Coral Ridge Ministries and CSI

[Dimo]

Nineveh posted:

quote:
How do you determine what scriptures say?


Nineveh posted:

I read it.

Dimo:

Hmmm, that's what I do as well.


previous quote:
Is it not dependant on your own understanding?

Nineveh posted:

I think it's pretty self explanitory.

Dimo:

Will the wonders never cease. I think its pretty self explanatory as well. That's why I don't need "fundamentalists" telling me what they think it says is better than what I think it says.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by john2001

Which arguments would you like me to comment on?

Well, we could start with coal formation.

Basically Kenyon was speaking against his own work. He did not address the work of others. Indeed, if that Mystery program was supposed to be informative, why didn't they interview the leading people in the fields they were discussing?

On one hand you want to accuse folks of being "outside" their field, the next you want to accuse him of not addressing others work in the field. It was about ID. I thought you said you watched it.

Science is about finding out. That is what the people you call "evolutionists" are doing.

As are "creationists". Only in the creationist case, like Dr. Brewer, he can focus on the information he gathers and leave off with the stories when he writes about it.

So, as far as the "spiritual realm" is concerned, this is not something that science can evaluate. I know of know experiment that can establish the existence of a spiritual realm, nor of any clear communication regarding exactly what the qualities of the spirit realm are, and finally I know of know intelligible theory describing or explaining just what the "spiritual realm" is.

That's because not everything can be investigated with or explained by science.

I, personally have never experienced anything that I would call the "spirit realm". Indeed, it seems to be something more in the nature of a mythos, than anything that is real.

Your "conscience" has never "bothered" you?

Kenyon is a has-been. He is not a leader in his field anymore. His opinions are not in tune with the opinions of the current leaders in the field.

I wonder what happened first, losing his "leadership" or losing his faith in evo.

Brewer seems to be a decent scientist. I have no problems with his research. As to his little publication on the ICR page, I see this as an example of his *religious* beliefs not his scientific opinions on the subject of evolution. He certainly is free to publish papers on the failure of microorganisms to conform to a simple tree of phylogeny.

I guess you could do what I did, if you are interested in his work, read his bio to get the cites to his published work.

It is up to the biologists to fight it out, and determine what the next great theory of the origin of species will be.

LOL the next one? I can only imagine....

In any field of science you will find that there is a natural language in which the results are orgainized and the theories are communicated. In the field of biology, that language consists of generalizations of collections of representative datasets. The prevailing method for organizing those representative datasets for morphology is cladistics.

Without having a detailed grasp of taxonomy, with its extension, cladistics, you cannot truly say what consists of "storytelling" and what does not. Certainly, what is told to the public sounds like "story telling".

Sure I can. Especially when folks like Storrs points out the flaws. Or the fossils that are proclaimed as one thing turn out to be something else.

You brought up Martin Luther. Not me.

The point I made was one man broke the RCC's stangle hold. Sorry you missed such a simple point.

As to quote mining, the totality of so-called "creation science" consists of out-of-context quotes and one-liners. I assumed that you found the practise acceptable, and was merely doing what the creationist camp does.

So when did I rip a quote from an entirely different topic and toss it into our convo?

If you find this frustrating, consider the poor science teacher who has to deal with some smart-*** kid in his or her class firing out one-liners from some creation tract.

Well, sorry 'bout the behavior of public school students. Perhaps if they weren't taught they are animals, they may not act like them. C'est la vie.

The ID movement is, so far, a political movement out of the Discovery institute. So far it is all stunts.

Whatever you wanna beleive.

Ok. Its a short list. Neither Kenyon nor Brewer is discussing the majority of the theory of evolution. Kenyon is not disucussing evolution at all, only abiogenesis. Brewer is discussing microorganisms--prokaryotes in particular. Yet, it is to be inferred from their presentations that their comments are somehow fatal to the general notions of evolution in biology, which is simply not true.

And let's not forget that long list of scientists you've already blown off as unimportant.

The conventional wisdom regarding mitochondria which was assumed in the "Eve" study a few years ago was that mitochondria came only from the maternal line.

The mitochondria do *not* reproduce sexually, as does the nuclear DNA. They reproduce asexually, by division. There is little or no exchange of DNA between the mitochondria of the two parents. You get your mitochondria from either parent, but most commonly from the maternal side.

The fact that the mitochondrian reproduces much as a bacterium does makes it the idea clock for determining descent.The point is that the mitochondria are the ideal clocks for studying the relatedness of organisms. The nuclear DNA is the clock for sexual-reproduction related variation, which si what the Nature article is about.

And to be honest, I'll wait for more info from the scientists in the field

 

[Dimo]

Aharvey, you were not being very civil. Since you did not understand the connection between Nineveh's response and your original post to which she was replying.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

then you shouldn't have used the term external then. Better yet, better to drop the term Mother Nature altogether with all its baggage.

Ok, I'll use nature instead, now stop gripping about it

I thought you were implying that all was fine before the fall.

Everything was. The fall wasn't the only changes to take place 'tween then and now though.

So is there a connection or not. Sure as heck sounds like you are saying that sin -> mutation. the question is how?

For sin to cause mutation, all mutation would have to be "bad" (sin=death). All mutaions aren't "bad". Most are either neutral or beneficial.

And not trust human rationality and start believing things that make no sense... uh why would I do that?

I think there is more logic in men's minds being the repository for every inhumane thing one man can do to another. So I take it you haven't even considered the "whole" story you claim to know?

I'll take that as "I have no idea". I asked you a specific and you keep returning a generality. However, we know some sequences must be due to common descent - between you and your relatives. There's no programmer necessary to explain why it is shared.

You want to claim that "it works" as proof the code doesn't need a Coder? And further "proof" that because some are the same that assures "common descent". I don't believe we have enough info about genetics on this level yet to even begin to make that assumption. But since we are guessing, consider maybe God was the first to use "cut-n-paste".

nice.. hopeful monsters??? sorry but your scenario is bogus under any theory.

I don't remember what the name of it was, "spontaneous" something. Don't mock it too much, it was a theory supporting evo.

I don't want anything...

I don't believe you.

I go where the evidence leads.

Funny, so do I, now

because we can let them mutate sans effects... that's why we suspect those sequences that are shared among many taxa are important. The inference goes both ways.

huh?

Darwin needs to keep the good stuff, what is "good" or "beneficial" about "empty" DNA?

the mean of means is the mean. So we expect some wobble but my guess is that the average will settle in to where it is about now. So you're hoping it drops to what? Still you haven't answered why 94% presents a huge difference?

Wow... the scientists aren't really so sure about "the average will settle in to where it is about now". They thought they were but then the results came in

I'm not betting on a horse in this race. My position is we will be amazed no matter what we look at at this level because it's a whole new ball of wax

94% with over 60,000 differences in one chromosome so far

considering all the organisms that have gone extinct or or born with mutation or die before born... I wouldn't go bragg'n about anybody's handiwork.

