±«Óătv

VERY worrying possibility, this. If the Scots do this, they will bring Scottish education into disrepute. Their educational system is superb; what a disaster they are now facing. I have been concerned that NI authorities would make this move any way, since NI curriculum authorities are dangerously influenced by churches.

Why shouldn't the science classroom be a place where theories about the universe are discussed? Are people afraid of discussion? I believe in evolution as a theory of origins and I believe in the Christian creation story too. No contradiction. I just think there's got to be "space" (to use Will's word) for discussion about ID in a science classroom. I don't think that means a teacher should encourage the view but I do think it is fine to talk.

SumMad Man

discussion and debate are all very well but there are exams every three days and our children have to PREFORM.

we dont have time for all these questions much better to make are children memorize the "FACTS".

what is taught in science should be as open to debate as what is taught in RE but it is my impression that GCSE science gives people a simplified story and stops them asking questions.

were not training people to think scientifically we are just training them to memorize 100 year old theory.

mabey first we need to teach the science with a bit of integrity. if we did this the church wouldnt have so much the get in a twist about.

What next?
Atheism on the RE syllabus!
Now that would be progress!

ID has not an ounce of real science within it to explain the facts, and thus is not fit for a science classroom. It cannot be separated from the religious belief that produces it, and therefore is a worthy candidate for inclusion in a religious syllabus, but not a science one.

Michael McGrath, director of the Scottish Catholic Education Service, made it clear intelligent design was not part of science teaching in Catholic schools. He said: "There is a distinction between what is appropriate for religious education and what is appropriate for science. We wouldn't confuse one with the other."

I would agree 100% with this particular church representative.

every year since Darwin published origin of the species the fossil record has moved further and further away from his theory with every fossil find. thats 150 years ago.

The yawning gaps between the living and fossilised species are turning into chasms; they did not evolve from one another, according to evdidence.

If you are looking for evidence for creationism you could check out the "Cambrian explosion" a period of fossil history when masses of species appeared out of nowhere with no apprent relationship to each other.

There is no proof one species has ever turned into another; watch out for the con tricks with evolutionists who cannot produce *actual* evidence that this ever happened. They mainly focus on natural variations within species and hypothesise these result in new species.

PB

Oh dear, here we go again.

PB- I would have thought the dreadful weakness of your current position in Belfast's Biblical Flood would preclude you from going onto other threads and spouting nonsense as though you hadn't just had your arguments torn apart by some common sense logic. Perhaps you should deal with your outstanding debt in one account before opening another?

Goodness!

Do we have to go through 200 posts on guff again!?

I'm off to bang my head against a wall until it is a bloody pulp! far more worthwhile and fulfilling than trying to debate with PB...

Repeat ad nauseum

(my)"GODDIDIT"

Well said DD JW and dp
The report is probabably just a bit of desperate kite-flying by a much criticised creationst/supernaturalist clique

Humans have difficulty in thinking of time in other than decades, centuries and lifetimes but for all species, humans included, evolution happens over the course of many thousands and millions of years, it is rare to observe the process in a human lifetime. Usually only laboratory scientists studying quickly reproducing life forms, like single-celled creatures and some invertebrates, have the opportunity to see evolutionary change happen before their eyes. All of us can and do experience the indirect effects of evolution nearly every day, however. One of the more important evolutionary concerns facing humans today is the emergence of antibiotic-resistant microbes. A battle against bacteria that we have been winning with medicine for the last 50 years or so is now an even race, according to some scientists -- because of the rapid rate of bacterial evolution. Similarly, the use of pesticides in agriculture has driven the evolution of resistant insects that require more or harsher chemicals to be killed. Scientists studying Galapagos finches have seen evolutionary changes in beak size and shape in just a few years. Major evolutionary transformations take much, much longer.

I think we can sleep easy.
This report actually appeared in the Herald on Sun 17th June and the Scottish Humanists have been assured that the SQA have absolutely no plans to introduce ID into these courses.

Re Post 7.

One of the defining featrues of a scientific theory is that it is falsifiable. That it can be shown to be false.

In Post 7 PB write "The yawning gaps between the living and fossilised species are turning into chasms;they did not evolve from one another according to evdidence"

Tempting though it is to revel in the fact that PB can't spell EVIDENCE or DEMOCRACY (see Summer Madness thread), I shall move on and say this:

Your comment in Post 7 suggests to the impressionable that you can show Evolution to be false. Please do this for us.

Thanks.

GW

Hello everyone,

First the obligatory short but laud laugh at pb who wrote

"every year since Darwin published origin of the species the fossil record has moved further and further away from his theory with every fossil find. thats 150 years ago."

Would that still be based on reading half of one paper on evolution pb? How's the reading going that you promised us to do over and over again now?

For those who advocate room for discussion about ID I'd recommend the following YouTube video of Ken Miller (a committed Christian btw) on the collapse of ID:

It details how the major testable claims of ID (like irreducible complexity) have been falsified. That means that as science it has lost all validity. The central pillars have been torn from under it. Any talk of 'room for debate' is just IDiots moving the debate to the subjects of 'freedom to speak ones mind' as they know they've had their ass kicked in the scientific debate.

