Sad what creationism can do to a mind, part 2

1. Should sufficient evidence accrue to challenge any
scientific discipline's theories it will be takne note
of ... and has in the past. If it hadn't I guess we would
still be worried about sailing off the horizon.2. There is no lack of transitional fossils, the denial comes
more from the creationist camp, where the defintion of what
would be acceptable as a transitional keeps changing every time
an example is cited.3. Evolution does not drive organisms to higher orders.4. Natural selection working on heritable variation has been seen
to cause phenotypic change in species over time. There is some evidence to suggest that such change can be quite dramatic if
continued for long enough. There is not evidence to suggest that
such change cannot be wrought ... only opinion that it seems
unlikely.5. The origins of life and matter are separate issues. One does
not study the works of shakespeare AND the origin of language as
one topic. We are human, we compartmentalise the natural world
in order for our meagre brains to be able to cope with its
immensity.

One will notice that electrical engineer YEC Fred Williams implied that he would challenge my interpretation of the baraminology paper and yet he never responded after I supplied the citation.That tells me quite a bit.

Animals=humans therefore humans=animals. Pray tell what could be
wrong with this logic? This can be syllogistically proven via Aristotilian logic:P1 A dog is an animal.
P2 A cat is an animal.
Therefore, a dog is a cat!Elementary, my dear Watson.

1. Should sufficient evidence accrue to challenge any
scientific discipline's theories it will be takne note
of ... and has in the past. If it hadn't I guess we would
still be worried about sailing off the horizon.Jep: A good point, Peter. I would just add some clarity if I might. This is only applicable when we can ascertain no underlying prejudice toward either paradigm. If I were Chronos, it might be in my best interest to convince you that you would sail off the face of the earth should you even attempt to leave my servitude. At the point that personal motive enters the scientific method, empiricity becomes null and void and it can not be called science from that point forward."2. There is no lack of transitional fossils, the denial comes
more from the creationist camp, where the defintion of what
would be acceptable as a transitional keeps changing every time
an example is cited."Jep: In fact, this is quite backwards. May I rephrase this to read, ‘there is not one known non-controversial transitional on the face of the earth?' And the definition of a transitional specimen is not in contention that I am aware of. It has always been in my camp that to show a transition, one must show the transition. IOW I don’t want to see any single specimen that you have no proof is anything more than another similar extinct species or a deformed member of any single species. I want to see some transition. Show through a series of fossils how my arms formed. If you cannot do this very simple challenge, then perhaps you could show me any macroevolutionary transitional sequence that all interested parties could agree on. such as this transition: Species A > tran A > Tran B > Tran C > Species B. Then we can take Species B > tran A > tran B > tran C > species C. We can take this as far as you would wish from that first protista that squirmed out of the primordial ooze all the way to my Mom and Dad."3. Evolution does not drive organisms to higher orders."Jep. Certainly does not. Evolution drives species into extinction and never vise versa.4. Natural selection working on heritable variation has been seen
to cause phenotypic change in species over time. There is some evidence to suggest that such change can be quite dramatic if
continued for long enough. There is not evidence to suggest that
such change cannot be wrought ... only opinion that it seems
unlikely.Jep Actually phenotypic modification is always a result of genotypic variance if this modification is due to genomic anomaly. If this phenotypic variation is environmentally caused and not genetic, then we leave the realm of science and embrace the dogma of Jean-Baptiste Antoine de Monet, Chevalier de Lamark. Not exactly quantum mechanics at this point.5. The origins of life and matter are separate issues. One does
not study the works of shakespeare AND the origin of language as
one topic. We are human, we compartmentalise the natural world
in order for our meagre brains to be able to cope with its
immensity.Jep: Comparing the works of Shakespeare to evolution of language is like comparing a bulldozer to I-40. Comparing abiogenesis to macroevolution via speciation is like comparing an apple to the tree that ‘brung it.’ Enjoyed your post.

Finally, mind if I change the title of this thread to more rational motife? Thank you: "Strange what the Religion of Secular Humanism can do to the mind." There. That's better.

