers this does not bother me, but I will continue to seek answers to them.

...OK so you don't accept my answers .... but you will continue to seek the truth about HOW fossiliferous sedimentary rocks were formed.....good!!!!!:eek::D

...could I suggest that you continue to ponder the FACT that there are billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth!!!:D

.....how they got there may eventually 'dawn' on you!!!!:D

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
....Prof Grasse's questions are clear enough...and I am not going to weaken their devastating effect by para-phrasing them!!!


rockbeer
Translation: er, I can't do this because I don't really know what he's talking about.

....my PRIMARY reason for not para-phrasing Prof Grasse's questions ... is to avoid interminable arguments from you all, over whether 'my' questions would perfectly reflect Prof Grasse's questions!!!!:)

.....you are the guys having difficulties in answering Prof Grasse's questions!!!!:D:eek:

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

...OK so you don't accept my answers .... but you will continue to seek the truth about HOW fossiliferous sedimentary rocks were formed.....good!!!!!:eek::D

Then you are unable to answer my questions. Unsurprising. They're rather awkward ones for the creationist. Perhaps Wolfsbane can answer them. Or... hmm. Where have all the Creationists gone?

J C wrote: »

...could I suggest that you continue to ponder the FACT that there are billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth!!!:D

Water, wind deposition, pyroclastic flow... there's evidence for many processes in there. I suspect water will tend to be a common element, though the evidence for a global flood is simply non-existent. Hardly surprising that the things buried are dead. More confusing that although you claim there to be "billions" of them, surprisingly few have remained intact over the mere 5000-odd years since their burial. Some species are represented by mere fragments. Hell, you even cite that evidence as a weakness of the evolution model, yet expect us to believe that the evidence is geologically recent. Bit of a paradox there.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....my PRIMARY reason for not para-phrasing Prof Grasse's questions ... is to avoid interminable arguments from you all, over whether 'my' questions would perfectly reflect Prof Grasse's questions!!!!:)

Yes, but surely in this debate what you mean matters more than what Grasse means. This is why I wanted your version. This isn't like the Dr. Gee incident, because it's pretty plausible that Grasse really is attacking evolution. So, if what you're saying doesn't match what Grasse is actually saying then I really don't care.

So I'll ask, what are the specific points you are trying to make by quoting Grasse?