ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, December 05, 2013

The outdated Neo-Darwinists

As usual, I appear to be well in advance of the scientists. Isn't it simply astonishing that a non-scientist can so readily and reliably predict the inaccuracy and unreliability of the current scientific consensus? How is that even theoretically possible? How can ignorance trump credentials and actual science education? And yet....
In a paper in the journal Nature, scientists reported Wednesday that they had retrieved ancient human DNA from a fossil dating back about 400,000 years, shattering the previous record of 100,000 years.

The fossil, a thigh bone found in Spain, had previously seemed to many experts to belong to a forerunner of Neanderthals. But its DNA tells a very different story. It most closely resembles DNA from an enigmatic lineage of humans known as Denisovans. Until now, Denisovans were known only from DNA retrieved from 80,000-year-old remains in Siberia, 4,000 miles east of where the new DNA was found.

The mismatch between the anatomical and genetic evidence surprised the scientists, who are now rethinking human evolution over the past few hundred thousand years. It is possible, for example, that there are many extinct human populations that scientists have yet to discover. They might have interbred, swapping DNA. Scientists hope that further studies of extremely ancient human DNA will clarify the mystery.
There isn't a mystery here. The TENS true believers keep thinking that genetics will color in the lines of their rudimentary evolution-based models, but instead, the science keeps breaking their lines. All of the conceptual models are wrong. Pretty much all of the carefully calculated timelines are wrong. Evolution by natural selection is a red herring of a theory that was developed at a time when the scientific tools were crude and largely unscientific. So, it should be absolutely no surprise that the improved data being provided by advancements in genetic science is repeatedly overturning the conclusions that were previously reached.

"“This would not have been possible even a year ago,” said Juan Luis Arsuaga, a paleoanthropologist at Universidad Complutense de Madrid and a co-author of the paper. Finding such ancient human DNA was a major advance, said David Reich, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School who was not involved in the research. “That’s an amazing, game-changing thing,” he said."

The game will change, but it will take time. I am aware that most scientists are still holding firmly to the natural selection model. This, too, is as expected, as per Kuhn. We'll have to wait until all the Dawkinses and Myerses die off before geneticists with a sufficiently open mind can throw out the theory altogether. As it happens, they're already beginning to throw out Mr. Dawkins's signature concept:
Mendel didn’t expose the physical gene, of course (that would come a century later), but the conceptual gene. And this conceptual gene, revealed in the tables and calculations of this math-friendly monk, seemed an agent of mathematical neatness. Mendel’s thousands of crossings showed that the traits he studied — smooth skin versus wrinkled, for instance, or purple flower versus white — appeared or disappeared in consistent ratios dictated by clear mathematical formulas. Inheritance appeared to work like algebra. Anything so math-friendly had to be driven by discrete integers.
It was beautiful work. Yet when Mendel first published his findings in 1866, just seven years after Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, no one noticed. Starting in 1900, however, biologists rediscovering his work began to see that these units of heredity he’d discovered — dubbed genes in 1909 — filled a crucial gap in Darwin’s theory of evolution. This recognition was the Holy Shit! moment that launched genetics’ Holy Shit! century. It seemed to explain everything. And it saved Darwin.

Darwin had legitimised evolution by proposing for it a viable mechanism — natural selection, in which organisms with the most favourable traits survive and multiply at higher rates than do others. But he could not explain what created or altered traits. Mendel could. Genes created traits, and both would spread through a population if a gene created a trait that survived selection....

These days, Dawkins makes the news so often for buffoonery that some might wonder how he ever became so celebrated. The Selfish Gene is how. To read this book is to be amazed, entertained, transported. For instance, when Dawkins describes how life might have begun — how a randomly generated strand of chemicals pulled from the ether could happen to become a ‘replicator’, a little machine that starts to build other strands like itself, and then generates organisms to carry it — he creates one of the most thrilling stretches of explanatory writing ever penned. It’s breathtaking.

Dawkins assembles genetics’ dry materials and abstract maths into a rich but orderly landscape through which he guides you with grace, charm, urbanity, and humour. He replicates in prose the process he describes. He gives agency to chemical chains, logic to confounding behaviour. He takes an impossibly complex idea and makes it almost impossible to misunderstand. He reveals the gene as not just the centre of the cell but the centre of all life, agency, and behaviour. By the time you’ve finished his book, or well before that, Dawkins has made of the tiny gene — this replicator, this strip of chemicals little more than an abstraction — a huge, relentlessly turning gearwheel of steel, its teeth driving smaller cogs to make all of life happen. It’s a gorgeous argument. Along with its beauty and other advantageous traits, it is amenable to maths and, at its core, wonderfully simple.

Unfortunately, say Wray, West-Eberhard and others, it’s wrong.
The best part of all this is that Dawkins clearly knows it's wrong too. Not that he's going to admit it, though, not yet.
I phoned Richard Dawkins to see what he thought of all this. Did genes follow rather than lead? I asked him specifically about whether processes such as gene accommodation might lead instead. Then he did something so slick and wonderful I didn’t quite realise what he’d done till after we hung up: he dismissed genetic accommodation… by accommodating it. Specifically, he said that genetic accommodation doesn’t really change anything, because since the gene ends up locking in the change and carrying it forward, it all comes back to the gene anyway.

‘This doesn’t modify the gene-centric model at all,’ he said. ‘The gene-centric model is all about the gene being the unit in the hierarchy of life that is selected. That remains the gene.’

‘He’s backfilling,’ said West-Eberhard. ‘He and others have long been arguing for the primacy of an individual gene that creates a trait that either survives or doesn’t.’
They backtest and they backfill. That's due to the crumbling state of TENS. They're still clinging to natural selection, of course. But the TENS model is in crisis and it will collapse soon enough. It is even beginning to look as if we may get to see it happen in our lifetimes. Gene expression is more compatible with Intelligent Design than with TENS. We are not evolved, we are created. DNA is our C++ equivalent, and the womb is our compiler. Compile it differently, get different results. This is not New Age mumbo jumbo, but a scientific hypothesis that will be testable once we understand it well enough to become proficient in programming it ourselves.

Labels: ,

189 Comments:

Anonymous Truth December 05, 2013 3:31 AM  

Evolution is a fact. Evolution happens on long term scales, also a fact. The fact of evolution isn't up for debate by any sane scientists. It's testable and proven. It makes predictions and they are confirmed. Evolution is a fact.

The only thing being debated are the specifics, which this article is debating. No one with any rationality whatsoever could deny evolution.

Anonymous Toby Temple December 05, 2013 3:37 AM  

Waiting for this:

Vox. Don't cha know that science is self-correcting?

I wonder what these scientists are going to conclude when they find human DNA on a fossil a million years ago.



Anonymous VD December 05, 2013 3:38 AM  

Evolution is a fact. Evolution happens on long term scales, also a fact. The fact of evolution isn't up for debate by any sane scientists. It's testable and proven. It makes predictions and they are confirmed. Evolution is a fact.

You just keep telling yourself that, True Believer. It's only going to sting all that much more on the day you are finally forced to admit that your science-god is dead. Those "sane scientists" have been feeling up a corpse and trying to pretend they can find a pulse for decades.

I don't see how anyone can read your words and not recognize them for the religious mantra of a cultist. Repeating them over and over isn't going to convince anyone.

Anonymous Toby Temple December 05, 2013 3:40 AM  

It's testable and proven.

Please do test "10,000 years of evolution" on any lab today. I'll wait for the results.

It makes predictions and they are confirmed

Proof, please. Show us any documentary scientific journals that showed such a prediction based on biological evolution had been made and confirmed.

Anonymous kh123 December 05, 2013 3:43 AM  

Hilarity on the first comment. Maybe this random chance thing has something going for it, seeing as how spontaneous and spot-on that was.

Anonymous VryeDenker December 05, 2013 3:52 AM  

My favourite evolution "experiment" was where intelligent* scientists set up a computer simulation with parameters carefully chosen in such a way that (simulated) life may emerge.

*See what I did there?

Anonymous Smokey December 05, 2013 3:52 AM  

Does evolution even MAKE any predictions?

I mean, for instance, can you predict, using the theory of evolution, what kind of traits humans are going to evolve in a couple of hundred years? Are we going to have four arms? Eyes that can see as well as an eagle's? Be able to outrun a Ferrari?

So really, what predictions are possible to make with the theory of evolution?

Anonymous Toby Temple December 05, 2013 3:54 AM  

An evolution caused by intelligent design?

Do I get a cookie, VryeDenker?

Anonymous VryeDenker December 05, 2013 3:55 AM  

Am I the only one who notes the resemblance of the "artistic rendition" of the 400k year old hominid and what an Australian Aborigine looks like TODAY?

Blogger Bogey December 05, 2013 4:00 AM  

How do we convince young earth creationists that human fossils over 400,000 years old doesn't fly in the face of Genesis?

Anonymous Toby Temple December 05, 2013 4:05 AM  

How do we convince young earth creationists that human fossils over 400,000 years old doesn't fly in the face of Genesis?

That is not fair. Moses didn't have carbon dating back then.

Anonymous VD December 05, 2013 4:06 AM  

How do we convince young earth creationists that human fossils over 400,000 years old doesn't fly in the face of Genesis?

Why would anyone care? If they're not convinced by more than 6,000 years of written human history, they're not going to be convinced by scientific extrapolations. Especially since it makes no sense to doubt copious documentary evidence on the basis of an extrapolation from a single piece of documentary evidence in the first place.

