Inconsistency of literalists vs science

"You have consistently accused me of "conjecture" "hypothesis" "assertion" etc... and THEN accuse me of NO EVIDENCE to back it up.
I have CONSISTENTLY given you evidence, which you CONVENIENTLY have dismissed with unlearned questions designed to fog my evidence."

I have presented clear physical evidence of the great age of the earth and of the common descent of all life. You have made unsubstantiated claims that you say could provide alternate explantations but you have offered absolutely no support for these assertions. I believe that it is because you can offer no such support because there is none. Else you would have offered some.

"I give you Scripture and you say "Why would God...?"
...
I referred you once to Job 38-41. You did not even address it.
...
Job asked WHY and all He got was "WHERE WERE YOU..."
I say the same to you."

I believe you are committing the fallacy of equivocation here, so why should I be too inclined to answer. You are comparing two very different questions of "Why." Job's question is directed at God and comes over an inability to understand what has been allowed to happen to him. My "Why" is directed at you, a human, and comes about because I want you to support you assertions. I presented data to you about evidence that shows common descent, for instance, and asked that you provide an alternate explanation that better fits the data. You make an unsubstantiated assertion and criticize me for asking you to support what you say.

Beyond that, just because I was not there for God's miracles and because I cannot duplicate them, you are saying that I cannot ask questions about how He accomplished the creation of the world. I say not true. I say that God could have created the world in any manner He chose, but that the evidence from His own creation shows that He did so over billions of years and that He gave us the life on this earth through common descent. Instead of mounting a factual challenge to any of this, instead of alternatively presenting any factual support for you position, you simply say that I am wrong for even asking such questions. And you support this with a fallacious argument. What else should I expect. YOu started this by calling me a liar for saying that something could be small and yet still significant. I provided factual basis for my claims and you did not. Never withdrew that accusation nor backed it up either. Hmph.

"I've given you why and what."

You have given me unsupported assertions about alternate explanations that you cannot factually support.

"I've referred you to numerous Scriptural "evidences" and you DISMISS them as if you are some super intellectual who cannot be bothered by something as simple as God REVEALING Himself and His wonders to puny little men."

So God reveals nothing to us through His creation?

"If you want to believe GOD was deceiving us then you can RE-INTERPRET what He has plainly SAID 'til your heart's content."

Did you miss the above conversation? I am the one who says that God would not deceive us. YOu and A_Christian do not seem to have problem with a "God" who would fake evidence and make things appear as they are not.

""Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise."
"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness."
"And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.""

Useless quoting. YOu have no way of tying these back to the discussion. The basic premise is your attempt to slander me as a "fool" becuase I disagree with you. It is a crude but effective technique in some circles. You cannot support your assertions so instead you slander. I am used to it. I could equally turn this around and say the same things about you. I think that your interpreation of a young earth is just as wrong as you think my interpetation of an old earth is. Yet I refrain from calling you a "fool" and a liar. You show no such restraint. Again, typical for these kinds of discussions.

"You do not believe what God says. Not WHAT He says, nor WHY He says it, nor HOW He says it."

Another false assertion. Just because I disagree with you does not mean that I do not believe God. YOu are not God.

"You can no more PROVE that Paul raised anyone from the dead, scientifically, than you can prove Jesus walked on water, SCIENTIFICALLY."

Why would I? That is taken on faith. I also take on faith that God created the universe and all life on earth. I take the evidence from His own creation to see that He chose to do that through billions of years and through common descent.

"You either believe God, or you don't."

I have never said that I disagree with God. I disagree wtih you.

It is also curious that you dismiss with laughter the question that you keep avoiding. How do you justify the places where you dismiss the obvious literal reading of scripture based on scientific evidence that you find convincing? You cannot articualte for us exactly how you draw that arbitrary line and it is revealing.

 

That's because Christian evolutionists "Are in the business" of ignoring inconvenient details and clinging to a "story" that both atheist evolutionists and Bible believing Christians can "see".

This is "the daily bread" of the methods employed by Christian evolutionists.