The judge in the Dover trial had a devastating comment on the 'scientific' nature of ID:

“First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to “change the ground rules” of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. (28:26 (Fuller); 21:37-42 (Behe)). Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to
be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces. (38:97 (Minnich)).”

So there you have it: ID can't survive within the definition of science. It would require a broadening of the definition, to such an extent that it would also include astrology. That's not a typo, I didn't mean to type astronomy, it really is astrology! Does anyone still want a debate on ID in science classes?

There is a group of pupils within schools in Northern Ireland already campaigning in favour of I.D. being taught; they have lobbied the Department of Education and the CCEA to teach I.D. so that a balanced perspective is offered other than the assumed model of the old earth and big bang evolutionary theory that is on offer at present, over 900 signatures have been collected on a petition.

Pupils of Gee Dubyah old school lead the way, you must feel proud Gee.

Hello everyone,

First the obligatory comment on pb's post:

"every year since Darwin published origin of the species the fossil record has moved further and further away from his theory with every fossil find. thats 150 years ago."

Would that still be based on reading half of one paper on fossils pb? How's the reading going that you promised us to do over and over again now?

For those who advocate room for discussion about ID I'd recommend the following YouTube video of Ken Miller (a committed Christian btw) on the collapse of ID:

It details how the major testable claims of ID (like irreducible complexity) have been falsified. And how ID text books are almost completely similar to creationist text books except that 'creator' has been replaced by the word 'designer' and 'glorious creation' by 'intelligent design'. That means that as science it has lost all validity. The central pillars have been torn from under it and it has been shown to be creationism with science jargon mixed in. Any talk of 'room for debate' is just IDiots moving the debate to the subjects of 'freedom to speak ones mind' as they know they've had their behinds kicked in the scientific debate.

The judge in the Dover trial against teaching ID in science class rooms had a devastating comment on the 'scientific' nature of ID:

“First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to “change the ground rules” of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. (28:26 (Fuller); 21:37-42 (Behe)). Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to
be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces. (38:97 (Minnich)).”

So there you have it: ID can't survive within the definition of science. It would require a broadening of the definition, to such an extent that it would also include astrology. That's not a typo, I didn't mean to type astronomy, it really is astrology! ID is on the same level as people who howl at the moon at midnight and predict the future success of your love life from the position of Venus in the nights sky. Does anyone still want a debate on ID in science classes?

greets,
Peter

Pete

Go to your room you naughty boy!

;-)

You know very well how comfortable I am with Dover.

The judge said supernatural causes could not be included in current science and therefore ID could not be taught as science.

Nothing startling in that, sure makes sense to me.

But what you dont mention is he was explicit in stating he was not stating whether or not ID was true.

IN other words, he recognised that just because science cant grapple with a concept does not make it incorrect.

To refute this point you might demonstrate how science can stand up its assumption that God does not exist.

PB

PB

As you well know and has been pointed out to you on many, many occasions was at Dover the ID crowd claimed that empirical evidence backed up their claims ie., irreducible complexity. Ironically this was shown to be twaddle by a Christian Ken Miller.

The same way in which many scientists who are Christians who are scientists have shown Biblical creationism to be complete twaddle.

Watch how PB frames this question:

"To refute this point you might demonstrate how science can stand up its assumption that God does not exist."

In his mind it's up to everybody else to show that God does NOT exist; PB start with the assumption that he does! Yet in rational science, things work the other way around: we construct a system of theories to explain the facts we observe. Those theories then make further predictions which either continue to be substantiated by further evidence or they are disproved and superseded by new theories. None of this applies to proving God's existence or denying it; most would agree that both are impossible by scientific standards. This is therefore another PB tangent: irrelevant, but demonstrable of his lack of understanding the scientific process.

PB- who ever said that one kind of species just truned into another??? This is not part of evolutionary theory you ignoramus! EVOLUTION=EVOLVED=INCRIMENTAL STEPS!!!! This can be viewed quite clearly in the fossil record!
Could you please point me towards a peer reviewed article detailing the position you appear to be holding??? Oh thats right, there isnt any! Disgraceful ignorance on your part and you should be ashamed of yourself!!!

Oh my FSM!

After getting torn into smaller bits than ever before on the 'Belfasts biblical flood' thread pb is now inviting more torment on himself. As I said before, I am beginning suspect a sado-masochistic streak in pbs character.
John Wright already took care of the last bit, where pb wrote

"To refute this point you might demonstrate how science can stand up its assumption that God does not exist."

JW was fully correct of course. Science doesn't assume the existance of a Flying Spaghetti Monster, Thor, the ancient Greek gods. Or the christian god. Pbs expectation that assuming his existance would be default does indeed show his ignorance of science. Thanks JW, that leaves me the main course of the Dover ruling. Pb wrote

"You know very well how comfortable I am with Dover."

Your comfort with the ruling indicates that once again you haven't read you stuff and don't know very well what you are talking about. ID was recognised as creationism with a very thin veil of scientific jargon. And all claims of tangible evidence were falsified. So creationism-in-disguise was kebabbed once again. Let's look at some of the things the judge wrote in his ruling.

