Guest guest Posted September 3, 2006 Report Share Posted September 3, 2006 The salamander is another example of what I have been referring to. One kind of organism has not developed into another kind of organism. This is a prime example of evolutionist non sequitur. Many unobserved assumptions come into play to assert that microorganisms transformed into humanity when a phenomenon is observed, which is often termed speciation, that is, the reproduction of characteristics already laden in the genetic code and expressed through recombination. In the case of the salamander, this is not the case in which organs are being formed from additional genetic material but from recombinant genetic material already in existence. As much as evolutionist would like to minimize the importance of this distinction, it is really a major crux of macroevolutionary assertions. We routinely observe recombination of already existing genetic material, but the evolutionist again equivocates, since, for macroevolution to occur, increases in new genetic material, not recombination, must occur, and there is no observation for this increase of genetic material, it is unmerited presumption. In theory, macroevolution to occur, stress is placed on the organism, and simultaneously, random genetic aberration, not simply recombination, must occur for new organs to form for which there was no genetic material preexisting for that new organ. If, as with some forms of speciation, recessive genes then come into play that were held back in expression because of some kind of environmental factors, then this is not even remotely akin to macroevolution since the complex function already existed in recessive form. Therefore, such speciation only shows preexisting complexity, not a greater step in macroevolutionary development. There is no additional genetic development as would be required for macroevolution. All this proves is that complexity already existed in the genes of the salamander to produce a characteristic. No macroevolution under that rock, only variation within kind, which demonstrates limitations preexisting in the genome. Apes are still apes. Monkeys are still monkeys. Humans are still humans. Bacteria are still bacteria. Salamanders are still salamanders. The universality of these principles is clear except for those repressed by a vast web of unobserved evolutionary assertions. On 9/3/06, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote: > , > > > Equivocation is perhaps the most common logical fallacy evolutionists > > make regarding proofs for macroevolution. > > Since there are multiple people posting in this thread, it would help > if you would give some indication whom you are addressing. > Additionally, if you are going to implicitly accuse someone or some > people of a logical fallacy, you should indicate who made the logical > fallacy and how. > > > The standard > > macroevolutionary model holds that one species developed into another > > species, many times over. > > That's correct. > > >Evolutionists readily stress how variants > > exist within kinds of bacteria, and how this gives evidence for > > macroevolution. > > I have never seen this argument. It would have to be substantially > more developed than this to be coherent. > > > This involves the fallacy of equivocation or shifting > > terms. Evolutionists commonly refer to variation as micromutations, > > or microevolution, then as evolution. > > I have never heard of a micromutation. Biologists do not refer to > " microevolution; " this is a creationist distinction that has no basis > in molecular biology. > > > In this context there is change > > in the DNA, and therefore they infer that this minute genetic change > > in a minute organism proves that apes have transformed into humans > > over eons of time. > > I have never seen an argument for evolution presented like this except > by creationists wishing to make a caricature that other creationists > will laugh at or by people who are genuinely unfamiliar with > evolutionary theory. > > > Evidence from the fossil record does not help > > here, as I mentioned earlier. > > And the fossil record is not the only or even primary evidence for > evolution, like I said earlier. > > > The equivocation goes like this: > > microevolution happens; microevolution is evolution; macroevolution is > > evolution; therefore macroevolution happens. > > This is awfully different from what I was saying just a few posts ago, > which you have chosen to continually ignore. I pointed out, for > example, that the axolotl salamander is a distinct species believed to > be descended from the tiger salamander. They are clearly different > species as they have not only totally different lifestyels -- the > axolotl is fully aquatic while the tiger is terrestrial as an adult > --but they have very distinct morphologies. The adult axolotl has > GILLS. > > Yet, in the laboratory they interbreed quite fine, and laboratory > experiments prove that the difference between them is contributed to > almost entirely by a single gene. > > This is a relatively clear confirmation of the " macroevolutionary " > mechanism called paedomorphism, and is an extremely clear confirmation > of the fact that a single-gene change can in some cases produce a new > species with major morphological characteristics that are distinct > from its ancestral species. > > > This is also the fallacy > > of non sequitur--it does not follow. When terms are defined and > > examined, equivocation is exposed, and the argument has no substance. > > In order to demonstrate an equivocation fallacy, you need to > convincingly demonstrate that the two things being " equivocated " are > in fact not equivalent. > > Since species are fluid and not immutable, there is no clear > distinction between " macroevolution " and " microevolution " unless you > can offer one and present a compelling argument why your definitions > are productive. > > > Firstly, microevolution is not macroevolution, that is to restate, > > variation is not macroevolution. > > No one claims that it is. > > > Again gene swapping amongst > > microorganisms is not macroevolution. > > That really depends. Trading virulence plasmids, for example, I would > not classify as macroevolution, but there is substantial evidence for > the endsymbiotic theory of mitochondria and chloroplasts, and both of > these are definitely examples of " macroevolution, " by which I mean the > definition that most other people use, which is the evolution of major > taxa. > > > Microevolution refers to > > variation within an organism, which also includes what evolutionists > > often call mutations. The evolutionist sifts the term " mutation " from > > what is commonly thought of as random deviations caused by say > > mutigenic compounds or radiation or malnutrition to mean any processes > > of recombination. > > These are not the only form of mutations. > > > When gene recombination is referred to as mutation, > > we are actually taking about variation within kind of organism. > > If you're talking about classical meiotic recombination, I've never > seen that referred to as a form of mutation. It is a source of > variation, but the variation is in what overall total phenotypes are > present, not an increase in number of different alleles. Although > mutation could occur specifically if if the site of recombination was > in the middle of a gene. > > > Variation within kind where there is no new genetic material, just > > recombination of already existing genetic material, is as normal and > > ubiquitous. > > Yet there is new genetic material introduced, through such mechanisms > as recombination. I would be interested in your alternative > explanation for how genetic diversity arose in the first place if > there is no such thing as new genetic material. How many in number > were the first humans? Evolution (so far) says one male and one > female, and most competing explanations (religious) say the same. If > there were many more than this, none of whom descended from the other, > where did they all come from? If there were only a small number of > people, where did all the genetic variation come from if " no new > gentic material " is introduced? > > > > But the kind of mutation needed for macroevolution, that > > is, the generation of new and unique organs and organisms requires the > > generation of new genetic material, not simply, the recombination of > > already existing genetic material. > > In many cases the distinct morphological characteristics including > organs are modifications of embryonic development, not in the total > number of genes involved in a given organ, but in the regulating genes > that send signals to certain cells to turn on or off certain genes. I > already gave the example of the axolotl salamander three times and you > have not yet responded. It has outer, uncovered GILLS sticking out of > its head in every direction and it is experimentally confirmed that > the tiger salamander, which does not have outer, uncovered gills > sticking out of its head, differs from it by essentially only one > gene, and further that if they are kept together (which they normally > would not be in the wild since the axolotl is water-dwelling and the > tiger salamander is land-dwelling) they can interbreed. > > > > So, the word mutation is also > > subject to equivocation or shifting terms. The kind of mutation > > required for macroevolution, is not observed and does not exist. > > This is exactly where your argument proves empty. You have not > differentiated one mutation from another. You need to define at a > molecular level what makes one type of mutation possible and another > type impossible. > > Instead, you are defining the type of mutation by its result. This > would have been valid 100 years ago when we did not known the material > source of heredity and variation, but now that we have a deep > understanding of molecular biology it behooves you to distinguish > precisely what it is that defines one mutation distinctly from the > other. > > > Variation within kind does not follow logically to create new kinds > > nor is it observed in real time, nor in the fossil record. > > And you are able to maintain this position because you fail to take > into account the example I have provided over and over again. The > reason I keep providing the same example is because you keep repeating > yourself without responding to it, despite the fact that it clearly > and conclusively and entirely refutes your position. > > > Just as industry has convinced the public masses, through university > > educated evolutionists, that industrialized food is OK, > > I would like to see some kind of poll, survey or study indicating any > kind of association between belief in evolution and the consumption of > processed food. I would expect the exact opposite, because education > level is a predictor both of belief in evolution and in health > consciousness usually. > > > The evolutionary model is irrelevant to aid in our observations of the > > real world. It leads down dark blind alleys, and exploits the > > impoverished and nutritionally deficient. > > Unless you are trying to study biology. > > Chris > -- > The Truth About Cholesterol > Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: > http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com > -- www.goatrevolution.