When we say we believe God's word in Gen 1 we are "literalists" when we say we believe God's Word regarding the incarnation, the resurrection, the new birth, the translation of Enoch and Elijah, the Lake of Fire we are ALSO REALLY literally believing it - but The Christian evolutionists hesitate to call us "literalists" in those cases for the fear that their same practice of condemning Bible belief could not be applied equally in all cases.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob

When I said that those things are not literal? Did you not say it yourself about a week or two ago?

So, even though I think that the creation is non-literal, your own statement here realizes that such things can be in the Bible without meaning that it all is some fairy tale or allegory.

And speaking of "ignoring inconvenient details and clinging to a story," whe nare you ever going to provide us the details to support your repeated claims about the archy conference from the 80's? I have given you many references that show that the author's you cited actually said something different than you claimed and that indeed when I gave you a long list of papers presented at the conference this too showed that the participants thought of archy as a transitional. This is all contrary to the claims that you continually make but will not support. You have made the claim recently ( http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2807.html#000002 and http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2810.html#000004 )but still refuse to support the claim. Because it is false!

 

What I believe you have only demonstrated is that EVOLUTIONISTS expound, express and talk in circles,
however; this is OK (by you) because they are futhering the cause of evolution... When creationists do the very same thing it is unscientific conjecture. You don't want evolution critqued in public schools. You can imagine that bones or their impressions could survive billions of years. Yet NOTHING we observe today would indicate that artifacts of any sort would last hardly 10,000 let alone 300 million. Of course, we do have clothes from the Titanic-----even if we have no bones...

 

If you have valid critique, specifically, then make it.

If you have any answers to the things I have posed (such as retroviral DNA inserts, shared pseudogenes, granite cooling times, light travelling across billions of light years, the fossil record of transitionals matching up with the genetic evidence, etc.) then give them to us.

If you have any specific evidence that shows a young earth, then show it.

If you have examples of me talking in circles about the evidence then tell me where and I will do a better job of explaining.

Otherwise, you are making nothing more than unsupported assertions and conjectures.

 

The fact that you wish to keep ANY creationistic discussion out of the Science Class is specific enough.

Revelations 21:23

And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of GOD did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

 

If there is goog young earth science, then present it. If it is good science, we can teach it along side the rest. Currently, I do not see any such good science.

If you have valid critique of evolution or astronomy or geology or paleontology or genetics, specifically, then make it.

If you have any answers to the things I have posed (such as retroviral DNA inserts, shared pseudogenes, granite cooling times, light travelling across billions of light years, the fossil record of transitionals matching up with the genetic evidence, etc.) then give them to us.

If you have any specific evidence that shows a young earth, then show it.

If you have examples of me talking in circles about the evidence then tell me where and I will do a better job of explaining.

 

Uteotw:

All we have for Evolution are assertions. There is no good science from evolutionits with regard to evolution. There is no room for opposition to their "authoritative" OPINIONS. It seems to me that the granite issue has been discussed and the assurtions of uniformitarian geologists are growing very lame.
There is no room for students to think outside evolution and even be considered investigative science.

The genetic evidence ONLY reveals that similar species have similar DNA codes. Your problem with Butter Beans is LIMITED to the fact that Butter Beans are not animal. You cannot explain why Butter Beans are in anyway like human DNA and yet you insist that apes must be related because THAT fits your THEORIES.

 

Butter beans make a sugar that is just like a sugar used in human blood antigens. Do you not see the difference there? A sugar! Used for completely different purposes. All the while a chimp has the exact same or nearly the same blood chemicals as a human across the board.


"The genetic evidence ONLY reveals that similar species have similar DNA codes."

You are ignoring almost all that I have posted for you.

You think that a horse and a rhino are "similar species?" You're kidding me right? You have some reference somewhere that shows a young earther pointing out that horses and rhinos are obviously so alike that their genetics should match up? I have a series of fossils that traces the horse, hyrax and rhino back to the same common ancestor. You have no explanation or problems with this series. I have genetic evidence that also connects this seemingly different animals. YOu have...nothing to dispute this with.