"An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching About “Gaps” and “Problems” in Evolutionary Theory are
Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier Forms of Creationism" p18

"Dembski has written that ID is a
“ground clearing operation” to allow Christianity to receive serious consideration, and “Christ is never an addendum to a scientific theory but always a completion.” p27

"Prominent IDM leaders are in agreement with the opinions expressed by defense expert witnesses that the ground rules of science must be changed for ID to take hold and prosper. William Dembski, for instance, an IDM leader, proclaims
that science is ruled by methodological naturalism and argues that this rule must be overturned if ID is to prosper." p68

So ID was recognised as a strategy by religious fundamentalists to push creationism into science class rooms and discredit proper science.
On the 'scientific evidence', centered mostly around Behes claims of irreducible complexity, the IDiots really were sunk to the bottom of the deepest ocean. For instance, Behe had claimed that all parts involved in the blood clotting cascade had to have appeared simultaneously. That would have required an astonishing coincidence and therefore would have been a challenge do Darwinian evolution. But then it was shown that Behes premise was already falsified when he wrote his book 'Darwins black box':

"Second, with regard to the blood-clotting cascade, Dr. Miller demonstrated that the alleged irreducible complexity of the blood-clotting cascade has been
disproven by peer-reviewed studies dating back to 1969, which show that
dolphins’ and whales’ blood clots despite missing a part of the cascade, a study that was confirmed by molecular testing in 1998. (1:122-29 (Miller); P-854.17-854.22). Additionally and more recently, scientists published studies showing that in puffer fish, blood clots despite the cascade missing not only one, but three parts.
(1:128-29 (Miller)). Accordingly, scientists in peer-reviewed publications have refuted Professor Behe’s predication about the alleged irreducible complexity of the blood-clotting cascade. Moreover, cross-examination revealed that Professor Behe’s redefinition of the blood-clotting system was likely designed to avoid peerreviewed
scientific evidence that falsifies his argument, as it was not a scientifically warranted redefinition."

Notice also the emphasis on peer-reviewed literature when seeing what science has to say, pb? As a small intermidiate question: how's your reading of scientific literature going.
With nothing scientifically substantial to show for themselves, the IDiots resorted to more desparate measures. Behe tried to wave away the extensive scientific evidence stacked against him, on which point the judge noted the following:

"Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies."

The IDiots also resorted to the creationist tactic of shameless dishonesty:

"In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members’
testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students."

"Defendants’ previously referenced flagrant and insulting falsehoods to
the Court provide sufficient and compelling evidence for us to deduce that any allegedly secular purposes that have been offered in support of the ID Policy are equally insincere." p132

"Finally, although Buckingham, Bonsell, and other defense witnesses denied the reports in the news media and contradicted the great weight of the evidence about what transpired at the June 2004 Board meetings, the record reflects that these witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions, and are accordingly not credible on these points." p105

So there we have it. ID is creationism in disguise, there is no evidence in support of its claims (as with your creationist claims pb), knowledge of the subject was not a priority to the school board (as it never is with you pb) and the proponents are highly dishonest in their ways of going about it (as are you pb).

I'm happy enough with the ruling. Strange that you say you're happy with it too.

It seems to me that the hysterical opposition to 'Creationism' (ie the traditonal Christian Biblical position) and Intelligent design is that folk don't want God messing with their lives.

Of course, all their spurious arguments won't wish Him away!

Are we really to believe that a reputable scientist must also be an atheist?

Maybe some 'open minds' should be closed for repairs!

* 22.
* At 11:02 PM on 08 Jul 2007,
* Philip Campbell wrote:

"It seems to me that the hysterical opposition to 'Creationism'"
.
Hysterical opposition? Hysterical??
The only hysteria I've come across on this issue has been from the Intelligent Design and Creationist salesmen who appear unhappy that their pseudo-science is not being classified as real science. Because it simply isn't!

I certainly don't find the actions of those pointing out and proving the unscientific nature of biblical creationism to be in any way hysterical. Well I must admit I have had a bit of a giggle at some of the above pro-creationist posts. :)

I think it's wonderful of these people here, and at the other similar discussions I have followed, to take the time to explain creationism for what it really is.....religious belief!!

I'd rather my children spent what time they have in science class learning facts which are supported by genuine scientific research and not learning religious pseudo- scientific debating gymnastics!

Question: Would the tax paying public also be asked to fund this ludicrous idea? I'm thinking that they would!

JW

Newton held that God controlled the movement of the planets; The problem is that science cannot formally take a position on God EITHER WAY.

This means science cannot actually state that God was NOT behind a mirculous creation, simply that it has not been proven. Plus it must also hold that evolution is the best available theory, but one that cannot be observed or replicated.

Peter
1) Yes I agree 100% science cannot accept a supernatural causation for anything, that was the conclusion at Dover.
2) The judge explicitly said he did not take a position on whether or not creationism was true.

From these points you can see;-
a) Science cannot actually state that creationism did not happen, because it can't examine the process.

b) The Dover judge was careful to say he was not deciding whether or not creationism was true.

Joe

ref the fossil gaps, even Enc Brit says EXPLICITLY most of them are still to be found. This is why EB is so vague on Phylogeny;-

From EB;-

"phylogeny
the history of the evolution of a species or group, especially in reference to lines of descent and relationships among broad groups of organisms.