It's worked quite well since the beginning Evo's beginning is still in a lab being worked out. (Amazing how long "random chance" takes to figure out, and how many man hours it takes to create an accidental occurance)

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Dimo

Hmmm, that's what I do as well.

And pray

Will the wonders never cease. I think its pretty self explanatory as well. That's why I don't need "fundamentalists" telling me what they think it says is better than what I think it says.

As long as you agree with God, what "fundamentalists" say shouldn't matter.

 

[john2001]

Originally posted by Nineveh

Well, we could start with coal formation.

Any particular reference you would like me to address?

On one hand you want to accuse folks of being "outside" their field, the next you want to accuse him of not addressing others work in the field. It was about ID. I thought you said you watched it.

It was supposed to be about biology, with ID being the new viewpoint. Yet, where were the discussions of the current viewpoint? What you had was Kenyon talking about stuff from 25 years ago, and not addressing the current issues.

As are "creationists". Only in the creationist case, like Dr. Brewer, he can focus on the information he gathers and leave off with the stories when he writes about it.

Brewer's work is important. It is basic mainstream science. There is apparently nothing "creationist" about it. In terms of his ICR activities, he is pretty tame. He hasn't gone of the deep end with anything. Hopefully, he will continue to play it straight and not go off the deep end. The best thing for ICR is if they would get a group of good scientists, who would be willing to play "loyal
opposition" to the mainstream views.

Your "conscience" has never "bothered" you?

Not lately, but if it did it would be a function of the chemical operations of my brain. Nothing supernatural there.

I wonder what happened first, losing his "leadership" or losing his faith in evo.

He plays his personal life pretty close to his vest. It seems that he lost steam in his research in the late 1970's. (Clearly from statements in his book _Biochemical Predestination_ he was not a fundamentalist Christian at that time(1969)). He stopped
writing papers after the mid 1970's.

(Brewer)
I guess you could do what I did, if you are interested in his work, read his bio to get the cites to his published work.

I did. He has a typical resume of a decent working researcher. Plenty of pubs nothing nutty. Probably an all around descent researcher. (None of his pubs are "creation science" .) If he wants to be "loyal opposition" then he would be doing science a service. If he deteriorates into the kind of propagandist that typifies ICR and AIG, then that would be a tragedy.

(next theory of origins.)
LOL the next one? I can only imagine....

The "Darwinian" evolution of today, is night and day compared with that of Darwin. It's just like Newtonian physics. Newton would barely recognize what we call "Newtonian physics" today.

(.Without understanding the language...you can't understand the subject.)

Sure I can. Especially when folks like Storrs points out the flaws. Or the fossils that are proclaimed as one thing turn out to be something else.

No you can't! This is another example of the sort of pretentiousness that you have been displaying. You really seemed to miss the boat with Dr. Storrs. For a time, he was in the proto-avis loyal opposition camp. Researchers do this. If there is a popular bandwagon in a new research topic, and there is a slightly less popular alternate view, then you will see some researchers adopt the less popular view.

He made a good call when he criticized the National Geographic for prematurely publishing the Archeaoraptor fossil. I don't know what he thinks now that several other Chinese and Spanish bird-dino (dino-bird) fossils have come to light.

Well, sorry 'bout the behavior of public school students. Perhaps if they weren't taught they are animals, they may not act like them. C'est la vie.

Education begins at home.

Discovery Institute ... political movement.

Whatever you wanna beleive.

all you have to do is look at their web site.

And let's not forget that long list of scientists you've already blown off as unimportant.

I believe that you we are going to have to discuss those one-by-one. But, yes, a list of names means nothing. (Maybe you are electing Mayor Daley, so you will need some of those dead guys.)

And to be honest, I'll wait for more info from the scientists in the field

Well, you can look up "mitochondria" on the net. You will see what the issues of mtDNA are.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by john2001

Any particular reference you would like me to address?

You would probably know best where you feel he is in error. If you don't think he errs in his coal formation ideas, perhaps you would like to suggest the topic?

It was supposed to be about biology, with ID being the new viewpoint.

At the very beginning, they expalin there was a meeting of scientists who did not like the current "mainstream" view. They had found enough evidence in their respective fields to come to a different conclusion, that meeting produced "ID". Which is what Unlocking the Mysteries of Life was about. What ID is, where it started, and what evidence they use to support how it started. I thought you watched this twice...

Yet, where were the discussions of the current viewpoint? What you had was Kenyon talking about stuff from 25 years ago, and not addressing the current issues.

: shakes head: What else were you doing when Unlocking was on? Kenyon couldn't resolve the problem from 25 years ago. Evo no longer statified the questions raised in this Scientist's mind.

Brewer's work is important. It is basic mainstream science. There is apparently nothing "creationist" about it.

Exactly! Yet he is a creationist. I appriciate a Scientist who removes his story from the evidence. He is a credit to Science and an inspiration to the rest of us

In terms of his ICR activities, he is pretty tame. He hasn't gone of the deep end with anything.

I don't think IRC has either, but that is my opinion

Hopefully, he will continue to play it straight and not go off the deep end.

I feel the same for you

The best thing for ICR is if they would get a group of good scientists, who would be willing to play "loyal
opposition" to the mainstream views.

You know, maybe you should spend a little time on ICR and read some of the articles there by other reputable scientists like Dr. Brewer.

Not lately, but if it did it would be a function of the chemical operations of my brain. Nothing supernatural there.

How do chemicals know when you did something "wrong"? And know how to make you feel "bad"?

He plays his personal life pretty close to his vest. It seems that he lost steam in his research in the late 1970's. (Clearly from statements in his book _Biochemical Predestination_ he was not a fundamentalist Christian at that time(1969)). He stopped writing papers after the mid 1970's.

I don't know that he is a "fundamentalist" Christian now. But I do know what changed his mind (Unlocking).

I did. He has a typical resume of a decent working researcher. Plenty of pubs nothing nutty. Probably an all around descent researcher. (None of his pubs are "creation science" .) If he wants to be "loyal opposition" then he would be doing science a service. If he deteriorates into the kind of propagandist that typifies ICR and AIG, then that would be a tragedy.

His work is respected by all in the community, yet you still insist on making any kind of dig, "If he deteriorates into the kind of propagandist that typifies ICR and AIG...". I say he is one of many who are his peers. You can't lay any claim against Dr. Brewer, so you try to discredit something else. He is a smart guy, publishing, researching, and teaching, who doesn't happen to believe evo theory. He's not the only one.

The "Darwinian" evolution of today, is night and day compared with that of Darwin. It's just like Newtonian physics. Newton would barely recognize what we call "Newtonian physics" today.

Yeah, I know. Darwin gave his own falsification, and when it was falsified, the theory changed. Either way, we still need to have a beginning. You need "nature" to do it, I need an Intelligent Designer.

No you can't!

