"Do those mummies have dates on them? Like "Made in 2,000 B.C.?" I don't think so.

LOL, and yet when creationists start babbling about 'archeological evidence of the scriptures', they have no problem accepting dates. Well, if creationist dates are true, we have bones from that era that aren't fossils, and no dinosaur bones that aren't fossils. We have human bones, and no dinosaur bones. We have frozen mammoths and no frozen dinosaurs.

4,000 years ago was the FOURTH egyptian dynasty for heaven's sake. We aren't talking about cavemen, here...

"It's all a matter of interpreting the evidence, and no interpretation is more authoritative than the next as they're all made by fallible humans. Creationists weren't the only ones who believed the sun revolved around the Earth before Galileo."

That's only if you remove evidence from the equation. It isn't your word against theirs in science. That's the problem with creationists, they expect to pose no evidence and demand endless amounts.

And no, creationists weren't the only ones that believed that, but they held out in the face of contrary evidence a lot longer than anyone else that I know of. That's the legacy of young-earth creationism, denying reality.

#174 by The Penultimate Sat, July 08, 2006 5:06 PM Do those mummies have dates on them? Like "Made in 2,000 B.C.?"

Yes, actually they do. The tag also includes the "made in Egypt" label as well.

4,000 years ago was the FOURTH egyptian dynasty for heaven's sake. We aren't talking about cavemen, here...

The point is, nobody's interpretation is more authoritative than any other. Has the scientific community become infallible recently? Sure, evolutionists think they are, but have they truly become infallible?

And no, creationists weren't the only ones that believed that, but they held out in the face of contrary evidence a lot longer than anyone else that I know of. That's the legacy of young-earth creationism, denying reality.

So, Galileo wasn't a creationist, but the church that fought him was? I never knew that evolutionism also taught history revisionism.

And no, creationists weren't the only ones that believed that, but they held out in the face of contrary evidence a lot longer than anyone else that I know of. That's the legacy of young-earth creationism, denying reality.

True. Young earth creationists do like to deny reality. They sure aren't alone though. Evolutionists think that humans have become infallible. I say they're both wrong, but what do I know? I'm not infallible.

"The point is, nobody's interpretation is more authoritative than any other. Has the scientific community become infallible recently? Sure, evolutionists think they are, but have they truly become infallible?"

Again, you ignore evidence. Scientists put forth evidence for their ideas, and in the face of contrary evidence they change them. Dishonest scientists are in the smallest minority. Religion puts forth no evidence, then demands that evidence be provided to prove them wrong. When it is, they simply invent an excuse as to why they were right in the first place. That isn't the aberation of their behavior, it is the norm.

No offense, but by now you should realize how out of your depth you are here, penultimate. It's annoying to have to deal with this juvenile "Oh yeah, well you're not perfect either" crap when people are trying to discuss facts.

"Evolutionists think that humans have become infallible. "

And you, sir, are a liar when you say that, and a liar in my mind thereafter. You do your religion, whatever it may be, a huge disservice by lying in its defense. Of course you offer no proof that evolutionists say that, it's just more quasi-religious diarrhea of the mouth.

Again, you ignore evidence. Scientists put forth evidence for their ideas, and in the face of contrary evidence they change them. Dishonest scientists are in the smallest minority. Religion puts forth no evidence, then demands that evidence be provided to prove them wrong. When it is, they simply invent an excuse as to why they were right in the first place. That isn't the aberation of their behavior, it is the norm.

They change evidence but believe the same things. They only believe what they've been taught, just like you. Like them, you've already made up your mind and are simply looking to prove it even further.

And you, sir, are a liar when you say that, and a liar in my mind thereafter. You do your religion, whatever it may be, a huge disservice by lying in its defense. Of course you offer no proof that evolutionists say that, it's just more quasi-religious diarrhea of the mouth.

I apologize for making stereotypes that are as polarizing and ridiculous as yours. As for evidence, do you expect me to provide a statement from a respected evolutionist that explicitly states that?

I think you do the scientific community a disservice by being so religious about evolution.

Where are my boots?

"They change evidence but believe the same things. They only believe what they've been taught, just like you. Like them, you've already made up your mind and are simply looking to prove it even further."

Lies, lies, lies.

• They don't 'just believe what they've been taught' or there wouldn't be ongoing research and revision of old research when new evidence presents itself. Creationists claim that science is unreliable because it always changes its mind and then Penultimate says they don't believe anything beyond what they've been taught.
• ...just like me? Actually, if I only believed what I had been taught, I'd either be a young-earth creationist, which is what I was first taught, or I'd be a atheistic proponent of totally random evolution, which I was later taught. I don't ahere to either, so that's a lie, too.
• It's also a lie to say that I've made up my mind when I haven't, not even close.

'I apologize for making stereotypes that are as polarizing and ridiculous as yours. As for evidence, do you expect me to provide a statement from a respected evolutionist that explicitly states that? I think you do the scientific community a disservice by being so religious about evolution."

You claim that what I portray people as are stereotypes, and then you back that up be being exactly what I claim folks like you are, liars. You haven't posed an honest perspective on this in how many posts now? You don't even base your estimation of me on anything I've said.

"As for evidence, do you expect me to provide a statement from a respected evolutionist that explicitly states that?"

Yes, I have pointed out lies by creationists to back up my belief that their standard operating procedure is falsehood and misdirection. If you are going to tell me that science believes humans are infallible, I expect you to provide at least a single example of one saying that.

there are tons of human fossils, bakerstreet... you lied... in fact most of what your "proof" and what you use for evidence for evolution is based on lies. the facts that you do bring to the table have been distorted. either you are ignorant of this, or you are purposefully making an attempt to decieve.

"there are tons of human fossils, bakerstreet... you lied... in fact most of what your "proof" and what you use for evidence for evolution is based on lies. the facts that you do bring to the table have been distorted. either you are ignorant of this, or you are purposefully making an attempt to decieve.

Where? Show me. Cite them. Be careful, mr./ms. anonymous, because proto-human/primate fossils are not considered human by creationists. They claim that MODERN humans lived alongside dinosaurs. Yet, and I QUOTE Mr. Ham of Answers in Genesis...

"As far as we are aware at the present time, there are no indisputable human fossils in the fossil record that we could say belong to the pre-Flood human culture(s). When we endeavour to understand some of the processes that may have occurred during the Flood, and also the real nature of the fossil record, we are not embarrassed by the seeming lack of human fossils. We don't have all the explanations as to how the evidence came to be that way, and it may be that in the future we will discover some human fossils. However, there is also much about the fossil record that the evolutionists have a hard time explaining. On the other hand, we should also realize that we don't have all the answers either, and we never will. Even though God has left us with evidence for creation and the Flood, the Bible still says that without faith it is impossible to please and believe Him (Hebrews 11:6). Because we weren't there at the time of the Flood we cannot scientifically prove exactly what happened, so there will always be aspects that will involve our faith. However, it is not blind faith. As we have investigated the evidence, we have seen nothing to contradict what the Bible says about a world Flood. We can be satisfied that there are reasonable explanations, consistent with Scripture, for the seeming lack of human fossils in Flood rocks."

Feel free to put up or shut up, Mr. Anonymous, but according to the bleeding edge of creation science there aren't any. Maybe you could educate Mr. Ham.

...just like me? Actually, if I only believed what I had been taught, I'd either be a young-earth creationist, which is what I was first taught, or I'd be a atheistic proponent of totally random evolution, which I was later taught. I don't ahere to either, so that's a lie, too.

Not true. I only believe what I've been taught, and I've been taught a variety of things, including evolution. Yet, it's true to say that I only believe what I've been taught, even if what I believe now and what I believed even just two years ago is much different. Right?

You claim that what I portray people as are stereotypes, and then you back that up be being exactly what I claim folks like you are, liars.

I back it up by using polarizing stereotypes. But I'll refrain from doing so since it's clear that only you may use them as a form of intellectual argument.

Yes, I have pointed out lies by creationists to back up my belief that their standard operating procedure is falsehood and misdirection. If you are going to tell me that science believes humans are infallible, I expect you to provide at least a single example of one saying that.

I haven't seen you provide a quote where creationists explicitly say: "I deny reality" or "What's reality except a delusion?" or something along those lines. I might have overlooked it, but if so, would you do me the honor of reposting it for me?

"Not true. I only believe what I've been taught, and I've been taught a variety of things, including evolution. Yet, it's true to say that I only believe what I've been taught, even if what I believe now and what I believed even just two years ago is much different. Right?"

No, because in many places in your writing you say openly that you don't end up agreeing with anything exactly. You don't just believe what you are taught, you have combined many different teachings to form your own beliefs. You admit that you haven't even decided about some things. That isn't believing just what you are taught, and I am no different.

" haven't seen you provide a quote where creationists explicitly say: "I deny reality" or "What's reality except a delusion?" or something along those lines. I might have overlooked it, but if so, would you do me the honor of reposting it for me?"

You haven't seen creationists claim that much of the proof of evolution is really devised by the devil and not the reality of history? You haven't seen KFC a few posts back deny the existence of bones that creationists even admit exist? This whole discussion is FULL of people differing with what is right in front of their face.

And I know you'll say that it is a matter of interpreting those things, but not so. It has been said time and time again that the Bible is 'truth' and what we see with our eyes and touch with our hands is suspect. Are you denying that creationists have proposed such? Is that not saying that reality is suspect?

BakerStreet, your arguments are perfectly valid. However, I think you are just wasting your time convincing those who can't be convinced. IMO, this debate is quintessentially about religion vs. science not about creationism vs. evolution. A belief, especially a religious one, is undisputable according to its followers. Science, on the other hand, always seeks answer through testings and evidence. Demanding a religious person to follow scientific value is impossible let alone arguing it through scientific perspective.

As a clarification, I referred the "religious person" to those who are uneducated in science background.

semicolon: I have no doubt you are right. My assertions are just trying to address the idea that the theory of evolution is just as much a religion as creationism, in other words, that the scientific evidence for evolution is no more reliable, and that it takes just as much blind faith to believe it.

Granted, there's not much chance that I'll convince the opposition otherwise, but there's something else to consider. I've been in a lot of religious discussion online, usually on the religious side, believe it or not. You'd be surprised how many times I have had third parties chime in and say that while they don't necessarily agree with me, they have more respect for my argument, or that I had defeated falsehood or bias that they had previously held. That's enough for me.

I think Kupe above (#168) was giving us the same sort of hint that you are. He is admirable in that he doesn't need to duke it out, he's satisfied to have his say and leave people to their beliefs. I like to think it takes all kinds, though, and that my pigheadedness serves some small purpose.

my pigheadedness serves some small purpose.

Keeps me entertained.

my pigheadedness serves some small purpose. Keeps me entertained

And threads going!

Hey Baker, good quote by Mr. Ham. Haven't I been saying that all along? The last thing I said today was this: So you can't say that I'm one of those creationists that is insisting that scientifically we have evidence that man and dinos lived together in past times.

Well we have nothing scientific I'll give you that. I know Ham will be putting both together in his museum maybe he'll have some ideas on this....but again maybe it'll be scriptual not scientific. . But I do know biblically speaking Job wrote about them. He witnesses them and put it down in writing. Since I do believe scripture is the revealed word of God, I'd have to say I accept the fact they did live together. To what capacity? I don't know and I'm sure no one else does either

I've been gone all day and haven't had the chance to read all the updates....but I can see the argument seems to be a heated one.

And Baker, I don't differ with anything right in front of my face. Some of this is based on your interpretation just as much as you say mine is. And it's tiring that all my thoughts or beliefs or anyone I present is a liar and all your guys are not. You pride yourself on objectivity but I only see subjectivity. I've shown you also where the "other side" lies including Darwin but you refuse to believe it. His own wife accused him of holding back as I've said before. There are always answers to objections and so as I've said repeatedly....this is where faith comes into play. You have a strong faith in your side and I have as strong a faith in mine.

You have faith in what you "see and hear" from the Scientifc community and I have faith in what I "see and hear" but also in what I don't see. Like Tova's example of Thomas. There is more than meets the eye.

I read this Proverb today and thought of our discussion.

"Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar." Prov 30:6

I don't care if an evolutionist or a Scientist or you Baker calls me a liar, but if God does, that would crush me.

just saw this

It's also a lie to say that I've made up my mind when I haven't, not even close.

what is it with you and lies? We make a comment now and it's a lie? Granted he made an assumption on what he's reading from you. I could have said the same thing but it would be based on what I'm reading you as saying Baker, not a purposeful lie.

Geeeeesh.

"Oh, I've had enough of this."

"No you haven't."

I'm not going argue about the is evolution a religion side of things because I think that would be labouring the point made by others. I will argue with the total inaccuracy of the quote used. Having recently read "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins I now see even more reasons why evolution is the ONLY theory that explains the origin of life in a non faith based way (and the only one that really explains observations). Once you truly understand evolution you realise it doesn't take any leap of faith at all. The main thing is that you try to grasp both very large timescales and small changes over many many generation. At the same time you have to think of very small molecules that work very fast.

BTW It is down to Creationists to disprove evolution, because evolution, unlike creationism, is falsifiable. You can never truly prove a theory only disprove it. Frankly I think it would be tougher to explain why evolution SHOULDN'T happen.

This wasn’t an accident. Scientists say that although the chances of evolution are impossible, given enough time this impossibility becomes a possibility. They say that if I randomly picked a card from a deck of 52 cards enough times it’s possible that I could pick the ace of spades 100 times in a row, given enough time.

This sort of thinking really annoys me. First of all a scientist would not say evolution is impossible! Secondly evolution is NOT a theory of chance. Don't get me wrong chance IS a part of it, but the main basis of evolution, natural selection, is the very opposite to chance. The selection of sucessful traits is a non-random event. Evolution come about as a result of CUMULATIVE selection not one step random selection, there is a big difference.

The extent to which chance IS involved doesn't stretch credibility when you really understand the theory. The idea that evolution is based PURELY on chance is simply wrong. The reason for this is that each new generation doesn't start from a clean slate. The Ace of Spades example is wrong because the person trying to pull and ace of spades at random has to start all over again with each try. They only get one card to pick from whereas in evolution there is a selection of many "cards" (i.e. genes) and you don't start from scratch each time. A better example would be trying to get a good hand at poker where you are allowed to exchange cards to get a better hand. The difference between poker and evolution is that in poker you need the best hand in the round to win. In evolution you just need a playable hand but preferably a relatively good one.

Lets invent a modified game of poker. This game is played with hundreds of packs of cards and hundreds of people. You start off with just five people playing with one pack, they represent the first generation (FG). Instead winning and losing a round, players with playable hands are allowed to "breed". Breeding is done by:

1)adding new players (these represent offspring of the FG) to the game with a new pack (it could be many new players and many new packs, or a few new players and one new pack, it doesn't really matter).

2)The new players have to play one of the hands played by the FG (with cards from a new pack)

3) The amount of new player that play a certain hand from the FG is proportional to how good the hand is (e.g. Three of a kind can "breed" with more people than two of a kind). There would need to be further rules created to decide the proportion of new player playing a certain hand but that isn't important here.

3a) In early generations how good your hand has to be is less strict than later generations. This is because hand will steadily get better and hands like two-of-a-kind will be out competed.

4) Offspring can "mutate" by exchanging one of their cards in an attempt to get a better hand.

After a few generation of this game of "evolution" poker it wouldn't be a big suprise if several people get a full house (or possible even a royal straight flush if there is a royal dealt in the original round). The game is entirely different if you don't have to get a completely new hand each time and you are allowed to improve it. In reality organism get to keep their "good cards" i.e. good genes because DNA replication is very faithful. New "good cards" often arise from when a gene duplicates and then mutates.

Notice in this game the main area of chance is the first round played, from then on it is down to cumulative selection. My analogy actually does evolution a diservice in the sense that evolution had a longer time scale to work with to produce an initial playable hand. Also in reality there were literally trillions upon trillions of initial "players" (possible replicators) with trillions upon trillions of decks of "cards" (molecules)play for millions of years before life even began. Evolution also aquired better ways of echanging "cards" or genes for a better hand (sex for example)as time went on. I should also say that my breeding rules are simplistic but I think they get across the point. If I want to make it more realistic I might add the idea that different hands are more sucessful in different "enviroments" or new game rooms where each room rates hands differently.

The main point I want make with this example is: In may be improbable that you get a very good hand on the first go. However after "mutating" your hand over several generation the odds go up. It isn't hard to imagine evolution going from two-of-a-kind to three-of-a-kind to four-of-a-kind even or two-of-kind to three-of-kind to a full house (etc etc.).

But what are the chances of that ace of spades growing a head, a brain, legs and arms and starting up a conversation with me? That Mr. Sares is the possibility of the “theory” of evolution.

At this point where the analogy just gets plain silly. There is only so much you can do with an analogy especially one that was bad in the first place. We aren't talking about a single simple object becoming a sentient being. We are talking about simple objects (molecules) working together becoming more complex over millions of years. The molecules don't need to be alive first go, they just need to be able to replicate and evolve on their own and eventually become something that could be considered "alive".

Another problem with above quote is the idea that we evolve arms or legs. This may seem picky but we actually only evolve INSTRUCTIONS for making limbs, before it becomes and arm or leg it is something else. There is NOT one big jump from no arms to having arms. Before arms came onto the scene the INSTRUCTIONS for making arms were used in a different way, maybe in a way that didn't involve limbs at all.

I may write my own article on evolution soon.

"Hey Baker, good quote by Mr. Ham. Haven't I been saying that all along?"

No, you've been saying that in terms of science that creationism and evolution both have "equally valid points".

"The last thing I said today was this: So you can't say that I'm one of those creationists that is insisting that scientifically we have evidence that man and dinos lived together in past times."

Oh?

"This is what I believe: Nothing in observational science contradicts the obvious conclusion based on the Bible's history

Yet you admit that when we look at the fossil record what evolutionists predict seems to be there, and what you predict doesn't. We DON'T find dinosaur bones as young as human bones. We DON'T find human fossils with trilobytes and dinosaurs the way they'd be if they all died at the same time in the flood.

So can you really say that nothing in observational science contradicts the list there? If someone comes to you and tells you to prove that the Roman Gods aren't real, how would present contradictory evidence? Wwe have to look at what a theory's model of the world would predict. The predictions of creationists as to what we'd find aren't panning out, so the conclusions most certainly have contradictory evidence, don't they?

"Well we have nothing scientific I'll give you that.

Then you should be honest and stop portraying evolution as requiring the same level of faith or belief as creationism. You've said that we who esteem the theory of evolution higher than the creation story in the bible do so in the "absense of physical substance". Do you really believe we have nothing of physical substance?

"But I do know biblically speaking Job wrote about them. He witnesses them and put it down in writing. Since I do believe scripture is the revealed word of God, I'd have to say I accept the fact they did live together. To what capacity? I don't know and I'm sure no one else does either"

No, you don't know that. You believe that in order to make your beliefs work, but Job only talks about a large creature that no one can really identify. You interpret that to mean dinosaurs, when people interpreted it for years to mean known sea creatures or even dragons or sea monsters.

