User talk:Temlakos/Archive2

Debate on FSM, etc.

Thanks for continuing to discuss with me. Sorry this is getting so long, but I seem to have difficulty making myself clear. I hope I've formatted this so it is readible.

The statements to which you objected amount simply to this: that those scientists who still believe in evolution (more on that later) are, at best, suffering from a blind spot, and at worst, not complete morons but rather idiot savants--persons living in worlds of their own (from the Greek idios one's own) but who still have skills that are valuable in some highly specific areas of human endeavor.

I just visited the lab of a friend of mine who is doing research on blood pressure and protein-molecule movements within the cell. His lab is affiliated with a clinic that treats around 10,000 people a year, so I don’t see that as an ivory tower. Whenever I read reports about research being done on problems such as AIDS, SARS, avian influenza, or cancer, it always seems to be within a model based on evolution. I don’t know of any research being done that uses a creationism-based model. I’m not sure I can even imagine what that would be. Could you please enlighten me? (And please don’t misinterpret this as a claim that no creationists are doing research, or have ever discovered anything. I’m talking about the theoretical basis for their work.)

Another thing that still puzzles me is how is it that all these probably hundreds of thousands of admittedly over-specialized and isolated idiot savants in a couple of dozen disciplines in thousands of universities in over a hundred countries and using who knows how many languages all manage, without communicating with each other, to err in the same direction and find results that are by-and-large compatible.

In the case of oil exploration, all that that requires is knowing which stratum is likely to be oil-rich. But that does not require belief in evolution. Even going from geologic strata to evolution is a non sequitur.

My comment about oil was based on the fact that, from what I read, on this and other creationist sites, those who deny evolution are also denying the mainstream interpretation of geology, so it’s not my non sequitur.

Could you tell me, or direct me to someone who can tell me, how creation science explains which stratum is likely to be oil-rich? I’m also afraid I don’t understand how it is that, if all geological features are the result of one world-wide flood, they vary so much from one place to another? Why is there no oil in Japan? Why are all those dinosaurs in Alberta, Montana and Mongolia, say, when there are so few in so many other places?

Furthermore, I wouldn't count on the "majority of scientists" being all that "vast" today, or even being in the majority. Since 1998, more and more honest scientists have had to admit that the universe is far too finely tuned to have had a totally random origin. The intelligent design movement stems from that realization.

What percentage would it take to meet your definition of a vast majority?

The DI website gives 700 as the number who have signed their statement but it’s not clear how up-to-date that is. The statement itself, “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged," (http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/) seems so vague that anyone could sign it. What scientist would not be in favour of carefully examining evidence? I would sign it, if it were not for its obvious political motivation, and the fact that, with my level of knowledge, my signature would be about as meaningful as my cat’s signature.

On the other hand, the Project Steve statement “Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.” (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp) seems much more specific and concrete, and is limited to those named Steve, or variants thereof, some 1% of the population. They claim to have 841 signatures as of earlier this month, so the real number of those agreeing with it would be roughly 100 times that.

What figures do you have?

Back to your question: are you, or are you not, willing to admit that those who hold most closely to evolution not only fail to question its veracity but, worse than that, deliberately seek to excommunicate those who do question it from the community of scientists? Take care before you answer, and review our evidences against Eugenie Scott and the National Center for Science Education, two of the worst offenders in this regard.

Of course, there are boneheads in any group, and usually they’re the ones that get the most publicity. My friend mentioned above, and I’m sure most scientists, freely admit that there are problems with evolution, just as there are with any other scientific concept, or indeed, any human endeavour. I’m continuously hearing scientists saying that the more we know, the more we realize that we don’t know. (On the PBS documentary about the Dover trial this week, even Ken Miller was saying something similar about evolution not being ultimate truth. Speaking of the Dover trial, what part of creationism or intelligent design justifies sending death threats?)

I looked at your pages on Eugenie Scott and the National Center for Science Education, but I wasn’t clear as to what evidence you were referring to. As far as I know, this is a non-profit organization, with a small fraction of the budget of organizations such as Answers in Genesis. I don’t see how they would have the power to muzzle scientists all over the world. (Even the US president, purportedly the most powerful position in the world, can’t even completely muzzle those in his own country. Does Eugenie Scott have more power than he does?) Why would the Japanese archaeologists whom I am presently reading, whose findings directly contradict many creationist claims (although they have nothing to do with evolution), be so afraid of Eugenie Scott that they would lie about the past of their own country?

