M
Michaelo
Guest
I was simply trying to understand his position, and it is the IDers and creationists who most commonly use smear tactics.
- Status
A
Alethios
Guest
Polar flips are the mainstream geological interpretation of magnetic field reversals seen in igneous rock over thousands of years.
Cooling lava can receive the same permanently embedded pattern of reversals , via plasma flows(lightning strikes), just in the short time while the lava is cooling.
Do electric discharges accompany volcanic eruptions??
There’s your answer to the ‘magnetic pole reversals’ claim. No polar flips… no deep ages for formation.
Unfortunately that refusal clashes with the evidentiary intent and nature of this thread.
Non-ape ancestry of humans is just another branch of evol. speculation… even most evols disagree with this.
An example would be that notorious creationist and schlock mathematician… Sir Fred Hoyle.
Darwinism in action - the ability to evolve ad hoc responses and redefinitions to evol. challenges.
Finally, we agree! It took about 4 days for all life forms - now extant and extinct - to originate all over the earth.
( But we would rather say ‘be created’ than ‘originate’)
Why not “it can be PROVEN that life on earth originated more than once”? For speculation we can go to an astrologer… or gypsy… or stock broker.
Large meteorite impacts?? Impacts that would reshape the geological strata by direct contact and tidal waves?
That would contradict the revered uniformitarian principle of slow uniform deposition of sediment, the basis of the geological column fable, a fable which allows false dating of an old earth.
Just add this to the pile of contradictions.
More possible 'coulda’s on a thread devoted to evidence. Nary a “testable evidence shows…”.
So … there are options, besides possibilities and probabilities?
No probables? possibles? options?
Where are the reasonable eye witnesses to these sloppy early organisms ?
Not a great book title. It’s not about the source of life but re the continuation of life. Nor is ‘species’ defined. Suggested sub-title: Much ado about nothing.
In fact, there can be no testable evidence given that is based on the primal genome, unless there is a copy of that primal genome to compare with the modern human genome. This is the scientific method… like it or not.
There are many evolutionary patterns; sadly, only one reality.
AMDG
A
Alethios
Guest
No.
We affirm the antecedent, but deny the consequent. Genetic science is only science when it follows the scientific method , testing the present, because the past is no longer available and testable. When it follows the scientific myth-od, then it is evol. science.
They would if the result matches their ideology.
What about the omission of testing to confirm hypotheses? A Freudian slip?
We have different Bibles, sister. Our faithful Douay-Rheims version says that there were 3 distinct breeding pairs after the Deluge, not one; Noah’s sons didn’t marry their sisters. (Don’t saints read the Bible?)
'Cause we get no credible answers.
The wood has to be C14 dated - the inorganic radiometry dates are discordant.
The limestone is carbon-based, so it also can be C14 dated.
The wood can be physically and chemically separated from the limestone, to prevent contamination errors.
Same response - 'cause we get no credible answers.
Coal has been C14 dated with AMS to < 50,000 years, far less than the megayears claimed by MS science.
The only reason for not dating the hammer wood and the coal is the knowledge that old ages would be refuted…
which reminds us…
We asked why the dinosaur bones filling museum storerooms haven’t been RC dated…
Repeat:where are the DATA, not diversions, showing dino bone ages are outside the C14 range and can’t be tested?
No answer yet ,from this forum or MS scientists.
But we won’t stop asking…
We have studied genetic science. Tell us all, just for starters, :
- What was the sequence of the first genome?
- What changes occurred to ‘evolve’ the second genome?
- Why were the changes selected?
Agreed. Genetics cannot be reconciled with any event in the distant past.
We make the third choice - holding to both a primoliteral reading of Genesis and genetic science.
Our genetic science is true science, restricted to testing the present genotypes, not extrapolating to the deep past, like its evol. offshoot.