Then you have no business talking about biochemistry. In fact, neither does Strat, or anyone else on this thread. Most people can understand concepts, should they care to.

This is another example of the sort of pretentiousness that you have been displaying.

Me? :darwinsm:

If I am unable to understand a concept outside my career field, what makes you able to understand it outside yours?

You really seemed to miss the boat with Dr. Storrs. For a time, he was in the proto-avis loyal opposition camp. Researchers do this. If there is a popular bandwagon in a new research topic, and there is a slightly less popular alternate view, then you will see some researchers adopt the less popular view.

I believe Storrs knows it takes more than feathers to fly.

He made a good call when he criticized the National Geographic for prematurely publishing the Archeaoraptor fossil. I don't know what he thinks now that several other Chinese and Spanish bird-dino (dino-bird) fossils have come to light.

Nor do I.

Education begins at home.

Yeah, I know

I went to public school and to assume 40 hours a week in that place doesn't have an effect is not an accurate view of reality.

all you have to do is look at their web site.

Narrow it down. If you have a gripe post it

I believe that you we are going to have to discuss those one-by-one. But, yes, a list of names means nothing. (Maybe you are electing Mayor Daley, so you will need some of those dead guys.)

A list of names could be used to gather evidence to either support or put down you belief. Try the top of the list, start with the living ones, like Dr. Brewer.

Well, you can look up "mitochondria" on the net. You will see what the issues of mtDNA are.

I looked up the article that said more work needs to be done to understand it all more fully, thanks

 

[aharvey]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Credentials vs. credibility

Re: Re: Re: Re: Credentials vs. credibility

quote from aharvey:

"To keep it simple, let me provide just one example of deception from that piece of drivel ... "

Clarified response by Nineveh

If you can't be civil, let's not talk.

Hmm. I would never have guessed that Nineveh, of all people, would consider my assessment of Brewer's piece (i.e., deceptive drivel) to be unacceptably civil! The same Nineveh who routinely accuses evolutionary scientists of lying, hoaxing, fabricating (39 times on this thread alone!).

Here are some examples of your civility, Nineveh. Please explain to me how these quotes from you are in any way more civil than my statement above (which, by the way, I proceeded to illustrate with a specific example) :


“It's obvious the homos have their work cut out for them in India.”
“Well, stop misusing Scripture to justify your filthy perversion then.”
“I guess it's an evo trait to waste resources proving the obvious”
“I will start by referencing Mr. Smith's post , and then ask you how many museum displays you have seen with the happy neanderthal family cooking dinner. “
“Neither do I I see it as a reason to become a pompus evolutionist.”
“What did I miss by using that time instead to dust, brush my teeth and breath?“
“Where did you get your logic, Sears? “
“I doubt anything he would say to you would stop your whining about any of it, but you could at least get the answers straight from the horses mouth.”
“Aww still whining about how you don't like the methods instead of dialing the phone?”
“Ya know, busy busy guy... It would seem to me the first thing you might do would at least offer flipper the phone charge for fulfilling your promise and offereing the evidence to back your claim.”
“You got the number and only enough time to whine... lol”
“(oh look ma! another pompous evo!)”
“Ok you win the prize for the ‘biggest blusterer’ on this thread.”
“Nah, whiners need attention, too”


I'm not asking you to justify these statements, just explain why mine is so much more uncivil than these that you can no longer bear to talk to me.

And then I'm still interested in what you think about the way Brewer manipulates his (no, other people's) data to forward his agenda.

 

[Nineveh]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Credentials vs. credibility

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Credentials vs. credibility

Originally posted by aharvey

quote from aharvey:

"To keep it simple, let me provide just one example of deception from that piece of drivel ... "

I got sick of wading through your "opinion" to get to any points you were trying to make. If it's too much to ask, then what harm in not conversing?

Hmm. I would never have guessed that Nineveh, of all people, would consider my assessment of Brewer's piece (i.e., deceptive drivel) to be unacceptably civil! The same Nineveh who routinely accuses evolutionary scientists of lying, hoaxing, fabricating (39 times on this thread alone!).

Which hoax did I site that really isn't?

Here are some examples of your civility, Nineveh. Please explain to me how these quotes from you are in any way more civil than my statement above (which, by the way, I proceeded to illustrate with a specific example) :

You have had a 'tude since you have been on this thread.

“It's obvious the homos have their work cut out for them in India.”

“Well, stop misusing Scripture to justify your filthy perversion then.”

Do you really want to get into a discussion about judgement? Do you understand the fundamentals of it?

“I guess it's an evo trait to waste resources proving the obvious”

“I will start by referencing Mr. Smith's post , and then ask you how many museum displays you have seen with the happy neanderthal family cooking dinner. “

These are rude? In what way?

“Neither do I I see it as a reason to become a pompus evolutionist.”

That was in response to a comment made in the same tone.

“What did I miss by using that time instead to dust, brush my teeth and breath?“

I'd still like an answer to that question, or do you recall what it was about after all this time?

“Where did you get your logic, Sears? “

I'm still waiting to know where acceptable news sources come from, especially concerning the chromosome comparisons since Nature.com doesn't seem to meet with your approval either.

“I doubt anything he would say to you would stop your whining about any of it, but you could at least get the answers straight from the horses mouth.”

“Aww still whining about how you don't like the methods instead of dialing the phone?”

“You got the number and only enough time to whine... lol”

“Nah, whiners need attention, too”

How long should we all be subjected to the same questions that can be answered simply by a little gumption?

“Ya know, busy busy guy... It would seem to me the first thing you might do would at least offer flipper the phone charge for fulfilling your promise and offereing the evidence to back your claim.”

I still think you should, toll calls cost $. That exibit will be coming through my area in '05, btw

“(oh look ma! another pompous evo!)”

In reply to attitude.

“Ok you win the prize for the ‘biggest blusterer’ on this thread.”

Was that to you? And if so, in reply to what?

I'm not asking you to justify these statements, just explain why mine is so much more uncivil than these that you can no longer bear to talk to me.

Either you can control yourself and we can talk (like Flipper, Dimo, Strat, john and I are) or not. Strat and I had this same convo not too long ago, now we have a nice working "relationship". And to me, that is a very pleasent thing, Strat is a smart guy But, it's up to you.

And then I'm still interested in what you think about the way Brewer manipulates his (no, other people's) data to forward his agenda.

How do you feel he "manipulated" data?

 

[Dimo]

Nineveh posted:

As long as you agree with God, what "fundamentalists" say shouldn't matter.

Dimo:

I agree with God, at least about the things I am aware. And that is why I will remain outspoken against any efforts to force any specific religious paradigm on anyone. And its not what they say that bothers me, but what that implies for their efforts in the future. Nor would I be bothererd if many of them didn't try to represent their interpretation of the Bible as the "only" way. They love to use this passage "The only way to Father is through me" to imply that their interpretation is the same as Jesus's way. I do not agree.

