I’ll give the Creationist’s this much: they’re certainly trying harder

I know! I know! The creation/evolution debate is getting nauseatingly old. I know there’s really nothing to debate anymore; the position of evolution is unassailable, except in the minds of creationists off course.

But I’ll give them this much: they’re not giving up trying to convince anyone who still bothers to listen, that Adam and Eve were the progenitors of mankind.

There was a time when creationism was regarded as a fact simply because the bible said so. Believing otherwise was blasphemous and indeed at some points in history, punishable by death.

As science unveiled the ignorance associated with believing without evidence, Creationists resorted to concocting “evidence” which fitted loosely with their beliefs. With scientific evidence for evolution growing stronger with corroboration across multiple scientific fields of study, it became apparent to the die-hard believers that they also needed to annex science to their cause. This resulted in the absurd proposition of Intelligent Design being conjured up.

Never was science so disgracefully abused as by institutions such as The Discovery Institute and others, to keep alive a hopelessly failed and much-maligned ideology.

However some people such as evangelist Ray Comfort and misguided former television star, Kirk Cameron preferred to hold onto the primitive banana theory, as proof of Creation.

But after watching this YouTube video of a debate on CTS’s Michael Coren Show, between Jason Wiles of Mcgill University and Lawrence Tisdall of the Creation Science Association in Quebec, I realised that Creationism is still taken very seriously these days.

More disconcerting however is the fact that the purveyors of this obsolete doctrine, are increasingly using very sophisticated arguments loosely based on valid science, to further their cause. It’s really remarkable how bullshit can be cloaked in respectability. Indeed the whole perverted ideology of Creationism is disingenuously referred to as Creation Science now.

It is astounding that people in this modern world with so many enlightening resources at their disposal, can still believe the absurd in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I guess it all goes to show that the brain is a remarkable tool which can be subjected to the most amazing acts of contortion.

Advertisements

120 thoughts on “I’ll give the Creationist’s this much: they’re certainly trying harder

  1. The thing we have to understand is that christianity and evolution are mutually exclusive. you cannot believe in a supernatural personal god and evolution. The great New Zealand ‘theologian’ Lloyd Geering called people that do ‘Spiritual schizophrenics’. that is why they have to push creationism.

  2. Science (from Latin: scientia meaning “knowledge”) I find it amusing that so many from the “scientific” community are painfully annoyed that anyone from the creationist or intelligent design camp could claim to use science or the act thereof (scientific research) to gain “knowledge” … only the basis of “research” changes, it is still science so no one ever “annexed” science as it was always there- the science of intelligent design.

    • Hi Adam,

      Gaining knowledge is not the same as collecting information. Ganing knowledge implies an advancement in human understanding of the world and how it functions.

      Intelligent design is the collection of information [quite useless information as a matter of fact] which does not advance man’s understanding of life and how it evolved. It does quite the opposite – posit disingenuous arguments for a faith-based belief.

      Yes, there may be research involved, but the research is based on ignorance and involves the collection of information that tries to prove a conclusion that has already been decided upon. That’s not science – not by a long shot.

      In true science, the evidence gathered (research) is used to reach a conclusion, but only after extensive testing and scrutiny.

        • Hi Bex,

          There is no such thing as Christian scientists. Christianity is not a science, never was, never will be. On the Christian side, all there is, are religious apologists and psuedoscientists who like using scientific-sounding terms to explain their faith.

            • Hi Bex,

              There probably are scientists who happen to be Christian [and remain so for whatever reason] who work on pure science, and who don’t let their religious affiliation affect their work or their reasoning. But they’re a minority.

              Then there are Christians who disingenuously use science to prove their Christian beliefs. There are the psuedo-scientists… far removed from real scientists.

          • No matter how you view the world, it will inevitably affect every aspect of your life, including scientific research. Christians will look for evidence to support creationism, but evolutionists will also look for evidence to support evolution.

            • Hi Bex,

              Evolutionists have already found the evidence and continue to do so. Creationists on the other hand have not found an ounce of credible evidence to support their beliefs. They are still grasping at straws, punting pseudo-scientific nonsense, hoping to convince anyone who will listen. It’s also no co-incidence that the only people convinced by their so-called evidence, happen to be the religious faithful.

            • Actually, more and more scientists, and non-scientists, are seeing what their research is showing and looking at other scientists’ research and deciding that the only logical conclusion is that the God of the Bible exists. When was the last time you took a good look at the evidence?

              • Really Bex? Name them, preferably all of them who have come to this conclusion. What is their evidence? Can you produce it?

                Or is it just possible that you read this blurb in some Christian publication somewhere and believed it. That’s what the faithful are required to do, isn’t it? Believe? It’s much easier, isn’t it? And the promises of out-of-world rewards are so enticing, aren’t they? Being skeptical is so much hard work, isn’t it?

            • I would try to list them all, but that would take a while. Here’s a link you could try for something called the scientific dissent from darwinism: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ There’s at least a few hundred names there. A few other examples, some of whom may be included in the above list, would be an investigative journalist named Lee Strobel, as well as scientists Jonathan Wells, Allan Rex Sandage, Owen Gingerich, Dean Kenyon, William Lane Craig, Patrick Glynn, and Michael J. Behe.

              • Hi again Bex,

                Oh my non-existent god! You’ve been had. In the absence of further investigation, you have settled on one really dishonest document put out by that icon of exagerrated claims and outright lies, the Discovery Institute, as being the authority of the creation claims. I don’t mean to sound rude, but you really need to get out more often and discover what is really out there. I have already responded to others about Lee Strobel and Behe, and provided links eleswehere in my comments where these two guys have been well and truly torn to shreds, in other words, debunked quite comprehensively.

                Here’s a link to a site which debunks Jonathan Wells’s infamous “Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution

                But let’s come back to the link you provided. While hundreds of apparent scientists signed the document titled The scientific dissent from Darwinism,” the document itself presents not one shred of evidence for this assertion. Now how scientific is that? In fact here’s a YouTube video which shows just how dishonest this document is, as there are some really dubious people on there who have appended their signatures: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM&feature=related

                Signatures on a document, no matter how impressive the scientific titles appear to be, does not prove anything. Now do yourself a big favor and go to this website where the case for Evolution is presented beyond dispute: The Panda’s Thumb.

                I have merely provided a few links here, but the evidence is overwhelming, and thare are literally hundreds of thousands of other resources proving the same thing: Evolution is a fact. Get over it. Find something else to shout about that gives a semblance of respectability to your gods, because Creation most certainly does NOT.

                • Mitch,

                  You asked for evidence and yet you dismiss this source so smugly. What’s the matter? How are you going to learn anything if you restrict yourself to the creationist sources of information? Maybe you don’t want to actually learn anything but just yearn for confirmation of your bias which is more comfortable, isn’t that so?

          • One major problem with that thinking is Creationists (old earth and new earth) invented or discovered every single modern science without exception. The balance of scientific discovery is so overwhelmingly to the side of Creationists that I have concluded that atheists are the deluded ones incapable of discovery. While evolutionists like to laugh at Creationists the numbers don’t lie. However given this knowledge, apparently, atheists do. How dare they claim science for their own when they invented none of it. Creationists did. For shame.

            • Hi Raul,

              “The balance of scientific discovery is so overwhelmingly to the side of Creationists that I have concluded that atheists are the deluded ones incapable of discovery.”

              I’ve read some pretty ridiculous comments on my blog, but this is right up there. Just because more people believe some outrageously ignorant thing, does not make it true. Science is not owned by anyone, nor did any atheist claim it as his own. It’s just a tool for understanding how and why the world functions the way it does.

              • By “ridiculous” you don’t mean untrue do you?
                The atheist claim that Creationism isn’t scientific is correct.
                Creation science may not be science but Creationists do science very well.
                So well in fact that Creationists have invented every single modern science and atheists have invented none of them.
                That’s a bold statement and easily disproved by just naming a couple of atheist that discovered or invented a modern science.
                I have challenged atheists to come up with one for the last month and a couple have tried by naming scientists who worked in sciences discovered by Creationists but no one has come up with 1 atheist who discovered or invented a science.
                Atheists seem to do well in science already discovered and I’m not trying to diminish their contribution but I will not allow atheists to ignore Creationist contributions to science and send out a false message.
                By comparison, atheists are useless at scientific discovery, creativity or invention.

                • Hi Raul

                  By ridiculous, I meant absurd, which equates to patently untrue. Once again, I need to remind you that science is not an invention. It is just a tool to understanding the world. And may I also point out that atheist is not an antonym for creationist. Creationism is a facet of belief. A Creationist is therefore someone who believes in a supernatural entity and holds a particular belief about one of its core principles. An atheist is just a non-believer.

