Designed to deceive: Creation can't hold up to rigors of science

CONTRA COSTA TIMES ^ | 12 February 2006 | John Glennon

[VadeRetro]

If it had longer fingers and more massive shoulders it would look much like a fruit bat (which some claim is a primate).

So far, the molecular evidence is looking good for the monophyly of bats.

[b_sharp]

Neoteny has been observed (directly no less) in other species. It is a mechanism that would explain many things if it can be shown to be true in humans, especially the morphological differences between us and other chimps. (I strongly believe we should be Pan sapiens sapiens or chimps should be Homo sapiens paniscus/troglodyte

[b_sharp]

I love beating people with big sticks...with me having the stick of course.

[dread78645]

I strongly believe we should be Pan sapiens sapiens or chimps should be Homo sapiens paniscus/troglodyte

Which would be reasonable if we didn't have to account for our extinct cousins:

• H. pan paniscus
• H. pan troglodyte
• H. habilis
• H. ergaster
• H. erectus
• H. heidelbergensis (or erectus heidelbergensis ?)
• H. sapiens neanderthalensis
• H. sapiens sapiens

[Thatcherite]

What are you on about? Those fossils are all just defective H sapiens. By an amazing coincidence only defectives ever got fossilised up to a few 10ky ago.

[Thatcherite]

Then I logged on to the powerball web site and found, as usual, that in a $5 quick pick I hit on exactly one number.

Too bad. For that sum you could have bought Nebraska!

What! Nebraska would go for less than $5? How much change would he have got?

[Thatcherite]

My company retains 40 year old Fortran as if it were the Tablets of Moses. And it ain't no small company.

So... The users lose the source code, and they ask the developers to write it again, but the users have to remind the developers how the code went?

[dread78645]

... only defectives ever got fossilised up to a few 10ky ago.

Feh. What about the live clams that were carbon dated to 3000 years ago?

Radiocarbon dating is a religion of the fascist-marxist atheists!

[Lurking Libertarian]

placemarker

[Leatherneck_MT]

Science will never hold up to the Judgement of God

THAT says it all.

[the_doc]

I guess flying squirrels, flying snakes, flying fish and even the colugo (flying lemur) have not heard that gliding is a non-starter.

A flying squirrel is still a squirrel. A flying lemur is still a lemur. And there is no clear evidence that these so-called "flying" forms evolved from "non-flying" squirrels and "non-flying" lemurs.

My main point here is, of course, that a bat has pretty sophisticated flapping wings--not mere gliding structures. For that matter, the terms "flying squirrel" and "flying lemur" are misnomers (at least for the purposes of your argument). They cannot fly in the sense we associate with birds or bats or dragonflies. Furthermore, squirrels and lemurs that can glide are not in the process of evolving into species that can truly fly anymore than Olympic ski jumpers are evolving into human eagles.

In this sense, gliding is a "non-starter."

Anyway, you ought to go back and look at my argument more carefully. It is correct. (It is also very simple, which makes it devastatingly elegant [ha!])

Several rather thoughtless evolutionists have carelessly theorized that bats evolved from rats, but it doesn't work. The really serious problem is seen in the early going, when the poor rat's deformity will not even facilitate gliding, much less bat-like flight. And, of course, the deformed rat cannot run, either.

Please notice that this is correct, hb.

So, even if I were to agree that gliding is surely a "starter," I would have to point out that the rat will never reach the stage of being able to glide through the air. Invoking aeons of time and zillions of generation doesn't help at all. The evolutionist's zeal to offer anti-creationist explanations makes him sloppy to the point of scientific dishonesty. It is very self-deceiving. the poor fellow cannot believe that the creationist's objections to evolutionary theory are scientifically sound. But they are scientifically sound. (They just aren't fashionable in our enlightened age [ha, again!].)

In short, there really are peculiar thermodynamic barriers between species. Your theory invokes itself past these by strangely ignoring them.

I would urge you to think again about the problem at the level I presented in my earlier post--not just go waving your hands (flapping your non-wings?) to invoke illustrations that do not, indeed, cannot support your case.

(Ah, but that is precisely what evolutionists do. They wave their hands a lot [and yell]. Evolution is just plain bad science. It is more religion than science.)

Regards,

the_doc

[the_doc]

Because facts that undermine your mythological worldview make your head hurt.

Nope. I even suffer fools gladly. (In all seriousness, I just don't have a lot of time for FR. But you are welcome to read my Post 2251 to b_sharp. He seems to be a pretty good guy compared to a lot of FReepers, by the way.)

[MHalblaub]

2000+ Ping for later

I'd like to hear more about "thermodynamic barriers between species" and why "evolution is just plain bad science" or "it is more religion than science".

It's so entertaining to read such nonsense.

[MHalblaub]

2000+ Ping for later (second try)

[Californiajones]

Hey, just found time to see your post.

What is the best legal standard for evidence?

Eyewitnesses.

God, who knows all about legal evidence as all of our modern law is derived from Moses (and therefore Blackstone) knew that the testimony of eyewitness account would be enough for Jesus.

If you don't like the disciples' version there's always Josephus for extrabiblical corroboration. PS you still aren't "getting it" The point is the disciples LIVED WITH AND SAW JESUS UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL IF THEY KNEW HE WAS A FRAUD, THEY WOULD NOT LAY DOWN THEIR LIFE FOR HIM. Apollo Buddha and all the other dudes you mentioned did not have this same first hand testimony.

[Californiajones]

Use a Hebrew concordance on the word sphere or circle as referenced in Isaiah 40. How one holds up a "circle" in a 3D universe equals a sphere.

In either case, flat earth theory didn't come from the Bible.

[Californiajones]

If age comes before evolution (there's a joke there somewhere) and time is removed from the argument for evolution, then why can't the process of evolution be demonstrated in a lab?

And, by the way, what is the scientific formula for evolution?

Got to be reducible to an equation for it to be true science.

[Californiajones]

That doesn't quite answer the purified gold question but I'll pose a better one back to you.

Remove time from the argument for evolution, as another poster said.

Then evolution should be demonstrable in a lab.

It also should be explainable by a mathematical equation.

What is the scientific formula for evolution?

[Californiajones]

And what is the scientific formula for evolution again?

Got to be explained in mathematical terms for it to be "science".

[Californiajones]

""Divorce your conservative values from the underlying Christian culture in the US and you get -- India. Why stay here?""
""Because I'm an American, of course, and as entitled to all the benefits this great country has to offer as any other man. The USA is much more, so very much more than simply some supposed "underlying Christian culture." And, in fact, there are even parts of this supposed "underlying Christian culture" which are not incompatible with my preferences and philosophies. And those that are offensive... well, the law in the USA is designed to protect people like me from the imposition of those Christian things. You can feel free to do them, I can feel free to ignore them (so long as neither of us is breaking the law.)""


What, pray tell, "is much more, so very much more than the supposedly underlying Christian culture" in America that you would prefer living here than in India?

I mean specifically, what rights, privileges, qualities and situations in America did NOT derive from Christianity?

You ever read or hear of De Tocqueville?