Also they love to claim that their "literalist tendency" when interpreting the Genesis is somehow more truthful than the metaphorical power of scripture. They then dress up their socio-political agenda as science, support it with fear, and attempt to force their views upon everyone else via the material sciences and legislation.

All the while never building any real logical support for their own theological or scientific views. They avoid or ignore criticisms of their own scientific model and religious paradigm, while focusing most if not all of their attention on the naturalistic model of the material sciences and the less "orthodox" religious people who accept science for what science is. Namely a work in progress. Science does not claim absolute knowledge, yet many "fundamentalist" advocates claim that it does. Science only claims that it is self-correcting.

 

[aharvey]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Credentials vs. credibility

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Credentials vs. credibility

Originally posted by Nineveh

I got sick of wading through your "opinion" to get to any points you were trying to make. If it's too much to ask, then what harm in not conversing?

Good to put the word "opinion" in quotes. My complaint about the Brewer article was grounded in basic mathematics, so isn't really an "opinion" per se.

Originally posted by Nineveh

Which hoax did I site that really isn't?
...
You have had a 'tude since you have been on this thread.
...
Do you really want to get into a discussion about judgement? Do you understand the fundamentals of it?
...
These are rude? In what way?
...
That was in response to a comment made in the same tone.
...
I'd still like an answer to that question, or do you recall what it was about after all this time?
...
I'm still waiting to know where acceptable news sources come from, especially concerning the chromosome comparisons since Nature.com doesn't seem to meet with your approval either.
...
How long should we all be subjected to the same questions that can be answered simply by a little gumption?
...
I still think you should, toll calls cost $. That exibit will be coming through my area in '05, btw
...
In reply to attitude.
...
Was that to you? And if so, in reply to what?

So despite my request, you're defending the "truth" behind your original remarks. Does that mean that you would categorize those remarks as being civil? Or are you saying that incivility is okay as long as you are in the right?

Originally posted by Nineveh

Either you can control yourself and we can talk (like Flipper, Dimo, Strat, john and I are) or not. Strat and I had this same convo not too long ago, now we have a nice working "relationship". And to me, that is a very pleasent thing, Strat is a smart guy But, it's up to you.

So why are you exempt from self-control? Is it because you know you are right? Or do you honestly view your remarks as civil, and mine as uncivil? That would be curious. It's hard to find a post of yours that you don't insult someone. You'd have to look hard to find me calling people I disagree with liars, frauds, pompous, blusterers, whiners, filthy perverts, etc. And when I am pushed to the point of making an unflattering assessment, I daresay I back it up! And even in these cases, how often do I stoop to the name-calling bit?

Originally posted by Nineveh

How do you feel he "manipulated" data?

That was the point of my post that you have so far refused to consider. I can present my argument in another fashion here, but be forewarned that I'm dealing with his data and analysis.

Brewer claims that Darwinian evolution predicts that closely related organisms should have very similar gene sequences, and claimed that the fact that E. coli, Haemophilus, Synechocystis and Mycoplasma share only 111 proteins (2.6% of E. coli’s 4228) falsifies that prediction. But there’s really no way he could have done this comparison ‘honestly;’ i.e., choosing these 4 bacteria a priori out of the list of 14 he provides, and then looking for proteins found in all 4 without making any pairwise comparisons first. For example, 1130 of the 1703 Haemophilus sequences have E. coli homologues. That’s 66.4%, a value 25 times larger than his 2.6% value. Why doesn’t Brewer mention this? Of course, Brewer calculates his percentages in terms of the largest sequence (E. coli), which reduces the Haemophilus-E. coli overlap to 1130 out of 4,228 or 26.7%. We’ll get back to that in a minute, but 26.7% is still 10 times larger than the 2.6% value he provides. But what happens if you add another taxon, and ask how many sequences all three share? Well, the percentages can only go down as you add more taxa to the mix. (Think about it; if you added to your comparison a bacteria whose sequence was absolutely identical to that of E. coli, the percentage of proteins shared by the group would stay exactly the same.) So the only reason Brewer adds Synechocystis (a cyanobacteria, no less!) is that it will lower the percentage of proteins shared by the group.

But the best part occurs when you add Mycoplasma, which has only 468 proteins. Even if every single one of those 468 are found in E. coli, by framing it the way Brewer does, you would get a similarity of only 468/4228, or 11.1% in this pairwise comparison. But since Brewer's not asking how many E. coli proteins does Mycoplasma share, but how many E. coli proteins are found in Mycoplasma AND E. coli AND Synechocystis AND Haemophilus, then he's pretty much guaranteed that the percentage will be vanishingly small, ragardless of whether the four taxa share a common ancestor or not (see my test example, in which the four students did get subsets of the same original test).

Thus, when I say that Brewer manipulated the data, I mean he almost certainly chose the number and identify of taxa so as to generate a very low similarity value in an attempt to cast doubt on the idea of descent with modification.

 

[Dimo]

Nineveh posted:

Either you can control yourself and we can talk (like Flipper, Dimo, Strat, john and I are) or not. Strat and I had this same convo not too long ago, now we have a nice working "relationship". And to me, that is a very pleasent thing, Strat is a smart guy But, it's up to you.

Dimo:

No Nineveh, it is up to you. The only reason you and I are being "civil" to each other now is because you changed your strategy. I am usually tolerant and respectful of all people. Only with some people my tolerance and respect is confronted with righteous indignation and inflammatory remarks. You started of this exchange with infalmmatory comments about those who choose naturalistic explanations over "supernatural" explanations for origins. I rebuked you with my own accusations of dishonesty. I followed you in suit, because sometimes it is better to fight fire with fire. Then when you saw that your strategy of intimidation was not working, you changed your tune.

Also about a month ago on this thread you claimed that aharvey was the most civil and tolerant of those who oppose your view. Was this the truth, or was it a ploy?

If it was the truth, then the only thing I can say is that aharvey's frustration is due to your whole methodolgy and attempts to win this debate. You do not seem to be searching for truth, but rather you seem to be trying to win a game by any means possible. It took only a few of your posts for me see your intentions. To be perfectly honest your intentions and strategy seriously undermine your credibility.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Dimo
I agree with God, at least about the things I am aware. And that is why I will remain outspoken against any efforts to force any specific religious paradigm on anyone.

In the realm of science, I wasn't aware anyone was, unless you consider evo a religion.

And its not what they say that bothers me, but what that implies for their efforts in the future. Nor would I be bothererd if many of them didn't try to represent their interpretation of the Bible as the "only" way.

I hear that a lot from pagans.

They love to use this passage "The only way to Father is through me" to imply that their interpretation is the same as Jesus's way. I do not agree.

Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Also they love to claim that their "literalist tendency" when interpreting the Genesis is somehow more truthful than the metaphorical power of scripture. They then dress up their socio-political agenda as science, support it with fear, and attempt to force their views upon everyone else via the material sciences and legislation.