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2006 Report Share Posted September 3, 2006 , > The salamander is another example of what I have been referring to. > One kind of organism has not developed into another kind of organism. > This is a prime example of evolutionist non sequitur. Then it behooves you to explain a logically consistent definition of " another kind of organism. " Your current definition is that anything that turns into anything else is by definition the same kind of organism. Thus, it is unsurprising that you can successfully use this definition to argue that no organism has developed into another kind of organism. That you can consider a transition from a terrestrial life to an aquatic life, from the use of primitive air sacs to external gills to not be a change to " another kind of organism " defies my sensibilities. > Many unobserved > assumptions come into play to assert that microorganisms transformed > into humanity when a phenomenon is observed, You would do well to focus. The purpose of bringing up the axolotl was not to illustrate how microbes develop into humans. It was to demonstrate how a single-gene change can result not only in speciation, but the transition to a fundamentally different way of life and strikingly different morphological characteristics. I would like to stick to the issue at hand until we have resolved it, rather than endlessly return to your own concept of amoebas morphing into humans. > which is often termed > speciation, that is, the reproduction of characteristics already laden > in the genetic code and expressed through recombination. So you admit that speciation can occur without large numbers of genetic changes! Just one or two posts ago you were arguing that to transfer from species to species requires massive amounts of genetic changes to all happen simultaneously, and now you argue that speciation can occur without any mutations at all. Thank you for half-correcting your erroneous position. > In the case > of the salamander, this is not the case in which organs are being > formed from additional genetic material but from recombinant genetic > material already in existence. Obviously the fact that ALL of the axolotl salamanders are axolotl and ALL of the tiger salamanders are tiger salamander shows that they are distinct species. You could argue that it is an inherent part of the tiger salamander to ever so often morph into an axolotl salamander, but I think you would need to show that this actually happens to substantiate it. As far as I know, this gene is not just popping up in 1 of 100 tiger salamanders. The axolotl gene is found in tiger salamanders when they breed them in the laboratory. This is all entirely missing the point: the very fact that speciation can occur without all kinds of complex mutations happening simultaneously demonstrates how easy it is for speciation to occur. Gene flow is blocked between the two species in all but the laboratory; therefore, over time any mutations that develop will develop and accumulate within and not between the two species. Moreover, > As much as evolutionist would like to > minimize the importance of this distinction, I would like to emphasize it. > it is really a major crux > of macroevolutionary assertions. We routinely observe recombination > of already existing genetic material, but the evolutionist again > equivocates, since, for macroevolution to occur, increases in new > genetic material, not recombination, must occur, and there is no > observation for this increase of genetic material, it is unmerited > presumption. So you claim on the one hand that to transform between different " kinds " of animals is impossible because it would take too many simultaneous mutations; on the other hand, you claim that the formation of one " kind " of animal from another " kind " happens so easily that it cannot be equated to macroevolution. > In theory, macroevolution to occur, stress is placed on the organism, > and simultaneously, random genetic aberration, not simply > recombination, must occur for new organs to form for which there was > no genetic material preexisting for that new organ. You have almost no familiarity with evolutionary theory. What sources have you read that are not creationist caricatures of evolutionary theory? >If, as with some > forms of speciation, recessive genes then come into play that were > held back in expression because of some kind of environmental factors, > then this is not even remotely akin to macroevolution since the > complex function already existed in recessive form. This is incorrect, because the new form can be used for a different purpose. In this case, the capacity to have gills is related to a salamnders infantile aquatic form. They are lost when the salamander reaches maturity. The axolotl's gills are retained for life and used to lead an aquatic lifestyle post-maturity. Humans possess gill-like structuers as embryos, but this does not mean we have some kind of recessive trait for gills, such that if you observed a human who had gills and became aquatic you would suggest that the human was just like all the others. > Therefore, such > speciation only shows preexisting complexity, not a greater step in > macroevolutionary development. The most important thing it shows is not the morphology: it is the dramatic change in lifestyle that leads to reproductive isolation, and thus sets the stage for the separate accumulation of genetic mutations. Since, as is abundantly evident, genetic mutations occur. > There is no additional genetic > development as would be required for macroevolution. Rather, you argue that macroevolution can occur without " additional genetic development. " >All this proves > is that complexity already existed in the genes of the salamander to > produce a characteristic. No macroevolution under that rock, only > variation within kind, which demonstrates limitations preexisting in > the genome. Apes are still apes. Monkeys are still monkeys. Humans > are still humans. Bacteria are still bacteria. Salamanders are still > salamanders. The universality of these principles is clear except for > those repressed by a vast web of unobserved evolutionary assertions. Really. So a human with fins and gills would by your definition, then, be " still human, " and this would be clear to anyone who isn't repressed by unobserved assertions. That's fascinating, and I truly mean it. Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 Hi , First, thank you for acknowledging that new genetic material is indeed introduced into the genome. I will respond to this more fully in the next day or two, and I will have to look into how finger and toe numbers are regulated, but I will make several quick responses now. I'm not even sure if all species have the same number of digits in the forelegs and hindlegs; if they do, I suspect it is coordinated by the homeotic genes. Homeotic genes are those that control anatomical placement of structures. They communicate with the genes involved in the specific structures during embryonic development -- kind of like the former is a director and the latter are actors in a movie. It would not surprise me if there were substantial communication and feedback between those that control front digit development and those that control hind digit development. But I would have to research it. > Not only would we have to demonstrate that new material is being added > to the gemone, but we would also have to demonstrate that the new > material can generate complex traits and organs and organ systems. It > is one thing to observe that genetic material is being added, and it > is wholly another to discover why and how, for example, a new chamber > for a heart can be structurally added, not just proteins and lipids, > but a complex arrangement of structures, oriented just right in > complex ways so as not to kill the organism before it evolved to a > next level. To return for a moment to your original and more complete explanation for the obstacles that such a chamber addition would encounter, your proposal rests on several false premises. Principally, it rests on the concept that nerve placement, blood vessel placement, and " leakage " are mapped out by genes. Although there are genes for the communicatory compounds that are used by nerves and blood vessels to find their target, the actual spatial mapping is not controlled by a genetic blueprint, but is determined by direct communication between the growing nerve/vessel and its target. There is no genetic basis for preventing leakage. The prevention of leakage is a fundamental physicochemical property of phospholipid bilayers. Artificial phospholipid bilayers or spontaneously assembled phospholipid bilayers that