Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-20-2019 5:42 AM
19 online now:
PaulK, Pressie, xongsmith (3 members, 16 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,218 Year: 9,254/19,786 Month: 1,676/2,119 Week: 436/576 Day: 31/80 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
10Next
Author Topic:   questions evolutionists can't or won't answer
John
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 141 (14200)
07-26-2002 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by John Paul
07-26-2002 8:12 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Paul:
[b]John:
I don't get it. Scott ate your lunch.

John Paul:
Yes, but only after it passed through my digestive system. Thanks for playing![/QUOTE]

[/b]

LOL

quote:
The fact remains there isn't any way to objectively test the grand sweep of the theory of evolution- from some unknown populations of genetically unknowable organisms to the extinct (fossil evidence) & extant diversity we observe today.

If you mean that there is no way to set up an experiment and watch transformations over billions of years, then of course you are correct. But that doesn't mean the theory is completely untestable. The ToE makes predictions, or retrodictions, of what we should find in the fossil record, in DNA studies, in geological surveys (timeframe and geographic isolation). Those predictions fit the data. This is a test of sorts. And that data itself can be, and is, objectively tested.

quote:
If you would like we could focus on one of the alleged "great transformations" such as the alleged evolution of cetaceans from terrestial mammals.

Yeah, sure. I like whales.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by John Paul, posted 07-26-2002 8:12 AM John Paul has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 62 of 141 (14222)
07-26-2002 12:13 PM


John Paul - is this the same guy that posts as JAFC on the No Answers in Genesis board? Named Joe Gallien?

Anyway, I invite anyone to read the linked thread. Also, this one:

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=000111;p=4

It is almost funny to see how the creationist tries to change topics, focuses on minutia, gerts away with posting insults by the libel-spewing 'administrators', and of course, gets totally embarrassed and doesn't even realize it at every turn.

Joe Gallien simply does not understand the topics he brings up - it was hilarious to see him claim that his 'language links' supported ReMine's contention regarding 1667 fixed beneficial mutations - the links DID NOT EVEN MENTION genes or mutations at all! The usual creationist mindless extrapolation at work...

Here is my last post to that thread, the one in which the administrators at BB (read: biased ignorant censors)called me a liar, and totally removed:
******************************************************

quote:
John Paul:
Same evidence different conclusions. The positive evidence for design is as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin’s Black Box: ”Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components”.

Behe’s personal incredulity is evidence of nothing but the fact that the answers he demands have not been found yet or have not been investigated yet – indeed, Behe has done ZERO research on the areas he claims to have evidence for design in.

quote:

And then we have Walter Bradley, Ph.D. in materials science; ”Evidence for design comes from three sources: 1) the simple mathematical form that nature takes; 2) the coincidence that the universal constants are exactly what they need to be to support life of any type on this planet; and 3) the coincidence that the initial conditions in many different situations are also critical and happen to have been exactly what they needed to be for the universe and life to come into being.”

That is not evidence either, that is emotional pleading.

quote:

Add those to the fact there isn’t any evidence to support a purely natural scenario to the origins of life (the Creation account & ID do care about that) and it is reasonable to infer that one of the alternatives is not only plausible but very likely.

So inference is OK for the creationist but taboo for the evolutionist?

quote:

If you knew what it was you were debating against you would know it is not merely saying that the evidence used in support of one theory is in fact evidence for something else, if, of course, you look at it the "right" way. Evidence is evidence, rocks are rocks and DNA is DNA. Evidence doesn’t talk, it has to be interpreted. It is obvious any interpretation would be influenced by bias. If you are biased by evolutionism then you would interpret the evidence in that light even though you can not verify that interpretation.

Ok, I guess I don’t know ‘what I am debating against.’ Please set me straight.

As for biases in interpretation, I have two questions for you:

1. Do you believe that mutations are heritable?
2. 2. Do you believe that the patterns of such heritable mutations can be used to infer relatedness?

quote:

What’s the positive evidence that random mutations culled by natural selection can lead to the great transformations (as discussed by evolutionists on the PBS series Evolution) that is required if the theory of evolution is indicative of reality?

As I have mentioned several times, look at the sequence data. Does it pinpoint exactly which changes were ‘necessary’ to produce a ‘great transformation’? No, not yet anyway.
But it is good evidence, whether you accept it or not.
As an analogy, we can think of it this way. The DNA evidence is like a blood trail leading from a crime scene. It leads all the way to a suspect’s door. We knock on the door, but no one answers. The creationist would have us believe that, therefore, someone else did it.
I also suggest you learn a bit more about phylogenetic analyses before dumping it all in the lap of ‘bias’.
**************************************************

The censors over there are doing their damndest to make ignorant zealots like Joe Gallienb look like he actually knows something, but they can only do this by censoring opposing views.

Joe Gallien's primary response to anything presented to him is that he doesn't personally aqgree with/accept it, so it cannot be legitimate.

Also, Joe Gallien can't seem to tell the difference between fixed differences and all differences. Oh well, he's a creationist. What can one say?


    
derwood
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 63 of 141 (14223)
07-26-2002 12:23 PM


Here's another one that the BB censors hacked to death to save poor Joe:

*************************************************************

quote:

Scott Page:
As much of ‘John Paul’s’ last post was tangential and did not add much to the discussion at hand, I will respond only to those issues which seemed substantive.

John Paul:
Impressive. The evolutionist cuts his losses and initiates damage control in one sentence.


Not impressive. The creationist engages in self-aggrandizement for no reason whatsoever.

quote:


Scott Page:
Please explain how one would go about objectively testing an historic event(s).

John Paul:
That is the whole point and that is why most of the ToE is out of the realm of scientific method, therefore not scientific. And yes I agree the door swings both ways.


I submit that you do not understand the scientific method if that is what you believe.

quote:

Scott Page:
We cannot – and need not - replicate JFK’s assassination to understand that it occurred – to objectively test the notion that the president was assassinated.

John Paul:
The fact JFK was assassinated hasn’t helped us find who did it.


So what? The point was that it did occur and that we cannot replicate it. Just as we cannot replicate the ‘grand sweep’ of evolution in a lab (which, as I already demonstrated, would be futile) does not mean that it did not happen, especially when there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence for it.

quote:

Scott Page:
As I indicated previously, there is no way to objectively test abiogenesis , and I will append the alleged great transformations, to the creationist’s satisfaction. Any such testing had been pre-rejected by Wysong in the early 1970’s. Indeed, Wysong for some reason believed that “life” had already been created in the lab (testing abiogenesis?), but claimed that this was, in fact, evidence for Design rather than naturalistic abiogenesis.