Most pagans just claim to use "pagan precepts" to define what God says. His Word is clear, it's usually men who try to make His Word say something other than what it says to benefit them in their sins.

As far as I know, Unlocking has only been shown on PBS a couple of times. Has there been more creationist view points in the "mainstream"? No. Public school? No.

All the while never building any real logical support for their own theological or scientific views.

Hardly. One has to look for it, but it's out there. The pity of it all is brilliant guys like Dr. Brewer don't have many outlets for his ideas in this area. If you haven't yet, watch Unlocking the Mysteries of Life.

They avoid or ignore criticisms of their own scientific model and religious paradigm, while focusing most if not all of their attention on the naturalistic model of the material sciences and the less "orthodox" religious people who accept science for what science is.

How so?

Namely a work in progress. Science does not claim absolute knowledge, yet many "fundamentalist" advocates claim that it does. Science only claims that it is self-correcting.

Most God fearing folk I know think of science as a tool to explore, understand, and figure out how things work. It seems it's evo that has a hard time sharing the arena of ideas.

No Nineveh, it is up to you. The only reason you and I are being "civil" to each other now is because you changed your strategy.

The only thing that has changed is you aren't trying to get me to buy your definition of "junk DNA".

I am usually tolerant and respectful of all people. Only with some people my tolerance and respect is confronted with righteous indignation and inflammatory remarks.

If that is how you see my resistance to your definitions, I'm sorry.

You started of this exchange with infalmmatory comments about those who choose naturalistic explanations over "supernatural" explanations for origins.

Actually I started this thread with good news for creationists/ID folks.

I rebuked you with my own accusations of dishonesty.

What? For posting the real definition of "junk DNA"?

I followed you in suit, because sometimes it is better to fight fire with fire. Then when you saw that your strategy of intimidation was not working, you changed your tune.

No, you quit talking to me for a while. Then you started up another convo. If you try to pass off more "Dimo definitions", expect more resistance.

Also about a month ago on this thread you claimed that aharvey was the most civil and tolerant of those who oppose your view. Was this the truth, or was it a ploy?

I thought I said that about Strat and Flipper.

If it was the truth,

Perhaps you would like to dig back through this thread and find out before you say something in error.

 

[Nineveh]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Credentials vs. credibility

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Credentials vs. credibility

Originally posted by aharvey
So despite my request, you're defending the "truth" behind your original remarks. Does that mean that you would categorize those remarks as being civil? Or are you saying that incivility is okay as long as you are in the right?

Odd, you didn't bother to reply to any of the comments. Had I blown off each comment, you would accuse me of something else.

So why are you exempt from self-control?

I wasn't aware I had lost control over myself.

Is it because you know you are right? Or do you honestly view your remarks as civil, and mine as uncivil?

I think most evos have an attitude. It's pretty evident on this thread.

That would be curious. It's hard to find a post of yours that you don't insult someone. You'd have to look hard to find me calling people I disagree with liars, frauds, pompous, blusterers, whiners, filthy perverts, etc. And when I am pushed to the point of making an unflattering assessment, I daresay I back it up! And even in these cases, how often do I stoop to the name-calling bit?

Oh please.

You exude arrogance.

As for filthy perverts (beanieboy in this case), if you want to debate the sexual perversion of sodomy, make a thread in another forum.

Anyway, you didn't tell me which hoax really wasn't a hoax. (Or what is acceptable quote worthy sources in your opinion)

That was the point of my post that you have so far refused to consider. I can present my argument in another fashion here, but be forewarned that I'm dealing with his data and analysis.

You could have skipped all the BS and gotten to the point to begin with

Brewer claims that Darwinian evolution predicts that closely related organisms should have very similar gene sequences, and claimed that the fact that E. coli, Haemophilus, Synechocystis and Mycoplasma share only 111 proteins (2.6% of E. coli’s 4228) falsifies that prediction. But there’s really no way he could have done this comparison ‘honestly;’ i.e., choosing these 4 bacteria a priori out of the list of 14 he provides, and then looking for proteins found in all 4 without making any pairwise comparisons first. For example, 1130 of the 1703 Haemophilus sequences have E. coli homologues. That’s 66.4%, a value 25 times larger than his 2.6% value. Why doesn’t Brewer mention this? Of course, Brewer calculates his percentages in terms of the largest sequence (E. coli), which reduces the Haemophilus-E. coli overlap to 1130 out of 4,228 or 26.7%. We’ll get back to that in a minute, but 26.7% is still 10 times larger than the 2.6% value he provides. But what happens if you add another taxon, and ask how many sequences all three share? Well, the percentages can only go down as you add more taxa to the mix. (Think about it; if you added to your comparison a bacteria whose sequence was absolutely identical to that of E. coli, the percentage of proteins shared by the group would stay exactly the same.) So the only reason Brewer adds Synechocystis (a cyanobacteria, no less!) is that it will lower the percentage of proteins shared by the group.

But the best part occurs when you add Mycoplasma, which has only 468 proteins. Even if every single one of those 468 are found in E. coli, by framing it the way Brewer does, you would get a similarity of only 468/4228, or 11.1% in this pairwise comparison. But since Brewer's not asking how many E. coli proteins does Mycoplasma share, but how many E. coli proteins are found in Mycoplasma AND E. coli AND Synechocystis AND Haemophilus, then he's pretty much guaranteed that the percentage will be vanishingly small, ragardless of whether the four taxa share a common ancestor or not (see my test example, in which the four students did get subsets of the same original test).

Thus, when I say that Brewer manipulated the data, I mean he almost certainly chose the number and identify of taxa so as to generate a very low similarity value in an attempt to cast doubt on the idea of descent with modification.

I have just read his article for the 3rd time, I see him pointing out how many unique sequences different things have, not just bacteria.

 

[aharvey]

Re: Credentials vs. credibility

Re: Credentials vs. credibility

Originally posted by Nineveh

Odd, you didn't bother to reply to any of the comments. Had I blown off each comment, you would accuse me of something else.

Nope, the shifting ground tactic is part of the creationist playbook, not mine. In fact, I specifically asked you not to justify the reasons you made the comments, but rather to explain why these statements were any less uncivil than my intolerable comment. Which you still haven't done.

Originally posted by Nineveh

I wasn't aware I had lost control over myself.

That's why I thought I should provide some specific examples.

Originally posted by Nineveh

I think most evos have an attitude. It's pretty evident on this thread.

Oh please.

You exude arrogance.

Arrogance is not the same thing as the development of intense frustration.

Originally posted by Nineveh

As for filthy perverts (beanieboy in this case), if you want to debate the sexual perversion of sodomy, make a thread in another forum.

See, here's another example of your shifting ground approach. I'm sure you're fully aware that I could care less about what you think about other people's sexual inclinations, that I was commenting on how you choose to express your opinions (i.e., most uncivilly).