Is this the Jeptha that thinks that el;ectricity holds atoms together?That all living things die as a result of increasing entropy - which Jep defined as heat - therefore, all living things die from excessive heat?That the expression of recessive traits in inbred populations "disproves" the validity of molecular phylotgenetics?Who believes that unless you are provided with full-text articles that they are invalid sources of information?That molecular phylogenetics relies upon beneficial mutations?Nah...Couldn't be....That guy ran away from OCW.. Got chased off ARN...Could it?By the way - what does secular humanism have to do with the intractible ability to lie, cheat and steal wrouight by a strict fundamentalist creationist belief?

quote:

---

I want to see some transition. Show through a series of fossils how my arms formed. If you cannot do this very simple challenge, then perhaps you could show me any macroevolutionary transitional sequence that all interested parties could agree on. such as this transition: Species A > tran A > Tran B > Tran C > Species B. Then we can take Species B > tran A > tran B > tran C > species C. We can take this as far as you would wish from that first protista that squirmed out of the primordial ooze all the way to my Mom and Dad.

---

Here is a very simple challenge for the YECist.Show me all of the 'transitions' from Adam to me. Tell me who was and where the remains are for my great grandparents, their parents, and theirs, and theirs, etc. all the way back. Heck - you can just do it as far back as the flood just a few thousand years ago - the one that the Chinese and Egyptians just by golly didn't seem to notice - to the incestuous orgy that must have ensued post-flood.If you cannot produce these very simple results, then clearly YECism is false.

Hi all!To me this thread is about how mindset influences not only how evidence is interpreted, but also which evidence is deemed accceptable. Please let me know if I've misinterpreted the topic, but otherwise I'd like to move this topic to the Is It Science? forum and add some administrative nudges to get discussion back on topic. Any objections?------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

sounds OK to me.

Egads! Is this my old friend Scott Page of Norwich University? Tell me Scott, is Norwich still whining about Jep the creationist on their web site? Then I discover my old friend Randy the thermodynamics professor who’s, shall we say, somewhat handicapped in this field due to his religion. My. I accidentally stumbled into Internet nirvana while at the same time discovering elements of my mother country. This be karma!Here is a very simple challenge for the YECist.Jep: OK. But I think you’re well aware I’m not a YECist. A Christian, a creationist and/or an IDist with a bent tendency to give Secular Humanist PhDs major headaches will work nicely, though.Show me all of the 'transitions' from Adam to me.Jep: Sheeze Scott. You’re right, this one is easy. You are a professor of biology (well, at a Junior College, I guess.but keep working!) and are not aware that Adam and your grand parents are of the same species?? Transitional specimens are defined as fossils that show transition between species. Therefore, your challenge is based on mal-education. May I recommend some reading for you in first year genetics and evolution? Thanks for the post, Scott!TO ADMIN: That is fine, Sir (Or Ma’am) but you will have to steer me over there. New here and didn’t find it.

Thread moved here from the Evolution forum.

quote:

---

Egads! Is this my old friend Scott Page of Norwich University?

---

I am not now nor was I ever your friend.

quote:

---

Tell me Scott, is Norwich still whining about Jep the creationist on their web site?

---

I see your overblown sense of self-importance is still intact. Such a thing was never so.

quote:

---

Then I discover my old friend Randy the thermodynamics professor who’s, shall we say, somewhat handicapped in this field due to his religion. My.

---

You can say that, but you are just as comically wrong as ever.

quote:

---

Here is a very simple challenge for the YECist.

​

Jep: OK. But I think you’re well aware I’m not a YECist. A Christian, a creationist and/or an IDist with a bent tendency to give Secular Humanist PhDs major headaches will work nicely, though.

---

You don't give anyone aheadache, Jerry. If anything, you are comic relief. And no, I am not aware that you are not a YECist. Changed your moind, have you? You see, Jerry Don, I archived much of your Jepisms, including much of the debate that I trounced you in. Alas, the files are on my other computer. I will post them tomorrow maybe.

quote:

---

Show me all of the 'transitions' from Adam to me.

​

Jep: Sheeze Scott. You’re right, this one is easy. You are a professor of biology (well, at a Junior College, I guess.but keep working!)