John Paul:
Does Whysong represent all Creationists?


No, but his reasoning seems to be commonplace. Indeed, you have alluded to the same sentiment that Wysong spelled out.

quote:

Does that mean if I can find an evolutionist that says abiogenesis is part of the ToE it makes it so? Mine is from the 1960s.
The evolutionist Kerkut defined this ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE) as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’ He continued: ‘the evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis.’5

5. Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.


It is generally accepted practice that you cite your source. You cut and pasted the above copyrighted material from the young earth creationist ministry “Answers in Genesis”, form a propaganda piece by Sarfati. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/magnetochiral.asp
By the way, I have never heard of Kerkut, and he is not cited in any of the evolutionary texts I have.

quote:

And as I had replied and will repeat: Recreating it in a lab would be a start, sure it would. Then we could at least analyze what intervention was necessary.
At least by re-creating it in a lab would show it was possible. You can’t even do that.

“Then we could at least analyze what intervention was necessary.” Your assumption is that intervention is necessary. Wysong redux. Of course you cannot recreate the Creation, can you?

quote:


Scott Page:
Therefore, I see no reason to even pursue this line of reasoning and research.

John Paul:
I understand why you feel that way. Better off leaving it alone. Sooner or later people are going to wake up and demand real science be taught in science class and leave the philosophizing for some other class.


They already do. Properly educated individuals have been fighting for some time to keep the forces of religious conservatism from inflicting their right-wing propaganda upon students in the classroom.

quote:

John Paul:
Knowing this, statistics would tell us there would be nucleotide sequences that would match. That DNA also appears to be directly related to morphology, that humans & simians share some morphology, it would be safe to say that some nucleotide sequences should match, or be pretty darn close.

Scott Page:
Please provide the documentation that DNA is or appears to be directly related to morphology. This is a common creationist mantra, yet none have been able to provide any sort of support for this.

John Paul:
Grin… The theory of evolution tells us that or do you think our morphology is similar to the alleged starting population(s)? The ToE tells us that changes in the genome (DNA) led to the changes in the organism that led to the diversity we observe. If DNA isn’t responsible for those changes the ToE needs to be rewritten.


You can copy my writing style all you want to, and you will still be incorrect. The theory of evolution tells us that creatures with similar morphology will have similar DNA sequences throughout their genomes? Please tell me where I can read this for myself. The DNA that controls of influences morphology will obviously “be related to” morphology, but there is no rationale to assume that creatures with similar morphology would have similar synapomorphic changes in their genes that encode proteins having nothing to do with morphology. It Is not the ToE that needs to be rewritten, it is the creationist’s understanding of it that needs improvement.

quote:


Scott Page:
Why, for example, should the DNA sequences for blood proteins match due to morphological similarities? There is no logical reason for that other than descent.

John Paul:
Again you misrepresent what I posted. Continue reading:


I did not misrepresent you at all. In fact, I did not even refer to you in the above, rather it was rhetorical. Your repeated baseless accusations are noted.

quote:

quote:
Also, as you (obviously) know, serum albumin is a blood protein, so if two differently Created organisms had a similar blood-type (why would a Creator re-invent blood-types for every Created Kind?) one/ some/ most (all?) of the proteins contained in that blood-type should be similar (or even exact copies). Seeing that amino acids make up a protein, we should see a strong resemblance of nucleotide sequence if the protein is being used for the same thing even in different organisms. Again why would a Creator create different proteins that would do the same thing, especially in similar organisms?

Emphasis mine. What do you consider ‘strong’ ? Is 50% homology strong? Why would you assume that humans and non-human primates would have been created with ‘similar blood types’? And, again, you continue to demonstrate your ignorance of the actual data and how phylogeneitc inferences are made. It is NOT mere similarity.

quote:

Scott Page:
You did not even attempt to address the issues I suggested. I asked:

“…and please explain how the patterns of synapomorphy can be ‘explained’ (or inferred) via common creator, given that: 1. it is known that mutations occur; 2. it is known that mutations are passed on via descent.

John Paul:

I know what synapomorphy is. That mutations occur and may get passed on doesn’t mean humans and chimps share a common ancestor.


Then I submit that you do not, in fact, know what a synapomorphy is, nor what the implications of sequence analyses are.

quote:

That similar organisms share similar DNA sequences is evidence for a common design. I know this for a fact.

You do? Please share the evidence that allowed you to know this fact. Also please provide the documentation that demonstates that the patterns of synapomorphy seen in primates is due to design, rather than to heritable mutations.

quote:

You don’t go reinventing when there is no need to do so.

Right. Unless, of course, we are talking about the methods used 9in evolutionary biology.

quote:

If the primates in the study all had similar blood types then it would stand to reason that some proteins would have similar structure, therefore similar amino acid layout and thus similar nucleotide sequences. Similar nucleotide sequences, similar function could mean similar areas prone to mutations that can be tolerated.

If…could… Do you think that, say, guenons and orangutans have ‘similar blood types’? If so, please cite your sources, and explain what you mean by ‘similar’. Also note that in the link I provided, the bulk of the data is in noncoding regions, which have minimal if any effect on the expressed protein.

quote:

As for apparent similar mutations, again given that we have a restricted selection of possibilities for change to occur, it could be more of a coincidence than it is coinciding. Do you know what these mutations do, why would they be selected and become fixed?

Most likely they are neutral. As you should know, neutral mutations can become fixed in a population at the rate at which they occur in an individual. That you are implying that mere coincidence can account for the observed patterns is indicative to me that, again, you simply have seen no actual data.

quote:

Like I said & shown before- extrapolating knowns to unknowns isn’t as neat as you want us to believe.

Your contrived counterexamples notwithstanding, you have yet to demonstrate by any stretch of the imagination that applying the tested methods of molecular phylogentics to unknowns is unwarranted.

quote:


Scott Page
The creationist claims that it can be logically interpreted as evidence of a Common Creator using a Common Design. And putting patterns of synapomorphy into the taxa – patterns that mimic evolutionary hypotheses of descent – apparently just for fun?