Originally posted by Nineveh

Anyway, you didn't tell me which hoax really wasn't a hoax. (Or what is acceptable quote worthy sources in your opinion)

See, here's another example of your shifting ground approach. The woman who freely tosses around accusations of evolutionists as hoaxters, liars and fabricators getting bent out of shape the first time "deception" is mentioned as a possible attribute of a creationist?

By the way, only two of the hoaxes, lies, and fabrications were actually hoaxes (i.e., Archaeoraptor and Piltdown Man), and even these were hoaxes intended for evolutionary biologists, not perpetrated by evolutionary biologists, and they were recognized by evolutionary biologists. I've told you this before. Why are you asking me again?

Originally posted by Nineveh

You could have skipped all the BS and gotten to the point to begin with

I did. You just never got past the first sentence, which is called a "topic sentence." It's not BS, it provides the framework for the argument.


I

Originally posted by Nineveh

have just read his article for the 3rd time, I see him pointing out how many unique sequences different things have, not just bacteria.

So in other words, you agree that he misrepresented the bacterial data, but the rest is good?

 

[Nineveh]

Re: Re: Credentials vs. credibility

Re: Re: Credentials vs. credibility

Originally posted by aharvey

Nope, the shifting ground tactic is part of the creationist playbook, not mine. In fact, I specifically asked you not to justify the reasons you made the comments, but rather to explain why these statements were any less uncivil than my intolerable comment. Which you still haven't done.

Oh, right, so anyway, I guess the questions won't get answered, then. So why should feel any more compelled to give you want you want than you do to give me what I want.

What you still seem to miss is from your first post to me, you have had an attitude. I don't have the patience Job was blessed with, I simply got tired of wading through your attitude to get to your points.

That's why I thought I should provide some specific examples.

I guess we will have different opinions where control is an issue. I don't see what you do, but that should amaze neither of us.

Arrogance is not the same thing as the development of intense frustration.

Well, at least you seem to have come to terms with your 'tude.

If there has been any frustration at all, it could be due to having to read your attitude before getting to your points.

See, here's another example of your shifting ground approach. I'm sure you're fully aware that I could care less about what you think about other people's sexual inclinations, that I was commenting on how you choose to express your opinions (i.e., most uncivilly).

Pardon me. You want to use an example from a completely different topic about a completely different person then back out when challenged on it. So you have two options, start a thread and we can debate the merits of judging sodomy, or you can drop it. Well, there is always the 3rd option, rip things out of context to try proving your point. So I will assume if you desire to endevour down this road, you will make a new thread, if not, this part of the convo has come to a close.

See, here's another example of your shifting ground approach. The woman who freely tosses around accusations of evolutionists as hoaxters, liars and fabricators getting bent out of shape the first time "deception" is mentioned as a possible attribute of a creationist?

LOL all I said was, "Anyway, you didn't tell me which hoax really wasn't a hoax. (Or what is acceptable quote worthy sources in your opinion)" This is "bent out of shape"? I was asking, since you lay the charge, which hoax really isn't? And I'll ask again, which news sources are "ok" in your book? I've asked you what? Three or four times in the last 2 days. You want to imply I am a liar (?) for quoting Nature's info from elsewhere, then imply the same thing when I quote directly from Nature.com.

By the way, only two of the hoaxes, lies, and fabrications were actually hoaxes (i.e., Archaeoraptor and Piltdown Man), and even these were hoaxes intended for evolutionary biologists, not perpetrated by evolutionary biologists, and they were recognized by evolutionary biologists. I've told you this before. Why are you asking me again?

Because you are implying I am lying when pointing out hoaxes that evo accepted. One of them persisted over 35 years. The "bird" only got a year. So are you claiming the examples Agent Smith gave ( Nebraska Man and Java Ape man) are real when you say, "only two of the hoaxes, lies, and fabrications were actually hoaxes" ? (page 3)

I did. You just never got past the first sentence, which is called a "topic sentence." It's not BS, it provides the framework for the argument.

I

And to think, had you left off with your version of a "topic sentance" I wouldn't have been ccompelled to ignore the important parts.

So in other words, you agree that he misrepresented the bacterial data, but the rest is good?

No, I don't agree he misrepresented GenBank data, nor do I feel he skewed the results from BLAST. I think his argument isn't yours, and you don't care for his explanation of the data.

From reading your "review" and reading his article, it seems to me you aren't even on the same page with what he is trying to express.

Most of the emphasis has been on how similar genes are in man and bacteria, with little attention to the differences. Where did this unique genetic information come from? Unique genes do not come from small numbers of base changes that scientists routinely produce in the lab or by breeding or by gene rearrangements. These data provide better support for the alternative hypothesis of independent origin by intelligent design than for evolution by descent. Dr. Brewer

 

[aharvey]

Re: Re: Re: Credentials vs. credibility

Re: Re: Re: Credentials vs. credibility

Originally posted by Nineveh
What you still seem to miss is from your first post to me, you have had an attitude. I don't have the patience Job was blessed with, I simply got tired of wading through your attitude to get to your points.

Hmm, since you brought it up, and since it’s the only relevant thing you’ve said to my comment (i.e., that your claims of my incivility ring hollow given that your average level of incivility is way ahead of my most severe lapse of civility), let’s go back to my very first post to you:

Originally posted by Nineveh
Speaking of "science" news, have you gotten a load of the new reviews of Joan Roughgarden's Book in "Science" and "Nature" on bisexuality?

No attitude here, right? If I wrote “Have you gotten a load of the new reviews of Brewer’s book on Intelligent Design,” you would of course not have noticed any ‘attitude’ there, would you?

Originally posted by aharvey
Alright, Nineveh, I have to ask: did you read these reviews (especially the one in Nature), or are you parroting some creationist site?

Okay, I admit, there’s an attitude here; it’s called 'suspicion.' I was suspicious that you hadn’t actually read the reviews to which you were referring, despite the fact that your “didja get a load of this?!” attitude implied that you did. Therefore, it seemed to me that the next most logical source for your information and scorn would have been a creationist site. But really, was the attitude in this, my original post to you, “too much to wade through”? Was it really so much more out of control than yours? Best of all, was it unjustified? Let’s see…

Originally posted by Nineveh
No, I didn't read the reviews of the book, nor have I read the book, why should I?

I don't buy into a theory of sexual selection, nor do I believe a transsexual biologist has anything but an agenda to sell.

Did you? Was it good? What did I miss by using that time instead to dust, brush my teeth and breath?

No attitude here, right? And, hey, my suspicions were correct after all. You didn’t read the reviews, and you also managed to skirt the question of what your “loaded” remark was based on.

Originally posted by aharvey

Well, I’m genuinely relieved, as this means your posts on Archaeoraptor are uninformed instead of deceptive. The former is an honest mistake I can deal with, the latter is hard to stomach.