                  Please look at the PEW Forum stats for belief among scientists and draw your own conclusions:

                  http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx

              • I’m still waiting for that name of an Atheists that invented a science.
                I said every single modern science was invented or discovered by an (old or young earth) Creationist.
                Where is your atheist scientist that invented a science?
                There must be at least 1 right?
                I don’t mean to taunt but you have such an easy question to answer and you could so easily discredit me by just answering it.
                Why haven’t you?.

                • Hi Raul

                  And you will get no answer while persisting in using the term Creationist as an antonym for Atheist. You obviously don’t know what either science or atheism is. Get your terminology right.

                • Of course you won’t answer and your reason for not answering is a joke. What atheist invented or discovered a science?
                  I expect you to ignore this request as well.

                  It’s a simple question Lenny.
                  You mock Creationist scientists yet you can’t name a single science that exists because of an atheist.
                  Here’s a hint Lenny. I’ve been asking atheists for about a month and there are no sciences started by atheists. The best response I got from an atheist was “So what!
                  Here’s why atheists can’t invent sciences.
                  Atheism/naturalism is a circle logic religion. Their basic theology is No God, Nature begat Nature. Modern atheist/evolutionists believe in religious naturalism. They invoke a Deity called Nature that creates the Universe and Life. The atheists only replace God with Nature. The unavoidable atheistic thrown logic is “No God, therefore Nature.
                  That’s evolution/theory (no distinction made). Evolution is the theory and the theory is evolution. This old naturalist Philosophy is not informed by scientific observation or evidence of any kind. Evolution is not a science, is not informed by science, cannot be tested by science or disproved by science. It’s a belief. Your assertion of “overwhelming evidence” for evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is a pile on of unconnected scientific facts and fictions. It’s overwhelming nonsense and having slogged through all of it, I have come up empty handed. Of course I did. If I had known earlier what evolution really was I could have saved myself the trouble of trying to find evidence for a belief. I was an evolutionist for over 30 years and now I expose the truth of evolution. I have debated hundreds of evolutionists and I recognize you as the “evolutionist lite” type. You can’t answer even easy questions and constantly have to refer “Heathen nonbelievers” to other sources.
                  What web site are you now going to refer me to lol?

                • “I expect you not to debate me Lenny.”

                  Yeah, Raul, a likely story. That’s why you took the time to post all those comments, right?

                  I’ll give you credit for one thing though. You didn’t stoop to threatening me with eternal damnation and hellfire. And yeah, thanks for not praying for me too.

                • “You didn’t stoop to threatening me with eternal damnation and hellfire. And yeah, thanks for not praying for me too.”

                  No Len, I’m just laughing at another dishonest atheist that isn’t even conscious of the hate he feels towards God. You answered none of my questions, gave false reasons why you didn’t and only displayed your disdain for Christians. Good work.

                • Raul,

                  Since you continue being facetious and persist in your lame line of reasoning:

                  Firstly, you refuse to acknowledge that your terminology is wrong. The opposite of athesim is theism, not creationism. You imply that all theists are creationists, which is blatantly false. Creationists and creationism is a subset of theism or religious belief. It does not exist as a term on its own. There are scores of people who are believers (theists), who don’t subscribe to the belief that the world was created, modern-day scientists included. Science and religion (theism) are mutually exclusive; this extends to ceationism as well. The pursuit of scientific discovery is not dependent on one’s (religious) belief system. Nobody ever opened a religious text and made a scientific discovery as a result.

                  Science is a tool as I’ve explained on numerous previous occasions; it has nothing whatsoever to do with religion or creationism. Ancient civilzations (long pre-dating Christianity or the other Judaic religions) who made the first scientific discoveries were not Creationists. They didn’t start out thinking that the natural world was created. Instead, because they couldn’t explain their observations, they attributed them to a supernatural cause (ie. gods). Thus they became defacto Creationists in the pursuit of science and discovery. Off course today, moden scientists through the use of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD can explain many (not all) of these observations and thus don’t need to say “goddidit.” Thus scientific discovery came first, then came the pathetic need to attribute it to a god or gods.

                  It may well be true that most of the initial scientific discoveries were made by people of faith (religious), but it is grossly disingenuous to claim that they were all Creationsists. You simply have no proof of this. Nobody has. Most modern scientists are non believers because they know better. Religious belief in the modern scientific community is miniscule; I have provided you with a link to statistics that proves this.

                  I don’t know of anyone who while using a technology shouts out “Hey, this was invented by Christians or Creationists, or Moslems or any other religious affiliation fro that matter. It does not matter what the religious belief of the inventor is, or whether he/she was a one legged dwarf, or gay; it makes no difference to the invention. Inventions are subject only to the scientific process, not religion, belief or creationism.

                  Your assertion that “I have concluded that atheists are the deluded ones incapable of discovery,” is patently absurd and speaks volumes about your own hatred. It’s like saying that since you don’t know of any Black people who invented anything, Black people are incapable of inventing anything. Your reasoning is replete with logical fallacies.

                  If you don’t understand any of this, please don’t waste your time here; why not go troll one of those pseudoscientific, religious apologist sites. I’m sure they’ll welcome you with open arms.

                • I appreciate the time you took to respond. I felt the need to respond to your assertion that Creationists were unscientific when clearly we know from history this isn’t the case. I wouldn’t of felt the need to bring it up as i agree, it shouldn’t be necessary but I did it to contrast your assertion. That being done I would think that you would be more even handed when the subject comes up again and it will. It’s a common fallacy that Creationists are unscientific. We do know much about the beliefs of creationist scientists as they have left us with personal and public writings on their beliefs. Many were old earth Creationists and many were young earth Creationists. We know who and in some cases what.
                  I hope this puts an end to the misconception of creationist scientists as being anti or nonscientific.

                  Atheism is a belief.
                  So is theism and creationism.
                  I make no distinction between atheism, theism or Creationism as they are all belief systems.
                  I wouldn’t make that distinction within religions that believed in different gods so why should I extend special privilege to atheistic beliefs.
                  All religious beliefs are based on faith including the atheistic religion.
                  Atheists believe that there is no God and Nature begat nature.
                  Without proof it falls into the same category as all religious faith based beliefs.
                  I only used Creationist in reference to the scientists who discovered or invented modern science. They weren’t just theists, they were Creationists.
                  Lets talk about naturalists and their atheist connection. To be a naturalist you need to be an atheist. Naturalists lay claim to science because their theological belief is in the physical and can therefor be proven by science. Wrong. Their belief can never be proven by science and that is where the myth of a connection between naturalist atheism and science is born.
                  There is a world of difference between science and belief and one one can never prove the other.
                  You believe that Creationist are unscientific yet we see Creationists inventing the lions share of modern science. Facts trump your belief.
                  The Greeks could have invented all the sciences but instead they mixed Philosophy with science producing neither. Evolution is the old Greek Philosophy/science and is a mix of an old atheist belief (No God, Nature did it), coupled with “Natural Selection”. This useless mix of science and Philosophy never produced anything for the Greeks and won’t produce anything today and hasn’t.

                  We agree that science as a tool has little use for beliefs. What I’m trying to point out is evolution is a belief that has no use for science. As a belief it’s independent of science and couldn’t care less about it except as cover for what it really is.

                  All other assertions of me by you came from a misunderstanding of my position. I hope I’ve cleared that up for you and we can continue a friendly discussion.

                • Hi Raul,

                  For a minute there I was considering ignoring your latest attempt to sell me snake oil. I suspected you were just trolling. But in case you are actually serious, I’ll humour you:

                  I see you’re still on about Creationists in spite of my repeated attempts to correct you. Creationists are indeed unscientific; their brand of non-science (read nonsense) is called pseudo-science. They’ve used pseudo-science with some degree of success (you’re no doubt one of the converted) to make their ridiculous assertions appear to be scientific. It’s easy really. Skeptics and proper scientists have exposed them some time ago. They use scientific sounding terminology to explain their ridiculous belief system which is not based on any science at all. You know much about Creationists, yes, because thry have left you lot with WRITINGS OF THEIR BELIEFS, not PROOF of their beliefs. I’m glad that you at least acknowledge that much.

                  Atheism is NOT a belief. Despite what’s been drummed into your head by your apologist and pseudo-scientific friends, it’s a fallacy to call atheism a belief. Atheism is an expression of non-belief. An expression of non-belief is NOT A BELIEF. Check any dictionary. Here’s one for ya, “Critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or divine beings.” Denial = disbelief. Capish? No atheist (that I know off) has ever asked for the extension of special privilages to them. Not so with believers; they’re constantly whining about how their religion and beliefs are disrespected.

                  Atheism is NOT a religion, or a belief system. Claiming so is lame and just proves that you’re grasping at straws. Atheist do not accept anything on faith. That is why we promote the scientific method. We will believe if evidence is provided. No evidence, no belief. Atheists DON’T make faith-based claims. In contrast, theists’ entire systems of belief is faith-based. That is NOT scientific. Science demands evidence.

