BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 10 Feb 12 - 07:29 PM

"I do not require or expect everyone to believe...(or not believe)... as I do, but I DO expect them to KEEP those beliefs to themselves and to their churches and not usurp my rights."

I didn't say it so eloquently, Don: "You have a right to your opinion and along with that goes the right to keep quiet about."

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 10 Feb 12 - 05:44 PM

i have heard that the pope did in fact shield a number of jews

I've heard he shielded a number of Nazis. Funny world ain't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Feb 12 - 05:08 PM

Cross posted.

Nevertheless, my post is to the point.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Feb 12 - 05:07 PM

pete:

don-seems to me you are making some sweeping and unwarrented statements claiming[if i dont misunderstand you]that religion only benifits its adherents.there are numerous faith based charities that give aid and support to all comers regardless of whatever faith position.

Indeed, you do misunderstand me. The church I belong to does not benefit only its adherents. It's a small church, with a congregation of about 200, most of whom are fairly young working people (including, I might add, a number of attorneys and one state legislator). It is not a wealthy church, but it is not poor, either.

When people come into the main room in the parish house next to the church, where the meals are served, they are not subjected to having to "pay for the soup by listening to the sermon," NOR are they asked what their religious affiliation is—nor are they asked if they HAVE any religious affiliation. The "soup" (a considerably more sumptuous meal that merely a bowl of soup) is free to anyone in need. The same holds true for LATCH (the Lutheran Alliance To Create Housing). No one is asked about their religion, if any, as a precondition to living in one of these facilities, nor are they hassled once they do.

Anyone in need. pete, I don't think Jesus had the sick fill out a questionnaire before He healed them.

I know for a fact that there are many self-proclaimed "Christians" who haven't a clue as to what Christianity is all about.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Feb 12 - 04:54 PM

sorry forgot we got 2 dons;wysywig that was.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Feb 12 - 04:29 PM

bill-just to show that i do consider an opposing argument;i confirm that i did read your post.i do agree that the geographical distance does appear to limit the force of the creation.com article.
as to the use of evolutionary time scales ;to seek to demonstrate that a theory is fallible even by its own proponents is IMO quite in order.

don-seems to me you are making some sweeping and unwarrented statements claiming[if i dont misunderstand you]that religion only benifits its adherents.there are numerous faith based charities that give aid and support to all comers regardless of whatever faith position.
i wonder too if there was more to pius than you know.i am not RC but i have heard that the pope did in fact shield a number of jews and instucted his cardinals also with the result that he saved more than those on schindlers list.he was later lauded as a "righteous gentile" by israels PM.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 10 Feb 12 - 04:13 PM

Imagine the wild explanations (or maybe just plain denial) when the evidence for life elsewhere in the universe comes in. Trust me, it won't be long. I just hope I live to see it.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 10 Feb 12 - 03:34 PM

The Bible doesn't mention digital technology or computers either. So are Iona and pete communicating through a medium that God hasn't approved of? Presumably, I & p think that He does approve - but how do they know?

Do digital technology or computers even exist if they're not mentioned in the Bible? Am I sinfully imagining myself typing on this imaginary keyboard?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Feb 12 - 03:28 PM

Thanks, Bruce...

I do want to note that one of my reasons for continuing to debate/reply/answer people that have seemingly made up their minds and are not amenable to reason...is that this forum persists. It is 16 years old now, and may be here quite awhile. Who knows when a long ignored thread may be found? I like to see the most relevant, thought-out commentary on these issues left for possible readers later..(yeah...and I am confident that mine have some relevance).
Also... sitting & typing these replies helps ME to organize my thoughts and spurs me to look up stuff that I am not sure about.... and it IS important to read the arguments of those I DIS-agree with...and to follow links to sites like Creation.com where I encounter some of the more... ummm...'interesting' aspects of conservative, religious claims.

You cannot really defend a position unless you can reasonably state the opposition's position.

Besides, all these issues are becoming a serious part of my country's political debates. Several candidates for president are asserting VERY conservative religious positions into their advertising and speeches, and seemingly trying to send the USA down the path to a theocracy.... subverting the way our Constitution was written.

It is not right for ANY religious group to insert their specific views of morality, evolution, rights and other beliefs into the lives of those who do not agree. The only sane way I see around this is to educate....to show what makes sense as a reasonable argument.
I do not require or expect everyone to believe...(or not believe)... as I do, but I DO expect them to KEEP those beliefs to themselves and to their churches and not usurp my rights.


so... I play this game, trying to be reasonably polite, but firm, when I encounter stubborn ignorance (not stupidity...some are quite 'intelligent')...but willful ignorance about how logic and science operate.
-------------------------------------------

repost:one of my favorite Peanuts cartoons:

Charlie Brown is walking along when he comes to Lucy, kneeling and looking at something on the sidewalk..."What are you doing , Lucy?"

"Charlie Brown--see this big black bug? Do you know why it's so much bigger than the others? Because it's the QUEEN!"..........so Charlie gets down and peers closely...

"Lucy, that's not a bug...that's a black jelly bean!"

Lucy gives him this LOOK and bends to scrutinize the bug again..."Why, so it is!...I wonder how a Jelly bean ever got to be queen!"

There's no way to make the point when your 'victim' just redefines the rules and explains that anything you say just proves his point.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Feb 12 - 03:27 PM

Should read

". . . retroactive to the Garden of Eden, and that Adam may have even written part of the Old Testament (??)."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Feb 12 - 03:23 PM

I just rejoined this "party" this morning. Right on, Penny! I read your post above (10 Feb 12 - 07:36 a.m.), and at the risk of losing credibility with our hard-charging atheist friends, what you said is pretty much how I reconcile my agnostic (and occasional atheistic) tendencies with considering myself a Christian and attending a Christian church.