AMDG
G
grannymh
Guest
Does “non-ape ancestry of humans” sound like Genesis 2: 7
H
hecd2
Guest
Yes, similar experiments, in non-human primates:
Andersen and Buneo, Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 25, 189 (2002)
Snyder, Batista and Andersen, Vision Res. 40, 1433 (2000)
Gold and Shadlen, Nature 404, 390 (2000)
Yes, but it shows that claims that there is a spiritual non-physical dimension that overlies and controls the physical brain in humans is an illusion. Both our intention and our experience of what we call free will arise entirely from neurobiological processes in the brain.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
H
hecd2
Guest
There is no such thing as “random natural selection” which you would know if you had the slightest acquaintance with evolutionary biology. Mutations are random with respect to fitness, but natural selection is not random. I really don’t know why you find that so difficult to understand.
But they are professional molecular biologists and you are a tiny group of pseudoscientists with a YEC agenda.
Tishkoff did not do the work on HbC - she merely commented in the popular National Geographic article which is all you seem to have read. Here is a reference to the actual research in case you can be bothered to look it up:
Modiano et al, Haemoglobin C protects against clinical Plamodium falciparum malaria, *Nature *414, 305 - 308.
The mutation is identified in the paper: Beta-globin codon 6 Glu to Lys (GAG to AAG)
The question of prevalence is also discussed. The authors conclude that both its relatively low prevalence and its geographic concentration result from the fact that the efficacy of its protection occurs mainly in the homozygous HbC state (as opposed to HbE and HbS mutations that provide heterozygous protection). See also Trabuchet et al, Nucleotide sequence evidence of the unicentric origin of the beta C mutation in Africa, Hum Genet 87, 597 - 601 who use linkage disequilibrium in conjunction with a single chromosomal haplotype, common upstream intergenic polymorphisms, and intragenic polymorphisms to show that African HbC arose in a single location in Africa long after other populations of H sapiens migrated to other parts of the world.
The idea that alleles of beta-globin are not of mutational origin is absurd - there are over 1300 known abnormal haemoglobins of which HbC is just one.It is clear that these alleles arise via a range of mutational mechanisms (single nucleotide substitution for example for HbS, HbC, HbM and HbE, frameshift insertions for example for Hb Tak, deletions for example Hb Gun Hill is a deletion of five codons, substitution in the stop codon causing elongated protein for example Hb Constant Spring, and unequal crossing over in homologous delta and beta chains causing fusion delta beta genes for example in Hb Lepore and Hb anti-Lepore)
Well, the allele was discovered decades ago, not just now. What was new in 2001 was confirmation that in a homozygous state it protects against P falciparum malaria (as does HbS and HbE). The idea that every allele of every gene has always been “latent” is absurd - clearly mutations occur, and clearly some of these are selected, even if they do not become fixed in a balancing selection scenario.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
H
hecd2
Guest
Except that both special and general relativity is tested every day in multiple ways and it passes every test.
I’m still waiting to see how you try to explain the centrifugal and Coriolis forces on a static earth having rejected GR.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
H
hecd2
Guest
There is no such thing as “thread rules”. However, evidence consonant with good scientific method has been presented by the scientists on this thread. The fact is that you are unable to entertain this evidence because it conflicts with your preconceived ideas.
While not denying that there is a species problem may I point you to textbooks on evolutionary biology where you will find all the evidence that you require. See, for example, Ridley Evolution; Futuyama, Evolutionary Biology; Mayr, What Evolution Is.
As for the species problem, it exists precisely because species are not immutable and the boundaries between closely related species are not completely clear cut (since they have descended from a common ancestor relatively recently and they might still be capable of hybridisation). Evolutionary biologists can demonstrate the key points of evolutionary theory (descent with modification, selection and common descent) even if no agreed concept of species existed.
