After sitting through Hovind’s talk, I have seen the light. I’ve always been awfully hard on Christianity and Christians here, despising their beliefs and making mock of their nonsensical ideas and backwards social agenda. But this evangelist really reached out and grabbed me.
I now feel a great pity for them.
Hovind is one of the leading lights of fundamentalist Christianity in this country; the large auditorium was packed full, and they had to put up folding seats on the stage behind him to handle the crowd. They were enthusiastic and laughing and cheering and shouting “Amen!” throughout his talk. All I could think through it all was sorrow and sympathy for all the Christians who have willingly afflicted themselves with this clown, who have gullibly swallowed his lies. I am so sorry, Christians. I’m very embarrassed for you.
On a purely objective level, evaluating the presentation and the skill of the speaker, I was surprised: it was an exceptionally bad talk. You will often hear these creationist speakers praised for their rhetorical ability, if not their grasp of science, but I’m afraid Hovind was awful. We have weekly student seminars at my university, and sometimes students do a less than stellar job at this public speaking business…but I have never heard a speaker as incompetent as Hovind.
Yes, he spits out words fast with little fumbling, and he lards his talk with well-practiced folksy jokes, but it’s all so poorly organized and clumsily presented that it has no persuasive power at all. He is doing nothing but affirming the prejudices of his audience—he’s effective at that—but he’s not communicating any information at all effectively. I imagined him giving this talk to an informed audience, rather than the bussed-in church groups that were here, and his schtick would fall flat, and fall hard. Scientists have this expectation that they will learn something from a talk, you see, and that they’ll be able to evaluate the process by which the conclusions were arrived at; there was nothing like that here.
Even if you are sympathetic to Hovind’s claims, here is an indicator of what a poor speaker he is. This was scheduled to be a one hour talk. He showed up with a power point presentation containing over 700 slides. My personal rule of thumb for a good hour presentation is that if you’re a bit lazy and fill it chock-a-block with bullet points and text slides, 30 or 40 is about right; better talks pare it down to 20 or fewer data-rich slides and spend some time discussing each one. 700+ is practically criminal; it’s a declaration of rapid-fire superficiality, that you intend to steamroller the audience with no consideration for thought. Hovind is the anti-Tufte.
He also went over his allotted time—he talked for almost 2 hours. He knew it, too; at the hour mark, he mentioned that he was going to say just a few more things quickly, and then instead he went on and on, going all the way to the end of his list of power point slides. It was agonizingly bad. Again, though, his audience was predisposed to favor him, so nobody showed up with a hook.
What about his style? It was nothing but corn-pone jokes. He warmed up the audience beforehand with a continuous display of ‘witticisms’ projected on the big screen. Things like “Why is the third hand on a watch called a second hand?” and “Where does the light go when it goes out?” It was calculated, I’m sure, to rot the brains of the audience before the ringmaster came on. The audience actually laughed at these things. I was ready to leave, and he hadn’t even started talking.
That was the tone in the talk, too. He’d rant a bit about the awful lies scientists pack into textbooks, and then he’d trot out some tired old joke. It was like watching Hee Haw—I half-expected Junior Samples to show up.
(Hovind seems completely incapable of changing his tone. In the beginning, he was introducing his family in this same jokey way, when he pointed to a picture of his son-in-law in one picture and mentioned that he’d died of cancer just a few weeks ago. One serious and sad mention, then zip, right back to the jokes. It was very jarring, and brought one word to my mind: psychopath.)
In addition to dropping a joke everytime his brain lost its train of thought, he was incessantly plugging his videos—they were on sale in the lobby. Money was a constant theme, which is also not something I’ve seen at science talks. Maybe we need to start. I didn’t buy any of his videos, of course—this one lecture convinced me I don’t need to hear any more Hovind, especially not a Hovind babbling on for several hours in each of a dozen tapes. I really don’t know how Matt survived his experience with them.
As for the content of his talk: that wasn’t the point. This was an mutual backslapping session for creationists, not an evening of substance. The talk itself was irony-rich garbage. His message was that science textbooks, yea, even the ones in use at SCSU, were full of lies, and he, lover of science that he was, only wanted to see those lies removed. In order to do this, he gave a talk that was full of lies. About 700 of them, actually.
In those 700 slides, he raced through an incredible number of creationist canards: polystrate trees disprove gradualism, non-existence of the geologic column, fossils date the rocks and rocks date the fossils, the Grand Canyon is young, microevolution, not macroevolution, humans don’t have gill slits, mutations only destroy information, yadda yadda yadda. Seriously. They were all dead arguments presented at such a rapid clip that there was no time to think about them, let alone rebut them. And the lies were just so painfully blatant: as an example, he claimed that trilobites weren’t old and they weren’t extinct, and to ‘prove’ his claim, he showed a picture of an arctic isopod and announced that there it was, alive and crawling, proof that the biology professors have all been lying to you.
It was almost too much to take: Hovind was inciting the audience to tear pages out of biology books, to protest to the university about the lyin’ professors there, and he was doing it by lying non-stop.
I didn’t ask any questions. Once he shut up, I left; I don’t think there would have been any point to trying to rebut him, any more than there is any point to trying to rebut Hee Haw.
Oh, and one more thing: St Cloud State should feel a little shamefaced. We had a creationist visit UMM, and he was politely but forcefully out-argued by our students, and even though at least one church group was brought in, they were totally outclassed by the students. This event was more heavily stacked with family and church attendees, but the SCSU students seemed to be heavily pro-creationist. That’s not a good sign for a healthy university, unless they’re cynically aiming to recruit from the poorly educated pool. It might make economic sense, in the short run, but it’s very unfortunate to see my son’s degree cheapened that way just as he’s ready to graduate.
Thanks folks for your latest detailed inputs on geology, fossilisation and dating. I find it all very interesting and will inter alia work through these in due course.
Can I be the Countess of Accountability?
(Why yes, I do suffer from delusions of grandeur.)
You sowed in posts #99 and 110; you reaped in post #112…
Morally bankrupt? I note that you have not chastised your mates for unbecoming language… Or would this then be a case of the “pot calling the kettle(s) black”?
You seem to be speaking from experience? I certainly am – being reserved and not being able to understand or speak a word of English, I was singled out very quickly.
Jesus christ on a grill.
If you can’t stand the ridicule get out of the commenting business.
Kseniya wrote: Can I be the Countess of Accountability?
Oh Kseniya…in my eyes you’re the countess of so much more than that… But if we’re gonna vote…sure…I’ll support a petition to promote to that rank.
Will that make you:
Kseniya, OM, CA
or CA Kseniya, OM?
(…And another thing, in response to P-W’s repeated assertions about using inductive logic to argue for Natural Theology…)
I’ve been thinking about inductive logic, and it occurs to me that another argument can be made from inductive logic as well, to a certain extent. Follow, please:
Humans have the examples of other humans to look to. One important and striking trait that humans have is that humans can and do communicate; the more intelligent humans are, the better they are at communicating with each other. Even if two humans don’t have a common language, they can learn each other’s language through gestures, actions, and other signifiers.
Not all humans are equally communicative. However, even someone who is generally quiet can make some indication that a question was heard; they can make a gesture, or otherwise indicate that they are aware of the other person attempting to communicate.
Some humans have nonfunctional speech systems; they are mute.
Some humans have nonfunctional hearing; they are deaf.
Some humans have nonfunctional sight; they are blind.
But even the deaf and mute can either respond to gesture or use gesture to communicate. Those who are deaf and mute and blind can respond at least to touch; to gestures drawn with a finger on their hands.