The Bible is NOT the "inerrant word of God," it is the work of fallible human beings, some of whom had their OWN axes to grind. The Old Testament is highly political, in that it is biased in favor of "the Chosen People." And many of the laws and rules of conduct it prescribes (such as selling one's daughter into slavery being okay, or stoning one's neighbor to death for working on the Sabbath) are patently immoral, and furthermore, illegal in this somewhat more enlightened (and secular) age. How anyone can reconcile this kind of thing with the word of a benevolent God is beyond me. I will have nothing to do with any such God!

As to the divinity of Jesus, I had a very good conversation a couple of decades ago with a now retired pastor of my church. I was expressing doubts about the reality of such things as the virgin birth, the Resurrection, and such. His response was to say that in the mythology of all of the world's religions, ALL major religious figures had some form of miraculous birth, and the all left the earth in some miraculous way. "It's the style in which these stories are told, in the same way that every fairy tale begins with 'Once upon a time,' and ends with 'and they lived happily ever after.' In the case of Jesus' conception and birth, for example, this fits the usual pattern. But the point is, the gynecological and obstetric details of Jesus' birth are irrelevant. What matters, and the whole core of Christianity, is 'what did Jesus teach?' All too many people forget that THIS is what matters, NOT the clichês of mythology."

Ah, so!!

It's no wonder, therefore, that this particular church "evangelizes," not by street-corner preaching and backing people against a wall, stuffing tracts down their shirt fronts, and demanding, "Have you been saved!??" It evangelizes by example. It serves daily meals to the poor and homeless. It participates in a multi-church program that seeks out, or builds, low-cost or no-cost housing for the homeless. It sponsors "Alternatives to Violence" workshops which are active in the state's reformatories and prisons. And Central Lutheran Church is the national headquarters of the Lutheran Peace Fellowship (my wife was the Pacific Northwest Regional chairperson for eight years and did such a crackerjack job that they moved the national headquarters here!).

In short, it feeds the hungry, clothes the naked, offers hospitality, visits the ill and imprisoned—Matthew 25:35-40.

There is a great deal of evidence that the Cosmos came into existence 12.5 billion years ago, the solar system, including the earth, formed some 4.5 billion years ago, and over the intervening eons, humans (and other animals) evolved from more primitive forms of life, going all the way back to pond-scum formed from congealing carbon based compounds.

One the other side, with no evidence other than its assertions, all you have is a book of mythology, which is, of itself, a patchwork of various often contradictory mythologies.

Iona tells us that Christianity is retroactive to the Garden of Eden, and that he may have even written part of the Old Testament (??). And, I suppose, since Moses went up on the mountain and brought back the Ten Commandments (God's rules of conduct for humans) that his makes Moses a Christian, too.

I think she'll get a bit of an argument from the local Rabbi on that one!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Feb 12 - 03:13 PM

Proof enuf for me, indeed ~~ but will pete & Iona believe it, LoL????

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 10 Feb 12 - 03:12 PM

At least both groups think it happened.

Not so monsieur neuf cent quatre-vingt dix-neuf. The Bible, if it is the Divine Word of God, shows God to be surprisingly parochial and ignorant. No mention of America, Australia, India, China, Siberia, the Pacific, or anywhere outside the little restricted ambit of the Jewish world and the Eastern Mediterranean littoral of the Roman Empire. No mention of atoms, or Uranus, or heliocentric planetary systems, or electricity. Nothing about geology, not even to say God put the sediments there. No mention of sabre- toothed tigers or gorillas or tapeworms (despite the prohibition of pork) or bacteria. And you can't argue that you shouldn't expect it because iron age tribes didn't know such things- the God of the Bible is omniscient. So perhaps God didn't want his creation to know about such things, and he was being a bit dishonest, fibbing a bit. The slightly- ignorant God of Noah, who was so angry when he found out what folks were up to, that he drowned the lot, children and all, and all but two of the innocent lambs and bushbabies.

I can't see the hero- worshipping followers of a twerp like that accepting anything their party cadre hasn't told them to believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 10 Feb 12 - 03:06 PM

Well, here's proof in a picture that I found at Mandolin Cafe.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Feb 12 - 02:54 PM

The religious people don't think that, though, do they, Bruce? There was no 'pre-neanderthal man': there were just Adam & Eve in the Garden.

Isn't that right, Iona? And isn't that what you KNOW to be the case, because it sez so here?...

Or am I barking up the wrong Tree Of The Knowledge Of Good And Evil?

〠☺〠~M~〠☺〠

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 10 Feb 12 - 02:33 PM

"(which no one seems to have read. Perhaps pete******* will)"

I read it, Bill.


As children, wrong is what we get scolded for. Huge transgressions of family protocols may have the lecture accompanied by a smack on the bum to act as a reminder. Right is what's expected. I fail to see the hand of god in it. The hand of my grandmother, mother, aunt--well, that's a different thing.

The problem with this thread, near as I can figure, is that some folks who understand geology are talking with some other folks who know geology is about rocks and wondering why their points aren't getting through. I think for many of you that means you've had formal education in the subject.

I'm fairly well-read, and my interests are varied. Unfortunately, geology was never one of those interests. Nor was anthropology. Nor for that matter was religion. I will listen to anyone who knows their subject, but I will stop listening when dogmas enter the picture. I've had many two-way conversations with ministers, priests, rabbis, Buddhists, etc. They know their stuff because they studied it. Soon as any of the talk gets to "Lemme tell you the way YOU should see it" I go have a smoke or take a pee, because I do NOT give a rat's ass about listening to someone's view of how I should see god. You want to (I mean anyone here, not just Iona and Pete) tell me the way YOU see god, fine. I'll listen to that. The second you start to say how I should see god, I develop a hearing problem and sometimes a bad attitude that my grandmother would have given me the knuckles for.