John Paul:
They only mimic the evolutionary hypotheses of descent because of your bias towards evolutionism.


That is false and a completely unwarranted and inflammatory charge. Again, the only logical conclusion is that you are ignorant of the data.

quote:

Like I said similar organisms, with similar blood would have similar blood proteins.

You can say it all you want. What is your rationale for coming to this conclusion, other than the attempt to restrict the abilities and imagination of the Creator?

quote:

This confusing of the 2 models is what happens when alleged predictions are in reality post-dictions.

Wrong yet again. The prediction was that DNA sequence data would reflect evolutionary hypotheses of descent, were evolution correct, premised in part on mundane realities – mutations happen and get passed on. That the prediction has been and continues to be fulfilled (granted, with difficulties the further back in time we go, as should be expected) is support for evolution, not evidence of confusion and such.

quote:

quote:
John Paul:
Tetra(four)pod(foot). What are the four pods of a whale? How about a porpoise?
Scott Page:
The pectoral fins represent the forelimbs. The vestigial pelvi-associated bones are the hindlimbs.

John Paul:
You mean the alleged vestigial pelvi-associated bones. They do not connect like any other vertebrae’s femur does.


I do not mean alleged at all. You disagree for purely personal reasons. I suggest that you take it up with the proper authorities.

quote:

Scott Page:
See http://imiloa.wcc.hawaii.edu/krupp/BIOL101/present/lcture15/sld034.htm
Embryology is very interesting…

John Paul:
Yes, I know it allows the evolutionist’s imagination run wild.


Yet another insult that snuck by the censor…. Noted.

quote:

We aren’t discussing whale embryos. We are discussing whales. I remember when evolutionists used to say (or do they still say it?) that human embryos have gill slits.

You do realize that big whales come from whale embryos? This attempted dodge would be funny if it were not such a clear sign of desperation. You implied that the Designer would be efficient – same shape, same blood proteins, that sort of thing. So here we have an embryo of a creature that, as an adult, has no recognizable hind limbs, yet in this early stage of development, has them. Is that an efficient Design? Or will this fall under the ‘we cannot know the mind of the Designer’ escape?
As for gill slits, the term itself is a misnomer, but the fact of the matter is that yes, human embryos possess the same primordia that in fish produce gills. It is called the pharyngeal (or branchial) apparatus.

quote:

quote:
Does a whale have a thigh?
Scott Page:
In the embryo, yes. (note: A limb bud contains all of the primordial necessary for a limb to develop, including a ‘thigh’)

John Paul:
Again we are not discussing whale embryos.


Whale embryos grow up into adult whales. I can understand why you would want to try to restrict the discussion, however, to do so is to ignore important aspects. Why are you so desperately trying to divorce the embryo from the adult?

quote:

quote:
Taking a look at guenons specifically we would have to know if the chromosome number remained the same throughout each particular species. If it does and the only difference in the number of chromosomes is between different species, it would be logical to infer ”That chromosomal fusions/splittings/rearrangements are paramount in the microevolution of these guenons”, until we have direct evidence to the contrary.
Scott Page:
This is at best tangential. The guenons in questions are far more similar morphologically than are humans and chimps, yet their chromosome numbers can differ by 6. If what you believe has merit – that chromosomal fusions and rearrangements are in fact very important in evolution (were it true, of course), then it stands to reason that the guenons in question should be worlds apart morphologically, if not behaviorally as well.

John Paul:
It doesn’t stand to reason. No one ever said that chromosome number would give you morphology that is world’s apart.


If we follow form your premise, then it certainly is a valid extrapolation.

quote:

However it would be logical to infer chromosome difference means something if the only difference in the number of chromosomes is in different species. That much should be obvious.

Are you implying that C. mitis and C. mona might really be the same species? What IS obvious is that the interspecies chromosome number is at best a tangential issue. But I am satisfied that you have stopped claiming erroneously that evolutionists use it as evidence of evolution.

quote:

quote:

What is this alleged genetic evidence that such an ancestor did exist?
Scott Page:
You can start by looking at the data in the link I provided before.

John Paul:
I did and like I said the same evidence is used to infer a Common Creator.


Oh, sure it is. But not in a logical or scientific manner.

quote:

quote:

The DNA evidence isn’t very objective if it can be looked at as being evidence for an Intelligent Designer, Common Creator or random mutations culled by natural selection.
Scott Page:
Yet it cannot rationally be done as you describe. As I have already explained, if one follows logically from observable premises (mutations occur and can be passed on) to analyses of sequence data, only one conclusion can logically be reached. In order for alternative conclusions to be drawn, one has to insert Divine caveat and whim into the mix. This may be theologically satisfying, but scientifically it is a dead end.

John Paul:
That mutations occur and can be passed on does NOT mean that all we observe owes it common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms that just happened to have the ability to self-replicate.


Ah – the sound of goal posts moving. I did not say or imply it did. That mutations occur and can be passed on is (one of) the foundational premise(s) underlying the reliability of molecular phylogenetic methods. These methods indicate that common ancestry is a valid concept. Even your Behe accepts common descent. The creationist will always be able to rush back to those points in time for which the evidence is most scarce and find safe haven.

quote:

As I have already explained & shown, extrapolating knowns to unknowns doesn’t always work.

I must have missed this. I saw some nitpicking and tangential analogies, but hardly any such demonstration. Whether or not you realize – or will admit – it, you are insisting that methods are basically one time events, that each time one addresses an issue, they should start with the assumption that the methods of examination are not to be trusted. This is absurd.

quote:

The only rational basis for the ToE is to exclude ID and Special Creation a priori. Despite what you say neither Special Creation or ID is a scientific dead end. The fact that you would say such a thing shows your lack of understanding of both.

I admit that I find it hard to understand either Creationism or ID (which is really creationism disguised). If creationism is not a scientific dead end, please tell us all:
At what point does one posit Divine Intervention in one’s research?
What happens when one discovers a natural explanation for what had previously been ascribed to Divine Intervention?

quote:

quote:

Scott Page:
What, again, is the objective test for special creation of humans?

John Paul:
The obvious- that we are very different from other organisms, that we can’t reproduce with other organisms,

Scott Page:
Those are not tests, by any stretch of the imagination. They are observations. The same criteria can be applied to pretty much ANY other organism.