Anonymous Toby Temple December 05, 2013 4:09 AM  

Am I the only one who notes the resemblance of the "artistic rendition" of the 400k year old hominid and what an Australian Aborigine looks like TODAY?

Interesting. So aborigines are man's equivalent of the coelacanth?

Anonymous VryeDenker December 05, 2013 4:11 AM  

Interesting. So aborigines are man's equivalent of the coelacanth?

Here's your cookie.

Blogger Outlaw X December 05, 2013 4:23 AM  

Why would anyone care? If they're not convinced by more than 6,000 years of written human history, they're not going to be convinced by scientific extrapolations. Especially since it makes no sense to doubt copious documentary evidence on the basis of an extrapolation from a single piece of documentary evidence in the first place.

Te Bible actually tells us of the men of old. That are not in the remembrance of mankind, Vox.

Blogger Outlaw X December 05, 2013 4:32 AM  

Everyone who thinks that mankind is only 6000-10000 years old can't read. I accept the premise that mankind is much older than science and the literalist's think they are. I believe they walked with dinosaurs.But I am not an archeologist.

Anonymous Toby Temple December 05, 2013 4:36 AM  

I believe that humans used dinosaurs like horses and buffaloes. I mean, I always thought the Dino-Riders were cool.

Blogger Outlaw X December 05, 2013 4:54 AM  

Well people ride elephants. Why not they could have used wooly mammoth tendons as ropes and saddles and large stick's as mouth bits. I figure a 100 ton brontosaurus would not travel too fast, but who is going to mess with you? heh? They were probably petty good ladder builders as well.

OpenID thealethiccrusade December 05, 2013 5:04 AM  

@Smokey
A specific prediction would be: take 3 species descended from a common ancestor, A, B and C. A and B split from a common ancestor AB a million years ago. AB and C split from another common ancestor 3 million years ago.
A and B should be genetically more similar to each other than either are to C.

Anonymous Rigel Kent December 05, 2013 5:11 AM  

Evolution is a fact.

Depends on what you mean by evolution. Many people use the terms evolution and TENS interchangeably. They shouldn't. TENS is a theory attempting to explain evolution.

Things like wisdom teeth and appendix's show that the human body has changed over time. And there are similar things in other creatures. The question is how. TENS provides one explanation. An explanation that seems to be getting more and more questionable as time goes on.

So if TENS doesn't explain the changes what does? I don't know. But you won't find the answer by pretending that there aren't any problems with the current theories.

Anonymous jack December 05, 2013 6:06 AM  

For an interesting and fun read on this subject you might want to read the Atlantis Gene and its sequel The Atlantis Plague by A.G. Riddle. These seem well researched though the conclusions are, as always, up for debate.
At first I thought the books were a kind of attack on religion and Christianity in particular; at least in some of the essence. Then I realized the question who created the creators?

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=the%20atlantis%20gene&sprefix=the+atla%2Cstripbooks&rh=i%3Astripbooks%2Ck%3Athe%20atlantis%20gene

Blogger James Dixon December 05, 2013 6:29 AM  

> Proof, please.

The last time I asked about that, Toby, the arguer pointed to some bacterial studies and claimed that the results there represented evolution.

And he may even have been correct. But there's a huge gap between single cell changes and multicellular ones. He made no effort to even argue that that gap could be bridged.

> A specific prediction would be:...

Except such predictions are never made. Instead they take the similarities and derive the approximate dates.

Anonymous PhillipGeorge(c)2013 December 05, 2013 6:49 AM  

Bogey, you don't. Bones are dated by rock layers and rock layers are dated by bones; beautiful bit of circular reasoning just there. The Sun, Moon and Stars might be 8000 years old - not too many YEC would lose sleep if anomalies in the genealogies obscured 2000 years actual history.

It is a truism of sciences that no theory is dead until the last proponent of it stops breathing. The Tetrads of 2014 might be your curtain call - who know?

Epigenetics has blown Darwin out of the water; even if Nephilim DNA hasn't. Truth is stranger than fiction, and the Bible, a stranger to a generation now living.

Anonymous Toby Temple December 05, 2013 6:57 AM  

Here's your cookie.

Is it oreo?

Well people ride elephants. Why not they could have used wooly mammoth tendons as ropes and saddles and large stick's as mouth bits. I figure a 100 ton brontosaurus would not travel too fast, but who is going to mess with you? heh? They were probably petty good ladder builders as well.

A brontosaur will require more than one rider, I think.

The last time I asked about that, Toby, the arguer pointed to some bacterial studies and claimed that the results there represented evolution.

I think that's just mutation.

Epigenetics has blown Darwin out of the water; even if Nephilim DNA hasn't.

Ah, yes. The Nephilims. I wonder when will Hollywood make a movie about us bring them back to life, like the Jurassic Park movie.

Anonymous PhillipGeorge(c)2013 December 05, 2013 7:18 AM  

Toby, it takes a dump truck to make a fossil. Sudden burial. Otherwise, like any road kill, 6 months later there is next to nothing left. Bones don't bury themselves or wait around on the surface thousands of years for thin strata to bury them gradually. Hydrodynamic sorting is how you get the layers for polystrata fossils.

One bit of hollywood, the Indiana Jones/ Crystal Skull got it very right. "the space between spaces" These things are coming from hyperdimensional "non places". How do you chart orthogonal to this time-space? An: You can't! And hence language doesn't exist for it.

Anonymous Red December 05, 2013 7:35 AM  

When I really dug into DNA I was very surprised at how much it resembled computer code . Subroutines, arguments, and modules called genes. All the stuff about so called junk DNA, and left over features just didn't feel right. More importantly all that DNA looked like libraries to me and the expression of the data(life) was a small part of the over all library code. That's something that should never happen with evolution.

Anonymous jasmer December 05, 2013 7:37 AM  

I'm waiting for someone to bring up Peppered Moths on tree trunks as proof positive...

Anonymous jay c December 05, 2013 7:40 AM  

A specific prediction would be: take 3 species descended from a common ancestor, A, B and C.

Great example of typical TENS circular reasoning.

Anonymous szook December 05, 2013 7:40 AM  

Bogey.....you want to convince me, then Carbon date the 400k sample and let me know what you find. My guess is that with a jedi hand wave they dismissed that test and confined contradictory data indicating significantly more recent dates for the sample to the circular file all nice and neatly prior to consideration. Another fact here is that we don't have a better grasp on how the radiological "clocks" work than TENS. Another hint here is that DNA has a stunningly short half life (~520 years) Carbon 14 is only supposed to be good back to 100k years or so and it has 10 times the half life.

Anonymous p-dawg December 05, 2013 7:48 AM  

"@Smokey
A specific prediction would be: take 3 species descended from a common ancestor, A, B and C. A and B split from a common ancestor AB a million years ago. AB and C split from another common ancestor 3 million years ago.
A and B should be genetically more similar to each other than either are to C."

Prove to me that you can state with specificity what conditions were like on the Earth 3 million years ago. I'll wait.

Anonymous bw December 05, 2013 8:03 AM  

I love the smell of (burning) True Believers in the morning....

Anonymous Doubter December 05, 2013 8:15 AM  

I don't see how anyone can read your words and not recognize them for the religious mantra of a cultist. Repeating them over and over isn't going to convince anyone.

I don't see how anyone can read his words and not see a perfectly reasonable stance. Then again, I'm not a sneering, triumphalist, god-bothering racist dimwit.

Anonymous VD December 05, 2013 8:24 AM  

I don't see how anyone can read his words and not see a perfectly reasonable stance. Then again, I'm not a sneering, triumphalist, god-bothering racist dimwit.

I only sneer because you're so contemptible. And I'm only triumphalist because winning.

Blogger Alex Curylo December 05, 2013 8:25 AM  

> I wonder what these scientists are going to conclude when they find human DNA on a fossil a million years ago.

Take a read through 'Forbidden Archaeology'. Several instances of anatomically modern skeletons, footprints, etc. dated in the multiple millions. Rather eye-opening just how much of the actual documented physical evidence needs to be disregarded to come up with anything resembling the conventional narrative, really.

Blogger Andre B December 05, 2013 8:33 AM  

Nephilim DNA? What? What have I missed?

Blogger Patrikbc December 05, 2013 8:39 AM  

Sciences confirmed predictions... How's Highs Boson thing workin out?
Need to borrow another super collider?

Anonymous Josh December 05, 2013 8:41 AM  

I don't see how anyone can read his words and not see a perfectly reasonable stance. Then again, I'm not a sneering, triumphalist, god-bothering racist dimwit.

I don't think Vox is bothering God.

Blogger Bob Wallace December 05, 2013 8:45 AM  

"Evolution is a fact"

Change within species - misnamed - "microevolution" has been noticed for thousands of years.

Macroevolution - one species turning into another - has no evidence whatsoever for it. I'm not saying it didn't happen. There is no evidence for it. Not only that, "scientists" don't have the slightest idea how it may have happened.

Blogger IM2L844 December 05, 2013 8:47 AM  

I wonder if this will incite a closer examination of Albert Perry's DNA. It sure deals a death blow to previously presupposed mutation rates. Let the goal post moving commence.

Anonymous Stingray December 05, 2013 8:51 AM  

While reading this, I couldn't help thinking how this is going to work out in the great masses. Most of us have been taught since birth that TENS is FACT, not a theory (as evidence by Truth, above). I have to wonder how many people can actually accept that, it is only theory and that it might be very wrong. However, the backfilling will save their brains, I think.

