801
Andrew
Re: Re: Question for Nick.
23/05/2006 22:44:00
> I didn't "slap him down". As Ken Ham often says: "Were you there?"
You gave the account of what happened yourself. Here's the quote:
> A child in my class
> the other day said (in effect): "I don't believe in God; I believe
> that there was nothing there in the beginning. Then it exploded" I
> had to tell him that he was forbidden to make non-science (rhymes
> with "conscience") faith statements in my science classes.
See my original comments for why this response to a pupil is outrageous
coming from someone who's supposed to be a science teacher. Your own quoted
account requires justification.
Regarding the obscenity - I haven't checked your citations but I'll stand
corrected anyway. You annoyed a lot of people in this group by your
behaviour. Maybe the words used were quite strong. I didn't even notice at
the time. I simply registered the annoyance of the people you'd pestered.
If you're bothered by this `obscenity' you'd be better not annoying people
in the first place. As it is you seem to have made a neat job of making
this group off bounds for your pupils by irritating people to the point
where they've responded to you in appropriately strong language. That's
very convenient for you.
Now please stop equivocating and address the questions put to you.
802
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Question for Nick.
23/05/2006 23:27:00
m_cowan32 wrote:
> But I
> deserve to be abused, don't I, because I dare to teach Chemistry and
> hold YEC beliefs? This is intellectual fascism.
You have been called to account for espousing creationism in a science
classroom.
> Linking from here
> to Mikey Brass' website soon displays a gratuitously offensive song
> about creationists.
Three quarters of the way down ONE page on pseudoscience, ONE page out
of 127 files of an archaeology website. I do, however, understand your
wish to keep your students immune from the facts of modern biology.
--
Best, Mikey Brass
MA in Archaeology degree, University College London
"The Antiquity of Man" http://www.antiquityofman.com
Book: "The Antiquity of Man: Artifactual, fossil and gene records explored"
- !ke e: /xarra //ke
("Diverse people unite": Motto of the South African Coat of Arms, 2002)
803
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Question for Nick.
23/05/2006 23:34:00
Andrew wrote:
> Now please stop equivocating and address the questions put to you.
Absolutely right. Nick can start by not using excuses, answer the
questions put to him and not to deliberately agitate. He appears to have
a deliberate strategy to tarnish this list with words and thereby claim
he is being persecuted and has a right not to answer the most basic
question: what is the scientific theory of creationism.
This is propaganda, not science.
804
midnight.diamond@ntlworld.com
What would design this?
24/05/2006 00:39:00
Parasite replaces fishes tounge!
http://tinyurl.com/s2xyn
Recently discovered in the UK, this is one ugly little bugger. If the
intelligent designer was so smart, why did it design such a dumb thing? (Just
for Nick's benefit, that's a rhetorical question)
805
midnight.diamond@ntlworld.com
Re: Re: Question for Nick.
24/05/2006 00:57:00
--- Mikey Brass <michael.brass@uclmail.net> wrote:
> > > > Andrew wrote:
> >
> > > Now please stop equivocating and address the questions put to you.
> >
> > Absolutely right. Nick can start by not using excuses, answer the
> > questions put to him and not to deliberately agitate. He appears to have
> > a deliberate strategy to tarnish this list with words and thereby claim
> > he is being persecuted and has a right not to answer the most basic
> > question: what is the scientific theory of creationism.
> >
> > This is propaganda, not science.
Bleating about being persecuted is the politcal battlecry of societal
discards. (I'm reminded of the pervs in Amsterdam who want to abuse little
boys and use pretty much the same arguments. <shudders>)
I'll answer Nick's point about choice (of local schools) when I'm back on my
other PC.
However, let's set ourselves a benchmark with a couple of simple question for
Nick to answer. Nothing too trying, we can get onto the biology or physics
later. Let's just get an answer my 8 year old can understand.
Nick.
(a) In your YEC capacity - which is what you hold up as true - how old do you
consider the universe to be? An approximate number of years is fine. No one
here, I think I can safely say, would want you to give us day month and date
- that would be clearly silly; even though it didn't stop Bishop Uusher.
(b) Thinking about your answer in (a) can you expand on the age of the earth
and date (in relation to this) the appearance of man.
If I'm correct in my understanding of YEC, you can be pretty sure that
everyone here is going to tear you limb-from-virtual limb. Why not prove me
wrong?
Marc Draco
806
Lenny Flank
Questions for Mr Cowan
24/05/2006 00:14:00
A few questions for Mr Cowan:
1. How old do you think the earth is? How do you think fossils
formed? Where do you think the humans were while dinosaurs and
trilobites were being fossilized, and where do you think both
dinosaurs and humans were while the trilobites were beign fossilized?
2. What exactly is the scientific theory of creation, and how do we
test it using the scientific method?
3. Since young-earth creationism died a pitiful death in the US
almost 20 years ago, why do you expect it to do any better in the UK?
4. What, exactly, makes your religious opinions any more
authoritative than, say, mine or my next door neighbor's or my car
mechanic's or the kid who delivers my pizzas?
5. Why did the American AiG section split with the Australian
Creation Ministries section, and why did the UK section apparently
throw its lot in with the American section? Were you involved at any
level with that? How much support, financial and otherwise, do young-
earth creationists in the UK receive from American AiG and/or ICR?
Thanks.
===================================
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
807
Lenny Flank
Re: Question for Nick.
24/05/2006 00:16:00
> Nick & Moira Cowan wrote:
>
I hope to ussher(sic) into
> > BlackShadow a new understanding of ID/Creationism.
>
Why do we need a "new understanding"? ID/creation "science" has been
around for half a century now.
Isn't it still just the same old crap? Have creation 'scientists'
come up with any new arguments that weren't being passed around by
ICR decades ago?
===================================
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
808
oeditor
Re: Question for Nick.
24/05/2006 00:20:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, midnight.diamond@... wrote:
>
> (a) In your YEC capacity - which is what you hold up as true - how
old do you
> consider the universe to be? An approximate number of years is fine.
No one
> here, I think I can safely say, would want you to give us day month
and date
> - that would be clearly silly; even though it didn't stop Bishop Uusher.
>
> (b) Thinking about your answer in (a) can you expand on the age of
the earth
> and date (in relation to this) the appearance of man.
>
Yes. I can understand religiously-minded people believing in god/s,
and its/their creation of the universe, but why would a scientist
accept such a preposterous idea as its happening (in geological terms)
yesterday? Believe in the supernatural as much as you like Nick, but
please explain, as one chemist to another, why you are a Young Earth
creationist rather than an Old Earth creationist.
Brian
809
John Germain
RE: Re: Question for Nick.
24/05/2006 01:11:00
N or M ?
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of m_cowan32
810
midnight.diamond@ntlworld.com
Re: Question for Nick.
24/05/2006 02:28:00
--- "Andrew" <taoist.hermit1@virgin.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Nick & Moira Cowan
> >
> > > ...and talking of which, it is difficult for
> > > me to recommend this discussion forum to my students
> > > yet, because of the immoderate (and unwarranted)
> > > invective used against me already, and the prospect of
> > > it getting worse! I do appreciate your efforts to keep
> > > things as calm as possible, but no teacher - Christian
> > > or atheist - is deliberately going to expose his or
> > > her pupils to obscenity.
Aw diddums! Did the nasty men upset you?
This is an adult discussion Nick. Get used to it. You're not going to impress
us with your vague explantions and religious mutterings; even if your poor
students are.