John Paul:
Grin… Observations are part of scientific method. And yes that is part of how we would determine which are of the same Kind.


Yes, Grin… Again, you can copy my writing style all you want to, and you will still be wrong. Observations are part of the scientific method, but they are not tests. I hope that you can understand that. I asked for your objective tests that show humans were specially Created. It is clear that you have none, yet demand such objective tests from the opposition.

quote:

quote:

but the ultimate test will be once wedecipher the human genome.
Scott Page:
What do you mean ‘decipher’? Are you claiming that we do not understand the genetic code or something?

John Paul:
From http://www.idthink.net/back/evid/index.html
SNIP musing from anonymous creationist
That is what I mean by decipher. We might understand the syntax but not the message (instructions).


Interesting – I was under the impression that the ‘message’ was the protein that gets encoded and such…

quote:

I will save discussing the alleged genetic code for a new thread.

Please do. And I will dig through my files to find the posts form the last time you tried to claim this.

quote:

Scott Page:
I know that you have not been following this, but evidence, in fact, continues to accumulate that evolutionary hypotheses of descent (and other things) are correct.

John Paul:
I don’t know how you would know such a thing.


It is evident from your posts on this forum.

quote:

Scott Page:
Direct sequence analyses have continues to verify earlier estimates and conclusions drawn form DNA-DNA hybridization studies. Creationists have been claiming for some time now that information gleaned from the HGP will sound the death knell for evolution. I’m listening, but hearing nothing.

John Paul:
Some people can’t see the forest because of the trees-

Human Genome Map Has Scientists Talking About the Divine:


Gee – who would have thunk it? A creationist drawing creation-friendly impressions?
Dr.Scott L. Page


Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by John Paul, posted 07-26-2002 1:48 PM derwood has responded

    
derwood
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 64 of 141 (14229)
07-26-2002 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by John Paul
07-25-2002 5:38 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
Is this the same Scott Page that doesn't even know what organisms have a femur? I responded to your diatribe on the Baptist Board.

Diatribe - another word I frequently use ...

quote:

If anyone is interested in seeing (ahem) professor page getting his lunch handed to him please go to the following link:

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=000158;p=3


I understand that you have a tendency to write the names of your opponants in lower case letters, as some sort of insult. How clever. Of course, the creationist will always claim to have the upper hand in any discussion - observe the bizarre antics of Karl Crawford, or Fred Williams, or Walter ReMine, or Helen Fryman, etc. etc. Always claim victory, no matter what.

Your own words are your worst enemy. that you cannot or will not see that is evident, JAFC...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by John Paul, posted 07-25-2002 5:38 PM John Paul has not yet responded

    
ebabinski
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 141 (14233)
07-26-2002 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by John Paul
05-24-2002 2:00 PM


John,
So far your only claim to fame appears to be that you can toss out more questions in less than a minute than it takes generations to answer. Allow me to mirror your form of "argumentation":

Here is a challenge to creationists. Please answer all the questions below:

How exactly and by what steps did God create light and separate it from the darkness?

How exactly and by what steps did God separate the waters and create a firmament and make the dry land appear?

How exactly and by what steps did God make the earth directly bring forth seed bearing plants?

How exactly and by what steps did God "make" the sun, moon, and stars and "fix them" in the firmament?

How exactly and by what steps did God make birds and fish directly (out of water/ground)?

How exactly and by what steps did God make the beasts of the field and creeping things and man directly out of the ground?

How exactly did God spend his time "resting" on the seventh day? (I guess He was exausted from all the exertion. See in this respect, Exodus 31:17, "In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed." According to learned editors of a Bible published in 1774, the true meaning of the Hebrew is, “on the seventh day He rested, and fetched his breath.”)

FINAL POINT: EVOLUTIONARY INVESTIGATIONS CONTINUE, BUT WE ALREADY HAVE ANSWERS AS TO WHY THE CREATION ACCOUNT IN GENESIS READS AS IT DOES, AND IT IS NOT BECAUSE IT IS A "SCIENTIFIC" ACCOUNT OF WHAT "REALLY HAPPENED." SEE BELOW:

Did God “gab” the world into being? Did His glossolalia fill the void? If so, in which tongue did He Dictate Creation? Literalistic Hebrew scholars assume that the book of Genesis contains the first recorded syllables of God’s speech, “Let there be light!” (in Hebrew). Moslems insist that Arabic is the language of Allah (God), and therefore it is an insult or worse to translate their holy book, the Koran, into foreign tongues that are not the language of God. While Hindus claim that the Sanskrit syllable, “AUM,” encompasses all the vibrations of Creation.

Personally, I do not pretend to know what language God used to call forth Creation. It appears that only angels were listening to God’s speech at the time, and I hesitate to declare if these were Hebrew, Islamic, or Hindu angels. Therefore, I find it easiest to assume that creation by the “word” of God is merely a poetic description of how God “called” the cosmos into being. But if the description of God “speaking,” and the record of His alleged “words,” is poetry, what does that say about how the rest of the creation account in Genesis should be viewed?
- E.T.B.
____________________________

IN THE BEGINNING THERE WAS EARTH, WIND, AND FIRE?
All ancient “recipes for creation” begin with a few simple ingredients like “earth, wind, fire/light, darkness/night, and water.” According to ancient Egyptian tales of creation, nothing existed in the beginning except a waste of “waters,” also known as “the deep.” Greek tales speak of “earth, murky night, briny deep.” Babylonian tales speak of “waters.” One Sumerian tale spoke not of water, but of another basic ingredient, a mountain of “earth” that existed in the beginning. Phoenician/Canaanite tales speak of “the beginning of all things” as “a windy air and a black chaos which embraced the air and generated a watery mixture, and from this sprang all the seed of creation.” The Hebrew tale in the book of Genesis has the “spirit of God” (the literal Hebrew word for “spirit” also meant “wind or breath”) moving on the surface of “waters” in “darkness,” with “light” and “earth” to follow.

Neither does it appear to be a mystery why the same simple ingredients would appear in so many ancient tales of creation. The pre-scientific authors of such tales imagined that “earth, wind, fire, and water” constituted the “elements” of creation.