I can show a series of transitional fossils that show whales coming out of the same group as deer, pigs, cows, and hippos. You show no problem with this series. I can show genetic evidnece that confirms the connection. You can show no fault with this. You mean to tell me that a whale and deer are so similar that you would predict that they should be shown to be related genetically? I don't buy it. Even if you want to make that unsupportable assertion, the reference I provided you uses retroviral insertions of DNA to trace the relationship so that throws the function part of your equation out the window.

Which is the same thing I have done with the humans and the primates. Again, there is that pproblem of the transitional series that you have no answer for. (I think you answer was that the human fossil ancestors are the result of interbreeding between humans and fallen angels. Any data to support this?) I then have given references that use shared retroviral insertions and mutations to do the genetics. Again, this defeats you simialr form, similar genetics arguement.

As far as granite cooling goes, the physics of cooling are pretty straight forward and you offer nothing about how the physics would have been different in the past. Ad to this the chemistry. With a given mixture, specific mineral from at specific temperatures and at specific rates. You have not shown how chemistry woul have been different in the past.

I am asking once again for ANY sort of evidence for your position.

 

Evolutionism is "toy science" it is a sifting approach to real science that rejects the scientific method and opts instead for "fables" in the form of "science fiction".

Partial facts are perfectly suited to the methods employed by junk-science story telling. Hence the total failure of evolutionists when it comes to abiogenesis, entropy, the horse series and supposed intermediates like Archaeopteryx.

Christian evolutionists claim that "literalists" believe that God created the world as HE said in Genesis 1-2:3 and Exodus 20:8-11, but then those SAME literalists LITERALLY believe that Jesus is the Son of God, resurrected from the dead, born sinless, born of a virgin, and that Moses and Elijah REALLY stood on the mountain with Christ in Matt 17. (those stinking literalists!!)

But then Christian evolutionists turn around and "want SOME of that" to be "literally true" themselves.

How "instructive"!

And how do they know WHEN to REALLY believe the Bible and when not? Why "evolutionism" dictates that for them!! Curiously - evolutionism is the heart and soul of atheist beliefs for origins. It is the last, great hope for evolutionists.

Not much of a surprise there said the "literalists".

In Christ,

Bob

 

I never said the resurrection, the incarnation the 2nd coming, raising lazarus from the dead, the Gen 1-2:3 creation week "were not literal".

Rather I said that God clearly used symbols in scripture. But "you" take your Bible exegesis from atheist evolutionists - and that is something I never do. You let the junk-science blunders of evolutionism determine your exegesis - determine WHEN you will really believe the Bible and when you will not.

I never do that.

I argue that you can not equivocate between real allegory and "allegory that evolutionism needs".

I argue that you can not determine that something IS allegory just because "the junk-science myths of evolutionism NEED it to be allegory".

You on the other hand - argue that this is the very thing we should do.

That is a huge difference in the approach to exegesis.

My argument above is that your use of the term "literalist" apparently applies to the resurrection, the incarnation, the second coming, the fact of Moses and Elijah really standing with Christ in Matt 17 etc.

Things which you might "still" believe in - so then are you the "dreaded literalist" you keep denouncing -- or do you do it only when you think you can get by with it - and not harm the atheist's views of evolutionism so common today?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Did not say that you did even though as my fingers did the walking they did not type out the words exactly as my mind had framed them.

But you did point out quite emphatically that just because parts are poetic or symbolic does not mean that the whole is. And that goes against a major tactic of the YEers, their insistence that an old earth puts us on some sort of slipperry slope.

 

You have been shown repeatedly the blunders of evolutionism when it comes to abiogenesis, entropy, the horse serious, and the so-called intermediate BETWEEN true bird and true reptile (Achaeopteryx) that evolutionism is "anti-science" and "anti-fact" - yet Christian evolutionists "cling to myth anyway".[/QUOTE]What blunders of abiogenesis? You claims here have revolved around the problem of how to make other than racemized mixtures of organic compounds. I have given you several references that show that common materials can act as catalysts that preferentially make one isomer. I have even shown you how to make optically pure compoundsusing these common catalysts. YOu have yet to mount an offensive against these references, or even to really admit that you have heard of them, yet you continually make the same claims without refuting the science that shows you to be wrong.