I started reading The Everlasting Man a while ago and what struck me was Chesterton's use of art to argue against evolution. Humans are the only creatures driven to create art. Has this ever been addressed by TENS scientists?

Anonymous agnosticly December 05, 2013 8:51 AM  

" We are not evolved, we are created. DNA is our C++ equivalent, and the womb is our compiler. "

Created... by space aliens.

Programmed... by UFOs.

Chariots of the Gods my friends. Chariots of the Gods...

Anonymous T December 05, 2013 8:54 AM  

Just to be super-clear here:

Vox, you don't believe in "evolution" at all?? Even micro-evolution/adaption?

Did God create tigers, lions and pumas separately then?

Blogger James Dixon December 05, 2013 8:56 AM  

> I think that's just mutation.

Yes, it is. But remember that to them mutation is what leads to evolution. I believe the argument was that it had mutated enough that it was no longer the same species. Demonstrating that seems problematic to me,

Anonymous RedJack December 05, 2013 8:57 AM  

That is rather interesting.

I have an old book at home about Neaderthals that was given to me as a kid. In the late 70's early 80's, they were drawn to look like an ape. Now they are drawn to look like my good friend who is 100% Bohemian. The understanding went from "These creatures were not human" to "Most Europeans are decended from these people" in less than 20 years.

Anonymous Stilicho December 05, 2013 8:58 AM  

Then again, I'm not a sneering, triumphalist, god-bothering racist dimwit.

Your faith in the flat earth of Darwinism is due solely to your misplaced belief that Darwinism disproves God. It does no such thing. Neither does the DNA research that undermines Darwinism prove God, but your fear of losing Darwinism as an anti-God tool is such that you simply refuse to consider the possibility that Darwin was wrong. It's OK. Buck up little camper. Just let it go. It wasn't a good tool for you in the first place. You were trying to disprove gravity with a feather.

Blogger James Dixon December 05, 2013 8:59 AM  

> Chariots of the Gods my friends. Chariots of the Gods...

Entirely possible. But that still leaves us with the "It's turtles all the way down" problem.

Anonymous Toby Temple December 05, 2013 8:59 AM  

Did God create tigers, lions and pumas separately then?

Is it really that difficult to consider that possible?

Did Honda not create Honda City, Honda Civic and Honda Fit separately?

Anonymous DrTorch December 05, 2013 9:00 AM  

An interesting article, but in the end, the phenomenon is described the same as it has been for decades, only this time it's gene expression (as opposed to mutation) that gives an advantage and is then spread throughout a population.

This may help clear up some flaws in the older theory, like the probability of a single mutant really changing an entire population (despite the author's description of eager suitors for the holder of the superior gene). If it's expression, than more than one member can express it, b/c it's available in the population's existing genes.

But curiously, it's still natural selection.

It also brings out other quesitons, such as interpreting LeMark's work. More pointedly, it is a desperate cry for a real understanding of genetics and genomics, which at this point are little more than magical black boxes for evolutionists to use when needed. Still, the interplay of genes and environment suggest that biology is far away from a true understanding, and the complexity of it all exceeds that imagined even 150 years ago. If anything, it's a more compelling argument for ID, b/c this is well beyond a simple abiotic synthetic route for RNA.

Anonymous Stilicho December 05, 2013 9:01 AM  

A brontosaur will require more than one rider, I think.

Even Harry Dresden needed a drummer for a T-Rex...

Anonymous Stilicho December 05, 2013 9:02 AM  

Entirely possible. But that still leaves us with the "It's turtles all the way down" problem.

Turtle Prime?

Anonymous Roy December 05, 2013 9:04 AM  

Bob Wallace; Macroevolution - one species turning into another - has no evidence whatsoever for it.

This is the same as the classic internet atheist troll shrieking there is no evidence for god. Of course there is evidence. Transitional fossils, ring species, etc are all evidence. I think the word you were really wanting to use here was “proof”.

Anonymous Doubter December 05, 2013 9:14 AM  

@Stilicho:

Your faith in the flat earth of Darwinism is due solely to your misplaced belief that Darwinism disproves God.

BZZT! Thank you for playing! You get our lovely home game!

You are correct when you assert that evolution doesn't disprove the existence of God. I accept the theory of evolution by natural selection because I find the evidence convincing. I do not believe in God because there is no evidence for it other than hearsay.

Anonymous Dr. Professor December 05, 2013 9:15 AM  

Might as well send Dawakins to the Inquisition, eh? I think all scientists should stop their work, and we should destroy all technology. Let's see how long the Bible-thumpers will last. Because if we let "Him" rule our lives, we'd never get anything done. Space flight, curing disease, computers...

Anonymous Josh December 05, 2013 9:17 AM  

Did Honda not create Honda City, Honda Civic and Honda Fit separately?

They all evolved from the Honda Accord. But they did not evolve from the Toyota Camry.

Anonymous Josh December 05, 2013 9:18 AM  

I do not believe in God because there is no evidence for it other than hearsay.

Define evidence

Blogger Markku December 05, 2013 9:20 AM  

It sounds to me like Dawkins is right, and the author didn't understand what he was saying. Namely, that the gene is what is selected as opposed to the individual or the population, or any other option. What actually causes the selection to happen in the first place is irrelevant to the argument. It is a different discussion.

What the author proposed, still selects the gene even according to his own words, so he still agrees with Dawkins.

Anonymous Salt December 05, 2013 9:21 AM  

Fred Reed timely writes on evolution again. Now he awaits his Nobel.

Blogger Markku December 05, 2013 9:23 AM  

Why would such an intelligent designer create something so idiotic?

Because.

Anonymous Roy December 05, 2013 9:27 AM  

They all evolved from the Honda Accord. But they did not evolve from the Toyota Camry.

You are right, in that internet retard “if we evolved from apes, how comes there are still apes!!!!1!!!!one!!” kind of way. See the cart, wagon, buggy, motorwagen, model T, model A…

Anonymous JI December 05, 2013 9:39 AM  

When Vox says that TENS is bunk, he he referring to the Natural Selection part of that? Or evolution period?

Also, when he says "Gene expression is more compatible with Intelligent Design than with TENS." I don't quite understand why gene expression is more compatible with ID. Would someone mind explaining this to me? Sorry to be the slow kid in the classroom.

Anonymous E. PERLINE December 05, 2013 9:42 AM  

Scientists are trying to close in on the truth of our biologic history, but the investigation covers a lot of time where no records were kept. The investigators may take many wrong turns before they find a correct one. Why be impatient with paleantology? It gives scientists something to do and by itself, it does no harm.

The study of human psychology is another matter. A basic emotion which we call "anger" has been implanted in our psyche, and this negative emotion is connected to depression, hatred, etc. Unless deleted (quite eay to do) it does a lot of harm.

.

Blogger cmate December 05, 2013 9:47 AM  

"Sorry to be the slow kid in the classroom."

No, that would be me. What does TENS stand for?

Anonymous CLK December 05, 2013 9:53 AM  

"I figure a 100 ton brontosaurus would not travel too fast, but who is going to mess with you? heh? They were probably petty good ladder builders as well."

Plus you can use them as excavators working for Mr Slate at the stone quarry. Yabba dabba do

"Especially since it makes no sense to doubt copious documentary evidence on the basis of an extrapolation from a single piece of documentary evidence in the first place."

Did I just hear this right ? .....

I don't actually think that the Bible would be allowed into court as "documentary evidence" .. at least a US court because of authentication requirements ... Italian court maybe... :) Certainly under an ecclesiastical jurisdiction.. :)

Anonymous CLK December 05, 2013 10:00 AM  

What does TENS stand for?

I am never sure myself.. :)

Toxic epidermal necrolysis
Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation
Telephone equipment networks
Transeurpoean networks
Temporary engineering notice
The Episcopal Network for Stewardship
Telephone Emergency Notification System
Theory Evolution by Natural Selection

Anonymous szook December 05, 2013 10:00 AM  

cmate - Theory of Evolution (hopefully by) Natural Selection

@Stilicho - "Your faith in the flat earth of Darwinism..." I really like that turn of the phrase....and so apropos since the modern "Flat Earth Society" was created and run by an Evolutionist.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 December 05, 2013 10:04 AM  

It is amazing how people still don't know the difference between "theory" and "fact".

Anonymous RedJack December 05, 2013 10:06 AM  

Alex Curylo

FA has a lot of odd stuff in it. Some of it is bunk, some is mistated, a lot of it is ignored because the finding don't fit the narrative.

Anonymous Eric Ashley December 05, 2013 10:07 AM  

For years I've been predicting that people living are going to tell their grandchildren, 'of course I never believed in that stupidity', and given how many Americans still don't, despite the blizzard of propaganda, and also the human tendency to make up nice stories, most of those saying that will be speaking the truth as they remember it.

The question is will it occur as A. New Improved Theory!! B. Velvet Revolution Preference Cascade style C. Madame Guillotine D. The kick off to some bloody war.

Anonymous szook December 05, 2013 10:14 AM  

@ swiftfoxmark2 so is that a theory.....or a fact you have there ;-)

Anonymous Carlotta December 05, 2013 10:16 AM  

For me, blood types were an interesting eye opener.

So were folk tales from many cultures about cannibal giants.

Then taking the Bible as truth......