However classification is a much bigger problem for creationists. Whether they use the term kind or baramin, they claim that evolution cannot change one kind or baramin into another, or generate a new kind or baramin. But no two creationists can agree on a definition of these terms, or suggest an evolutionary limitation that stops evolutionary modification precisely at whatever arbitrary boundary they propose.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
H
hecd2
Guest
Let us just take the nonsensical claims of Berthault as representative of the standards of the “conference”
See here for a thorough demolition of Bethault’s delusions of grandeur:
evolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm
Alec
evolutionpages.com
H
hecd2
Guest
You have completely and utterly misunderstood what that paper was saying (I dare say you haven’t even read paper as usual) and your conclusions about it here are deeply mistaken. I could explain it all to you but I suspect you will not want to hear anything that negates what you erroneously imagine to be evidence that supports you. If anyone else is interested I am willing to put in the time to explain what the paper actually says and why Ed’s claims for it are quite wrong.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
G
grannymh
Guest
Regarding: Desmurget et al, Movement Intention after Parietal Cortex Stimulation in Humans, Science 324 811 – 813 (2009)
This paper refers to awake brain surgery using a neuronavigation system. The surgery took place in France. To get a better idea of what was actually happening in the operating room, I suggested the website www.mayoclinic.org/awake-brain-surgery/brain-mapping,html Comparing the material which you sent me with the descriptions of brain mapping from Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, I find that basically the same principles are being used. If you see otherwise, please advise. Also you can check neuro-oncology on the website.
In post 337, you kindly provided excerpts from the paper plus your comments.
Following are your comments on the procedure and the paper’s conclusion:
The problem then becomes identifying the specific neural circuit which gives rise to the experience of free-will and intention, which he addresses in this paper. To cut a long story short, stimulation of specific regions of the pre-motor regions causes movement without the experience of an intention to move (or indeed an awareness of movement), while stimulation of specific regions of the inferior parietal regions created an intention to move and with a higher intensity of stimulation, a belief that movement had occurred, even if it hadn’t. Their conclusion:
“Our study suggests that motor intention and awareness are emerging consequences of increased parietal activity before movement execution. The subjective (and potentially illusory) feeling that we are executing a movement does not arise from movement itself, but it is generated by prior conscious intention and its predicted consequences.”
From what I have read, awake brain surgery is totally in the realm of the physical body beginning with its purpose which is to remove tumors which would normally be considered inoperable or extremely risky. Neurosurgeons use awake brain surgery on tumors that infiltrate brain regions which control functions like speech and movement; therefore, the risk of postoperative sequelae can be minimized.
Since the patient is “awake” under local anesthesia, specific questions are asked following stimulation with a bipolar electrode. Depending on the answers, the neurosurgeon maps the brain by marking each area identified as functional brain so as to avoid damaging these areas.
I totally agree that awake brain surgery provides an opportunity to study human behavior. The last three sentences of the abstract are key, i.e., what is being studied resides in the physical body and is not related to free will which is different.
From abstract: Stimulation of the premotor region triggered overt mouth and contralateral limb movements. Yet, patients firmly denied that they had moved. Conscious intention and motor awareness thus arise from increased parietal activity before movement execution."
Alec, the first thing the two of us need to do is to pin down the actual claim of this paper and then determine what subsequent claims can follow. In order to do this efficiently, I would like to know your definition of free will, both scientific and what may appear as a philosophical definition of free will. It really doesn’t make any difference if one believes in free will or not, we simply need to be on the same page in our discussion.
Please explain what is being referred to as “a spiritual non-physical dimension that overlies and controls the physical brain in humans” from post 464. I’m guessing that this is really a way-out illusion or perhaps a common misunderstanding.
Also, a clarification is needed regarding free will and intention as in your sentence: “Both our intention and our experience of what we call free will arise entirely from neurobiological processes in the brain.” From my reading of the paper, intention was used physically as in motor intention. The paper’s conclusion does refer to “The subjective (and potentially illusory) feeling that we are executing a movement does not arise from the movement itself…” However, even though feelings can influence choice, feelings are not free will.
Finally, going back to your post 337 – to your first quote from the paper, I would like your expansion on some of the “phrasing” because I am having a hard time relating this section to free will. This, of course, is why I see this paper referring to the physical body rather than to something which is intangible. It sounds like the researcher is saying that these intentions are the origin of willed actions. However, that would be a gross misinterpretation of basic free will. Even conscious intention needs to be compared with motor intention caused by electrical stimulation.
Furthermore, the question as to whether the decision to move preceded or lagged brain activity cannot be adequately addressed in relationship to free will until the decision, itself, is determined to be the result of a valid execution of properly defined free will.