Fundamental to phylogeny is the ***proposition***, universally accepted in the scientific community (????), that plants or animals of different species descended from common ancestors.

****
The evidence for such relationships, however, is nearly always incomplete, for the vast majority of species that have ever lived have become extinct, and relatively few of their remains have been preserved. Most judgments of phylogenicity, then, are based on indirect evidence and cautious speculation. (!!!!!!)

Even when biologists use the same evidence, they often ***hypothesize*** different phylogenies, though they do agree that life is the result of organic descent from earlier ancestors and that true phylogenies are discoverable, ***at least in principle***.

Taxonomy, the science of classifying organisms, is based on phylogeny. Early taxonomic systems had no theoretical basis; organisms were grouped according to apparent similarity. Since the publication of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859, however, taxonomy has been based on the accepted ***propositions*** of evolutionary descent and relationship.

Biologists who ***postulate*** a phylogeny derive their most useful evidence from the fields of paleontology, comparative anatomy, comparative embryology, and biochemistry. Studies of the fine structure of cells and geographic distribution of flora and fauna are also useful. The fossil record is often used to determine the phylogeny of groups containing hard body parts; soft parts are generally not preserved.

Most of the data used in making phylogenetic judgments have come from comparative anatomy and from embryology. In comparing features common to different species, anatomists try to distinguish between homologies, or similarities inherited from a common ancestor, and analogies, or similarities that arise in response to similar habits and living conditions.

Biochemical investigations carried out in the latter half of the 20th century have contributed valuable data to phylogenetic studies. By counting differences in the sequence of units that make up protein and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) molecules, researchers have devised a tool for measuring the degree to which different species have diverged since evolving from a common ancestor.

The earliest organisms were ***probably*** the result of a long chemical evolution, in which random reactions in the primeval seas and atmosphere produced amino acids and then proteins. It is ***supposed*** that droplets containing proteins then formed membranes by binding molecules to their surface, and these membrane-bound proteins are ***said*** to have become organisms when they developed the capacity to reproduce. It is ***not certain whether*** these earliest self-reproducing organisms were proteins, nucleic acid–protein associations, or viruses. There is general agreement that they were heterotrophic organisms—i.e., those that required nourishment in the form of organic matter from early seas. Later, autotrophic forms appeared, having the ability to make their own food from inorganic matter. These organisms were the earliest bacteria; they could store energy as food and release energy as needed through respiration.

Cyanobacteria (sometimes called the blue-green algae) are thought to have been the next evolutionary step (Figure 1) in that they were able to use photosynthetic pigments to manufacture their own supply of food and therefore were not totally dependent on their environment for nutrients.

After the cyanobacteria there appeared an extensive array of algae, molds, protozoans, plants, and animals. Three groups of algae can be dismissed with passing mention, as they arose from ***uncertain*** ancestors and have given rise to no further groups. These groups are the chrysophytes (yellow-green and golden-brown algae, chiefly diatoms); the pyrrophytes (cryptomonads and dinoflagellates); and the rhodophytes, or red algae. Three more groups have greater phylogenetic importance: the chlorophytes (green algae), which ***almost certainly*** gave rise to the land plants, i.e., the bryophytes (mosses and liverworts) and the tracheophytes, or vascular plants (including all of the higher plants); the euglenoids (unicellular, flagellate organisms), which ***suggest*** a broad connection between plants and animals at this primitive level; and the phaeophytes (brown algae), which some biologists have considered to be a ***probable*** source of the animal kingdom. Finally, the protozoans (unicellular prokaryotic microorganisms) were derived from unknown, more primitive ancestors, and one or more groups of protozoans have given rise to metazoans—i.e., multicellular animals.

Land plants contain two major groups, bryophytes and tracheophytes, which differ in many ways but which share distinctive characteristics for adaptation to dry land. These include the housing of the plant embryo in maternal tissue.

Bryophytes are descended from green algae and include mosses, liverworts, and hornworts. Only small quantities of water are needed for their reproduction, so that the sperm may travel to the eggs. The fertilized egg matures within the maternal tissue. The plant is protected from dessication by a waxy cuticle. Bryophytes have apparently not advanced far beyond their algal predecessors and do not seem to be the evolutionary source of other groups.

All the dominant plants on Earth are included in the tracheophytes. The tracheophytes' development of large plant bodies has been made possible by having vascular parts that carry water and food inside these plants, and by a dominant sporophyte stage with a microscopic-sized gametophyte. Tracheophytes' tissues have differentiated into leaves, stems, and roots, and in the highest plants seeds and flowers are featured.

In explaining the evolution of tracheophytes, it has been ***suggested*** that a mutant form of green algae developed a primitive rootlike function with which to supply itself with water and minerals. The progeny of this organism eventually developed bundles of vascular tissues, a stem and leaves, and a cuticle for protection. The early vascular plants are called psilophytes. The development of seeds arose from the retention of the embryo inside maternal tissue. Early seed ferns gave rise to the gymnosperm group, including pines, spruces, and firs. Flowering plants, the angiosperms, probably came from the gymnosperm phase and have two subgroups: the dicotyledons and the monocotyledons.