                  Atheists don’t believe that nature begat (I despise that biblical word) nature. Nature exists, period. “Lets talk about naturalists and their atheist connection. To be a naturalist you need to be an atheist. Naturalists lay claim to science because their theological belief is in the physical and can therefor be proven by science. Wrong. Their belief can never be proven by science and that is where the myth of a connection between naturalist atheism and science is born.” I don’t know where you lifted this piece of hokem from (perhaps you’d like to share the link or book, so that I can read it in context), but it is just that, BS.

                  “You believe that Creationist are unscientific yet we see Creationists inventing the lions share of modern science. Facts trump your belief.” There you go again about Cretionists inventing stuff. Get it through your head that theists DISCOVERED stuff. Learn the difference. And it is of no consequence who discovered what. Your pathetic attempt to claim discovery (or INVENTION as you put it) for Creationsists, is truly conceited. WE DON”T CARE who discovered what; as long as the scientific method was used, we’re happy. GETIT?

                  Philosophy was a precursor to science. It was the original tool used to understand the world. When the scientific method was formulated, philosophy became obsolete as a tool to understanding the world. However it is still relevant today as a tool to understand concepts not subject (currently) to scientific scrutiny. Evolution IS NOT A BELIEF. It is NOT INDEPENDENT OF, but based entirely ON SCIENCE.

                • Hi Lenny.
                  Where to start?
                  OK, you said “Creationists are indeed unscientific”.
                  Sure some are as are some atheists.
                  Maybe even most atheists and creationists.
                  The fact that people who believe in the Creation make and have made fantastic scientists seems to be ignored by you.
                  Why?
                  Next point.
                  You said “Atheism is NOT a belief”.
                  You then quote “Critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or divine beings.”
                  then make an error in defining denial: “Denial = disbelief”.
                  It doesn’t mean that and you are making up your own definitions of words.
                  Here is the actual definition: Denial, an assertion that something said, believed, alleged, etc., is false”.
                  You also said “Atheism is NOT a religion, or a belief system”.
                  Well, what is an “assertion”? : a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason.
                  This is what denial of God means and is exactly what I point to as atheistic belief.
                  You assert there is no God based on no evidence or support.
                  A belief.
                  It’s no different than asserting there IS a God based on no evidence or support.
                  A religion.
                  You are pretending to be an agnostic while promoting atheistic beliefs and ideology (evolution).
                  I assert you have redefined atheism to mean something it isn’t to hide the atheist connection to evolution. I assert that and know I can’t prove it. I know that your argument is untenable. You have defended your position with self made definitions and that is very naughty of you.
                  Your not alone in the definition game.
                  Even WIKI gets it wrong:
                  “Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.”

                  Then WIKI contradicts itself:

                  Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism,”
                  That my friends is the definition of an agnostic.

                  Merriam-Webster gets it right:
                  a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
                  b : the doctrine that there is no deity.

                • Raul,

                  [OK, you said “Creationists are indeed unscientific”. Sure some are as are some atheists.]
                  I never disputed that, no did I claim that all atheists were scientific. You on the other hand made went to great pains to assert the infallibility of Creationsists.

                  [The fact that people who believe in the Creation make and have made fantastic scientists seems to be ignored by you.]
                  No, I said I don’t care who makes scientific discoveries, so long as it is done using the scientific method.

                  […then make an error in defining denial: “Denial = disbelief”.]

                  Why is that an error when in your conclusion you acknowledge that “Merriam-Webster gets it right: a : a disbelief in the existence of deity”

                  [Here is the actual definition: Denial, an assertion that something said, believed, alleged, etc., is false”.
                  You also said “Atheism is NOT a religion, or a belief system”.
                  Well, what is an “assertion”? : a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason.]

                  You picked the definition. So why are you not staying true to it. Your claims/assertions are faith-based, which as per pyur definition is “often without support or reason.”

                  [You assert there is no God based on no evidence or support.
                  A belief.
                  It’s no different than asserting there IS a God based on no evidence or support.
                  A religion.]

                  Your reasoning is absurd. If there is no evidence for something, it follows that there is no reason to believe in that something. You cannot prove a negative. Here’s a tip for you: Make a point about reading up on logical or critical thinking and find out what the common logical fallacies are. It will improve your arguments.

                  [You assert there is no God based on no evidence or support.
                  A belief.
                  It’s no different than asserting there IS a God based on no evidence or support.
                  A religion.]

                  Assert? Yes, that’s all you’re confined to doing, isn’t it, since you don’t have a shred of proof or evidence.

                  Just a note on WIKI (any WIKI): A WIKI is a compilation of user inputs from the general public. It can be changed and ammended at will by any user who deems it fit. Don’t put your “faith” in its contents. It contains a lot of BS.

                  An agnostic is a person who is undecided. A non-commital stance. Basically a fence-sitter. An atheist on the other hand chooses not to believe… until evidence is produced off course. Now you can either put that in your pipe and smoke it, or post it to your favorite WIKI.

          • “Christianity is not a science, never was, never will be.”
            I agree.
            Now for the fun part.
            Evolution is not a theory.
            It’s an old atheist belief in “No God, Nature did it”.
            This belief was written about for centuries before the word evolution was coined. Even Darwin’s grandfather wrote about the atheist belief in evolution. All that happened was Darwin took a belief and turned it into a pseudotheory. That’s why evolution will never be proven wrong because it was never based on observed science. It already existed as a whole and complete belief. Atheists start with the conclusion and work backwards to prove it with physical evidence. This is science backwards and is in fact the theory informing the evidence not the evidence informing the theory.
            Evolution is and always was an atheist belief and is not science.

              • Hello Lenny.
                I’m not calling evolution “just a theory”.
                I’m saying it’s not a theory at all and never has been.
                There’s a big difference between the 2.
                Evolution was an atheist belief and Philosophy for centuries before Darwin was born. This atheist belief of “No God, only Nature” informed and formed evolution theory, not observation.
                As a belief, the ToE can never be proven wrong and has the advantage of excepting whatever science it see fit. It’s unrelated to science, lives only in a belief system and is exempt from the scientific method as are all religions and Philosophies. While you disagree with me you still haven’t said anything in defense of the ToE.

  3. Pingback: Lawrence tisdall | Bibliyo

  4. There is something to debate, since evolution is heralded as if if was a scientific fact, when in reality it is one of the most unscientific theory ever devised. When you watch a debate the only operational science come from the creationist. The evolutionist usually have nothing to show but a smug sense of self importance, and an I don’t have to provide any proof complex. Evolution is a philosophy, not science. It depends on the misinformation still contained in school books. I find it amusing that they cannot correct or remove the misinformation, but when it comes to university or college they seem to come out with new editions of the same book year after year.

    • Hi Mitch,

      Saying that evolution is unscientific, does not make it so. The evidence is widely available. Do yourself a favor and look for it. I have never seen a debate where the pro-evolution faction refused to proof. In fact the denialists are the one’s who either fail to provide proof for creationism or provide psuedo-scientific mumbo-jumbo with regularity.

  5. I watched this debate and the creationist with a degree in genetics was smack on when he made his point about c14 dating. Along with many other points. But it would seem that a numbness settles in and what was said is somehow reguarded as, what was it you called it, pseudo science. If you seriously considered what was said, rather than simply judging it because of the stand the speaker held i think you would find something worth considering.

    • Mitch,

      C14 dating is just one of many methods of dating, and used under certain circumstances. In other circumstances, other dating methods are more appropriate. Instead of taking the word of one so-called creationist geneticist, why don’t you actually do some research?

      • I have done research, and you talk about mumbo-jumbo. Building a theory on presuppositions is not operational science. This is interpreted so called historical science. The difference between the christian and the evolutionist, is that the christian view is based on a belief, and he admits to it. The evolutionist view is also based on a belief, but he pretends that science proves it. If the foundation of what you believe is faulty, then the rest has nothing to stand on. Carbon dating is C14 used to date organisms that have died. They claim that it has a life cycle of some say 50,000, others say 100,000 years. Either way when fossil fuels are tested the readings suggest that they are much less than millions of years as believed, because they still contain a whole lot of C14. How can that be. Do you think that maybe fossils fuels are not millions of years old. Also considering the fact that they can duplicate in a lab the process of making fossil fuels in a matter of hours, and that they can actually make diamonds in a few weeks, do not these observable scientific processes indicate that maybe, just maybe, that fossil fuels are not as old as they claim to be. Yea right mumbo jumbo.

        • Just to add concerning views. I watched Dr. Hovind vs. Geology Professor Dr. Hilpman, and I have to say that Dr. Hilpman was one of the few honest evolutionists that I have heard in a debate.