Various anthropological or geological dating techniques are not always smack on the money. However, when ya see miles and miles of cliff face that has been weathered by a river (and wind, rain, snow), I'd suppose that the stuff lower down is older than the stuff higher up. That ain't rocket surgery!

I also know that science too has had BIG arguments within the discipline because educated people do on occasion see things differently, and sometimes ruling powers have interfered with the findings of science because they thought it in their own best interest to do so. That said, some things cannot be legislated. Pi would be one helluva lot easier to work with were it equal to three, but it ain't. And the dichotomy I see is this: If I witnessed a pre-neanderthal man turn into a modern man right before my eyes, no one here--religious or scientific--would believe me. And from certain argument positions that's what science people are saying, except instead of it happening in a few moments it happened over a few tens of thousand years. And the religious people say it happened too, except the time frame was six days and nights. At least both groups think it happened. That's a place to start.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Feb 12 - 02:31 PM

BUT - Why should such a question arise regarding a Parish Council? -- not any sort of religious committee, but a sort of sub-committee of the County Council or other local authority, which deals with such matters as street lighting, making sure that front gardens are properly looked after, and the functioning of the Parish Hall. Are you sure it wasn't a Parochial Church Council ~ i.e. the committee elected by the practising communicant congregation who regularly attend the Parish Church {Anglican}, and which is concerned with the administration of The Parish Church? - which is not the same thing at all.

~M~

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - PAROCHIAL CHURCH COUNCIL -
Not to be confused with Civil parishes in England.
The parochial church council (PCC), is the executive body of a Church of England parish.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Feb 12 - 01:40 PM

(Ian and I are talking about a UK ruling. Sorry if that was not clear)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Feb 12 - 01:38 PM

On a lighter note, a parish council has been told by the high court it is illegal to say prayers before council meetings. Quite so, as they are about real or secular as it is called business

Not quite. They have been told it is illegal within in the meeting (typically at the start and/or end), but the judge is reported to have said there was no problem holding the prayers before the meeting officially started. That way, those who wish to pray beforehand can do so, without causing any problem for those who don't (eg missing the official start of the meeting).

To my mind, that's a very sensible solution that the judge suggested. Then Eric Pickles, in the government, has leapt in to say he is changing the rules by this time next week so that councils can insist on prayers within meetings...

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie
Date: 10 Feb 12 - 12:40 PM

Scroll up a few million posts.

Irrational person who is happy with her affliction. Could have saved a lot of argument.

Mind you, judging by the sanctimonious smiles, they are all happy. Perhaps I am on the wrong side after all?

On a lighter note, a parish council has been told by the high court it is illegal to say prayers before council meetings. Quite so, as they are about real or secular as it is called business.

Although it will just serve to feed their persecution complex. Perhaps one day we might evolve ourselves to the point where religion is a personal matter not something to inflict on those of us who have no need for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Feb 12 - 12:02 PM

""Therefore you can't judge anybody, because they define good differently. Only I can say that I have absolute right and wrong, because the God of the universe has revealed it to us in His Word.""

Giving yourself airs aren't you?

""ONLY I CAN SAY I HAVE ABSOLUTE RIGHT AND WRONG!""

I am so sorry Your Holiness, I didn't realise......How are things in the Vatican these days?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Feb 12 - 11:51 AM

""You KNOW? how can you KNOW anything? {grin} Haven't I already touched on that?
Anyway, the fact that I shan't read it isn't because I'm not interested to, because I *would* like to read it. I just don't have the money to buy it. (it's over 30 dollars). But I plan on getting Darwin's Origins from the library as soon as I finish the book I'm reading at the moment.""

Then perhaps you should stop spouting arrant nonsense, and wait until, by reading it, you actually know something about the subject. And just remember knowledge tends to enter only those minds which are open....not a trait much associated with the Creationist publications you have been relying on thus far.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 10 Feb 12 - 11:51 AM

"The thing is: any claim, or assertion of evidence must be backed up by those who assert it. The scientists keeps adding new evidence as the dig deeper and develop new tools. What do Creationists use as evidence? They seem to be more interested in denying the claims of evolutionists on the grounds that the 'chain of evidence' is imperfect...and then just assert that Biblical theory is the only alternative! This is why several people here...including me... keep saying that creationists simply do not intend to EVER accept evolution--because they fear it would contradict a literal interpretation of the Christian Bible. THAT is what is meant by assuming the answer and denying any evidence that does not lead to preconceived opinions."

Bravo, Bill D! That exactly sums up the problem. Creationists need to learn (although they probably never will) that imperfections in the chain of evidence DO NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, lead to the conclusion that the Biblical 'story' of creation must be true. To reach such a conclusion is both is illogical and silly!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Feb 12 - 11:43 AM

""In your worldview there can be no absolutes, simply personal opinion--thus civil government is completely irrational, because it imposes 'personal opinion' upon other people who obviously didn't find it against their personal standards to steal, murder and speed. How dare you call Hitler evil? He was just creating his own reality. How can you condemn child abuse? The abuser is not breaching their own standard of gooness.
This is the point I've been trying to make. thanks!""

Civil government is merely one way in which human beings have come together to establish consensual standards for the good of the community and often overriding the interests of individuals to achieve that.

It neither requires nor, IMHO, benefits from religious input of any description.

You only have to look at the way in which civil government (through history) has moved towards less and less violent responses to transgressions.

