1251
Roger Stanyard
Fwd: [DebunkCreation] Re: i dont get it
03/07/2006 09:30:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Nick & Moira Cowan
<m_cowan32@...> wrote:
> particle. A living cell is an irreducibly complex unit
> that has the appearance of "design".
So show us, in your own words, that s single cell is irredicibly
complex.
Given that you have a science degree from Cambridge.
> Regards, Nick
1252
Roger Stanyard
Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
03/07/2006 09:45:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Nick & Moira Cowan
<m_cowan32@...> wrote:
> Firstly the passage can't mean what you suggest for
> reasons of logic viz: "The Bible says [literally] not
> to take the Bible literally!!" Bit like "All
> statements I make are false including this one" or
> "Roger Stanyard, the fundie atheist, thinks all
> fundies are liars"
And what the hell is a fundie atheist?
1253
Marc Draco
Re: Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
03/07/2006 10:31:00
bgcolor="#ffffff"
>> I wish that Nick would actually stop procrastinating
>> and answer science
>> questions and I respectfully suggest that we all
>> stop engaging in
>> pointless tattle with him until he does. This
>> exercise is getting us
>> precisely nowhere.
>I don't mind answering proper SCIENCE (eg Chemistry)
>questions if I'm able, but I'm being repeatedly asked
>(yawn) about pseudo-science like historical (origins)
>Geology and evolutionary Biology. Since the
>faith-based (eg in the non-existence of a
>Designer/Creator)
>conclusions drawn are not empirically
>testable or falsifiable, they don't fall within the
>remit of the scientific method. Creationism isn't
>science either but it is equivalent to any other
>theory of origins.
BULLSHIT!
Evo biology is a proper branch of science. You are the one making
claims about other non-sciences and scientific claims in areas which
you are not qualified to talk.
>> Now, Nick, are you EVER going to answer any of
>> Lenny's questions or are
>> they too hard for you? You want to defend your
>> position, we're here to
>> listen, but so far you've been patronising, evasive
>> and downright silly
>> at times. All I ask is that you respect this forum
>> and do as you are
>> asked, which is this: ANSWER DIRECT QUESTIONS -
>> DIRECTLY.
>I may attempt answers to Lenny's questions soon but
>I've no expertise in the field - I need to do some
>digging! Hey - I might just find human & dinosaur
>bones together! I hear that a recent find of the
>latter has unearthed intact blood cells (hence DNA) -
>a bit tricky for a 65 million-year-old fossil!
WRONG! AGAIN!
Red blood cells DON'T contain DNA you fool - if you had any grasp of
biology you would know that. (Everyone else, I'm sorry my language is
slipping this morning but this guy is proving what an idiot he is in
spades.)
> Now, Nick, are you EVER going to answer any of
> Lenny's questions or are
> they too hard for you? You want to defend your
> position, we're here to
> listen, but so far you've been patronising, evasive
> and downright silly
> at times. All I ask is that you respect this forum
> and do as you are
> asked, which is this: ANSWER DIRECT QUESTIONS -
> DIRECTLY.
> We answer your questions, so how about you stop
> making empty promises
> and challenge us. Quit the preaching and the
> scripture, we're all tired
> of it. Hey, we all know how to read the bible and a
> fair number of us
> can see it for what it is
>> We answer your questions, so how about you stop
>> making empty promises
>> and challenge us. Quit the preaching and the
>> scripture, we're all tired
>> of it. Hey, we all know how to read the bible and a
>> fair number of us
>> can see it for what it is.
>Really? (see below)
>> Would you pass a student who procrastinated about
>> answer but never
>> actually gave one?
>I'd give them time - what's a few months anyway to you
>5 billion year folk!
BZZZT! Busted again. What's few months in a final year? Do that math
stoopid and stop avoiding direct questions. If someone never actually
gave an answer, no amount of time would ever make them give one, now
would it?
>> Anyway, your main claim Nick, is that the Earth (and
>> presumably the
>> universe) is 6000 years old, give or take a couple
>> of millennia.
>Yes, just under 6000 years (Ussher wasn't quite YEC
>enough for me!)
Are you taking the piss? Hardly the sort of behaviour I would expect
from a respected teacher. I'd love to see these debates posted to the
parents of the children you teach.
>> You base this on the claims of a book written over
>> 2000 years ago by
>> semi-nomadic tribe who were only just beginning to
>> form what we would
>> recognise as society. Somehow they were aware of the
>>billions of species
>The Bible was written over a period of at least 1500
>years by a variety of authors (including at least one
>Gentile - Luke), under the inspiration of Yahweh,
>mainly after the "semi-nomadic" period (Exodus) and
>certainly within a recognised society (Israel/Judah)
Mainly? Nah. The NT was written during that period, the OT wasn't.
>By the way, are there "billions" of species - sounds
>like an exaggeration to me? Good job there were only
>enough "kinds" to fit on the Ark!
1.5 million species are catalogued today, Nick. Woodmorappe (the guy
most vaunted for working out the Ark story in modern terms) got his
maths wrong. He works on 8000 kinds (16000 animals if we disallow for
the clean/unclean ones). The AiG publishes a long tract on this using
Woodmorappe's work which I have just taken great pleasure in debunking.
>> all over the planet. So much so, that a small few of
>> their number were
>> able to collect examples of every single living
>> thing we can see today:
>> they must have done since evolution doesn't occur in
>> the bible.
>The Bible says that God sent them to Noah - he didn't
>have to collect them, just lead them aboard! Some -
>maybe many - we don't see today because they've become
>extinct eg dinosaurs. You won't find evolution in the
>Bible because it isn't a Biology book.
I read that, but we only have the relatively modern translations for
that guidance. How did Noah lead the carnivores Nick?
Oh, Nick, it "e.g." not "eg" - it's an abbreviation from Latin. I also
suspect you meant "i.e." meaning "that is", not for example.
Finally you admit the Bible isn't a biology book; it's a story book.
Even the AiG has difficulty in explaining how the vast diversity of
life we see today came about from 8000 originals.
>> They must have scoured rain-forest, ice-field,
>> Savannah, desert,
>> field... everything (not forgetting ocean floors to
>> miles deep - depths
>> that we cannot reach even today).
>Er, no - read Genesis 7 verse 8.
No? OK. Gen 7:8
"Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not
clean, and of fowls, and of every
thing that creepeth upon the earth"
Well I'll be blowed... Nick's taking the bible literally again... Pity
about that. See the bible just doesn't bear up to close examination.
The problem with billions of gallons of (no longer present) fresh water
that fell on the Earth to cause the flood as described would have
poisoned just about every living thing in the sea within hours. HOURS.
Not days, not weeks, not months, but hours.
I've covered this error in detail in my debunking of Noah, but if you
need to see this happen Nick, go down your pet store and buy a false
percula clownfish (like Nemo from the film Finding Nemo) or if you
can't afford one, just about any marine dweller will do. Hell, nip down
and see if you can catch a few hermit crabs from a local beach.
Now, carefully match the temperature of some tapwater (or DI/RO water
if you prefer) and force some air through - we wouldn't want our
creatures to suffocate. Add your collected sample (if you can be that
cruel) and time how long it survives.
BUSTED. This affect is due to a chemical reaction - which is your
speciality, after all.
> >Boy that's some
> >feat. Better still,
> > they managed to fit the whole job lot into a boat
> > that wouldn't even
> >fill a very small zoo. Better than that, they
> >managed to keep every last
> >one of them alive (without help from the big guy
> >upstairs). This last
> >bit we do know for sure: everything god did is
> >recorded in great detail
> <in the bible; right down to "his" words and sure as
> >I'm not a chemistry
> >teacher, that was one busy dude.
>There have been some excellent studies on these
>questions, mainly by John Woodmorappe, whose 2 books
>give a complete feasibility study. For a short précis
>of his work see:
Woodmorappe? Good, I'm glad you brought that name up. I've debunked
Woodmorappe's assertions from the AiG peice in a recent article - you
should read it. Woodmorappe boilerplate is typical of your sort, what
doesn't fit the theory (and there's lots of it) is ignored. Woodmorappe
(or the AiG author) doesn't even know the difference between the mean
and the median measure in stats.
>> I could go on, but hey, I'm not an
expert.
>Amen! Your theology is about the same level as my
>palaeontology!
I rather doubt that, but since you bring the subject up, how can you
claim to know anything about historical origins if you don't even
understand the scientific theories that give rise to them?
>> Nick. Explain this. You're the
expert: fill me in.
>> I'm all ears. Just
>> remember this is a science forum - not somewhere to
>> preach scripture. I
>> want you to explain this hugely important event upon
>> which a lot of your
>> assumptions are based.
>Hang on - you're asking me (as do many in this forum)
>theological questions then telling me not to "preach
>scripture"!! If I answer I'm preaching; if I don't I'm
>being evasive. The classic Catch-22 (shrug).
No I am not. Nor is anyone else for that matter.
I'm asking you to take a theological assertion - which YOU claim is
scientifically justified - and explain it scientifically. There's a
huge difference and the only Catch 22 here is the fact that you can't.
>Hey - I've heard chromosome 22 is radically different
>in man and chimpanzee - nowhere near 98% identical.
>What would the "common ancestor" make of that?! A
>monkey of all of us, for sure.
That's just asinine Nick. I've not read anywhere that specifically
suggests that chromosome 22 WAS 98% alike in humans and chimps. Perhaps
you would care to enlighten us?
And please tell me
that the monkey note was an attempt at humor. I really don't want to
think you're that ignorant.
1254
Rudy Vonk
Re: Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
03/07/2006 10:48:00
On 03 jul 2006, at 11:31, Marc Draco wrote:
> >Yes, just under 6000 years (Ussher wasn't quite YEC
> >enough for me!)
>
> Are you taking the piss? Hardly the sort of behaviour I would expect
> from a respected teacher. I'd love to see these debates posted to the
> parents of the children you teach.
I am beginning to believe the person posting as Nick is a troll. What
is he doing behind a computer between 2:40 and 4:33 a.m. his local time
on a Monday morning?
cellpadding="2"
Attachment: (text/enriched) [not stored]
1255
Marc Draco
Re: Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
03/07/2006 11:09:00
bgcolor="#ffffff"
Na. It's probably just Yahoo regurgitating stuff at funny hours.
Nick isn't a troll, just an idiot.
Rudy Vonk wrote:
->On 03 jul 2006, at 11:31, Marc Draco wrote:
-->>Yes, just
under 6000 years (Ussher wasn't quite YEC
>enough for me!)
Are you taking the
piss? Hardly the sort of behaviour I would expect from a respected
teacher. I'd love to see these debates posted to the parents of the
children you teach.
I am beginning to believe the person posting as Nick is a troll. What
is he doing behind a computer between 2:40 and 4:33 a.m. his local
time on a Monday morning?
1256
Andrew
Re: Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
03/07/2006 11:15:00
----- Original Message -----
From: Rudy Vonk
> I am beginning to believe the person posting as Nick is a troll.
> What is he doing behind a computer between 2:40 and 4:33 a.m.
> his local time on a Monday morning?
When he originally posted I wondered whether someone this staggeringly
stupid and with such an immature attitude could really be a school teacher,
even a fundamentalist one, or whether it was someone trying to make Nick
Cowan look especially stupid.
1257
Marc Draco
Re: Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
03/07/2006 11:25:00
bgcolor="#ffffff"
I've wondered the same, but the evidence suggests otherwise - unless it
REALLY IS someone who knows Nick Cowan particularly well and is just
trying to make him look (If they are, they're certainly making a good
job of it!)
What someone else needs to do, presumably, is ask him a direct question
that only he could possibly know the answer to. The only way we can
safely do that, is to snail-mail a letter to Nick c/o Bluecoat with
code word that we can verify: rather like the way PGP has a private key.
Andrew wrote:
->
----- Original Message -----
From: Rudy Vonk
> I am beginning to believe the person posting as Nick is a troll.
> What is he doing behind a computer between 2:40 and 4:33 a.m.
> his local time on a Monday morning?
When he originally posted I wondered whether someone this staggeringly
stupid and with such an immature attitude could really be a school
teacher,
even a fundamentalist one, or whether it was someone trying to make
Nick
Cowan look especially stupid.
1258
oeditor
Re: Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
03/07/2006 11:47:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Nick & Moira Cowan <m_cowan32@...>
wrote:
>
> I don't mind answering proper SCIENCE (eg Chemistry)
> questions if I'm able, but I'm being repeatedly asked
> (yawn) about pseudo-science like historical (origins)
> Geology and evolutionary Biology.
How do your geology and biology colleagues react to your undermining
of their teachings?
Brian
1259
Andrew
Re: Re: Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
03/07/2006 11:51:00
----- Original Message -----
From: oeditor
> How do your geology and biology colleagues react to your undermining
> of their teachings?
He also said something similar about physics in one of his original posts.
He's basically rubbished the disciplines of a number of his colleagues, now.
1260
Andrew
Bluecoat school departments
03/07/2006 12:30:00
I've just looked at the description of the chemistry department at Liverpool
Bluecoat School. It begins:
"The Chemistry Department is dedicated to engendering in its students a
sense of excitement in the face of the complex wonder of the created,
physical universe."
http://www.bluecoatschool.net/index.php?aid=126
1261
Roger Stanyard
Re: Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
03/07/2006 12:48:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@...>
wrote:
>
> I've wondered the same, but the evidence suggests otherwise - unless
it
> REALLY IS someone who knows Nick Cowan particularly well and is just
> trying to make him look (If they are, they're certainly making a
good
> job of it!)
>
I've checked him and his wife out and they are for real.
1262
Roger Stanyard
Re: Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
03/07/2006 12:50:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" <taoist.hermit1@...> wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: oeditor
>
> > How do your geology and biology colleagues react to your undermining
> > of their teachings?
>
> He also said something similar about physics in one of his original
posts.
> He's basically rubbished the disciplines of a number of his
colleagues, now.
>
You can add the geography teachers to that list as well.
1263
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
03/07/2006 12:52:00
> > [Answers to the "science" questions coming soon - a
> few million years or so!]
That of course is exactly what I expect of creation 'scientists'.
They do love to preach and preach and preach. But ask them some
SCIENCE, and they all of a sudden shut up and get very very quiet.
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
1264
Roger Stanyard
Re: Bluecoat school departments
03/07/2006 12:55:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" <taoist.hermit1@...> wrote:
>
>
> I've just looked at the description of the chemistry department at
Liverpool
> Bluecoat School. It begins:
>
> "The Chemistry Department is dedicated to engendering in its students
a
> sense of excitement in the face of the complex wonder of the created,
> physical universe."