        • Mitch,

          C14 dating is just one method of radiometric dating. When an oragnism dies it stops taking in carbon-14. The existing isotopes of carbon decays and the remaining isotopes of C14 provides a measure of time after its death. c14 dating is limited to organisms up to 62 000 years because the half-life of carbon-14 isotopes is only around 5730 years. For older organisms other methods such as Rubidium-Strontium method which is used to date older organisms because the half life cycles moves typically to 50 billion years. You can read up on other methods such as the Potassium-argon dating method, Samarium-neodymium method and the Potassium-argon dating method.

          Don’t be fooled by the Creationists who like dogs with a bone, believe they have found some kind of loophole with the C14 method.

          • Oh Lenny, by the way Rubidium-Strontium method is not used to date organisms, but rocks and minerals. Sorry I had to be the one to tell you this. Just helping you get your facts straight.

              • Concerning radiometric analysis. These methods are based on assumption that the samples have always decayed at a constant rate, unproven. That they contained known amounts of parent and daughter elements in the original sample; unverifiable. That no amount of parent or daughter material has been added or removed; unverifiable. Isotope concentrations, or ratios, can be measured very accurately, but isotope concentrations are not dates.
                Since the geologic column dated 1913 by this process is based on the same assumptions, it is not, in my opinion a viable standard to compare the geologic timeline. Also since rocks of known age have repeatedly been dated with ages that are way off the scale, how can we assume that they have it right with rocks of unknown age. Rock date the fossils, fossils date the rocks doesn’t fly. Stratification and erosion can happen very quickly by observable catastrophic events. You want to believe in a millions of year scenario, your choice.The data used is the data that supports the evolution framework. The finding of soft tissue on unfossilized Dinosaur bones which has been known for some time now but made public just in recent years puts another ? mark on the theory of evolution.
                The whole foundation is based on assumptions, and then heralded by the majority of evolutionist and the media, as being factual.
                Micro evolution, which is a convoluted way of saying changes within a species is a fact. We have different kinds of dogs, but they are all dogs. Variation within a genetic pool is simply variation, just like different races of people, they will alway remain human beings. Genetically altered corn is exactly what it is, corn.
                You want to discuss macro evolution, there are no fossils that prove changes from one species to another. Looking at the past record of findings, I don’t think you want to go there.
                The big bang theory. Our own solar system make it’s impossible to validate the big bang theory. They only tell you what seems to fit the evolutionary framework in light of astronomy. You like that term pseudo science, but when it looks at you in the face, you simply turn you head the other way and remain willfully blind.

                • Mitch,

                  “Concerning radiometric analysis. These methods are based on assumption that the samples have always decayed at a constant rate, unproven. That they contained known amounts of parent and daughter elements in the original sample; unverifiable. That no amount of parent or daughter material has been added or removed; unverifiable. Isotope concentrations, or ratios, can be measured very accurately, but isotope concentrations are not dates.
                  Since the geologic column dated 1913 by this process is based on the same assumptions, it is not, in my opinion a viable standard to compare the geologic timeline. Also since rocks of known age have repeatedly been dated with ages that are way off the scale, how can we assume that they have it right with rocks of unknown age. Rock date the fossils, fossils date the rocks doesn’t fly. Stratification and erosion can happen very quickly by observable catastrophic events. You want to believe in a millions of year scenario, your choice.The data used is the data that supports the evolution framework. The finding of soft tissue on unfossilized Dinosaur bones which has been known for some time now but made public just in recent years puts another ? mark on the theory of evolution.”

                  Care to provide your source for this?

                  “The whole foundation is based on assumptions, and then heralded by the majority of evolutionist and the media, as being factual.”

                  And that’s your assumption, isn’t it?

                  “The big bang theory. Our own solar system make it’s impossible to validate the big bang theory.”

                  What has the Big Bang Theory got to do with evolution?

                • Lenny says
                  What has the Big Bang Theory got to do with evolution? If I have to answer that question, you’d better find out what it is you believe. Lenny wants sources for my comments, but Lenny is exempt from giving sources. All he has to do is keep vocalizing:”evolution is a fact” Droll Throll.
                  Whats the matter Lenny too lazy to go and find it for youself. Try this
                  http://www.nature.com/news/molecular-analysis-supports-controversial-claim-for-dinosaur-cells-1.11637

                • Mitch

                  The BBT is about how the universe formed. Evolution is about how life forms evolved. Evolution says nothing about how the universe was born. Evolution further says nothing about how life forms started; abiogenesis is the field responsible for this. They’re separate and disctinct processes. Most ceationsists usually get them mixed up, so don’t take it too badly. You obviously don’t know the basics of science – get started learning.

                • What does the big bang theory have to do with evolution Creationist have these two mixed up. Lenny do you make this stuff up as you go. No kidding, they are two different disciplines of study. The big bang theory tries to explains the origin of our universe, Life had to start somewhere. It is directly related to evolution. This is exactly the type of convoluted argument that you accuse the creationist of supposedly using. And as far as soft tissue in T-rex bones, not all research, as I’m sure you read all the articles, are stating not conclusive. So I guess it’s all about what you want to believe. One academic says definite, another says not conclusive. Your hoping.

                • Mitch,

                  It’s no wonder you’re having so much trouble understanding evolution: you don’t understand, let alone know, the basics of science. Evolution, abiogeneis and cosmology are different fields of scientific study. Evolutionary theory explains/describes life forms that already exists. It does not explain how it started. The BBT is a cosmological event, examined by cosmological science. There were no life forms in the BB, so evolution cannot and does not explain any part of it. If you care to read a Creationist website known as AIG (Answers in Genesis), you will find a section there that warns creationists about arguments that have been debunked and should not be used:
                  http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use

                  Still think I’m making this up?

                  Science is not about what academics say or believe. Science is about providing conclusive evidence. That’s why it is subject to PEER REVIEW. Science is about consensus after careful study and repeated experimentation. We don’t care what the academics say, unless they provide verifiable proof.

                • Lenny, Lenny. I guess the evolutionist have a license to include the big bang theory in there evolutionary debates. Primary schools can include it with evolution in there story books to expose kids to fairy tales. It can be brought together at will when convenient. But should a creationist bring it up he gets: “Evolution, abiogeneis and cosmology are different fields of scientific study. Evolutionary theory explains/describes life forms that already exists. It does not explain how it started. The BBT is a cosmological event, examined by cosmological science.”

                  The reality is that all these disciplines try to explain origins in a timeline of billions, millions of years. Tell me they are not.
                  biopoiesis is the natural process by which life arises from inorganic matter. Hum Life began from a rock, which came into being from however the universe was formed, oh yea “BANG” cosmology. And this life form slowly over millions of years went from a simple one celled organism, to a PHD BIO Engineer. Evolution.
                  You can’t escape the obvious.

                • Mitch,

                  “I guess the evolutionist have a license to include the big bang theory in there evolutionary debates. Primary schools can include it with evolution in there story books to expose kids to fairy tales.”

                  Provide examples of both with references.

                  “The reality is that all these disciplines try to explain origins in a timeline of billions, millions of years. Tell me they are not.”

                  Evolution is not concerned with origins. Evolution is about already existing life forms. Something you continue to ignore, but that is due to the limited sources of information you have restricted yourself to, your own narrow understanding of science, and your consistent efforts to evade anything that doesn’t fit in your biased world view.

                • Mitch,

                  “I guess the evolutionist have a license to include the big bang theory in there evolutionary debates. Primary schools can include it with evolution in there story books to expose kids to fairy tales.”

                  Provide examples of both with references.
                  Examples: This info is very easy to acquire. You can go to any public library in the children section and pull books about dinosaurs and you get the whole scenario. Then go to the science section and knock yourself out. Go to your closest public school and ask them to see there science textbook. Don’t take my word for it. It’s in your reach, if your really serious about this. And whoever else is reading this forum.

                  Type evolution and creation debate in youtube, and tell me evolutionist don’t use the same arguments. Or maybe your of the opinion that no legitimate evolutionist would be seen debating on youtube.

                  “The reality is that all these disciplines try to explain origins in a timeline of billions, millions of years. Tell me they are not.”

                  Lenny

                  Evolution is not concerned with origins. Evolution is about already existing life forms. Something you continue to ignore, but that is due to the limited sources of information you have restricted yourself to, your own narrow understanding of science, and your consistent efforts to evade anything that doesn’t fit in your biased world view.

                  Mitch
                  The reality is that all these disciplines try to explain origins in a timeline of billions, millions of years. Tell me they are not.