If you want to preach, do it in a church; if you want to teach, do it in a
school.
I want to see you prove YEC creationism is a valid science -or- quit teaching
science.
811
midnight.diamond@ntlworld.com
Before the Big Bang there was...
24/05/2006 02:51:00
New theory on Big Bang - was there a Big Crunch first?
http://tinyurl.com/org5e
(Don't shoot the messenger, I'm just passing on the story!)
812
Marc Draco
Re: Question for Nick.
24/05/2006 02:00:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
>
> > Nick & Moira Cowan wrote:
> >
> I hope to ussher(sic) into
> > > BlackShadow a new understanding of ID/Creationism.
> >
>
>
> Why do we need a "new understanding"? ID/creation "science" has been
> around for half a century now.
>
> Isn't it still just the same old crap? Have creation 'scientists'
> come up with any new arguments that weren't being passed around by
> ICR decades ago?
Careful with the "C" word, Lenny! Nick doesn't like to use such language.
As Lenny so succinctly observes, everyone here understands
ID/Creationism rather well. What most of us fail to uderstand is how
otherwise ordinary intellectuals get sucked in.
I mean, Tom Cruise is just a dumb movie star - you can almost forgive
him for being a total idiot...
813
John Germain
RE: Re: Question for Nick.
24/05/2006 02:01:00
Dear Mr. Cowan:
Could you please decide whether to post from yours and your wife's email
account or simply from your wife's.
I think that the Group in general would prefer to have one email account to
address you through, I don't presume to offer this other than a suggestion,
however.
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
814
John Germain
RE: Re: Question for Nick.
24/05/2006 02:40:00
I find it rather fascinating that such teachers persist (as we are
discussing an abstract Kind of Teacher):
My elder daughter is joining our local "higher" school next term: She and
her contemporaries @ year 10 are about to re-encounter a Teacher who works
the: "I am placid - they will come Around eventually" school of teaching
Bog.....
They are baying: These eager 14-year-olds see this religious wittering as
time wasted in their quest for Knowledge with a capital Kn..
My view is that she should enter the argument.
We have the atheology-
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Marc Draco
Sent: 24 May 2006 02:01
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: Question for Nick.
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
>
> > Nick & Moira Cowan wrote:
> >
> I hope to ussher(sic) into
> > > BlackShadow a new understanding of ID/Creationism.
> >
>
>
> Why do we need a "new understanding"? ID/creation "science" has been
> around for half a century now.
>
> Isn't it still just the same old crap? Have creation 'scientists'
> come up with any new arguments that weren't being passed around by
> ICR decades ago?
Careful with the "C" word, Lenny! Nick doesn't like to use such language.
As Lenny so succinctly observes, everyone here understands
ID/Creationism rather well. What most of us fail to uderstand is how
otherwise ordinary intellectuals get sucked in.
I mean, Tom Cruise is just a dumb movie star - you can almost forgive
him for being a total idiot...
Yahoo! Groups Links
815
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Question for Nick.
24/05/2006 03:20:00
>
Nick doesn't like to use such
> language.
Apparently he doesn't like to answer questions, either.
===================================
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
816
John Germain
RE: Re: Question for Nick.
24/05/2006 03:51:00
N or M?
The ambiguous usage of email addresses remimds me of Jim.
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Lenny Flank
Sent: 24 May 2006 03:21
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] Re: Question for Nick.
>
Nick doesn't like to use such
> language.
Apparently he doesn't like to answer questions, either.
===================================
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
Yahoo! Groups Links
817
m_cowan32
Re: Question for Nick.
24/05/2006 04:14:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Hearty" <psh@...> wrote:
>
> > Atheist (can anyone DISprove God's existence?).
>
> No they can't. Can YOU disprove the existence of the flying
spaghetti
> monster?
Of course not - this is my very point! But do you believe in such an
entity? Do you know anyone who does? We all have a faith position -
the question is: which is the most reasonable faith?
>
> > You may like to reflect that I myself am an atheist
> > regarding any "god" except the One who reveals Himself
> > in the (Judaeo-)Christian scriptures.
>
> Why? Which of the others have you read about and why did you
decide not to
> believe in them?
I have read the Qu'ran (in English, so I'm told it doesn't really
count!), and my Muslim pupils are certainly creationists. My YEC
position hardly ever comes up (you'll all be pleased to hear, so
stop the paranoia!). There appear to be scientific mistakes in eg.
the Hindu Vedas (eg. the earth held in space by elephants & turtles
not gravity), but I would hold that there are none in the Bible
which, although not a science book, is inerrant. Further, I would
suggest that its supernatural origin is revealed by certain
statements which modern science has revealed as showing for their
time an "impossible" depth of comprehension - see for example
www.bibletoday.com/archive/proof_text.htm
I seem to have recently encountered, via BlackShadow, those who
follow the "god" of Scientism.
>
> > If you read my
> > previous post I was not denying the Big Bang, merely
> > asserting the absurdity of a dogmatically naturalistic
> > "explanation" of it.
>
> Yet you dogmatically insist that goddidit.
Yes. It is a matter of which faith position is right.
>
> > (Can anyone by the way provide a plausible mechanism for
> > the naturalistic/non-theistic biogenesis of complex
> > macromolecules without doing violence to the 2nd
> > Law?).
>
> So why does the impossibility of making a 100% efficient fridge or
heat
> engine make macromolecules impossible? If I can't explain
macromolecules
> does that mean goddidit?
Again, yes. Although I would not be merely positing a "god-of-the-
gaps" position here.
>
> > Also I do not utterly reject evolution - no
> > problem with finches breeding after their own kind and
> > adapting to their environment. But - and sorry if this
> > puts your beak out of joint - I see no observable
> > evidence for speciation.
>
> So you accept what YECs call "micro-evolution". What actually is
the
> mechanism that prevents such evolutionary changes being cumulative?
I have no problem over evolutionary variation within a "kind"
(Sorry, I can't really link that term to modern Biology's
species/genus/phylum etc.) Mutation only ever "damages" DNA, which
causes a LOSS in information. But herein lies the classic error of
the evolutionist faith! "Small changes in a small time" cannot be
extrapolated to produce the large changes needed for the speciation
ofnew and more complex kinds given enough time, because a vast
amount of NEW genetic information would be necessary. This cannot
arise spontaneously by random processes, as the fundamentalist
atheist Richard Dawkins has had to concede (I dare you to watch the
YEC video "From A Frog To A Prince"!).
>
> > But why am I a YEC? (something that rarely
> > comes up in my teaching now that radiometric dating
> > has disappeared from GCSE and radioactivity generally
> > from A-level).
>
> So glad you raised that Nick. Care to explain why radiometric
dating is
> unreliable?
All the methods I've ever looked at are as full of holes as the
proverbial Swiss cheese! Pity this has now gone from GCSE Chemistry
(along with Radioactivity from A-level). I'll give you one: K/Ar
dating is flawed because Ar is a gas and can readily escape from
rocks. It is also extremely an inert and relatively abundant
element. K salts tend to be soluble, and can easily be leached out
of rock under catastrophic conditions involving lots of water (did
anyone say Flood?).
>
> > I'm no geologist but fossils speak of
> > catastrophe not uniformitarianism, and are entirely
> > consistent with a world-wide flood
>
> This would be the same flood that buried the whole earth to the
height of
> the highest mountain, about 8km, for the best part of a year, and
ended when
> a dove found a live olive branch that had somehow survived. You're
keen on
> thermodynamics Nick, have you done the calculations for the energy
deposited
> by an 8km column of water? Where did the water come from? Where
did it go?