>
> http://www.bluecoatschool.net/index.php?aid=126
Looks to me that creationism is the basis of teaching chemistry at
Bluecoat according to that statement. Look at these three
words "created, physical universe". Why is the word "created" there?
Sounds like McIntosh at Leeds with his Bomby beetle press release.
>
1265
Roger Stanyard
Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
03/07/2006 12:57:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
>
> > > [Answers to the "science" questions coming soon - a
> > few million years or so!]
>
>
> That of course is exactly what I expect of creation 'scientists'.
>
> They do love to preach and preach and preach. But ask them some
> SCIENCE, and they all of a sudden shut up and get very very quiet.
>
In this case, yet again.
Roger Stanyard
>
>
1266
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Boooo!!
03/07/2006 12:58:00
>
> --- Lenny Flank <lflank@ij.net> wrote:
>
> > Note also that it's not THEIR kids that the fundies
> > want to
> > indoctrinate, since they already have ample
> > opportunity to do that at
> > home.
> > It's YOUR kids they want.
>
> > Right, Nick?
>
> > Perhaps Nick would be so kind as to explain why on
> > earth his
> > religious opinions should be taught in school
> > classrooms, instead of
> > in, ya know, churches.
>
> Same reason that you want your godless belief system
> taught in science classes.
I'm not an atheist, Nick. (shrug)
Now answer my questions. What makes YOUR religious opinions any more
authoritative than anyone ELSE's? And why do YOUR religious opinions
belong in a science classroom?
Oh, and since you've now dragged in the tired old "evolution is
atheist" bullshit, that brings up another question. (I do of course
realize that you won't answer it, but you see, Nick, all of my
questions makes their point whether you answer or not --- I don't
need your cooperation).
What, precisely, about “evolution” is any more “atheistic” than, say,
weather forecasting or accident investigation or medicine. Please be
as specific as possible.
I have never, in all my life, ever heard any weather forecaster
mention “god” or "divine will” or any “supernatural” anything, at
all. Ever. Does this mean, in your view, that weather forecasting
is atheistic?
I have yet, in all my 44 years of living, to ever hear any accident
investigator declare solemnly at the scene of an airplane crash, “We
can’t explain how it happened, so an Unknown Intelligent Being must
have dunnit.” I have never yet heard an accident investigator say
that “this crash has no godless causes — it must have been the Will
of Allah”. Does this mean, in your view, that accident investigation
is atheistic?
How about medicine. When you get sick, do you ask your doctor to
abandon his “godless biases” and to investigate possible
“supernatural” or “non-atheistic” causes for your disease? Or do you
ask your doctor to cure your naturalistic materialistic diseases by
using naturalistic materialistic antibiotics to kill your
naturalistic materialistic germs?
Since it seems to me as if weather forecasting, accident
investigation, and medicine are every bit, in every sense,just as
utterly completely totally absolutely one-thousand-percent
“atheistic” as evolutionary biology is, why, specifically, is it just
evolutionary biology that gets your panties all in a bunch? Why
aren’t you and your fellow creationists out there fighting the good
fight against godless atheistic naturalistic weather forecasting, or
medicine, or accident investigation?
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
1267
Andrew
Re: Re: Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
03/07/2006 12:59:00
So basically we've caught him lying about what's he's said, he's shown
himself to be unable to justify his questionable assertions, and he's
rubbished several other disciplines represented by departments in the school
in which he teaches.
1268
Lenny Flank
Re: Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
03/07/2006 13:01:00
> >
> I don't mind answering proper SCIENCE (eg Chemistry)
> questions if I'm able
And yet you haven't answered a single one.
Wonder why not?
BTW, Nick, I keep hearing the "evolution violates the laws of
thermodynamics" crap from creationists. Since evolution is just a
change from one sequence of CTAG's to another, and since YOU are a
bigtime chemist and all that, this question is right up your alley:
Which step, sepcifically, in evolution do you feel violates the laws
of thermodynamics. The change from which particular sequence of
CGAT's to which different sequence of CGAT's violates the laws of
thermodynamics, and how does it do so. Please show your math.
Or, you can run away from all the science questions (again) and just
keep preaching your silly religious opinions.
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
1269
Lenny Flank
Re: Nick - is being gay a sin?
03/07/2006 13:04:00
>
>
> Sorted!! (A lot easier than hydrological sorting)
>
(handwaving snipped)
Thanks for your religious opinions, Nick. Why should anyone else
give a flying fuck about them? What makes your religious opinions
any more authoritative than anyone else's?
Is it your opinion that not only is the Bible infallible, but YOUR
INTERPRETATIONS of it are also infallible?
Sorry Nick, but I simply don't believe that you are infallible.
Would you mind explaining why I *should* think you are?
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
1270
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Request for Help - Fundamentalists in British Universities
03/07/2006 12:51:00
>
I am staggered at the degree of
> deception and dishonesty by the fundamentalists in the UK.
>
They have no choice. They know as well as we do that nobody supports
them or their political agenda. They simply cannot win through
democratic methods. So they have no choice but to resort to NON-
democratic methods.
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
1271
Andrew
Re: Re: Bluecoat school departments
03/07/2006 13:24:00
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Stanyard
> Looks to me that creationism is the basis of teaching chemistry at
> Bluecoat according to that statement. Look at these three
> words "created, physical universe". Why is the word "created" there?
> Sounds like McIntosh at Leeds with his Bomby beetle press release.
It looks so innocent, too, until you realise what's implied in it.
1272
Roger Stanyard
Re: Bluecoat school departments
03/07/2006 13:56:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" <taoist.hermit1@...> wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Roger Stanyard
>
> > Looks to me that creationism is the basis of teaching chemistry at
> > Bluecoat according to that statement. Look at these three
> > words "created, physical universe". Why is the word "created" there?
>
> > Sounds like McIntosh at Leeds with his Bomby beetle press release.
>
> It looks so innocent, too, until you realise what's implied in it.
>
I've looked at it again, and I don't read it as an impication. It's a
statement of the fundamentalist position of the department.
As you know, I am working on the politics of creationism in the UK at
the moment and take great heed of George Orwell about the use of the
English language and politics.
For what it is worth, his second wife had been librarian at the
university where I did my first degree (indeed, he actually died in
part of the university). It was the exhibitions of his memorabilia,
apparently donated or lent by her, which got me interested.
Roger
1273
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Request for Help - Fundamentalists in British Universities
03/07/2006 14:44:00
On 03/07/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase" <timothychase@...>
> wrote:
> >
>
> > Incidently, this is kind of fun. Like when I tried to bust some virus
> > authors a couple of years ago. (Unfortunately, the FBI wasn't
> > terribly cooperative.)
>
> Couldn't agree with you more. I am staggered at the degree of deception
> and dishonesty by the fundamentalists in the UK.
Well, for me, it taps into "the forces of light vs. the forces of
darkness," but I figure that's a large part of the motivation involved
for each of us. Has been for quite a while for some. It was also
part of what I tapped into when doing philosophy or "investigating"
cults -- although the last of these was amateurish, for the most part.
As for their dishonesty, it runs very deep. When you consider what
they are after -- indoctrinating students in science classes with a
religio-political ideology intended to establish a theocracy, or at
least in the United States among some groups, washing the streets in
the blood of any who are not with them all in preparation for the
return of Christ -- well, I don't know what other word to use, I can
only describe it as evil.
> I've done loads of this sort of work before in the corporate sector;
> worked with gum shoes, had to have had my offices checked for bugs,
> have listed to people talk about murdering criminals; I have had
> Worldcom and Enron as customers (and, indeed, the outfit that embezzled
> and ruined Ferranti), been threatended by Robert Maxwell, seen the
> curruption in the City, exposed government lying on spy satellites,
> been named in Parliament twice as a result, known big time criminals
> (one made himself £200m out of his dubious activities) and I have never
> seen anything like this.
I think you and Lenny have been living lives a bit more exciting than
my own. And this, at least what I am doing, is a great deal easier --
as I can do it from the "comfort" of my own living room (we don't have
an airconditioner), and it isn't all that different from hunting down
tech articles.
> It's bent!
>
> Nicolo Machiavelli would have been proud of them.
>
> And these are people screaming that they are our moral superiors!
We really shouldn't expect anything less -- and remember,
totalitarians always appear to a sense of idealism. It is part of the
job description: the "ultimate good" by any means necessary.
> Roger Stanyard
>
> PS: I've always viewed The Prince as a somewhat grovelling failed job
> application.
Heh. I will have to share that with my wife: she went through the
Great Books program at both the undergraduate and graduate level.
1274
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Bluecoat school departments
03/07/2006 15:02:00
On 03/07/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" <taoist.hermit1@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I've just looked at the description of the chemistry department at
> Liverpool
> > Bluecoat School. It begins:
> >
> > "The Chemistry Department is dedicated to engendering in its students
> a
> > sense of excitement in the face of the complex wonder of the created,
> > physical universe."
> >
> > http://www.bluecoatschool.net/index.php?aid=126
>
> Looks to me that creationism is the basis of teaching chemistry at
> Bluecoat according to that statement. Look at these three
> words "created, physical universe". Why is the word "created" there?
Well, the word "physical" doesn't belong there either, not in a
chemistry class. Then how about the word "complex"? Given its
placement, it is modifying the word "wonder." For humans there is
nothing simpler than our sense of wonder. However, I guess this
changes for fundies studying science, for them it gets a great deal
more complicated.
> Sounds like McIntosh at Leeds with his Bomby beetle press release.
1275
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Bluecoat school departments
03/07/2006 15:15:00
On 03/07/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> I've looked at it again, and I don't read it as an impication. It's a
> statement of the fundamentalist position of the department.
>
> As you know, I am working on the politics of creationism in the UK at
> the moment and take great heed of George Orwell about the use of the
> English language and politics.
Given the situtation, this is quite likely the most important service
that one individual can offer Great Britain, and it should have
rippling effect that will extend well beyond her borders.
> For what it is worth, his second wife had been librarian at the
> university where I did my first degree (indeed, he actually died in
> part of the university). It was the exhibitions of his memorabilia,
> apparently donated or lent by her, which got me interested.
George Orwell means a great deal to Moira and I as well. I suspect I
have some dim sense of what you felt.
1276
MB
Re: Re: Bluecoat school departments
03/07/2006 15:15:00
>> >
>> > "The Chemistry Department is dedicated to engendering in its students
>> a
>> > sense of excitement in the face of the complex wonder of the created,
>> > physical universe."
>> >
>> > http://www.bluecoatschool.net/index.php?aid=126
>
> Well, the word "physical" doesn't belong there either, not in a
> chemistry class. Then how about the word "complex"? Given its
> placement, it is modifying the word "wonder." For humans there is
> nothing simpler than our sense of wonder. However, I guess this
> changes for fundies studying science, for them it gets a great deal
> more complicated.
>
Maybe it's a reference to the Irreducibly Complex bit that is on the
agenda with the Creation bit.
Regards,
MB
1277
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Bluecoat school departments
03/07/2006 15:32:00
On 03/07/06, MB <mbb386@main.nc.us> wrote:
>
> > Well, the word "physical" doesn't belong there either, not in a
> > chemistry class. Then how about the word "complex"? Given its
> > placement, it is modifying the word "wonder." For humans there is
> > nothing simpler than our sense of wonder. However, I guess this
> > changes for fundies studying science, for them it gets a great deal
> > more complicated.
> Maybe it's a reference to the Irreducibly Complex bit that is on the
> agenda with the Creation bit.
That was the intention, but as it stands, It is what my wife would
call a Freudian slip.
1278
Rudy Vonk
Re: Re: Boooo!!
03/07/2006 15:41:00
On 03 jul 2006, at 13:58, Lenny Flank wrote:
> How about medicine. When you get sick, do you ask your doctor to
> abandon his “godless biases” and to investigate possible
> “supernatural” or “non-atheistic” causes for your disease? Or do you
> ask your doctor to cure your naturalistic materialistic diseases by
> using naturalistic materialistic antibiotics to kill your
> naturalistic materialistic germs?
Check out yesterday's "Doonesbury":
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?
uc_full_date=20060702
1279
Timothy Chase
Re: Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
03/07/2006 17:42:00
On 02/07/06, Nick & Moira Cowan <m_cowan32@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> --- Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > I wish that Nick would actually stop procrastinating
> > and answer science
> > questions and I respectfully suggest that we all
> > stop engaging in
> > pointless tattle with him until he does. This
> > exercise is getting us
> > precisely nowhere.
>
>
> I don't mind answering proper SCIENCE (eg Chemistry)
> questions if I'm able, but I'm being repeatedly asked
> (yawn) about pseudo-science like historical (origins)
> Geology and evolutionary Biology. Since the
> faith-based (eg in the non-existence of a
> Designer/Creator)conclusions drawn are not empirically
> testable or falsifiable, they don't fall within the
> remit of the scientific method. Creationism isn't
> science either but it is equivalent to any other
> theory of origins.
Huh. I wrote something about that not too long ago. Now where did I
put it? Oh yes, here:
"Observational" and "Historical" Sciences
May 26, 2006, 3:06 pm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/message/93200
May 26, 2006, 4:51 pm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/message/93205
> > Now, Nick, are you EVER going to answer any of
> > Lenny's questions or are
> > they too hard for you? You want to defend your
> > position, we're here to
> > listen, but so far you've been patronising, evasive
> > and downright silly
> > at times. All I ask is that you respect this forum
> > and do as you are
> > asked, which is this: ANSWER DIRECT QUESTIONS -
> > DIRECTLY.
>
>
> I may attempt answers to Lenny's questions soon but
> I've no expertise in the field - I need to do some
> digging! Hey - I might just find human & dinosaur
> bones together! I hear that a recent find of the
> latter has unearthed intact blood cells (hence DNA) -
> a bit tricky for a 65 million-year-old fossil!
Actually, TalkOrigin had a nice overview of the thing. It included this bit:
"Earlier hopes of finding cells in the dinosaur bone have been dashed.
Dr. Schweitzer said she could see no direct sign of cells, although a
chemical stain that recognizes DNA picked up something in the holes
where the bone cells would have rested.
"But she said she had been unable to retrieve DNA that could be
identified as originating in a dinosaur. She and her colleagues had
better luck in looking for heme, the oxygen carrying part of the
hemoglobin molecule of the blood. [Wade 1997]"
Dino-blood and the Young Earth
by Gary S. Hurd, Ph. D., 2004
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html
Cells? Unfortanately not. DNA? We wish. Heme? Well, one out of
three. Unfortunately you forgot to mention this one.
> > We answer your questions, so how about you stop
> > making empty promises
> > and challenge us. Quit the preaching and the
> > scripture, we're all tired
> > of it. Hey, we all know how to read the bible and a
> > fair number of us
> > can see it for what it is.