do not contain any genes whatsoever do not leak. If they are cut, they self-heal. This is not genetic, but is simply the laws of chemistry, much like anything that goes up must come down, whether it has the genes of an apple or has no genes like a rock. Little is known -- or at least if it is known I don't know it -- of exactly how embryonic structures develop, but it is pretty clear that the cell-to-cell communication of the developing cells themselves is an integral part of the process, and that there is no actual " genetic map " of the structure. It would be impossible for there to be some kind of 3-D coordinate system where each coordinate had a gene. This type of system is not just impossible for evolution to build new structures upon; it is simply impossible in and of itself. It would require far to many genes than are observed and probably too many genes than are possible. Becker presented evidence supporting the idea that a DC current generated by perineural cells is a regulating factor in mapping out the development of anatomic structures, including in the regeneration of amputated salamnder limbs. Whether or not he is right, there are clearly factors that are epigenetic that regulate the symmetry and other factors. Whatever these factors are that contribute to the first chamber or two chambers of a heart would contribute likewise to the second chamber or second two chambers. > Evolution does not even remotely explain the origin of > complex and new organs or organ parts. Mathematically, random > mutations would kill an organism before complex new fully functioning > systems would come " online. " Masses of tissue mutating in slow > progression over generations, would not only have to project what they > are trying to form, but also have to be non-obstructive to the > survival of the species for macroevotion to happen on a grand scale. Your example of an additional chamber or chambers to the heart is, I believe, analogous to an animal growing a second set of wings. Were they to do so, the masses of slow mutations required would produce structures that would interfere with the functionality of the first set of wings. Yet, in drosophila, the fruit flies, there is a mutation in a homeotic gene -- I believe it is probably a duplication of the homeotic gene that controls wing placement -- that leads to two sets of wings rather than one. It is only a single mutation that is required, and the second set of wings does not interfere with the first set of wings, nor does it develop slowly beginning without functionality. Although this is not a heart, the principle is the same. The homeotic gene provides signals providing a context in which associated cells engage in a communicative process, and the symmetry, mapping, and other coordinated properties are a result of that interactive process. In Drosophilia, merely duplicating the homeotic gene produces a doubling of the number of wings all in one mutation, placed properly and to my knowledge fully functional. Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 New set of wings, suggest duplication of an organ already existing. With a new heart chamber, a great challenge would be not just to duplicate an entire thing again or part of a thing but to generate parts that form a unique function and have unique orientation and structure. Changing from a two to a three chambered heart, for example is not just like duplicating an appendage as a facsimile, especially since the heart is asymmetrical, the new chamber cannot be identical to any other chamber. How would a new chamber know where to grow? How would the organism know when to grow a new chamber? Why are we not seeing two chambered organisms attempting to evolve a third chamber like other kinds of organisms have? For that matter, what prevents us from seeing the rapid growth of new features such as new heart chambers, if such evolution has occurred in the past? If there are such mechanisms that can produce almost immediate generation of additional limbs, then what prevents entirely new organs from being produced at the same rapid rate? We should be observing entirely new organs or organ parts, not just duplicates of what is already there. Heck, duplication happens all the time with sexual reproduction, but duplication of entirely USEFUL new organs and organ parts happens so slowly that we are not observing it. In that case, it probably does not happen at all. I will venture to state that limits to variation exist in the organism, as is demonstrated by observational heredity. These same kinds of limiting factors are important to the survival of kinds and species, and are one of the many reasons why macroevolution is not observed and does not happen. > Your example of an additional chamber or chambers to the heart is, I > believe, analogous to an animal growing a second set of wings. Were > they to do so, the masses of slow mutations required would produce > structures that would interfere with the functionality of the first > set of wings. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 > > > > > >> > >> > >> > If there is a God, he laughs at people who worship him so > simplistically. >> > > > ³Some of the most holy people (Mother Theresa, St. Therese of Lisieux, > for example) worshiped our Lord in the most simple ways. ³ > > To equate simple and simplistic is simplistic. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 9, 2006 Report Share Posted September 9, 2006 you have to keep in mind that God came to earth in the person of Jesus Christ. The Bible in the NT states that the disciples were watching the Lord leave on a cloud, and an angel makes a very profound statement, " this same Jesus you see leaving will return in like manner " , meaning, we will see Him as He was. So, yes, God does have hands and feet and eyes, but even before the Lord came to earth, all thru the OT it is referenced that God has hands.........look in the Book of , 5:5 states " in the same hour came forth fingers of a man's hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaster of the wall of the kings palace and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote " ....and so on. I take the Bible literally in passages as these. Let me ask you the theory of evolution, does it imply that man evolved from the ape? Putting aside all of the other chatter, if you were to summarize it up in a statement, is this what it is saying? Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt , > I would have expected a better retort from you than that. I was not making a retort. I was offering an analogy wherein a physical process is credited with forming something that God is also credited with creating, and alluding to the interpretation that God creates things through the natural processes that he has also created. > My stance is that God created man and woman, the Bible clearly > states that we are balls of dirt, that God took the clay, formed man and > breathed life into him. I didn't come from a monkey. Natural erosion is > an entirely different matter. In what hands did God " take " this clay? With what speech did God " say " " Let us make man in our own image? " Does God have a larynx and vocal cords, an elbow, arm, hand and five fingers with an opposable thumb? Or does God " speak " and " take " and " form " things using the natural processes he has created and the natural laws that are the very physical manifestation of his will? The Bible " clearly states " that the mountains smoke when the Lord " touches " them. Does this negate the physical processes that we observe to contribute to the eruption of volcanoes? Or, alternatively, are these processes intimately interconnected to the creative and active power of God? Perhaps what the Bible is saying is not that we should expect to see a giant hand descend from the heavens prior to each volcanic eruption, but rather that nothing, even those things that we observe to be the direct result of physical laws and so-called " natural " processes, happens without the knowledge and will of God. >People say and have said here that we ( Christians) a closed minded to >science, Someone may have said that, but I haven't. I did say you were unfamiliar with evolutionary theory, and that is correct. It's also fine if you aren't interesting in learning about it. I don't know anything about string theory, and I don't think I can be faulted for it. (Of course, I also don't have an opinion on it either, since I don't know much about it.) And by " we " you actually mean much more than " Christians, " because many Christians are scientists and have a much different interpretation of Genesis than you do. >but I would have to say that people who don't believe in the >Bible, or don't believe in God are as closed-minded or even more so than >we are. Yet somehow there are many, many people who believe in the Bible and also believe in evolution, and there are yet more who believe in God and believe in evolution. So apparently there are people who are closed-minded to neither. > Do I have all the answers? Absolutely not, but then again my >friend, neither do you. You are very right. Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 9, 2006 Report Share Posted September 9, 2006 Implode, what does that have to do with the price of peas? And don't you know that most folks in the Bible Belt are democrats??? lol....but yes, I am a republican.....however, before the Clinton era I was a professed democrat. Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt > > Hi , > >> > its like this, you are a rude dude. It appears to me that you are >> > as " closed minded " on the issues that I believe in as I am in evolution. >> > Yes, it is sadly true, I do not believe in evolution. I believe that >> >everything >> > was created by God. > > I'm curious -- does this mean you don't believe in erosion because God > created mountains? > > Chris > -- > The Truth About Cholesterol > Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: > http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 9, 2006 Report Share Posted September 9, 2006 > > > > > ³ > you have to keep in mind that God came to earth in the person of Jesus Christ. > The Bible in the NT states that the disciples were watching the Lord leave on > a cloud, and an angel makes a very profound statement, " this same Jesus you > see leaving will return in like manner " , meaning, we will see Him as He was. > So, yes, God does have hands and feet and eyes, but even before the Lord came > to earth, all thru the OT it is referenced that God has hands.........look in > the Book of , 5:5 states " in the same hour came forth fingers of a man's > hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaster of the wall of > the kings palace and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote " ....and so > on. I take the Bible literally in passages as these. > Let me ask you the theory of evolution, does it imply that man evolved > from the ape? Putting aside all of the other chatter, if you were to summarize > it up in a statement, is this what it is saying? > ² > > I find it totally offensive that you state this as fact. You can take your > Jesus Christ and your bible and stick them where the proverbial sun don¹t > shine. And I mean that respectfully. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 9, 2006 Report Share Posted September 9, 2006 > Not with the price of peas, but with the price of peace. So, you can keep > your pro-death Jesus. I¹m not interested. > > > > ³Implode, > what does that have to do with the price of peas? And don't you know that most > folks in the Bible Belt are democrats??? lol....but yes, I am a > republican.....however, before the Clinton era I was a professed democrat. > ² > > Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt > >> > >> > So, my bet is that you¹re a Republican? >> > >> > >> > ³Wow >> > I would have expected a better retort from you than that. My stance is >> that >> > God created man and woman, the Bible clearly states that we are balls of >> dirt, >> > that God took the clay, formed man and breathed life into him. I didn't >> come >> > from a monkey. Natural erosion is an entirely different matter. Honestly, >> > when I think of evolution, I think of " evolving " from a primitive way of >> life >> > to the modern live we all live now. Has the chemistry of man changed since he >> > was created? I don't think so. Has our ways of thinking changed? >> Definitely. >> > Is it because something in the brain chemistry has changed? I don't think >> so. >> > It is because of the knowledge that we have attained. I " ve made the >> statement >> > before, the Bible and science do agree. There are perhaps millions maybe >> > billions of years between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. If you search the Bible, >> you >> > will find there was a world before this one. Was there man here then? I >> don't >> > know. But Lucifer was in charge of something here on earth. That could >> have >> > been the time of the dinosaurs. The grand canyons and such, according to >> > scientists there was a cataclysmic flood that happened....the Bible states >> > that. People say and have said here that we ( Christians) a closed minded to >> > science, but I would have to say that people who don't believe in the >> Bible, >> > or don't believe in God are as closed-minded or even more so than we are. Do >> > I have all the answers? Absolutely not, but then again my friend, neither do >> > you. >> > ² >> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 9, 2006 Report Share Posted September 9, 2006 > , > > > I've been thinking some more on this and some of your other posts, > > and have some new questions (lucky you . In your opinion, would it > > be correct to say that the natural laws themselves appear inherently > > non-random and purposeful? > > The natural laws are self-evidently decidedly non-random. [snip] > > Whether this is " purposeful " or not is more of a matter of guess or faith. Yes, the laws of physics demonstrate predictable order. However, the entropy of the universe is always increasing <g>. The arrow of time is a consideration here. Interestingly, temporal direction is not demonstrated in the laws of nature, yet we see time marching on in one distinct direction. But this is a big tangent I won't address unless pressed. As to whether this has purpose, ABSOLUTELY! All of our technologies are based on the laws of nature. We saw pictures of the earth from the moon because of the non random and very useful laws that we could use to this purpose. Very many examples exist, of course. All technologies are the result of manipulating the laws of nature (even if the laws used weren't know about when the technology was developed). If you are looking for God in this order (not , Chris), you would not be alone. I think God can most easily be found in mathematics. Math is the language of science, and many observations come solely from the possibilities that math presents. Black holes are a prime example. Once we theoretical saw the possibilities, we started looking for them. An aside: You know, when the age of the universe comes up, I am always astounded that some Young Earth Creationists question the big bang theory. For you see, even Einstein resisted the notion of a beginning. He saw God as the Great Mathematician, not some Creator. So when the evidence of an inflationary universe (see Hubble's Law) basically showed that there was a " In the Beginning, " this hammered a nail in the coffin of the then popular steady state theory of things always being as they are in the cosmos. Does anyone know why some Creationists dispute the big bang? > > Related to that, I also wanted to run by you another area under the > > ID umbrella and see how you'd characterize it. I saw a documentary > > called The Privileged Planet (based on the book Rare Earth) and it > > basically challenges the conclusions of Carl Sagan in his book Pale > > Blue Dot that there are likely tons of Earth-like planets out there > > (I honestly don't know much about Sagan except he was an atheist who > > gets a lot of face time on the Discovery Channel). Carl Sagan was a highly distinguished astronomer and astrophysicist. His books are pretty religiously charged, which may be why the ID community doesn't like him. > Anyhow, in this > > documentary they assert that the universe is largely very hostile to > > life, especially terrestrial life, and delve into the numerous > > variables that all had to converge for Earth to sustain complex life- > > being within the narrow hospitable zones of the galaxy and solar > > system, planet of the right size and composition, right size moon, > > type of sun, type of atmosphere, etc, etc. Then they take it one > > step further and make the observation that the very conditions that > > make a planet habitable coincidentally (or not) also make it ideal > > for observing the universe and making scientific discoveries, which > > some believe implies purpose. The arguments presented in the movie are fallacious beyond belief. I haven't time to go through them one by one, as much as I would love to. First off, the universe is largely unexplored, so how in the world can anyone conclude it is largely hostile to life? But like Sagan said, their are billions and billions of stars in the Milky Way alone, and there are billions and billions of galaxies- the estimate I saw recently was 7 x 10^22 stars (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/star_count_030722.html). Our star is a pretty common main sequence star also. The universe is billions of years old, and stars are created and destroyed regularly. We have only the slightest observational ability due to our limited lifespan. We aren't somehow privileged in this respect! In fact, we become more privileged leaving the planet to observe! Here is a Christian physicist's rebuttal of the design inference made in The Privileged Planet. http://www.ps.uci.edu/~kuehn/personal/asa2003.ppt In the book _Life Everywhere_, astronomer Darling rebutted the Rare-Earth arguments one-by-one. Lastly, NASA has information on just what conditions we have found life thriving, and they are pretty variable: http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/overview.html As for purpose and significance, it is up to the individual to find those meanings in life. I highly recommend that you study the science behind these ideas, . You are asking great questions. Seek, and you shall find. Deanna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 9, 2006 Report Share Posted September 9, 2006 It is undeniable that there are striking and multiple similarities between organisms of similar types. We observe that nature uses a great many extremely efficient methods of doing things, therefore since survival requires efficiency, it is no surprise that many similar organisms and dissimilar organisms share common traits. And we can go on ad infinitum on that issue, but there is a logical step missing here. When one says that there is common origin as a result of there being multiple similarities, in spite of us observing definite groups with hundreds of features different form their assumed pre-existing relatives, there is a leap in reasoning. The missing evidence of gradual development between groups requires that multiple and rapid changes would have had to occur. We do observe hereditary limits in groups and phyla. These limits we observe are essential for the survival of organisms. Small incremental variations which we observe do not account for the rapid multiple changes that we do not observe. When it is challenged that small changes are not adequate to explain wholly new organs, we do not need more examples of small changes. When it is challenged that wholly NEW organs are not forming, we do not need examples of extra appendages of the same kind rapidly developing. A great boon to evolution would be the visual and observable generation of wholly new organs, therefore it is not reasonable to assume that this phenomenon is occurring in real time, since there is no news of this. The assumption that the evolutionary tree is a