It's still here! Given that the highest mountain is ca. 29,000 feet
but the deepest ocean trench is ca. 36,000 feet, it isn't hard to
cope with the fact that we'd all be several hundred feet below sea-
level if the earth were a perfect sphere. In those days the
mountains weren't so high - the earth's topography changed radically
during and just after the flood. The olive branch arrived as the
waters were receding. I'm not sure what you mean by energy
being "deposited" so I'll have to pass on the calculation!
>
> While we're on the flood Nick, there's a problem that has been
nagging at me
> for some time: are Koala bears clean or unclean? I've done a
search on the
> bible for this and it doesn't say anywhere, so how did Noah know
whether to
> take two or seven on board? Similar question for penguins, sloths,
> ant-eaters... And what about viruses and bacteria? Did Noah take
two
> staphylococcus aureus on board?
Noah didn't have to go and get the animals - God sent them. Koalas
(not bears incidentally) are unclean as they don't chew the cud.
It's all in the Book but I'd probably get into trouble with
BlackShadow if I quoted chapter & verse numbers!
>
> > I'm particularly impressed by the
> > chemical stuff - lack of sufficient He in atmosphere,
> > low levels of salts in oceans. Gentry's Po radiohaloes
> > are still not replicable despite alternative theories
> > about their origin (which don't DISprove Gentry of
> > course).
>
> Ah, here we go, the YEC gallop: trot out as many unexplained
phenomena as
> you can in 30 seconds; state without evidence that they suggest
the world is
> only 6,000 years old; ergo paleontology, archaeology, geophysics,
basic
> physics, astronomy, cosmology are all wrong, it was all done by
the flood,
> goddidit.
>
> When I was still foolish enough to believe that there was some
intellectual
> honesty in the YEC position, I actually spent quite a bit of time
looking
> into one of these "there isn't enough / there's too much" claims,
namely the
> one about the earth's magnetic field decaying too fast. What I
found was a
> tissue of half-truths, downright lies and truly appalling science.
I haven't
> bothered with similar claims since.
I'm sorry you've made your mind up - there's been more evidence for
both sides since. It'll come out here over time.
>
> > (Boyle was a Christian and, given his era, arguably a YEC!).
>
> Must be right then. Notice the clue though Nick: "given the era".
You might
> also be surprised to know that YEC was not as widespread as you
might think
> pre-Darwin. St. Augustine, for example cautioned against a literal
> interpretation of Genesis.
I'm no great fan of Augustine of Hippo - very able scholar that he
was. He still influences today's RC church and the Reformed
tradition - negatively in my view.
>
> > actually like to redeem the word "fundamental" - I use
> > it of sub-atomic particles (interesting that there are
> > 3;
>
> Oooo - little bit of a clue there from the almighty. Although
maybe the fact
> that there are 6 quarks, 6 leptons, and 12 to 14 bosons means that
your god
> really has 26 persons. I wonder if this is what the Torah means
when it
> speaks of gods (plural) creating the earth? Isn't theology fun?
Theology is useful, but it's truth that sets you free. I was getting
a little carried away at this point, although the 6 quarks do come
as two 3's interestingly!
>
> > Otherwise accept that the BlackShadow forum is,
> > in fact, the best available evidence for the
> > contemporaneous existence of dinosaurs and man.
>
> Oh dear, and you were doing so well up to now. I guess your
tolerant,
> reasonable Christian facade couldn't help slipping just a bit.
>
> Despite my flippant tone, I really do admire you having the
courage to come
> here and put your point of view. Before I sign off for now though,
I'd like
> to ask your opinion on stars - that's right, just stars: how they
form, when
> they form, how far away they are. I'm sure you see the point of my
question.
I'm not a cosmologist so I'll duck this question - I can see where
you're leading me, and I'm not competent enough to give you any
answer other than I believe they were created after the earth (on
the 4th day). They are a long way away - do you ever look up at them
with wonder as per Psalm 8 (now I WILL be in trouble!). You might
like to seek out Dr. Russell Humphreys' book "Starlight and Time"
>
> Pete
Thank you for your relatively irenical approach! Nick.
>
818
m_cowan32
Re: Question for Nick.
24/05/2006 04:34:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "John Germain"
<jtg.germainsjy@...> wrote:
>
> N or M?
We only have one shared e-mail address - the Bible says we are one
flesh! Moira set it up so it's her initial we use. I'm not sure why
this is worthy of such conjecture - "sad", as the kids at school
here would say. Here it is again: m_cowan32@yahoo.co.uk
You are free to e-mail me directly if you wish.
>
> The ambiguous usage of email addresses remimds me of Jim.
>
> John Germain
> Jersey
> British Channel Islands
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
[BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Lenny Flank
> Sent: 24 May 2006 03:21
> To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] Re: Question for Nick.
>
> >
> Nick doesn't like to use such
> > language.
>
>
> Apparently he doesn't like to answer questions, either.
I may be slow but I'll get there in the end. I'm not one for knee-
jerk responses - sorry if this disappoints you. As I've said, what's
a few days if you believe in 5 billion years. I'm on holiday from
May 27th until June 1st by the way. If I don't post after this then
I may have been raptured.
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
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
819
John Germain
RE: Re: Question for Nick.
24/05/2006 05:23:00
My apologies: your initial header was "Nick & Moira"..
I did not parse the address: when it appeared as m_co I became confused
Not too so, however.
RE: Your message below:
Bible? Which one?
One flesh, eh? Moira, are you in receipt of an extra rib?
You will excuse me for addressing your wife directly, will you not? You are
both active, I recall, in the spreading of your particular creed?
Active Teachers for Dog or some such?
In point of fact, the young adults I come in contact with feel patronized
and insulted by the term "kids": they don't feel that they are of the "Goat
Kind", to put it in your terms.
All the students I know, were they to encounter your avowed method of
teaching, apparently by snide remarks and bullying, would run screaming for
their rights to be taught rather than indoctrinated. Thankfully, they would
receive the same.
I am of the same opinion as others in this Group: If, as you have said, your
pupils are of such an age and maturity that you cannot influence them
unduly: let them know where to find the argument.
You seem quite willing to exceed your powers within the classroom, so what
harm can be done? At the worst, your Pupils who you hold in such high
regard, will see you vindicated. You will hold your own against the
nay-sayers and the foul mouthed.
What more could you ask?
Of course:
Should any of them stumble across this Group and it were so discovered that
you (or any of your "network" (or whichever phrase you used) of
fellow-believing Teachers) had deliberately promulgated your arguments here,
using them as exemplars...
All that aside, have a good holiday.
Going somewhere warm?
If I might suggest, I understand that Iceland has some excellent thermal
pools which should help cure your Rupture..
(Hades has the odd side benefit, it seems..)
With some luck, Mrs. Nick might even encounter OLD Nick.. <Evil Grin>
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of m_cowan32
Sent: 24 May 2006 04:35
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: Question for Nick.
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "John Germain"
<jtg.germainsjy@...> wrote:
>
> N or M?
We only have one shared e-mail address - the Bible says we are one
flesh! Moira set it up so it's her initial we use. I'm not sure why
this is worthy of such conjecture - "sad", as the kids at school
here would say. Here it is again: m_cowan32@yahoo.co.uk
You are free to e-mail me directly if you wish.