> Really? (see below)
Well, as far as your preaching goes, I personally find it mildly
amusing, but then I am sometimes easily entertained. I like watching
the antics of our cats, I have sat listening to my mother-in-law's
hanans, and stood watching two slugs suspended in air wrapped in
each-other's... well, you get the idea.
...
> Hey - I've heard chromosome 22 is radically different
> in man and chimpanzee - nowhere near 98% identical.
> What would the "common ancestor" make of that?! A
> monkey of all of us, for sure.
> Nick.
Radically different?
This doesn't seem quite accurate. Approximately a third of the genes
are identical, and the average is approximately two or three amino
acid substitutions. Incidently, I was looking at your unnamed source,
and he had some ideas which seemed, well, odd. For example, he seemed
worried about the heterochromatin, but it is only when heterochromatin
is decondensed into euchromatin that it will become visible to natural
selection. Likewise, the majority of indels appear in the
microsatellites, specifically in the tandem repeats, which is exactly
where one would expect due to hypermutations as the result of
slippage. Less than twenty genes were affected by the indels, and
with the majority of them, only the introns -- which aren't really
coding sequences now, are they?
As for intrachromosomal rearrangements, they were somewhat more
significant than we expected, but for anyone tracking the work on
cross-species comparisons being done with mammals, it really shouldn't
have come as that big of a surprise -- particularly given how common
rearrangements even today: roughly one-tenth of one percent of all
humans born have such rearrangements in the very same places where
chromosomes suffered breaks and were re-integrated during the
evolution of mammals. Likewise, many types of cancer involve
rearrangements in the very same places. Something about hairpin
structures due to inverse palindromic sequences which sometimes result
from the triple helix Z-DNA and H-DNA arrangements, putting stress on
the the chromosomes -- if I remember correctly. The idea that the
mutations would nearly all be SNPs always seemed rather quaint to me.
As for your source, I believe he should a course in biology -- and you
would do better to look for the primary sources. You should also
seriously consider looking into the role of opioids in the evolution
of the human brain -- I believe you might have been short-changed.
Please do try and take care of yourself.
1280
Roger Stanyard
Re: Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
03/07/2006 19:58:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase" <timothychase@...>
wrote:
>
> As for your source, I believe he should a course in biology -- and you
> would do better to look for the primary sources. You should also
> seriously consider looking into the role of opioids in the evolution
> of the human brain -- I believe you might have been short-changed.
>
> Please do try and take care of yourself.
LOL!!!!!!
1281
oeditor
Re: Boooo!!
03/07/2006 20:15:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Rudy Vonk <rudy@...> wrote:
>
> On 03 jul 2006, at 13:58, Lenny Flank wrote:
>
> > How about medicine. When you get sick, do you ask your doctor to
> > abandon his �godless biases� and to investigate possible
> > �supernatural� or �non-atheistic� causes for your disease? Or do
you
> > ask your doctor to cure your naturalistic materialistic diseases by
> > using naturalistic materialistic antibiotics to kill your
> > naturalistic materialistic germs?
>
> Check out yesterday's "Doonesbury":
>
ROFL! Brilliant. The url split, though. Try http://tinyurl.com/jt5um
Brian
1282
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
03/07/2006 20:17:00
On 03/07/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase" <timothychase@...>
>
> wrote:
> >
> > As for your source, I believe he should a course in biology -- and you
> > would do better to look for the primary sources. You should also
> > seriously consider looking into the role of opioids in the evolution
> > of the human brain -- I believe you might have been short-changed.
> >
> > Please do try and take care of yourself.
>
>
> LOL!!!!!!
Missing perhaps three or so common words, but it was off the top of my
head while at work, first draft...
1283
Nick & Moira Cowan
Re: Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
04/07/2006 04:16:00
--- Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >Creationism isn't
> >science either but it is equivalent to any other
> >theory of origins.
> BULLSHIT!
> Evo biology is a proper branch of science. You are
> the one making claims
> about other non-sciences and scientific claims in
> areas which you are
> not qualified to talk.
You can invent your own definition of science to suit
yourself if you wish. But mine includes observability:
(sound of fruit-flies mutating......but no new genetic
information yet. Oh well. Let's give it a few more
millennia)
...and repeatability
(Isn't it about time evolutionists bred a new "kind"?
Well now, let's take these 2 butterflies and see what
we get.... Hint: answer begins with b and ends with y)
...and falsifiability
(it's creationism that can be falsified - all you folk
need to do is change one kind of living creature into
another. I can't imagine what experiment could
disprove evolution - but I'm not surprised because
it's as much a faith position/religion as mine)
I don't have to be a Biologist to state this: it's the
historic position of Bacon/Grosseteste/Popper e.t.c.
(or should it be et.c.)
> > Hey - I might just find human & dinosaur
> >bones together! I hear that a recent find of the
> >latter has unearthed intact blood cells (hence
> > DNA) -
> >a bit tricky for a 65 million-year-old fossil!
> WRONG! AGAIN!
> Red blood cells DON'T contain DNA you fool - if you
> had any grasp of
> biology you would know that. (Everyone else, I'm
> sorry my language is
> slipping this morning but this guy is proving what
> an idiot he is in
> spades.)
Hang on - where's the word "red" in my post? I'm void
of both (midnight)diamonds and hearts, but that
doesn't mean I'm an idiot in spades.
Seven No-Trumps redoubled!
> > Now, Nick, are you EVER going to answer any of
> > Lenny's questions or are
> > they too hard for you? You want to defend your
> > position, we're here to
> > listen, but so far you've been patronising,
> evasive
> > and downright silly
> > at times. All I ask is that you respect this
> forum
> > and do as you are
> > asked, which is this: ANSWER DIRECT QUESTIONS -
> > DIRECTLY.
> >> We answer your questions, so how about you stop
> >> making empty promises
> >> and challenge us. Quit the preaching and the
> >> scripture, we're all tired
> >> of it. Hey, we all know how to read the bible
> and a
> >> fair number of us
> >> can see it for what it is.
> >Really? (see below)
> >> Would you pass a student who procrastinated
> about
> >> answer but never
> >> actually gave one?
>
> >I'd give them time - what's a few months anyway to
> you
> >5 billion year folk!
>
> BZZZT! Busted again. What's few months in a final
> year? Do that math
> stoopid and stop avoiding direct questions. If
> someone never actually
> gave an answer, no amount of time would ever make
> them give one, now
> would it?
You can't be sure of when the last remaining carbon-14
nucleus in a sample will decay either! And some of
your supposed "ages" from carbon-dating are really
reliable of course! Like all radiometric dating it's
full of assumptions. Or mavbe I'm just an old fossil
who's retiring soon.
> >> Anyway, your main claim Nick, is that the Earth
> (and
> >> presumably the
> >> universe) is 6000 years old, give or take a
> couple
> >> of millennia.
>
> >Yes, just under 6000 years (Ussher wasn't quite
> YEC
> >enough for me!)
>
> Are you taking the piss? Hardly the sort of
> behaviour I would expect
> from a respected teacher. I'd love to see these
> debates posted to the
> parents of the children you teach.
I have a sense of humour, as the little goats I teach
(and their parents) will verify. Unfortunately it's
largely lost on the generally humourless members of
this forum. Still, you'll get used to it. I can laugh
at myself so I don't get wound-up if you join in. God
has a sense of humour too (or is that "preaching"!?)
> >> You base this on the claims of a book written
> over
> >> 2000 years ago by
> >> semi-nomadic tribe who were only just beginning
> to
> >> form what we would
> >> recognise as society. Somehow they were aware of
> the
> >>billions of species
>
> >The Bible was written over a period of at least
> 1500
> >years by a variety of authors (including at least
> one
> >Gentile - Luke), under the inspiration of Yahweh,
> >mainly after the "semi-nomadic" period (Exodus)
> and
> >certainly within a recognised society
> (Israel/Judah)
> Mainly? Nah. The NT was written during that period,
> the OT wasn't.
Our former Head boy here at Blue Coat is in his 2nd
year at Oxford reading Theology (he's the guy who got
Philip Bell from AiG into the university for a meeting
in January - great news eh?) He seems to think I'm
right on this one viz:
NT written between ca.45AD (James) and ca.95AD
(Revelation).
OT written between ca.1400BC (the Pentateuch/Torah
though Job may be earlier) and ca.400BC (Malachi).
Liberal theologians generally date things later. What
dates do you suggest?
> >By the way, are there "billions" of species -
> sounds
> >like an exaggeration to me? Good job there were
> only
> >enough "kinds" to fit on the Ark!
>
> 1.5 million species are catalogued today, Nick.
OK - but "billions" is OTT.
> Woodmorappe (the guy
> most vaunted for working out the Ark story in modern
> terms) got his
> maths wrong. He works on 8000 kinds (16000 animals
> if we disallow for
> the clean/unclean ones). The AiG publishes a long
> tract on this using
> Woodmorappe's work which I have just taken great
> pleasure in debunking.
For religious reasons I still believe Woodmorappe.
For religious reasons (the non-existence of God) you
don't, so you're not being impartial when you use
"science" to dismiss his carefully presented study.
> >> all over the planet. So much so, that a small
> few of
> >> their number were
> >> able to collect examples of every single living
> >> thing we can see today:
> >> they must have done since evolution doesn't
> occur in
> >> the bible.
>
> >The Bible says that God sent them to Noah - he
> didn't
> >have to collect them, just lead them aboard! Some
> -
> >maybe many - we don't see today because they've
> become
> >extinct eg dinosaurs. You won't find evolution in
> the
> >Bible because it isn't a Biology book.
> I read that, but we only have the relatively modern
> translations for
> that guidance. How did Noah lead the carnivores
> Nick?
Maybe they weren't carnivores (like man wasn't) till
after the flood - compare Genesis 1 v28/29 with 9 v3.
> Oh, Nick, it "e.g." not "eg" - it's an abbreviation
> from Latin. I also
> suspect you meant "i.e." meaning "that is", not for
> example.
OK (yawn)
> Finally you admit the Bible isn't a biology book;
> it's a story book.
> Even the AiG has difficulty in explaining how the
> vast diversity of life
> we see today came about from 8000 originals.
>
> >> They must have scoured rain-forest, ice-field,
> >> Savannah, desert,
> >> field... everything (not forgetting ocean floors
> to
> >> miles deep - depths
> >> that we cannot reach even today).
>
> >Er, no - read Genesis 7 verse 8.
>
> No? OK. Gen 7:8
>
> "Of /clean beasts/, and of beasts that are not
> clean, /and of fowls/,
> and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth"
Yes, I should have added verse 9 as well. Sorry (but I
bet you read it anyway).
> Well I'll be blowed... Nick's taking the bible
> literally again... Pity
> about that. See the bible just doesn't bear up to
> close examination. The
> problem with billions of gallons of (no longer
> present) fresh water that
> fell on the Earth to cause the flood as described
> would have poisoned
> just about every living thing in the sea within
> hours. HOURS. Not days,
> not weeks, not months, but hours.
You can't be certain. Things may have been totally
different then - they were in other ways. The whole
fresh/salt water thing may not apply.
By the way the water from the flood is still with us!
It's not too hard to estimate how far BELOW sea-level
we'd be if the land was all equidistant from the
centre of the earth!
> I've covered this error in detail in my debunking of
> Noah, but if you
> need to see this happen Nick, go down your pet store
> and buy a false
> percula clownfish (like Nemo from the film Finding
> Nemo) or if you can't
> afford one, just about any marine dweller will do.
> Hell, nip down and
..you don't come out! In heaven you wouldn't want to!
> see if you can catch a few hermit crabs from a local
> beach.
> Now, carefully match the temperature of some
> tapwater (or DI/RO water if
> you prefer) and force some air through - we wouldn't
> want our creatures
> to suffocate. Add your collected sample (if you can
> be that cruel) and
> time how long it survives.
> BUSTED. This affect is due to a chemical reaction -
> which is your
> speciality, after all.
Clownfish - good name. Are they OK with chips?
> > >Boy that's some
> > >feat. Better still,
> > > they managed to fit the whole job lot into a
> boat
> > > that wouldn't even
> > >fill a very small zoo. Better than that, they
> > >managed to keep every last
> > >one of them alive (without help from the big guy
> > >upstairs). This last
> > >bit we do know for sure: everything god did is
> > >recorded in great detail
> > <in the bible; right down to "his" words and sure
> as
> > >I'm not a chemistry
> > >teacher, that was one busy dude.
>
> >There have been some excellent studies on these
> >questions, mainly by John Woodmorappe, whose 2
> books
> >give a complete feasibility study. For a short
> précis
> >of his work see:
>
> Woodmorappe? Good, I'm glad you brought that name
> up. I've debunked
> Woodmorappe's assertions from the AiG peice in a
> recent article - you
> should read it. Woodmorappe boilerplate is typical
> of your sort, what
> doesn't fit the theory (and there's lots of it) is
> ignored. Woodmorappe
> (or the AiG author) doesn't even know the difference
> between the mean
> and the median measure in stats.
OK there's a difference of definition, but in many
distribution curves mean and median (and mode too for
good measure) are numerically equal.
> > > I could go on, but hey, I'm not an expert.
>
> >Amen! Your theology is about the same level as my
> >palaeontology!
>
> I rather doubt that, but since you bring the subject
> up, how can you
> claim to know anything about historical origins if
> you don't even
> understand the scientific theories that give rise to
> them?
I don't believe SCIENCE can ever "give rise to"
(cause) anything. To attribute purpose to a "blind"
process is to make "science" your "god".
> > > Nick. Explain this. You're the expert: fill me
> in.
> > > I'm all ears. Just
> > > remember this is a science forum - not somewhere
> to
> > > preach scripture. I
> > > want you to explain this hugely important event
> upon
> > > which a lot of your
> > > assumptions are based.
> >Hang on - you're asking me (as do many in this
> >forum)
> >theological questions then telling me not to
> >"preach
> >scripture"!! If I answer I'm preaching; if I don't
> >I'm
> >being evasive. The classic Catch-22 (shrug).
> No I am not. Nor is anyone else for that matter.
This one's measurable: go over all the BlackShadow
posts since I joined and count them for yourself.
> I'm asking you to take a theological assertion -
> which YOU claim is
> scientifically justified - and explain it
> scientifically. There's a huge
> difference and the only Catch 22 here is the fact
> that you can't.
Is ANY "theological" or religious assertion capable of
scientific justification?
> >Hey - I've heard chromosome 22 is radically
> different
> >in man and chimpanzee - nowhere near 98% identical.