Fundamental Christianity has consistently benefitted only those who accept its doctrines and dogma, in effect become converts (as witness Pius XII's disinclination to remonstrate regarding the treatment of Jews by the Third Reich). It has quite consistently (until very recently) persecuted those who were so "unwise" as not to recognise the "eternal truths" on offer.

Nonetheless, the survivors of those "unwise" peoples have reached their own conclusions and (with some noteable exceptions) established their own systems of civil government.

And you have no basis to take any high moral attitudes, when you believe that the bible is the immutable "Word of God", true in every detail, then decry those Muslims who believe in stoning adulterers to death, which is exactly what YOUR God is demanding of you if your belief is correct.

You cannot have it both ways. Either the bible is, as YOU claim "the immutable Word of God", in which case you'll be needing a good supply of rocks, or it isn't, in which case your slavish belief falls flat on its face.

Now, there's a poser. Which way will you jump?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 10 Feb 12 - 11:37 AM

frogprince, thanks.

I actually realised, as I drove off to teach swimming (have you ever noticed how useful as flippers our feet are, despite not being near a swimming mammal for umpteen genera) that i had left out the most impo5tant characteristic of God.

Love. That which is not consistent with love is not, cannot be, consistent with God.

I think I was using good as a synonym for loving.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Feb 12 - 11:17 AM

Folks, you're "debating" a lunatic.

Wouldn't pounding salt down a ret hole be more productive & enjoyable?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Feb 12 - 11:09 AM

quoting from my own post above, (with enhancements)...(which no one seems to have read. Perhaps pete******* will)

" No one claims that tetrapods, if those 'indentations' are really tracks, are direct decedents of tiktaalek. Evolution happens in many parallel lines, not in ...ummm.. 'single file'. . Not only that, but Poland is not near Canada! If tetrapod tracks...or better...bones...had been found WITH tiktaalek, it might have been good evidence... of something.
It is interesting that Creation.com even uses that argument, because they don't even recognize that 'beings' could BE that old! So how can they interpret evidence they don't even allow AS evidence?"

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 10 Feb 12 - 10:49 AM

oops. Twenty million, so it is only a change of 80%

From pumpkin to human is 312.

Still works fine.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 10 Feb 12 - 10:04 AM

Iona,

That was an impressive cut and paste, but did you actually read it and think about it?

I only have time (and frankly the inclination) to address one, so let's take this one:

"The Problem of Time
According to evolution, there is a span of twenty million years between the fossil layers of Tiktaalik and the first tetrapod that walked on land. For evolutionists, twenty million years is nothin'. In that amount of time the fish had to become a land-walking, air-breathing animal! The large gap between fish and tetrapod is large. Even if mutations--mistakes in the genetic code-- could turn one animal into another, it would take far too much new information in the genes to change the fish into an amphibian. Mutations could never do this--even in the 20 million year time span."

Wow.

Humans share about 32% of their DNA with a pumpkin. So, lets' say that from an ancestral pumpkin, over the nexy N generations random mutations would have to alter the successive organisms by a whopping 312.5% (=100/32)% for the ancestral pumpkins to evolve into humans (with many unsuccessful individuals lost in the process of course). Sounds impossible to you, right?

Let's do the math. Let's suppose that an ancestral pumpkin generation is every bit as long as a modern human generation (a bit silly, but we can shorten it if you wish). Let's also say that in any generation, the offspring can be no more than 1/100th of a percent different from the parents - that is any changes between generations are absolutely negligible. That is, an offspring is 99.99% similar to its parents. I bet you are more different from your parents than this!

Now here comes the Time Problem:

1 generation per 25 years x 0.01% change per generation x 200000000 years = .........







800%




Yes, 800%




And remember to get from Pumpkin to Human was a (DNA) change of ~312%
So 200 million years is not enough to go from a salamandery fish to a fishy salamander? It sure is plenty to go from a non-humany pumpkin to a non-pumpkiny human.

Ahh. Fun with arithmetic. No time to destroy the remaining silliness. Carry on...

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Stu
Date: 10 Feb 12 - 09:04 AM

Iona:

"Then we have mosaic creatures-- a mosaic creature is an animal that has characteristics that match one or more difference animals, such as the Platypus."

Mosaic creature? The platypus has the characteristics of . . . a platypus. That's how we know what it is. Exactly. There's no such thing as a mosiac animal, it's not a scientific term and it's utterly meaningless. In fact, this appears to be a creationist term invented to shoehorn another fact to fit the fiction. However, I'm willing to say I'm not sure so please Iona, send me a reference to an open-access, peer-reviewed scientific paper on zoology/biology/evolution that uses this term to describe any taxon, ever.

"Fit that into a category, I dare ya! Where in the world did this creature supposedly evolve from?"

OK, I dare. The platypus is a monotreme, an class of mammal distinct from marsupials and placentals. The Platypus (and the other extant monotremes, the Echidnas) are often cited as being primitive but in fact the platypus is a very highly evolved mammal. The beak is not homologous with a duck's beak as it's a totally different structure and has evolved for a different reason, it being a very sensitive organ used for detecting prey via the electrical impulses generated by the movement of the prey's muscles (and possibly changes in water pressure due to prey locomotion). They evolved from a class of reptiles with mammal-like characters in the Late Triassic; as evolution is an incremental process the line between these reptiles and the mammals they gave rise to is blurred, as you would expect. Actually, there are other forms of mammals distinct from the three extant orders, multituberculates for instance. So we know from when they came.

"it was discovered that it did not use its lobed fins to 'walk' or prop itself up in the shallow bottom of a river as they had thought!"