                  Biopoiesis: the natural process by which life arises from inorganic matter. Hum Life began from a rock. Keep reading

                  Cosmology: which came into being from however the universe was formed, oh yea “BANG” . When did the big bang happen. Billions of years ago …….. Keep reading

                  Evolution: Notice, I’m not ignoring that evolution is about already existing lifeforms. And this life form (If it ever existed),slowly over millions of years went from a simple one celled organism, to a PHD BIO Engineer. Evolution.
                  You can’t escape the obvious, or you can’t see the forest for the trees.

                  As I mentioned before, micro evolution is just a convoluted way of saying variation within species. The issue is this giant leap of faith in what evolutionist call macro evolution. From a one celled organism to a philosopher (over millions of years). No, NO, NO.

                • Mitch,

                  Books about dinoasuars are not about cosmology. If you can provide one example of a book about dinosaurs that asserts anyhting about cosmology, then that book is bullshit. Provide the example. In any case, childdren’s books hardly classify as scientific works.

                  If there is a debate on YouTube where the the pro-evolutionist has mixed up cosmology and evolution, then that person is talking rubbish. Give me one example. Any evolutionist worth his salt would not make that mistake.

                  The discipline of evolution has never made any attempt to explain origins. That is just your perception based on your limited understanding.

                  Biopoiesis is just another term for abiogenesis. It has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.

                  If you bothered to read the AIG creationist website in more detail, you would have learnt that they have warned against using the micro-macro evolution argument as it is rubbish.

                • This is how evolution is taught. It’s all clumped together under Evolution. You can’t teach one without the other. So I guess the whole world is being taught BS. What you believe should be, and what is, are two different worlds.

                  Teaching about Evolution and the nature of Science (NAS) National Academy of Science
                  Page 52
                  The origin of the universe remains one of the greatest questions in science. The “Big Bang” theory places the origin between 10 and 20 billion years ago. When the universe began in a hot, dense state; according to this theory, the universe has been expanding very since.

                  Early in the history of the universe, matter, primarily the light atoms hydrogen and helium, clumped together by gravitational attraction to form countless trillions of stars. Billions of galaxies, each of which is a gravitationally bound cluster of billions of stars, now form most of the visible mass in the universe. Stars produce energy from nuclear reactions, primarily the fusion of hydrogen to form helium. These and other processes have led to formation of the other elements.

                • Mitch,

                  This is NOT how evolution is taught. Don’t use an exception in the teaching process that you may have come across, and make that the rule for the whole world. That is a logical fallacy known as “cherry picking.”

                  “The origin of the universe remains one of the greatest questions in science. The “Big Bang” theory places the origin between 10 and 20 billion years ago. When the universe began in a hot, dense state; according to this theory, the universe has been expanding very since.

                  Early in the history of the universe, matter, primarily the light atoms hydrogen and helium, clumped together by gravitational attraction to form countless trillions of stars. Billions of galaxies, each of which is a gravitationally bound cluster of billions of stars, now form most of the visible mass in the universe. Stars produce energy from nuclear reactions, primarily the fusion of hydrogen to form helium. These and other processes have led to formation of the other elements.”

                  Once again, what has this got to do with living organisms. These processes may have created the impetus for living matter, but evolution only defines the changes that the living matter goes through, NOT how it was first formed. You are being wilfully ignorant by constantly trying to bring up this process in the debate. Or are my suspicions true; that you are just trolling?

                • The fact that the majority of people don’t exist in laboratories, and what is easily made available to the majority, is hardly, “cherry picking”.

                • Mitch, why does one need to be in a laboratory to learn evolution? Also prove that the majority are using the same “bad” book on evolution that you have found. You are projecting and assuming things for which you have no statiscal or empirical data – which is another logical fallacy.

  6. Ok so I checked the Panda site. Yea a lot of people against creation. Nothing I didn’t know :
    before. Lots of statements saying evolution is a fact. Say long a.d loud enough people will start believing it. Point me to a specific article or something.

    • Mitch,

      There is no specific article that proves evolution. There are collections of evidence. Much unlike the embarrasing hodge-podge of beliefs and pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo that characterises Creationism. And it’s really “comforting” that you know everything about Evolution from the scant research you have done, because the REAL scientists must surely be envious, since none of them claim to know everything, but are satisfied with continuing to search for new evidence.

      • Lenny, I don’t claim to know everything about evolution, but I have done some research in what is available. But It is evident that nothing will change as far as your stand and mine are concerned. The thing that really causes me to wonder is that you keep on saying there is evidence, even collections of evidence, but you never give anything. So I’ll just give you what you give me. There are collections of evidence for creation, “Your just too lazy to go and read it for yourself. Good by.

        • Oh! and by the way:”Don’t be fooled by the evolutionists who like dogs with a bone, believe they have found some kind of loophole with the C14 method”. Isn’t this a compelling statement.

          • Mitch,

            “Oh Lenny, by the way Rubidium-Strontium method is not used to date organisms, but rocks and minerals. Sorry I had to be the one to tell you this. Just helping you get your facts straight.”

            Kind of proves my point about Creationists, doesn’t it?

          • Oh Lenny, by the way Rubidium-Strontium method is not used to date organisms, but rocks and minerals. Sorry I had to be the one to tell you this. Just helping you get your facts straight.

  7. Pingback: The Creation scientists may be trying harder, but my pro-creationist readers are not… | Lenny Says

    • Mitch,

      Perhaps you missed this part when reading the article: “The unfortunate side story to all the research done so far though, including these latest findings, is that thus far there is no way to definitively prove whether the soft tissue found inside that T. rex bone was in fact a remnant from its original owner, or something that came after. Thus, claims from both those supporting the idea that dinosaur tissue could have survived for millions of years, and those that think it’s nonsense, are likely to continue.” In essence this finding is not conclusive.

      That’s the beauty of science. It is not static like your religious world view. When new evidence is found, scientists don’t cling dogmatically to debunked science. They move on. That is why peer review is so important.

    • Mitch,

      Once again, creationists are so fond of finding any straw to clutch onto that gives them a glimmer of hope that it proves evolution wrong. No such luck I’m afraid. So a bone has been found with tissue intact, and that has possisbly survived fossilization? Big deal? Even if it’s true, the only thing this says about evolution, is that the scientists have not yet found out the reason why the tissue survives. It in no way, shape or form says evolution is wrong. That’s what science is all about. But hey, at least you creationists have a few straws and vain hope to cling onto, right? Because you’ve most certainly got nothing else.

      • I like the way you just brush things aside. Here read this
        Schweitzer’s career began just as paleontologists started framing their own questions in more multidimensional ways. Until the 1980s, researchers were more likely to be trained in earth science than in biology. They often treated fossils as geologic specimens—mineral structures whose main value lay in showing the skeletal shapes of prehistoric animals. A younger generation of paleontologists, in contrast, has focused on reconstructing intimate details like growth rates and behaviors using modern techniques normally associated with the study of living organisms. “It’s taking dinosaurs from being curious fossils to being biological entities,” says Hans-Dieter Sues, associate director for research and collections at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C.

        This shifting perspective clicked with Schweitzer’s intuitions that dinosaur remains were more than chunks of stone. Once, when she was working with a T. rex skeleton harvested from Hell Creek, she noticed that the fossil exuded a distinctly organic odor. “It smelled just like one of the cadavers we had in the lab who had been treated with chemotherapy before he died,” she says. Given the conventional wisdom that such fossils were made up entirely of minerals, Schweitzer was anxious when mentioning this to Horner. “But he said, ‘Oh, yeah, all Hell Creek bones smell,'” she says. To most old-line paleontologists, the smell of death didn’t even register. To Schweitzer, it meant that traces of life might still cling to those bones.

        She had already seen signs of exceptional preservation in the early 1990s, while she was studying the technical aspects of adhering fossil slices to microscope slides. One day a collaborator brought a T. rex slide to a conference and showed it to a pathologist, who examined it under a microscope. “The guy looked at it and said, ‘Do you realize you’ve got red blood cells in that bone?’ ” Schweitzer remembers. “My colleague brought it back and showed me, and I just got goose bumps, because everyone knows these things don’t last for 65 million years.”

        When Schweitzer showed Horner the slide, she recalls, “Jack said, ‘Prove to me they’re not red blood cells.’ That was what I got my Ph.D. doing.” She first ruled out contaminants and mineral structures. Then she analyzed the putative cells using a half-dozen techniques involving chemical analysis and immunology. In one test, a colleague injected rats with the dinosaur fossil extract; the rodents produced antibodies that responded to turkey and rabbit hemoglobins. All the data supported the conclusion that the T. rex fossil contained fragments of hemoglobin molecules. “The most likely source of these proteins is the once-living cells of the dinosaur,” she wrote in a 1997 paper.

        That article, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, sparked a small flurry of headlines. Horner and others regarded Schweitzer’s research as carefully performed and credible. Nonetheless, says Horner, “most people were very skeptical. Frequently in our field people come up with new ideas, and opponents say, ‘I just don’t believe it.’ She was having a hard time publishing in journals.”