Some humans have nonfunctional bodies; they are not merely mute, but paralyzed, so that they cannot gesture either. But even they can blink, at least, or move their eyes.
Some humans are so badly paralyzed that they cannot move their eyes voluntarily with any regularity. But in recent years, their brains can be monitored, and activity indicates that they can at least hear questions.
Of course, sleeping humans cannot communicate; nor can completely catatonic ones. And when humans are completely dead, they cannot communicate at all ever again.
Otherwise normal but deeply depressed or bad-tempered and sullen humans might be able to communicate, but will refuse to do so.
Otherwise normal but busy or distracted humans might be able to communicate, but their attention is focused on something else that is important to them. But even a distracted person can communicate once their attention is no longer distracted.
The god hypothesis is that there is an entity of enormous intelligence and enormous power that exists. Theists have asserted that this entity is immaterial, non-physical.
But even if we grant the highly improbable hypothesis that an intelligence is possible without an evident body of some sort, there is a huge problem: This supposed intelligent and powerful entity refuses to communicate clearly and effectively as even the least intelligent human can. Does the entity suffer from one of the communication-stopping defects that humans suffer from, listed above?
Theists tend to make excuses for this entity, yet here, the choice seems clear:
Given the options of
(a) believing in an enormously intelligent and powerful immaterial entity that cannot or will not communicate, and
(b) deciding that such a ridiculous contradiction in terms does not exist,
the latter is by far the simplest and most likely logical conclusion.
Thankyou Steve_C! Something useful from you is a welcome change. But do you think your mate, Stanton, will be convinced?
So obtuse.
I get it. You can’t stop playing dumb.
I doubt that. And to quote: “You wouldn’t get it if it came in a large bag marked it“.
It is almost 23:30 in this part of the world – good night.
I thought they were supposed to be witty in that part of the world.
Apparently not.
Aquila, you still have not answered why you singled out my outburst without also acknowledging that Roger was maliciously misspelling my name beforehand.
Why did you do that?
Am I to believe that the non-English-speaking country where you live, Christians are allowed to do whatever they please and are not held accountable for their actions?
Or, did you intend to take advantage of the fact that Roger is nothing more than a simpering Jesus-troll, and lack the courage to confess to this?
I believe his answer was…”You reap what you sow” and pointed out two of your posts before Roger’s.
And how does that excuse Roger from being an unabashed troll or Aquila from being a perfidious quote miner who can’t explain why the alleged prophecies of the Book of Daniel are relevant to Biology?
Furthermore, Steve, what sort of commentary would you make about the mental prowess of a person, such as Roger, who is honestly aghast over the idea that the US government considers the idea of laundering money in the name of God and Heaven to be a felony crime punishable by decades in prison, or believes in his heart of hearts that koalas, wombats and snake lizards were able to reach Australia from Mount Ararat before tigers, antelopes and elephants?
It doesn’t.
People who think the story of Noah is true are dipshits.
Morons. Sheep. Godbots.
The story is complete crap. And not even original.
Thank you for your extensive comments (#462, 463), Owlmirror.
I hope you will forgive me for being selective about my own responses, but I am not well-informed about some scientific issues, and I find it necessary to do research to make hopefully halfway intelligent comments (plus or minus) to more informed scientific knowledge. I also sometimes need to take time to process the meanings conveyed by other people’s statements.
Sometimes I find the story of the man and the forest to fit my situation rather appropriately. The story goes that a man was told about a forest by his friend, so he went to investigate, and when he got to its location he used his cell phone to query his friend and said to him, “Forest? What forest? I don’t see any forest! All I see are trees that are in the way!”
I believe I am not always alone on this feeling.
Anyway, to address some of your issues:
Macro-evolutionists use inductive logic to arrive at a totally different explanation: Darwin’s general theory (macro-evolution). P-W
Since evolutionary biology has the evidence of genetics, paleontology, and comparative anatomy, it is not merely inductive, but deductive logic that is involved. (Owlmirror)
While you may be correct that evidence for micro-evolution from genetics, paleontology, and comparative anatomy can be, and sometimes probably is, deductive, or at least abductive, I continue to maintain that since (in the opinion of Creationists like myself), evidence for MICRO-evolution does not necessarily constitute evidence for MACRO-evolution, that the “evidence” for macro-evolution continues (in my opinion) to be inductive rather than deductive.
but the existence of a Creator is a viable and, in my opinion, more probable and reasonable option for explaining organisms than blind chance and a hypothesized and yet undiscovered and unknown “law” of nature which self-organizes matter (P-W)
How is selection undiscovered and unknown? (Owlmirror)
I believe my vague statement was misinterpreted here. In referring to “self-organizing” matter, I was referring to spontaneous generation and abiogenesis (the hypothetical development of living organisms from inanimate matter unaided by the Superior Intelligence of Genesis 2:7).
Why do you never even acknowledge selection by even writing it out? What is this phobia you have about the word? (Owlmirror)
I do not have a phobia for the phrase “natural selection” as it pertains to MICRO-evolution (which refers to the environment as the “breeder” of specific characteristics). I strenuously object to the term when it is used of MACRO-evolution, because MACRO-evolution has never been demonstrated as a factual process. “Natural selection” (in the case of MACRO-evolution) is an inductive hypothesis which has not been confirmed because MACRO-evolution itself fails to be confirmed. If macro-evolution were confirmed, then it could follow naturally that “natural selection” might also probably apply to cases of macro-evolution, just as natural selection applies in cases of MICRO-evolution.
“I am sorry that you are so easily confused by the appearance of design. But when so many organisms have features that best serve, not human purpose, but the purposes of the organisms themselves, it is completely wrong to assert that some external intelligence designed all of those features, when the only evidence we have is that those features evolved. (Owlmirror)
I am glad you used a loaded term: “purpose.” That loaded term has obvious connotations for Intelligent Design which I assume you would also object to. The word “purpose” was one of the six characteristics of design which I had observed, but which I had accidentally omitted in my list of design characteristics (I had stated there are at least “six” characteristics of design but had inadvertently only listed five characteristics for design in a previous blog comment).
“I do deny that evolved design is design by an intelligent designer (except for human breeding projects, which are often sloppy anyway), because there is no evidence that evolved design is intelligent design. Evolved design is often demonstrably sloppy and stupid.” (Owlmirror)
In comparison to your views, I have evidently come to a different conclusion about the original design of organisms. I believe the original organisms aboard Noah’s Ark, and those organisms which survived apart from the Ark (in what I believe was a universal, not a localized, flood) had all of the genetic capabilities for producing all of the known varieties and breeds of organisms today, including the different races of man). Those organisms aboard the Ark are examples for micro-evolution (Darwin’s special theory), which I define as “the shuffling of genes” and also as “the environment and geographical isolation sometimes causing some genetic combinations to be more favored than others (natural selection).” Those organisms surviving aboard the Ark and apart from the Ark were descendants of what I believe were Intelligently Designed ancestral organisms (Genesis 1), an opinion, which you evidently may not share.
Semantics will not discredit the premise. (P-W)
Your premise isn’t false because of semantics. It’s false because DNA in general shows no sign of having been programmed by any intelligence. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate otherwise. (Owlmirror)
I am nowhere as familiar with DNA as you may be, and I should probably read PZ’s article on DNA, but maybe I can spot a forest where you only may be able to spot the trees? There are several lines of evidence that suggest to me (although they may not be convincing to you) that DNA is the product of Intelligent Design.