> >What would the "common ancestor" make of that?! A
> >monkey of all of us, for sure.
> That's just asinine Nick. I've not read anywhere
> that specifically
> suggests that chromosome 22 WAS 98% alike in humans
> and chimps. Perhaps
> you would care to enlighten us?
Evolutionists were quick to report that 98% figure -
it was widely quoted in the press at the time (3 years
ago?) but it was for the whole genome (or at least the
part that had been mapped.). Chromosome 22 is more
recent (2005 I think). Check it out.
> And please tell me that the monkey note was an
> attempt at humor. I
> really don't want to think you're that ignorant.
It was humour, or "humor" as the Americans mis-spell
it (Sorry Marc if you're American! I guess I'll have
Flank the Yank on my back again!)
Nick Cowan II
1284
Roger Stanyard
Re: Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
04/07/2006 10:40:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Nick & Moira Cowan
<m_cowan32@...> wrote:
>
>
>> (Isn't it about time evolutionists bred a new "kind"?
> Well now, let's take these 2 butterflies and see what
> we get.... Hint: answer begins with b and ends with y)
>
What's a "kind" Nick? Or do we have fr ever and a day for creationist
scientists to come up with an answer?
>
> Our former Head boy here at Blue Coat is in his 2nd
> year at Oxford reading Theology (he's the guy who got
> Philip Bell from AiG into the university for a meeting
> in January - great news eh?) He seems to think I'm
> right on this one viz:
>
Oh, the very same Philip Bell that's going around the country saying
that people are being abducted by aliens in UFOs. And that Dinosaurs
roamed the EBritish countryside in Tudor times. Er, that level of
intellect.
What the hell is being taught at Bluecoat?
> For religious reasons I still believe Woodmorappe.
>
> For religious reasons (the non-existence of God) you
> don't, so you're not being impartial when you use
> "science" to dismiss his carefully presented study.
Nope, dead wrong. The creationist scientists say their science stands
up without religion. Time and time again, right back to 1961 and
Henry Morris. You know, the guy that has said it is OK to lie for
God. Why don't you ask one of your local Anglican clergyman about
this one Nick? His name is the Rev Michael Roberts.
Also, wrong again. Don't need science to dismiss Woodmorappe's wacko
rubbish. Just a grasp of basic engineering - naval architecture. It's
a branch of engineering if you didn't know.
Here is a detailed list of Woodmorappe's professional expertise in
engineering and naval archirecture:
(long, isn't it?)
Why is it in the real world I look to professionals to give me an
understanding of engineering but the fundies rely on a school teacher
with a background in geology?
I don't get this Nick because what I do for a living really does
involve rocket science. Members of my family are world class when it
comes to engineering - you know, a director of Rolls Royce, a builder
of nuclear powered submarines. Many a long hour I've discussed ships
with them.
(For the rest of this group, the really interesting historical stuff
I have is on the Queen Mary - technically an obsolete pile of poo the
minute it ran down the slipway in Glasgow. Rivited construction,
built with obsolete parts set to BoT standards, bottom heavy,
unstable in heavy weather and a leathal memance to its passengers and
crew. It had to have massive midifications.)
And here is this idiot Woodmorappe who thinks he knows better.
Give us a bio on Woodmorappe, his real name and his professional
qualifications, Nick.
>
> Yes, I should have added verse 9 as well. Sorry (but I
> bet you read it anyway).
>
Well, clearly Nick, we are all uneducated morons.
> By the way the water from the flood is still with us!
> It's not too hard to estimate how far BELOW sea-level
> we'd be if the land was all equidistant from the
> centre of the earth!
>
And preciely how ever said it was or where there no oceans or seas
before the flood? No hills, no mountains?
> ..you don't come out! In heaven you wouldn't want to!
>
What are you talking about?
>
> Clownfish - good name. Are they OK with chips?
>
Well clearly the man is wrong because of the name of the fish?. I
suppose that was made up by some kind of immoral, atheistic
evilutionist who isn't an evangelical protestant fundamentalist.
So, let me ask again - what the hell is a fundie atheist?
> I don't believe SCIENCE can ever "give rise to"
> (cause) anything. To attribute purpose to a "blind"
> process is to make "science" your "god".
>
Why? I don't understand this statement at all.
>
> Evolutionists were quick to report that 98% figure -
> it was widely quoted in the press at the time (3 years
> ago?) but it was for the whole genome (or at least the
> part that had been mapped.). Chromosome 22 is more
> recent (2005 I think). Check it out.
>
So what. That's what is happening in the biological sciences - new
research is poouring out on genetics. So what has been the
contribution of creation science to science?
Um, sod all.
> It was humour, or "humor" as the Americans mis-spell
> it (Sorry Marc if you're American! I guess I'll have
> Flank the Yank on my back again!)
>
With a bit of luck
1285
Marc Draco
Re: Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
04/07/2006 11:23:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Nick & Moira Cowan <m_cowan32@...>
wrote:
>
>
> --- Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@...> wrote:
>
> > >Creationism isn't
> > >science either but it is equivalent to any other
> > >theory of origins.
>
> > BULLSHIT!
> > Evo biology is a proper branch of science. You are
> > the one making claims
> > about other non-sciences and scientific claims in
> > areas which you are
> > not qualified to talk.
>
> You can invent your own definition of science to suit
> yourself if you wish. But mine includes observability:
So does mine. Perhaps you would enlighted us as to when Biology ceased
to be a science?
> (sound of fruit-flies mutating......but no new genetic
> information yet. Oh well. Let's give it a few more
> millennia)
>
Two words stoopid. Environmental pressure.
I've covered this before (but I'll do so again). Evolution requires a
change in the environment for their to be a change in the organism.
Changes WILL still occur, but unless they have some advantage, they
will not survive. Lab environments are static and unchanging.
What you've unwittingly done (apart from expose your incredible
ignorance to all) is actually prove evolution.
> ...and repeatability
> (Isn't it about time evolutionists bred a new "kind"?
> Well now, let's take these 2 butterflies and see what
> we get.... Hint: answer begins with b and ends with y)
D'uh! See about.
>
> ...and falsifiability
>
> (it's creationism that can be falsified - all you folk
> need to do is change one kind of living creature into
> another. I can't imagine what experiment could
> disprove evolution - but I'm not surprised because
> it's as much a faith position/religion as mine)
Here's one: mate a couple of cats and see if a dog comes out. If it
does, then evolution is blown to shit. Proof again that you don't have
clue what you're talking about.
> I don't have to be a Biologist to state this: it's the
> historic position of Bacon/Grosseteste/Popper e.t.c.
> (or should it be et.c.)
No. It's etc. That's a abbreviation of etcetera (also latin if memory
serves). Like you Nick, I'm flying without a dictionary.
>
> > > Hey - I might just find human & dinosaur
> > >bones together! I hear that a recent find of the
> > >latter has unearthed intact blood cells (hence
> > > DNA) -
> > >a bit tricky for a 65 million-year-old fossil!
>
> > WRONG! AGAIN!
> > Red blood cells DON'T contain DNA you fool - if you
> > had any grasp of
> > biology you would know that. (Everyone else, I'm
> > sorry my language is
> > slipping this morning but this guy is proving what
> > an idiot he is in
> > spades.)
>
>
> Hang on - where's the word "red" in my post? I'm void
> of both (midnight)diamonds and hearts, but that
> doesn't mean I'm an idiot in spades.
Ah so, you know the difference then. Perhaps you'd like to enlighten
us which type of blood cells were found? Perhaps this little quote
from one of your supporters will jog that grey matter.
"Evidence of hemoglobin, and the still-recognizable shapes of red
blood cells, in unfossilized dinosaur bone is powerful testimony
against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It
speaks volumes for the Bible's account of a recent creation."
RED blood cells Nick (never mind the unfossilised bit). Red ones.
Erythrocytes. Not leucocytes (which would contain DNA).
> Seven No-Trumps redoubled!
>
> > > Now, Nick, are you EVER going to answer any of
> > > Lenny's questions or are
> > > they too hard for you? You want to defend your
> > > position, we're here to
> > > listen, but so far you've been patronising,
> > evasive
> > > and downright silly
> > > at times. All I ask is that you respect this
> > forum
> > > and do as you are
> > > asked, which is this: ANSWER DIRECT QUESTIONS -
> > > DIRECTLY.
> > >> We answer your questions, so how about you stop
> > >> making empty promises
> > >> and challenge us. Quit the preaching and the
> > >> scripture, we're all tired
> > >> of it. Hey, we all know how to read the bible
> > and a
> > >> fair number of us
> > >> can see it for what it is.
>
> > >Really? (see below)
>
> > >> Would you pass a student who procrastinated
> > about
> > >> answer but never
> > >> actually gave one?
> >
> > >I'd give them time - what's a few months anyway to
> > you
> > >5 billion year folk!
> >
> > BZZZT! Busted again. What's few months in a final
> > year? Do that math
> > stoopid and stop avoiding direct questions. If
> > someone never actually
> > gave an answer, no amount of time would ever make
> > them give one, now
> > would it?
>
> You can't be sure of when the last remaining carbon-14
> nucleus in a sample will decay either! And some of
> your supposed "ages" from carbon-dating are really
> reliable of course! Like all radiometric dating it's
> full of assumptions. Or mavbe I'm just an old fossil
> who's retiring soon.
I rather wish you would: retire that is. Carbon dating is ONE method
for dating things, Nick. ONE. There are over 40 more.
> > >> Anyway, your main claim Nick, is that the Earth
> > (and
> > >> presumably the
> > >> universe) is 6000 years old, give or take a
> > couple
> > >> of millennia.
> >
> > >Yes, just under 6000 years (Ussher wasn't quite
> > YEC
> > >enough for me!)
> >
> > Are you taking the piss? Hardly the sort of
> > behaviour I would expect
> > from a respected teacher. I'd love to see these
> > debates posted to the
> > parents of the children you teach.
>
> I have a sense of humour, as the little goats I teach
> (and their parents) will verify. Unfortunately it's
> largely lost on the generally humourless members of
> this forum. Still, you'll get used to it. I can laugh
> at myself so I don't get wound-up if you join in. God
> has a sense of humour too (or is that "preaching"!?)
I don't know. No one here finds your admission to promotion of
creationism and anti-science here very funny Nick.
> > >> You base this on the claims of a book written
> > over
> > >> 2000 years ago by
> > >> semi-nomadic tribe who were only just beginning
> > to
> > >> form what we would
> > >> recognise as society. Somehow they were aware of
> > the
> > >>billions of species
> >
> > >The Bible was written over a period of at least
> > 1500
> > >years by a variety of authors (including at least
> > one
> > >Gentile - Luke), under the inspiration of Yahweh,
> > >mainly after the "semi-nomadic" period (Exodus)
> > and
> > >certainly within a recognised society
> > (Israel/Judah)
>
> > Mainly? Nah. The NT was written during that period,
> > the OT wasn't.
>
> Our former Head boy here at Blue Coat is in his 2nd
> year at Oxford reading Theology (he's the guy who got
> Philip Bell from AiG into the university for a meeting
> in January - great news eh?) He seems to think I'm
> right on this one viz:
>
> NT written between ca.45AD (James) and ca.95AD
> (Revelation).
> OT written between ca.1400BC (the Pentateuch/Torah
> though Job may be earlier) and ca.400BC (Malachi).
>
> Liberal theologians generally date things later. What
> dates do you suggest?
Similar time period, if you read what I said. The bit we're debating
is the OT not the NT. Over 1400 BC puts the OT over 2000 years old;
3400 or thereabouts. Or is my math out?
> > >By the way, are there "billions" of species -
> > sounds
> > >like an exaggeration to me? Good job there were
> > only
> > >enough "kinds" to fit on the Ark!
> >
> > 1.5 million species are catalogued today, Nick.
>
> OK - but "billions" is OTT.
Sure. That's the email. Read the article I wrote which is researched
not dragged off the top of my head in anger.
> > Woodmorappe (the guy
> > most vaunted for working out the Ark story in modern
> > terms) got his
> > maths wrong. He works on 8000 kinds (16000 animals
> > if we disallow for
> > the clean/unclean ones). The AiG publishes a long
> > tract on this using
> > Woodmorappe's work which I have just taken great
> > pleasure in debunking.
>
> For religious reasons I still believe Woodmorappe.
And for scientific reasons, Woodmorappe is STILL WRONG!
> For religious reasons (the non-existence of God) you
> don't, so you're not being impartial when you use
> "science" to dismiss his carefully presented study.
Carefully presented bullshit. I didn't just use science Nick. I used
Maths (Woodmorappe's maths) and I used chemistry and biology too.
> > >> all over the planet. So much so, that a small
> > few of
> > >> their number were
> > >> able to collect examples of every single living
> > >> thing we can see today:
> > >> they must have done since evolution doesn't
> > occur in
> > >> the bible.
> >
> > >The Bible says that God sent them to Noah - he
> > didn't
> > >have to collect them, just lead them aboard! Some
> > -
> > >maybe many - we don't see today because they've
> > become
> > >extinct eg dinosaurs. You won't find evolution in
> > the
> > >Bible because it isn't a Biology book.
>
>
> > I read that, but we only have the relatively modern
> > translations for
> > that guidance. How did Noah lead the carnivores
> > Nick?
>
> Maybe they weren't carnivores (like man wasn't) till
> after the flood - compare Genesis 1 v28/29 with 9 v3.
BUZZ! Bullshit alert. Thanks for the tip, that's something else I can
expose now.
> > Oh, Nick, it "e.g." not "eg" - it's an abbreviation
> > from Latin. I also
> > suspect you meant "i.e." meaning "that is", not for
> > example.
>
> OK (yawn)
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. Which did you mean?
> > Finally you admit the Bible isn't a biology book;
> > it's a story book.
> > Even the AiG has difficulty in explaining how the
> > vast diversity of life
> > we see today came about from 8000 originals.
> >
> > >> They must have scoured rain-forest, ice-field,
> > >> Savannah, desert,
> > >> field... everything (not forgetting ocean floors
> > to
> > >> miles deep - depths
> > >> that we cannot reach even today).
> >
> > >Er, no - read Genesis 7 verse 8.
> >
> > No? OK. Gen 7:8
> >
> > "Of /clean beasts/, and of beasts that are not
> > clean, /and of fowls/,
> > and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth"
>
> Yes, I should have added verse 9 as well. Sorry (but I
> bet you read it anyway).
Several times. I'm having great fun taking every single verse apart
piece by piece and when people ask me why, I'm going to tell them that
they have you to thank.