ABRACADABRA: THE MAGIC OF THE CREATOR’S “WORD”
Many ancient tales of creation, not just the Hebrew one, attributed supernatural power to a god’s “word,” i.e., simply “say the magic word” and things instantly appear, disappear, or are transformed. According to the Egyptian Book of the Dead every act of creation represented a thought of Temu and its expression in “words.” A host of Egyptian creation myths agreed that the agency of creation was the god’s “word.” The pre-Babylonian civilization of Sumeria believed that all things existed and were created by the “word” of Enki. In fact, they viewed the “word” of all their gods as a definite and real thing - a divine entity or agent. Even Sumerian personal names reflected their belief in the power of the “word,” including names like, “The word of the wise one is eternal,” “His word is true,” and, “The word which he spoke shakes the heavens.” After the Sumerians came the Babylonians and their creation tale, Enuma Elish (nicknamed by scholars, the “Babylonian Genesis”), which began, “When Heaven had not been named, Firm ground had not been called by name... when no name had been named.” The Hebrew tale arose out of that same milieu.

Added to the ancient belief in the “magic” of “naming” things, was also the belief that the “word” of a ruler or king must be obeyed, and the gods were believed to rule over nature much like kings were believed to rule over their fellow men, i.e., by “divine right.” Therefore, whatever a god said, was “done” in nature. A fragment from Sumeria states, “Thy word upon the sea has been projected and returns not [void].” The Babylonian Enuma Elish, states, “May I [Lord Marduk, the Babylonian creator], through the utterance of my mouth determine the destines...Whatever I create shall remain unaltered, The command of my lips shall not return [void], it shall not be changed.” Compare the Hebrew usage of the same phrase in Isaiah 55:11, “So shall my [the Lord’s] word be which goeth up from my mouth; it shall not return unto me void, For it shall have done that which I desired.”

DIVIDE THE INGREDIENTS IN TWO
It was a common feature of early Greek cosmological beliefs, which they shared with those of the Near East and elsewhere, that in the beginning all was fused together in an undifferentiated mass. The initial act in the making of the world, whether accomplished by the fiat of a creator or by other means, was a separation or division. As the Hebrew myth has it, “God divided the light from the darkness... and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament.” - W. K. C. Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy, Vol. I, (Cambridge Univ. Press: 1962)

Ancient tales of creation often involved a division of primeval stuff into two equal halves - like cracking a cosmic egg in two and making “heaven” out of the top half and “earth” out of the bottom half. A Sumerian tale of creation has heaven and earth arise from a celestial mountain split in two. In Egyptian tales a god and goddess are pulled apart: “Shu, the uplifter, raised Nut (a water goddess) on high. She formed the firmament, which is arched over Seb, the god of the earth, who lies prostrate beneath her...In the darkness are beheld the stars which sparkle upon Nut’s body.” The Egyptians also employed the less mythologized concept of a celestial dome (above which lies “the heavenly ocean”). In the Babylonian Enuma Elish, a water goddess is split in two by the creator to form upper and lower bodies of water, the upper half also becoming a “heavenly dome” that held back vast celestial waters. The Hebrew tale in Genesis has the creator make “a firmament in the midst [middle] of the waters, that it may divide...the water which was below the firmament from the water which was above the firmament.” Both the Babylonian and Hebrew tales continue with the “earth” being created in the lower half of the recently divided waters.

It is interesting to note that the Father of Protestantism, Martin Luther, was adamant that the Bible spoke of waters lying above the moon, the sun, and the stars. He countered the views of astronomers of his day with the words of Scripture:

Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters...We Christians must be different from the philosophers [astronomers] in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity; with our understanding.
- Martin Luther, Lectures on Genesis, Vol. 1, Luther’s Works, Concordia Pub. House, 1958

A Hebrew psalm also acknowledged the existence of “waters above the sun, moon, and stars”:

Praise Him, sun and moon; Praise Him stars of light! Praise Him highest heavens, and the waters that are above the heavens!
- Psalm 148:3-4

And when the book of Genesis described a “flood” that covered the whole world, and reduced the world to its pre-creation watery beginning, the story states that the “flood gates of the sky” were “opened.” Neither did the author of that fable suppose that all the water above the firmament fell to earth, but that the “flood gates” had to be “shut” to stop more water from falling, and the creator had to promise not to flood the earth again with such waters. So, the Bible agrees with Luther that “the waters above the firmament” remained “up there” - and this agrees completely with ancient tales of creation in which the world arose from a division of waters which encompass creation still, and which the creator keeps at bay, having prepared a place in the “midst of such waters” for the earth.

MAKE DO WITH WHAT’S AT HAND
Ancient creation accounts never explain where the first “waters,” or “earth,” or “darkness,” came from. Nor do the various creators make everything “out of nothing.” They often have to resort to creating plants, animals and human beings out of the earth or from parts of divine beings. Sometimes this includes molding creatures like a sculptor molds images out of clay - then imparting some magic to them. The Hebrew tale of creation in Genesis is no exception. It does not say where the water and the darkness came from “in the beginning.” Neither does it say that the “earth” was created out of nothing, but simply that “the dry land appeared” after the creator “gathered together the waters into one place.” Moreover, the Hebrew creator does not create vegetation and living creatures out of nothing but has “the earth” sprout vegetation, and “the earth” bring forth living creatures. The Hebrew creator also “formed man from the dust of the earth.” Then “blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being,” kind of like blowing on a clay sculpture to magically bring it to life. Neither was the divine “breath of life” shared only with man, for the same phrase is used in regard to every living creature that the earth brought forth, “all in whose nostrils was the breath of life.” (Gen. 7:21,22)

In the Babylonian tale, Enuma Elish, the creator is called “the god of the good breath [of life],” and he creates man from something divine, the blood of a diety. (Sort of like the Hebrew tale where man is created in the “image” of the divine creator and brought to life by divine breath.) Alternate creation accounts from ancient Babylon have mankind springing up from the ground, or created from the flesh and blood of a god mixed with clay, or even fashioned by the chief Babylonian god with the help of a divine “potter” - not unlike the Genesis account of man being “formed [molded] from the dust of the ground.”

THINGS WERE CREATED AS THEY APPEARED TO THE ANCIENT MIND
Another factor most ancient tales of creation share is that things are created as they appeared to the ancient mind. Plants and animals are described as having been created in the forms in which they appeared in the author’s own day. The earth appeared like the flat and firm foundation of creation, the sun and stars appeared to move across the sky on a daily basis, the sky appeared like a dome stretched over the earth with a blue color reminiscent of the ocean’s waters below it, and the sky contained objects whose function appeared to be to “light the earth” below.