Anonymous Chilliless Wonder December 05, 2013 10:16 AM  

What does TENS stand for? - see Voxicon link top of left side column on this page

Blogger stareatgoatsies December 05, 2013 10:17 AM  

Some scientists change their mind on something Vox said they were wrong about != Intelligent Designer. That is all.

I dabble in computer programming and "the womb is our compiler" is a very interesting metaphor.

Anonymous Carlotta December 05, 2013 10:17 AM  

For years I've been predicting that people living are going to tell their grandchildren, 'of course I never believed in that stupidity', and given how many Americans still don't, despite the blizzard of propaganda, and also the human tendency to make up nice stories, most of those saying that will be speaking the truth as they remember it.



Yeah. My parents didnt even try to defend the 70s. Disco took drugs to seem like a good idea.

Apply that to....now.

Anonymous Carlotta December 05, 2013 10:19 AM  

It is amazing how people still don't know the difference between "theory" and "fact".


Stop your intolerance!

Blogger Lud VanB December 05, 2013 10:22 AM  

"and also the human tendency to make up nice stories"

and it really doesn't get much nicer than " the super duper ultra macro mega powerfull creator of all reality has taken a personal liking in me"

Anonymous Carlotta December 05, 2013 10:23 AM  

I don't actually think that the Bible would be allowed into court as "documentary evidence" .. at least a US court because of authentication requirements ... Italian court maybe... :) Certainly under an ecclesiastical jurisdiction.. :)


Shall we run a search on when a Bible has been used in an evidentiary preceeding in American courts? Or at all? Or even to just establish a family tree or birth or wedding date?
Shoot, was it that long ago you used to swear on a Bible to testify in an American court?

Anonymous Carlotta December 05, 2013 10:24 AM  

and it really doesn't get much nicer than " the super duper ultra macro mega powerfull creator of all reality has taken a personal liking in me"


Which one would that be Lud?

Blogger JartStar December 05, 2013 10:26 AM  

and it really doesn't get much nicer than

Yes it does. My favorite is: "The universe was created by nothing, for no reason and now you should do what I tell you to do."

Anonymous Carlotta December 05, 2013 10:28 AM  

E. PERLINE
December 05, 2013 9:42 AM
Scientists are trying to close in on the truth of our biologic history, but the investigation covers a lot of time where no records were kept. The investigators may take many wrong turns before they find a correct one. Why be impatient with paleantology? It gives scientists something to do and by itself, it does no harm.

Right.
I own a bridge that I am selling at this GREAT price....

Anonymous Carlotta December 05, 2013 10:30 AM  

How does Markku always have the perfect link?

Blogger James Dixon December 05, 2013 10:33 AM  

> ...and it really doesn't get much nicer than " the super duper ultra macro mega powerfull creator of all reality has taken a personal liking in me"

Why would I assume it's a personal liking? If I'm merely a member of a group to which he's offering a prize, that's more than enough for me.

Anonymous Eric Ashley December 05, 2013 10:35 AM  

The argument that Plato is talking about a war between Athens and Atlantis at the end of the Ice Centuries (no such thing as Ice Ages) about 3500 BC, rather than an 11,000 year old story makes sense to me. Further that sin and death came with Adam, rather than death leading to Adam. That when the Bible said 'day' as commonly used in the Scripture as 'day', it actually meant 'day'.

I would be interested in a source for MORE than 6000 yrs. of human history.

Old Earth Creationism seems like a compromise with Bad Science.

Anonymous Stilicho December 05, 2013 10:35 AM  

I accept the theory of evolution by natural selection because I find the evidence convincing.

What evidence?

Anonymous Eric Ashley December 05, 2013 10:37 AM  

Lud, the Bible addresses that point, in the Psalms I think. It is one of the proofs of the goodness of God that he condescends to such little nothings as us.

And before you say this is impossible for a God to look in every person's life, wave hi to the NSA.

Anonymous TWS December 05, 2013 10:55 AM  

What brings in the trolls on these posts? How many are sock puppets? It's like putting out a salt-lick.

Anonymous Kevin December 05, 2013 11:01 AM  

Few seem to realize natural selection is a selective process, not a creative process.

Example: say you wanted to create a population of 12 foot tall humans. You could just kill off all the short humans, leaving the taller ones to reproduce. Eventually you'll get taller and taller humans, and as you kill off successive generations of short humans, you get 12 feet tall humans, right? Wrong! You could never ever ever get 12 foot humans by that process, because 12 foot humans do not exist. Natural selection SELECTS from a population, it does not create new populations. In order to get taller and taller humans, there would first need to be the genetic information already available to be SELECTED FROM. Make sense?

We could possibly create a population of 7 foot humans by killing off all the short people, because 7 foot humans do in fact exist. The genetic info for 7 foot tall people was not created, it was already there.

Anonymous JI December 05, 2013 11:05 AM  

Kevin, your example of trying to select for tall people is a great one! Thanks, that really makes this more clear to me.

Blogger JDC December 05, 2013 11:07 AM  

What brings in the trolls on these posts? How many are sock puppets? It's like putting out a salt-lick.

Salt-licks work OK for white-tail, I have found corn and sugar beets however to be superior (it's also good to mix a bit of oats and some maple syrup with the corn for the scent). Any post regarding evolution works a bit like that...the aroma drives the anti-theists crazy.

Anonymous Darth Toolpodicus December 05, 2013 11:08 AM  

"Let's see how long the Bible-thumpers will last. Because if we let "Him" rule our lives, we'd never get anything done. Space flight, curing disease, computers..."

Funny how now that we are at this end of the explosion-of-knowledge, we conveniently forget that that Christian worldview (as opposed to the pagan) provided the intellectual and philosophical underpinnings of the modern scientific method and practice.

Anonymous Darth Toolpodicus December 05, 2013 11:11 AM  

"Natural selection SELECTS from a population, it does not create new populations. In order to get taller and taller humans, there would first need to be the genetic information already available to be SELECTED FROM. Make sense?"

Not only that, but these 12-foot tall humans could still interbreed with short humans and produce human offspring.

Only after millions of years would some sophomoric 12-foot-tall researcher look at the surviving fossil remains of humans and then pronounce that the 6-foot tall skeletons are "transitional fossils" proving TENS.

Blogger Brad Andrews December 05, 2013 11:15 AM  

@VD,

Why would anyone care? If they're not convinced by more than 6,000 years of written human history, they're not going to be convinced by scientific extrapolations. Especially since it makes no sense to doubt copious documentary evidence on the basis of an extrapolation from a single piece of documentary evidence in the first place.

What evidence is that? "Copious documentary evidence"? Did they put a time stamp in the upper right corner of each item?

@Eric,

I would be interested in a source for MORE than 6000 yrs. of human history.

I would ask for the same. I haven't seen it. All I have seen fits with a world that is about 6K years old with a massive flood about 4K years ago. Not many really old human records older than Sumer and such from what I had heard in the past. Who has evidence otherwise, with validation of the dating methods.

Old Earth Creationism seems like a compromise with Bad Science.

Those who do it because they can't buy that what is written is really true are certainly compromising. What use is it having the Word of a God who never lies if the foundation is one big lie (also called fable).

No Santa Claus, but Adam and Eve definitely existed.

====

I was going to ask how they knew the initial data was 400K years old when reading the initial post. How do you validate that something like that is completely accurate when you can get similar "times" from modern things as someone noted earlier in the reply thread?

Seems like our "old earth" ideas are just as much based on assumptions and just so stories as anything else.

Turtles all the way down!

Anonymous Kevin December 05, 2013 11:16 AM  

Dr. Professor December 05, 2013 9:15 AM
"Might as well send Dawakins to the Inquisition, eh? I think all scientists should stop their work, and we should destroy all technology. Let's see how long the Bible-thumpers will last. Because if we let "Him" rule our lives, we'd never get anything done. Space flight, curing disease, computers..."

Are you aware prior to mid 19th century, virtually all scientists were eager creationists? Would you like me to provide you a list of them, as well as their accomplishments?

Anonymous patrick kelly December 05, 2013 11:20 AM  

Evolution of some kind has happened, is happening, and will likely continue to happen for some time. Nothing about this contradicts or disproves my Christian faith, or the scriptures for that matter.

The term "evolution" has become so ambiguously nebulous as to become an all encompassing theory of everything which renders it superfluous to understanding anything. The faithful raise their hands and shout "evolution" as if it is some powerful shibboleth casting down God from His throne. What a silly bunch humans can be.......(especially me)

"The only thing being debated are the specifics..."

yep. For instance, the origin of life or the universe ..... neither of which have much to do with TENS, no matter how little of it is demonstrable by empirical science.

Anonymous DrTorch December 05, 2013 11:21 AM  

"Funny how now that we are at this end of the explosion-of-knowledge, we conveniently forget that that Christian worldview (as opposed to the pagan) provided the intellectual and philosophical underpinnings* of the modern scientific method and practice."

It is a tragedy. And one I'll lay at the foot of church leaders who spent more time debating eschatology, origins and Sunday morning music styles, than equipping the saints to honor and serve God.

*And I'll even include capitalism as an economic underpinning which promoted the advancement of sci and tech, if for no other reason as a H/T to VD and his flawed assertion that technology advances don't require scientists, only entrepreneurs.

Anonymous patrick kelly December 05, 2013 11:25 AM  

" Space flight, curing disease, computers..."

None of which depend upon any knowledge about evolution. More silliness....