Hmmm, I don't think that was the scientific consensus at all, but speculation. Coelacanths has never been touted as an ancestor of any land animals (there were plenty of tetrapods eating them at the time they existed), but they might have been part of the lineage that gave rise to tetrapods way back in deep time, or they might not. It's not just the nature of the skeletal morphology that leads us to think this. Here's a little research project for you Iona: Go and find footage of a living Coelacanth and watch how it's forelimbs move. Notice anything about it? Report back with the answer.

"According to evolution, there is a span of twenty million years between the fossil layers of Tiktaalik and the first tetrapod that walked on land."

Whoa. At no point has it been suggested that the only unequivocal evolutionary route to route to superclass tetropoda. Tiktaalik is a bit of a puzzle but it also gives us a great deal of hard information, and the chances of it being a direct ancestor are slim. It might be, but then it probably reflects a certain evolutionary trend in a certain class of animal that is beginning to walk on land. Tiktaalik represents the first appearance of some tetrapod characters in the fossil record and its significance is the same animal has some fish charcteristics. It shows there was a blurred boundary between higher taxons, as you would expect in the process of descent with modification. By the way, Tiktaalik is thought to have existed about 12 million years before the first tetrapod, not 20 as you stated.

"And I wouldn't be shocked if we found a live one today.........."

Then walk the walk and go and find one. I mentioned this early on but you pretty much ignored it. Go and find a Tiktaalik. Please. And a dog next to it. Or a mouse. Or a starling. Prove us all wrong. It would be very exciting.

"A bat and a bird both have wings in order to fly, but a bat is a mammal and a bird is a bird (go figure)."

Seriously? This is humour, right? It's a problem with the written word, nuance is so often lost ;-)

They are not related even though they both need wings in order to fill their created purpose. In other words, wings do not point to a common ancestral link, but rather to an important design to their separate habitats."

More ignorance of the facts. Bird and bat wings are homologous and certainly do point to a common ancestor. Why? Well, we have the same bones, in a broadly similar and recognisable configuration (with, of course, modification).This is because our common ancestor had them too.

"*Convergent evolution will be further addressed in a future post. ~Iona"

I'm looking forward to that. It's sure to overturn all the stuff I've learnt about convergent evolution over the years.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: frogprince
Date: 10 Feb 12 - 08:27 AM

Penny? Bravo

      Dean

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 10 Feb 12 - 07:36 AM

Iona, you have absolutely no idea what my relationship with God is, and no right to judge it.

I am not an atheist. I believe that God revealed Himself in Jesus, and that he is a God who is good, truthful, compassionate and a number of other qualities which he does not necessarily reveal in the OT.

A God who is good must be comprehensible as good by his creation, and one who commands genocide is not comprehensible as good. Anyone who manages to read that and not shout at the wrongness of it has not been listening to the prophets. One who approves of the slaughter carried out by the Levites is not comprehensible as good. One who approves of the sacrifice of Jephtha's daughter (while stopping that of Isaac) is not comprehensible as good.

A god who is truthful must have created a world which reveals that truthfulness. If what is found in the history of the world about deep time, the succession of fossils, which succeeds in convincing a great many people (and remember that the first people who went out to do geology had no idea what they were going to discover) is not true, then it has been made by a liar. It has been suggested that the intention of the placing of fossils was to test people's faith. If true, that would not be honest, but a deceitful attempt to damn those searching for truth. The Bible has been transmitted through men. The rocks have not. Nor has the light of distant galaxies. The world cries out something other than a young creation. To believe it does not is to attribute some very unpleasant characteristics to God, which I do not believe he has. If I have to do warped thinking, reject the evidence of my eyes and the intelligence which I have somehow arrived at possessing, in order to please this person, he isn't worth the effort.

You believe that you have to accept the nasty stuff in the Bible you don't like? Why? Don't you believe God wants you to understand what He is about? Do you think he wants you to knuckle under without questions?

I assume that you have had at least one direct personal experience of God to base your beliefs on. You strike me as coming from the tradition that expects that. Was the person you met the sort of person who would have been responsible for genocide?

The person I know is not like that. He has no objection to my believing in deep time, galaxies far beyond the time given in the Bible, and evolution. He is not easy, but he is not the sort of person who demands that I believe that good is what He says, even when it goes against every human instinct. Genocide. Wrong. Evil. (If I'm wrong about this, there will be a lot of very good people in hell, and we'll be able to overthrow the regime - there'll be more of us than the original fallen angels. But I'm not.)

So do do the reading. And go on holiday somewhere with some good geology. (I understand there have been creationist trips to Siccar Point, a foundational site in geology, so you don't have to tangle with us outsiders.)

And don't jump to false conclusions about other people's beliefs. It's rude.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 12 - 04:56 AM

A bat and a bird both have wings in order to fly, but a bat is a mammal and a bird is a bird (go figure). They are not related even though they both need wings in order to fill their created purpose. In other words, wings do not point to a common ancestral link, but rather to an important design to their separate habitats.

This is blindfolded claptrap. Bats and birds didn't set off on their evolutionary travels in time "needing wings." Their forelimbs evolved into wing-like structures. In another "line" of evolution (KISS) forelimbs evolved into paddles, in another, into limbs adapted for terrestrial locomotion, and then there's us...etc. etc. But you've missed something, and what you've missed betrays your stubborn lack of scholarship. The forelimbs of vertebrates are all built on exactly the same bone pattern (google pentadactyl limb). The relative sizes and lengths of the bones vary according to the function the limbs are adapted for, but the numbers and basic arrangement of bones is present throughout, including in bats 'n' birds. It's a beautiful and well-documented example of diversity pointing clearly to common ancestry. Enjoy "Origin," and, while you're reading it, contemplate the searing honesty of the man who penned it. Unlike any creationist I've come across, he confronts and deals with - properly - all the objections to his theory of the kinds that ever come up in these threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 10 Feb 12 - 03:19 AM

Reverse the italics, sorry 'bout that.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 10 Feb 12 - 03:18 AM

Have you actually read the thing? Leaving out not having read Darwin, not having taken on board what the Bible is actually like is a serious failing if you are going to claim that without it, anyone's morality is without standing.