---

Who would have thought - the Christian bigot is full of insults . It is a 4-year university. I understand that you are not familiar with such things. As is demonstrated by your utter ignornace.

quote:

---

and are not aware that Adam and your grand parents are of the same species??

---

And therefore it should be even easier. Guess you can't do it.

quote:

---

Transitional specimens are defined as fossils that show transition between species.

---

They are? Oh, so you mean like Archaeopteryx, or the mammal-like reptiles?

quote:

---

Therefore, your challenge is based on mal-education.

---

No, my challenge was meant to - and did - demonstrate the shallowness of your challenge. Your task was to produce all of the corpses from Adam to me. This is a time frame of no more than 10,000 years - oh, wait, you aren't a TRUE Christian (YEC).
Either way, it is a task spread across a few orders of magnitude less time that your pseudo-challenge.
And you can't do it.

quote:

---

May I recommend some reading for you in first year genetics and evolution? Thanks for the post, Scott!

---

I don't know why you would rcommend such a thing - projection?

There were two recent items that seemed to be approximately on topic:

• That Creationists and evolutionists interpret the supposed fossil evidence for transitionals differently.
  ​
• That Creationists and evolutionists have a different take on the necessity of producing a complete evolutionary descent tree before evolution can be considered sufficiently supported by the evidence.

I'll let personal jabs go for the time being, but if they start to get in the way of discussion then they'll have to stop.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

Same old Rev. Jerry Don BauerJEP: First, would you do me a favor and not use whatever format it is that you are using to post to me? This really screws up MS Word. But, 50 is not that old is it, Scott? And I don’t use the title Rev. or Dr. at all. Thank you, I am a business man at this stage of my life, so Jep, Jerry, or Jerry Don is fine.You don't give anyone a headache, Jerry.JEP: Really? You mean my wife just lies to me three times a week?no, I am not aware that you are not a YECist. Changed your moind, have you? You see, Jerry Don, I archived much of your Jepisms, including much of the debate that I trounced you in.Jep: LOL. Haven’t been a YECist since I learned the universe was 15 billion years old in college. Perhaps you would need to read my papers on the pre-adamic race to understand this, But I’ll bet you have retained every post I have ever made on the Internet. And yet you accuse me of self- aggrandizement. Scott Page has always seemed quite fascinated to meet a person that can actually defend his faith.Well, post away. We both know this is just a dodge because you won’t be able to handle the issues one on one. Secular Humanism just can’t cope with the particulars when veracity emerges, on virtually any subject. Don’t you think, Scott?Your gods of Secular Humanism have fallen like Lemmings dashing over a cliff one by one as they were exposed to light. Your god of big bang inception via quantum mechanics seems to have suffered a coronary aneurysm. Your god of macroevolution has been dead since Uncle Charlie. Your god of abiogenesis never in actuality existed as he was always just a figment of a desperate bid to prove Secular Humanistic philosophy; and your god of thermodynamics was stoned in the forehead as early as Boltzmann.And therefore it should be even easier. Guess you can't do it.JEP: Since I can’t get it across to the good professor that there is no such thing as transitional fossils that show speciation if we don’t HAVE or even SUSPECT any speciation, then I guess you’re right. I just can’t do it. JEP IN A PREVIOUS POST: Transitional specimens are defined as fossils that show transition between species.They are? Oh, so you mean like Archaeopteryx, or the mammal-like reptiles?JEP: Erright. Archaeopteryx is used by the Secular Humanists to show transition between dinosaurs and birds. The mammal like critters you are referring to are called ‘Therapsids’ and they are used to show transition between reptile and mammals. So the answer to your question is: ‘Yep, that’s what I mean.’No, my challenge was meant to - and did - demonstrate the shallowness of your challenge. Your task was to produce all of the corpses from Adam to me.JEP: For what purpose? We are talking about macroevolution and since no one has ever suggested there was any speciation between Adam and your grand parents, your point is totally irrelevant. Moot is moot.

SLPx and Jeptha,If you guys want to relive old times you can do that to your heart's content in the Free For All forum. I would like to nudge this thread back on topic. See my previous post.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator