Why do you think I would like it?
And have you read my molecular genetics FAQ?
After all, my PhD is in a relevant field…
From the website JerseyDiamond provided for Dr. Brown:
**
No, macroevolution is not an “upward progression in complexity from bacteria to man.” That’s the old “great chain of being” idea, which was discredited long ago, even though IDists like Dembski apparently still believe in it.
This is, of course, entirely aside from the question of why his example of “microevolution” doesn’t count, beyond what is little more than a handwaving declaration that it just, you know, doesn’t.
So Walt Brown’s score thus far:
Lies: 1 (Lucy’s knee joint.)
Strawmen: 1 (great chain of being.)
And while we’re at it,
Bizarre Irrelevancies: 1 (One of his arguments for creationism is just a bunch of pictures of mountains, with no explanatory text.)
JD, read the geology FAQ:
http://psyche11.home.mindspring.com/ben/GeologyFAQ.htm
then tell me how Brown would explain the layered strata.
Ben’s posts are fantastic but I think they will fly right over the heads of Jersey Devil and Nomadic_One.Here are a few simpler, easier to understand questions for creationists:
1)How did kangaroos get from Mt. Ararat to Austrailia and why are there none in Japan, China etc.?
2)Why do human males have nipples?This is easily explained by evolutionary theory but why would God give males non-functional child feeders?
3)Why did God give rabbits such poor digestive systems that they must eat their own feces to extract the nutrients that they missed the first time around?Does God think this is intelligent design or is he punishing rabbits for man’s “fall”?
4)Why does all life on earth have a universal genetic code?If life forms evolved from common ancestry this makes sense but not if all things were created seperately by an omnipotent god.
5)How does one go about building a seaworthy wooden vessel that is 450’x75’ x45’ and even if one does how do you cram 2x 30 miilion species on board and feed and care for them for almost 400 days?
6)Why do housecats get diabetes?I have heard that humans are afflicted with various ailments because of original sin(of course I also heard that Jesus PAID for that already but anyways…) but why should felines suffer?
7)I will repeat what others have asked here:Was the flood saltwater or freshwater?What happened to allow all the trees and plants to survive this flood and where did all the water come from and where did it all go?
I’d like to add two more questions to the mix for Nomadic_One and his (her?) friend.
[ul][li]Does believing in evolution mean one cannot believe in God?[/li][li]If so, why?[/ul][/li]This is very much a loaded question on my part because I do believe in evolution and God, but I’m genuinely curious about how much of a dichotomy there is between the two ideas, how the notion that they might be mutually contradictory came about, and what it’s based on.
CJ
Can I try, even though I’m an atheist, evolutionist?
They hopped, of course. They didn’t stop anywhere on the way because God wanted them to populate Australia.
**Adam was created first and therefore had prototype nipples to be developed into the real thing in the Adam mark II, aka Eve, who was created from the same genetic material (assuming there was some DNA in that rib).
** If you have 25 million species to create, you are going to play about a bit, aren’t you? Otherwise it might get a tad boring. God was just trying something different.
**If you have 25 million species, you are likely to start with a common template. At one time, I was a computer programmer - I always copied in the same program headers to get things going.
** God is omnipotent and can do anything.
** God works in mysterious ways. We mere mortals cannot hope to understand everything He does.
It doesn’t matter what the water was. God used His powers to enable plants to survive or repopulate after the waters receded.
All I am trying to show is the difficulty of trying to use logic and analysis to argue against religious beliefs.
For your delectation and edification, I now have the guided tour of the primate chromosomes on my webpage.
Bingo. It’s impossible to count exactly how many times these cop-outs… err, I mean “answers” are used in any given argument of this sort.
“I can’t explain that, but God can do anything, so he solved it somehow.”
Why do Aardvarks carry leprosy?
God works in mysterious ways.
Why do we have a useless, sometimes detrimental organ, the appendix?
God has his reasons. We cannot hope to understand them.
Why does God inflict pain and disease on us, if he’s so “loving”?
We’re being punished for our sins.
Even the newborn infants that die during birth?
God works in mysterious ways.
**
Ain’t that the truth. I predict the answers to Ben’s questions will be a Biblical quote, followed by an explanation on how that quote can be interpreted as an answer.