In a similar fashion, “days and nights” as measured on earth appeared central to earth-dwelling ancients like the Hebrews, who divided their tale of creation into six “days and nights” of earthly duration. While today, astronomers recognize the earth as one planet among many, each having “days and nights” of their own unique duration.

Moreover, every one of the “six days” of creation in the Hebrew tale is devoted to creating things for the earth alone. Even the “first day of creation” when the Hebrew creator instituted “day and night,” it was an earth-day and an earth-night which were instituted. And on the day when the Hebrew creator set lights in the firmament above the earth, they were created after the earth and “for” the earth - and a day after fruit trees! In fact the entire Hebrew tale supports the idea that naive earth-centered appearances dictated the tale from beginning to end.

IS ANY INSPIRATION REQUIRED TO ACCOUNT FOR ANCIENT TALES OF CREATION?
The level of inspiration required to explain the origin of naive and simplistic concepts like “earth, wind and fire,” “abracadabra,”
“divide the ingredients in two,” “make do with what’s at hand,” and, “things created as they appeared” - is equal to the level of mental sophistication of a young child. In fact the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics conducted a study during the 1980s on the mental sophistication of children and discovered that almost one-half of children aged ten years and younger in the United States and other countries believe the earth is flat. And those who say it is round picture “round” as a giant pancake or a curved sky covering a flat ground. One in four thirteen-year olds also believes the earth is flat.
- E.T.B.
____________________________

“EVENINGS AND MORNINGS” / “DAYS AND NIGHTS,”
WERE CREATED BEFORE THE SUN?
Genesis tells us that the creator “divided the light from the darkness” and instituted “evenings and mornings.” But He did that “three days” before the “sun” was made! So the sun was kind of an afterthought, and alternating periods of light and darkness were God’s primary creations. The book of Job like the book of Genesis, represents “light and darkness” as not relying upon the sun, but having their own separate and distinct dwelling-places:

Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof?
- Job 38:19

Therefore the belief arose, especially among Christians, that the light of “day” had no relationship to the light of the sun. Indeed, in the fourth century, Saint Ambrose wrote in his work on creation:

We must remember that the light of day is one thing and the light of the sun, moon, and stars another - the sun by his rays appearing to add luster to the daylight. For before the sun rises the day dawns, but is not in full refulgence, for the sun adds still further to its splendor. (Hexameron, Lib. 4, Cap. III).

Ambrose’s teaching remained one of the “treasures of sacred knowledge committed to the Church” right up till the Middle Ages at which time Jews could still be tortured or condemned to death for disputing it! Like all dogmas it inspired subversive humor from those forced to assent to it:

“Which is more important, the sun or the moon?” a citizen of Chelm asked the rabbi (“Chelm” being a village of Jews who lived in the shadow of the Inquisition).

“What a silly question!” snapped the rabbi. “The moon, of course! It shines at night when we really need it. But who needs the sun to shine when it is already broad daylight?”

- E.T.B. (Joke drawn from Encyclopedia of Jewish Humor, Henry D. Spalding, Ed., New York: 1969)
____________________________

In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
- Exodus 31:17

According to learned editors of a Bible published in 1774, the true meaning of the Hebrew is, “on the seventh day He rested, and fetched his breath.” So, God was panting after having over exerted Himself? What an awe inspiring picture of God that is. Isn’t it an insult to depict an infinite Being getting worn out from six day’s work? Or to depict a God who works for only six days then spends the next 6,000 years on holiday? Heck, for all anyone knows, when God created heaven and earth He might have spent five days just futzing around, then pulled an all-nighter. Which reminds me, what does God do when He “rests and catches his breath?” What does He do in His spare time?
- E.T.B.

He was “breathless” after he created the world? Maybe that’s why so many people have put words in His mouth since then.
- L.A.A.
____________________________

According to the first chapter of Genesis, the earth was created before the sun, moon, and “the stars also” (notice how the “stars” were regarded as mere trifles, lumped together at the end of the inventory). This order of creation is absolutely farcical. Our earth is a child of the sun. The offspring could not have existed before the parent.

The sun, moon, and stars were “made and set” in heaven “to give light upon the earth?” When we look beyond our solar system into the mighty universe of other suns and planets, we see that the cosmogony of Genesis is a dream of childish ignorance. When the Greek philosopher Anaxagoras dared to suggest that the sun was as large as the southern part of Greece he startled his Greek contemporaries. What must have been the notions of a grossly unscientific people like the Jews? For them it was easy to regard the sun, moon, and “the stars also,” as mere satellites of the earth, “set” up in the sky as lanterns for the human race.
- George William Foote, “The Creation Story,” Bible Romances
____________________________

If the sun, moon, and stars were created “to light the earth,” then why create 50,000,000,000 galaxies whose light is invisible to the naked eye? (The two nearby galaxies that can be seen with the naked eye appear no brighter than two dim stars in our sky.) In other words, 50,000,000,000 galaxies produce light that can only be seen with our most powerful telescopes, and it took a telescope mounted in space to detect 49/50ths of those galaxies! Moreover, each of those galaxies is composed of about 1,000,000,000 stars, some of which are far larger than our sun. God sure did go through a lot of trouble to not “light the earth” with those 50,000,000,000 galaxies, didn’t He?

Recent astronomical evidence even supports the “dark” matter hypothesis, namely that most of the matter in the cosmos sheds little or no light at all.
- E.T.B.
____________________________

My older brother Joshua had become “enlightened” at about the age of eighteen and began to argue religious problems with my parents. I heard him say, “All religions are based on old books, but these books were written by men and men can lie, distort the truth, or have illusions. If we Jews don’t believe in the old books of other religions, how can we know for certain that our books contain the absolute truth?” My parents could never give him a clear answer. All they could do was scold him and call him heretic, betrayer of Israel.

Yes, I began to study the Book of Genesis both with faith and with doubts. In my mind I had formulated many questions for the scribe of this holy book: What did God create first, the earth or the water? Or was the water already there beforehand? When did He create the wind which swept over the waters? And did He also create “the waste and the void?” I had heard that the light of day came from the sun. But according to the Book of Genesis, God created the light first and then the sun.