1. As Stephen C. Meyer noted in quoting atheist Richard Dawkins, “‘The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.’ In the case of a computer code, the specific arrangement of just two symbols (0 and 1) suffices to carry information. In the case of DNA, the complex but precise sequencing of the four nucleotide bases (A, T, G, and C) stores and transmits the information necessary to build proteins.” (#461) I have done a little toying with programming myself, so I have a limited understanding of programming languages, and the nucleotides analogy to the binary system is a sufficient analogy for me to conclude an Intelligent Designer was behind DNA.
2. I also noticed this article on a computer program which was developed for deciphering DNA and which was first tested on a novel by Jane Austen without having ever been programmed to understand English ( http://www.physorg.com/news82989044.html ). I consider this computer program to decipher DNA and its capability to operate on the English language an adequate illustration of the similarity between English and DNA for “information content” defined as “complexity and specification.”
3. I have used computer virus and maintenance software in rebuilding the information on some computer hard drives I have used. I noticed the “uncanny resemblance” (to allude to the words of atheist Richard Dawkins) of the color map (use the On/Off switch) for DNA found at
( http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/genome/expl_01_onoff.html or
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/genome/explore_wave.html or
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/genome/explore.html ) and the color map of a hard drive (which depicts specific types of information being repaired by color) which is created by maintenance software while it is in the process of rebuilding the information on the hard drive.
4. Another code was discovered with regard to DNA ( http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/science/25dna.html?ex=1311480000&en=34d8e6ced8d42f47&ei=5089 ).
5. DNA is even replacing silicon chips in human computers: ( http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i2/focus.asp#DNA ) and
The Sunday Mail (Brisbane), January 16, 2000, p. 20.
Minneapolis Star Tribune,
Nature, January 13, 2000, pp. 143-144, 175-179, and
New York Times,
New Scientist, December 11, 1999, p. 8 and
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_computing ) and
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAYA_II ).
6. A statement by Bill Gates comparing DNA to computer code ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4.html ).
As a summary, the above information (some of which attests to the “language” characteristics of DNA) suggests to me that the Genesis 1 account of the Creator “speaking” and then “creating” the organisms on earth, is accurate. The “speaking” and “creating” language was, perhaps, DNA?
Natural theology at best is an argument for a vaguely Deistic and distant designer. (Owlmirror)
I knew there was a theologian lurking in you somewhere, Owlmirror! Your concession is noted. Still, in an effort to tweak your theology, it has been noted by Stephen C. Meyer that Deism and Pantheism have some difficulties with new discoveries by science (pages 6, and 24-25 of “The Return to the God Hypothesis”). While Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson may have been able to maintain the credibility of Deism’s “reconstruction” of the Creator in their day, the theory of relativity and the Big Bang suggest Deism’s and Pantheism’s “reconstructions” of the Creator are grossly inadequate (see pages 6 and 24-25 of “The Return of the God Hypothesis”: ( http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_returnofgod.pdf ).
I mean, there’s the Sabbath, the 7th day of the week. That’s one of the Ten Commandments right there. The commandment says to keep it, and not to do “work”. (Owlmirror #473)
As a side note, I noticed your statement about the Sabbath. If it were somehow validated that macro-evolution was the tool used by which the Creator made the different organism’s on earth (which I believe is highly unlikely, but I admit my interpretation of the Genesis text is potentially wrong), and if it could be demonstrated that the proper interpretation of Genesis 2:7 is that of a literal “process” (macro-evolution) rather than a literal “event” (creation), I would be forced to adopt a form of theistic macro-evolution which probably most macro-evolutionists would find repulsive.
If I were the above hypothetical theistic macro-evolutionist, and some creationist came to me with the objection that “macro-evolution is not capable of being demonstrated today,” my pat answer to the creationist would be, “Well of course macro-evolution is not demonstrable today! Haven’t you read that God rested on the Sabbath, and that He created in only six day-ages? If macro-evolution were still going on today, the Genesis account would be proven incorrect, because present day macro-evolution would prove the creation process is still going on since macro-evolution is a tool for creating newer and higher life forms!”
While I am not a macro-evolutionist, one of the reasons I believe macro-evolution is not going on now (if it were the method the Creator used to produce living organisms), is that the Creator rested on the Sabbath and did not resume the task of creating, which was completed on the sixth day.
At present, I remain a perpetual skeptic of macro-evolution, even in a theistic form, and I am extremely skeptical about macro-evolution being the technique used by the Creator to create the organisms on earth.
Peace.
P-W, I’ve gotten bored with you.
My efforts have been to try and explain science as it is currently understood, and why the myths of religion are not science; why it is fundamentally wrong to try and claim that there is any support of those myths in modern science.
However, this requires mental effort and intellectual honesty on your part. You have shown no effort in trying to understand the science; you have repeatedly demonstrated the intellectual dishonesty of the permanently indoctrinated and deluded.
Your most recent response is probably the saddest example of this; you seem to think that because you’ve run some software programs, and done some “toying” with programming, you’re somehow qualified to judge that DNA was intelligently programmed?
Your other points are even more confused. No-one has denied that DNA is complex, has consistent patterns, and acts in some ways like software, or can be used in problem-solving. But all of the evidence from those who study DNA is that the apparent programming is emergent: no intelligence was or is involved.
I addressed your confusion over macro- and micro-evolution at #268. Your response is simply confused, but I don’t think there’s much point in trying to explain things clearer, since you aren’t interested in paying attention or learning.
And worse yet, you still bring up Noah’s Flood — which is nothing more than an ancient myth; it was disproved as a scientific hypothesis more than a hundred years ago, by geologists who actually went looking hard for the evidence, and didn’t find it. Some were devoutly religious, but they were more honest than any modern Creationist — when they could not find evidence of a universal flood, they said so. They charted rocks and strata from all over the place, laying the groundwork for modern geology, which is now able to date the strata, going back hundreds of millions and billions of years.
Your problem, P-W, is not that you are seeing a forest where others are seeing trees. Your problem is that you are reading a map created by those who never saw the territory, who have never looked at the territory, and who misinterpret and deny the true data being reported by those who are actually exploring the territory. You are seeing a forest where there is nothing. You, and your sources of information, are confused and deluded.
Since you read my question about the Sabbath, but appear to have decided to disregard the point, I’ll put it here as a set of statements:
1. In the bible, God says not to light fires on the Sabbath.
2. Christians do light fires on the Sabbath.
3. Therefore, Christians do disregard God’s commandment about keeping the Sabbath.
I doubt you’ll address it, though. It has nothing to do with evolution, and everything to do with fundamental Christian hypocrisy. I don’t particularly care; the religious commandments are as irrelevant to me as the taboos of any other primitive tribes. But I sometimes wonder how Fundamentalist Christians, who bend over backward to interpret some parts of the bible as being literally true, justify their blatant double-standards and hypocrisy. No doubt it’s the same way you deal with scientific arguments: you ignore the facts whenever they are inconvenient to your deluded mindset.
Anyone who believes the story of the Ark is true should be laughed at, then ignored.
Anyone who believes the story of the Ark is true should be laughed at, then ignored.
The Flood. Yeah, P…that’s a tough one. As a scientific hypothesis, it gets hammered rather hard. Not only has no one found evidence of it, they keep finding evidence that directly argues against it (not to mention that the evolution of the science of physics has driven more than few nails into its coffin). If you’d like to discuss it, I’m happy to…
Such as the fossil records of equines and brontotheres suggesting that they came through Asia from North American, and how not a single kangaroo, koala or wombat fossil is found outside of Australia, let alone in Turkey?
Stuntin, what kind of science are you propagating now????
Just because you can’t find a fossil outside of Australia ???? Such nonsense…. last week I could not find my car keys…there you have it…there is no such thing as a car …that proves beyond any doubt that you are linked to an ape
Yeah, Stoontoon, Jesus/God/Holy Vapor magicaly teleported all the Australian marsupials after the Flood! The lack of fossils totally proves this!
On an unrelated note, this crack cocaine that Roger gave me is friggin’ SWEET.
Roger, that you have to resort to a monumentally pathetic insult rather than even attempt to pull one of your beloved video mentors’ pathetic explanations out of your ass to counter my pointing out that the fossil record repeatedly contradicts the Noachian Flood simply reinforces the fact that you are both fatally naive and maliciously stupid.
Didn’t you go into a big song and dance about how this one South African veterinarian made a bunch of pathetic internet videos on how he saw the Light and disproved Evolutionary Biology? Didn’t you say that this twit had evidence that explained why the fossil record apparently contradicts the Noachian Flood?
Oh, wait, Creationists don’t need to obey the Commandment of “Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness.”
Of course, then there’s the fact that you lack even the most rudimentary brainpower to copy and paste my own name.
what a thoroughly unpleasant lot you all are! have looked at other “scientific” vs religion sites and they seem to be able to have a civilised discussion / debate without name calling and insults. but perhaps, they’re more evolved…
am v grateful i didn’t go “the science route” – it seems to make people quite nasty.
Don’t worry. We’re greatful too.
If the creationists weren’t such dense nitwits… we wouldn’t get so “mean”.
aah, there you go again.
perhaps your education wasn’t as complete as you thought. it seems to be entirely impossible for you to make a reasonable comment without insults.
as i say, you lot seem to be an unusually unpleasant bunch. there are other sites where “scientists”, athiests and christians can comment (and disagree) like adults, without the sniggering and name calling.
from where i’m sitting, it looks like this site is for little boys with big egos
Nemo, try going to a conference of physicians and telling them they really should listen to your theory about how all disease is caused by and imbalance of the four humours.
Why not head down to an MLB game, hop onto the field and tell the umpire you’ve got a book that says (with some interpretation) that last pitch was actually over the plate?
Maybe the boys on the line at Ford would be grateful to hear how an angel came to you in a dream and said that cars can be safely assembled with wads of chewing gum rather than bolts and welds.
I’m sure they’ll accord your beliefs all the respect they deserve with none of the ‘nastiness’ you see here.
Do let us know how it goes, willya?
You seem to think you’re entitled to not get insulted. We get folks like you coming on our board all the time and whining about how mean we are, and they almost never have anything else to contribute to the discussion. It’s like they just skim over entire threads and only read the naughty words. Heck, the way you put “science” and “scientist” in quote marks clearly signals to me that you have no respect for us (and is a pretty good sign that you have no respect for empirical evidence). So why should we make nice?
I suggest you go back to those other fora you mentioned where they tell you that it’s okay to believe centuries-old dogma rather than actual facts. You’re not going to get that here.
you misunderstand, having different views and beliefs is one thing, resorting to name calling is another.
i’m not saying one group or another should suddenly change their views, but it would make for more interesting reading (for both sides) without all the rubbish.
But, your “side’s” views are the rubbish.
Thanks for the generalization, Nemo, but I don’t snigger or refer to name calling unless I think someone truly deserves it. If you can point to me a place on this blog where my ego has gotten the best of me and I’ve been nasty without provocation, I’ll apologize for it…immediately. I’m rather skeptical you can find a case where I’ve been nasty at all, however. I don’t appreciate being painted by such a blanket statement. Nor actually, do I appreciate the tacit insult leveed by your choice to type scientists in quotes. I am a scientist, thank you very much. I do it for a living, and have the graduate degrees and the peer-reviewed publications to back it up. If you’re going to accuse people of being childish, it is perhaps wise to make sure you’ve outgrown your own diapers.
Creationism and ID are garbage.
Worthless, meaningless crap.
Nemo should I say what a great and wonderful idea Adam and Eve and Noah’s ark are?
The people who come on here and whine about us being mean believe those things are actually true events.
I think they should be laughed at.
Do you like being laughed at Nemo?
josh, i do apologise to you. it was not my intention to lump you together with the others. your comments have been quite intersting. i am actually very interested in what both sides have to say.
regards
Josh, so a band of rock ostensibly of the same colour is not necessarily a stratum in itself but may comprise several strata representing several events, whilst a stratum may have different types of sediment due to different mechanisms (fast vs. slow deposition). But wouldn’t fast vs. slow deposition be different events, and hence result in different strata?
In post #517 you (and Owlmirror, post #514) comment that geologists could not find any evidence for a universal flood. What would constitute such evidence?
For one thing, a global flood would leave a distinctive 18O/16O ratio, distributed worldwide, as a result of the Dole effect.
Aquila @ #532:
Now there’s a good question (though one that the people claiming there actually was such a flood should be trying to answer, but they don’t).
Here’s an interesting site I’ve seen on the subject.
A local flood leaves evidence, it disrupts things in predictable ways. A global flood would have much more serious effects, over a much larger scale, and therefore would be expected to leave much more evidence. And yet, not a speck of anything that even looks like evidence of a global flood has been found.
And what’s with doing necromancy on a months-dead thread to ask questions about bullshit like flood geology?
He’s back out, on parole.
Zombi thread rise from the dead
and wants to
eatpick ur BRAAAAIINSHowever, more seriously regarding flood geology: One might want to research on James Hutton, and other early geologists, such as James Playfair and Charles Lyell.
However, the early geologist that I had in mind was the very devout Adam Sedgwick.
And related to the topic, a somewhat discursive early history of geology.
And then there’s that worldwide layer of black clay from the K/T extinction event. Why isn’t there anything in the Good Book about a global fire?
Aquila, Aquila, what are you doing looking for info from these chaps?
Scroll back and read comment #129… these guys are posing as “scientists”. They have nothing to offer you.
Even PZ has admitted it is just a THEORY, and it cannot be proved. So don’t get all hung up on it. Just drop it into the trashbin.
Rather get hold of the material from Kent, or Walter Veith…these guys are real scientists, and they can explain what you need to know. It makes far more sense.
Hey,
Rogeridiot, Wikipedia says you’re wrongAnd if Kent Hovind is a real scientist, then how come he doesn’t have any degrees from any accredited schools and never engaged in any scientific research whatsoever?
Kent “Convicted Felon” Hovind doesn’t even know his own bible, let alone anything about science. Kent “Jailbird” Hovind thinks that “Render unto Caesar” doesn’t apply to him. Nor does Kent “Criminal Fraud” Hovind care about the verse that says “Let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay”. And Kent “Criminal Perjury” Hovind repeatedly broke God’s commandment (and US law) against not bearing false witness.
If you actually care about science, maybe, just maybe, you should ignore the convicted and proven frauds and pay attention to the actual, real scientists; the ones who actually do the real-world research and can explain how all of the pieces fit together.
Thanks Onion and Fowlmirror, so we can then accept that Prof.Walter Veith is a real scientist then.
Ok then Aqila, forget the Hovind material, but do get the Veith info. You will be amazed at how logical this is, and his model does not need constant changing to fit a “theory” He demonstates how the layers were formed.
@#543 Roger —
Again with the misuse of “theory”! You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Did you not see anon’s #541 clarifying the correct use of that word?
In science, models do need constant changing as new evidence comes to light. In the words of Konrad Lorenz, ” “Truth in science can be defined as the working hypothesis best suited to open the way to the next better one.” No good scientist would claim that his explanation of a natural phenomenon is complete and immutable.
Thanks Etha…..I was merely pointing Aquila to the fact that Veith’s model demonstrates the deposition of the layers. It is very clear, and does not need updating. He has not claimed anything…he has merely demonstrated…
Unlike the evolution theory which is often updated, and yet remains a theory, and incomplete.
“yet remains a theory”
What the hell do you expect it to become? You’ve been pointed to the scientific definition of the word “theory”. Do us the courtesy of reading it, learning it and using it correctly.
Else I shall be forced to toss you onto the “virulently ignorant” dustbin.
@#545 Roger —
You really have a knack for selective reading, don’t you? In my comment, for which you so kindly thanked me, I linked you to the previous comment explaining why you are misusing the word theory.
A scientific “law” is no more immutable or definite than a scientific theory, right? Just take Newton’s laws of motion. While they’re very good approximations of the equations governing motion on a macroscopic scale, they were ultimately invalidated by Einstein’s theories of relativity.
Actually, all of Veith’s credentials involve… zoology. Specializing in nutrition, I see. He might know how to feed a cow, or a lizard, or a monkey, or a troll (like that naughty monkey who calls himself Roger!). But his mythological explanation of geological deposition would be unlikely to be of any value, since he has no expertise in geology.
If you want to understand geology, you might want to read the work of peer-reviewed geologists. Hey, how about picking up a nice geology textbook? You can even get one from the library, if you’re low on funds. Shocking idea, isn’t it, to read up on what’s written by actual peer-reviewed scientists writing in their area of expertise.
Ummm…ignore the “right?” at the end of the first sentence in my second paragraph in #547. I initially worded that as a rhetorical question, then decided a simple statement would suffice, but forgot to remove the “right?” from the end.
But hey, what is months in the greater scheme of things i.e. millions of years as per evolutionary model?
Moving on, considering that the present earth surface shows erosional features, why is it that the contact between bands of rock is so flat?
Yes go give old Kent a call…. ooops. Nevermind.
The bigger question is, do you think that Kent is getting that special kind of male companionship one can only get in prison?
Really, Aquilla? Contact between bands of rock is always flat?
I guess the Wave in Arizona doesn’t exist, not to mention countless other uplifted, eroded and overlain formations.
Crap.botched the link to the Wave
must remember to use preview.
@#551 Rev. BigDumbChimp —
You have to realize, though, that KH is in prison because of the religious persecution against outspoken Christians that is all-too-common in the US.
We need to create an internet law that states something along the line of.
You creationists continue to make that mistake and when doing so immediately demonstrate to everyone reading that you are completely clueless as to how science works.
Please, read this. It will help. I promise.
Sorry for the long paste, but … well it was needed.
Yes of course. Now that we atheists are the majority in the representative government and judicial system we are free lay the legal smackdown on the minority groups like christians.
I was referring to “sentinels” in Cedarberg where top of layer 3 is decently weathered but layer1/layer2 and layer2/layer3 contacts are flat. Also Grand Canyon appears to have pretty flat contacts.
OH, OK then. The flat contacts support your hypothesis and the ones that intersect at different angles matter not at all in Earth’s history.
What, the hypothesis that layers form in layers?
OHHHHHHHHHH right. Next you’ll be telling us that water is wet.
Ogres are like onions, they have layers!
That last one was a bit garbled, I guess. I was pointing out that Aquilla’s idea that the earth is just a layer cake (laid down in a flood), or maybe a parfait (everybody loves parfait), is a bit off. This pic linked in the “wave” link, once I got it right, shows strata that are not parallel to all of the other strata.
Disregard that last comment, my new Sarcastrometer(TM) hasn’t arrived yet.
Anti-evolutionists are like onions; they make me weep. Actually, they’re more like horseradish; they make my eyes itch and weep really hard AND they clear my sinuses.
No, wait, that’s not quite it.
Creationists are like habaneros, slice ’em up and they’ll add a little fun to the dish, but wash your hands before going to the bathroom.
Not quite right either…
Thanks for the link to the pretty picture; don’t see signs of erosion between the layers i.e. contacts are flat… As for intersecting layers at various angles, got any more pretty pictures?
So?
Aquila, you will need to be a little patient and supportive with these folk…..
Seems like their “scientific” minds cannot grasp what you are drawing to their attention. Perhaps they are regrouping to get a handle on this now
Perhaps you can now understand why they are so upset about KH whipping them in their professed field of expertise…and he is not even a scientist…so they claim.
Be that as it may…get hold of Veith’s material…he will definitely answer your questions…
Here are a bunch of photos of non-conformities for Aquila’s edification.
As for Roger, well, his brain’s about the best example of a fossil as anyone’s likely to see.
The only people Hovind has ever shown up are the ones who fell for his bullshit.
Who should be believed on geology?
A nutrition zoologist out of his field (and, after seeing some of his statements on the web, probably out of his mind)? A convicted fraud and perjurer?
Or actual peer-reviewed geologists?
Such a difficult question to answer.
Hovind… whipping…
goawaymentalimage
Thanks, rational people for trying to point Aquila to information.
Personally, I thought the Wave was an aesthetically pleasing as well as geologically stunning example of an angular conformity.
As for the disconformity Aquila asked for, Brownian covered that, so I need say no more.
Aquila, have fun in your little geological-layer cake world. It must be so easy there, all answers are “Flood done it!” Who needs a Brunton?
Calm blue ocean…
Calm blue ocean…
Here’s a better mental image:
Hovind is sitting in his cell, mumbling to himself. Every now and then, his mumbles become louder, and his cellmate starts reading his book aloud until Hovind quiets down.
Hovind’s cellmate is reading The God Delusion.
Heh.
The natural pictures are awesome. However I did not claim parallel layers nor a geological-layer cake world. Nevertheless, your “geological-layer cake world” comment does raise a question:
I have heard it stated that the geological column represents the Earth’s land surface as you go back in time. For example, if you go back some 408 million years, then the Earth’s land surface is the definable boundary between the Silurian System and the Devonian System (bar unconformities such as the missing rocks of the Silurian and Ordovician systems in the Grand Canyon, where the Muav Limestone (Cambrian) some 505 million years ago would have been exposed). What is the accepted geological stance on this statement?
And then, what lies beneath the ocean floors? Have the ocean floors been excavated?
For the first question, I’m going to have to plead ignorance. I’m not a geologist, just a microbiologist stuck in an office full of geologists. They sound like they’re full of schist, but they’re generally gneiss about it.
As for what lies below the ocean floors, well, the part that interests me is the first few cm (lots of cool microbial stuff going on there). As I understand it, the ocean basins get they’re young rock along the spreading centers, such as the Mid-Atlantic ridge, it’s basalt that cools and spreads as the convection of the mantle pulls it along. as you go farther from the ridge, the fresh basalt cools and gets thicker when the mantle below it cools with it and adds thickness. It also collects anything that rains down on it from above. That’s mostly clays and some organic material left over from the food web above. So, say somewhere between the mid-Atlantic ridge and Florida, you have a gradually thickening layer of sediment, with additions from the top via the water column, on top of a gradually thickening layer of basalt.
As for what lies below the basalt, well, it’s mostly upper mantle material. There is a geological term for it, but, again, IANAG.
Has it been excavated? Not like an anthropological site. It has been extensively drilled, though. That’s the whole point behind the Ocean Drilling Project and its successor, the International ODP.
Sorry for not being able to adequately answer your 1st q, but that’s why we have specialists. Did the response to the 2nd clarify?
MIkeG, re 1st question, I appreciate your candour given your previous jibes. As for “full of schist… generally gneiss about it” – good one.
Thanks for response to 2nd question. Given that oceans account for some 70% of Earth’s surface, I am certainly curious as to what lies in the oceanic sedimentary layers – specifically anthropologically speaking, although other fossil finds would also be interesting.
So Owlmirror, Josh et al., could you elucidate?
Meanwhile, another question (3rd): why is it that we even have a fossil record if the average erosional rate is reported to be 60 mm per 1000 years?
Why don’t you ponder that one for a while, Aquila, and come up with an hypothesis or two? There are doors to be opened, and interesting pathways beyond.
So Owlmirror, Josh et al., could you elucidate?
Shit. Hold on. I was gone for almost four months, so the last time we were talking on this thread was like December/January. Let me catch up a bit…
Kseniya@#576: You’re a geologist? If so, this is your domain – you answer it.
Actually, last time pre-dates #531 around Sep…
Actually, last time pre-dates #531 around Sep…
Yeah, I noticed that when I looked back. Hard to believe.
I’m starting with a reply to #532. This’ll take a second, though…
Josh, but if you don’t mind, I’ll catch up tomorrow as I have to hit the sack.
…Different mechanisms yield different types of sediment, not different strata. Different events yield different strata…. Posted by: Josh | September 10, 2007 10:31 AM
Shit, was it that long ago…?
Josh, so a band of rock ostensibly of the same colour is not necessarily a stratum in itself but may comprise several strata representing several events, whilst a stratum may have different types of sediment due to different mechanisms (fast vs. slow deposition). But wouldn’t fast vs. slow deposition be different events, and hence result in different strata?
Okay, “band of rock” is difficult. It has no meaning in geology, really. In truth, strata (an old term) are awkward to deal with as well in discussions. I’m going to presume that “band” is probably analogous to bed, however. But let’s use current terminology. It’ll be easier to stay on the same page.
So…okay. What you see most of the time when you look at sedimentary rocks in place in the field is an outcrop. Outcrops are the currency of field geology. An outcrop is an exposure of bedrock cropping out at the surface (i.e., poking through the vegetation and modern soil, buildings, etc). Let’s be clear also: you can have an outcrop of unconsolidated glacial sand or till or whatever. An outcrop doesn’t have to be “hard” with respect to the soil that is partially covering it. Bedrock is defined with respect to the modern topographic surface–how hard or soft it is is irrelevant.
In an outcrop, there might be one or more “formations” exposed. A formation is a mappable unit of rock (i.e., it is extensive enough that it can be indicated on a geologic map). Usually formation-scale is much larger than outcrop-scale. Outcrops are usually a few to dozens of meters “long” or thick and formations are usually dozens or hundreds or thousands of meters thick. Depending on whether or not the formation is flat-lying, a single thick formation can represent the entire bedrock of an area many miles wide. But you can have an outcrop that happens to glimpse the contact between two formations. This happens all the time.
A sedimentary formation can be one rock type (e.g., sandstone, shale, limestone) or it can be more than one (e.g., can include sand and mud, could be limestone and sandstone). Few sedimentary formations contain only one rock type. Most contain varying lithologies (different rock types).
A sedimentary formation will have a number of beds (1 to n) in it (again, I think a bed is analogous to your band of rock above). These beds will either all be the same type of rock, which is unusual, or they will be varying lithologies, which is common. Beds are usually going to range from a few centimeters in thickness to a number of meters.
So, it is very common to see, for example, an outcrop that has twenty meters of alternating beds of sandstone and limestone, which are all from about a meter to three meters say in thickness.
In general, beds of sandstone more commonly represent single “quick” events (such as a given storm event). Beds of mudstone often represent single events, like a storm, but can also be integrated over time, depending on the type of environment we’re talking about (in marine environments they are more commonly much longer events). Beds of shale are usually quite thick and represent good amounts of time. Beds of limestone range in thickness but almost always represent pretty significant amounts of time. But, each of these beds are thought of in terms of single depositional “events” because the depositional conditions remained basically the same through the deposition of the entire bed. So, “event” is not tied to time the same way for all sedimentary bodies. One thing that is the same, is that the boundaries between beds are tied to time. They represent changes in conditions and a time gap. These gaps can be very small or very large.
So, a sedimentary formation will usually consist of a bunch of different beds of rock that each represent the depositional conditions for that bed. There is a time gap between each of the beds and there can be a different mechanism for adjacent beds. You can have a sandstone bed a meter thick sitting on top of a mudstone bed five meters thick. Two different things happened at two different times.
We know this because we see this happening today. Much of geology is a very historical science. Sedimentology is actually much less so. We can directly observe most of these processes happening in the modern world and set up experiments to directly test and models and hypotheses.
Color is tough. It can relate to the process that produced the bed. But it can also be related to post-depositional processes. Color is far less important to us than sedimentary structures (of which bed is one). Color can change within formations or between formations or there can be a series of different mappable units that are all, red, say. But, a formation or an outcrop of one color will usually include a number of beds representing a number of events. We worry about rock type and structures first, color second. I have seen color change across a single bed before, though. Color is not the key. Beds are the key.
So, yes, changes in depositional conditions usually make different beds (roughly analogous to strata), which can indicate different rates of deposition and different mechanisms.
Okay. I barely scratched any surfaces here, but I think that this answers your question. So, I’m going to stop for now and ask: does it?
In post #517 you (and Owlmirror, post #514) comment that geologists could not find any evidence for a universal flood. What would constitute such evidence?
Uh, let’s do this is slightly smaller steps. Let’s worry about beds first. Once we get beds down, we can move on to the fun stuff…
Aquila asked in #550:
…why is it that the contact between bands of rock is so flat?
Again, if we’re equating “bands” with beds, then the answer is: contacts between beds aren’t universally “so flat.” Sometimes contacts are flat, sometimes they’re not (e.g., bows or ripply contacts); depends on the bed.
Hey Josh,
Glad to so you back, and being patient and explanatory.
There’s a quote out there that I like, that’s attributed to Charles Babbage:
“On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!], ‘Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?’ I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.”
I think creationists often become confused, and ask questions that reflect that confusion.
I suspect that Aquila’s question about “flat contacts” is the result of a similar confusion over rates of erosion and/or rates of deposition, and how a sedimentary layer ought to look, either from his own thoughts or from some creationist source. See also Aquila’s #557 and #565.
You might want to go over the basics in very small baby steps, perhaps using a layer cake as an example.
Hey Josh, welcome back, and echo Owlmirror’s sediments.
Err, sentiments. :-)
Aquila: No, I’m not a geologist, though the question is certainly not unanswerable. (Obviously, Josh could answer it better than I.) I don’t mean to be coy, I’m simply curious about what you might come up with, and thought you might find the exercise worthwhile. After all, your question already contains part of the answer.
Aquila:
There is tons of good stuff in the seds of the ocean basins, but most of it is not anthropological. Humans haven’t been plying the oceans that long. There are a few ancient shipwrecks, I would guess, but they don’t go very far back in time (geologically speaking).
The fossils that are laid down in the ocean sediments throughout deep time actually represent one of the best and most complete fossil evidences for evolution. Algae with silicious or carbonate shells make great fossils, and they occur in huge numbers (blooms, etc.). Huge numbers, relatively easy to fossilize, and lots of time = great record.
Hey Owl; Kseniya. Thanks for the welcome back. It’s good to be. I missed you guys, but there’s this war on and stuff.
I think creationists often become confused, and ask questions that reflect that confusion.
Agreed, and agree re: baby steps. I think for a bit, however, that I’m gonna try and reply point by point to specific questions rather than doing a lot of exposition. I don’t think anyone wants to read through a sedimentology text in blog form. Maybe we can see how that goes for a minute and then re-adjust if needed.
Roger wrote: Ok then Aqila, forget the Hovind material, but do get the Veith info. You will be amazed at how logical this is, and his model does not need constant changing to fit a “theory” He demonstates how the layers were formed.
He truly must be a visionary, and a genius, and must have written one heck of a lot on this subject, because based on my years of training and experience, the statement “he demonstrates how the layers were formed” is as difficult and complicated to address as something like “he shows us how the cathedrals are built and decorated.”
Addressing the complexity and diversity of cathedral design takes more than a few thick volumes, as anyone with even a passing interest in the subject knows from ten seconds browsing a bookshelf. Addressing “how the layers were formed” is a similar career-ish type quest. It’s called sedimentology.
When I read that statement, several questions popped to mind, such as:
Which layers? Where? What kinds of layering are we discussing here? Not all layers are “created” equal. How a layer (probably analogous to bed) of limestone is formed is generally a very different process from how a layer of sandstone is formed.
For someone to assert that they have a model of how “the layers” (I’m assuming all of them?) were formed is like saying “I have a model for how the wars were won.” The statement is simply ridiculous. If he is asserting that he knows how all sedimentary layers are formed, then he is lying.
It is on him to demonstrate why his model is correct and all of our models are incorrect. To do this he must demonstrate how his model falsifies thousands of tested hypotheses, millions of observations, thousands of experiments, and countless data points that are covered in thousands of publications. Simply appealing to authority or logic isn’t going to be sufficient. Our models have some logic to them, thank you very much, and they work. This isn’t a observation-only, deep time discipline within geology.
Thanks for the link to the pretty picture; don’t see signs of erosion between the layers i.e. contacts are flat… As for intersecting layers at various angles, got any more pretty pictures?
re: “the wave.” In the picture, the large distinct line cutting horizontally across the outcrop in the middle (above the heads of the people walking) is an erosional surface. There are a bunch of others, but that is the most distinct and obvious one. The people are walking on depositional surfaces (each of those white lines). Each of the white lines is an avalanche surface along which sand grains are deposited. This is a sedimentary structure called cross-bedding. You can tell that the “big line” is an erosional surface because the tops of the cross-beds are truncated against it. They didn’t form by stopping all at that same point. They were eroded down to that point.
In other words, Veith applies a little “common sense” to a field in which he has limited expertise. In doing so, he makes the same mistake all creationists make: he starts with his conclusion, hammers the evidence into whatever grotesque shape is necessary to fit that conclusion, and makes the a priori assumption that if science contradicts Scripture, then science must be wrong.
Uh-huh.
Look, even a layperson can pick Veith apart.
What’s that you say? A layperson has no business critiquing the work of a scientist in his field of expertise?
Dr. Veith’s field of expertise is Nutritional Physiology. But, being [cue trumpets and dramatic sunrise graphics] A Creationist, he has access to all kinds of insights that tens of thousands of trained geologists are denied.
Uh-huh.
Lookee: 446 hits, mostly creationist sites, of course.
I am, I am. Really. I am.
However I did not claim parallel layers nor a geological-layer cake world.
Didn’t you? I interpreted why is it that the contact between bands of rock is so flat as though you were arguing for a “layer-cake” world. It doesn’t change anything I wrote, but my mistake if that isn’t the position you’re advocating.
I have heard it stated that the geological column represents the Earth’s land surface as you go back in time. For example, if you go back some 408 million years, then the Earth’s land surface is the definable boundary between the Silurian System and the Devonian System (bar unconformities such as the missing rocks of the Silurian and Ordovician systems in the Grand Canyon, where the Muav Limestone (Cambrian) some 505 million years ago would have been exposed). What is the accepted geological stance on this statement?
We don’t really have a stance on it. Saying that the geological column represents the Earth’s land surface as you go back in time is such a generalization as to be untrue. Let’s leave that one alone for the moment. It’s problematic nature should become more clear as we fry other fish.
And then, what lies beneath the ocean floors? Have the ocean floors been excavated?
Mike dealt with this well. I’m gonna let it lie for the moment.
Rey Fox wrote: And then there’s that worldwide layer of black clay from the K/T extinction event. Why isn’t there anything in the Good Book about a global fire?
Since we’re in geologic housekeeping mode, I would be remiss if I didn’t address this one as well. Couple of points:
A. The clay layer is not exposed everywhere and doesn’t uniformly cover the planet.
B. The clay isn’t uniformly black.
C. Clay alone doesn’t generally equal fire.
D. I dunno anyone who is actually arguing that the WORLD burned.
Ray’s larger point, however, is well taken: the K/T event was global and it wasn’t a flood (there do appear to have been local “floods” related to it, though–tsunami breccias anyone?) and it is well recorded in the geologic record. One would think the good book might mention it, especially if it came after the deluge, as many young earthers like to argue (i.e., if the entire package of sedimentary rocks is the result of the Flud or since).
Whew! It’s good to have you back, Josh. Thanks for the geologist’s perspective.
Kent Hovind made a statement that if one placed a frog into a blender and reduced it to squelch, that a frog would not emerge from the goo, no matter how long you waited.
Here we have a scenario where all the ingredients are available in the exact proportions needed for your model to kick in.
According to your model, would the goo first become a tadpole before evolving into a frog?
Let’s see here. A dumb ass goes to an old thread and asks an ignorant question.
FUCKHEAD, you will not get a frog from that goop. But it will make great food for billions of micro otganisms.
And, FUCKHEAD, get your terms straight. A tadpole does not evolve into a frog anymore than a baby evolved in order to become you.
Roger, you are a sad sack of shit. And that is without your body being blended in a blender.
The only way frog goo could turn back into a frog is through an intelligent agent – that would be an act of creationism if it happened. Having the ingredients is never enough, it needs to come together in the right order. The only way you are ever going to get a frog is have another frog give birth to it, you won’t get the evolutionary process starting from scratch and giving rise to the exact life that is now – that’s an absurdity and again indicative of a divine hand in the process.
Thanks Kel, I can see that you have a good understanding of the process of life. I agree with you totally.
Janine’s ranting is indicative of someone that cannot provide support for a failed and floored theory.
Evolution happened, the theory is one of the most solid we have in science. The amount of evidence for evolution is overwhelming, everything from the DNA that is in each of our cells, to the fossil record, to the morphological similarities and variation between species – it all fits one pattern: life emerged gradually over millions of years and we along with every other species of life began from either a single or a few self-replicating primitive cells.
To call that theory failed and floored is to just show your own ignorance of the scientific method and the evidence that supports the theory.
It’s amazing Kel
The model you support says that the building blocks of life were formed from the goo over millions of years
Millions of years then brought about life, yet Janine says that the goo would have been food for “otganisms”?? organisms???
I withdraw my support of your understanding of life…..it is very different to mine
With the obvious absence of labaratory tests to create life under the best circumstances, this theory is floored and failed.
With the obvious absence of labaratory tests to create life under the best circumstances, this theory is floored and failed. – Roger
I don’t know of any “labaratory tests to create life” – or even laboratory ones. Research on abiogenesis is making rapid progress – google the name “Szostak” for example. Of course, if this work does lead to the creation of life in the laboratory, creobots will promptly claim that this supports their claims, because it obviously required intelligence to do it.
Based on what you’ve said, I’m glad you don’t support my view. I’ll go with the scientific consensus on this issue.
Show me where in evolutionary theory it says life was formed from goo… actually show me where in evolutionary theory that it rests on abiogenesis.
Evolution is to do with the change and diversity of life from common ancestry, it says nothing about how life began.