The ***problem*** of the origin of multicellular animals (metazoans) was long dominated by the German embryologist Ernst Haeckel's ***theory*** that the original metazoan ancestor was a spherical protozoanthat was structurally similar to the coelenterates (e.g., jellyfishes, corals). Today there are two alternative explanations. The first traces metazoans back to flagellates, the ***presumed*** ancestors of flattened, ciliated animals (planulas) that eventually led to coelenterates and flatworms. Another ***theory hypothesizes*** that multinucleated protozoans, dividing into subcells, were the original metazoans, which developed into simple flatworms.

*
No decisive information, however, yet exists to sustain either contention.
**

Lower metazoan forms developed the first symmetrical arrangement of body parts about a main axis, thus establishing the bilateral symmetry that characterizes most animals; major exceptions are the echinoderms (e.g., starfishes, sea cucumbers). The development of tissues into an outer ectoderm, which provides protection and carries sense apparatus, and an inner endoderm, servingdigestion and reproduction needs, was an important phase. Another important trend was cephalization (head formation). The anterior end of the body generally holds the central nervous system, sense organs, and mouth.

Two current ***theories postulate*** the lineage of the higher metazoans. The monophyletic sequence suggests that four groups evolved from lower forms to higher: Ameria (unsegmented animals), which includes flatworms, coelenterates, and mollusks; Polymeria (segmented animals), which includes annelids and arthropods; Oligomeria (reduced segmentation), which includes insects and echinoderms; and Chordonia (chordates). The (alternative) diphyletic ***theory*** has been ***proposed*** by many zoologists. It contends that the higher metazoans had two lines of descent, one of which led to annelids, arthropods, and mollusks and the other of which led to echinoderms and chordates, as in Figure 2. Both groups emanated from an ancient flatworm.

Humans are included in the chordates. Three basic structures are shared by all chordates: a dorsal nerve tube (brain and spinal cord in vertebrates); a notochord (supporting rod under the nerve tube); and a pharynx perforated bygill slits, at least during the embryonic stage.

The history of evolution is full of examples of primitive groups giving rise to more advanced groups, but it should be noted that it is the more primitive and less specialized members of a group—not the advanced members—that produce new groups. For example, birds and mammals arose not from advanced reptiles but from primitive, unspecialized reptiles.

The data and conclusions of phylogeny show clearly [???????????] that the world of life is the product of a historical process of evolution and that degrees of resemblance within and between groups correspond to degrees of relationship by descent from common ancestors. A fully developed phylogeny is essential for the devising of a taxonomy that reflects the natural relationships within the world of living things."
ENDS

put it another was JW, Peter, DD...

A scientist can no more say that God did not create the universe in six days any more than he can say that miracles do not happen.

The scientist cannot step beyond his jurisdiction into the supernatural with any authority.

PB

PB

Re: The article from EB-please try and understand the fundamental basics of science! and why language is used in this way.You do have a knack of stating the bleedin' obvious as if it is ground-breaking news!

And a scientist can no more say that Zeus, The FSM, Allah, Vishnu created the world according to their respective creation myths.

Would be great since we are talking about fossils which are eg.,s of empirical evidence-you will of course be able to back up your opinion with evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable?

Philip Campbell M 22

The reason way people are concerned is that Biblical creationism and ID is complete pseudo-scientific twaddle and some of us care about our kids being taught guff. I presume that you would not object to all the world's creation myths being taught as fact?

"Are we really to believe that a reputable scientist must also be an atheist?"

Errr no there are many scientists who are Christians who have no problem with science IE., Ken Miller and Francis Collins. Intelligent Christians have no problem with evolution/science.

"Maybe some 'open minds' should be closed for repairs!"

Errr quite!

Peter don't worry about PB. We have been over the Dover case with him many, many times. A lot of posters tried to explain to him about Dover in a very simple way however and as always PB doesn't get it.

Ahh well

As I said it's more worthwhile banging your head against a brickwall intil it is a bloody pulp.

Ps. PB evolution has been observed and replicated many, many times...what is the point!? it's just a waste of time and effort.

Hi DD,

I know, I know, pb won't learn. But as stated before, the more he keeps posting, the more people will see what lunacay religion actually inspires. So I'm not about to quit. This thread makes for another round.

Pb, you wrote

"From these points you can see;-
a) Science cannot actually state that creationism did not happen, because it can't examine the process."

(Young Earth) Creationism claims several things that make for testable claims, like human and animal life all appearing with days of each other. These claims have been tested and falsified. Science can examine what should have followed from creation, and it's not there.

But let's not let you get away with diverting attention again. How's the reading going? Just to remind you:
- you claimed a total lack of intermediate feather fossils
- I pointed you towards a paper with examples of such intermediate feather fossils. And many examples of other papers. Downloaded them and read them for you. Pointed out to you the page number that has the photographs of them on it.
- Yet you persist there are none (without having read the journal papers). Please explain how you can stick to your original position after you have read at least the one paper I so often pointed out to you.

Any attempt at restoring a shred of your pummeled credibility hinges on it pb.