>
> The ambiguous usage of email addresses remimds me of Jim.
>
> John Germain
> Jersey
> British Channel Islands
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
[BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Lenny Flank
> Sent: 24 May 2006 03:21
> To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] Re: Question for Nick.
>
> >
> Nick doesn't like to use such
> > language.
>
>
> Apparently he doesn't like to answer questions, either.
I may be slow but I'll get there in the end. I'm not one for knee-
jerk responses - sorry if this disappoints you. As I've said, what's
a few days if you believe in 5 billion years. I'm on holiday from
May 27th until June 1st by the way. If I don't post after this then
I may have been raptured.
Nick.
820
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Question for Nick.
24/05/2006 07:54:00
m_cowan32 wrote:
> We all have a faith position -
> the question is: which is the most reasonable faith?
Atheism is not a faith position and what constitutes a "most reasonable
faith" is a personal judgement. That is a philosophical and theological
debate, not a scientific one, in any case.
> My YEC
> position hardly ever comes up
It should not *ever* come up; that is the point.
> I seem to have recently encountered, via BlackShadow, those who
> follow the "god" of Scientism.
How can creationism be tested using the scientific method?
> I have no problem over evolutionary variation within a "kind"
> (Sorry, I can't really link that term to modern Biology's
> species/genus/phylum etc.)
Thanks for admitting you cannot scientifically define a "kind". Which
begs the questions: why do you use a "kind" when clearly it is religious
and not scientifically based? when you have cereal in the morning,
consider that the wheat came from wild emmer wheat and diverged from it
via speciation.
> Mutation only ever "damages" DNA, which
> causes a LOSS in information.
Tell that to your inner ear, which used to be a third jaw bone in
ancient reptiles.
I would also like to hear how polyploidy doesn't add any new genetic
information.
To copy Lenny from a very old post on DebunkCreation:
"How about another example of "information increase", this
one that comes from CREATIONISM ITSELF. According to
creationist crap, all of the humans in the world today come from two
people. Adam and Eve, like all humans, had two chromosomes
each. Each chromosome contains one allele per genetic locus.
That means there could not have been more than four different
alleles for any particular human genetic locus.
"Yet today we find human loci with well over 100 different alleles.
Since 100 is greater than 4, this means an increase in genetic
information. Exactly what creationist "genetics" says cannot happen.
"Explain, please," Cowan.
821
Peter Hearty
Re: Re: Question for Nick.
24/05/2006 09:17:00
Nick
Thank you for your considered response. I know that as a teacher you're a
busy man and I appreciate you taking the time to talk with me.
> > No they can't. Can YOU disprove the existence of the flying
> spaghetti
> > monster?
>
> Of course not - this is my very point! But do you believe in such an
> entity? Do you know anyone who does? We all have a faith position -
> the question is: which is the most reasonable faith?
No Nick, I don't believe in such an entity, but that is beside the point.
Science, almost by definition, is the study of nature. The supernatural,
being beyond any form of reliable experimentation, is therefore beyond
science. The point where you invoke the goddidit argument is the point at
which science and discovery stops. By invoking supernatural explanations for
natural phenomena, you not only diminish science, you diminish your god
concept also. Many Christians appreciate this. I'll come back to this later.
> I have read the Qu'ran (in English, so I'm told it doesn't really
> count!), and my Muslim pupils are certainly creationists. My YEC
> position hardly ever comes up (you'll all be pleased to hear, so
> stop the paranoia!). There appear to be scientific mistakes in eg.
> the Hindu Vedas (eg. the earth held in space by elephants & turtles
> not gravity), but I would hold that there are none in the Bible
> which, although not a science book, is inerrant. Further, I would
> suggest that its supernatural origin is revealed by certain
> statements which modern science has revealed as showing for their
> time an "impossible" depth of comprehension - see for example
> www.bibletoday.com/archive/proof_text.htm
>
I'm glad you're so well read on Muslim and Vedic scripture, but I still
don't understand why you find the bible so much more convincing than other
sacred texts. It seems to me that you are simply following the cultural
tradition to which you have had most exposure, just as Muslims and Hindus
do. Your assertion that the bible is inerrant sounds like just that, an
assertion. It has emotional, but no intellectual content, in that you offer
no argument.
> > So why does the impossibility of making a 100% efficient fridge or
> heat
> > engine make macromolecules impossible? If I can't explain
> macromolecules
> > does that mean goddidit?
>
> Again, yes. Although I would not be merely positing a "god-of-the-
> gaps" position here.
But that is precisely what you ARE doing Nick. You're taking an unexplained
problem in science, saying we don't have a solution, and claiming that
goddidit is the answer. This is, of course, no answer at all, since it tells
you nothing about how god did it. At this point your journey of discovery
stops. There is no point in you ever trying to investigate how this happened
because you think it happened by magic. That is why the goddidit explanation
diminishes your god, making it nothing more than a god of the gaps, a
position which most theologians find very unsatisfactory.
> I have no problem over evolutionary variation within a "kind"
> (Sorry, I can't really link that term to modern Biology's
> species/genus/phylum etc.) Mutation only ever "damages" DNA, which
> causes a LOSS in information. But herein lies the classic error of
> the evolutionist faith! "Small changes in a small time" cannot be
> extrapolated to produce the large changes needed for the speciation
> ofnew and more complex kinds given enough time, because a vast
> amount of NEW genetic information would be necessary. This cannot
> arise spontaneously by random processes, as the fundamentalist
> atheist Richard Dawkins has had to concede (I dare you to watch the
> YEC video "From A Frog To A Prince"!).
I believe another poster has raised the mechanism of polyploidy in plants.
There has also been much recent work in gene duplication in mammals.
> I'll give you one: K/Ar
> dating is flawed because Ar is a gas and can readily escape from
> rocks.
Yes - it can, which is of course the point unless it was already trapped in
a K salt when the K decayed. It is its escape during salt formation that
resets the clock. Of course, as you are clearly aware, nature is never so
cleancut, which is why dating labs normally use multiple samples and
multiple techniques to assign a probability to the date.
As I'm sure you know well, the 100% certainty in science which is normally
portrayed in school syllabuses is very different from the work of
professional scientists, who qualify almost all their work with
probabilities.
I'm sure you would acknowledge that professional dating experts are well
aware of the various mechanisms that can cause their dating methods to give
erroneous results. Are you saying that all such scientists are either
deluded or malicious?
You might also want to consider why it is that there are no naturally
occuring radioactive isotopes on earth with half lives less than about 500M
years, even though they are observed in the spectra of supernova remnants.
Although not conclusive evidence, it is certainly highly circumstantial that
those isotopes have all decayed over several billion years.
> It's still here! Given that the highest mountain is ca. 29,000 feet
> but the deepest ocean trench is ca. 36,000 feet, it isn't hard to
> cope with the fact that we'd all be several hundred feet below sea-
> level if the earth were a perfect sphere. In those days the
> mountains weren't so high - the earth's topography changed radically
> during and just after the flood. The olive branch arrived as the
> waters were receding. I'm not sure what you mean by energy
> being "deposited" so I'll have to pass on the calculation!
What evidence do you have that the earth was flatter. Plate techtonics
suggests that the time required to create mountain ranges is measured in
millions of years. Of course this theory could also be wrong, but you seem
to be demanding that an ever increasing amount of modern science is wrong.