I have read the Bible from cover to cover several times, and I believe that God inspired every single word in it. I am familiar with it, and I believe that whatever God says to be good, is good, and whatever He says to be evil is evil. Even if I don't like it, that's my sin and not his error. But that's a more theological argument which really can't be debated with someone who has no belief in a God anyway! For you, good is what you say it to be. Therefore you can't judge anybody, because they define good differently. Only I can say that I have absolute right and wrong, because the God of the universe has revealed it to us in His Word.

Iona

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 10 Feb 12 - 03:11 AM

Sorry. "GUEST" was me. Huroo, I have to remember to sign......

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 10 Feb 12 - 03:06 AM

Oh, yes. while writing that I was strangely reminded of the passage in which the Christian author C.S. Lewis defended belief in God in the Silver Chair. A reminder - the protagonists have been captured by a witch who rules a dark and miserable underworld, and she is trying to persuade them that that is the only world. Puddleglum, a Marshwiggle, argues that she may be right that her world is the only one, and that their memories of the real world, and Aslan, are purely imaginary, but that if so, it is very strange that their play world is better than hers. Of course, in the book, their world real, as is Aslan, and we all root for him as he stamps out her enchanted fire.

Here, by an odd reversal, I was arguing that the real world, in which people decide that genocide is evil for reasons obvious to most, is better than the Bible world, in which god ordains that it is appropriate. The god who made that order (and note that I have dropped the capital, which I use only for the God revealed in Jesus) was as imaginary as Lewis' witch and as arbitrary as any other Bronze Age deity.

If you want the Bible to be the arbiter of morality, you have to show that it is worthy of that status, and it isn't. I know I am falling into the trap of Marcion here (you probably don't), but the early writings were made by men of their time who were feeling inadequately towards an understanding of what God could be, and are not reliable as guides to anything. Have you actually read the thing? Leaving out not having read Darwin, not having taken on board what the Bible is actually like is a serious failing if you are going to claim that without it, anyone's morality is without standing.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 10 Feb 12 - 02:46 AM

So now, tell me how you can judge the Bible to have 'evil' in it? Even if it's evil by your standard, that's simply your standard, and no one has to go by your standard because they all live by their own! In your worldview there can be no absolutes, simply personal opinion--thus civil government is completely irrational, because it imposes 'personal opinion' upon other people who obviously didn't find it against their personal standards to steal, murder and speed. How dare you call Hitler evil? He was just creating his own reality. How can you condemn child abuse? The abuser is not breaching their own standard of gooness.
This is the point I've been trying to make. thanks!

So my subjective standard, that committing genocide is wrong, cannot show that to be be evil because it is backed by divine order in the Bible. It seems to me that a god who orders that is no different from Hitler, whom I dare to call evil, because most human beings recognise killing people as wrong, and most regard killing huge numbers of people for simply being different is so wrong it can be called evil.

Notice how few people in the world accept standards of goodness which include murder and child abuse, whether they are Christians or not, and that some, claiming to be Christians, do. People who don't do something don't make the news, of course, but if they did have entirely arbitrary rules, which could include those actions, in any numbers, there would be no-one on this planet recognisably intelligent or spiritual.

You are simply not getting other people's points at all.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Feb 12 - 02:37 AM

"talibs are strangely selective in which orders they obey."

you're referring to me, or Christians in general, right? Can you give me an example of the 'selectivity' you're referring to?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Paul Burke
Date: 10 Feb 12 - 02:04 AM

If you have to read it out of a book, it's not morality, it's just "I vass only obeyink orders". So the Bible has NO morality in it whatsoever, any more than Mein Kampf or Joe Stalin's scibblings do. The dictator god, whose orders must be obeyed simply because of who he is, is ironically a descendant of the Roman emperors who assimilated Christianity in the 4th century.

Even so, as others have pointed out, talibs are strangely selective in which orders they obey. No doubt our friend will come up with the party line as to why, but like all such party lines it will be as convincing as their other "explanations". And the reason is that it is the party line, given from their Kremlin, and accepted without question.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 10 Feb 12 - 02:04 AM

Perhaps the best example of a complete transitional sequence is the Fish to Tetrapod series.

You can read about it here:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/v16470436056263j/


There are photos and descriptions of the fossils (and yes, there are names).

I am curious to see whether you will actually read this, and come back with a substantive question or critique.

Actually, I know that you won't (read it that is), which is proof that you really are not interested in truth. I am not saying that this article IS truth, but if you really are seeking truth, you would read it and try to understand it.


You KNOW? how can you KNOW anything? {grin} Haven't I already touched on that?
Anyway, the fact that I shan't read it isn't because I'm not interested to, because I *would* like to read it. I just don't have the money to buy it. (it's over 30 dollars). But I plan on getting Darwin's Origins from the library as soon as I finish the book I'm reading at the moment.


But anyway, even though I can't read the article you linked to, I did see a few names of fossils that I recognized and I know the evolutionary arguments over. Tiktaalik, for instance. You all know about Tiktaalik, the 'walking fish', or 'missing link'. It hit the news a few years ago when they discovered it in the extreme North of the planet in a place called Ellesmere Island.
Tiktaalik is claimed to be a long-looked-for missing link. Finally! 'Bout time.