Peter

Peter,

PB actually gave you a reply of sorts on the flood thread. Again PB fails to grasp the very simple point that you were making-this is par for the course.
Could you imagine Peter (since PB chides the EB article for the language it uses and does not take into account that science of course has to take into account new evidence)who would be stupid enough, indeed moronic to hold a position that does not take into account new evidence and that would blindly hold a position regardless?

I do wonder if PB and the other Bible-believers actually realise the damage that they are doing to their religion? IMO they are doing more to harm religion/Christianity than Dawkins could ever wish to do in a thousand lifetimes and the best thing is that they do not even realise it.

DD, Peter

What you are both saying is that unless something is testable in a lab it cannot be true.

Christ cannot have risen from the dead because you cannot prove it in a lab etc.

To say that the scientific method must be the ultimate arbiter on truth and reality is really making it a God in itself, I would suggest.

PB

DD

This is probably not a bad definition of your worldview; question is it the correct view of the world?

wikipedia;-
Humanistic naturalism is the branch of philosophical naturalism wherein human beings are best able to control and understand the world through use of the scientific method. Concepts of spirituality, intuition, and metaphysics are not pursued because they are unfalsifiable, and therefore can never progress beyond personal opinion. A boundary is not drawn between nature and what lies "beyond" nature; everything is regarded as a result of explainable processes within nature, with nothing lying outside of it. [1]

PB

The simple point is that you and your Biblical creationist fellow travellers state that they have evidence-this evidence is empirical and can therefore be tested and when it is it is shown to be codswallop.

As usual you have got the wrong end of the stick and ran off on a tangent.

I know we love to give ourselves labels PB, if you want a definition of my own outlook I would call myself a freethinker.

To your qustion I would say that this is the best method (ie.,Humanistic naturalism)we have to assess emipirical evidence.

DD

You are totally misrepsenting me - I have never said that creationism can be proven by 21st century science - In fact I have always said the opposite.

You cant put supernatural events in a lab.

PB

PB

Again you fail(deliberately or otherwise) to understand very simple points. This has been gone over with you before.

Yet again...Biblical creationists have claimed that empirical evidence supports their claims(since you are the expert you of course know that Henry Morris wrote a book on "scientific" creationism in which the Bible was not mentioned). Peter answered this ie., human and animal life all appearing with days of each other. Also fossils are emiprical evidence also the study of DNA etc etc

So they do make claims that CAN be tested and have been shown to be twaddle on many occasions.

DD

I'm sorry but you cant shoehorn me into someelse's worldview.

I never claimed and dont believe creationism ( a supernatural event ) can be proven in a lab DD.

I think you have problems grappling with that, perhaps because of limitations of your humanistic naturalism worldview?

If we both accept your assumption that nothing that cannot be proven in a lab or formula exists in reality, then you are darn right, God could not have created the universe in 7 days.

If however we accept that science cannot know,prove,test,recreate everything in reality, then creationism - just like minor miracles and angels - is still feasible.

It just depends on whether you buy that assumption or not.

PB

PB

Not trying to shoehorn you or anything-simply stating fact!

Biblical creationists both claim/ed that empirical evidence backed up their opinion that the world started with a supernatural event-I and others have given examples.

As in so many things I don't know how I can make this any more simple.

Hello pb,

"What you are both saying is that unless something is testable in a lab it cannot be true."

Vintage pb as ever, ascribing statements to me that are completely made up.

It has been pointed out to you before pb, so let me repeat the example. The sun consists of plasma (very hot, mostly ionised gas). Yet we have never sent a probe into the sun to check that, let alone brough back some matter from the sun to analyse it in a lab. So would I ever claim that only things that have been tested in a lab can be true?

Try screwing your head on the other way pb, good chance it will fit so much better that way.

Peter

The sun sure is testable isn't it, in many ways.

In contrast, do you dismiss all miracles and supernatural events, just the small ones, or the big ones too?

Just a little miraculous healing, or creation of the universe in 7 days as well?

do you say supernatural events...

1) Just dont happen, with no explanation or justification.
2) May happen but cannot be tested at present
3) Don't know

OK DD, so you say that I believe that creationism can be proven scientifically, even though I always say the opposite - is this some sort of jedi mind trick?

Each time you say this I point to the conclusion of the Dover trial, where an independent judge observed/ruled that a supernatural causation for creation could not be classed as science, while being careful to say *explicitly* that he was not saying creationism was not true.

So for the last time...

UNTIL YOU EXPLAIN HOW THE DOVER JUDGE WAS WRONG, I DONT SEE HOW SUPERNATURAL CAUSATION FOR CREATION CAN BE PROVEN UNDER SCIENCE AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS.

This is causing you real problems isnt it DD, strecth your mind a little.

PB

Not causing me any probs at all PB!

We have been over Dover many times(like so much else!) and either deliberately or otherwise you refuse to get it.

To go again (and myself and Peter have given you eg.s), I am not saying that *you* are saying that Biblical creationism can be credence in the lab-I am simply saying what the big-wigs in Biblical creationism say! ie., that empirical evidence points towards "special creation" ie., fossils etc etc.ID made the same claims ie., irreducible complexity.

Go ahead stretch that fundamentalist mind PB, I know that is something that fundies are seemingly incapable of but give it a go...

And no need to shout dear I can hear you!