The more I read, the more questions and doubts assailed me. If God could have created Adam by the words of His mouth, why did He have to cast a deep sleep upon Adam to form Eve from one of his ribs? I have always heard from my parents that God is a god of mercy. But why did He accept the sacrifices of Abel and not those of his brother Cain? Didn’t He foresee that this would cause jealousy and enmity between the two brothers? And why did He create the serpent to lure Adam and Eve to sin? [“The serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made.” - Gen. 3:1]
- Isaac Bashevis Singer, “Genesis,” Congregation: Contemporary Writers Read the Jewish Bible, ed., David Rosenberg
____________________________

To stretch the chronology of Genesis a bit, creationists are willing to admit there are mini-gaps in the genealogies of Genesis that total several thousand years. But why, if God directly inspired Moses to write those genealogies, should there be any gaps at all?
- A. J. Mattill, Jr., The Seven Mighty Blows to Traditional Beliefs (enlarged edition)
____________________________

There’s these Christian fundamentalists, the ones who are trying to get creationism taught in school as a science. I think it would be great because it would definitely be the shortest class of the day. “Welcome to creationist science. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. On the seventh day he rested. See ya at the final!”
- Bill Hicks
____________________________

I believe in equal time for creation science. But since creation only took six days and evolution took billions of years, the equivalent time spent teaching creationism should be six seconds for every twelve years of evolutionary science.
- E.T.B.
____________________________

According to the Bible, God created the stars on the fourth day of creation. Even more remarkable is the fact that He is creating them still. Though the latter miracle is considered not worth mentioning by any of the Bible’s authors.

And God is still creating new galaxies (“baby” galaxies have been spotted at the furthest known reaches of our cosmos); and still creating new elements like carbon and nickel out of simple hydrogen atoms (inside stars); and still creating new multi-cellular organisms out of single cells that keep dividing (embryogenesis); and still creating new populations of microorganisms out of simple inorganic minerals that they ingest; and still creating new populations of larger organisms out of the smaller organisms they ingest; and so on and so forth up the food chain until those simple inorganic minerals we started with are turned into growing populations of brand new human beings. So, God is still turning simple inorganic matter into human beings (and turning simple oxygen molecules into “the breath of life”).

Yet creationists argue that aside from the creation of new stars and new elements inside those stars - aside from the turning of simple inorganic matter into an array of living organisms that keep increasing in number and branching off into new species - evolution is “prohibited by the second law of thermodynamics.” I’d say they are missing the forest for the trees which by the way, continue to grow from tiny seeds; trees that become forests which continue to reach out and envelop as much of the earth as they can, and whose members continue to branch off (forgive the pun) into new species as they do so.
- E.T.B.
____________________________

Genesis 1:16 depicts the sun and moon as creation’s “two great lamps,” made after the earth, just to “light” it, “rule” its day and night, and, “for signs and seasons” on earth. But a couple thousand years after the Bible was written, astronomers discovered a curious thing. They discovered that Mars has two moons. Yet Mars has no people who need their steps “lit” at night, or who need to read the “signs and seasons.” Even more curiously, it was discovered that Neptune has four moons, Uranus has eleven, Jupiter has sixteen, and Saturn has eighteen moons. The earth was created with just one; and it “rules the night” so badly that for three nights out of every twenty-eight it abdicates its rule and doesn’t light the earth at all, at which time we bump into folks in the dark, which is to say, creationists.
- E.T.B.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by John Paul, posted 05-24-2002 2:00 PM John Paul has not yet responded

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 141 (14234)
07-26-2002 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by derwood
07-26-2002 12:23 PM


SLP:
John Paul - is this the same guy that posts as JAFC on the No Answers in Genesis board?

John Paul:
Nope. I don't post at NAiG. Too many babies over there. Idiots like you and your buddy Robert that call up people's places of work and lie to try to get them fired.

Page you were handed your lunch now shut-up and eat it. You continued drivel is laughable...

------------------
John Paul


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by derwood, posted 07-26-2002 12:23 PM derwood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by mark24, posted 07-26-2002 2:04 PM John Paul has not yet responded
 Message 71 by Fedmahn Kassad, posted 07-29-2002 1:34 AM John Paul has responded
 Message 72 by derwood, posted 07-29-2002 11:58 AM John Paul has not yet responded
 Message 74 by Admin, posted 07-29-2002 12:36 PM John Paul has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3361 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 67 of 141 (14235)
07-26-2002 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by John Paul
07-26-2002 1:48 PM


Temper!

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by John Paul, posted 07-26-2002 1:48 PM John Paul has not yet responded

    
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 141 (14236)
07-26-2002 2:17 PM


As for uncensored insults at the Baptist Board just look what Scotty got away with:

"Of course, I have Wells’ book, and ReMine’s book, and Sarfati’s book, and those authors seem to spend a great deal of time talking out of orifices other than their mouths, so I understand your frustration."

Kind of light compared to my alleged insults...

------------------
John Paul


Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by frank, posted 07-26-2002 4:23 PM John Paul has not yet responded

  
frank
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 141 (14238)
07-26-2002 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by John Paul
07-26-2002 2:17 PM


So you turn the other cheek ? Nice.

Clear Skies !

Frank


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by John Paul, posted 07-26-2002 2:17 PM John Paul has not yet responded

  
axial soliton
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 141 (14276)
07-28-2002 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by John Paul
05-24-2002 4:36 PM


In one man's opinion, Mr. Meert has the best approach for dealing with people who devoutly believe in creationism. After all these years, this is unfortunate. At least in this Century, we can have the debate without the creationists killing us. They used to kill scientists, you know. (Creationist humor.)

The evidence for evolution is everywhere. One just has to be inventive enough to know what he is looking at. Remember the colds and flu that most of us get several times during our lives? Well, rhino viruses........ evolve. The reason they evolve is because we evolve to beat their infection method. it takes place by a natural selection method. Your favorite creationist has caught a cold and accidentally sneezes in the face of a fellow creationist. The 2,000 base pairs in the DNA of this particular strain of cold virus is new to his body. Grevious infection begins. His immune system rushes trial and error antibodies through tests to find out which molecular binding mechanism works best with the protein coat around this new DNA. It gets hits in the tests. 100's of billions of copies of the newly minted antibody are hurriedly made. This takes about 2-3 days. The antibodies bind to the fresh viri and incapacitate them faster than the viri can infect new cells and incubate new copies of themselves. The tide turns. This virus lost the evolutionary/natural selection race to the creationist's immune system. But, lurking in back channels is a virus that mutated a base pair and formed a slightly different protein coat. While it has to lie low in this anti-evolution creationist, all it takes is a sneeze and.... This is a continuous process of natural selection that started with the first virus and ends when there are no more humans the virus can find. Evolution.