Abiogenesis = origin of life, evolution = diversity of life. Abiogenesis has some way to go, though we are getting closer. But we are talking about a chain of events that happened ~3.8 billion years ago. Evolution is the force that acts on the life that is already there, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. What came before the evolutionary process began? Well that’s another question to answer, and it’s one that does need an answer. But not knowing how the earth got it’s crust does not invalidate plate tectonics, the evidence for plate movement and the geological features associated with that are well supported by evidence.
Evolution, the diversity of life with common ancestry is one of the strongest theories in science, it’s up there with heliocentric orbit of the earth. We know more about the mechanisms behind evolution than we know the mechanisms behind gravity. If you want to complain about how life began, you are not talking about evolution you are talking about abiogenesis. Don’t you understand the basic difference?
Let’s see. Ignorant dumbass drops a steaming pile of knowingness on an old thread. A non scientist (Me) calls the dumbass on not even knowing what the terms means. Dumbass whine that my rudeness proves that one hundred and fifty years of scientific research fall apart in the face of dumbass’ staggering tower of stupidity.
Kel and Matt were much too kind to you.
Words to the dumb. Learn the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. Evolution does not cover how life begins, just how it changes. Also, dumbass, despite my typo, that pile of frog goop will be a colony for micro organisms. What the fuck do you think happens with carcasses.
This obsession with words like “goo” is really just so silly. Why is the idea that life in this way so appalling? As Bakunin said in “God and the State” some 130+ years ago:
Thanks, SC. I’m filing that quote from Bakunin for further study and possible use in discussions with creationists.
You’re welcome, ‘Tis Himself! I’ve been working (very, very slowly and inconsistently) on a critical analysis of that piece, but I love that segment.
The whole thing is available here, and it’s great:
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/bakunin/godandstate/godandstate_ch1.html
(Beware: antisemitism in evidence. :()
Thanks for the info
I must be confused then
I thought C.D’s book Origin of Species should cover this too.
But Kent Hovind makes asses out of you and this dumb theory
C.D.’s book is a) about the mechanism for how species originate from other species, and b) 150 years old. Catch up.
Yes, of course he does. Bye now!
Roger, if you want to argue on here without being insulted or laughed at, some basic education in biology, physics, and Philosophy of Science would be essential.
1)The Origin of the Species is, despite what you may think, not the end all be all of Evolutionary Theory. It wasn’t that even when it was written, and it certainly isn’t now, 150 years later. If Darwin had never existed, the Theory of Evolution would still exist. You’d just be blaming someone else for it.
2)I know most creationist have a hard time separating words for things from the things themselves, but “goo” isn’t a particular substance. The goo that happens when I forget the boiling veggies is different from the goo from a shredded frog, is different from Teh Primodial Goo(TM).
3)Even if we had Teh Primodial Goo(TM), abiogenesis isn’t an imperative. There is nothing that HAS to happen. I’m sure there’s plenty of exoplanets (or maybe even bodies within our solar system, for example Europa) that have some form of primodial goo, but nothing happened (or not enough happened to call it “life”). It’s just the way the dice rolled.
4)Evolution doesn’t care a whit how life came to be. it would still work the same whether life came about by abiogenesis, panspermia, or goddidit
Posted by: Roger | December 28, 2008
I must be confused then
The only thing dumbass was right about.
I repeat my comment #542 above:
Kent “Convicted Felon” Hovind doesn’t even know his own bible, let alone anything about science. Kent “Jailbird” Hovind thinks that “Render unto Caesar” doesn’t apply to him. Nor does Kent “Criminal Fraud” Hovind care about the verse that says “Let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay”. And Kent “Criminal Perjury” Hovind repeatedly broke God’s commandment (and US law) against not bearing false witness.
If you actually care about science, maybe, just maybe, you should ignore the convicted and proven frauds and pay attention to the actual, real scientists; the ones who actually do the real-world research and can explain how all of the pieces fit together.
Indeed you are confused, just look:
Yep, really confused.
The Origin Of Species is not a bible, science changes over time as more evidence comes to light. Certain aspects of his theory have been superseded to fit the new evidence, but the theory as a whole still remains. Remember that Darwin didn’t know about genetics when he wrote the book, yet all findings in modern genetics validate the theory. We’ve learnt just how speciation works, and one thing we’ve seen that Darwin didn’t write about was genetic drift.
We’ve found transitional fossil after transitional fossil, there are genetic markers that are in identical places on chimps and humans, we’ve observed advantageous mutations, we’ve seen new species come to light, we have observed natural selection in action. And all this fits in with relative and absolute dating techniques in geology, it all fits with the geographical distribution of life, and it fits in with the age of the cosmos.
If you are going to come on a science blog and make assertions about science, can you at least have the decency to be informed?
I’m in favour of giving people a chance before belittling their proud ignorance. Roger may simply be misinformed, and in that case there’s no harm in steering him in the right direction. However he turned out to be a creationist troll and once again my vision of humanity is shattered.
Kel, I had no idea you try to maintain such an idealized view of humanity.
There’s a reason I like “Resident Evil”.Or “Idiocracy”.
It is hard these days to believe in humanity,try getting into a lane on a busy freeway,tells you all you need to know about humanity.
We all need some way to sleep at night :P
Mine is Tawny Port.
Or “Once upon a time in the West”. Or both.
All I have left is vintage
I use my misanthropy as an excuse to escape the waking world.
Well,for me its not so much misanthropy,I tend to just dispair about people and their stupidity and ignorance….well,maybe that is misanthropy after all…:-)
Back to Tawny…
I could have told you…
For some reason, “Roger” really likes this particular thread, perhaps because he’s a Hovind partisan. As far as I can tell, the Roger who started commenting in July of 2006 is the same Roger who appears throughout the thread, claiming (so to speak) that Hovind is right, and everyone else is wrong, blah sneer blah, creationist garbage, sneer, sneer blah.
He has evinced no actual interest in science. It’s all about promoting Hovind as True Prophet/Scientist.
…and here I thought we had finally killed this thread.
Okay then, so he’s just another idiot to be treated with contempt. I’ll remember for the future.
“For some reason, “Roger” really likes this particular thread”
Thread? This here is a blog. Roger camps out at this blog, which he gets on his internet.
So much stupid in one sentence.
There is a lack of tests?
What are the best circumstances?
What theory are you talking about?
abiogenesis?
“Darwinism cannot explain gravity, cannot explain thermodynamics. Most of all, it cannot explain how life began.” – Ben Stein
Seemed oddly appropriate
“Darwinism explains so little. It doesn’t explain how life began. It doesn’t explain how gravity works to keep the planets in their orbits. It doesn’t explain how thermodynamics works. It doesn’t explain how physics or the laws of motion work.” – Ben Stein
“And I would say to these people, well, how did life begin? “We don’t know, but it had to be by Darwinian means.” Well, how did gravity begin? “We don’t know, but it had to be by Darwinian means.”” – Ben Stein
“Darwinism explains so little. It doesn’t explain how life began. It doesn’t explain how gravity works to keep the planets in their orbits. It doesn’t explain how thermodynamics works. It doesn’t explain how physics or the laws of motion work.” – Ben Stein
Funny, the same is true for ID and the Bible.
<*looks askance*>
<pedantry style=”terminology”>
For some reason, “Roger” really likes this particular comment thread of this particular weblog posting.
</pedantry>
<sheesh style=”sheesh”>
Sheesh.
</sheesh>
Er…that was actually deep cover satire. I was figuring that the reason that Roger keeps posting on this ancient thread is that he thinks it’s the whole web site, or “blog”. A la John A. Davison, or any other number of technically illiterate creationists.
And now that that joke has fallen to the earth with a gentle thud, I shall retire to my bed.