Blessings,
granny
All human life is sacred.
A
Alethios
Guest
That would be a crowd of PRE-people, right? Are hominids/apes ‘people’ in evol. talk?
The thread challenge is to provide evidence for evolution; there’s no shortage of imagination and speculation…
This birdbrainstorm requires that the meaning of words in Genesis be trampled. twisted or ignored- such as day, side, face, sleeping man, slime of the earth, etc.
Pope Leo XIII addressed the creation of Eve in the Arcanum encyclical (Some modernists hold that encyclicals are literal, but Revelation is not! - God have Mercy) .
From Arcanum:
We call to mind facts well-known to all and doubtful to no one: after He formed man from the slime of the earth on the SIXTH DAY OF CREATION, and breathed into his face the breath of life, God willed to give him a female companion, whom He drew forth wondrously from the man’s side as he slept.
Of course, this just repeats the Genesis account in summary, but in modern terms.
Revisionists claim that the Hebrew yom is ambiguous and can mean long ages. Here, the Pope is using a dead language - so its meaning doesn’t change through history - to again state that the Genesis day is 24 hours, the meaning of dies.
See Fr Harrison’s defense of creation, brother cassini, if you haven’t already.
DID WOMAN EVOLVE FROM THE BEASTS?
Part 1
Part 2
Another gem from the Evol. STOQ conference?
Can one soul go to heaven and the other… oh, never mind.
Thanks for warning us… we are sitting down. Now if we could start moving from the land of evol. fairy tales in the direction of reality…
Is this a light we see at the end of the tunnel? Is there a limit to accepting evol. science fiction?
Even a saint needs help. We will do what we can.
Where was this claim made ==> a strawman set-up?
RC testing has shown that dinosaurs lived from 3500 to 40000 years ago; data posted before. This is what the line of observation/reasoning above can account for.
Repeated requests for contrary data has been unanswered.
AMDG
A
Alethios
Guest
This of course is opinion. Valid evidence cannot be balanced by invalid or missing evidence.
But opinions can be balanced by opposite opinions, since they obey no rules of evidence.
In the spirit of “fair and balanced” opinions, we offer that of Denyse O’Leary, author of By Design or By Chance, opining re TE and ASA and materialism at
uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/letter-to-thinking-christians-and-other-theists/
uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/american-scientific-affiliation-bright-guys-living-in-fear/
Some people have expressed deep concern over the sudden surge in anti-God/anti-spiritual activists, opposed to traditional spiritualities…
In my experience, a far more serious concern is the gutting of a spiritual tradition from within. Along those lines, be on the lookout for the following trends, whether in your church mosque, synagogue, or whatever:
- EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY …God, it turns out, is that buzz in our genes that causes us to leave viable offspring.
Now, how anyone could fail to see the implicit atheism in such a perspective is quite beyond me, but happily, it isn’t my business to figure that unhappy conundrum out. Only to warn that some fall for this stuff.
- EVISCERATION OF ACTUAL BELIEF, accompanied by protests of sincerity. For example, famous Darwinist Theodosius Dobzhansky is often fronted as a Christian. Here’s the reality. His convictions had nothing to do with Christianity. A prolific contributor to the American Scientific Affiliation’s discussion site on these issues, who is a Lutheran, writes,
I long ago made peace with the idea that God could use evolution to form our physical bodies. What was new to me, from the atheists’ perspective, was the idea that the intangible aspects of us, like feelings, emotions, consciousness, etc. (which I had equated with the God-given, eternal soul) could also arise (ala emergent properties) naturally. Thus, I’ve acquired a new-found interest in the fields of pyschology, neurology, and computer science as I try to reconceptualize the idea of a ‘soul’.
… Luther called the created things through which God acts “the masks of our Lord God, behind which He wants to remain concealed and do all things. This means, I think, that we shouldn’t be surprised if, among other things, human beings don’t contain any special supernatural component.
Is this stuff compatible with your spiritual tradition? If not, recognize the situation for what it is: undermining from within.