"And Baker, I don't differ with anything right in front of my face. "

No, you deny realities that I present, like 4,000 year old bones. You know full well we have bones and other organic remnants of civilization from 2,000 BC. We have animal bones that people carved and used for tools. We have caves filled with the kills of large mamals that later people lived in and left their garbage, too. You love archeaology until it works against you.

"And it's tiring that all my thoughts or beliefs or anyone I present is a liar and all your guys are not. You pride yourself on objectivity but I only see subjectivity. I've shown you also where the "other side" lies including Darwin but you refuse to believe it.

You've shown a handful, and I've shown you that MAINSTREAM creationism uses lies and misinformation constantly. You can call it being "mistaken" all you like, but they are standing there saying that God did this and God did that and God says this and that about how life began. So, yes, I hold people to a DRACONIAN standard of truth when they speak for God. That includes cutting and pasting without so much as a google search to see if it is true.

You want to talk about Darwin, but we have a conversation right here to look at, don't we?

"You have a strong faith in your side and I have as strong a faith in mine."

No, I have NO FAITH WHATSOEVER in either side. Neither deserves it. The difference is the liars on the creationism side ask me to believe their lies without proof, whereas the liars on the evolution side are *required* to show proof to me so that I can make my own mind.

"I don't care if an evolutionist or a Scientist or you Baker calls me a liar, but if God does, that would crush me."

Creationists have become comfortable passing along other people's falsehoods without checking into them. That, I am sorry to say, IS lying when you can find out differently and just opt not to. You promoted Hovind to people saying that he backed up what he said with evidence. Then, when you are faced with the fact that he doesn't you distance yourself, claiming now he's not your go-to guy.

You've done a lot of that here, and you simply will not own up to the responsibility of making sure what you say is true before you say it. Because of that, I'm not sure that there's much reason to continue, unfortunately. I'm disappointed, because I thought that this really might go somewhere with a person who entered the discussion honestly. Instead, you offer misinformation, and when challenged on it you just point to science's rare sins and try and change the subject.

I don't think we are excused for misleading people by pointing out that the other side does it too, do you?

This was just a redundant post after rereading it. I will again mention Proverbs 6:17-19 since folks here esteem scripture higher than anything else, and ask why bearing false witness in discussions on evolution is okay, but a few scientists lying throws the whole theory into suspicion. Frankly, if I had that attitude, there's enough misinformation and twisting of the truth here to make me doubt creationism with no scientific help at all.

P.S. I'm still waiting for Mr. Anonymous to back up the assertion that there are plenty of human fossils. ( #184 by no way bakerstreet (Anonymous user)). That person said:

"there are tons of human fossils, bakerstreet... you lied... in fact most of what your "proof" and what you use for evidence for evolution is based on lies. the facts that you do bring to the table have been distorted. either you are ignorant of this, or you are purposefully making an attempt to decieve."

I don't know if they are a religious person or not, seeing as they were far too cowardly to really commit to the conversation. I'd challenge them to either prove their statement or admit that they are making false accusations, though. That's the kind of tactics one has to get used to arguing against creationist opponents of evolution, though, so it is no surprise.

If Genesis cannot be taken literally, there is no foundation for Christian doctrine.

i can't decide which is more amazing: the statement i've quoted or its impact on me.

only three possibilities present themselves.

either i'm misreading you, you're misrepresenting your true position or you seem almost certain to become-and i'm thinking sooner rather than later--the first bonafide apostate i've encountered. (to provide some perspective, after dismissing the facts of my being alive yet not on life support nor incarcerated, perhaps the single most remarkable aspect of my personal history is having had the great good fortune to meet and know an incredible variety of people including madelyn murray ohare).

But another thing to remember is that crocs are considered dinosaurs remember and we do live among them still. When I went to Washington State some years ago there were fish in the Columbia River that were considered dinos as well

neither fish nor crocodiles are now nor have they ever been dinosaurs.