> > Well I'll be blowed... Nick's taking the bible
> > literally again... Pity
> > about that. See the bible just doesn't bear up to
> > close examination. The
> > problem with billions of gallons of (no longer
> > present) fresh water that
> > fell on the Earth to cause the flood as described
> > would have poisoned
> > just about every living thing in the sea within
> > hours. HOURS. Not days,
> > not weeks, not months, but hours.
>
> You can't be certain. Things may have been totally
> different then - they were in other ways. The whole
> fresh/salt water thing may not apply.
BUZZ! Bullshit alert! That relies on supposition which only faith
allows for.
> By the way the water from the flood is still with us!
> It's not too hard to estimate how far BELOW sea-level
> we'd be if the land was all equidistant from the
> centre of the earth!
BUZZ! Bullshit alert! Do what? You're saying that 6000 (ish) years
ago, the earth was totally flat? Damn boyo, you're stretching it even
by your own measure now.
> > I've covered this error in detail in my debunking of
> > Noah, but if you
> > need to see this happen Nick, go down your pet store
> > and buy a false
> > percula clownfish (like Nemo from the film Finding
> > Nemo) or if you can't
> > afford one, just about any marine dweller will do.
> > Hell, nip down and
>
> ..you don't come out! In heaven you wouldn't want to!
Pardon?
>
>
> > see if you can catch a few hermit crabs from a local
> > beach.
> > Now, carefully match the temperature of some
> > tapwater (or DI/RO water if
> > you prefer) and force some air through - we wouldn't
> > want our creatures
> > to suffocate. Add your collected sample (if you can
> > be that cruel) and
> > time how long it survives.
> > BUSTED. This affect is due to a chemical reaction -
> > which is your
> > speciality, after all.
>
> Clownfish - good name. Are they OK with chips?
Now that is just asinine. Nick resorts to sarcasm again because he
doesn't know what a Clownfish is. Maybe you should ask your kids (the
ones you teach) I'm sure a large number could tell you.
>
> > > >Boy that's some
> > > >feat. Better still,
> > > > they managed to fit the whole job lot into a
> > boat
> > > > that wouldn't even
> > > >fill a very small zoo. Better than that, they
> > > >managed to keep every last
> > > >one of them alive (without help from the big guy
> > > >upstairs). This last
> > > >bit we do know for sure: everything god did is
> > > >recorded in great detail
> > > <in the bible; right down to "his" words and sure
> > as
> > > >I'm not a chemistry
> > > >teacher, that was one busy dude.
> >
> > >There have been some excellent studies on these
> > >questions, mainly by John Woodmorappe, whose 2
> > books
> > >give a complete feasibility study. For a short
> > précis
> > >of his work see:
> >
> > Woodmorappe? Good, I'm glad you brought that name
> > up. I've debunked
> > Woodmorappe's assertions from the AiG peice in a
> > recent article - you
> > should read it. Woodmorappe boilerplate is typical
> > of your sort, what
> > doesn't fit the theory (and there's lots of it) is
> > ignored. Woodmorappe
> > (or the AiG author) doesn't even know the difference
> > between the mean
> > and the median measure in stats.
>
> OK there's a difference of definition, but in many
> distribution curves mean and median (and mode too for
> good measure) are numerically equal.
BULLSHIT ALERT! Indeed they do. You mean a standard deviation. Yet,
WHY would the author pick the median if the mean would have done just
as well?
> > > > I could go on, but hey, I'm not an expert.
> >
> > >Amen! Your theology is about the same level as my
> > >palaeontology!
> >
> > I rather doubt that, but since you bring the subject
> > up, how can you
> > claim to know anything about historical origins if
> > you don't even
> > understand the scientific theories that give rise to
> > them?
>
> I don't believe SCIENCE can ever "give rise to"
> (cause) anything. To attribute purpose to a "blind"
> process is to make "science" your "god".
Science will be here long after god (and we) are not.
> > > > Nick. Explain this. You're the expert: fill me
> > in.
> > > > I'm all ears. Just
> > > > remember this is a science forum - not somewhere
> > to
> > > > preach scripture. I
> > > > want you to explain this hugely important event
> > upon
> > > > which a lot of your
> > > > assumptions are based.
>
> > >Hang on - you're asking me (as do many in this
> > >forum)
> > >theological questions then telling me not to
> > >"preach
> > >scripture"!! If I answer I'm preaching; if I don't
> > >I'm
> > >being evasive. The classic Catch-22 (shrug).
>
> > No I am not. Nor is anyone else for that matter.
>
> This one's measurable: go over all the BlackShadow
> posts since I joined and count them for yourself.
When was the last time you actually answered a question based on
scientific fact (that we could verify)? If I make a mistake, I'm sure
you'd take great delight in exposing it - you've fallen in to that
very trap earlier in this post by assuming that I wasn't ready to
answer the red blood cell argument. I knew where your info came from,
and you took the bait.
> > I'm asking you to take a theological assertion -
> > which YOU claim is
> > scientifically justified - and explain it
> > scientifically. There's a huge
> > difference and the only Catch 22 here is the fact
> > that you can't.
>
> Is ANY "theological" or religious assertion capable of
> scientific justification?
Not as far as I am aware. No. That's what makes them unsuitable for
schools.
> > >Hey - I've heard chromosome 22 is radically
> > different
> > >in man and chimpanzee - nowhere near 98% identical.
> > >What would the "common ancestor" make of that?! A
> > >monkey of all of us, for sure.
>
> > That's just asinine Nick. I've not read anywhere
> > that specifically
> > suggests that chromosome 22 WAS 98% alike in humans
> > and chimps. Perhaps
> > you would care to enlighten us?
>
> Evolutionists were quick to report that 98% figure -
> it was widely quoted in the press at the time (3 years
> ago?) but it was for the whole genome (or at least the
> part that had been mapped.). Chromosome 22 is more
> recent (2005 I think). Check it out.
Yeah. I did, but someone else beat me to that reply.
> > And please tell me that the monkey note was an
> > attempt at humor. I
> > really don't want to think you're that ignorant.
>
> It was humour, or "humor" as the Americans mis-spell
> it (Sorry Marc if you're American! I guess I'll have
> Flank the Yank on my back again!)
Na. I'm not. I just can't spell all that well when I'm typing at
50WPM. Lenny will doubtless have something to say.
1286
Marc Draco
Nick: You still think I made up Clownfish?
04/07/2006 11:58:00
http://www.2cah.com/pandora/A_ocellaris.html
http://tinyurl.com/lpc87
I have two of these sitting in a tank in my living room: alive, well,
and very colourful.
1287
Roger Stanyard
Re: Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
04/07/2006 12:23:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Nick & Moira Cowan
<m_cowan32@...> wrote:
>
>
>>
> You can invent your own definition of science to suit
> yourself if you wish. But mine includes observability:
>
Nicely put, Nick, but you can't fool me on this. As Lenny has
carefully explained. It's Kent Hovind language - that's the one that
says democracy is a sham and has perjured himself. The very one that
AiG no longer debunks.
So, if you creationist pals like Hovind get their way, who is going
to pay your salary?
Or is it that the fundies are all down each others throats?
> (sound of fruit-flies mutating......but no new genetic
> information yet. Oh well. Let's give it a few more
> millennia)
>
> ...and repeatability
>
> (Isn't it about time evolutionists bred a new "kind"?
> Well now, let's take these 2 butterflies and see what
> we get.... Hint: answer begins with b and ends with y)
>
> ...and falsifiability
>
> (it's creationism that can be falsified - all you folk
> need to do is change one kind of living creature into
> another. I can't imagine what experiment could
> disprove evolution - but I'm not surprised because
> it's as much a faith position/religion as mine)
>
Um, this isn't science, it's science fiction. All you need to prove
evolution wrong is to show dinasaur bones mixed up with human remains
or archeological remains of human dwellings and its wrong.
But, of course, the creationists have, er, a huge problem of
credibility here because they predict that they can but, um, can't
find the evidence. Surprise, surprise.
SO how about finding a fossilised cat in pre-Cambrian strate, Nick?
What would that evidence do for evolution? No experiments needed
there.
Or does paleontology and biology wholly consist of experiments in a
lab?
So explain to me Nick, why belief in evolution is a faith-based
position? I'm having a few problems with this because I was brought
up in a Christian family, including an ordained minister, who had no
problem in accepting evolution. They thought people like you to be
totally crackers.
Or, are my family (and, indeed, the biology and physics staff at
Bluecoat and Belvedere) a bunch of intellectual charlatans as Answers
in Genesis man Andy McIntosh says. You know, the one that has said in
public that we all must be "confronted" by him and shown to be wrong.
Roger Stanyard
1288
oeditor
Re: Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
04/07/2006 12:56:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Nick & Moira Cowan <m_cowan32@...>
wrote:
>
> You can invent your own definition of science to suit
> yourself if you wish. But mine includes observability:
> (sound of fruit-flies mutating......but no new genetic
> information yet. Oh well. Let's give it a few more
> millennia)
It doesn't have to be fitted into a biblical time scale, you know.
>
> ...and repeatability
>
> (Isn't it about time evolutionists bred a new "kind"?
> Well now, let's take these 2 butterflies and see what
> we get.... Hint: answer begins with b and ends with y)
Biology: I have a lime tree in my garden. I bet you can't grow another
that's exactly the same.
Geology: there was that big tsunami, remember? Bet you can't make an
identical undersea earthquake ... oh, I'm forgetting: goddidit.
>
> ...and falsifiability
Not a problem: just find a fossilised human in the jaws of a
fossilised dinosaur. Pretty much as you've already suggested:
> > > Hey - I might just find human & dinosaur
> > >bones together!
> Like all radiometric dating it's
> full of assumptions.
Unlike your creationism?
> God
> has a sense of humour too
No doubt still rolling on his celestial floor laughing about the
effects of his tsunami. Funniest thing since he invented AIDS.
> Liberal theologians generally date things later. What
> dates do you suggest?
I can't say, without checking - not the sort of detail I clutter my
mind with. But I gather that the OT can be dated much later than
previously claimed, and of course the NT has been edited more or less
continuously. Anyway, what does it matter when somebody wrote, for
instance, that the Jews were captives in Egypt, if it turns out that
they never were.
>
> For religious reasons I still believe Woodmorappe.
>
> For religious reasons (the non-existence of God) you
> don't,
Oh dear Nick, not that old one. Atheism is not a religion, it's the
ABSENCE of religion.
> Maybe they weren't carnivores (like man wasn't) till
> after the flood - compare Genesis 1 v28/29 with 9 v3.
I'm not a comparative anatomist, but I think dietary habits can be
deduced from teeth. Did dentition undergo a dramatic change after the
flood? Or did it just evolve? <grin>
>
> > would have poisoned
> > just about every living thing in the sea within
> > hours. HOURS. Not days,
> > not weeks, not months, but hours.
>
> You can't be certain. Things may have been totally
> different then - they were in other ways. The whole
> fresh/salt water thing may not apply.
I'm not a logician, either, but this is clearly a case of admitting
that you can't answer the question.
> By the way the water from the flood is still with us!
> It's not too hard to estimate how far BELOW sea-level
> we'd be if the land was all equidistant from the
> centre of the earth!
So much of the water that's now in the sea was once in the sky. So at
that point, the land area would be a lot bigger. But before it went
into the sky, it must have been in the seas. So the land area was
originally much the same as it is now. So not only was there
supposedly a flood, but it must have been preceded by a withdrawing of
the seas - and probably a phenominal drought too. Is there any mention
of that?
>
> ..you don't come out! In heaven you wouldn't want to!
Well, with all those virgins....oops! Sorry, wrong sector of the
celestial sphere.
>
> > >Hey - I've heard chromosome 22 is radically
> > different
> > >in man and chimpanzee - nowhere near 98% identical.
So what?
Brian
1289
Lenny Flank
Re: Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
04/07/2006 13:22:00
>
Hey Nick, I am still waiting to hear why (1) your religious opinions
are any more infallible or authoritative than anyone else's, or (2)
why your religious opinions should be taught in a science classroom.
Are you yet another of those Communists who think religious education
should be taken out of the hands of parents and the family, and
placed in the hands of the state-run school employees instead?
Sounds rather Leninistic to me, Nick . . . . . .
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
1290
Lenny Flank
Re: Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
04/07/2006 13:20:00
but that
> doesn't mean I'm an idiot in spades.
>
Yes you are. (shrug)
But let's talk some more about your "flood geology", Nick:
CAN NOAH'S FLOOD ACCOUNT FOR THE GEOLOGIC AND FOSIL RECORD?
by Lenny Flank
(c) 1995
As we have seen, one of the strongest evidences for evolutionary
descent comes from the fossil record, which presents several examples
of evolutionary transitions from one class of organisms to another.
In addition, the fossil record grades clearly and unmistakably from
simple early life forms which appear early in the geological column
to larger and more anatomically complex forms which appear later. The
sequence of the appearence of various fossil groups--first
invertebrates, then simple vertebrates, then jawed fishes, then
amphibians, then reptiles, and finally birds and mammals--is exactly
what we would expect from evolutionary descent with modification,
with the organisms appearing higher in the geological column being
the modified descendents of those organisms which appear lower in the
column.
The creationists, of course, must answer this clear evidence for
evolution, and demonstrate in some way that this apparent
evolutionary sequence is not valid. And, as usual, they turn to their
Biblical source for this--specifically, to the Flood of Noah
described in Genesis:
"The great Flood of Genesis 6-9 is of critical importance to the true
understanding of earth history." (Morris, Scientific Creationism,
1974, p. 250)
"The evidence in the earth's crust of past physical convulsions seems
to warrant inclusion of post-creation global catastrophism in the
model." (Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, p. 11)
If there was a global flood, as the Bible says there was, then every
living thing on earth must have died in it (other than those saved on
Noah's Ark). "Consequently," the creationists conclude, " the vast
fossil record, comprising as it does, a worldwide cemetary preserved
in stone for men everywhere to see; is not at all a record of the
gradual evolution of life, but rather of the sudden destruction of
life." (Morris, 1972, p. 77)
However, if the "vast fossil record" is actually the drowned remains
of the victims of Noah's Flood, that would mean that the sediments
they are buried in must have been formed all at once, during the
single Flood, rather than building up gradually over billions of
years as geologists believe. As Morris puts it, "The creationist
suspects that the fossil record and the sedimentary rocks, instead of
speaking of a long succession of geological ages, may tell rather of
just one former age, destroyed in a great worldwide aqueous
cataclysm." (Morris, Troubled Waters of Evolution, 1974, p. 21) "In
effect," Morris further concludes, "this means that the organisms
represented in the fossil record must all have been living
contemporaneously, rather than scattered in separate time frames over
hundreds of millions of years. . . The only reason to think that all
should not have been living contemporaneously in the past is the
assumption of evolution. Apart from this premise, there is no reason
to doubt that man lived at the same time as the dinosaurs and
trilobites." (Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, p. 112)
Therefore, Morris declares, "The geologic column does not represent
the slow evolution of life over many ages, as the evolution model
alleges, but rather the rapid destruction and burial of life in one
age, in accordance with the creation model." (Morris, Scientific
Creationism, 1974, p. 112)
Of course, a paleontologist would quickly point out that the fossil
remains are not all jumbled haphazardly together as they would be if
they had all died in one single flood, but instead appear in a
precise unvarying order, with simple organisms appearing at the
bottom of the column, and more complex organisms appearing, in order,
towards the top. The creationists find their answer to this problem
in the raging Flood waters:
"The fossil-bearing strata were apparently laid down in large measure
during the Flood, with apparent sequences attributed not to evolution
but rather to hydrodynamic selectivity, ecological habitats, and
differential mobility and strength of the various creatures."