        Schweitzer was also stymied by her unconventional fusion of paleontology and molecular biology. “Those are two disciplines we don’t usually see in the same sentence,” says Lawrence Witmer, an Ohio University anatomy professor. Techniques that were routine in one discipline seemed odd when applied to the other. “If she was working with modern animals, there wouldn’t be anything special about what she was doing,” says Horner. But molecular paleontology was unheard-of. “It is a wide-open field that she invented,” Horner says.

        Soldiering on with minimal funding, Schweitzer continued to hunt for the retention of living tissue longer than scientific theory might predict. When a group of fossil hunters found a cluster of preserved bird eggs in a city dump in Neuquén, Argentina, they originally believed the shells contained nothing but sand. Schweitzer placed the remains under scanning electron and atomic force microscopes and concluded that the 70-million-year-old eggs still held embryos containing intact collagen.

        For eight years, Schweitzer’s career bobbed along with innovative but not attention-grabbing projects. Then she found that stretchy stuff inside a T. rex femur.

        Schweitzer’s breakthrough, like her early insight into the cadaverous odor of dinosaur bones, emerged from the fossil fields of the Hell Creek Formation, rugged badlands so remote that much of it lacks even unpaved roads. Tucked into Montana’s northeast corner, Hell Creek was one of the last places on Earth dominated by dinosaurs before they became extinct.

        Horner’s goal was to conduct a complete census of Hell Creek’s dinosaur population—”just go out and collect everything,” he says. In 2000, near one of his satellite camps, field crew chief Bob Harmon was eating lunch when he noticed a T. rex foot bone protruding from a sandstone cliff above his reach. Climbing a folding chair balanced on a pile of rocks, Harmon found another bone, then another, then another.

        By the time the team had excavated all the bones and encased them in plaster, the collection weighed 3,000 pounds, heavier than the helicopter could lift. With no other way to transport it, scientists reluctantly split the plaster jacket and broke the T. rex’s 3.5-foot-long femur. In the process, the fossil bone shed some fragments. Workers wrapped them in aluminum foil and shipped them to North Carolina State University, where Schweitzer had just started teaching. “Jack just gave me the chunks and said, ‘See what you can do with them,'” she recalls. Schweitzer, coping with culture shock and a recent divorce, had hit a lull in her research. “I wasn’t out there soliciting new projects,” she says. “I was trying to survive through each day.”

        Her lab was still stacked with unpacked cartons when she opened the cardboard box from the T. rex dig and pulled out the biggest fragment. Looking at it with the eyes of a biologist, she immediately saw it was more than a fossil. Time and history began to unwind. “Oh, my gosh,” she said to her laboratory assistant, Jennifer Wittmeyer. “It’s a girl. And it’s pregnant.”

        What Schweitzer saw was medullary bone, a type of tissue that grows inside the long bones of female birds. Medullary bone is produced during ovulation as a way of storing the calcium needed for egg production; then it disappears. “I looked at it under the dissecting scope,” Schweitzer says. “There was nothing else it could be.” The medullary bone even contained gaps and mazelike fiber patterns resembling those of modern birds.

        Until that moment, no one had ever identified that tissue in a dinosaur, making it impossible to definitively sex such an animal. “Everything we’ve ever tried to do has been an utter guess,” Schweitzer says. For instance, researchers had tried to distinguish a male from a female based on the shape of a creature’s body or the size of its head crest. Now they had a way to link gender with morphology and, drawing on parallels with living animals, even with behavior.

        The second surprise hit in January 2004. While Schweitzer was attending a departmental taco party, Wittmeyer raced breathlessly into the room. “You aren’t going to believe what happened,” the lab assistant sputtered.

        Wittmeyer had been pulling the late shift, analyzing pieces from the T. rex limb. She had just soaked a fragment of medullary bone in dilute acid to remove some calcium phosphate. This was an unusual procedure to carry out in a dinosaur lab. Scientists typically assume that a fossilized dinosaur consists of rock that would entirely dissolve in acid, but Schweitzer wanted to get a closer look at the fossil’s fine structure and compare it with that of modern birds. That night Wittmeyer marveled at a small section of decalcified thighbone: “When you wiggled it, it kind of floated in the breeze.”

        Schweitzer and Wittmeyer pondered the meaning of the stretchy sample, feeling mystified and ecstatic. The remains seemed like soft tissue—specifically matrix, the organic part of bone, which consists primarily of collagen. Yet this seemed impossible, according to the prevailing understanding. “Everyone knows how soft tissues degrade,” Schweitzer says. “If you take a blood sample and you stick it on a shelf, you have nothing recognizable in about a week. So why would there be anything left in dinosaurs?”

        Next Schweitzer examined a piece of the dinosaur’s cortical bone. “We stuck the bone in the same kind of solution,” she says. “The bone mineral dissolved away, and it left these transparent blood vessels. I took one look, and I just said: ‘Uh-uh. This isn’t happening. This is just not happening.’ ” She started applying the same treatment to bone fragments from another dinosaur that she had acquired for her dissertation. “Sure enough,” she says, “vessels all over the place.”

        Less than a month later, while Schweitzer was still collecting data on the soft tissue, came a third score. Wittmeyer walked into the lab looking anxious. “I think maybe some of our stuff’s gotten contaminated, because I see these things floating around, and they look like bugs,” she said. Worried that she would lose her dinosaur blood vessels before she could publish an article about them, Schweitzer rushed to rescue the sample. What she found startled her. Through the microscope she could see what looked like perfectly formed osteocytes, the cells inside bone.

        The past was roaring to life.

        • I like these comments
          Frequently in our field people come up with new ideas, and opponents say, ‘I just don’t believe it.’ She was having a hard time publishing in journals.” Hum
          Given the conventional wisdom that such fossils were made up entirely of minerals, Schweitzer was anxious when mentioning this to Horner. “But he said, ‘Oh, yeah, all Hell Creek bones smell,’” she says. To most old-line paleontologists, the smell of death didn’t even register.

          Assumptions more assumptions

        • Mitch,

          I did not brush anything aside. I have consistently tried to lead you in the right direction, but you have wilfully resisted, preferring to stick to dogmatic sources of information. There were times I thought you were just trolling.

          Concerning this article: it still does not prove that evolution is wrong. All it does is present a possibility that tissue can survive billions of years. The scientists just need to work out how. Something you have been wilfully ignoring. Science does not happen overnight. It is a lengthy process. And Schweitzer’s findings are not yet conclusive.

          She herself admits that her findings have been hijacked by YEC’s [Young Earth Cretionists]: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html

          “Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”

          • Actually I read the whole article, I get it. It doesn’t change the fact that there is a mind set that is obvious when statements like, they are trying to figure out how soft tissue could have survived millions of years. Soft tissue does not survive millions of years. This is based on the assumption that the earth is millions of years old.

            The new findings

            Hadrosaur

            An illustration of a real type of ‘duck-billed’ dinosaur known as a Hadrosaur.

            Now comes a further announcement by Schweitzer and others, in the prestigious journal Science, of substantial additional evidence to bolster her previous findings. The specimen on this occasion was a piece of fossil hadrosaur (duckbilled dinosaur) bone (Brachylophosaurus canadensis) regarded by evolutionary assumptions as being 80 million years old.

            In short, the researchers found evidence of “the same fibrous matrix, transparent, flexible vessels, and preserved microstructures she had seen in the T. rex sample”.8 Only this time they went to exceptional lengths to silence critics.

            Critics said that her claims, which given the millions of years perspective are indeed “extraordinary”, required extraordinary evidence. But this is a cliché; in reality, they just require evidence, and that has been amply provided. Yet the critics demanded additional protein sequencing, super-careful handling to avoid claims of contamination, and confirmation from other laboratories. So Schweitzer and her team set about doing just that when they looked at the leg bone of this hadrosaur encased in sandstone.

            Extraordinary measures were taken to keep the sample away from contamination until it reached the lab. They used an even more sophisticated and newer mass spectrometer, and sent the samples to two other labs for confirmation. They reported finding not just collagen, but evidence of two additional proteins—elastin and laminin. They also found structures uncannily resembling the cells found in both blood and bone, as well as cellular basement membrane matrix. And there were, once again, hints of hemoglobin, gleaned from applying hemoglobin-specific antibodies to the structures and seeing if the antibodies would bind to them.

            Some scientists are still skeptical about the hemoglobin, which is “difficult to identify with current technology”. Dr Pavel Pevzner of the University of California, was quoted as saying that if it is not a contaminant, it would be “much bigger news [than the confirmed discoveries of blood vessels and other connective tissues in] this paper.”9

            Even leaving aside the hemoglobin, the Schweitzer et al paper is huge news. Pevzner had been critical of the technique used in Schweitzer’s analysis of the T. rex protein, but now he says that her new study “was ‘done the right way,’ with more stringent controls to guard against contamination”, for one thing.