Despite the fact that I am more than skeptical about many of the "specifics" promoted as "evolutionary science", somehow I manage to write code for working software, understand and build electronics, and play some good blues occasionally. All the while being a bible thumping evolution denier. I'm f'in amazing.......

Anonymous VD December 05, 2013 11:29 AM  

I see Kilo Papa has tried to sneak back as Iknowitall. The trolls just can't stay away.

Anonymous VD December 05, 2013 11:31 AM  

I'll even include capitalism as an economic underpinning which promoted the advancement of sci and tech, if for no other reason as a H/T to VD and his flawed assertion that technology advances don't require scientists, only entrepreneurs.

Why, thank you. Of course, I do note that there was a modest amount of technological advancement between the dawn of recorded history and the development of science.

Blogger Lud VanB December 05, 2013 11:35 AM  

"Yes it does. My favorite is: "The universe was created by nothing, for no reason and now you should do what I tell you to do."

where is that from?

Anonymous VD December 05, 2013 11:35 AM  

I think all scientists should stop their work, and we should destroy all technology. Let's see how long the Bible-thumpers will last.

First, technology created science, not the other way around. You have it backwards. Secondly, Bible-thumpers lasted over a thousand years without science. In fact, it is science that has created the only serious dangers to Mankind.

If Man destroys himself, science and scientists will be responsible.

Blogger Lud VanB December 05, 2013 11:37 AM  

"Why would I assume it's a personal liking? If I'm merely a member of a group to which he's offering a prize, that's more than enough for me."

given the size of the universe and the relative position of significance of the human race in it, that's actually making a fuss over the difference between 1000000th micron and 999999.999999th micron

Anonymous TWS December 05, 2013 11:38 AM  

If grasshoppers have evolved an expression for living in densely packed groups, have humans? Feral pigs look different from tame but are usually genetically identical (leaving aside populations where some knucklehead introduced wild boar).

What changes do living in cities introduce and perhaps fix in our populations? City dwellers have lower trust and more crime and mental illness how much is due to gene expression (if any)?

People's behavior change due to expectations of their group. Is there a critical mass where the new behavior becomes the norm. For instance, at one time rural people would invite a person with car trouble into the house to make a phone call, most left their cars and houses unlocked, etc. Now you'll be hard pressed to find a place that's still true. People might be making us permanently less trusting (and trustworthy) through diversity.

Anonymous pdimov December 05, 2013 11:40 AM  

This recently got in the news: http://www.macroevolution.net/human-origins.html

After that, read this: http://www.macroevolution.net/introduction.html

If you went by the news articles, the guy seemed a crank and the claims seemed both extraordinary and stupid. However, both he and his hypotheses are for real. That is, he's a "real" scientist and the hypotheses are backed up by "real" evidence.

What I can say is that, in my personal opinion, this is the first theory I encounter that hits every note.

Blogger Lud VanB December 05, 2013 11:42 AM  

"Lud, the Bible addresses that point, in the Psalms I think. It is one of the proofs of the goodness of God that he condescends to such little nothings as us.

And before you say this is impossible for a God to look in every person's life, wave hi to the NSA."

no.. what is impossible is to believe that and not be a consummate ego centered nut job completely drunk on his own self adulation.

Blogger Lud VanB December 05, 2013 11:47 AM  

"I would be interested in a source for MORE than 6000 yrs. of human history.

Old Earth Creationism seems like a compromise with Bad Science."

what written history could there be before the invention of writing?

Blogger Lud VanB December 05, 2013 11:49 AM  

"If Man destroys himself, science and scientists will be responsible."


really? if we blow ourselves up with nukes, wouldn't that be the fault of engineers?

Blogger JartStar December 05, 2013 11:54 AM  

where is that from?

Every atheist I've ever met. They all agree the universe was not created by God, and there's no overall purpose to the universe. Yet, they have very strong opinions on what the theists should really believe, and how the theists should live their lives. When the theists will not bend to their will, they go to the political process to coerce people.

Blogger Lud VanB December 05, 2013 11:56 AM  

"Seems like our "old earth" ideas are just as much based on assumptions and just so stories as anything else."


actually those ideas are based on a wide variety of well understood geological markers which points to the world being a very old one and astronomical markers pointing to the universe being even far older. the existence of argon 40 gas for instance, the daughter element of the very slow decaying potassium 40 which requires hundreds of millions of year to break down.

Anonymous Carlotta December 05, 2013 11:57 AM  

given the size of the universe and the relative position of significance of the human race in it, that's actually making a fuss over the difference between 1000000th micron and 999999.999999th micron


Please provide the size of the Universe and evidence supoorting your claim.

Anonymous Giraffe December 05, 2013 11:57 AM  

no.. what is impossible is to believe that and not be a consummate ego centered nut job completely drunk on his own self adulation.

You say that like it is a bad thing.

Blogger Lud VanB December 05, 2013 11:58 AM  


"Every atheist I've ever met. They all agree the universe was not created by God, and there's no overall purpose to the universe. Yet, they have very strong opinions on what the theists should really believe, and how the theists should live their lives. When the theists will not bend to their will, they go to the political process to coerce people. "


I ve never heard an atheist say the universe was created by nothing or that this would be a reason for you to do every single thing they tell you to do. perhaps you could give me some exemples for me to verify.

Anonymous Carlotta December 05, 2013 11:58 AM  

which requires hundreds of millions of year to break down.

Pleaee provide evidence to back this claim.

Anonymous Giraffe December 05, 2013 11:59 AM  

actually those ideas are based on a wide variety of well understood geological markers which points to the world being a very old one and astronomical markers pointing to the universe being even far older. the existence of argon 40 gas for instance, the daughter element of the very slow decaying potassium 40 which requires hundreds of millions of year to break down.

Which is based on the ASSUMPTION that God didn't create the universe with some k40 already in it.

Blogger Lud VanB December 05, 2013 12:00 PM  

"Please provide the size of the Universe and evidence supoorting your claim."

the observable universe appears to be 46 billion light years in radius.

Anonymous TWS December 05, 2013 12:02 PM  

LudB
Now you get down to the root of your problem with God. Most atheists suffer from this problem, Ann was just the most recent obvious example until you. You hate God because you disapprove of God. He can't exist because he doesn't meet your standards.

'A real god wouldn't need or want worshippers' 'real god would approve of homosexuals, diversity, liberal politics' and most importantly, 'a real god would never let bad things happen to good people', 'those god-botherers are just primitive know-nothings who are misinterpreting fairytales'.

Now you may hold any or none of those opinions. Although you have written things that indicate otherwise. But whatever the reason the root remains the same you disapprove of God and resent his authority.

Blogger Lud VanB December 05, 2013 12:02 PM  

"Which is based on the ASSUMPTION that God didn't create the universe with some k40 already in it."

true...I also assume that the universe was not created 5 minutes ago by my cat complete with all memories giving us the impression that we've been here for longer than that...any reason why I shoudnt?

Anonymous B Lewis December 05, 2013 12:06 PM  

For a complete cinematic exposition of the revival of Nephilim, look no further than Gainax's anime TV/film series NEON GENESIS EVANGELION. There's a lot of truth in that show... plus teenage girls in skintight bodysuits.

Bonus: I appear in the second movie (in voiceover) as "Air Traffic Controller".

Blogger Lud VanB December 05, 2013 12:06 PM  

TWS, you are making statements about me that you certainly have not provided any evidence for. I have never stated that I hate God or resent its authority for the simple reason that I don't do either. I simply don't believe that people like you to the people who wrote the books that you quote actually have any idea what you are talking about when it comes to God's will.

Anonymous WinstonWebb December 05, 2013 12:07 PM  

God might exist. I can neither prove nor disprove that. But the notion that the universe is only 10K years old is ludicrous.

Anonymous Giraffe December 05, 2013 12:07 PM  

I also assume that the universe was not created 5 minutes ago by my cat complete with all memories giving us the impression that we've been here for longer than that...any reason why I shoudnt?

The biggest reason would be that the cat is part of the universe and as such could not create itself. But at least you admit that you do have assumptions.

Anonymous Eric Ashley December 05, 2013 12:09 PM  

,,,,consummate, ego centered nut job....Lud, if youj're calling me Messed Up, I'd have to agree with you. And since the Bible says that He has numbered the hairs of my head, I'm left with 'do I believe Lud or the LORD?'

As to your query about written records before writing, I'd say that's not a bad point.

As to your last point, let me make a statement: the Oort Cloud is nonexistent.

Anonymous Molon Rouge December 05, 2013 12:12 PM  

Then he did something so slick and wonderful I didn’t quite realise what he’d done till after we hung up......

Gosh, why not write romance novel!!

Blogger Lud VanB December 05, 2013 12:13 PM  

"The biggest reason would be that the cat is part of the universe and as such could not create itself. But at least you admit that you do have assumptions."

Or it could be that my cat is an incarnation of God just like Jesus. maybe I m about to add a whole new testament here...the testament of Ludwig von Grey. Of course I have assumptions...who doesn't?

Blogger JartStar December 05, 2013 12:13 PM  

you to do every single thing they tell you to do

Not so clever Lud, you either tried to sneak in "every single thing", but as you notice I never said that or that the universe was "from nothing" as the reason they tell people to do things or you have incredibly poor reading comprehension skills. Since I try not to ascribe malice to someone's actions when stupidity can easily explain it, I accept the fact that you have stunted reading capabilities that do not rise to a high school student as you cannot get through a few sentences without failing to understand and repeat back what someone wrote.