Tetrapods
A tetrapod is an animal that has a backbone and four limbs, specifically amphibians similar to the salamander. Evolutionists say that tetrapods were the earliest limbed animals.
Tiktaalik was found in rock from the 'Devonian period' supposedly making it about 375 million years old. (How they got that date, I don't know, but let's just ignore that for the moment.) Tiktaalik has characteristics of two different types of animals; fish and tetrapods. The characteristics that Tiktaalik possesses that are fish-like include gills, scales and fins. Its tetrapod characteristics include lungs, ribs, neck, flat skull and a rotating wrist joint.
First of all, Tiktaalik is unmistakably a fish. So the next question is what type of a fish is it? Is it really an example of evolution?

Classification of fish
A little needs to be known about the classification of fish before we proceed in our analysis, so here goes: There are two major groups of fish. Namely, jawless fish(like lampreys and hagfish), and then jawed fish (every other type of fish). Since the jawed fish group is so large, it gets broken down again into two groups: fish with bones and then fish with simply cartilage (the latter being rays and sharks). The fish with bones category is also large, and gets broken down into two final categories: ray finned fish and lobe finned fish. Ray finned fish are typical 'tank' fish where you can see their little 'fans' of fins with the bones-- you know what I mean. And then lobe finned fish have stumpy stalks of flesh supported by bone segments. Tiktaalik is of the lobe-finned group.

Evolutionists look at this 'diagram' or classification chart as a sign that all fish came from the same ancestor. Creationists say that many fish are similar, but not all fish have a common ancestor. Instead, there may have been one or more original created kinds of bony fish that have adapted into all the variations that we see today. There also may have been an original created kind of cartilaginous fish that has given rise to all of the other cartilaginous types we see today. But just like the fact that some of us have friends that look like us enough to be mistaken for brothers or sisters when they're not really related,Creationists believe that just because some animals have the same characteristics, does not mean that they are related. A bat and a bird both have wings in order to fly, but a bat is a mammal and a bird is a bird (go figure). They are not related even though they both need wings in order to fill their created purpose. In other words, wings do not point to a common ancestral link, but rather to an important design to their separate habitats.

Creationists assume that animals are designed with traits which help them live in their individual locations/habitats. Each Biblical 'kind' would have been created by God and then adapted to its special habitat through the generations. It's not evolution--we believe that God pre-programmed into the genes into the original creatures this ability--from the very beginning.

Mosaic Creatures
Then we have mosaic creatures-- a mosaic creature is an animal that has characteristics that match one or more difference animals, such as the Platypus. The Platypus is a mammal that lays eggs like a reptile, has a bill and webbed feet like a duck, a tail like a beaver, and spurs on its hind feet like a spiny anteater--with venom! Fit that into a category, I dare ya! Where in the world did this creature supposedly evolve from?

"Convergent evolution!" says the evolutionary scientist, waving away the questions. "sometimes we see the same traits in animals that are obviously not related-- that's just a 'convergent trait'. Similar traits that evolved two different times"*

The platypus is a mosaic animal--could it be that Tiktaalik is a mosaic fish? It has tetrapod qualities (flattened skull, no bony gill coverings, stronger ribs, fins with wrist-like bones), but scientists aren't sure what exactly it used the fins for. It's a fossil fish. We don't know how it behaved in its habitat. We aren't sure if it 'walked' or supported itself with its fins, as scientists speculate. They assumed the same thing about the coelacanth, but when a few live specimens of this 'missing link' (bar the question: if it's a link, why is it still alive intact?) were found, it was discovered that it did not use its lobed fins to 'walk' or prop itself up in the shallow bottom of a river as they had thought!

"Feets?!"
There are a number of types of fish that can do something similar to walking--namely, the snakehead fish, the walking catfish, the mudskipper, and the climbing perch. Evolutionists don't put *these* fish in the evolutionary line of tetrapods because they have no other common traits. These fish fish are strong evidence for the creationist belief that each kind of animal is made with characteristics that enable it to survive in the habitat that God designed it for. Tiktaalik is also evidence in the support of design. The special shape of its head, bones in its arm, strong ribs, and no gill cover seem to make the fish well suited for its special environment. And I wouldn't be shocked if we found a live one today..........

The Problem of Time
According to evolution, there is a span of twenty million years between the fossil layers of Tiktaalik and the first tetrapod that walked on land. For evolutionists, twenty million years is nothin'. In that amount of time the fish had to become a land-walking, air-breathing animal! The large gap between fish and tetrapod is large. Even if mutations--mistakes in the genetic code-- could turn one animal into another, it would take far too much new information in the genes to change the fish into an amphibian. Mutations could never do this--even in the 20 million year time span.

The first tetrapod fossils look a lot like modern day salamanders. Salamanders that are alive today have changed very, very little from their fossil counterparts/relatives. If the changes from fish to salamander did happen in 20 million years, then why have there been no changes in salamanders since that time? How could they suddenly evolve and then stop evolving for over 60 million years of evolutionary time?
Mutations over millions of years would only serve to distroy a creature--not make it 'new and improved'!



*Convergent evolution will be further addressed in a future post. ~Iona

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 10 Feb 12 - 01:21 AM

"For the Buddhist, you 'create your own reality', and that includes your morals--what you believe to be good or bad."

Which is exactly what humans have been doing for millenia!

My point exactly! So now, tell me how you can judge the Bible to have 'evil' in it? Even if it's evil by your standard, that's simply your standard, and no one has to go by your standard because they all live by their own! In your worldview there can be no absolutes, simply personal opinion--thus civil government is completely irrational, because it imposes 'personal opinion' upon other people who obviously didn't find it against their personal standards to steal, murder and speed. How dare you call Hitler evil? He was just creating his own reality. How can you condemn child abuse? The abuser is not breaching their own standard of gooness.
This is the point I've been trying to make. thanks!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Feb 12 - 08:34 PM

gosh, pete-- it is hard to get YOU to make specific comments on scientific articles that support evolution.