            There were eight collagen proteins alone discovered from the hadrosaur fossil, which revealed twice as many amino acids as the previous tyrannosaur specimen. These were compared with sequences from animals living today as well as from mastodon fossils and her T. rex sequences. The hadrosaur and tyrannosaur collagens were closer to each other than the others, and each were closer to chickens and ostriches than to crocodilians, for instance—results which would also confirm her previous identification of T. rex collagen.

            The samples were identified as collagen by both sophisticated mass spectroscopy and antibody-binding techniques. They were also examined via both light and electron microscopy, which confirmed that they had the appearance of collagen as well.

            As Schweitzer says, “These data not only build upon what we got from the T. rex, they take the research even further.”

            I love science

          • Your quote:”She herself admits that her findings have been hijacked by YEC’s [Young Earth Cretionists]”

            The Smithsonianmag’s statement: “Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally:

            Well constructed statement. It doesn’t say that creationist have misrepresent her data, it says, when they misrepresent her data. It still supports the young earth theory.
            And she doesn’t say her research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists. That is the smithsonianmags’ statement.

            It’s all about the power of suggestions.

            • Lenny, I looked at the web site concerning arguments creationist shouldn’t use and I did not find what you stated. I’m not saying it’s not there, but it wasn’t in the section about arguments that shouldn’t be used. So if you can link me directly I would appreciate it, otherwise I’ll keep looking some more. They are entitled to their opinions.

              • Look under the section called Evolution:

                “Abiogenesis is not, strictly speaking, evolution, since evolution requires life to already be present (i.e., natural selection, mutations, and gene flow cannot act upon non-living matter). Thus, for the sake of precision, the two processes should be differentiated in technical resources.”

                It’s also nice to know that you recognize that creationists have their “opinions.” Ehehehe!

                • Found this, not sure if this is what you refering too.

                  Abiogenesis is the supposed process by which life arose from organic compounds in a primordial climate. For example, the Miller-Urey experiment is one such claimed “evidence” that this happened. Abiogenesis is not, strictly speaking, evolution, since evolution requires life to already be present (i.e., natural selection, mutations, and gene flow cannot act upon non-living matter). Thus, for the sake of precision, the two processes should be differentiated in technical resources.

                  However, both abiogenesis and evolution are part of the naturalistic belief system for the origin and development of life. They are connected in philosophical assumptions and are not entirely separate as some evolutionists claim.
                  – See more at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/evolution

                  I take it you don’t agree with the second paragraph, however this is the full comment. Not entirely separate as some evolutionist claim. Some evolutionist claim.

            • Mitch,

              Yes, the article’s author made the statement, but it was directed at her and she aknowledges the fact: “Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally…” Read it again.

              “It doesn’t say that creationist have misrepresent her data, it says, when they misrepresent her data.” Yes it does, read it again.

              “It still supports the young earth theory.”

              No it doesn’t. That’s your attempt to hijack her work to suit your own personal agenda. Read it again.

              • If her data and all other data (facts) proved evolution, all that would need to be done is bring the creation, evolution issue to a court of law and it would be settled once and for all. But since the data, can be interpreted to support the creation view with arguments that are just as compelling,(I know Lenny, evolutionist have a different opinion), it becomes an issue of interpretation, not highjacking. I still hold that the statement is from the smithsonian, and is politically motivated.
                And I agree that if her data is misrepresented she should be angry. The question is, is it? Whats your opinion?

                • Mitch,

                  Science is NOT adjudicated by a court of law. If you think that’s how science is done, you’re even more delusional than I thought. Schweitzer did not start out to prove evolution or creation. She is just doing what scientists do – discover stuff. If she inded had a pre-meditated agenda to prove creation, that would make her a pseudo-scientist. But I I don;t think that’s what she’s doing. Off course it is disgustingly conceited of creationists to attempt to hijack her work for their own self-serving ends.

                  I don’t have an opinion. I just state the facts as proven.

                • The point Lenny ? is that this data is not considered imperical, therefor is subject to interpretation. Try to get away with this kind of logic in pharmaceutical science. It has to be proven fit for human use before it can be legally marketed.

                • I don’t know what you’re getting at. Data is EMPIRICAL evidence, which leads to conclusions. Those conclusions are then tested repeatedly to see if it fits the hypothesis. That’s how science works. But off course you don’t have a clue, do you? And what’s with this cheap shot about pharmaceutical science? You think I don’t know that? How about one of my own? What about prayer? Has it been PROVEN fit for human use by the clerics who sell it daily?

                • Lenny says
                  Science is NOT adjudicated by a court of law. If you think that’s how science is done

                  I understand that science is not DONE THAT WAY, but it can be subject to the hearing and settling of judicial procedure. However since not all sciences are based on EMPIRICAL data (based on observation or experiment. Guided by practical experience and not theory. [From the Greek empeirikos], (do you understand this?),it is open to interpretation. Not all sciences fit under the same umbrella. The point about pharmaceutical science was not meant as a cheap shot, I apologies if that is what I conveyed. My point is that not all sciences are exempt from legal implications.

                • Mitch,

                  Scientific theory is NEVER subject to judicial procedure. Period. the data gathered through observation and experiment may be open to interpretation, yes, but no conclusion is subject to judicial law. It’s like saying that a jury can decide whether a plane can be fitted with wings made of sheets of newspaper because it will make it lighter. That decision will be discarded through experiment by scientists, not by a jury of lawmakers. Bad science is discarded through repeated experimentation, not by a vote of authority figures.

  8. Something I have noticed about your definition of evolution is that you refer to it in relation to living things that exist presently. That study of evolution is referred to as micro evolution. Is this correct? Change within a species

    • Mitch,

      I do not have my own definition of evolution as you seem to think. My definition is the same definition as that which has been scientifically accepted. Micro amd macro-evolution describe excactly the same processes within evolution on different time scales. It’s just the creationists who want to separate them because that suits their narrow agenda.

      • What is microevolution?
        Microevolution is simply a change in gene frequency within a population. Evolution at this scale can be observed over short periods of time — for example, between one generation and the next, the frequency of a gene for pesticide resistance in a population of crop pests increases. Such a change might come about because natural selection favored the gene, because the
        population received new immigrants carrying the gene, because some nonresistant genes mutated to the resistant version, or because of random genetic drift from one generation to the next.

        What is macroevolution?
        Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree.
        Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life. It is not necessarily easy to “see” macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using multiple lines of evidence, including geology, fossils, and living organisms.

        Microevolution deals with variations within species. Observable yes. Not based on interpretation.

        Macroevolution cannot be verified. It is based on interpretation, based on assumptions that cannot be proven. Obviously they are not the same. It’s not just a difference in the grand scale of time. Macro evolution deals with transformation of a species to another.

        http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evoscales_05.

          • Lenny your always requesting sources, and so I give you a source and your response is: “great job copying and pasting. But do you actually understand any of it”. The reference is there for an obvious reason. Anyone reading this would obviously see the difference between micro and macroevolution, and, that it’s not my opinion or interpretation or that of creationists. I’m beginning to think this forum is not about truth, but simply winning an argument. If that is the case well, ok, you win Lenny, your right I’m wrong. I graciously bow out of your universe, where everything agrees with your humanistic views, where the mysterious and unknown is simply explained by what you can see, feel, and understand. Sound like a void to me.

            • Mitch,

              When you copy and paste something, at least try to explain how it proves your position. How does the difference between macro and micro-evolution prove that evolution is false?

              “I graciously bow out of your universe, where everything agrees with your humanistic views, where the mysterious and unknown is simply explained by what you can see, feel, and understand. Sound like a void to me.”

              When you have rational proof that explains how the mysterious and unknown fits in with your world view, drop by my universe again…

  9. Effect on Law and Eventual Approval

    The fallout from the thalidomide trials was pervasive, according to the Washington Post. In 1962, Congress amended drug laws to impose strict limitations on the testing and distribution of new medication. Drugs had to be proven safe and effective, and clinical trials required written consent from participants.

    The FDA did eventually approve thalidomide in 1998 for use in treating Erythema Nodosum Leprosum, a form of leprosy. Because of the drug’s notorious history, the FDA required applicant Celgene Corporation to set up a special registry for tracking thalidomide’s use. The company earned about $300 million a year from the drug at the time, according to a report from the Center for Public Integrity. In 2006 the FDA approved the drug as a treatment for multiple myeloma, a cancer of plasma cells.
    Manufacturer’s Response

    Diageo, who now owns Distillers, the company that distributed thalidomide in the Anglosphere in the 1960s, agreed to pay $3 million to 45 birth defect victims in Australia and New Zealand. In the United Kingdom, victims receive an average of $28,000 a year, according to theGuardian. However, citizens of some countries including Italy and Spain have yet to see compensation.