It really is a very, very simple point.

Hello pb,

"The sun sure is testable isn't it, in many ways."

Don't try to move the goal posts again pb. You've cried your lungs out about how evolutionary processes taking very long times can't be replicated in a lab and therefore in your view can't get approval as being proper science. Because of your unfounded position that only things replicated in a lab are proper science. Now you yourself state the opposite with regard to the composition of the sun. Congratualtions on a 180 degree reversal of your position, this time actually an improvement.

Speaking of moving goal posts, let me once more bring up the issue of reading some scientific literature on evolution before shouting out victory cries etc. How's the reading going pb, still stuck at less than half of one paper? Come on pb, I am calling you out once more, as I have done so many times now, and you never have even a single sensible word in response. If I post here, stating again that your credibility is utterly in tatters because of your shouts of victory while not having read a single scientific paper, surely you're not going to remain completely silent? I would hope you put up a better response than defaulting when you have it put to you that your position is totally null and void as it has practically zero scientific knowledge at its basis.

I believe in the Big Bang theory. God spoke and BANG! It was.

Even a casual understanding of the molecular level of genetics (DNA) would lead one to conclude that evolution must occur, barring a miracle. Simple transcription errors would cause (or be) a mutation. Such mutations would be inherited by subsequent generations if the mutation enhanced survival and reproduction. That's evolution in brief cum Darwin. Its a brilliant deduction from his observations which has been supported by genetic findings of current science to this day. We can even deduce how closely related organisms are by DNA analysis. Most of Christendom has no problem with the concept of evolution except for a fundamentalist strand originating in the southern United States. Resistance to reason, evidence and logic has ever been their strong suit.

As I've said many times before I repeat once again. One of the necessary mechanisms of the evolutionary argument or theory is mutations, a small accidental change in the biochemical structure of the gene, but this basis forms an inadequate argument, mutations do cause physical and physiological changes in organisms which are usually harmful and lethal almost always resulting in destructive regression not evolution, resulting in physical and mental handicap this is hardly the foundation of a evolutionary argument, such change is hardly a vital process to assist change in organisms causing advantageous complex development.

Hip, I agree that most mutations are deleterious but, as you say, 'usually harmful' leaves room for a few salutary effects which can increase their presence in the specie population because the possessors of the mutation are consequently reproducing a bit more successfully than others without the mutation. Given a million years it can make a difference although I haven't seen it for myself. If you read any of the literature on drug resistant micro-organisms whose reproductive cycle is in hours you understand that evolution (adaptation?) to antibiotics is a real problem. How can we account for the development of drug resistant organisms in your schemata?

CKROB

IVP/UCCF and the Billy Graham EA both affirm a literal Adam and Eden; you make a common error in attributing such beliefs to "fundamentalists" from southern US States.

Fundamentalism is defined by an anti-academic stance and strong seperation from those churches that disgree on doctrine; IVP/UCCF and BGEA certainly dont fit into that category.

I will stand to be corrected but my understanding was that DNA mutations always result in loss - or at best duplication - of data.

So I understand there is no evidence mutations can produce "new code" and therefore new species.

There is also the problem that there is no evidence at all that DNA ever evolved; even bactiera have it.

Development of resistance to drugs in many organisms does not require one to believe in species to species transformation.

PB

PB, Your response is so uninformed or misinformed that I conclude I don't have the time or energy to try to educate you even if I thought you were willing. One of my favorite quips is: 'When one argues with a fool there are always two fools'. Sadly, ckrob

CKROB

My theological assertions are rock solid correct.

So is my assertion that there is no evidence that DNA ever evolved; a phd in genetics on this blog did not dispute this.

Fact - even bacteria have DNA; where did it come from? Even the simplest forms of life have it.

If you have evidence that mutations can generate new code then lets see it; my understanding is that this does not happen.

"Wind your neck in"

PB

PS CKROB

You will note that no microrganism developing resistance to antibiotics have ever evolved into another species.

Current creationist theory accepts natural selection within species such as the above but does not accept that frogs can turn into princes, ie species to species evolution.

Here is a quote from Enc Brit about DNA origins. You will note that it is actually pure speculation regarding the origins of DNA; as I said even bacteria use DNA. The wiki link below affirms the same point; there is no known organism, no matter how "primitive" which does not use DNA.

EB money quote;-
"It is now widely held that there was a stage during evolution when only RNA catalyzed and stored genetic information. This period, sometimes called “the RNA world,” is believed to have preceded the function of DNA as genetic material."

PB

JW

I saw you recently were commenting sceptically on the "creation myth".

This is an interesting excerpt from Enc Brit. It bascially says the underlying story of genesis is common to virtually all peoples and cutltures. How could that be John?

Certainly if genesis were true and the story was carried in all directions after babel that would explain it.

Have you any other suggestions?

PB

Enc Brit creation myth excerpt;-

"....the existence of a belief in a supreme being among primitive……has been proven and attested to over and over again by investigators of numerous cultures. This belief has been found among the cultures of Africa, the Ainu of the northern Japanese islands, Amerindians, south central Australians, the Fuegians of South America, and in almost all parts of the globe.