…My focus is the readiness with which the fans of Christian Darwinism flirt with dispensing with a supernatural component in the human being. I am afraid that I have never heard of an orthodox theology of the cross … that denies humans a supernatural component. That is, however,a pillar of orthodox Darwinism. I think that what many on the ASA list … clearly demonstrate is the slow rot of non-materialist understanding of life that any long and close embrace of Darwinism brings about. Mind you, I expect them to want to discuss just about anything else.
- RANDOM EMBRACE OF MATERIALISM. …did I forget to mention? Materialism will diminish and eventually close your worship centre.
Why any theist should do that today is incomprehensible to me, because the evidence is all in the theists’ camp. But tax-supported, tenured professors can say anything they want, and they certainly do.
Here is an instructive story about their true fate:
After eviscerating two new books that attempt to show that Darwinism is compatible with religion, Jerry Coyne, professor of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago, admits that they are not, and that declarations to the contrary have been a “dirty little secret in scientific circles. It is in our personal and professional interest to proclaim that science and religion are perfectly harmonious.”
The reason for this unedifying dissembling:
"After all, we want our grants funded by the government, and our schoolchildren exposed to real science instead of creationism. Liberal religious people have been important allies in our struggle against creationism, and it is not pleasant to alienate them by declaring how we feel. This is why, as a tactical matter, groups such as the National Academy of Sciences claim that religion and science do not conflict. But their main evidence, the existence of religious scientists, is wearing thin as scientists grow ever more vociferous about their lack of faith.”
AMDG
A
Alethios
Guest
On the faith issue: this is a Catholic thread, whose evidence is based on the Magisterium and primoliteral Scriptural exegesis. Christian groups that use personal interpretation of the Bible as evidence lack credibility here, as they replace God’s word with their own.
The RATE reference was used in Post 437 (not 436) only for their documentation of errors discovered in inorganic radiometric dating based on recent vulcanism, not for their theory of accelerated nuclear decay or any other testing …
Read the posted evidence again and please stick to the issue raised. No diversions, please.
Did we even mention accelerated nuclear decay? NO.
Did we mention Helium Diffusion? NO
Did we mention Radiocarbon Decay? NO
Did we mention Polonium Halos? NO
Did we mention Excessive Geothermal Energy? NO
Did we mention Isochron Discordances? NO
Specifically, post 437 used the data from recent volcanic eruptions to demolish K-Ar and other inorganic radiometries as valid paleochronometers.
ASA and Isaac say nothing about the volcanic rock dating contradictions; indeed, what could they say?
Where have we heard this before? On every Al. post… since post #1
When the Bible reads ‘day’ the modernists see “megayears”.
In Isaiah 40:22 God is said to sit above “the circle/sphere of the earth” . To the modernist this implies a flat earth.
In *Luke 17:34-36 *Christ’s Second Coming is portrayed as occurring while some are asleep at night and others are working at daytime activities. To the modernist this implies a flat earth.
The Bible says, " Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God". To the modernist this implies a flat earth.
The first half of the challenge showed that Copernicanism is contrary to faith and contradicts relativity, a sacred pillar of modern physics.
Scientific evidence supporting geostatism/aether and not heliocentrism is found in the Sagnac effect, the synchronization of the GPS and the tranverse Doppler effect.
Science cannot validate anything outside its testing range… like pre-historic events.
Theology only supports the “Adam” and “Eve” hypothesis.
Not even close to answering the question… a request for real evidence receives a personal belief about belly scratching elephants. .
AMDG
E
edwest2
Guest
Unfortunately, some consider human beings just another animal. Apes are referred to as “our evolutionary cousins.”
As the Catholic Church considers various theories of evolution (see Communion and Stewardship, available online), it clearly rejects those that exclude God’s direct causal action. This is neatly sidestepped here by those who do not allow a mixing of the purely scientific with religion. That is perfect for the atheist who believes that reality is only what can be sensed, but the Church, however, must guard the deposit of faith which contains truths as well.
Peace,
Ed
As the Catholic Church considers various theories of evolution (see Communion and Stewardship, available online), it clearly rejects those that exclude God’s direct causal action. This is neatly sidestepped here by those who do not allow a mixing of the purely scientific with religion. That is perfect for the atheist who believes that reality is only what can be sensed, but the Church, however, must guard the deposit of faith which contains truths as well.