The olive branch is important since all the olive trees would be long dead.
The reason it is regarded as a symbol of peace is the difficulty in
cultivating olives. They are therefore a sign of peace and stability. So
where did the olive branch come from?
The energy calculations are important because of the vast amount of energy
necessary to send an 8 km column of water into the sky and then let it rain
back down again. You have to explain the weather systems capable of storing
this amount of energy. Even the science of meteorology has to be wrong if
your faith based position is to have any credibility.
> It's all in the Book but I'd probably get into trouble with
> BlackShadow if I quoted chapter & verse numbers!
Indeed it is - both contradictory versions of the story.
> > When I was still foolish enough to believe that there was some
> intellectual
> > honesty in the YEC position, I actually spent quite a bit of time
> looking
> > into one of these "there isn't enough / there's too much" claims,
> namely the
> > one about the earth's magnetic field decaying too fast. What I
> found was a
> > tissue of half-truths, downright lies and truly appalling science.
> I haven't
> > bothered with similar claims since.
>
> I'm sorry you've made your mind up - there's been more evidence for
> both sides since. It'll come out here over time.
We can only spend so much time on wild goose chases. I began with the
assumption that YECs were interested in learning the truth. I quickly found
that, with your innerant views of the bible, you were not susceptable to
rational argument or the weight of evidence. I have been lied to so many
times by YECs that you have very little credibility in my book. My reasons
for continuing this discussion with you are simple curiosity: I'm trying to
understand how a science teacher can reconcile such patently absurd beliefs
with his clear scientific knowledge.
> I'm no great fan of Augustine of Hippo - very able scholar that he
> was. He still influences today's RC church and the Reformed
> tradition - negatively in my view.
That is of course a separate discussion. I was merely pointing out that
there is a long intellectual tradition of non-literalist interpretation of
the bible amongst Christians.
> > to ask your opinion on stars - that's right, just stars: how they
> form, when
> > they form, how far away they are. I'm sure you see the point of my
> question.
>
> I'm not a cosmologist so I'll duck this question - I can see where
> you're leading me, and I'm not competent enough to give you any
> answer other than I believe they were created after the earth (on
> the 4th day). They are a long way away - do you ever look up at them
> with wonder as per Psalm 8 (now I WILL be in trouble!). You might
> like to seek out Dr. Russell Humphreys' book "Starlight and Time"
I'm sorry you won't respond to this as it raises many important questions.
Our models of stellar evolution seem to be confirmed by observation. We do
see dust clouds collapsing. We see all the stages of star formation
predicted by astro-physicists. This suggests, very strongly, that these
theories are substantially correct, that stars do indeed take millions of
years to form, that their structure is much as predicted, that the mean
random walk length of a photon generated in the sun's core to the surface is
about 500,000 years.
Russell Humphreys' book claims to find a solution to Einstein's field
equations that explains the red shift in terms of a closed, young universe.
It has not been published in any journals to which I have access. Those
critiques of the theory that I have seen, have systematically rubbished it,
and those were by old earth creationist cosmologists. Dr. Humphreys is a
solid state physicist.
It seems to me, that your faith position requires much of the foundations of
modern: geology, biology, archaeology, anthropology, paleontology,
meteorology, astronomy, cosmology and some of basic physics to be
fundamentally flawed. This seems a very odd position for someone whom I
presume would claim to have some respect for science. Being unwilling to
reconsider your position in the light of such overwhelming expertise by
those involved is not something that I regard as a virtue.
And yes, I do look up at the stars in wonder. Even a classical materialist,
reductionist like me can appreciate beauty. There was a wonderful quote from
Richard Feynman which I can only paraphrase. An artist challenged him: "I
feel sorry for you, you look at a rose and miss its colour, it poetry, its
beauty. All you see are chemicals and forces and particles." Feynman
responded, "You're right, I do see chemicals and forces and particles, AND I
see colour, poetry, and beauty."
I, btw, am not a scientist. I wouldn't want to mislead you.
> Thank you for your relatively irenical approach! Nick.
You're quite welcome.
Pete
822
Andrew
Re: Re: Question for Nick.
24/05/2006 11:40:00
----- Original Message -----
From: m_cowan32
> I'm not a cosmologist so I'll duck this question - I can see where
> you're leading me, and I'm not competent enough to give you any
> answer other than I believe they were created after the earth (on
> the 4th day).
And yet you considered yourself competent enough to tell one of your pupils
that the Big Bang theory isn't science, against the conclusions of vast
numbers of physicists involved in the interpretation of data pertaining to
the phenomena that indicate the Big Bang.
823
Wilson Alan
RE: Re: Question for Nick.
24/05/2006 12:15:00
> -----Original
Message-----
> From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
[BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Lenny Flank
> Sent: 24 May 2006 03:21
> To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] Re: Question for Nick.
>
> >
> Nick doesn't like to use such
> > language.
>
>
> Apparently he doesn't like to answer questions, either.
I may be slow but I'll get there in the end. I'm not one for knee-
jerk responses - sorry if this disappoints you. As I've said, what's
a few days if you believe in 5 billion years. I'm on holiday from
May 27th until June 1st by the way. If I don't post after this then
I may have been raptured.
Nick.
Unless
this is a typo and you meant “ruptured”, then
as someone
said before when a JW expounded this belief:
“Can
I have your house and car after you’re gone?”
Alan W
824
MB
RE: Re: Question for Nick.
24/05/2006 12:20:00
> N or M?
>
> The ambiguous usage of email addresses remimds me of Jim.
>
Well well, that's interesting. I'd forgotten. You're quite right.
Regards,
MB
825
Wilson Alan
RE: Re: Question for Nick.
24/05/2006 12:08:00
Theology is useful, but it's truth that sets you free. I was getting
a little carried away at this point, although the 6 quarks do come
as two 3's interestingly!
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy">Mr. Cowan,
Why should the fact that 6 quarks comes as
2 x 3s be anymore interesting than 6 leptons coming as
6 x 1s, 1 x 6, 3 x 2s, 1+2+3, 2+4, 1+5, 6+0
or 0+6?
Alan W
----
'From:'
BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] 'On Behalf Of 'm_cowan32
'Sent:' 24 May 2006 04:14
'To:' BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
'Subject:' [BlackShadow] Re:
Question for Nick.
--- In
BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Hearty" <psh@...> wrote:
>
> > Atheist (can anyone DISprove God's existence?).
>
> No they can't. Can YOU disprove the existence of the flying
spaghetti
> monster?
Of course not - this is my very point! But do you believe in such an
entity? Do you know anyone who does? We all have a faith position -
the question is: which is the most reasonable faith?
>
> > You may like to reflect that I myself am an atheist
> > regarding any "god" except the One who reveals Himself
> > in the (Judaeo-)Christian scriptures.
>
> Why? Which of the others have you read about and why did you
decide not to
> believe in them?
I have read the Qu'ran (in English, so I'm told it doesn't really
count!), and my Muslim pupils are certainly creationists. My YEC
position hardly ever comes up (you'll all be pleased to hear, so
stop the paranoia!). There appear to be scientific mistakes in eg.
the Hindu Vedas (eg. the earth held in space by elephants & turtles
not gravity), but I would hold that there are none in the Bible
which, although not a science book, is inerrant. Further, I would
suggest that its supernatural origin is revealed by certain
statements which modern science has revealed as showing for their
time an "impossible" depth of comprehension - see for example
www.bibletoday.com/archive/proof_text.htm
I seem to have recently encountered, via BlackShadow, those who
follow the "god" of Scientism.
>
> > If you read my
> > previous post I was not denying the Big Bang, merely
> > asserting the absurdity of a dogmatically naturalistic
> > "explanation" of it.
>
> Yet you dogmatically insist that goddidit.
Yes. It is a matter of which faith position is right.
>
> > (Can anyone by the way provide a plausible mechanism for
> > the naturalistic/non-theistic biogenesis of complex
> > macromolecules without doing violence to the 2nd
> > Law?).
>
> So why does the impossibility of making a 100% efficient fridge or
heat
> engine make macromolecules impossible? If I can't explain
macromolecules
> does that mean goddidit?
Again, yes. Although I would not be merely positing a "god-of-the-
gaps" position here.
>
> > Also I do not utterly reject evolution - no
> > problem with finches breeding after their own kind and
> > adapting to their environment. But - and sorry if this
> > puts your beak out of joint - I see no observable
> > evidence for speciation.
>
> So you accept what YECs call "micro-evolution". What actually is
the
> mechanism that prevents such evolutionary changes being cumulative?
I have no problem over evolutionary variation within a "kind"
(Sorry, I can't really link that term to modern Biology's
species/genus/phylum etc.) Mutation only ever "damages" DNA, which
causes a LOSS in information. But herein lies the classic error of
the evolutionist faith! "Small changes in a small time" cannot be
extrapolated to produce the large changes needed for the speciation
ofnew and more complex kinds given enough time, because a vast
amount of NEW genetic information would be necessary. This cannot
arise spontaneously by random processes, as the fundamentalist
atheist Richard Dawkins has had to concede (I dare you to watch the
YEC video "From A Frog To A Prince"!).
>
> > But why am I a YEC? (something that rarely
> > comes up in my teaching now that radiometric dating
> > has disappeared from GCSE and radioactivity generally
> > from A-level).
>
> So glad you raised that Nick. Care to explain why radiometric
dating is
> unreliable?
All the methods I've ever looked at are as full of holes as the
proverbial Swiss cheese! Pity this has now gone from GCSE Chemistry
(along with Radioactivity from A-level). I'll give you one: K/Ar
dating is flawed because Ar is a gas and can readily escape from
rocks. It is also extremely an inert and relatively abundant
element. K salts tend to be soluble, and can easily be leached out
of rock under catastrophic conditions involving lots of water (did
anyone say Flood?).
>
> > I'm no geologist but fossils speak of
> > catastrophe not uniformitarianism, and are entirely
> > consistent with a world-wide flood
>
> This would be the same flood that buried the whole earth to the
height of
> the highest mountain, about 8km, for the best part of a year, and
ended when
> a dove found a live olive branch that had somehow survived. You're
keen on
> thermodynamics Nick, have you done the calculations for the energy
deposited
> by an 8km column of water? Where did the water come from? Where
did it go?
It's still here! Given that the highest mountain is ca. 29,000 feet
but the deepest ocean trench is ca. 36,000 feet, it isn't hard to
cope with the fact that we'd all be several hundred feet below sea-
level if the earth were a perfect sphere. In those days the
mountains weren't so high - the earth's topography changed radically
during and just after the flood. The olive branch arrived as the
waters were receding. I'm not sure what you mean by energy
being "deposited" so I'll have to pass on the calculation!
>
> While we're on the flood Nick, there's a problem that has been
nagging at me
> for some time: are Koala bears clean or unclean? I've done a
search on the
> bible for this and it doesn't say anywhere, so how did Noah know
whether to
> take two or seven on board? Similar question for penguins, sloths,
> ant-eaters... And what about viruses and bacteria? Did Noah take
two
> staphylococcus aureus on board?
Noah didn't have to go and get the animals - God sent them. Koalas
(not bears incidentally) are unclean as they don't chew the cud.
It's all in the Book but I'd probably get into trouble with
BlackShadow if I quoted chapter & verse numbers!
>
> > I'm particularly impressed by the
> > chemical stuff - lack of sufficient He in atmosphere,
> > low levels of salts in oceans. Gentry's Po
radiohaloes
> > are still not replicable despite alternative theories
> > about their origin (which don't DISprove Gentry of
> > course).
>
> Ah, here we go, the YEC gallop: trot out as many unexplained
phenomena as
> you can in 30 seconds; state without evidence that they suggest
the world is
> only 6,000 years old; ergo paleontology, archaeology, geophysics,
basic
> physics, astronomy, cosmology are all wrong, it was all done by
the flood,
> goddidit.
>
> When I was still foolish enough to believe that there was some
intellectual
> honesty in the YEC position, I actually spent quite a bit of time
looking
> into one of these "there isn't enough / there's too much"
claims,
namely the
> one about the earth's magnetic field decaying too fast. What I
found was a
> tissue of half-truths, downright lies and truly appalling science.
I haven't
> bothered with similar claims since.
I'm sorry you've made your mind up - there's been more evidence for
both sides since. It'll come out here over time.
>
> > (Boyle was a Christian and, given his era, arguably a YEC!).
>
> Must be right then. Notice the clue though Nick: "given the
era".
You might
> also be surprised to know that YEC was not as widespread as you
might think
> pre-Darwin. St. Augustine,
for example cautioned against a literal
> interpretation of Genesis.
I'm no great fan of Augustine of Hippo - very able scholar that he
was. He still influences today's RC church and the Reformed
tradition - negatively in my view.
>
> > actually like to redeem the word "fundamental" - I use
> > it of sub-atomic particles (interesting that there are
> > 3;
>
> Oooo - little bit of a clue there from the almighty. Although
maybe the fact
> that there are 6 quarks, 6 leptons, and 12 to 14 bosons means that
your god
> really has 26 persons. I wonder if this is what the Torah means
when it
> speaks of gods (plural) creating the earth? Isn't theology fun?
Theology is useful, but it's truth that sets you free. I was getting
a little carried away at this point, although the 6 quarks do come
as two 3's interestingly!
>
> > Otherwise accept that the BlackShadow forum is,
> > in fact, the best available evidence for the
> > contemporaneous existence of dinosaurs and man.
>
> Oh dear, and you were doing so well up to now. I guess your
tolerant,
> reasonable Christian facade couldn't help slipping just a bit.
>
> Despite my flippant tone, I really do admire you having the
courage to come
> here and put your point of view. Before I sign off for now though,
I'd like
> to ask your opinion on stars - that's right, just stars: how they
form, when
> they form, how far away they are. I'm sure you see the point of my
question.
I'm not a cosmologist so I'll duck this question - I can see where
you're leading me, and I'm not competent enough to give you any
answer other than I believe they were created after the earth (on
the 4th day). They are a long way away - do you ever look up at them
with wonder as per Psalm 8 (now I WILL be in trouble!). You might
like to seek out Dr. Russell Humphreys' book "Starlight and Time"
>
> Pete
Thank you for your relatively irenical approach! Nick.
>
826
Mikey Brass
Re: Question for Nick.
24/05/2006 12:25:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "m_cowan32" <m_cowan32@...> wrote:
> I may be slow but I'll get there in the end. I'm not one for knee-
> jerk responses - sorry if this disappoints you. As I've said, what's
> a few days if you believe in 5 billion years. I'm on holiday from
> May 27th until June 1st by the way. If I don't post after this then
> I may have been raptured.
To be grammatically correct, "by the way" has a comma before it.
If you don't like the comment, then don't be an arsehole with pedantic
bullshit.
827
Lenny Flank
repeating my questions for Mr Cowan
24/05/2006 13:05:00
Once again, my simple questions for Mr Cowan.
1. How old do you think the earth is? How do you think fossils
formed? Where do you think the humans were while dinosaurs and
trilobites were being fossilized, and where do you think both
dinosaurs and humans were while the trilobites were beign fossilized?
2. What exactly is the scientific theory of creation, and how do we
test it using the scientific method?
3. Since young-earth creationism died a pitiful death in the US
almost 20 years ago, why do you expect it to do any better in the UK?
4. What, exactly, makes your religious opinions any more
authoritative than, say, mine or my next door neighbor's or my car
mechanic's or the kid who delivers my pizzas?
5. Why did the American AiG section split with the Australian
Creation Ministries section, and why did the UK section apparently
throw its lot in with the American section? Were you involved at any
level with that? How much support, financial and otherwise, do young
earth creationists in the UK receive from American AiG and/or ICR?
As usual, I will repeat my questions again, and again and again and
again and again, every time Mr Cowan posts anything to this list,
until he either answers or runs away.
I'm a very patient man.
===================================
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
828
Mike Brass
Human evolution and creationists
24/05/2006 13:39:00
The short article below is adapted from an article of mine which appeared in the Reports of the National Center for Science Education in 2004.
Creationists, by and large, have a simplistic yet expressive writing style that is highly effective. Their views are presented in such a way as to appear scientific when they are in fact being scientistic (using scientific terminology in order to expropriate scientific authority). They reach many people (both students and from the general public) who possess neither the background knowledge nor training - nor have easy access to university facilities and the technical journals 〞 in order to do their own critiques. This is important to keep in mind, as the literature on biological evolution is vast and extremely complex, and cannot be easily reduced to soundbits.
The Anatomical Evidence
The anatomical evidence 每 both fossil and contemporary - demonstrates that australopithecines and chimpanzees share a geologically recent common ancestor and that Homo sapiens are descendants of the evolutionary branch that began with the divergence of the australopithecines.
The anatomical characteristics that link the australopithecines to Homo, and show their intermediate form between modern humans and the last common ancestor between humans and chimpanzees, include: * The canines of the australopithecines do not project much further forward in relation to the other teeth than they do in Homo; * Australopithecine canines also show a decrease in sexual size differences over time 每 the more recent forms are more like the condition of modern humans; * Tooth enamel progresses to a more Homo-like thickness over time; * Wear patterns on australopithecine teeth suggest a ※crushing§ action, similar to that of Homo; * The cranial capacity of the australopithecines increases to a capacity range approaching that of early Homo; * The australopithecine foramen magnum, which allows the spinal cord to connect with the base of the brain, is located more toward the base of the skull than in apes, yet not completely under the skull, as in Homo -, except for in the robust australopithecines (also known as Paranthropus) where it was just as in Homo; and * The features of the tibiae (orientation angle, thickness and internal structure) shared by australopithecines and Homo reflect the demands placed on their bodies by bipedalism.
The anatomical similarities between chimpanzees and anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) can be summarized as follows: * In both species, the rib cage is broad from side to side and shallow from front to back; the rib cage extends back beyond the vertebral column; * Both have a dorsally-placed scapula and shoulder joints facing outward to the side, giving humans a mobile shoulder joint; a hangover from our arboreal ancestry; * The positioning and angle of the humeral shaft and humeral head and other joints in the forelimb are the same in both species.
Modern Chimpanzees
Australopithecines
Modern Humans
Canines larger and project out from tooth row
Canines slightly larger, but non-projecting
Canines of similar size to other teeth and non-projecting
Extension canine size dimorphism by sex
Moderate canine size dimorphism by sex
Minimal canine size dimorphism by sex
Tooth enamel thin
Tooth enamel moderate
Tooth enamel thick
Dental wear pattern shows grinding action
Dental wear pattern shows crushing action
Dental wear pattern shows crushing action
Cranial capacity average 400 cc
Cranial capacity 350 每 540 cc
Cranial Capacity ≡ 1000 cc
Foramen magnum opens toward rear of skull.
Foramen magnum opens between rear and base of skull.
Foramen magnum opens at base of skull.
Tibiae thin and angled
Tibiae thicker and straighter
Tibiae thick and straight
Rib cage broad and extends past vertebral column
Rib cage broad and extends past vertebral column
Rib cage broad and extends past vertebral column
Scapulae on the back, shoulder joints oriented to the sides
Scapulae on the back, shoulder joints oriented to the sides
Scapulae on the back, shoulder joints oriented to the sides
Ancestors and Intermediates
No creationist story would be complete without disputing that the australopithecines are a part of our ancestral lineage. It is an essentially part of their myth, in which they try to impress ordinary people by citing two palaeoanthropologists in particular: Sir Solly Zuckerman and Charles Oxnard. Standard creationist procedure also dictates those direct rebuttals to Zuckerman and Oxnard＊s articles or subsequent re-evaluations of earlier work are overlooked.
Zuckerman and Oxnard lost the debate in the 1950s and 1970s respectively; paleoanthropologists do consider Homo to have emerged from australopithecine ancestral stock. It should also be noted that while Oxnard removed the australopithecines from our line of direct ancestry, he agreed that Homo and the australopithecines shared a common ancestor.
It is fair to ask what they expect intermediary ancestors, along the path from the time of the chimpanzee-hominin split to the advent of Homo sapiens, to look like. The further back in time we go, surely the greater the anatomical similarities between chimpanzees and hominins become. Those very characteristics, which are cited as supposed proof that the australopithecines were different from us and therefore do not belong in our lineage, are indeed proof positive of the transition from the more ape-like ancestors to the more modern human forms that appear in the fossil record over the past 5 million years.. But how have creationists evaluated this evidence?
In 1913 the German geologist Hans Reck was searching at Olduvai Gorge when his helpers came across an anatomically modern skeleton in Bed II, the second oldest of five beds (Morell 1995). Bed II is dated at 1.2 million years ago (MYA). Louis Leakey visited the site in 1931 with Reck and agreed that the skeleton was in the bed where it was originally preserved and not an intrusive burial dug down into the older bed from a younger level. Later however, after soil samples were tested from Bed II and the skeleton, they published their revised conclusions, in the prestigious journal Nature: the skeleton was indeed an intrusive grave filling from Bed V - where modern human skeletons ought to be found. Leakey also stated, in Stone Age Races of Kenya (1935), that although at first this specimen appeared to be of great antiquity, subsequent closer scientific investigations revealed its age to match its recent modern morphology.
Further details are given by Louis Leakey＊s biographer, Virginia Morell (1995: 66): ※Meanwhile, in England the death knell was sounding for Olduvai Man. Several independent geological tests had been run on the skeleton and soil samples. These showed that the body had been buried in Bed II in comparatively recent times, when a fault exposed that horizon. Sometime after the burial, Beds III and IV eroded away; then Bed II had been covered over by the deposits of Bed V. Reck had mistaken the soil of Bed V for that of Bed III - an easy enough error to make as both are a deep red in color."Conclusions
Creationisrs can only reach their conclusions with a selective use of scientific data and ignoring the progress that paleoanthropology has made both in the number of specimens and the techniques available for analysis. Their conclusions regarding the nature of the hominin fossil and stone-tool record are internally contradictory 〞 often demonstrating precisely the opposite of what they propose as their "alternative" model of human history. This inconsistent and contradictory use of the scientific evidence is caused by a prior commitment to a pre-scientific religious model. They commit the very sins of which they accuse the scientific establishment: "evidence has been suppressed, ignored, and forgotten because it contradicts" their prior commitment to a different view of human history.