I'm not going to give you examples to your stupid, loaded, request until you can read and reply properly and admit you misrepresented what I wrote.

And now Lud, you get put on the spot by the rules of the blog. I will give you two examples from history which are easily verifiable if you answer two questions:

1. Do you think you fairly represented what I wrote?
2. Please find these two things in which I wrote.
A) "every single thing" B) that the reason they tell people what to do is specifically because the universe was the reason

I await your reply.

Blogger Lud VanB December 05, 2013 12:16 PM  

",,,,consummate, ego centered nut job....Lud, if youj're calling me Messed Up, I'd have to agree with you. And since the Bible says that He has numbered the hairs of my head, I'm left with 'do I believe Lud or the LORD?'"

the answer to that is obvious...believe me!!!!

"As to your last point, let me make a statement: the Oort Cloud is nonexistent."

when did I make a point about comets?

Blogger JartStar December 05, 2013 12:19 PM  

Minor correction, typo

B) that the reason they tell people what to do is specifically because the universe was created by nothing

Anonymous Dat Good December 05, 2013 12:21 PM  

......Peppered Moths on tree trunks......

Lovely,,,in a light cream sauce...

Blogger Lud VanB December 05, 2013 12:22 PM  

JartStar...this is the statement I was referring to.

""The universe was created by nothing, for no reason and now you should do what I tell you to do." which you made at 10:26 am. I did embellish by adding my own qualifier because I felt that was exactly what you meant by this. If you did not mean that, then I invite you to be clearer with your statements in the future.

Anonymous Kevin December 05, 2013 12:25 PM  

@ Lud VanB.

Can't believe you're still using k40 as evidence. Argon 40 dating is extremely unreliable. Argon gas has been shown to migrate both out of and INTO rock. There are so many problems it's hard to know where to begin.

Here's how unreliable it is: A volcano went off in Hawaii in 1800. the lava was k40 dated at 1.6 to 2.9 billion years old.

Anonymous Kevin December 05, 2013 12:26 PM  

Source ^ Journal of Geophysical research, July 15, 1968.

Blogger James Dixon December 05, 2013 12:30 PM  

> given the size of the universe and the relative position of significance of the human race in it, that's actually making a fuss over the difference between 1000000th micron and 999999.999999th micron

While true, that's beside the point. I probably matter even less to President Obama then I do to any hypothetical creator God, but Obama went to all the trouble of setting up special web site just so I could sign up for free health insurance. Well, at least that's what he claims.

Anonymous VD December 05, 2013 12:33 PM  

really? if we blow ourselves up with nukes, wouldn't that be the fault of engineers?

Nope. You can't claim that science is responsible for saving the lives that doctors and nurses save, then turn around and blame the nukes that scientists developed on the engineers.

Also, as it happens, the first atomic bomb ever dropped was triggered by the Manhattan Project's Associate Director at Los Alamos.

Anonymous Loki Sjalfsainn December 05, 2013 12:37 PM  

I do not believe in God because there is no evidence for it other than hearsay.

I must remember, should the day come that witnesses are brought against me in formal prosecution, that I should slay them beforehand. That way, what depositions they offered would be "hearsay" and I would go free.

Blogger JartStar December 05, 2013 12:40 PM  

I did embellish by adding my own qualifier because I felt that was exactly what you meant by this. If you did not mean that, then I invite you to be clearer with your statements in the future.

At least you admit your poor reading skills, but of course it's not your fault people just need to be clearer. You must run around incredibly confused in life if you think that, "now let me tell you what to do", means "do every single thing they tell you to do".

You are so incredibly intellectually dishonest.

As for the two examples: Mao and Stalin. Both qualify as they were atheists, and used the political process to tell people how to live their lives and what to believe. They even specifically they targeted theists driving them out, killing them, and destroying their buildings.



Blogger James Dixon December 05, 2013 12:40 PM  

Largely off-topic, but perhaps of interest to some of the Ilk. There's now open source software for hijacking drones,

Anonymous WinstonWebb December 05, 2013 12:50 PM  

James Dixon December 05, 2013 12:40 PM

Largely off-topic, but perhaps of interest to some of the Ilk. There's now open source software for hijacking drones,


Splendid! I look forward to seeing these damn things taken over and dropped straight into the ocean.

Though there is one striking potential negative. Any heinous attack done by Uncle Sugar will be immediately blamed on "hackers", specifically "right-wing terrrrst hackers".

Anonymous Dr. Professor December 05, 2013 1:00 PM  

" I look forward to seeing these damn things taken over and dropped straight into the ocean."

How very Christian of you... vandalism.Violence. WWJD?

Anonymous WinstonWebb December 05, 2013 1:08 PM  

Dr. Professor December 05, 2013 1:00 PM

" I look forward to seeing these damn things taken over and dropped straight into the ocean."

How very Christian of you... vandalism.Violence. WWJD?


Your presumptions are cute, Nancy.

Anonymous jay c December 05, 2013 1:22 PM  

How very Christian of you... vandalism.Violence. WWJD?

Now, that's funny! You've never read the Bible have you?

Blogger stareatgoatsies December 05, 2013 1:42 PM  

Nope. You can't claim that science is responsible for saving the lives that doctors and nurses save, then turn around and blame the nukes that scientists developed on the engineers.

Equivalently, you can't blame the nukes on scientists and then refuse to credit them for the lives doctors and nurses save.

Anonymous kh123 December 05, 2013 1:42 PM  

"A and B should be genetically more similar to each other than either are to C."

But if not, the dates and/or phylogeny can be reworked. Because cladistics isn't concerned with direct ancestor/descendant relationships.

Anonymous kh123 December 05, 2013 1:45 PM  

"Here's how unreliable it is: A volcano went off in Hawaii in 1800. the lava was k40 dated at 1.6 to 2.9 billion years old. "

Inclusion! Because textbook stickers!

Anonymous Jay December 05, 2013 1:51 PM  

It's all over now. Science and religion are
finally reconciled.

And thank Christ for that.

Blogger Lud VanB December 05, 2013 2:14 PM  

"Can't believe you're still using k40 as evidence. Argon 40 dating is extremely unreliable. Argon gas has been shown to migrate both out of and INTO rock. There are so many problems it's hard to know where to begin.

Here's how unreliable it is: A volcano went off in Hawaii in 1800. the lava was k40 dated at 1.6 to 2.9 billion years old."

Argon doesn't move through crystalized rocks and those are the samples that are used to determine the age of the argon isotopes...since lava flow don't contain any such rocks then using potassium argon on volcano eruptions is useless.

Blogger Lud VanB December 05, 2013 2:23 PM  

"Nope. You can't claim that science is responsible for saving the lives that doctors and nurses save, then turn around and blame the nukes that scientists developed on the engineers."


you say all the time that science is the result of technology and technology is the result of engineers...well it was engineers who built the atom bomb and the means to deliver it. you cant have it both ways

Blogger Lud VanB December 05, 2013 2:26 PM  

"As for the two examples: Mao and Stalin. Both qualify as they were atheists, and used the political process to tell people how to live their lives and what to believe. They even specifically they targeted theists driving them out, killing them, and destroying their buildings. "


yes...they were both atheists as far as I know...now all that's needed of you is to provide me with the actual statements made by either men where they justify their actions on the basis of their atheism.

Anonymous VD December 05, 2013 2:40 PM  

Equivalently, you can't blame the nukes on scientists and then refuse to credit them for the lives doctors and nurses save.

I agree. My objective is to make the dishonest science fetishists pick a base from which to argue. I don't care which.

Anonymous Giraffe December 05, 2013 2:44 PM  

now all that's needed of you is to provide me with the actual statements made by either men where they justify their actions on the basis of their atheism.

They didn't kill millions because they were atheists. They did it because they were not theists.

Blogger James Dixon December 05, 2013 3:08 PM  

> ...now all that's needed of you is to provide me with the actual statements made by either men where they justify their actions on the basis of their atheism.

If atheists reliably do certain things and non-atheists don't, why should anyone need to demonstrate that they credit their atheism for doing them? It's should be enough to demonstrate that they do.

If Christians give more to charity (which studies have shown they do), then what does it matter if they justify doing so based on their Christianity? They still give more.

Anonymous Tallen December 05, 2013 3:09 PM  

yes...they were both atheists as far as I know...now all that's needed of you is to provide me with the actual statements made by either men where they justify their actions on the basis of their atheism.

Does an atheist need to justify their action? If they don't need to justify their action (my implication), then an atheist can slaughter millions of people on a whim. You may view this as a good, bad or neutral action. If you view it as a good or neutral action then frankly I, out of self-interest, do not want atheists to play any role in politics. If you view it as a bad action, well, obviously Stalin and Mao did not care so I still don't want atheists to play a political role. So I ask again, does an atheist need to justify their actions? Why or why not?

Blogger Scott December 05, 2013 3:19 PM  

DNA is our C++ equivalent, and the womb is our compiler.

I like the analogy, but God has no need for a compiler, he codes in the raw. All the stuff in the universe, including the womb, is an artifact of our God given consciousness -- that's where the magic happens.

Anonymous kh123 December 05, 2013 3:34 PM  

"since lava flow don't contain any such rocks then using potassium argon on volcano eruptions is useless."