You will probably repeat your latest answer: that by "evolution" you do not mean what we creationists mean. Then what do you mean? Your newest definition of evolution makes the term operationally meaningless, almost tautological. You have displayed an attitude quite typical of the naturalistic-materialistic axis within the scientific community. When your opponents (namely ourselves and our allies) call into question the dogma of evolution as we have seen it taught in textbook after textbook for decades (I turn fifty years old this November 24, just to set the record straight),

Before I forget, Happy Birthday!!

you define evolution down. Back when I was in high school, I got the full, comprehensive lesson on evolution: common ancestry, the Miller-Urey experiment, the early reducing atmosphere, and abiogenesis. That, and the classic Big bang theory. I would learn only later that it was all a fraud, but at least it was self-consistent. And brazen, too--and I respect brass far more than I do hypocrisy. Today I can't seem to correspond with a single evolutionist who cares to defend the classic model taught in textbooks in my day--and still taught today, by all the accounts that have crossed my console. What I get is the same kind of wishy-washy, weasel-like response that you have now delivered--that "evolution" means only one thing, and that is change (from what?), and that evolution says nothing about origins.

I don’t see where I’m responsible for what you were taught in high school, especially since I don’t know what you were taught. When I was in high school, evolution was never mentioned. Teachers who talked about it tended to be fired. (Even last year, a young science teacher in northern Quebec was forced to resign by a vocal minority of parents, not for teaching evolution, but just for talking about it in class.)

It is true that evolution says nothing about origins, or rather it is about the origin of species not the origin of everything. That’s cosmology I believe.

As I mentioned, Darwin referred to “descent with modification.” The University of California Museum of Paleontology website still uses this definition, expanding it somewhat: “Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).” (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml)

More usually, I find a more technical definition, such as “the change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by shifts in the allele frequencies of genes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

To me this means much the same, so I am not clear what you mean by “defin[ing] evolution down.”

In creationist materials, I find definitions such as these:

“By evolution, we mean the non-provable (i.e., religious) belief that all things have made themselves by means of their own natural properties, with no supernatural input. Chaos has become cosmos, all by itself; particles have given rise to planets, palm trees, pelicans, and people, with no help from ‘outside’ of the properties of matter and energy.” Wieland, Carl. (1990). Stones & Bones. Green Forest, AR: Master Books.

“When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God: 1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves. 2. Planets and stars formed from space dust. 3. Matter created life by itself. 4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves. 5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals). ” Kent Hovind at http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67

And then there is the CreationWiki definition at http://www.creationwiki.net/General_theory_of_evolution

This discrepancy is one of the things that disturb me most about creationist websites. Can you please explain it?

Sir, my question to you is whether you take me for a complete moron? Do you honestly expect me to trust any paradigm that calls itself "evolutionistic," when evolutionists not only lie about what they have, but also lie about what they originally said?

Have I lied about I have or what I originally said? Please explain. I don’t believe I ever asked you to trust any paradigm. I only asked someone to explain how it is honest to say there is no evidence for evolution.

Your most recent comments have disappeared so I can’t respond appropriately, except to say this:

All your assumptions about me any my profession are wrong. You seem to have a stereotype persona of an “evolutionist” that you are pasting on me. Just for the record, I do not consider myself an evolutionist. I like to know something about a subject before I reach any conclusions, and I do not know enough about evolution. All I can say is that the little I know about evolution seems to make sense and to be consistent with what I know already from various sources. Which I cannot say about creationism. I admit that this is likely because of my lack of knowledge and understanding, but when I try to ask questions in my awkward attempts to understand better, I find I am attacked and called names, if not completely ignored. As a result, if anything, creationism and creationists are driving me farther away from Christianity.

And I am not a doctor. Mr. Ashcraft gave me that penname based on my initials. I didn’t think it important to change, not realizing it might be misleading. Sorry.

When I am dealing with a field about which I know nothing, I am forced to rely on authorities of some sort. The question is choosing which one. I don’t go to a doctor for brake problems, or to a mechanic for high blood pressure. I don’t try to outguess the computer repair woman or the vet. In fact, I find that every person I get a chance to talk to more than superficially (even a garbage collector) has a whole treasure of information on subjects about which I know nothing. I hope to learn more from you. I don’t see this as an unwarranted appeal to authority.