I know this has already been addressed somewhat, but I’m really curious about this. Because if I look back at widely accepted population trends and statistics, I don’t see any problem with evolution.
from http://history.boisestate.edu/westciv/plague/15.htm
Here we have a pretty well-agreed upon estimate of a massive die-off of the human population.
And then there’s this, with regards to the Native Americans contact with Europeans…
From http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_100.html
Finally, as you can see from this chart, the rate of population growth increases signficantly in the 20th century.
http://www.futuresedge.org/World_Population_Issues/wp_details.html
So, exactly what population statistics are you using and how do these disprove evolution?
More to the point, how did South American sloths get there? A sloth moves about 100-125 feet on a good day. If they traveled directly (which would mean crossing a treeless ocean, not exactly a sloth’s native habitat), it would take a pair of sloths around a thousand years (at the breackneck speed of 8 miles per year) to reach Noah. Of course, this doesn’t allow for boarding or foraging, so we’d have to assume things went a bit slower.
So, basically, the sloths would have to have set out before the world was created in order to reach the ark on time. They must’ve known the end of the world was coming before God did!
Wow, it seems hard for me to come up with any argument against creationism that hasn’t already been eloquently stated.
Instead, I’ll take issue against Nomadic_One’s view of the “elitist” educational sytem. Yes the educational system has a definite bias - they want the TRUTH. How dare they deny any opposing viewpoints. Let’s force our educational systems to teach astrology on an equal par with astronomy. For an alternative for explaining thunder let’s bring in Thor from Norse mythology.
To quote Nomadic_One" Im sorry you dont deem the bible as scientific, it is." Please quote me ANYTHING from the Bible that has ANY scientific validity to it. It’s funny that fundamentalists are SO vehement in condemning science but are the first ones to embrace its benefits. Instead of typing your screed on a Godless computer, go preach in the middle of a field. You have a car? Infidel - that is based on those “awful” secular humanist scientific principles. Don’t you go watch television, or listen to CD’s or radio either. Yep more Godless temptations brought to you by the false God of science.
I will admit one thing. Some of the great innovators in history did NOT come out of the established educational system. Henry Ford, Bill Lear, Edwin Land, Bill Gates, Thomas Edison, Steve Jobs, Albert Einstein are good examples of this. (These folks were either high school or college dropouts). HOWEVER, they did not waste their time on half-baked ideas. They had the vision, intelligence and determination to change the world in which we live.
An even greater irony is that both Bill gates and Linux Torvealdis are atheists and it is a pretty safe bet that those witnessing here and speaking out against science are doing so using either a Windows based or Linux based OS(or possibly Macintosh but I am not sure if Steve Jobs is an outright atheist or not).
In any case, if things are running true to form we have already heard the last of the creationists in this thread.They will conveniently pop up again some weeks later spouting the same garbage adn acting as if no one ever trounced this nonsense before.
**
Well, bear in mind that if you have two parents, and each of them has two parents, etc., then you don’t have to go too far back before each person living today has too many ancestors for the earth to support. The logical conclusion is that even 6,000 years is too old. From other scientific evidence we can peg the age of the earth as being even younger. Thorium-234, for example, has a half-life so short that it should all be gone if the earth is more than a few months old. See my tract “The EARTH is YOUNG INDEED” for more information.
Even more fun - fit an equation with 6 people at the time of the flood, roughly 2,000 BCE, I think, and 6 billion now. Now, look up how many people must have been around at the time the pyramids were build, and the time of the Exodus. Give it a shot, Nomadic One.
Ben:
That might be true if there were no overlapping/kinship of ancestors. But obviously, there is.
I quite like the rabbits thing; take the same inane assumptions that creationists make about population growth and apply them to six thousand years of rabbit breeding; we would be wading through a sea of rabbits.
Well, smartypants, what about the thorium-234?
Or the fact that the dust under my bed is only an inch thick? If the earth is 6,000 years old, shouldn’t it be deeper?
Jockey, since you’re of the opinion that “no human is meant to solve” the issue of creation vs evolution, you are directly contradicting yourself by even bothering to post in this thread. Why read or consider anything about either side of the issue if the answer is a priori unknowable?
You’re ignoring the fact that some of it would have been washed away by the more recent global flood, either that or the global flood should have deposited some more (whichever is convenient).
Ben please stop winding Zoe up. It’s not nice. 