So why then, if I'm understanding this correctly, is there periodic discussion about the origin or transfer of such gasses within the mantle itself.

Anonymous VD December 05, 2013 3:48 PM  

they were both atheists as far as I know...now all that's needed of you is to provide me with the actual statements made by either men where they justify their actions on the basis of their atheism.

That's not necessary. I dealt with that ridiculous Sam Harris argument in TIA. When atheist leaders are hundreds of times more likely to commit mass murder than non-atheist leaders, we don't need to understand the mechanism of the connection to observe that the connection is there.

Are you going to argue that cigarettes don't cause cancer too?

Blogger JartStar December 05, 2013 4:00 PM  

Lud,

Even though your requirement is absurd as others have pointed out, straight from Wikipedia: "From 1932 to 1937 Joseph Stalin declared the 'five-year plans of atheism' and the LMG was charged with completely eliminating all religious expression in the country.[66] Many of these same methods and terror tactics were also imposed against others that the regime considered to be its ideological enemies."

He specifically terrorized, killed and harmed people in the name of atheism.

Mao didn't target individuals like Stalin did, but he did uphold an explicitly atheist state and:

Anti-Christian Campaigns (1950s)

Throughout this period, the Communists launched an attack on the Christian church and other religious groups. While researcher James T. Myers of the University of South Carolina says it is impossible to know exactly how many Christians were targeted for death, certainly many thousands lost their lives.

You could say that the Christians just happened to be targeted by an explicitly atheist state but not in the name of atheism or to further the cause of an atheist state, but you'd be intellectually dishonest. But none of this will sink in since you admittedly have poor reading skills and are intellectually dishonest.

Anonymous VD December 05, 2013 4:02 PM  

And don't forget the League of the Militant Godless, set up by Stalin in the USSR with the express goal of eliminating all religion. Probably caused by his mustache, of course. Mustaches are evil.

Anonymous Pinakeli December 05, 2013 4:04 PM  

When I see statements like this:

I do not believe in God because there is no evidence for it other than hearsay.

I often wonder what these people think scientific evidence is. Did you do the experiment? Did you witness it? Or did you just take the word of someone else who did? Or even the word of some who took the word of someone?

Isn't that the very definition of hearsay?

Anonymous Carlotta December 05, 2013 4:06 PM  


the observable universe appears to be 46 billion light years in radius


So that would be a big fat admission that you don't have an answer and don't know.

Noted.

Your opinion on everything flows from this.

Anonymous Carlotta December 05, 2013 4:12 PM  

I simply don't believe that people like you to the people who wrote the books that you quote actually have any idea what you are talking about when it comes to God's will.


You, of course, are more then willing to provide evidence for both what you do believe in and why you claim that what others believe in is incorrect.

Please expound on the evidence that proved to you that the Bible was wrong.

Then, please provide a detailed description for what you do believe in and the evidence that turned you into a true believer.

Can't wait.

Anonymous Kevin December 05, 2013 4:12 PM  

From Lud, "Argon doesn't move through crystalized rocks and those are the samples that are used to determine the age of the argon isotopes...since lava flow don't contain any such rocks then using potassium argon on volcano eruptions is useless."

Anonymous kh123 December 05, 2013 4:14 PM  

"Mustaches are evil."

Stalin: eviler than Hitler.

Science.

Anonymous kh123 December 05, 2013 4:17 PM  

"Isn't that the very definition of hearsay?"

According to Lud, it's empirical. Because it's based on a collective best guess.

Anonymous Carlotta December 05, 2013 4:17 PM  

@ Pinakeli


Cut and pasted via google from a legal definition of hearsay regarding its use as evidence.


HEARSAY EVIDENCE. The evidence of those who relate, not what they know themselves, but what they have heard from others.
2. As a general rule, hearsay evidence of a fact is not admissible. If any fact is to be substantiated against a person, it ought to be proved in his presence by the testimony of a witness sworn or affirmed to speak the truth.
3. There are, however, exceptions to the rule. 1. Hearsay is admissible when it is introduced, not as a medium of proof in order to establish a distinct fact, but as being in itself a part of the transaction in question, when it is a part of the res gestae. 1 Phil. Ev. 218; 4 Wash. C. C. R. 729; 14 Serg. & Rawle, 275; 21 How. St. Tr. 535; 6 East, 193.
4.-2. What a witness swore on a former trial, between the same parties, and where the same point was in issue as in the second action, and he is since dead, what he swore to is in general, evidence. 2 Show. 47; 11 John. R. 446; 2 Hen. & Munf. 193; 17 John. R. 176; But see 14 Mass. 234; 2 Russ. on Cr. 683, and the notes.
5.-3. The dying declarations of a person who has received a mortal injury, as to the fact itself, and the party by whom it was committed, are good evidence under certain circumstances. Vide Declarations, and 15 John. R. 286; 1 Phil. Ev. 215; 2 Russ. on Cr. 683.
6.-4. In questions concerning public rights, common reputation is admitted to be evidence.
7.-5. The declarations of deceased persons in cases where they appear to have been made against their interest, have been admitted.
8.-6. Declarations in cases of birth and pedigree are also to be received in evidence.
9.-7. Boundaries may be proved by hearsay evidence, but, it seems, it must amount to common tradition or repute. 6 Litt. 7; 6 Pet. 341; Cooke, R 142; 4 Dev. 342; 1 Hawks 45; 4 Hawks, 116; 4 Day, 265. See 3 Ham. 283; 3 Bouv. Inst. n. 3065, et seq. 10. There are perhaps a few more exceptions which will be found in the books referred to below. 2 Russ. on Cr. B. 6, c. 3; Phil. Ev. ch. 7, s. 7; 1 Stark. Ev. 40; Rosc. Cr. Ev. 20; Rosc. Civ. Ev. 19 to 24; Bac. Ab. Evidence, K; Dane's Ab. Index, h.t. Vide also, Dig. 39, 3, 2, 8; Id. 22, 3, 28. see Gresl. Eq. Ev. pt. 2, c. 3, s. 3, p. 218, for the rules in courts of equity, as to receiving hearsay evidence 20 Am. Jur. 68.



Atheists and Evolutionist are clearly relying on hearsay evidence that would not be allowed in court to base their beliefs in.

While Christians who believe in the Bible would actually be allowed to back their beliefs up with the Biblical and historical documents available to most people who can read and comprehend as much as my four year old (he is homeschooled so the bar is high).

Anonymous Carlotta December 05, 2013 4:20 PM  

yes...they were both atheists as far as I know...now all that's needed of you is to provide me with the actual statements made by either men where they justify their actions on the basis of their atheism.



Why Lud? Are you claiming that it is a religion?

Blogger KG December 05, 2013 4:22 PM  

Sorry, accidentally hit publish prematurely.

"Argon doesn't move through crystalized rocks and those are the samples that are used to determine the age of the argon isotopes...since lava flow don't contain any such rocks then using potassium argon on volcano eruptions is useless."

If it is useless on lava, then why do they still use it on lava? From Wikipedia, "One archeological application has been in bracketing the age of archeological deposits at Olduvai Gorge by dating lava flows above and below the deposits."

Also, in order for it to be meaningful, several assumptions must be met, including relatively constant pressure, and it is assumes the sample is at least 100,000 years old.

The creation model posits a worldwide flood, which would upset assumption #1, and assumption # 2 is circular. "our dating method to prove rocks are really old only works if we assume the rocks are really old".

Blogger JCclimber December 05, 2013 4:59 PM  

I would love to see the formation of a new species demonstrated in a laboratory. And replicated by another lab by other scientists.

Because, you know, this is supposedly the scientific method. And since Evolution as a source of life is touted as truth and not just a theory, it should therefore be testable.

Still waiting. And waiting. Been waiting a few decades now. and waiting. waiting.

waiting. dang scientists are about as tardy (and logical) as a hot 17 year old girl.

Anonymous Chairman Meow December 05, 2013 5:03 PM  

Probably caused by his mustache, of course. Mustaches are evil.
Could be that.  Mustaches are evil.  Hmmmm, but wait, now I’m confused, Mao didn’t have one.  I can’t think of anything else those two had in common besides atheism.  There has to be something.  Damn, oh well…

Anonymous Pinakeli December 05, 2013 5:42 PM  

@Carlotta

Thank you. That has been a point I have tried to make for years. To be told that the Bible is hearsay when I'm also being told that anything that Nature publishes is fact (reporters hearing from publicists, who heard from supervisors, who heard from someone in their department that the experiment was a success).

And they don't seem to understand the irony.

Anonymous kh123 December 05, 2013 5:52 PM  

"If it is useless on lava, then why do they still use it on lava?"

To be fair, I think what he was getting at was that it's useless on extremely recent lava flows, as opposed to deposits that have had ample time to go through the Lyellian motions.

Anonymous SirHamster December 05, 2013 6:53 PM  

"If it is useless on lava, then why do they still use it on lava?"

To be fair, I think what he was getting at was that it's useless on extremely recent lava flows, as opposed to deposits that have had ample time to go through the Lyellian motions.


Where ample time is defined as a period several orders of magnitude greater than written human history? Awfully convenient.

Wonder how many experiments they ran to validate that number?

Anonymous PhillipGeorge(c)2013 December 05, 2013 7:04 PM  

Quite right beknighted Hampster,

If you can't reproduce it in a laboratory it is a theory not a fact; speculation not data.