What started me off here was the claim that there is no evidence for evolution, so I started trying to show some. It was the discovery of fossils a couple of centuries ago that first made people question their understanding of creation (which until then had held extinction to be impossible and contrary to God’s plan), and this and further discoveries gradually led to the idea of evolution that Darwin was seeking an explanation for. This is why I mentioned trilobites. Then I brought up a couple of the bits of evidence that Darwin himself mentioned. My purpose in both cases was to give evidence that you could not say was fraudulent. Then I gave an actual estimate of the number of primary research articles on evolution published in recent years, with the reference, so you could check my source. As a doctor, you probably have more access to the PubMed articles than I do, so you can check them out. Again, I don’t see that this is an unreasonable appeal to authority. Of course any evidence is open to being questioned, and probably will be. I don’t see that your instantaneous dismissal of it all before even looking is as reasonable. Even if faulty evidence, it is still evidence.

I know little about Michael Behe, but the fact that he was one of the few ID representatives who did not wimp out at the Dover trial, and the fact that he is undeterred by the warning about him on his university department’s website would indicate that he is the type who sticks to his guns and would not go along with such a strong statement as what I quoted if he disagreed with it. He is well enough known and his books sell enough that I would think he could easily find another publisher. Do you have any evidence for your suggestion that he was cowed into accepting it?

Behe said this in an interview about the book: “To a surprising extent prevailing evolutionary theory and intelligent design are harmonious. Both agree that the universe and life unfolded over vast ages; both agree that species could follow species in the common descent of life.” http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3DQAQDPU73HPH. Wouldn’t this indicate that he supports the quotation I originally mentioned? Another website (http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070622/28109_Behe_Describes_the_'Edge_of_Evolution'_in_Newest_ID_Book.htm) makes it sound like Behe himself made the statement.

I guess we’ll have to actually read the book to know for sure. Chapter one is available on line at http://www.simonsays.com/content/book.cfm?tab=1&pid=534210&agid=2. Take a look, and see if it supports YEC. To me, he seems to be saying that Darwinism is true, but inadequate as an explanation. And again, he stresses how much evidence there is for evolution.

Thank you for wading through all this. I look forward to further enlightenment from you.

Take care!--Drlindberg 12:28, 16 November 2007 (EST)

This isn't my debate, but I would like to comment on your geological objections.

"Could you tell me, or direct me to someone who can tell me, how creation science explains which stratum is likely to be oil-rich?"

Ironically, my geology Prof just had a lecture on the topic. Oil rises through the various pore holes found in rocks. Some rocks have more pore holes then others and since the oil always rises to the highest spot, the highest point in these rocks are most likely to carry oil.

So which type of rock carries the most oil? SANDSTONE, which is a sedimentary rock. This would fit perfectly in Flood Geology, in which nearly all organisms died in and were buried in sedimentary rocks.

Also, since the oil moves from it's original source to begin with, you can't always use it's current source as the first one.

"I’m also afraid I don’t understand how it is that, if all geological features are the result of one world-wide flood, they vary so much from one place to another?"

Why WOULDN'T be so different place to place? Various fossil sites would often represent the ecological zones and would thus present different types of fossils. The Flood wasn't a perfectly homogeneous mud bath 9if it was, you would be right). It consisted of plate movement, under-water mud flows, and many other factors that would predict this. I see your piece of "evidence" against the Flood as evidence FOR IT.

The secular time line should be the one suspect, not the Flood one. Why are there no layers younger then the Permian in Ohio? If you have had EONS to create newer layers, why can't I find them? They just call it a disconformity and move on. So why on earth was there erosion last for so long? Was it under water the whole time? If so, why does Permian exist too? Why didn't this MASSIVE EROSION delete ALL the periods from the files of time?

"Why is there no oil in Japan?"

Because most of the Pacific islands are formed by hot spots. Thus they are igneous in origin. Barely any organic material would be buried in igneous rock. Especially in Hot spots, since they are of late flood origin. --Nlawrence 14:39, 16 November 2007 (EST)

Thanks for the information. I just asked a question. I don't know enough to give any evidence against the flood. --Drlindberg 19:27, 16 November 2007 (EST)