You see, the very same issue of Nature that contains the Roughgarden book review (which you did not read before heaping scorn on it; well done!) also contains a news story entitled “Feathered fossils cause a flap in museums.” This story discusses the controversy surrounding a traveling exhibit assembled by Stephen and Sylvia Czerkas (does the name ring a bell?). Here’s an excerpt from the story:

“Stephen Czerkas is an artist who is self-taught in palaeontology, and Sylvia serves as museum curator. Five years ago, the couple were involved in an international controversy after their museum bought a fossil, called Archaeoraptor, for $80,000 at a fossil show in Tucson, Arizona.

The fossil appeared in National Geographic magazine after failed attempts to publish it in both Nature and Science. But it was subsequently found to be a forged composite from two different species (see Nature 410, 539; 2001), put together in China to resemble a ‘missing link’ between dinosaurs and birds. {Nineveh, here’s the important part for you} It was returned there in 2000, and segments later generated scientific papers by Chinese authors and by Stephen Czerkas.”

So your claim that “the archaeoraptor hoax is being promoted to children” is completely incorrect. The specimen is not in the Czerkas’s private museum in Utah, despite what the web site of the San Juan County Community Development group implies. Even if it were, and allow me to reemphasize that it is not, the Czerkases are not professional paleontologists, and their museum is their own private museum, so they have the legal right to include whatever (legal) garbage they please in it, just like any private creationist web site or museum. But please stop thinking that this incident, which you’ve incorrectly characterized from the start, is in any way condoned by professional scientists. It is not.

How much attitude did I put in this response? I see one parenthetical phrase. That's it.
How much is in your response?:

Originally posted by Nineveh

Because I didn't read an unrelated book review but instead posted the link the the museum proclaiming the "Archaeoraptor" as the "missing link", I am "uninformed" or "deceptive"?
Where did you get your logic, Sears?

By the way, do you understand the logic now?

 

[aharvey]

Re: Re: Re: Credentials vs. credibility

Re: Re: Re: Credentials vs. credibility

Originally posted by Nineveh

LOL all I said was, "Anyway, you didn't tell me which hoax really wasn't a hoax. (Or what is acceptable quote worthy sources in your opinion)" This is "bent out of shape"?

No, you were bent out of shape by my incivility, remember?

Originally posted by Nineveh

I was asking, since you lay the charge, which hoax really isn't? And I'll ask again, which news sources are "ok" in your book? I've asked you what? Three or four times in the last 2 days.

As I've told you before, no news source is "ok" if by "ok" you mean "free from errors, and thus never to be questioned." Some are more reliable than others. When dealing with science, creationist web sites, tourist bureaus, self-promoting authors, and the National Enquirer are less reliable than Nature, the New York Times, etc. You got a problem with this?

Originally posted by Nineveh

You want to imply I am a liar (?) for quoting Nature's info from elsewhere, then imply the same thing when I quote directly from Nature.com.

See previous post. You implied you read some book reviews that you didn't. What would you call that? But I've hardly made any fuss about that, have I? To me, it was a trivial point compared to if you had had access to the journal, thus knowing that the Archaeoraptor fossil has long been returned to China while claiming otherwise. But you didn't do that, and I've never accused you of it, although yes, it did drive me nuts that you refused (refuse?) to accept the evidence about this.

And I wasn't implying that you were lying about reading the Nature article, but was again frustrated at your (sorry, there's no other way to put it) boneheaded insistence that you hadread the article (and blasted others for not doing so), when in fact it was perfectly clear to everyone else that you hadn't read the article, only a press release and a summary. And if you still think the one is a perfectly acceptable substitute for the other, I ask you to refer to your own post #8 in this thread, where you chastise Jukia for the same thing!

Originally posted by Nineveh

Because you are implying I am lying when pointing out hoaxes that evo accepted. One of them persisted over 35 years. The "bird" only got a year. So are you claiming the examples Agent Smith gave ( Nebraska Man and Java Ape man) are real when you say, "only two of the hoaxes, lies, and fabrications were actually hoaxes" ? (page 3)

Again, I'm not implying that you're lying when you talk about hoaxes, you're just grossly misrepresenting them and their relevance to evolutionary biology. Hoaxes, lies, and fabrications involve the intent to deceive. All mistakes are not hoaxes, lies, or fabrications, yet you seem to see no difference (is this why you never admit to even the smallest mistake?). Nebraska Man and Java Man were not real, nor were they hoaxes, they were mistakes. Get it?

The only time I've seriously considered calling you a liar was when you repeatedly claimed that I said facts and evidence make evolutionary biologists wince, when you know full well I said no such thing, and that no reasonable person could honestly infer that from anything I've ever said here.

 

[Nineveh]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Credentials vs. credibility

Re: Re: Re: Re: Credentials vs. credibility

Originally posted by aharvey
Hmm, since you brought it up, and since it’s the only relevant thing you’ve said to my comment (i.e., that your claims of my incivility ring hollow given that your average level of incivility is way ahead of my most severe lapse of civility), let’s go back to my very first post to you:

No attitude here, right? If I wrote “Have you gotten a load of the new reviews of Brewer’s book on Intelligent Design,” you would of course not have noticed any ‘attitude’ there, would you?

I was talking to Strat about the homo book review. I wanted his take on it, he declined, I respected his rejection to get into the topic, then you took it up as some sort of "proof" that news only comes from the paper pages of Nature. Sorry, but since you still haven't clued me in on the "accepted" news outlets that's the best I can guess.

Okay, I admit, there’s an attitude here; it’s called 'suspicion.' I was suspicious that you hadn’t actually read the reviews to which you were referring, despite the fact that your “didja get a load of this?!” attitude implied that you did. Therefore, it seemed to me that the next most logical source for your information and scorn would have been a creationist site. But really, was the attitude in this, my original post to you, “too much to wade through”? Was it really so much more out of control than yours? Best of all, was it unjustified? Let’s see…

Yet I didn't misquote or misrepresent anything thing from either the article or the review. Then later when I posted straight from Nature.com you still took issue with the source. I'm still trying to get you to give me an approved list of news outlets.

No attitude here, right? And, hey, my suspicions were correct after all. You didn’t read the reviews, and you also managed to skirt the question of what your “loaded” remark was based on.

I asked what I missed since you seem to think there is some sort of "science" being promoted in that book review. From what I had gathered, the review was basically blowing the book off as aganda driven. But, since you didn't feel compelled to reply, I guess I didn't miss a whole lot by not reading the review or the book. Unless you think the theory has been "debunked" in that book or something...

How much attitude did I put in this response? I see one parenthetical phrase. That's it.
How much is in your response?:

"So your claim that “the archaeoraptor hoax is being promoted to children” is completely incorrect. The specimen is not in the Czerkas’s private museum in Utah, despite what the web site of the San Juan County Community Development group implies."