fact, thus becomes the proof that the evolutionary tree is a fact, because if there are serious problems in the tree, evolutionists respond that there had to have been transitional forms because evolution is true. Therefore, it seems appropriate not only to catalog various instances where multiple differences exist between phyla, but to catalog differences of entirely new organs where there is no evidence of gradual progression between phyla. Yet the evolutionist wants it both ways. He wants to claim that slow gradual change is sufficient to produce the vast varieties we observe, but this requires that vast jumps had to occur for which there are totally circumstantial claims and claims based on circular reasoning. It now seems appropriate to catalog great jumps in differences between phyla or species for which gradual changes cannot account, and to identify species which are so different from any other identifiable species that they do not fit in an evolutionary tree in any agreeable location. Notice, though, that anatomical homology shows a different theoretical evolutionary tree than does chemistry. When protein sequences are done we do not find the same relationships between species and phyla as would be expected if the theoretical evolutionary tree based on physical similarities is used, this is especially important when reference is made to how little genetic change has to occur to account for the same proteins and lipids coming together in the development of a new species for the same organ types. More problems coming . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 9, 2006 Report Share Posted September 9, 2006 I have almost a hundred EVOLUTION emails from NN. As fascinating as all this is, can we now move on to another topic please? .._,___ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 9, 2006 Report Share Posted September 9, 2006 Deanna, > Yes, the laws of physics demonstrate predictable order. However, the > entropy of the universe is always increasing <g>. I'm not sure what you intend this to mean. Are you using the deliberate creationist distortion of the concept of entropy here? > The arrow of time is > a consideration here. Interestingly, temporal direction is not > demonstrated in the laws of nature, yet we see time marching on in one > distinct direction. But this is a big tangent I won't address unless > pressed. I'm not sure what you're talking about, I guess because the esoteric piece of philosophizing is out of my subject area. If you'd like to explain, I'll read on, but won't press you. Rest assured that I won't have the slightest idea what you mean until you elaborate. > If you are looking for God in this order (not , Chris), Eeks, I take that to mean I called . Sorry, . > An aside: You know, when the age of the universe comes up, I am always > astounded that some Young Earth Creationists question the big bang > theory. Nothing astounds me from that circle. Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 9, 2006 Report Share Posted September 9, 2006 Hi , > It is undeniable that there are striking and multiple similarities > between organisms of similar types. We observe that nature uses a > great many extremely efficient methods of doing things, therefore > since survival requires efficiency, it is no surprise that many > similar organisms and dissimilar organisms share common traits. And > we can go on ad infinitum on that issue, but there is a logical step > missing here. When one says that there is common origin as a result > of there being multiple similarities, in spite of us observing > definite groups with hundreds of features different form their assumed > pre-existing relatives, there is a leap in reasoning. Well you will have to give me a specific example of what kind of counter-evidence you are talking about. Over and over again I have met your challenge to provide explanations for how things could sensibly have evolved, with evidence for intermediate features, with evidence for the mechanisms of evolution and so on. If you are going to keep insisting that each specific individual detail be explained in full detail before you will acknowledge the fact that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution, you will have to at a minimum offer specific examples. > The missing > evidence of gradual development between groups requires that multiple > and rapid changes would have had to occur. I just wrote pages worth of information explaining in detail the evolution of three separate organs -- mitochondria, chloroplasts and multi-chambered hearts -- and without responding to a single point you dismiss every painful detial I wrote and claim there is no evidence of gradual development. Let's recap very quickly. If you want details, reference the multi-page tomes I wrote yesterday. ***Mitochondria/Chloroplast Intermediates*** -- We observe alpha-proteobacteria essentially identical to those we believe mitochondria evolved from; we observe cyanobacteria that look exactly like chloroplasts. -- We observe protists that eat the types of bacteria believed to form these organelles for food. These protists are obligate omnivores that feed on these types of bacteria by engulfing them, but the bacteria to not live within the protists. -- We observe other protists that harbor these types of bacteria in an endosymbiotic relationship, living within them. In these cases, the relationship is obligate. There are three classes of alpha-proteobacteria that are found living only inside protists. -- We observe algae that have true chloroplasts, but these chloroplasts retain the type of cell wall that is only found in bacteria. No other chloroplasts possess this cell wall. -- All other chloroplasts (and mitochondria) lack the cell wall but retain the double membrane that is an extreme oddity and coincidence outside the explanation that they evolved by entering through the membrane and pinching it off. -- In the simplest protists and yeasts that have mitochondria or chloroplasts (only mitochondria in yeasts) we observe that the organelle encodes almost all of its own proteins and the nucleus encodes only a few. -- As we move up the chain of complexity, we see that more and more mitochondrial or chloroplast genes are encoded by the nucleus and less by the organelle itself. There is a gradation, and the most complex organisms have almost all their genes encoded by the nucleus. Where do you see the missing intermediate? We see every intermediate stage we could possibly expect to see right before us, all happening as we speak right now, all happening as you declare repeatedly " there is no evidence for macroevolution, " " there is no evidence for macroevolution, " while the most remarkable and most significant piece of macroevolution to ever happen unfolds repeatedly before us. Likewise, I explained a perfectly reasonable case for how chambers of the heart would develop gradually by septa separating the chambers, not by the sudden addition of new chambers. I pointed out numerous cases where we do in fact witness functional intermediates. I further pointed out that there are thousands of species of fish and that neither of us know enough about comparative fish anatomy to declare whether there is or isn't intermediate hearts with a partial septum separating the atrium. I further asked you if you knew this not to be the case, and you unsurprisingly failed to answer my question. > We do observe hereditary > limits in groups and phyla. These limits we observe are essential for > the survival of organisms. Small incremental variations which we > observe do not account for the rapid multiple changes that we do not > observe. We observe both rapid changes and gradual changes all over the place. You state laws of what we do and do not observe and state requirements for multiple simultaneous mutations that I have repeatedly refuted in detail. You ignore my refutations and restate your position again. > When it is challenged that small changes are not adequate to explain > wholly new organs, we do not need more examples of small changes. That is not what I gave; you challenged whether small changes could account for the evolution of the 4-chambered heart, and I gave you a painfully detailed explanation of how we not only observe functional intermediates but how the slow and gradual evolution of the 4-chambered heart could be beneficial at every step of the way, further explaining where we would expect on the one hand and not expect on the other for there to be selective pressure encouraging this process. You ignored all of this. > When it is challenged that wholly NEW organs are not forming, we do > not need examples of extra appendages of the same kind rapidly > developing. What on earth is your evidence that new organs are not forming? Where on earth do you get the idea that evolutionary theory predicts random new organs just pop out of nowhere each and every day? And where do you get the idea that we actually observe in detail even a fraction of the evolution that does occur in nature? We have named and are able to culture 1% of bacteria in the laboratory. Yet here you are explaining in detail what we do and do not observe in bacteria as if we had a remote clue what happens in 99% of bacteria. > A great boon to evolution would be the visual and > observable generation of wholly new organs, therefore it is not > reasonable to assume that this phenomenon is occurring in real time, > since there is no news of this. I'm sorry, but we do exactly see the repetition of the evolution of mitochondria and chloroplasts. These are the single most immensely important organs to develop. They provide the basis for everything else to develop in eukaryotic organisms. And we see it happening to the best we possibly could. Again, we see the heart of the turtle and lizard with -- wait; what is it? 5 chambers? 