(Whitcomb and Morris, 1961, p. 327)
In other words, according to the creationists, all of the organisms
whose remains we find in the fossil record--everything from
trilobites to the Burgess Shale invertebtrates, the placoderm fishes
and the therapsid reptile-mammals, the dinosaurs and the wooly
mammoths, to birds and human beings--were all actually living
together, simultaneously and side by side, until the Flood of Noah
drowned them all and then sorted their dead remains, over a period of
less than a year, into an order that just happens to make it LOOK as
though all of these organisms developed slowly by a long process of
evolutionary descent. All of the sedimentary rocks we see today,
which appear as though they were laid down over incredibly long
stretches of time, were actually all laid down within one year by the
raging flood waters; all of the fossils we see today, which are found
within the geological column, actually died in the same year, in the
Flood, and were sorted out, buried and fossilized in the flood
sediments. This is the creationist's "scientific" explanation for the
fossil record, which they refer to as "Flood geology".
There are three basic sorting methods hypothesized by the
creationists. The first is hydraulic sorting, in which the drowned
bodies of smaller, denser and more streamlined animals would settle
faster to the bottom, and thus would tend to be buried first and
appear lower in the geological column. This is described by Morris:
"In the marine strata, where invertebrates were fossilized, these
would tend locally to be sorted hydrodynamically into assemblages of
similar size and shape. Furthermore, as the turbulently upwelling
waters and sediments settled back down, the simpler animals, more
nearly spherical or streamlined in shape, would tend to settle out
first because of lower hydraulic drag. Thus each kind of marine
invertebrate would tend to appear in its simplest form at the lowest
elevation, and so on." (Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, p. 119)
While the "hydraulic sorting" hypothesis certainly sounds scientific
and perhaps even logical, there are numerous examples from the fossil
record which demonstrate that it is simply not true. The ammonites,
for instance, were a large group of marine invertebrates, similar to
the modern day nautilus, which existed for several hundred million
years until they were wiped out in the same mass extinction that
killed the dinosaurs. Although they remained at approximately the
same size and shape, the ammonites over time developed a complicated
system of sutures which separated the various gas chambers inside
their curved shells. The earliest ammonites, found in the Devonian
layers, had simple straight sutures. Later ammonites, found in
Triassic layers, retained the same body size and shape, but exhibited
slightly more complex suture patterns. The very latest ammonites,
from the Cretaceous layers, differed from the others only in the
increased complexity of their shell sutures.
According to the creationist hypothesis, all of these varieties of
ammonites actually lived at the same time and were drowned in the
same Flood. Then, they settled to the bottom at rates that differed
according to their "hydrodynamic properties". But the only difference
exhibited by the ammonites was the complexity of their shell sutures--
the size and shape of their shells was the same, and therefore, one
must assume, their "hydrodynamic properties" would not have differed
significantly. Yet these species are precisely sorted in the fossil
record--no simple-sutured ammonite has ever been found in Cretaceous
layers, and no complex-sutured ammonite has ever been found in the
Devonian layers. Since a small complex-sutured ammonite would have
much less hydraulic drag than would a large simple-sutured ammonite,
one would expect that it would settle to the bottom more quickly and
be preserved lower in the sediment column than would the larger
ammonites. Yet this is not what we see in the fossil record. Each
separate layer of ammonites contains a variety of sizes and ages, but
always of only one variety. This is impossible to explain by Morris's
"hydraulic sorting" theory.
A similar situation exists with the marine invertebrates known as
brachiopods, which are bivalved animals that are similar to clams.
Fossil brachipods are found throughout the fossil record, from the
top of the geological column to the bottom. Yet, despite the fact
that they are all similar in shell shape (and also presumably in
their "hydraulic properties"), we do not find them all sorted
together in one layer; rather, certain species (of all sizes and
ages) are found in only one narrow layer and no other, while other
species (of all sizes and ages) are found in other layers and no
others. This is impossible to explain through hydraulic sorting, but
makes perfect sense if we assume the higher brachiopods to be the
descendents of those lower in the sediments.
The creationist "hydraulic sorting" idea also fails completely when
it comes to the observed sequence of plants in the fossil record.
Since nearly all plants float in water, it is inconceivable that they
might have become "sorted" through differential sinking rates as were
animals. Instead, one would expect, according to the creationist
hypothesis, that they would have floated on the Flood waters until
they dried up, depositing a thick layer of plant flotsam at the very
top of the huge column of Flood sediments. Yet this is not what we
see in the fossil record--the plants exhibit the very same apparent
order as do animals, with simpler forms appearing low in the
geological column, and more complex forms appearing higher up in the
column.
The second sorting method proposed by the creationists is "ecological
zoning". The idea here is that deep-sea organisms would tend to get
drowned and buried first, then shallow-water animals, then amphibians
which live at the edge of water and land, then reptiles, who live on
dry land, and finally birds and mammals, who live in higher
elevations and thus would be drowned and buried last. Morris says,
"Marine invertebrates would normally be found in the bottom rocks of
any local geologic column, since they live on the sea bottom. Marine
vertebrates (fishes) would be found in higher rocks than the bottom-
dwelling invertebrates. They live at higher elevations and also could
escape burial longer. Amphibians and reptiles would tend to be found
at still higher elevations, in the commingled sediments at the
interface between land and water." (Morris, Scientific Creationism,
1974, p. 119)
This idea too falls apart under examination. Contrary to Morris's
assertion, most marine invertebrates do not live in the deep sea
floor; they inhabit the shallow areas along the coast where sunlight
can penetrate to the marine plankton and other small organisms at the
bottom of the marine food chain. The deep sea is inhabited by pelagic
fish, which should, according to Morris's theory, have been buried
first by sediments, before the invertebrates living in the shallow
seashores. But this is not what we find.
Also, according to Morris, we should expect to find deep sea
reptiles, such as plesiosaurs, ichtyosaurs (remember, according to
Morris, all of these reptiles were alive on the very day of the
Flood) and sea turtles buried much lower in the Flood sediments than
land reptiles and amphibians such as Eryops, Lagosuchus or
Herrerasaurus. Instead, we find the marine reptiles consistently
higher in the column than these land animals. Evolutionary theory
explains that the reptiles evolved from the amphibians and didn't
appear until later; creationist "sorting" cannot explain it at all.
Creationists are also at a loss to explain the many instances where
we can trace a marine deposit containing mososaurs, clams and
ammonites which grade horizontally, at the same geologic level, into
terrestrial deposits containing the remains of dinosaurs and early
mammals. These fossils are not one on top of the other as they would
be if the dinosaurs had been sorted by habitat in the churning Flood
waters, drowning later than their marine cousins.
The "ecological zoning" postulate also fails completely to account
for the order of plants in the fossil record. Under Morris's
hypothesis, one would expect that sea plants would be lower in the
column that would terrestrial plants, while lowland-favoring plants,
such as cattails, willow trees and lily pads (which live on or near
the surface of water) would have been buried long before those plants
which favor higher and cooler areas, such as pine trees and other
confiers. This, however, is not what we find in the fossil record.
Instead, the evolutionarily primitive conifers appear much lower in
the column than do modern angiosperms such as willow trees and oak
trees. Not a single willow tree, which would presumably have shared
its lakeside habitat in pre-Flood days with such aquatic amphibians
as Eryops and Diplocaulus, has ever been found in association with
extinct amphibians. Similarly, no tree ferns, large treelike plants
which have been found in association with these extinct amphibians,
have ever been found with the fossils of any modern animals of
similar habitat.
The final sorting mechanism postulated by creationists is
"differential mobility". The theory here is a simple one--those
animals which were larger and faster would be able to move to higher
ground, thus escaping the Flood waters for a longer time and being
drowned much later than their less mobile contemporaries. As Morris
puts it, "These higher animals (land vertebrates) would tend to be
found segregated vertically in the column in order of size and
complexity, because of the greater ability of the larger, more
diversified animals to escape burial for longer periods of time."
(Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, p. 119)
Questions abound. The creationists assume that birds are found high
in the column because they could have flown above the raging Flood
waters until they tired and fell in to drown. Why, then, did the
flying reptiles such as Pteranodon and Ramphorynchus not do the same?
Since we also find fossil clams at all levels of the sedimentary,
even at the very top, are we justified in assuming that these clams
must have run to the high ground, while the brachipods didn't? What
about the many nesting sites that have been found for terrestrial
dinosaurs? Are we to assume that these animals, panicked by the
rising flood waters and the torrential rain and fleeing for the high
ground, suddenly decided to stop and dig huge numbers of nests in the
Flood sediments and lay eggs, which apparently had time to hatch
before the Flood engulfed them?
Then there are the plants. How did the oak and willow trees manage to
get to the top of the sediment layer along with all those mobile
mammals? Did the trees run for the high ground too? The creationists
have no explanation.
The creationist "sorting" hypothesis is absurd. Apparently, the
creationists would have us believe that the therapsid reptiles (who
they assert were all contemporary and lived side by side) just
happened to drown and become sorted by the Flood into a sequence
which looks just like evolutionary descent; the forms with well-
developed reptilian jaw joints and incipient mammalian joints just
happened to be buried first, followed by those like Probainognathus
with double jaw joints, while forms like the Morganucodonts, with
functional mammalian joints and receding reptilian joints, just
happened to climb a little higher or sink a little slower than the
others (but not so high or so slow as the true mammals with no
reptilian characteristics).
Sea turtles, on the other hand, violate all three of the presumed
"sorting mechanisms"; they live in the open deep sea, but are found
high in the sediment layer, above such terrestrial animals as
amphibians and dinosaurs; they are big and heavy and sink rapidly
upon death, but are found in the upper layers, above such lighter
organisms as jellyfish and seaweeds; and they are clumsy and slow on
land, but apparently managed to run to the higher elevations before
the Flood engulfed them (since they are found in the same sediment
layers as such speedy animals as saber-toothed tigers and horses).
And none of the creationist theories can explain how plants became
sorted into an apparent evolutionary sequence.
The entire structure of Flood geology is nonscientific and is based
directly on the creationists' religious beliefs. As the creationists
themselves admit, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever to
support any of their Flood geology: "The study of the Flood,
especially its scientific aspects, is often called 'Flood geology' or
'Deluge geology'. However, it has not yet reached that state of
development where it can be rightfully called a science, and I doubt
that it ever will. It is only a model of the action of the Flood
described in Genesis." (Clarke, 1977, p. 8)
Other creationists also flatly admit that their Flood theories are
based directly upon the book of Genesis and their own religious
convictions:
"The simple fact of the matter is that one cannot have any kind of a
Genesis Flood without acknowledging the presence of supernatural
elements." (Whitcomb and Morris, 1961, p. 76)
"Either the Biblical record of the Flood is false and must be
rejected or else the system of historical geology which has seemed to
discredit it is wrong and must be changed. The latter alternative
would seem to be the only one which a Biblically and scientifically
instructed Christian could honestly take." (Whitcomb and Morris,
1961, p. 118)
"When one holds this high view of Scripture, he necessarily must
accept Genesis at face value. This not only means six literal days of
Creation, but also no geological ages . . . . The Scriptures clearly
and emphatically teach that there was such a global and cataclysmic
Flood. This can only mean that the Flood and its after affects must
explain most of the stratigraphic and fossil evidences that are
commonly found in the earth's crust." (Morris, Back to Genesis,
August 1995)
"The Biblical record has provided a clear description of the causes,
nature and results of true catastrophism, the Noahic Flood . . . We
cannot verify it experimentally, of course, any more than any of the
various other theories of catastrophism, but we do not need
experimental verification: God has recorded it in His Word, and that
should be sufficient." (Morris, 1970, p. 30)
The "scientific alternative" of Flood geology, we can see, in fact
has no science at all in it. In order to preserve their
fundamentalist preconceptions, the creationists are forced to invoke
the "power of God" throughout their supposedly "scientific" model.
While such a religious model may be acceptable in a Bible college, or
in a fundamentalist sermon, it has no place whatsoever in a public
school biology classroom.
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
1291
Roger Stanyard
Re: Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
04/07/2006 13:25:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Nick & Moira Cowan
<m_cowan32@...> wrote:
>
>
> > >Hey - I've heard chromosome 22 is radically
> > different
> > >in man and chimpanzee - nowhere near 98% identical.
> > >What would the "common ancestor" make of that?! A
> > >monkey of all of us, for sure.
>
> > That's just asinine Nick. I've not read anywhere
> > that specifically
> > suggests that chromosome 22 WAS 98% alike in humans
> > and chimps. Perhaps
> > you would care to enlighten us?
>
IIRC correctly it is chromsome number 2 that is a fusion of two
chromosones of a common ancestor. I don't know which number this
corresponds to in the current great apes - I assume number 2 which,
indeed, would make it very different.
And how does this prove evolution is wrong, Nick?
Yet again, I don't understand what the hell you are blithering on
about.
1292
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
04/07/2006 13:18:00
> >> (Isn't it about time evolutionists bred a new "kind"?
Speaking of "kinds", Nick:
CREATION "SCIENCE" AND THE GENESIS "KINDS"
by Lenny Flank
(c) 1995
Like all of the other parts of creationism, the creationist view of
the fossil record is based directly upon Biblical Scripture, and
centers around the "type" or "kind", also sometimes called a
"baramin" (from the Hebrew words bara, or "created", and min, or
"kind"). This comes from the description of creation given in
Genesis, which states, "And God said, let the earth bring forth
grass, the herb yeilding seed, and the fruit tree yeilding fruit
after his kind . . . And God created great whales and every living
creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly after
their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind . . . And God said,
let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle
and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind, and it was
so." (Genesis 1:12-24)
Thus, the creationists assert:
"By creation we mean the bringing into being by a supernatural
Creator of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of
sudden, or fiat, creation." (Gish, 1978, p. 40)
"The creation model, on the other hand, postulates that all basic
animal and plant types (the created kinds) were brought into
existence by acts of a supernatural Creator using special processes
which are not operating today." (Gish, 1978, p. 11)
"During creation the Creator created all of these basic animal
and plant kinds, and since then no new kinds have come into being."