    Goodby

    • Mitch,

      The law made a decision on the usage of a product which was manufactured as an end result of a scientific discovery. The law made no adjudication on the science itself. Big difference. The same applies to atomic weapons.

  10. Effect on Law and Eventual Approval

    The fallout from the thalidomide trials was pervasive, according to the Washington Post. In 1962, Congress amended drug laws to impose strict limitations on the testing and distribution of new medication. Drugs had to be proven safe and effective, and clinical trials required written consent from participants.

    Oh really!
    I taught testing and proof where part of the scientific theory, What do I know.

    • Mitch,

      If you can’t see the difference between an end product of science and the theory behind it, you’re lost. Science is not infallible, scientists make mistakes. That’s why science is continually evolving, unlike religious dogma which is static. There are many flawed products on the market, yes. But no jury votes to decide which scientific theory is acceptable or not. Bad science is found out in implementation.

  11. No one said science is infallible. My point was that some sciences are subject to legal implications.
    Going back to the issue of evolution. I simply agree with the heavy weights in the field of evolution. Not what they philosophies about and hope to find, or what the media chooses to put out to the public, but the recorded conclusions they arrive at. The written things that are buried from the public, and denied in order to make us believe something which you yourself would call inconclusive.

    Quotes from evolutionists.

    Stephen J. Gould, Havard

    “We can tell tales of improvement for some groups, but in honest moments we must admit that the history of complex life is more a story of multifarious variation about a set of basic designs than a saga of accumulating excellence.”
    Natural History, 2/82 p.2

    DARWIN’s PROBLEM

    “…innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?…why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory.”

    Origin of the Species

    Bigger problem

    DAVID M.RAUP

    Chicago Field Museum Of Natural History

    “Darwin was completely aware of this. He was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn’t look the way he predicted it would.”
    F.M.O.N.H.B., V50, P.35

    DAVID M.Raup
    Chicago Field Museum of Natural History

    “Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossils species but the situation hasn’t changed much. …ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin’s time.”
    F.M.O.N.H.B., v.50, p.35

    DEREK AGER
    Past President, British Geological Asso.
    “It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student …have now been ‘debunked.”’
    Proceedings Geological Asso. v .87, p.132

    D.B. KITTS, University of Oklahoma
    “Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them… The ‘fact that discontinuities are almost always and systematically present at the origin of really big categories’ is an item of genuinely historical knowledge.”
    Evolution, v.28, p.467

    S.M. STANLEY, John Hopkins
    “In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.”
    New Evolution Timetable, p.95

    A.C. SEWARD, Cambridge
    “The theoretically primitive type eludes our grasp; our faith postulates its existence but the type fails to materialize.”
    Plant Life Through the Ages p.561

    E.J.H. CORNOR, Cambridge
    “Much evidence can be adduced in favor of the Theory of Evolution from Biology, Biogeography, and Paleontology, but fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation.”
    Contemporary Botanical Thought p.61
    WOE

    FOSSILS
    “The Evidence” “Delights” Creationists
    “Embarrasses” Evolutionists

    Darwins’s Biggest Problem Then.
    Worse Now

    Links “Debunked”
    Faith Believes Evolution

    FOSSILS FAVOR CREATION

    • Still does not disprove evolution.

      FOSSILS FAVOR CREATION? Bwahahahaha. There was a time when the creationists said that fossils were planted by the gods to confuse man. With fossil evidence increasingly backing up evolution, sems they have put a new spin on it. Ergo my post that they’re certainly trying harder. The mental gymnastics involved is truly awesome to behold.

      • Good podcast

        Concerning evolution
        And I don’t believe in mythology, quote “There was a time when the creationists said that fossils were planted by the gods to confuse man.”.

        Lenny
        Ergo my post that they’re certainly trying harder. The mental gymnastics involved is truly awesome to behold.

        Who’s trying, especially when the big names in the evolutionist community (not creationist, but evolutionist) make statement(s)like .
        D.B. KITTS, University of Oklahoma
        “Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them… The ‘fact that discontinuities are almost always and systematically present at the origin of really big categories’ is an item of genuinely historical knowledge.”
        Evolution, v.28, p.467
        “discontinuities are almost always and systematically” (not random).

        DAVID M.Raup
        Chicago Field Museum of Natural History
        “Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossils species but the situation hasn’t changed much. …ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin’s time.”
        F.M.O.N.H.B., v.50, p.35

        Lenny
        “With fossil evidence increasingly backing up evolution, seems they have put a new spin on it.” Bwahahahaha.

        If these comments, like the many others supplied, had come from the creationist community you’d have an argument, but they are from the evolutionist, and not just the wanabies, but the experts. You either don’t get it, or your in denial.

        • Mitch,

          Evolution is supported by other fields of science such as genetics. The gaps in the fossil record are being plugged over time, although it may not be possible to plug all of them. There are many examples of transitionary life forms, and the fact that fewer are being found, in no way makes creationism’s case any stronger. Creationists haven’t even adequately addressed the transitionary lifeforms that have been found, and yet suddenly want to comment on the decline on rate of discovery of new one’s.

  12. Lenny says
    “Quote-mining is a dishonest practice”.

    Sounds like a statement designed to suppress truth.
    Suppression of truth is dishonest. No wonder, ” truth is an endangered species”.

    • Mitch,

      Quote mining refers to the practice of taking bits of a quote out of context to impart a totally wrong meaning to that intended by the original author. It’s quite common among creationists and religious apologists.

  13. Correction
    halucigenia says
    “Quote-mining is a dishonest practice”.

    Sounds like a statement designed to suppress truth.
    Suppression of truth is dishonest. No wonder, ” truth is an endangered species”.

  14. The only problem I see, is that the explanation for quote mining does not apply to statements that are meant to convey the very fact of what the statement is actually conveying. Of course someone is going to use that argument to prove the other wrong. It is what it is. What was written was written. There is a difference between an evolutionist and a skeptic. The former are usually more honest that the later.

    As far as proof of transitional fossils, show me some. Even Stephen J. Gould claims that since there are no transitional fossils, the process must of happened quickly. No evidence, just change the theory. That is arguing from silence, it proves nothing. There are variation, mutations but no transitions from one species to another. It simply never happened, and is not happening. Change in genetic information is hardly change from one species to another. You can alter genetic information by selective breading, and eventually information can be changed, but the subject remains in the same class. If you change the class definition, all you’ve done is change the definition. It’s like changing the definition of type or species to prove a point. This is a mouse, this is a long haired mouse, this is a hairless mouse, this is a mouse with no eyes…. guess what, they are all mice. You can play with the genes but it remains a mouse. Change too many things, and it’s a dead mouse.

  15. Punctuated equilibrium consists of morphological stability and rare bursts of evolutionary change
    What does rare bursts mean?

    Tiktaalik as a missing link. Several well-preserved footprints undoubtedly made by a four-legged animal were found in Poland in rock ‘dated’ at 18 million years older than Tiktaalik. Nature admitted: “They force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish–tetrapod transition … . Nature, 6 April, 2006
    Do you see a problem here. This is just another jump to a conclusion like the coelacanth fish. It was promoted as the 100-million-year old ancestor of land animals—until one was found alive in 1938. It uses its lower fins for maneuvering, not ‘walking’ as claimed.

    As far as the TalkOrigins archive, there is much talk with not one definitive example.
    The quote below makes bold statements with nothing to back it up. If you want I’ll paste the whole article and we can look at it.

    “Species-to-species transition”:
    “The major point of these general lineages is that animals with intermediate morphology existed at the appropriate times, and thus that the transitions from the proposed ancestors are fully plausible. General lineages are known for almost all modern groups of vertebrates, and make up the bulk of this FAQ.”

    The whole article is full of well worded statements like the above, but give no solid or definitive evidence.

    • Mitch,

      Punctuated equilibrium is a hypothesis put forward by Gould and Eldredge. It has its opponents. Nevertheless it does not detract from the proof for evolution because it is just a hypothesis that tries to explain periods of stasis in evolutionary development as investigated through the fossil record. They may be right or wrong about using this hypothesis in explaining the gaps in the fossil record, but it in no way detracts from the accepted fact that evolution occurs.

      “They force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish–tetrapod transition”

      Nature is not disputing that Tiktaalik is a transitionary lifeform. They’re just questioning the previously accepted proposals about the when, where and ecology. Once again, read carefully and don’t lift things out of context and give it your own meaning.

      There are many other sources for information related to transitionary lifeforms. I’ll leave you to Google, if you’re up to it…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s