Evolution debate: State board should reject pseudoscience

Columbus Dispatch ^ | February 17, 2002 | Editorial

[Junior]

Without really trying to be accurate, the numbers being used (0.2778 and 8.58) are in a 1:30 ratio not a 1:3 ratio.

I know, and I corrected the mistake.

[VadeRetro]

Actually, I should have said "We can be sure there was very little oxygen in the atmosphere until photosynthesizing plants got started and the iron deposits on the earth's surface were completed rusted."

Slowly, wandering over your posts, I think I see some elements of a point emerging, but if it's what I think it is, you don't understand current scientific thinking on the early history of life. (Say it ain't so, Gore! How can you know it's wrong if you don't know what it is?)

Rather than anticipate you, therefore, I will let you explain what the big deal is about there not being much oxygen until late in the game.

A word to the willfully ignorant: even now there are anaerobic bacteria.

[Junior]

Actually, its 0.2778 and 858, or a 1:3000 ratio. There are 0.2778 kgs of oxygen per cubic meter of air, and their are 858 kilograms of oxygen per cubic meter of water.

[scripter]

There are some parts of the Bible meant to be taken as poetic allegories, and guess what? Genesis is one of those.

I'm curious as to why you say Genesis is poetic allegory. The reason I ask is because when I think of poetry in the Bible, I think of the Psalms, which has a specific Hebrew poetic sentence structure. (I could get into the details, but that would probably bore too many folks.) For what it's worth, from first to last, the Psalms are mostly praises and prayers.

And the sentence structure of Psalms is nothing like the sentence structure of Genesis. Therefore, and I could be wrong here, Genesis is not considered Hebrew poetry or allegory according to my own studies of the Hebrew sentence structure.

Are Roman Catholic's taught that Genesis is poetic allegory? If so, do you know what they use as source criterion? If not, is this something you've come to believe on your own? Just trying to get inside your head...

[VadeRetro]

BTW - this discussion is of course purely for amusement since DNA evidence has already shown that whales are not related to hippos as evolutionists have claimed using "evidence" similar to the one presented by you and other evolutionists in this discussion.

-- gore3000

Questioned here.

Repeated here.

I'm curious. You so seldom see a creationist say, "Oops! I had that backwards! The DNA studies show it was hippos. Mesonychus is what it wasn't."

In fact, you so seldom see a creationist say "Ooops!" at all. And yet, they're far from infallible. (About as far as it gets, IMHO.)

One feeble dodge based upon a misread (deliberate?) attempted here.

Rebutted with ease here.

"Still waiting for you to source this or back off. It's wrong."

Still waiting.

So what's the big deal? As I said before, I'm curious. The interesting psychopathology of people like you is part of the jollies I get from this game.

The DNA evidence is the opposite of what you said it was. The DNA evidence overthrew Mesonychus, an otherwise plausible-looking candidate that a lot of the paleontologists favored until new fossil specimens of your buddy Pakicetus showed artiodactyl ankles.

You screwed it up. I do that routinely and eat the crow all the time. I've noticed my evo brethren are similarly self-correcting: Junior with his math error per recent example.

But creationists have too much cognitive dissonance to say "Oops" when arguing with a Godless materialist Satan-worshipping Evo. No matter how much piety they radiate, they brazen, play dumb, erupt in abuse, or slink silently away when in error.

How many chances am I supposed to give you?

[Junior]

"Poetic" was a bit of hyperbole on my part. I used it because of the descriptiveness of the wording. I do consider it an allegory, though.

[VadeRetro]

VadeRetro: Water is consumed by photosynthesis, yes. (You make it sound as if plants were electrolyzing water to release their oxygen. Sheesh!) It is released when the sugars resulting from the photosynthesis are metabolized by the plant (or whatever eats the plant).

gore300: I must say Vade, it is so easy to win a debate with you. . . [Blah! Blah! Bluster, obfuscate . . .]

You quoted my post 725 back to me. But did you read it?

What photosynthesis does, metabolism of the products undoes. The water gets released again. Plants use up water when they make glucose (which gets turned into other sugars, starches, cellulose, etc.) When the plants themselves or animals metabolize these compounds, the water is reformed. Several subsequent posts make the point, which you ignore.

You are still arguing with Junior that photosynthesis dries up the oceans. You need to explain a little better than you have done so far how this can be.

[PatrickHenry]

Lurking ...

[scripter]

"Poetic" was a bit of hyperbole on my part. I used it because of the descriptiveness of the wording. I do consider it an allegory, though.

I have no idea what the Roman Catholic church teaches so I have to ask... Does the Roman Catholic leaders teach Genesis as allegory, is it something you studied yourself and came to that conclusion, or something else?

[Doctor Stochastic]

You give him three chances or until the cock crows, whichever comes first. That's seems to be traditional.

[Junior]

I initially came to the conclusion myself. The Pope, in 1996 issued a decree that evolution was not incompatible with Biblical teachings (which implies the Pope considers it an allegory). My wife is a Catholic in training, and the Bishop at one of our recent get-togethers addressed the inerrancy of Scripture and came off implying that Genesis is much more a roadmap of man's relationship to God and vice versa than a literal scientific text. All in all, the Church never comes out and says it in so many words, but that's the message it's getting across.

[AndrewC]

as history passes you by.

History has a habit of doing that to everyone.

[Tares]

I hope to reply in several days.

This we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. - II Thessalonians 3:10b

[scripter]

Thanks for the info. I just did a Wherewithal/Xoron search and found this link to some info.

[AndrewC]

Yes, but some people are remembered only by their folly

One person's science is another's folly

[AndrewC]

The great thing about science is that it is self-correcting, and once the hypothesis in question is realesed to honest investigators,

And then the corrected science becomes folly to believe. I repeat one person's science is another's folly. The day is rapidly approaching when Darwinian evolution will be viewed as folly.

[Junior]

Atlanteans

Theosophists. You can thank Madame Blavatsky for that one.