(Gish, 1978, p. 40)
The creationists do not even attempt to make a pretense of science
here, but refer openly to their religious preconceptions that all
organisms are part of these "baramins" which were originally created
by God.
Nevertheless, the creationists also realize that overwhelming
evidence exists in nature for the transformation of organisms, such
as the various breeds of dog that have been produced by breeders, the
well-known example of the British peppered moth, which has been
observed to vary in color according to its environmental conditions,
and the many instances where speciation has actually been observed
and described in the laboratory (as in the case of the production of
new plant species and new species of Drosophila fruit flies). Unlike
the creationists of the 19th century, therefore, who refused to
believe that speciation of any sort was possible, modern creationists
instead assert that some "variation" is possible, but only within the
Divine limits imposed upon the original "created kinds":
"The variation that has occurred since the end of creation has
been limited to changes within kinds." (Gish, 1978, p. 40)
"All present living kinds of animals and plants have remained
fixed since creation, other than extinctions, and genetic variation
in originally created kinds has occurred within narrow limits." (ICR
Impact, May 1981)
"These 'kinds' have never evolved or merged into each other by
crossing over the divinely-established lines of demarcation."
(Whitcomb and Morris, 1961, p. 66)
"According to this view, God created all living creatures 'after
his kind', and whatever changes have come about since creation have
been within the original types, or the 'Genesis kinds'." (Clarke,
1977, p. 8)
And what is the biological mechanism which the creationists propose
for producing all of these "variations" within the original "created
kinds"? Surprisingly enough, it is evolution. As Morris puts it:
"Modern creationists recognize and accept all the observed biological
changes which evolutionists offer as proof of evolution. New
varieties of plants and animals can be developed rather quickly by
selection techniques, but creationists point out that no new basic
kind has ever been developed by such processes." (Morris, The
Troubled Waters of Evolution, 1977, p. 16) Richard Bliss of the ICR
echoes, "We accept change one hundred percent. We accept the same
change that the evolutionist is accepting, only he's calling it micro-
evolution and we're calling it variation." (Conway and Siegelman,
1984, p. 152)
Thus, the basic creationist hypothesis has been, in effect, that
"evolution happens, but only a little bit". In an effort to sound
scientific, they refer to this process as "micro-evolution", and
assert that, while evolutionary mechanisms may produce micro-
evolution, or changes within the basic kinds, evolution cannot
produce "macro-evolution", or changes from one kind to another:
"Creationists generally accept the fact that within the
limitation of the genera and family, sufficient changes may take
place to bring about the vast array of species seen in present plants
and animals. It is the changes postulated in major groups--macro-
evolution--that creationists refuse to believe could ever have been
possible, because there is no evidence to support it." (Clarke, 1977,
p. 204)
"The small variations in organisms which are observed to take
place today . . . are irrelevant to this question, since there is no
way to prove that these changes within present kinds eventually
change the kinds into different, higher kinds. Since small variations
(including mutations) are as much to be expected in the creation
model as in the evolution model, they are of no value in
discriminating between the two models." (Morris, Scientific
Creationism, 1974, p. 5)
According to the modern theory of genetics (which the creationists
say they accept), evolution takes place through the natural selection
of variations brought about by genetic mutations. By postulating that
there are certain limits beyond which mutations cannot proceed, the
creationists are in essence claiming that there is some mechanism,
whether biochemical or biomechanical, which only allows certain
mutations to appear (those within the limits of the "created kind"),
and rigorously excludes certain other mutations (those which would
carry the organism outside these limits). But the creationists have
been quite unable to produce (or even propose) any workable mechanism
which would so effectively weed out some variations and allow others
to exist. There is no known biochemical or genetic mechanism which
would prevent any mutations from proceeding beyond the limits of a
"created kind".
In fact, the creationists have all along been unclear and
contradictory about just what a "created kind" is, and have never
given a consistent definition of the term. They cannot even give a
basic estimate of how many "kinds" of organisms exist. When
creationist Wayne Frair of King's College in New York testified at
the Arkansas trial, he was questioned on this point:
"Q: How many original created kinds were there?
FRAIR: Let's say 10,000 plus or minus a few thousand.
Q: Some creationists believe kinds to be synonymous with species,
some with genera, some with family, and some with order, don't they?
FRAIR: The scientists with whom I am working . . . well . . . it
tends more towards the family. But it may go to order in some cases.
Q: You have been studying turtles for many years, haven't you?
FRAIR: Yes.
Q: Is a turtle an originally created kind?
FRAIR: I'm working on that.
Q: Are all turtles within the same created kind?
FRAIR: That's what I'm working on." (Trial transcript, McLean v
Arkansas, 1981, cited in Montagu, 1984, pp 295-296)
It is not surprising that Frair was unable to tell us how many
"kinds" of turtles there are, since no creationist has ever produced
a workable and consistent definition of what constitutes a "kind".
Duane Gish, the creationist's "expert" on the fossil record, writes:
"We must here attempt to define what we mean by a basic kind. A
basic animal or plant kind would include all animals or plants which
were derived from a common stock. In present day terms, it would be
said that they have shared a common gene pool." (Gish, 1978, p. 32)
Gish is here using circular reasoning. The concept of "all animals or
plants which are derived from a common stock" is a good definition of
a biological "clade", which is defined as all organisms sharing
common ancestry. Ultimately, of course, evolutionary theory holds
that all organisms constitute a single clade, since all are derived
from a single common ancestor. The creationists, on the other hand,
argue that certain "kinds" of organisms are not related to each other
by descent. To use the criterion of "common stock" as a definition of
a "kind" is therefore spurious, since it is precisely the question of
"descent from common stock" which is at issue here. The creationists
thus must come up with some criteria for determining exactly which
groups of organisms share a common ancestry (and thus constitute a
"kind") and which do not (and thus constitute separate "kinds"). In
an attempt to clarify this criterion, Gish then cites an example:
"We have defined a basic kind as including all of those variants
which have been derived from a single stock . . . This basic kind
(which we may call the dog kind) includes not only all coyote
species, but also the wolf (Canis lupus), the dog (Canis familiaris)
and the jackals, also of the genus Canis, since they are all
interfertile and produce fertile offspring." (Gish, 1978, p. 34)
This definition--a created "kind" consists of organisms which
interbreed and produce fertile young--seems to be the most commonly
cited among creationists:
"A kind may be defined as a generally interfertile group of
organisms that possesses variant genes for a common set of traits but
does not interbreed with other organisms under normal circumstances."
(ICR Impact, "Summary of Evidence for Creation", May/June 1981)
"Many varieties of dogs have been developed from one ancestral
dog 'kind', yet they are still interfertile and capable of reverting
back to the ancestral form." (Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974,
p. 180)
"The oft-repeated statement, however, that God's creatures
brought forth progeny 'after their kind' would strongly indicate that
plants and animals which can interbreed and produce offspring would
be of the same 'kind'. A corollary conclusion would then be that
production of offspring from matings between two different kinds
would be impossible." (Hilbert Siegler, CRS Quarterly, Vol. 15, 1978,
cited in Godfrey, 1983, p. 168)
As stated by creationists, this definition of a "kind"--a group of
organisms which interbreeds with each other but does not interbreed
with those outside the group under normal circumstances--is identical
with the biological definition of a species. (Dogs and coyotes are
classified as separate species even though they are physically
capable of breeding and producing viable offspring, since, under
natural conditions, they do not normally interbreed. The biological
species is therefore based on the principle of "reproductive
isolation"--if organisms do not interbreed under natural conditions,
they are considered to be a separate gene pool, a species.)
If this definition of a "kind" were to be accepted ("plants and
animals which interbreed and produce viable offspring"), the
creationists would have to conclude that no species can ever evolve
into another species, since a species itself is a group of organisms
which interbreed and produce viable offspring. But this assertion
presents tremendous problems, since speciation has been directly
observed many times both in nature and in the laboratory.
The definition we have seen of a created "kind" is, moreover,
unworkable in its own terms. A horse and a donkey are universally
held by creationists to be one "kind", but a horse and a donkey
cannot produce fertile offspring. They can breed and produce young,
but this progeny, a mule, is completely sterile and cannot reproduce
after its "kind". By the logic of their definition, the creationists
would seem to be forced to conclude that horses and donkeys are
separate "kinds". But, since horses and donkeys are so obviously
related by evolutionary descent, the creationists cannot have this
either, since it would establish "evolution between kinds", which is
precisely what they are trying to avoid. (Remember that the
creationists accept the existence of evolutionary descent as a
mechanism for producing "variation within a kind".)
Hence, some creationists have now dropped the requirement of
"interfertility", and have asserted that any organisms that can breed
with each other and produce offspring, whether fertile or not,
constitute a "kind":
"Creationists have long felt a need for a classification that
would include in one consistent category all organisms that
interbreed under any conditions." (David Menton, "Species, Speciation
and the Genesis Kind", Missouri Association for Creation, October
1994)
This definition, however, also produces problems. In the northeastern
United States, for example, are found two species of tree frogs, Hyla
versicolor and Hyla chrysoscelis. The two are absolutely identical in
appearence, and the only way to distinguish them in the field is by
their slightly differing mating calls. One of these species is a
"polyploid" of the other, that is, it developed from the other
species when a chromosomal abnormality left some individuals with
twice the normal number of chromosomes. (Polyploidy is a very common
means of plants to produce new species--in fact, most domesticated
food plants like wheat and rye are polyploids--but is comparitively
rare among animals.) There is no doubt that the two frogs share an
ancestor/descendent relationship, and that one evolved from the other
through polyploidy.
For the creationists to consider these two virtually identical frogs
as being of different "kinds" would be absurd on the face of it,
since they are so alike they can be distinguished only in the lab,
and they obviously share evolutionary descent. So naturally, the
creationists would like to lump these two species together as
"variations" within one "created kind". But there is a problem for
the creationists--the two Hyla species do not, and, because of their
chromosomal differences, cannot, interbreed. Not only do they not
produce any fertile offspring--they are incapable of producing any
offspring at all. The same problem arises in connection with plants--
the polyploid descendents of particular plants can no longer produce
viable seeds with the parent stock, and thus cannot produce any
offspring with the parent species. Therefore, the creationist, using
the criterion of "interbreeding", must conclude that the two are
different "kinds", even though one is obviously a descendent of the
other (polyploid plants have been successfully produced and bred in
the laboratory--in fact many of our food crops are polyploid
descendents of corn and wheat plants which can no longer interbreed
with the parent stock).
Once again, the creationists must either admit the existence of
evolution between "kinds", or they must change their definition of
what constitutes a "kind". Thus, we are finally led to:
"If two organisms breed, even though it is infrequent, they are
of the same kind; if they don't breed but are clearly of the same
morphological type, they are of the same kind, by the logic of the
axiom which states two things equal to the same thing are equal to
each other." (Wysong, cited in Kitcher, 1982, p. 152)
One may dispute just how "logical" Wysong's definition is (on the one
hand, organisms which interbreed are of the same "kind"; on the other
hand, organisms that don't interbreed are also of the same "kind" if
they look enough alike), but there is no disputing that even this
loose definition causes problems for the creationists. Now we need to
define what constitutes an organism "of the same morphological type".
Gish points out, "The division into kinds is easier the more the
divergence observed." (Gish, 1978, p. 35)
"It is obvious, for example, that among the invertebrates the
protozoa, sponges, jellyfish, worms, snails, trilobites, lobsters and
bees are all different kinds. Among the vertebrates, the fishes,
amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals are obviously different basic
kinds. Among the reptiles, the turtles, crocodiles, dinosaurs,
pterosaurs (flying reptiles), and icthyosaurs (aquatic reptiles)
would be placed in different kinds. Each one of these major groups of
reptiles could be further subdivided into the basic kinds within
each. Within the mammalian class, duckbilled platypuses, opposums,
bats, hedgehogs, rats, rabbits, dogs, cats, lemurs, monkeys, apes and
men are easily assignable to different basic kinds. Among the apes,
the gibbons, orangutans, chimpanzees and gorillas would each be
included in a different basic kind." (Gish, 1978, p 35.)
But now Gish has confused the issue even further. On the one hand,
Gish lists "mammals" as constituting one basic kind. Since most
mammals cannot interbreed with each other, it must be assumed that
this is based on morphological criteria--i.e., all of the mammals are
sufficiently alike in their basic body structures that they must all
be descended from each other (variation within the "created kind").
But in the very next paragraph, we are told that the chimpanzees and
gorillas, both mammals, must also be separate "kinds". How can the
mammals be assumed to have body structures that are similar enough to
form a "basic kind", yet two of the members of that group, the chimps
and the gorillas, are sufficiently different in basic body plans to
constitute separate kinds? Even more confusingly, Gish classifies
"dinosaurs", a huge group of reptiles which differed profoundly from
each other (they ranged from the chicken-sized predator Compsognathus
to the fifty-ton plant eater Seismosaurus; some dinosaurs walked on
two legs, some on four; some, such as Stegosaurus, had absurdly small
brains, while some, like Troodon, had relatively large brains for
their body size), as one "kind", but separates chimps and gorillas
(who look almost identical and who share over 95% of their genetic
codes) as being "different kinds".
The reason for Gish's arbitrary classification is obvious. If
dinosaurs are all related through evolution, that is not a big deal
to the creationists, since it is "only variation within a kind" and
not "real evolution". But if the anthropoid apes are related by
evolutionary descent, that strikes a bit too close to home for the
creationists; after all, if chimps and gorillas are one "kind" and
share over 95% of their DNA, what then are we to make of human
beings, who share over 98% of their genetic code with chimps? The
conclusion that apes and humans would then constitute (on the basis
of morphological similarity) a single "created kind", and that
therefore apes and humans would be evolutionary variations of each
other, is flatly unacceptable to the creationists. After all, the
very core of their opposition to evolution is the supposed divine
origin of human beings. Rather than admit that humans are just an
evolutionary variant of the ape "kind", the creationists instead
carefully draw their boundaries to avoid that possibility.