3 chambers? -- the *intermediate* ventricular partitioning. You can damn bet if a 5-chamber heart ever became useful over a three-chambered heart, the turtle and lizards would be well on their way to be evolving it. For now, their two partial ventricular septa are functional to prevent excessive mixing of oxygenated and dexoygenated blood in the ventricle. Intermediate. Functional intermediate. > The assumption that the evolutionary tree is a fact, thus becomes the > proof that the evolutionary tree is a fact, because if there are > serious problems in the tree, evolutionists respond that there had to > have been transitional forms because evolution is true. When we see overwhelming evidence for evolution in thousands upon thousands of cases from entirely independent lines of evidence, then we find it most reasonable to interpret the uncertainty of what we do not yet know as if it is assimilable to current theory. When we observe something in direct conflict with current theory, by contrast, we revise current theory. You have not presented anything in direct conflict with evolutionary theory, and no one would demand that we throw out evolutionary theory because there are things we do not yet understand about it unless they had an established commitment to opposing the theory on other grounds. I do not insist that someone provide me the shipping paperwork to prove to me that a banana really came from a banana tree in Ecuador. I consider it a reasonable proposition that since all bananas to my knowledge come from banana trees, that when a claim is made that a new banana whose precise history is unknown came from such a tree, that the claim is indeed probable and I will accept it. If I am a banana auditor, I might insist on seeing the paperwork, but I would still believe that it came from a banana tree even if I wasn't sure whether it came from Ecuador or Chile. If someone were to provide evidence that bananas come from cherry trees I might revise my theory and begin demanding evidence that it not only came from such-and-such a country but indeed came from a banana tree within that country. In the mean time, current theory works. > Therefore, it seems appropriate not only to catalog various instances > where multiple differences exist between phyla, but to catalog > differences of entirely new organs where there is no evidence of > gradual progression between phyla. Since anti-evolutionist theory predicts that all computers grow into eagles, we should expect to see computers growing into eagles everywhere. Ok, see how easy it is to make up my own predictions about your theory and claim that your theory is refuted by lack of observation of its predictions? > Yet the evolutionist wants it both > ways. He wants to claim that slow gradual change is sufficient to > produce the vast varieties we observe, but this requires that vast > jumps had to occur for which there are totally circumstantial claims > and claims based on circular reasoning. The scientist who is willing to accurately catalog what we see in nature regardless of her or his theoretical persuasions will acknowledge that we observe an array of mechanisms by which genetic material is introduced or modified, and that some of these produce gradual changes and some of them produce jumps. This is not circular; it is acknolwedging the full extent of what happens. The gradual growth of a septum dividing a heart into chambers is gradual. It is the most reasonalbe explanation for the division of the atrium from the ventricle and for the division of the atrium into two atria, and we do in fact observe these itnermediates. This is an example of gradual change, and we have identified mechanisms of such gradual change. The endosymbiotic relationship of protists to precursors of mitochondrial and chloroplasts is a giant leap. We observe it happening. The fact that we observe this does not negate the fact that we observe gradual changes such as could produce divisions of heart chambers. > It now seems appropriate to catalog great jumps in differences between > phyla or species for which gradual changes cannot account, and to > identify species which are so different from any other identifiable > species that they do not fit in an evolutionary tree in any agreeable > location. Can you give some examples? > Notice, though, that anatomical homology shows a different theoretical > evolutionary tree than does chemistry. When protein sequences are > done we do not find the same relationships between species and phyla > as would be expected if the theoretical evolutionary tree based on > physical similarities is used, this is especially important when > reference is made to how little genetic change has to occur to account > for the same proteins and lipids coming together in the development of > a new species for the same organ types. I respectfully ask you to provide a source to support this claim. It is contrary to what I have read everywhere else. For one of many examples: =========== http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html [After providing paragraphs explaining the reasoning of the calculated probabilities in the following paragraph...] Humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence. The " null hypothesis " given above is false. In the absence of common descent, the chance of this occurrence is conservatively less than 10-93 (1 out of 1093). Thus, the high degree of similarity in these proteins is a spectacular corroboration of the theory of common descent. Furthermore, human and chimpanzee cytochrome c proteins differ by ~10 amino acids from all other mammals. The chance of this occurring in the absence of a hereditary mechanism is less than 10-29. The yeast Candida krusei is one of the most distantly related eukaryotic organisms from humans. Candida has 51 amino acid differences from the human sequence. A conservative estimate of this probability is less than 10-25. =============== Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2006 Report Share Posted September 10, 2006 Unfortunately, some formatting got messed up in a post I made last night. I would like to offer this brief clarification. On 9/9/06, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote: [Quoting from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html] > Humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein > sequence. The " null hypothesis " given above is false. In the absence > of common descent, the chance of this occurrence is conservatively > less than 10-93 (1 out of 1093). Given the observed variation in the cytochrome c amino acid sequence across all forms of life, and the functional unimportance of 2/3 of those amino acids, the chance of this happening in the absence of common descent is actually 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0\ 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. >Thus, the high degree of similarity > in these proteins is a spectacular corroboration of the theory of > common descent. Furthermore, human and chimpanzee cytochrome c > proteins differ by ~10 amino acids from all other mammals. The chance > of this occurring in the absence of a hereditary mechanism is less > than 10-29. This should read that the chance of this occuring in the absence of common descent is 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. > The yeast Candida krusei is one of the most distantly > related eukaryotic organisms from humans. Candida has 51 amino acid > differences from the human sequence. A conservative estimate of this > probability is less than 10-25. This should read that the chance of this occuring in the absence of common descent is 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Moreover, the hypothesis that closely related organisms share amino acid squences in ubiquitous genes with unnecessary similarities due to heredity can be falsified in a number of ways: ==================== Without assuming the theory common descent, the most probable result is that the cytochrome c protein sequences in all these different organisms would be very different from each other. If this were the case, a phylogenetic analysis would be impossible, and this would provide very strong evidence for a genealogically unrelated, perhaps simultaneous, origin of species (Dickerson 1972; Yockey 1992; Li 1997). Furthermore, the very basis of this argument could be undermined easily if it could be demonstrated (1) that species specific cytochrome c proteins were functional exclusively in their respective organisms, or (2) that no other cytochrome c sequence could function in an organism other than its own native cytochrome c, or (3) that an observed mechanism besides heredity can causally correlate the sequence of a ubiquitous protein with a specific organismic morphology. =============== Yet none of these potential falsifications is true. Numbers 1 and 2 are shown to be false, and there is no evidence or plausible explanation for number 3. Granted, none of this *proves* macroevolution. After all, there is still a 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0\ 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 that chimpanzees and humans are NOT descended from a common ancestor. I suppose any " evolutionist " would be doing the public a major disservice if she or he were not to readily admit that possibility to the public. Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 11, 2006 Report Share Posted September 11, 2006 One statement that he kept making over and over again was that evolution was a religion. And in one part, he discussed a man by the name of Haeckler...I think is how it was spelled. He was German, and after reading Darwin's theory, he single-handedly converted Germany to evolution. He was an embryologist. He even faked the pictures of the embryos of humans and other animals to make the statement all came from one ancestor. He was tried and proven to be a fraud...yet people still bought it, and it is still being taught in the science books today. Someone here made the statement that the children should know the truth. That is what Kent Hovind is trying to do. I'm sure I will enjoy them, and I'm looking forward to learning. Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt > > >You have a double standard. When you quote from 1972, it is relevant. >When I do, it is outdated. You are having trouble seeing how >unreasonable it is to assert that decades of past observation by >scientists cannot be invalidated by currant observations AND it be >reasonable for people to believe in evolution throughout the past >decades. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 11, 2006 Report Share Posted September 11, 2006 , > One statement that he kept making over and over again was that evolution was >a religion. And in one part, he discussed a man by the name of Haeckler... I think his name is Haeckel. >I think >is how it was spelled. He was German, and after reading Darwin's theory, he >single-handedly converted Germany to evolution. He was an embryologist. He >even faked the pictures of the embryos of humans and other animals to make >the statement all came from one ancestor. Haeckel himself would have said he embellished them in order to demonstrate a point. He was pretty open about it. He did, however, majorly distort a significant portion of his drawings to fit his idea of recapitulation, which held that the organisms repeats its evolutionary history during embryonic development. > He was tried and proven to be a fraud...yet people still bought it, and it is still >being taught in the science books today. That's an outright lie. > Someone here made the statement >that the children should know the truth. That is what Kent Hovind is trying to do. > I'm sure I will enjoy them, and I'm looking forward to learning. I find it fascinating that it doesn't faze you that Hovind has fake degrees and is a criminal. I don't know whether these charges are completely true or not, but they would give me pause before attributing sparkling motivations to the man -- I would at least investigate them before entrusted my children's minds with him. They don't affect the credibility of his arguments; I'm just referring to your unquestioning attribution of pristine motivations to him. In any case, if you'd like a good review of Haeckel and what he did and did not do, and what of Haeckel's thoughts are and aren't found in modern textbooks, check out this article: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html It shows a picture of one of Haeckel's forged drawings. If Hovind is saying this is found in modern textbooks, he is a shameless liar. Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 11, 2006 Report Share Posted September 11, 2006 >  I¹ll just try this once, and then give up. I¹ve had too much beer. > Why do you spend the time on these people? For all of our disagreements, I see > that you are a serious person, interested in finding the truth. They are not. > > > > .................., > >> > One statement that he kept making over and over again was that evolution >> was >> >a religion. And in one part, he discussed a man by the name of Haeckler... > > I think his name is Haeckel. > >> >I think >> >is how it was spelled. He was German, and after reading Darwin's theory, he >> >single-handedly converted Germany to evolution. He was an embryologist. He >> >even faked the pictures of the embryos of humans and other animals to make >> >the statement all came from one ancestor. > > Haeckel himself would have said he embellished them in order to > demonstrate a point. He was pretty open about it. He did, however, > majorly distort a significant portion of his drawings to fit his idea > of recapitulation, which held that the organisms repeats its > evolutionary history during embryonic development. > >> > He was tried and proven to be a fraud...yet people still bought it, and it >> is still >> >being taught in the science books today. > > That's an outright lie. > >> > Someone here made the statement >> >that the children should know the truth. That is what Kent Hovind is > trying to do. >> > I'm sure I will enjoy them, and I'm looking forward to learning. > > I find it fascinating that it doesn't faze you that Hovind has fake > degrees and is a criminal. I don't know whether these charges are > completely true or not, but they would give me pause before > attributing sparkling motivations to the man -- I would at least > investigate them before entrusted my children's minds with him. They > don't affect the credibility of his arguments; I'm just referring to > your unquestioning attribution of pristine motivations to him. > > In any case, if you'd like a good review of Haeckel and what he did > and did not do, and what of Haeckel's thoughts are and aren't found in > modern textbooks, check out this article: > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html > > It shows a picture of one of Haeckel's forged drawings. If Hovind is > saying this is found in modern textbooks, he is a shameless liar. > > Chris " Quick, man. Cling tenaciously to my buttocks " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 Deanna, let's see how the out come is......but let's also investigate what he has been teaching. I'm sure that if you try, you will definitely be able to dig up some more " dirt " on him. That is of no interest to me. What is of interest is the truths that he has been teaching about evolution. As stated,,,,,,he is having a hard time getting any evolutionist to debate him. EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt > > , > have you ever heard of a gentleman by the name of Dr. Kent Hovind? Great guy. He has been arrested for doing evil, er um, God's work: http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060714/NEWS01/6\ 07140333/1006 " A Pensacola evangelist who owns the defunct Dinosaur Adventure Land in Pensacola was arrested Thursday on 58 federal charges, including failing to pay $473,818 in employee-related taxes and making threats against investigators. " Of the 58 charges, 44 were filed against Kent Hovind and his wife, Jo, for evading bank reporting requirements as they withdrew $430,500 from AmSouth Bank between July 20, 2001, and Aug. 9, 2002. " Sorry for the long url, but I couldn't access the snipper just now. Deanna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 It amazes me....as a scientist...one should be eager to learn. I made the statement that I was going to review his material and " learn " what he is teaching. As far as his credibility.....that remains to be proven. But by all means.......I " m learning. As far as his " pristine " nature....I know beyond a shadow of a doubt there is NO ONE who is perfect. Every one of us are human beings, and we ALL make mistakes. Every one of you have a double set of standards here...that is apparent. But hey, I want to know the truth and I always approach it with an open mind. Why are you so afraid that someone will prove scientifically that you silly theory is exactly that...a theory? From what I've already read, it appears to me it takes more faith to believe in evolution, than it does to believe in a living God. Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt >  I¹ll just try this once, and then give up. I¹ve had too much beer. > Why do you spend the time on these people? For all of our disagreements, I see > that you are a serious person, interested in finding the truth. They are not. > > > > .................., > >> > One statement that he kept making over and over again was that evolution >> was >> >a religion. And in one part, he discussed a man by the name of Haeckler... > > I think his name is Haeckel. > >> >I think >> >is how it was spelled. He was German, and after reading Darwin's theory, he >> >single-handedly converted Germany to evolution. He was an embryologist. He >> >even faked the pictures of the embryos of humans and other animals to make >> >the statement all came from one ancestor. > > Haeckel himself would have said he embellished them in order to > demonstrate a point. He was pretty open about it. He did, however, > majorly distort a significant portion of his drawings to fit his idea > of recapitulation, which held that the organisms repeats its > evolutionary history during embryonic development. > >> > He was tried and proven to be a fraud...yet people still bought it, and it >> is still >> >being taught in the science books today. > > That's an outright lie. > >> > Someone here made the statement >> >that the children should know the truth. That is what Kent Hovind is > trying to do. >> > I'm sure I will enjoy them, and I'm looking forward to learning. > > I find it fascinating that it doesn't faze you that Hovind has fake > degrees and is a criminal. I don't know whether these charges are > completely true or not, but they would give me pause before > attributing sparkling motivations to the man -- I would at least > investigate them before entrusted my children's minds with him. They > don't affect the credibility of his arguments; I'm just referring to > your unquestioning attribution of pristine motivations to him. > > In any case, if you'd like a good review of Haeckel and what he did > and did not do, and what of Haeckel's thoughts are and aren't found in > modern textbooks, check out this article: > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html > > It shows a picture of one of Haeckel's forged drawings. If Hovind is > saying this is found in modern textbooks, he is a shameless liar. > > Chris " Quick, man. Cling tenaciously to my buttocks " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 He was tried and proven to be a fraud...yet people still bought it, and it is still >being taught in the science books today. That's an outright lie. what part of this is an outright lie? Re: Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt , > One statement that he kept making over and over again was that evolution was >a religion. And in one part, he discussed a man by the name of Haeckler... I think his name is Haeckel. >I think >is how it was spelled. He was German, and after reading Darwin's theory, he >single-handedly converted Germany to evolution. He was an embryologist. He >even faked the pictures of the embryos of humans and other animals to make >the statement all came from one ancestor. Haeckel himself would have said he embellished them in order to demonstrate a point. He was pretty open about it. He did, however, majorly distort a significant portion of his drawings to fit his idea of recapitulation, which held that the organisms repeats its evolutionary history during embryonic development. > He was tried and proven to be a fraud...yet people still bought it, and it is still >being taught in the science books today. That's an outright lie. > Someone here made the statement >that the children should know the truth. That is what Kent Hovind is trying to do. > I'm sure I will enjoy them, and I'm looking forward to learning. I find it fascinating that it doesn't faze you that Hovind has fake degrees and is a criminal. I don't know whether these charges are completely true or not, but they would give me pause before attributing sparkling motivations to the man -- I would at least investigate them before entrusted my children's minds with him. They don't affect the credibility of his arguments; I'm just referring to your unquestioning attribution of pristine motivations to him. In any case, if you'd like a good review of Haeckel and what he did and did not do, and what of Haeckel's thoughts are and aren't found in modern textbooks, check out this article: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html It shows a picture of one of Haeckel's forged drawings. If Hovind is saying this is found in modern textbooks, he is a shameless liar. Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 > Might it be for other reasons than that they fear his debating skill? Nah.... > > > > ³Deanna, > let's see how the out come is......but let's also investigate what he has been > teaching. I'm sure that if you try, you will definitely be able to dig up > some more " dirt " on him. That is of no interest to me. What is of interest is > the truths that he has been teaching about evolution. As > stated,,,,,,he is having a hard time getting any evolutionist to debate him. > ² > > EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt > >> > >> > , >> > have you ever heard of a gentleman by the name of Dr. Kent Hovind? > > Great guy. He has been arrested for doing evil, er um, God's work: > > http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060714/NEWS01 > /607140333/1006 > " A Pensacola evangelist who owns the defunct Dinosaur Adventure Land > in Pensacola was arrested Thursday on 58 federal charges, including > failing to pay $473,818 in employee-related taxes and making threats > against investigators. > > " Of the 58 charges, 44 were filed against Kent Hovind and his wife, > Jo, for evading bank reporting requirements as they withdrew $430,500 > from AmSouth Bank between July 20, 2001, and Aug. 9, 2002. " > > Sorry for the long url, but I couldn't access the snipper just now. > > Deanna > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 > I¹d say that it¹s a mark of a rational person to spend one¹s time wisely. > From what I have gleaned from searching a bit online, this guy is a true > scumbag/crackpot/idiot, and it therefore wouldn¹t be rational for me to spend > time and effort trying to take him seriously. Just like I don¹t take you > seriously, except as a sign of the evil/ignorance that is trying to take over > this country. > > > ³It amazes me....as a scientist...one should be eager to learn. I made the > statement that I was going to review his material and " learn " what he is > teaching. As far as his credibility.....that remains to be proven. But by > all means.......I " m learning. As far as his " pristine " nature....I know > beyond a shadow of a doubt there is NO ONE who is perfect. Every one of us > are human beings, and we ALL make mistakes. Every one of you have a double > set of standards here...that is apparent. But hey, I want to know the truth > and I always approach it with an open mind. Why are you so afraid that > someone will prove scientifically that you silly theory is exactly that...a > theory? From what I've already read, it appears to me it takes more faith to > believe in evolution, than it does to believe in a living God. > ² > > Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt > >> >  I¹ll just try this once, and then give up. I¹ve had too much beer. >> > Why do you spend the time on these people? For all of our disagreements, I >> see >> > that you are a serious person, interested in finding the truth. They are >> not. >> > >> > >> > >> > .................., >> > >>>> >> > One statement that he kept making over and over again was that >>>> evolution >> > was >>>> >> >a religion. And in one part, he discussed a man by the name of >>>> Haeckler... >> > >> > I think his name is Haeckel. >> > >>>> >> >I think >>>> >> >is how it was spelled. He was German, and after reading Darwin's >>>> theory, he >>>> >> >single-handedly converted Germany to evolution. He was an >>>> embryologist. He >>>> >> >even faked the pictures of the embryos of humans and other animals to make >>>> >> >the statement all came from one ancestor. >> > >> > Haeckel himself would have said he embellished them in order to >> > demonstrate a point. He was pretty open about it. He did, however, >> > majorly distort a significant portion of his drawings to fit his idea >> > of recapitulation, which held that the organisms repeats its >> > evolutionary history during embryonic development. >> > >>>> >> > He was tried and proven to be a fraud...yet people still bought it, >>>> and it >>> >> is still >>>> >> >being taught in the science books today. >> > >> > That's an outright lie. >> > >>>> >> > Someone here made the statement >>>> >> >that the children should know the truth. That is what Kent Hovind is >> > trying to do. >>>> >> > I'm sure I will enjoy them, and I'm looking forward to learning. >> > >> > I find it fascinating that it doesn't faze you that Hovind has fake >> > degrees and is a criminal. I don't know whether these charges are >> > completely true or not, but they would give me pause before >> > attributing sparkling motivations to the man -- I would at least >> > investigate them before entrusted my children's minds with him. They >> > don't affect the credibility of his arguments; I'm just referring to >> > your unquestioning attribution of pristine motivations to him. >> > >> > In any case, if you'd like a good review of Haeckel and what he did >> > and did not do, and what of Haeckel's thoughts are and aren't found in >> > modern textbooks, check out this article: >> > >> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html >> > >> > It shows a picture of one of Haeckel's forged drawings. If Hovind is >> > saying this is found in modern textbooks, he is a shameless liar. >> > >> > Chris > > " Quick, man. Cling tenaciously to my buttocks " > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 The world is full of kooks...unfortunately. EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt > As stated,,,,,,he is having a hard time getting any > evolutionist to debate him. Which is probably because serious scientists don't waste time debating with kooks. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 are you a scientist? God forbid.....however....again your emails speak " volumes " for themselves...as far as being evil goes. I too my dear don't take you seriously.......you remind me of a child who doesn't get enough attention and will do anything to stand out. Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt > >> >  I¹ll just try this once, and then give up. I¹ve had too much beer. >> > Why do you spend the time on these people? For all of our disagreements, I >> see >> > that you are a serious person, interested in finding the truth. They are >> not. >> > >> > >> > >> > .................., >> > >>>> >> > One statement that he kept making over and over again was that >>>> evolution >> > was >>>> >> >a religion. And in one part, he discussed a man by the name of >>>> Haeckler... >> > >> > I think his name is Haeckel. >> > >>>> >> >I think >>>> >> >is how it was spelled. He was German, and after reading Darwin's >>>> theory, he >>>> >> >single-handedly converted Germany to evolution. He was an >>>> embryologist. He >>>> >> >even faked the pictures of the embryos of humans and other animals to make >>>> >> >the statement all came from one ancestor. >> > >> > Haeckel himself would have said he embellished them in order to >> > demonstrate a point. He was pretty open about it. He did, however, >> > majorly distort a significant portion of his drawings to fit his idea >> > of recapitulation, which held that the organisms repeats its >> > evolutionary history during embryonic development. >> > >>>> >> > He was tried and proven to be a fraud...yet people still bought it, >>>> and it >>> >> is still >>>> >> >being taught in the science books today. >> > >> > That's an outright lie. >> > >>>> >> > Someone here made the statement >>>> >> >that the children should know the truth. That is what Kent Hovind is >> > trying to do. >>>> >> > I'm sure I will enjoy them, and I'm looking forward to learning. >> > >> > I find it fascinating that it doesn't faze you that Hovind has fake >> > degrees and is a criminal. I don't know whether these charges are >> > completely true or not, but they would give me pause before >> > attributing sparkling motivations to the man -- I would at least >> > investigate them before entrusted my children's minds with him. They >> > don't affect the credibility of his arguments; I'm just referring to >> > your unquestioning attribution of pristine motivations to him. >> > >> > In any case, if you'd like a good review of Haeckel and what he did >> > and did not do, and what of Haeckel's thoughts are and aren't found in >> > modern textbooks, check out this article: >> > >> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html >> > >> > It shows a picture of one of Haeckel's forged drawings. If Hovind is >> > saying this is found in modern textbooks, he is a shameless liar. >> > >> > Chris > > " Quick, man. Cling tenaciously to my buttocks " > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.