I feel like the paleontologists do....that tiktaalek has characteristics that SEEM to be obviously a possible link...and one they predicted would exist if their theories were true. That makes it one more example of the KIND of evidence that helps show how evolution works. I doubt that anyone expects to find ALL the possible links, as very few specimens get caught in exactly the right circumstances to be preserved.... at least in fish-to-land animal.
In other types of fossils, they have a larger set if intermediate forms.

As to the Poland thing: They TOTALLY miss the point! No one claims that tetrapods, if those 'indentations' are really tracks, are direct decedents of tiktaalek. Evolution happens in many parallel lines, not in ...ummm.. 'single file'. Not only that, but Poland is not near Canada! If tetrapod tracks...or better...bones...had been found WITH tiktaalek, it might have been good evidence... of something.
It is interesting that Creation.com even uses that argument, because they don't even recognize that 'beings' could BE that old! So how can they interpret evidence they don't even allow AS evidence?

The thing is: any claim, or assertion of evidence must be backed up by those who assert it. The scientists keeps adding new evidence as the dig deeper and develop new tools. What do Creationists use as evidence? They seem to be more interested in denying the claims of evolutionists on the grounds that the 'chain of evidence' is imperfect...and then just assert that Biblical theory is the only alternative! This is why several people here...including me... keep saying that creationists simply do not intend to EVER accept evolution--because they fear it would contradict a literal interpretation of the Christian Bible. THAT is what is meant by assuming the answer and denying any evidence that does not lead to preconceived opinions.

If you persist on watering down the idea of what IS good evidence, you can never be wrong....and that seems to be the goal.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 09 Feb 12 - 07:42 PM

Yup. DMcG got it.
What *specifically* would you need to see?

Oh, and "i dont think it likely most evolutionists would accept it"

Is totally incorrect. Science is all about changing theories to incorporate new evidence. You will note that we no longer believe in spontaneous generation, nor in bloodletting, nor that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

I promise you that if you can find the features I listed above, droves of scientists would very seriously reconsider current theories. It is exactly how the method of science works. When you say that evolutionists would just deny the evidence, methinks that is a wee bit of projection.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Feb 12 - 06:30 PM

That's close, pete. What would constitute an undoubted missing link for you?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Feb 12 - 06:24 PM

bill-not sure if i was unclear or you avoided the meaning of my post.i was inviting you to be specific in your criticism of the creation article on tiktaalek.this was mostly commenting on scientific data.i am perfectly aware you discount the bible as authoritative[as also don who took the same tack].it will be sufficient to say if you think tiktaalek and his mates represent a fish to tetra chain or if the poland find does elimenate the former claim.

tia-on the face of it your challenge presents as reasonable and i have to admit that i cant think of anything that you might present that would change my mind except an undoubted missing link find.but that has been done has'nt it.was it for 40 years some lost their faith because of piltdown man?!
seems you are eminently noble and maybe really willing to accept it if such fossils are found together but i dont think it likely most evolutionists would accept it.
as i have said before some evolutionists have admitted that evolutionism is far from proven.
of course you could quote theologians who dont accept creationism;but an admission by a creation believing scientist would be a more correct correspondence.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Feb 12 - 06:03 PM

Parable.

Two monks, one old and wise, the other young and eager, are on a pilgrimage together. In the course of their journey, they happen on a young woman at the side of a stream that they have to cross on their way. The woman has fallen from her horse, and she has sprained her ankle and cannot get up. Her horse is on the other side of the stream, calming grazing.

The woman tells the two monks that if she can get back on her horse, she can continue her journey, and get help when she reaches her destination. Can they help her?

The young monk backs away. He tells her that they can't, because they have both take a vow never to touch a woman.

The old monk ignores him, picks the young woman up in his arms, wades across the stream, and sees her safely into the saddle. She thanks him profusely, then rides off to her destination.

The two monks continue their journey, and the young monk is very silent. In fact, he's fuming! After about ten miles, the old monk says, "All right. Spit it out! What's on your mind?"

"You broke your vow!" the young monk blurts out. "You are supposed to be wise! A paragon. And my spiritual teacher. And you broke your vow!"

"How little you understand," said the old monk. "So listen well! The young woman was in danger. Stranded and unable to rise. If no one helped her, if we had simply left her to her fate, she could have been killed by wild animals or fallen victim to evil men. So I picked her up, carried her across the stream, and lifted her onto her horse.

"I carried her about ten yards. You have been carrying her for the last ten miles!"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Feb 12 - 02:14 PM

Iona:   " And it still comes back to the question: what is good and evil? Who defines it? For the Buddhist, you 'create your own reality', and that includes your morals--what you believe to be good or bad. The atheist is in the same boat, since there is no 'higher authority' to define good and evil. The ultimate authority is the human mind, which we all know to be finite. (at least, I'm assuming we all know that......"

I believe that there is an objective reality. Contrary to the teachings of the Buddha, I have no reason (evidence) to believe otherwise. How we perceive that reality and interpret what we perceive is the question. If you believe, not what you perceived and reason out, but someone else's "revealed truth," you are removing yourself at least one step from what IS. And that can be hazardous!

And like it or not, Iona, the same thing applies to Christians. All Christians. Some get it and are fine with it. But others are willing to accept someone else's "Revealed Truth," and they are usually the ones who go around desperately trying to get others to agree with them—in order to verify their own beliefs.

The nature of Reality is not a matter of popular vote.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 09 Feb 12 - 12:47 PM

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 Feb 12 - 12:41 PM

You haven't seen the size of my cats mate.

Don T.