You claim I am incorrect, yet it is on display in Utah. I took the time to email the guy and he said it was. So to answer your question, your attitude lies in the fact you instisted it wasn't, not once but twice. When it was found to be there, did you correct yourself in your assesment of my being incorrect about the matter?

By the way, do you understand the logic now?

Actually, all this seems to be so far is going back to dredge up the first dialog we had that had no conclusion. Maybe we could "close" it by you enlightening me where real news comes from.

POST 2

No, you were bent out of shape by my incivility, remember?

No, I don't remember getting "bent out of shape". What I remember is getting tired of wading through your ego to get to your points.

As I've told you before, no news source is "ok" if by "ok" you mean "free from errors, and thus never to be questioned." Some are more reliable than others. When dealing with science, creationist web sites, tourist bureaus, self-promoting authors, and the National Enquirer are less reliable than Nature, the New York Times, etc. You got a problem with this?

Actually I'm rather relieved to see you finally address my question, thank you

So what is your issue with Nature.com?

See previous post. You implied you read some book reviews that you didn't.

I never claimed to have read the book or the review. I simply wanted to know what Strat thought of it.

What would you call that?

Asking Strat what he thought of a new book claiming to "debunk" sexual selection.

But I've hardly made any fuss about that, have I?

I'd say you are making a fuss, still.

To me, it was a trivial point compared to if you had had access to the journal, thus knowing that the Archaeoraptor fossil has long been returned to China while claiming otherwise.

But that wasn't my point in the matter. My point is the people who had the actual fossil were the same people who created the exibit and wrote the book. People you claimed, " are not professional paleontologists".

But you didn't do that, and I've never accused you of it, although yes, it did drive me nuts that you refused (refuse?) to accept the evidence about this.

I understand the fossil has been returned. I understand the raptor was dropped from the exibit. I also understand people you claim don't have "credintials" have written the book and made the exhibit. Are we square on this issue now?

And I wasn't implying that you were lying about reading the Nature article, but was again frustrated at your (sorry, there's no other way to put it) boneheaded insistence that you hadread the article (and blasted others for not doing so), when in fact it was perfectly clear to everyone else that you hadn't read the article, only a press release and a summary. And if you still think the one is a perfectly acceptable substitute for the other, I ask you to refer to your own post #8 in this thread, where you chastise Jukia for the same thing!

I think you are trying to confuse the chromosome article with talking about the homo book and the raptor. I posted the whole chromosome story from Nature.com and then the "article" from Nature.com.

I asked you before, and I'm asking again now, if Nature.com isn't posting what they mean to say on their web site, where then can I get news you won't take issue with?

Again, I'm not implying that you're lying when you talk about hoaxes, you're just grossly misrepresenting them and their relevance to evolutionary biology. Hoaxes, lies, and fabrications involve the intent to deceive. All mistakes are not hoaxes, lies, or fabrications, yet you seem to see no difference (is this why you never admit to even the smallest mistake?). Nebraska Man and Java Man were not real, nor were they hoaxes, they were mistakes. Get it?

I never implied mistakes are hoaxes. However, the raptor had no excuse, I'm glad it was discovered and taken care of quickly. Java Man was a "mistake" for over 30 years. I can't stretch my imagination that much to believe it wasn't on purpose. I don;t make up the news about these "transitionals" or "missing links", but the history behind them is there. I tend to believe sometimes people want something so badly they are willing to do or believe anything. In the realm of science pilt down, java, nebraska and the raptor were all acclaimed to be evidence of evo at some point. I am happy those examples are behind us now. Unfotunatly it appears Lucy has different bones making up her story, too. I guess we shall wait and see what comes of it all, especially since she has a prominent place in our "tree", at least to the museums that put her on display.

The only time I've seriously considered calling you a liar was when you repeatedly claimed that I said facts and evidence make evolutionary biologists wince, when you know full well I said no such thing, and that no reasonable person could honestly infer that from anything I've ever said here.

You are right, you didn't use the term "wince".

I would also like to thank you for keeping things civil, all but for the "boneheaded" part

 

[Dimo]

Nineveh posted:

In the realm of science, I wasn't aware anyone was, unless you consider evo a religion.

Dimo:

Many people who consider themselves "fundamentalist" Christians see the naturalistic explanations in the material sciences as contradicting their interpretation of Genesis. Therefore, in an attempt to muster more social support for their religious ideas they attack these naturalistic explanations and the people who understand them. This has been your modus operandi right from the start.

On the other hand, most people in the material sciences are not out to burst the "fundamentalist" bubble. It just so happens that the evidence does not support the literalist claims of Genesis, that fundamentalists like to use as their battle cry.



quote:
And its not what they say that bothers me, but what that implies for their efforts in the future. Nor would I be bothererd if many of them didn't try to represent their interpretation of the Bible as the "only" way.

Nineveh posted:

I hear that a lot from pagans.

Dimo:

Again, I am not a pagan. I do believe in the one God. I know nothing of your experience with pagans.




quote:
They love to use this passage "The only way to Father is through me" to imply that their interpretation is the same as Jesus's way. I do not agree.

Ninveh posted:

Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Dimo:

I agree. That is why I follow him and not you. Nor do I accept that your socio-political party line is representative of Jesus or reflects this passage.



quote:
Also they love to claim that their "literalist tendency" when interpreting the Genesis is somehow more truthful than the metaphorical power of scripture. They then dress up their socio-political agenda as science, support it with fear, and attempt to force their views upon everyone else via the material sciences and legislation.

Nineveh posted:

Most pagans just claim to use "pagan precepts" to define what God says.

Dimo:

Again, I do not know many pagans. Most people I know are monotheistic. I do know a few agnostics and some atheists. Tell me where can I meet these "pagans".

Nineveh posted:

His Word is clear,

Dimo:

I agree. And it warns me of people such as yourself.

Nineveh posted:

it's usually men who try to make His Word say something other than what it says to benefit them in their sins.

Dimo:

Again, I agree. Perhaps you should stop doing this.

Nineveh posted:

As far as I know, Unlocking has only been shown on PBS a couple of times. Has there been more creationist view points in the "mainstream"? No. Public school? No.

Dimo:

I have no problem with creationism being taught in public schools. I learned about it as a part of science history. Nor do I have a problem with philosophical speculation about the ideas that God's creative power is manifest through the natural universe. Just don't call these things leading edge understandings in the material sciences.



quote:
All the while never building any real logical support for their own theological or scientific views.

Nineveh posted:

Hardly. One has to look for it, but it's out there. The pity of it all is brilliant guys like Dr. Brewer don't have many outlets for his ideas in this area. If you haven't yet, watch Unlocking the Mysteries of Life.

Dimo:

Could you please point me in the direction of some literature that is good support for your claims. I have three books on creationism/ID and none of them seem to build a case for their own claims. It appears that their whole intent is to undermine the naturalistic methodology and assumption of the material sciences. They do not have any positive evidence for their explanations, only negative mud-slinging against the naturalistic explanation. Kind of like what you do here.