Peace,
Ed
R
reggieM
Guest
ID theorists, and pro-ID scholars - Stephen Meyer, Bill Dembski, Bruce Gordon, Doug Axe, Robert Marks, Hugh Ross, David Snoke, Mario Beauregard and Richard Sternberg will all be presenting in the Origins mini-symposium at the ASA annual meeting at Baylor University this year.
ASA Annual Meeting 2009
Since, as you say, ASA has “no patience for bad science” … a review of the featured speakers leads to a very interesting conclusion.
You may want to consider revoking your membership now?
R
reggieM
Guest
That is exactly what the situation is.
Probably the most prominent theistic evolutionist in the world, Kenneth Miller states that:
“Evolution is a natural process, and natural processes are undirected … mankind’s appearance on this planet was not preordained, that we are here… as an afterthought, a minor detail, a happenstance in a history that might just as well have left us out.” [Finding Darwin’s God (1999), pp. 244, 272]
From John West’s blog:
Miller does say that God knew that the undirected process of evolution was so wonderful it would create some sort of rational creature capable of praising Him eventually. But what that something would be was radically undetermined. How undetermined? At a 2007 conference, Miller admitted that evolution could have produced “a big-brained dinosaur” or a “mollusk with exceptional mental capabilities” rather than human beings. [Quoted in West, Darwin Day in America, p. 226]
G
grannymh
Guest
Could it be time to reexamine the human being, especially his/her abilities? Could one ever think that something as simple as the power of free will would possibly override one or two natural processes that are currently be taken for granted?
C
cassini
Guest
Alethios, easy on, I’m on your side absolutely. I put up that account of Eve’s ‘creation’ - which I thought was pretty ingenious for evolutionists - just to see their reaction. Many years ago, I met a man who had researched the history of the great ‘scientific’ plot against the Catholic Faith purely from a need-to-know position. He never goes public, simply uses his God given intellect to assess the ‘evidence’ for himself so that he can enjoy TRUTH for its own sake. You know what, I cannot even get him to argue evolutionism over a drink or two because he has come to the conclusion it is so absurd it is an insult to man’s intelligence even to take it seriously.
I know he would be disappointed if he knew I was indulging.
One point he made was that there are two kinds of evolutionism, one is ‘atheistic’ evolutionism that relies on assumptions to tell their lies, and the other theistic-evolutionism wherein they get God to do their dirty work. ‘I would prefer to debate the absurd with an atheist any day that with theistic-evolutionists Pope John Paul II or Benedict XVI’ he once told me.
Talking about intelligence, he brought this to my attention once.In a 2006 issue of Science and Theology News William Hasker, emeritus professor of philosophy at Huntington University asks: ‘What is the evolutionary account for the origin of intelligence?’ He answered that in order to make sense of this intelligence, intelligence itself has to be something that natural selection can work on.
‘But if your thought has no causal influence on what happens physically in your body, no top-down causation, then your thoughts, your conciousness becomes invisible. Natural selection can only operate on physical structures and behavior. If there is no influence on physical behavior, thought is unaffected by natural selection and you can give no evolutionary explanation on how we have come to be thinking beings.’
If this view was reported accurately then it means intelligence has to be present from the beginning. But for evolution theory to have any credibility it must be able to show how human intelligence evolved…
You see then how it is theistic-evolutionism as held within the Catholic Church today, that keep evolutionism alive. Catholics simply use God when necessary to give credibility to atheism. That is why my friend said Dawkins has one big imagination but that it is nothing compared to the personal evolutionary opinions of the last two popes and their flock of followers.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Lots of lightning strikes along the mid-Atlantic ridge.
I guess you have photos of these underwater lightning strikes?Here is your answer for Alethios regarding magnetic reversals - they are a real problem for his YEC beliefs so he will thow out a lot of smoke to get people to miss his problem.
What a strange statement. Do you have any familiarity with geology? Any at all? It sure doesn’t seem so.
Peace
Tim
- Status