"Though the precise nature and characteristics of the supreme creator deity may differ from culture to culture, a specific and pervasive structure of this type of deity can be discerned. The following characteristics tend to be common: (1) he is all wise and all powerful. The world comes into being because of his wisdom, and he is able to actualize the world because of his power. (2) The deity exists alone prior to the creation of the world. There is no being or thing prior to his existence. No explanation can therefore be given of his existence, before which one confronts the ultimate mystery. (3) The mode of creation is conscious, deliberate, and orderly. This again is an aspect of the creator's wisdom and power. The creation comes about because the deity seems to have a definite plan in mind and does not create on a trial-and-error basis. In Genesis, for example, particular parts of the world are created seriatim; in an Egyptian myth, Kheper, the creator deity, says, “I planned in my heart,” and in a Maori myth the creator deity proceeds from inactivity to increasing stages of activity. (4) The creation of the world is simultaneously an expression of the freedom and purpose of the deity. His mode of creation defines the pattern and purpose of all aspects of the creation, though the deity is not bound by his creation. His relationship to the created order after the creation is again an aspect of his freedom. (5) In several creation myths of this type, the creator deity removes himself from the world after it has been created. After the creation the deity goes away and only appears again when a catastrophe threatens the created order. (6) The supreme creator deity is often a sky god, and the deity in this form is an instance of the religious valuation of the symbolism of the sky.

"In creation myths of the above type, the creation itself or the intent of the creator deity is to create a perfect world, paradise. Before the end of the creative act or sometime soon after the end of creation, the created order or the intent of the creator deity is thwarted by some fault of one of the creatures. There is thus a rupture in the creation myth. In some myths this rupture is the cause of the departure of the deity from creation."

PB

See post 46.

Hey Hip, do you have any response to my post #44?

CKROB

Proverbs 26:5

"Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."

Here is your response to post #44.

CKROB WROTE: Hip, I agree that most mutations are deleterious but, as you say, 'usually harmful' leaves room for a few salutary effects which can increase their presence in the specie population because the possessors of the mutation are consequently reproducing a bit more successfully than others without the mutation.

PB wrote: Yes CKROB this is correct. Examples would be sickel cell anemia protects from malaria and there is also a mutation (a specific 32 base pair deletion in human CCR5 (CCR5-Δ32)) which confers some HIV resistance. The problem for evolutionary theory is that both mutations are deletions of code; not generation of new code.

CKROBE WROTE: If you read any of the literature on drug resistant micro-organisms whose reproductive cycle is in hours you understand that evolution (adaptation?) to antibiotics is a real problem. How can we account for the development of drug resistant organisms in your schemata?

PB wrote: Microorganisms develop resistance to antibiotics through a mutation which codes for the protein which the antibiotic would otherwise bind to. This is not generation of new DNA code but again a deletion. Through natural selection the population of such microorganisms will increase. But where the antibiotic is removed the new "mutant" bactiera cannot compete for nutrients with the older bacteria and will die out. The "new" bacteria is deficient in nutrient absoroption ability. Again, this does not demonstrate how new DNA can sponteously create itself and thus create new species.

Can anyone suggest how mutations can actually generate new code for new species?

PB

Peter

Ref sceathers, the latest entry on feather evolution on enc brit online says feathers did not evolve from scales but that it is all still guesswork (hypothetical).

Enc Brit money quote;-
"Feathers are complex and novel evolutionary structures. They did not evolve directly from reptilian scales, as once was thought. Current ***hypotheses*** propose that they evolved through an invagination of the epidermis around the base of a dermal papilla, followed by increasing complexity of form and function."

This is also echoed by the wikipedia feather entry;-
"Evolution
Feathers most likely originated as a filamentous insulation structure, or possibly as markers for mating, with flight emerging only as a secondary purpose. It has been thought that feathers evolved from the scales of reptiles, but recent research suggests that while there is a definite relationship between these structures, it remains uncertain of the exact process. (see Quarterly Review of Biology 77:3 (September 2002): 261-95). In experiments where a virus was used to reduce the levels of certain proteins in chicken embryos, the chickens retained webbed feet, and the scutes developed into feathers. The scales, however, did not develop into feathers, and the research suggests that feathers did not evolve from reptilian scales. [2]"

Conclusion;- looks we are further than ever from finding any evidence of sceathers.

PB

You really haven't a clue do you PB?

As for creation myths they are different! And the Genesis one is especially primitive and was plagarised from an earlier Babylonian creation myth.

Incidentally if your creation myth was true(or to be more exact the interpretation of chief fundie nutter Ken Ham) then there would be evidence to back it up. However as you well know this position is only backed up by a bunch of rather dim, dishonest, religious, fundamentalist nutters.

Good day!

DD

pb, I'm not as easily fooled as you. I know your tatctics of diverting to new subjects, moving goal posts etc. Before we go off on another diversion (evolution from scales this time) you have tons of questions to answer in the feathers debate, questions that have been there for 8 months now. So how about all those examples in the paers Tony Jackson and I pointed out to you so often? Before we proceed you'll have to explain those away, as they leave your claims of lack of evidence dead in the water. Have fun reading scientific literature pb.

And any thoughts on living species with intermediate limbs yet, like emus and ostriches? Still nothing after three dozen reminders?