When it comes to talking origins though to be truly consistent with their genre they should begin their monologues with "once upon a time" and end them with "and the handsome former frog, took his reptilian cousin, into his homologous structures, mounted the stallion and rode off into the sunset, to evolve happily ever after. The End.

Students should agree and have their rewordings in by next Friday.

Anonymous kh123 December 05, 2013 8:01 PM  

" Awfully convenient."

I know, and I'm not defending it. Just figured this would be a point of contention if he/she follows up here.

Anonymous Marlboro Mao December 05, 2013 9:33 PM  

Tobacco is the opiate of the People you running dog lackey of the imperialists. Communist tobacco does not cause Cancer; only Capitalist tobacco does. Power comes out of the barrel of a cigarette. There is theist, and anti-theist, this is the Hey Gal Delicattessen which leads one to the Truth that Communism is Tobacco, that Tobacco is Freedom, that Freedom is The Five Minute Smoke Break.

Anonymous Toby Temple December 05, 2013 10:56 PM  

They all evolved from the Honda Accord. But they did not evolve from the Toyota Camry.

Does that disprove the fact that those Honda cars were created separately?

You are right, in that internet retard “if we evolved from apes, how comes there are still apes!!!!1!!!!one!!” kind of way.

Ahhh. The smell of burning straw in the morning.

OpenID thealethiccrusade December 06, 2013 6:14 AM  

But if not, the dates and/or phylogeny can be reworked. Because cladistics isn't concerned with direct ancestor/descendant relationships.
As far as I know they are actually just ignoring the problem.

Anonymous Carlotta December 06, 2013 8:51 AM  

@ Pinakeli

Your welcome.

Next time ask your opponent to define it and enjoy the agony.

Why do you think we do it around here so much?

Anonymous Friends of Carlotta December 06, 2013 9:53 AM  

To the "men" behind the men behind the men behind the...

In your supreme arrogance, you are still in error. As mankind regains the level of technology that was in extent in antedeluvian civilizations, we come again to ultimate dichotomy and war. You think you are in control, but you never learn.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. But the DNA of mankind has forever a fatal flaw: as it represents (with symbols such as words) its reality, it can never represent perfectly, and past an optimal point, the representation not only interferes with reality, but degrades it.

You are NOT gods... when will you ever learn?

Anonymous Pinakeli December 06, 2013 11:04 AM  

@Carlotta

So much time had passed since the original post I just wanted to snipe, as I didn't expect an answer from the original poster anyway.

The problems with working sometimes, I don't get to get in here except during breaks now.

Anonymous technochitlin December 06, 2013 12:46 PM  

As an (aspiring/apprentice/wannabe/mightbe) ilk I've read through this thread and find myself confused. I consider myself a Christian and think we were given the intelligence to perpetually broaden our understanding of the universe and our place in it. Beyond reading the Bible itself, what writings should I turn to to explain to me why I should distrust everything we have supposedly learned in our time on this planet? It seems many here discount every scientific advance man has made in his history; couldn't it just be that we have not accumulated enough knowledge to truly understand our place in what- to me, anyway- is a universe that operates on a higher level than any of us can comprehend?

Blogger Lud VanB December 06, 2013 1:07 PM  

"As mankind regains the level of technology that was in extent in antedeluvian civilizations, we come again to ultimate dichotomy and war."

Could we be furnished with an example of this vaunted antediluvian tech were just catching up on?

Blogger Lud VanB December 06, 2013 1:34 PM  

"That's not necessary. I dealt with that ridiculous Sam Harris argument in TIA. When atheist leaders are hundreds of times more likely to commit mass murder than non-atheist leaders, we don't need to understand the mechanism of the connection to observe that the connection is there."

you dealt with nothing of the sort in TIA...you simply miss applied the result of a study by a team of sociologists of the university of Hawaii to your working assumption all the while neglecting a wide number of key elements. Such as the considerably larger populations when compared with past civilizations and the coincidental rise of revolutionary communist ideologies along with the newly developed human ability to mass murder on an industrial scale. Couple this with the fact that the vast majority of deaths under those highly murderous regimes occurred as a result of malnutrition and exposure to diseases which were the result of misguided attempts at accelerated social re-engineering. Its also worth noting that the only 2 uses ever of the most efficient device of instantaneous mass murder, the atom bomb, was done by Christians against Buddhist civilian centers...which, using your very own criteria, would imply that if the crusaders had had access to such devices during their campaigns, their rates of human exterminations would have no doubt rivaled those of Stalin and at a time when the world's population was only a fraction of what it was under Stalin. Add to that the vicious predations leveled at numerous indigenous populations across several continents by mostly Christian colonists and which in so many cases resulted in their near to complete extinction and well...I m sure you get the idea.

Blogger Lud VanB December 06, 2013 1:45 PM  

"And don't forget the League of the Militant Godless, set up by Stalin in the USSR with the express goal of eliminating all religion. Probably caused by his mustache, of course. Mustaches are evil."


Or more likely the work of a megalomaniac mind obsessed with the elimination of any and all competing authority so that he would stand alone as the source of supreme authority in Russia. Stalin cultivated an extensive cult of personality around himself, not surprising given his training as a seminarian. He understood the subjugating power of worship and made use of that knowledge... and in so doing he was not unlike the Christian kings and emperors of the past who also endeavored to eliminate any pagan religion that competed for the attentions and adorations of their subjects.

Anonymous JoeyWheels December 06, 2013 3:56 PM  

"Chairman Meow

December 05, 2013 5:03 PM

Probably caused by his mustache, of course. Mustaches are evil.
Could be that. Mustaches are evil. Hmmmm, but wait, now I’m confused, Mao didn’t have one. I can’t think of anything else those two had in common besides atheism. There has to be something. Damn, oh well…"

Mao, Stalin and Hitler were short statured...?

Anonymous kh123 December 06, 2013 4:06 PM  

"Could we be furnished with an example of this vaunted antediluvian tech were just..."

Well, I'd figure as soon as you field the question about radioisotopic elements within the mantle itself: "since lava flow don't contain any such rocks then using potassium argon on volcano eruptions is useless." So, why then do geochronologists debate about isotopic content of such gasses, especially 40Ar, while still within the lower and upper mantle.

Blogger Lud VanB December 06, 2013 11:46 PM  

AR40 isotopes are found in crystalized mineral rocks . Geochronologists don't look for it in active and recently solidified lava flows

Anonymous kh123 December 07, 2013 2:38 AM  

As I figured you'd answer. So then, why crystals instead of basalt for dating. And why to the exclusion of "recent".

Anonymous kh123 December 07, 2013 2:42 AM  

...And the original question still stands: Why then do geochronologists debate about the transfer of such gasses - and their parent/daughter content - whilst in the mantle. I'd suggest you tackle this first before moving on to the "crystals over basalt; ancient over recent" question.

Anonymous FrankNorman December 07, 2013 2:03 PM  

How did a discussion about the viability of TENS as an explanation of living things turn into a discussion about nuclear weapons?

Its also worth noting that the only 2 uses ever of the most efficient device of instantaneous mass murder, the atom bomb, was done by Christians against Buddhist civilian centers...

So FDR's government was Christian now?
And FYI - Shinto is not the same thing as Buddhism, and the people of Nagasaki were largely Roman Catholic.

Anonymous Brian December 07, 2013 10:40 PM  

I don't see how anyone can read your words and not recognize them for the religious mantra of a cultist. Repeating them over and over isn't going to convince anyone.
===
You need to work on your self-awareness. Creationism is the thing that's usually associated with 'religious mantra of a cultist'. Those of us who recognize the Himalaya-sized pile of evidence supporting Darwinian evolution do not need 'repetition' to convince us of anything.

You seem like a fairly intelligent person from your other entries here. I suppose it shouldn't be that surprising that you have at least one enormous blind spot. But the complete lack of awareness that you are at least swimming upstream here, to put it mildly, contradicts this estimation of intelligence. When 99% of intelligent, educated people (esp. scientists working in the field) think 'A' and you think 'not-A', can you at least acknowledge you are in the 1% rather than the 99%? Someone who insists that everyone else in the parade is out of step might want to consider that he could actually be the one out of step.

Anonymous kh123 December 08, 2013 3:07 AM  

Bit of a suggestion Brian, given that this thread's pretty much run its course and assuming you're not a previous troll, is to comment on a more recent thread that deals with this topic whenever it comes up, or to email Vox directly (top left) if you're looking for a response or even a debate. Given the range of evidence you feel backs the claim, I'd figure the latter. And who knows, you may luck out and get a post dedicated to highlighting that Himalayan pile of Wunderstoff, in your own words no less.

Blogger Brad Andrews December 10, 2013 4:25 AM  

I got away from here for a bit, but I didn't see any note about documentation of older human civilizations. I would be interested to know what I have apparently missed if we have firm documentation on that.

actually those ideas are based on a wide variety of well understood geological markers which points to the world being a very old one and astronomical markers pointing to the universe being even far older. the existence of argon 40 gas for instance, the daughter element of the very slow decaying potassium 40 which requires hundreds of millions of year to break down.

Huge assumptions there. Plus our observation time has been very limited. Postulating that everything was as we have seen in our very narrow window requires a uniformitarianism that is impossible to prove and is rather an underlying assumption.

We don't know decay rates 10K+ years ago because we have never been there.

It is completely possible that time passed differently elsewhere in the universe if the center of the universe is not where we think, but that is something I have not looked into heavily and cannot speak with authority on at this point.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts