I have had several debates with him and JT and presented them with all sorts of evidence for intelligent design, but they always stick their heads in the sand when they see evidence that contradicts darwinian evolution.....Their atheistic world-views are more precious to them than any scientific evidence.

HA!

this...from a guy who defended young earthers.......just...wow.

Remember, I read your precious Behe stuff...and laughed myself out of my chair. Your 'evidence' is a a guy who doesn't want to know how something could have naturally occured, something that other scientists actually took the time to study. Just...wow.

were you serious? how many times have you posted plagarized talking points? do you not recognize patterns?

so, without ANY adu at all, I already had the answers to those:

Q: ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth -- when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?

A: Because evolutionary theory works with any model of the origin of life on Earth, how life originated is not a question about evolution. Textbooks discuss the 1953 studies because they were the first successful attempt to show how organic molecules might have been produced on the early Earth. When modern scientists changed the experimental conditions to reflect better knowledge of the Earth's early atmosphere, they were able to produce most of the same building blocks. Origin-of-life remains a vigorous area of research.

Q: DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor -- thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

A: Wells is wrong: fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals all are post-Cambrian - aren't these "major groups"? We would recognize very few of the Cambrian organisms as "modern"; they are in fact at the roots of the tree of life, showing the earliest appearances of some key features of groups of animals - but not all features and not all groups. Researchers are linking these Cambrian groups using not only fossils but also data from developmental biology.

Q: HOMOLOGY. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry -- a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?

A: The same anatomical structure (such as a leg or an antenna) in two species may be similar because it was inherited from a common ancestor (homology) or because of similar adaptive pressure (convergence). Homology of structures across species is not assumed, but tested by the repeated comparison of numerous features that do or do not sort into successive clusters. Homology is used to test hypotheses of degrees of relatedness. Homology is not "evidence" for common ancestry: common ancestry is inferred based on many sources of information, and reinforced by the patterns of similarity and dissimilarity of anatomical structures.

Q: VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry -- even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?

A: Twentieth-century and current embryological research confirms that early stages (if not the earliest) of vertebrate embryos are more similar than later ones; the more recently species shared a common ancestor, the more similar their embryological development. Thus cows and rabbits - mammals - are more similar in their embryological development than either is to alligators. Cows and antelopes are more similar in their embryology than either is to rabbits, and so on. The union of evolution and developmental biology - "evo-devo" - is one of the most rapidly growing biological fields. "Faked" drawings are not relied upon: there has been plenty of research in developmental biology since Haeckel - and in fact, hardly any textbooks feature Haeckel's drawings, as claimed.

Q: ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds -- even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?

A: The notion of a "missing link" is an out-of-date misconception about how evolution works. Archaeopteryx (and other feathered fossils) shows how a branch of reptiles gradually acquired both the unique anatomy and flying adaptations found in all modern birds. It is a transitional fossil in that it shows both reptile ancestry and bird specializations. Wells's claim that "supposed ancestors" are younger than Archaeopteryx is false. These fossils are not ancestors but relatives of Archaeopteryx and, as everyone knows, your uncle can be younger than you!

Q: PEPPERED MOTHS. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection -- when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?

A: These pictures are illustrations used to demonstrate a point - the advantage of protective coloration to reduce the danger of predation. The pictures are not the scientific evidence used to prove the point in the first place. Compare this illustration to the well-known re-enactments of the Battle of Gettysburg. Does the fact that these re-enactments are staged prove that the battle never happened? The peppered moth photos are the same sort of illustration, not scientific evidence for natural selection.

Q: DARWIN'S FINCHES. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection -- even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?

A: Textbooks present the finch data to illustrate natural selection: that populations change their physical features in response to changes in the environment. The finch studies carefully - exquisitely - documented how the physical features of an organism can affect its success in reproduction and survival, and that such changes can take place more quickly than was realized. That new species did not arise within the duration of the study hardly challenges evolution!

Q: MUTANT FRUIT FLIES. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution -- even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?

A: In the very few textbooks that discuss four-winged fruit flies, they are used as an illustration of how genes can reprogram parts of the body to produce novel structures, thus indeed providing "raw material" for evolution. This type of mutation produces new structures that become available for further experimentation and potential new uses. Even if not every mutation leads to a new evolutionary pathway, the flies are a vivid example of one way mutation can provide variation for natural selection to work on.

Q: HUMAN ORIGINS. Why are artists' drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident -- when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?

A: Drawings of humans and our ancestors illustrate the general outline of human ancestry, about which there is considerable agreement, even if new discoveries continually add to the complexity of the account. The notion that such drawings are used to "justify materialistic claims" is ludicrous and not borne out by an examination of textbook treatments of human evolution.

Q: EVOLUTION A FACT? Why are we told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact -- even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?

A: What does Wells mean by "Darwin's theory of evolution"? In the last century, some of what Darwin originally proposed has been augmented by more modern scientific understanding of inheritance (genetics), development, and other processes that affect evolution. What remains unchanged is that similarities and differences among living things on Earth over time and space display a pattern that is best explained by evolutionary theory. Wells's "10 Questions" fails to demonstrate a pattern of evolutionary biologists' "misrepresenting the facts."

 [how many times have you posted plagarized talking points?]

Um...how about never. You might want to look up the definition of plagarism. It refers to copying someone else's work without properly giving them credit for it. How many times have you posted plagarized answers to questions, such as these answers which you plagarized from the NCSE website? It took me about 30 seconds to find the answers on their website. You see, here's the difference: I always cite the person who I am borrowing from, just as I cited Jonathan Wells as the author of the "10 questions." You, on the other hand, attempted to pass off the answers as your own, giving no credit to the NCSE who actually wrote them. That, my good friend, is plagarism.

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/icon.ans.pdf

"I always cite the person who I am borrowing from, just as I cited Jonathan Wells as the author of the "10 questions.""

Oh? LINK

See the post that starts with goodgrey saying "How old is the Earth" for a good laugh.

"You might want to look up the definition of plagarism. It refers to copying someone else's work without properly giving them credit for it."

Ok, now lets check some other definitions.

Lie - A false statement deliberately presented as being true
Examples would include:
"Write to AiG, they'll respond"
"All the people on this list are non-christian"
"I always cite the person I am borrowing from"
amongst others...

and

Hypocrisy - The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness

one who puts on a mask and feigns himself to be what he is not; a dissembler in
religion. Our Lord severely rebuked the scribes and Pharisees for their
hypocrisy (Matt. 6:2, 5, 16). "The hypocrite's hope shall perish" (Job 8:13)

Don't ever go away goodgrey...you're too freakin' funny. ;)

John T. Eberhard, Ph D.

["Write to AiG, they'll respond"]

I take it they have not responded to your questions then? Did you submit it via the electronic "scientific questions" form on the website? http://www.answersingenesis.org/feedback/sendmail.aspx?TopicID=Scientific

If so, be patient. It explicitly states on the form

Please note: Due to the volume of emails we receive, we can not guarantee a quick reply to your message. Some replies may take as long as several months. We appreciate your patience, and we will get to your message as soon as possible.

If after several months you have still not received a response to your questions, you can contact the answers department directly at via mail or phone:

Contact information for AiG-United States:

Mailing Address:
PO Box 510
Hebron, KY 41048

Street Address:
2800 Bullittsburg Church Rd.
Petersburg, KY 41080

Phone: (859) 727-2222
Customer service: (800) 778-3390

What have you got to lose? Except for your preconceived biases and blind comittment to materialistic atheism of course I gues you couldn't risk losing those things.

[Our Lord severely rebuked the scribes and Pharisees for their
hypocrisy (Matt. 6:2, 5, 16). "The hypocrite's hope shall perish" (Job 8:13)]

Wow..you have to be the only atheist I know who actually quotes the Bible in an attempt to support your atheistic world-view. Sadly, in every instance you have quoted the Bible you have misconstrued the meaning of the text by taking it out of its context. You have interpreted metaphorical passages literally. You have interpreted the early hebrew laws found in Leviticus to be instructions for modern man to live by. You have failed to recognize the etymology of hebrew and greek words, and as a result, have miscontrued their meaning. Virtually every person that comes to your xanga has pointed this out to you. Heck, even your good friend Matthew pointed this out to you. Puh-lease, do us all a favor and take a course on the biblical hermeneutics and exegesis before you make any further attempts to make the Bible conform to what you want it to say.

["I always cite the person I am borrowing from"]

How is this statement a lie? After quoting the evidence for a young earth I made it very clear to you that it was not MY evidence, but was borrowed from AiG.

[Don't ever go away goodgrey...you're too freakin' funny. ;)]

Thanks. I must admit I am amused by you as well

Goodgrey, they're not going to answer me. They're like every other creationist...after the talking points are beaten, they have nothing and they fly back to their flock to claim victory. Just like you, just like sends. Accept it.

"What have you got to lose? Except for your preconceived biases and blind comittment to materialistic atheism of course I gues you couldn't risk losing those things."

You are chiding me when I answered your challenge and got the result I expected. Cute.

As far as my use of the bible, I know you have already said that 99.9999% of humanity misinterprets god's perfect word, but if you remove all of the semantics it's a magnificant tool to show how silly christianity is.

"How is this statement a lie?"

Because what you called plagiarism when Trotsky did it had already been done by you on far more tha one occasion. I know you're going to try and semantic your way out again, but it doesn't fly. You posted a talking point without citing a source and then you mocked Trotsky, when he had already posted them on your site.

If I believed in fairy tales, I'm sure I would be amused too.

John T. Eberhard, Ph D.

[You posted a talking point without citing a source ]

Yes, and realizing my error, I then proceeded to post the following to ensure that you realized I was arguing "their arguments, not mine":

"Well I'm not going to put words in their mouths by giving you the responses I think they would offer. After all, these are THEIR arguments, not mine. I am merely the messenger."

So I acknowledged my source. Where did Trotsky acknowledge his? He didn't. I had to point out that he had plagarized the NCSE. Tisk, Tisk. No doubt this would be grounds for expulsion from Trotsky University.

[They're like every other creationist...after the talking points are beaten, they have nothing and they fly back to their flock to claim victory. ]

You'd like to think that wouldn't you. They constantly participate in debates with neo-darwinists. By the way, did you or Trotsky get around to watching those two videos I gave you yet? If so, you realize that there is nothing of religion in them. They are chock-full of scientists who dispute evolution soley on the basis of empirical evidence.

[...if you remove all of the semantics it's a magnificant tool to show how silly christianity is.]

On the contrary. If interpreted properly it is a magnificent tool which demonstrates the historical reliability of the gospel accounts, and of the book of Genesis. The alleged "contradictions" which you enjoy pointing out in the Bible have been reconciled by biblical scholars such as Gleason Archer and Walter Kaiser years ago. Yet you continue to cite supposed "contradictions" in the Bible, all along ignoring their reconciliation by biblical scholars. You also continue to insist that we as present-day humans live by the laws of the ancient Hebrews, even though you know full well that the laws found in Leviticus were not intended for modern man. You also continued to invoke the fallacy from the majority, saying that more scientists believe in evolution than creation, even though you already agreed that this is a fallacy! That is what I meant when I said you "stick your head in the sand" whenever you see evidence which contradicts your claims. The ostrich syndrome: if you can ignore the evidence long enough, then it might cease to exist.

[If I believed in fairy tales, I'm sure I would be amused too.]

LOL...this coming from a guy who believes that something came from nothing in a "big bang", and that abiogenesis occured to create living cells from non-living material, and then cells combined in a "primordial soup" to form super-complex organisms, and then the amphibians turned into reptiles and the reptiles into birds, and the monkeys into humans, when there is ZERO evidence for any of this acutually occuring. And I am the one who believes in fairytales? You are just too funny JT.

"Yes, and realizing my error, I then proceeded to post the following to ensure that you realized I was arguing "their arguments, not mine""

Two days later after I had called you on plagiarizing them.

Yeah, funny thing, eh? Remember back when I cited you an abundance of research in which we have either documented or created in a lab a near rock-solid case for the big bang as well as all necessary effects/catalysts for it?

Now, lets review...I see an expanding universe and assume that it is expanding from being more dense. You think the invisible man in the sky popped everything into existence. Evidence for your theory? Zero. None. Zilch.

Mock away.

John T. Eberhard, Ph D.

So I acknowledged my source. Where did Trotsky acknowledge his?

So...you can 'credit' a source in retrospect? you copy and past talking points....and expect me to bother with doing anymore than copy and paste an answer?

Well, if you get to credit in retrospect, if it makes you happy:

ahem: "The preceding response to a copy/paste job was taken from http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/icon.ans.pdf"

when there is ZERO evidence for any of this acutually occuring.
-Ah, my favorite 'arguement'
the "wah! you got no evidence!" 'arguement'

Well, is a peer reviewed, scientific, scholarly journal good enough?
What do you have?

this bit, on just how man came from apes.
".......
A high degree of polymorphism and high nucleotide diversity mark the functional genes of the major histocompatibility complex (Mbc). Alleles at the different Mbc loci can be classified into distinct lineages that are shared between species and, therefore, are presumed to have been founded before speciation. We have sequenced the most polymorphic part of 25 gorilla Mbc-DRB genes from six individuals. (The DRB genes code for the beta-polypeptide chain of the alpha beta heterodimer that constitutes one family of the class II MHC molecules.) Fifteen of the sequences identify new alleles at four DRB loci; each of the six gorillas was heterozygous at one of the loci at least. Thirteen of the alleles could be assigned to lineages identified previously; the remaining two alleles represent new lineages. All the major human DRB allelic lineages are now known to be shared with apes, and all must have originated before the human-gorilla-chimpanzee divergence more than six million years (my) ago. The presence of some of the gorilla and human lineages in Old World monkeys suggests that these lineages emerged before the divergence of apes and cercopithecids. We argue that the major allelic lineages at the DRB1 locus began to diverge shortly after the rounds of duplication that generated the different DRB loci now found in the hominoids and that this event occurred more than 30 my ago. Comparison of closely related gorilla DRB sequences indicates that polymorphism may be generated by several mechanisms: point mutations, slippage during DNA replication, and recombination. Deduced gene linkages provide evidence for transspecies evolution of haplotype polymorphism.
........."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=Display&DB=pubmed
I mean, dang. It sure seems like they've spent a day or two in a biology class.