In effect, then, creationists define a "kind" as (1) a group of
organisms which do interbreed, or (2) a group of organisms which
don't interbreed but which are similar in basic body plans--and then
they leave the guidelines extremely fuzzy about what constitutes
"similarity in basic body plans". This loophole leaves so much room
for manipulation that it is essentially useless. Fish as different
from each other as hagfish and lungfish and rainbow trout can all be
classified as one "kind", while animals as similar to each other as
gorillas and chimpanzees are classified as separate "kinds". A
created kind, under this definition, is nothing more than whatever
the defining creationist wants it to be.
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
1293
Lenny Flank
Re: Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
04/07/2006 13:16:00
> >
> You can invent your own definition of science to suit
> yourself if you wish.
Just like the creationists in kansas did. (shrug)
(snip lots more of Nick's preaching)
Why oh why won't you answer any of my science questions, Nick?
I can only think of three possible reasons:
(1) creationism doesn't HAVE any scientific answers
(2) creationism DOES have scientific answers, but you're too dumb to
know what they are, or
(3) creationism DOES have scientific answers and you DO know what
theya re, but for some unfathomable reason, you don't want anyone to
know what they are
If you won't answer my simple questions, Nick would you at least tell
em WHY you won't answer them? Is it reason number one, number two,
or number three?
My money, of course, is on reason number one.
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
1294
Marc Draco
Re: Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
04/07/2006 13:48:00
bgcolor="#ffffff"
Interesting how Lenny and I take an entirely different approach to
debunking this myth, yet arrive through different (and also honest)
methods at precisely the same conclusions. Lenny's is more like a
research paper, mine shows my history as a professional writer. Both
come to the same unassailable conclusion.
All YEC roads lead to bullshit.
We finally pin Nick down to a bio-chemistry (simple enough for an
A-level chemisty or biology student to answer ) question and he fluffs
it by altering the equation. You can't do that in science or maths (or
even a law court, Behe tried that one). No sirree bob.
2+2 made 4 when Noah's story was written, just like it does now.
Lenny Flank wrote:
->
but that
> doesn't mean I'm an idiot in spades.
>
Yes you are. (shrug)
But let's talk some more about your "flood geology", Nick:
CAN NOAH'S FLOOD ACCOUNT FOR THE GEOLOGIC AND FOSIL RECORD?
by Lenny Flank
.
http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714&grpId=14555426&grpspId=1602281911&msgId=1290&stime=1152016080
1295
ukantic
Dartmouth High School
04/07/2006 14:41:00
I think it was Brian who wanted further information on Dartmouth High
School. There isn't a lot on the internet at the moment, but I will
post what I have found.
Html of PDF
http://cmis.sandwell.gov.uk/CMISWebPublic/Binary.ashx?Document=12399
Extracts:
16th March 2005
Building Schools for the Future - The Further Development of Academies
in Sandwell
1.
Summary Statement
This report proposes the further development of Academies within
Sandwell, involving the conversion of Dartmouth High School and
Willingsworth High School into two separate Academies and the
conversion of George Salter High School and Shireland Language
College into a single collegiate Academy. These proposals will lead to
the establishment of the three Academies and entail the rebuild of
Dartmouth, George Salter and Willingsworth High Schools and the
significant refurbishment of Shireland Language College, all to be
completed by September 2008.
Dartmouth
A Design and Enterprise Academy sponsored by Eric Payne, OBE.
Eric Payne, educated in West Bromwich and Wednesbury, has a
background in manufacturing hi-tech and innovative plastic electrical
conduit products on a worldwide basis. His family roots go back to the
manufacture of steel and electrical conduit and fittings in
Wednesbury. The company later developed plastic conduit systems under
the brand name of Egatube and became a world leader.
The sponsor intends that the Academy will work with Sandwell schools
to support creativity and promote arts and education. The Academy will
create a strong sense of extended family that promotes development
within a framework of Christian and faith values, whilst recognising
the needs of a culturally diverse community.
The sponsor will provide an Academy that will focus on the development
of the whole person, meeting individual needs, securing the highest
academic standards. It will deliver the widest possible educational
experience – building confidence and self esteem, developing social
skills and an appreciation of citizenship. Sensitive to the needs of a
culturally diverse community, the Academy will create a strong sense
of extended family, within a framework of Christian and faith values,
providing for the development of moral, social, spiritual and cultural
convictions.
1296
Paul Rooney
RE: Nick Cowan: Science Preacher - how did Noah do it?
04/07/2006 14:57:00
bgcolor="white"
Just to chime
in here - A couple of points from your post Nick......
--Nick wrote --
>You can't be sure of when the last remaining carbon-14
>nucleus in a sample will decay either! And some of
>your supposed "ages" from carbon-dating are really
>reliable of course! Like all radiometric dating it's
>full of assumptions. Or mavbe I'm just an old fossil
>who's retiring soon.
There
are hundreds or thousands of lines of evidence confirming that the earth is far
older than the 6 to 10 thousand year age accepted by young earth creationists.
Here is another one for you, and as your field is Chemistry it should be
of interest. It is undisputed that natural nuclear reactions occurred in a
uranium ore body at the Oklo mine in Africa. This happened about 2 billion
years ago. If it had happened recently, Pu-239 produced in the reactor would
still be present because it has a half-life of 24 thousand years. The absence
of Pu-239, at the present time in the Oklo reactors is strong evidence that the
event is very old, the absence is a fact that’s difficult to explain on
the basis of a young age for the earth.
>--Nick wrote --
>Maybe they weren't carnivores (like man wasn't) till
>after the flood - compare Genesis 1 v28/29 with 9 v3.
Well since the
Creation “Science” view is that Genesis is literally true and that
science can support what it says, it seems that there should be an effort on
the part of Creation “Scientists” to scientifically support the
pre-flood herbivore/carnivore switch, don’t you think Nick?. These
studies might include:
color:#1F497D">
extant plant protein studies
animal behavioural studies
palatability tests (what will animals choose to eat from what is available)
digestive and nutritional studies
carnivore dentition (teeth) and morphology (ie. could carnivores eat enough
plants to survive if they tried?)
and of course fossil studies regarding pre-historic plant and animal species.
Can you tell me, in
all the years the creation “science” movement has been in existence
if there has been any controlled Creation “Science” research such
as (but not limited to) what I suggested above, that has been or is being
performed to help confirm the Creationist assertion that carnivores could in
fact subsist on plants pre-flood, and make the quick switch to carnivore after
the flood?
Btw, is there
any chance at all you will answer Lenny’s science questions? Or are
you only comfortable discussing real science with children?
Paul
.
1297
ukantic
Darthmouth 2
04/07/2006 15:13:00
Draft Draft Draft
Report of the Education & Lifelong Learning Scrutiny Panel June 2006
http://cmis.sandwell.gov.uk/CMISWebPublic/Binary.ashx?Document=18731
Recommendations Academy Schools Policy Review
< snip>
7. There must be a clear statement on whether `creationism' does
feature in the curriculum of any school and if so where. This Panel is
of the firm belief that if it is to be taught as part of the
curriculum it is as one aspect of the religious curriculum.
8. The religious curriculum taught in all schools remains in line with
the established Sandwell syllabus.
[
1298
ukantic
Dartmouth 3
04/07/2006 15:28:00
Step Forward For 'World Beater' Academy
http://www.laws.sandwell.gov.uk/ccm/content/councilgeneral/
pressreleases/pressreleaseaug2005/step-forward-for-world-beater-academy.en
http://tinyurl.com/g3ls5
Jubilant schools and education chiefs in Sandwell are welcoming a
Ministerial decision to give the go ahead to further development of
plans for a state-of-the-art Design and Enterprise Academy to be built
on the Dartmouth High School site in Great Barr.
Schools Minister Andrew Adonis has approved a feasibility study into
the multi-million pounds project.
He said: "This is a really exciting opportunity for the pupils and
community and I am confident it will further improve educational
standards in Sandwell.
"I am looking forward to monitoring the Academy's development as it
enters into feasibility stage."
Dartmouth High head teacher Caroline Badyal said: "I am delighted at
this announcement which is wonderful news for the school and the whole
community.
"I look forward to working with the sponsors, staff, pupils, parents,
governors and the LEA on what is a unique opportunity.
"Together we have already made tremendous improvements, and the school
received an excellent Ofsted inspection this year. We want to build on
this over the coming years."
The Academy -- due to open its doors at the Great Barr site in 2008 --
will attract investment of over £20 million.
The Minister's decision follows proposals from industrial sponsor,
Eric Payne OBE and his wife, Grace, who were both educated in West
Bromwich before moving to North Wales when the family business relocated.
The Academy, which will have a showcase centre for young designers,
will develop a high profile in the creative arts.
Sponsor Mr Payne said: "I am delighted that the Government is giving
us its full backing.
"Families deserve the best possible schools for their children and we
have a lot of hard work to do to ensure that the students get the best
deal possible and achieve high standards.
"Over the coming months I look forward to the opportunity for dialogue
with parents, staff and the community as we forge ahead with building
a 'world beater' Academy.
"The Design and Enterprise Academy will be a major player in the
regeneration of Sandwell and we expect to take our place alongside
other local partners in building a positive future for the borough."
Grace Payne said: "I want to see a happy school where every child can
develop the confidence to have high aspirations and achievements."
Sandwell Council deputy leader Councillor Steve Eling said: "This is
exciting news for Sandwell.
"It continues our strategy of seeking to secure the best opportunities
for young people, backed up with massive investment in our education
system."
Councillor Ian Jones, Cabinet member for schools and lifelong
learning, said: "I look forward to working with the school and
sponsors on this exciting project.
"This is part of our Building Schools for the Future programme,
whereby all of our secondary schools will have high levels of
investment in their buildings and infrastructure.
"Our sights are already set on having the best schools in the West
Midlands.
"Today's announcement takes us a step further to our hi-tech vision of
the future."
The Design and Enterprise Academy also has the backing of the
University of Wolverhampton, which has agreed to become its lead
education partner and work with the sponsors.
Professor Sir Geoff Hampton -- Dean of the School of Education and
Director of the Midlands Leadership Centre at the university -- said:
"The University operates on a worldwide basis.
"We are working with schools in China and Malaysia to develop
tomorrow's generation of 'smart' schools.
"We are excited that we can bring ideas from around the world to build
the school of the future in Sandwell."
Notes to Editor:
1) The new Academy is planned to provide for 900 students aged 11 to
16 with a further 200 students in the sixth form.
The school will have a Christian ethos and will be open to people of
all faiths and none.
It will primarily draw its pupils from the local community and have
the same admissions arrangements as other secondary schools in the
borough. Current students at Dartmouth High School will automatically
transfer into the Academy in 2008.
2) Sponsor Eric Payne's roots go back to the manufacture of steel
electric conduit and fittings in Wednesbury.
The company later developed plastic conduit systems under the brand
name "Egatube", which became a world leader. Latterly Eric Payne built
up the Mita group which manufactured high-tech and innovative plastic
Cable Management products.
3) Next step for the sponsor will be to gather together a group of
experts to plan the operation of the school and the methods used for
teaching and learning. This will enable the sponsor to give a precise
brief to architects who will design the Academy building. Building
work is expected to begin next autumn with the new Academy going up
alongside the existing Dartmouth High School.
1299
oeditor
Re: Dartmouth High School
04/07/2006 15:22:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@...> wrote:
>
> I think it was Brian who wanted further information on Dartmouth High
> School.
It was - I wondered who the Paynes were. Thanks. (We can still wonder
about the other Payne/s though.)
> Eric Payne, educated in West Bromwich and Wednesbury, has a
> background in manufacturing hi-tech and innovative plastic
electrical > conduit products on a worldwide basis.
So: Mackay's UK outfit is headed by an electrician. Now we have a
plumbing manufacturer buying a school on the cheap. Perhaps the
fundamentalist christians will grasp the nettle and do the obvious:
get a carpenter to rule the world. Ooops, sorry - that's what they're
trying to do anyway, isn't it?
Brian
1300
ukantic
Dartmouth 4
04/07/2006 15:34:00
School patron to meet critics
http://www.expressandstar.com/articles/news/chronicles/sandwell/article_89713.ph\
p
http://tinyurl.com/flx5x
Apr 27, 2006
Parents who claim they have been kept in the dark over plans to
transform Dartmouth High School into a new 'super academy' will
tonight (Thursday) get a a chance to meet the revamped school's
millionaire sponsor.
A councillor worried about the proposed changes at the Great Barr
secondary school has said parents need more than the assurances that
sponsor Eric Payne, a businessman and Christian, gave readers on the
front page of last week's Sandwell Chronicle.
West Bromwich-born industrialist Mr Payne, who now lives in Wales,
said there was no question that his sponsorship of the school would
mean pupils being "indoctrinated" with fundementalist Christian beliefs.
But a leading critic of the changes at Dartmouth, mayor-elect
Councillor Sadie Smith, said the situation still needed to be clarified.
Mr Payne OBE hopes to make his intentions clear to parents attending
Sandwell Council's consultation meetings this week, including
tonight's 6pm meeting at Dartmouth High School in Wilderness Lane.
Dartmouth Parent Action Group will hold a further public meeting in
the school at 7pm on Tuesday but Mr Payne said he would be unable to
attend that event.
Organisers have invited representatives from the education authority
Sandwell Council as well as a parent who featured in a television
programme which alleged that children at a school in a similar
situation in Doncaster would be taught a curriculum which strongly
focussed on Christianity.
Action group member and parent Amanda Gearing said: "We have a range
of concerns about the school, not just the religious fears, about what
will be on the curriculum and what will be the policy on school
exclusions.
"The site was always owned by the local authority which gave a certain
amount of protection and we need to know if this will continue.
"The meeting on Tuesday will be a chance for anything not answered at
the consultation to be raised and we hope the sponsor will accept our
invitation."
Cllr Mrs Smith said that the event would be a chance for parents to
put their concerns across.
Reacting to reassurances made by Mr Payne in last week's Chronicle,
she said she was still concerned that 'creationism' - which claims
that the world was directly or indirectly created by God - could be
put on the school curriculum.
"We still need to clarify the position of creationism on the
curriculum and make sure that it is separate from science," she said,
adding: "I think Mr Payne is being straightforward and that is a
helpful reassurance. But I am concerned that someone who invests £2
million in a £25 million academy with the rest funded by the tax payer
would get so much control over the assets."
Parents have claimed in leaflets that consultation meetings arranged
by the council were not publicised enough.
Despite the concerns, education cabinet member Councillor Ian Jones
has agreed to move the plan for Dartmouth High to become an academy to
the next stage. He said this would be where sponsors and others
involved in setting up the academy would give more detailed
information on the curriculum.
He said: "In many ways this will answer most of the concerns of
parents who feel this has been going on without them being kept in touch."
Cllr Jones added he would look at sending the notices of meetings by
recorded delivery to make sure that all parents got them.