I wonder if Mr. John Paul thinks god created dinosuar bones without dinosaur flesh around them? Were there dinosaurs on the ark? I think we all know that dinosaurs were never mentioned in any book of the bible. How do creationists resolve the fact that their myths are predated by and promulgated from those of the Assyrians?

There was no first human. There was a series of steps in the transition between the animal that looked australopithecine and the one that looked H. neanderthalansis. Like the evolving virus. Now there is us.

It is hard for me to believe that an alien created us by intelligent design, or life in general, when life develops all by itself through chemical processes.

Evolution is real. The process of natural selection that fuels it began with the beginning of our solar system, in space. Does anyone know the trouble NASA goes through to try and disinfect spacecraft it sends to Mars? Who is willing to take the chance that the Mars probe bringing back samples to Earth won't bring strange bugs with it?

Creationists are in for an even bumpier ride.How about this:
http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=1779 Mars once had oceans. Titan still does. Anthrax spores have survived in Antarctica for 90 years: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/22/tech/main515899.shtml
There is a reference to the discovery in a US lab of how to make viruses by the vat. I will be on the look-out for that for a different reason. Making life is learning to control chemical processes. The only mystery is that some people choose not to try and understand the step-by-step process scientists and engineers use when they do something new.

[Fixed links with args. --Admin]

[This message has been edited by Admin, 07-28-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by John Paul, posted 05-24-2002 4:36 PM John Paul has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by TrueCreation, posted 07-31-2002 4:50 PM axial soliton has not yet responded

  
Fedmahn Kassad
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 141 (14360)
07-29-2002 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by John Paul
07-26-2002 1:48 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
Page you were handed your lunch now shut-up and eat it. You continued drivel is laughable...


At least he only handed you your lunch. He was probably just being polite. Now if he had actually eaten your lunch, yes, that might be a bad thing.

By the way, I checked the posts at NAIG. It seems that John Paul was indeed posting under the name JAFC over there. He suddenly stopped when it was pointed out.

You really shouldn't tell fibs, John Paul, no matter what cause you are fighting for. You know the story of the boy who cried wolf. Before long people may question your honesty.

FK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by John Paul, posted 07-26-2002 1:48 PM John Paul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by derwood, posted 07-29-2002 1:08 PM Fedmahn Kassad has responded
 Message 78 by John Paul, posted 07-31-2002 4:05 PM Fedmahn Kassad has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 72 of 141 (14390)
07-29-2002 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by John Paul
07-26-2002 1:48 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:

Page you were handed your lunch now shut-up and eat it. You continued drivel is laughable...


I'm confused - you gave me my lunch? You are a waiter or something? I think the phrase you are looking for is that you ate my lunch.

But the bottom line is that you are convinced that you really 'won' over there. And I am still confused.

What is this victory?

Is it that I did not know that spiders have limb segments called femurs?

If that is your great victory, you can have it. It is irrelevant to the debate and tangential. You got me. Wow.

However, it is obvious to all that your love of minutia is your only mechanism to claim victory, for you totally blew it on the substantive issue.

I was especially tickled by your claim that the fact that whale embryos have limb buds is irrelevant because you were talkign about adult whales.
That clearly demonstrates your shallow debate skill and even shallower grasp of the material.
What do you think a limb bud does? Why would a creature with no hind limbs as an adult have a limb bud as an embryo?

Shitty design? No design? Or is this one of those "oh well, thats the Designer for ya!" moments?

I was also entertained by your convoluted mental gymnastics in which you tried so hard to 'explain' via analogy that tested methodologies cannot be used on unknowns. That was a hoot.

On this episode of Joe Gallien, Creationist Physician:

Doctor: I'm afraid you have cancer.

Patient: Oh... Are you going to start me on chemotherapy?

Doctor: Well, there are many therapies that have been used successfully on patients with your type of cancer, but there is no reason to suspect that they would work on you. You see, that would be extrapolating aknown to an unknown, and that just isn't how science works....

Yeah.... You gave me my lunch all right... Freudian slip?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by John Paul, posted 07-26-2002 1:48 PM John Paul has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by axial soliton, posted 07-29-2002 11:33 PM derwood has not yet responded

    
derwood
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 73 of 141 (14391)
07-29-2002 12:06 PM


I am also enjoying your continued flailing here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=000111;p=5

plunk!
plunk!
plunk!
(sound of more conditions and criteria being added)


    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12602
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 74 of 141 (14393)
07-29-2002 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by John Paul
07-26-2002 1:48 PM


John Paul,

Just now catching up on posts from the last few days:

John Paul writes:

Nope. I don't post at NAiG. Too many babies over there. Idiots like you and your buddy Robert that call up people's places of work and lie to try to get them fired.

Page you were handed your lunch now shut-up and eat it. You continued drivel is laughable...


This style is unacceptable here. Your posting privileges are suspended for the next 24 hours. Please follow the Forum Guidelines in the future.

------------------

--EvC Forum Administrator


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by John Paul, posted 07-26-2002 1:48 PM John Paul has not yet responded

    
derwood
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 75 of 141 (14395)
07-29-2002 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Fedmahn Kassad
07-29-2002 1:34 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Fedmahn Kassad:
quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
Page you were handed your lunch now shut-up and eat it. You continued drivel is laughable...


At least he only handed you your lunch. He was probably just being polite. Now if he had actually eaten your lunch, yes, that might be a bad thing.

By the way, I checked the posts at NAIG. It seems that John Paul was indeed posting under the name JAFC over there. He suddenly stopped when it was pointed out.


The oddest coincidence - I just read a post to JAFC that mentions the eating of lunch and having one's head handed to them, and John Paul has been writing about handing me my lunch...

[Fixed close quote. --Admin]

[This message has been edited by Admin, 07-29-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Fedmahn Kassad, posted 07-29-2002 1:34 AM Fedmahn Kassad has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Fedmahn Kassad, posted 07-29-2002 7:00 PM derwood has not yet responded

    
Prev1234
5
67
...
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019