[Well, is a peer reviewed, scientific, scholarly journal good enough?
What do you have?]

Yeah, I would say being published in a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal qualifies as evidence to support one's theory, because it demonstrates that the scientific community is at least considering of the theory. Now, are there any creationists or I.D. scientists who publish in peer-review journals? A better question would probably be, are there any creationists or I.D. scientists who HAVE NOT published in peer-reviewed journals? Virtually all of them have. So if that is your only criteria for "evidence" then you are going to have a hard time dismissing all of these published articles, written by creationists:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp

I mean, dang. It sure seems like they have spent a day or two in a biology class

The thing with AiG, is that all of their arguments have already been refuted by the legitimate scientific community...y'know, the one that doesn't have a universal religous bias. But AiG continues to leave their flawed arguments online. I have illustrated this on several occasions.

This is why they're politicians, not scientists. The truth isn't what their interested in, only their god. This is why they haven't responded to me when I sent them one of the rebuttles to their arguments.

These people are the laughing stock of the scientific community. The only reason they survive is because of people like you, with the same religous bias, who are also unconcerned with scientific truth in lieu of your pre-established religion. This is why I snicker every time you call me close-minded. The truth remains goodgrey, that there is no debate whatsoever amongst scientists regarding the validity of evolution. The only debate lies in the mind of devoted followers like yourself who don't seem to have paid attention in their introductory level biology/astronomy course, if they have even taken them.

I'll say it one last time so my message is clear: christians who do not comprehend even the basics in any branch of science support these charlatans because of a shared religous bias. The scientific community is unwilling to give them the time of day, as they've already refuted the talking points that they continue to use.

Mindless zombies of christ; that's one thing that never seems to change.

John T. Eberhard, Ph D.

liberate_america_2008_bible:

I have deleted your last comment, as it was inappropriate. Because I believe in upholding a degree of mutual respect and common courtesy when debating with others, I am unwilling to tolerate sophomoric behavior such as name-calling on my xanga. I recognize that everyone has different opinions and I respect those opinions, although I may not agree with them. Resorting to name-calling only succeeds in making you look petty and childish, and I'm afraid I cannot lower myself to that level. Hence, I regret that I will have to block any further comments from you, until you are able to debate like a mature adult.

[The thing with AiG, is that all of their arguments have already been refuted by the legitimate scientific community...y'know, the one that doesn't have a universal religous bias.]

As I said before, scientists are all human and all have biases. The "legitamate scientific community" which you refer to have anti-religious biases. They continually coerce empirical evidence in an attempt to make it conform to their preconceived notions. Biological evolutionists have a prior comittment to "billions and billions of years" just as creations scientists have made a prior comittment to the literal truth of Genesis. Both are inherently biased positions. I am honest enough to acknowlege that bias is human, and since all scientists are human, all have biases. Your a priori comittment to darwinian evolution is so strong that you cannot admit that.

[This is why they're politicians, not scientists.]

Funny. All their PhDs seem to be in the natural sciences.

[The truth remains goodgrey, that there is no debate whatsoever amongst scientists regarding the validity of evolution. The only debate lies in the mind of devoted followers like yourself who don't seem to have paid attention in their introductory level biology/astronomy course, if they have even taken them.]

LOL...you sound like Eugenie Scott. There is definitely a debate among scientists regarding the validity of evolution. While darwin's theory was very innovative in his day, scientific progress and new technology have rendered the theory outdated and obsolete. And as I said before, many scientists who question the validity of evolution are agnostics, not "devoted followers" of christ like myself. So

hey, myth1ca here...got a new blog...

The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins:

http://www.tolkiencollector.com/bilbobal.htm

If this link doesn't work, try google to find another site for it.

I guess no one wanted to talk about Bono. Bummer. I like him. :)

Nouwen--this post hit my so funny! I was reading about U2, and then I completely forgot what I started reading until I got to then end and read yours. So, yeah, whatever happened to Bono anyway? I like Bono.

I like creationism, too. FWIW to anyone on this conversation I have a BS in biology (I was pre-med, and I also eventually matriculated at Carnegie-Mellon University for a PhD in microbiology). I was not a Christian when I started the degree. But Mr. Darcy, before I was Mrs. Darcy, pointed out to me one day that the second law of thermodynamics requires that the universe have a creation point, a starting event from outside itself, otherwise it would have already run down into randomness. That was the moment I began to believe in God.

Also, Good Grey, thanks for the sub and comments!