Both the hominin artifactual and fossil remains supports current models of human evolution: Hominins diverged from a common ancestor with chimpanzees between 5-8 million years ago, first mastering upright walking and basic tool making in a succession of australopithecine species, later dramatically increasing geographic range, brain size, and cultural complexity - including tool technologies. Despite the variety of hominin species to precede us and pioneer a number of evolutionary innovations, we - modern Homo sapiens - remain the sole surviving member of the hominin branching tree.
References
Foley R, Lahr M. 1997. Mode 3 technologies and the evolution of modern humans. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 7(1): 3每36.
Haynes C. 1973. The Calico site: Artifacts or geofacts. Science 187: 305每10.
Kaufman D. 1999. Archaeological Perspectives on the Origins of Modern Humans: A View from the Levant. London: Bergin and Garvey.
Leakey L. 1935. Stone Age Races of Kenya. London: Oxford University Press.
Leakey R, Lewin,R. 1993. Origins Reconsidered: In search of what makes us human. London: Abacus.
McBrearty S, Brooks A. 2000. The revolution that wasn＊t: A new interpretation of the origin of modern human behaviour. Journal of Human Evolution 39(5): 453每563.
McHenry H, Corruccini R. 1975. Distal humerus in hominoid evolution. Folia Primatologica 23: 227每44.
Morell V. 1995. Ancestral Passions: The Leakey Family and the Quest for
Humankind＊s Beginnings. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Patterson B, Howells W. 1967. Hominid humeral fragment from Early Pleistocene of northwestern Kenya. Science 156: 64-66
Protsch R. 1974. The age and stratigraphic position of Olduvai hominid I. Journal of Human Evolution 3: 379-385
Wolpoff M. 1999. Paleoanthropology. Boston: McGraw-Hill
829
Mikey Brass
Re: repeating my questions for Mr Cowan
24/05/2006 14:03:00
Interestingly, Cowan could not name the Flood layer at Klasies River,
Die Kelders, Nabta Playa, et al. The occupational layers at Nabta
Playa extend back to the 10th millennium (uncalibrated) bp, with the
oldest geological layer dating to the 11th millennium bp. A world-wide
flood would leave a very distinctive alluvial layer, which is utterly
missing in every single geological and archaeological sites throughout
the world.
830
oeditor
Re: Question for Nick.
24/05/2006 14:36:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "m_cowan32" <m_cowan32@...> wrote:
>
> I have read the Qu'ran (in English, so I'm told it doesn't really
> count!),
Well, one might argue the same about your Bible - there would be a few
less confusions to sort out. Like, in the original Hebrew it said "the
gods [plural] said 'Let there be light'." Also, I b/e/l/i/e/v/e have
been told that the walking on the water business is a mistranslation
from the Greek, which said "by the water".
> and my Muslim pupils are certainly creationists.
My understanding is that the discovery of evolution had little impact
on Muslims until they were stirred up by American evangelicals around
1980. I can't find my original source, but try
http://www.isim.nl/files/newsl_11.pdf and go to page 5 about "Harun
Yaha" (btw, why to do many Muslims use pseudonyms without any attempt
to conceal their real names?)
> There appear to be scientific mistakes in eg.
> the Hindu Vedas (eg. the earth held in space by elephants & turtles
> not gravity), but I would hold that there are none in the Bible
> which, although not a science book, is inerrant.
Oh dear, falling back on biblical inerrancy! I've heard it too much to
be startled, but I still draw breath - even though a yawn would be
more appropriate. The obvious question, of course, is "which version?"
(v. sup.) and "which of its contradictory sayings?"
> Further, I would
> suggest that its supernatural origin is revealed by certain
> statements which modern science has revealed as showing for their
> time an "impossible" depth of comprehension - see for example
> www.bibletoday.com/archive/proof_text.htm
Oh dear, again! Go tell it to the Muslims, who make similar ridiculous
claims. Just one example from your link: "But the round earth was
recorded in the Judeo-Christian Bible long before man discovered it in
the 1500s."
And by Eratosthenes of Cyrene (276BC - 194BC) who measured its
diameter to within about 2% of the actual value. And how about this:
"We have only fragmentary copies of copies of copies, etc. of the
earliest scientific and philosophical writings. The clearest sources
that we have are copies of sources that go back about 2500 years to
the time of Pythagoras and his school. That is the earliest clear
teaching of the earth's sphericity, though I suspect that the idea was
not new then."? This is from a YEC source!
http://www.sixdaycreation.com/facts/creation/astronomy/april2002.html
=
http://tinyurl.com/rzrht
> Mutation only ever "damages" DNA, which
> causes a LOSS in information.
Dear oh dear, this is Mackay talk :-( Supposing DNA were mutated and a
cell became cancerous. Is that a loss of information, or the gaining
by the cell of information on how to become near-immortal? But of
course mutation DOESN'T only damage DNA. Tell that the bacteria that
mutated to metabolise compounds first produced by 20th century chemists.
> a vast
> amount of NEW genetic information would be necessary. This cannot
> arise spontaneously by random processes, as the fundamentalist
> atheist Richard Dawkins has had to concede (I dare you to watch the
> YEC video "From A Frog To A Prince"!).
>
What, and pay creationists 瞿15? I'll gladly borrow it and pay postage,
but ONLY if you can assure me that it actually has Dawkins saying that
(and meaning it, rather than being deliberately misinterpreted.)
Otherwise please cite Dawkins saying that in print.
>> Where did the water come from? Where
> did it go?
>
> It's still here!
What about all the clouds then? Could Noah & Co. survive the boiling
of the oceans needed to vapourise all that water, or the global
cooling while the clouds were gathering? "Quick, off with the bikini
Mrs. Noah, get your sheepskins on quick!"
> Similar question for penguins, sloths,
> > ant-eaters... And what about viruses and bacteria? Did Noah take
> two
> > staphylococcus aureus on board?
Or rabbits, for that matter?
> > > (Boyle was a Christian and, given his era, arguably a YEC!).
> >
Robert Boyle 1627 - 1691. Most people hand't much option but to
profess Christianity in those days. cf Saudi Arabia today. I'll leave
it to the historians to say just how much pressure he'd have been
under, or how many people had been able (and dared) to cast off the
cloak of religion at that time.
> Theology is useful, but it's truth that sets you free.
You must be in very strong chains then!
> I'm not a cosmologist so I'll duck this question - I can see where
> you're leading me, and I'm not competent enough to give you any
> answer other than I believe
You're not a biologist, geologist or historian either, but that
doesn't seem to stop you!
Brian,
who is about to remove information from some porcine DNA.
831
Peter Hearty
Re: Re: Question for Nick.
24/05/2006 15:51:00
>
> Brian,
> who is about to remove information from some porcine DNA.
>
I can smell it across the internet, and I'm on a diet as well :(
832
Marc Draco
Re: Re: Question for Nick.
24/05/2006 17:30:00
John Germain wrote:
> Dear Mr. Cowan:
>
> Could you please decide whether to post from yours and your wife's email
> account or simply from your wife's.
>
> I think tha