Your entropy expert disagrees with you on your conclusion. So you just excise that part of his quote and pretend like it does not exist. I guess you think you know more about entropy than your expert.

Your problem with the horse series has been shown to be that you believe the YE leaders when they lie to you about what scientists have said about the horse series, even when I fill in the full quote for you.

The best example of this can be found here.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2589/17.html#000251

And if anyone is interested they can read all of your horse quotes here followed over the next two pages by my responses to them all. You are shown to be quoting continually way out of context.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2589/11.html#000163

Do you have any real objections to the horse series? There is a whole thread on it here if you want to contradict anything about it.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/66/2.html?

Most interesting would be for you to explain why if there is such a problem with the horse series does genetic testing show that the fossil link between horses and rhinos is true.

"Use of mitochondrial DNA sequences to test the Ceratomorpha (Perissodactyla:Mammalia) hypothesis", C. Pitra and J. Veits, Journal of Zoological Systematics & Evolutionary Research, Volume 38 Issue 2 Page 65 - June 2000

Finally, I have been waiting and asking for you to justify your claims about archy for a LLLLOOOONNNNGGGG time now. You say that a 1980's conference said that archy was just a unique bird. But I have shown where the authors you cited presented information at the conference that shows that they think it was an intermediate. In fact, I gave you a long list of papers presented at the conference all of which showed that the scientists in question thought it was an intermediate. You have never even acknowledged this information nor have you ever given any justification for your claims.

So, as has been shown repeatedly, your four best claims are so demonstrability false that you no longer even try to justify them. You continue to make the same false assertions without even pretending to have any support for them.

And you accuse evolution of being a "junk science."

 

You simply dodge the point raised. They confessed that Archaeopteryx is a TRUE BIRD rather than transition BETWEEN true Bird and true reptile.

Your response is that TRUE C is acceptable to you as a transition BETWEEN true C and TRUE A.

In that case EVERY species is a transition since they are ALL TRUE-X and you accept the dubious idea that TRUE-X is a valid transition BETWEEN true-W and TRUE-X.

Once we show that they admit that Archaeopteryx is TRUE BIRD ,... TRUE-C you have no way to show it as INTERMEDIATE BETWEEN TRUE-A and TRUE-C. (Obviously).

And once we show that TRUE-C (TRUE-BIRD) existed long BEFORE Archaeopteryx (long before the FIRST archaeopteryx you can produce) you are truly stuck.

IF atheist evolutionists had to "live with" your bogus argument (that the geologic column is meaningless and the FIRST transistions are to be found long AFTER TRUE_C appears - )they would have to trash the entire mythical column.

In Christ,

Bob

 

"They confessed that Archaeopteryx is a TRUE BIRD rather than transition BETWEEN true Bird and true reptile."

I think you are going to have to offer some proof of this instead of another assertion. I have given you references that show that not only the two authors your specifically cited, but every other author I can come up with a paper for at the conference was presenting information that shows that they thought it was a transitional.

And if archy is a true bird, why did it not have a beak?

That is just one of scores of differences between archy and modern birds. Dozens of these differences ARE shared with the theropod dinosaurs, however. SOrry about that inconvenient fact.

As far as earlier species being found that are closer to birds... As has been pointed out to you, archy is not thought to be on the direct line to birds. It is a side branch that preserves many of the transisitional traits of the actual, earlier ancestor to both archy and the modern birds.

 

Let's refresh your memory a bit here.

“Borate Minerals Stabilize Ribose,” Ricardo, A., Carrigan, M. A., Olcott, A. N., Benner, S. A.. 2004 Science January 9; 303: 196

If you readthis you will find that the common substance borate will catalyze the formation of all right handed ribose leading eventually to a chain of RNA, all correctly right handed.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/36/311/13.html#000187

 

A little more memory refreshing.

First, that list of papers I found for you.

Keep in mind that I am not giving the full citation for these, it gets hard to work through for the reader. They may all be found in The Beginnings of Birds. Proceedings of the International Archaeopteryx Conference Eichstätt, 1984. I am also only listing the first author.

Norberg, "Evolution of flight in birds: Aerodynamic, mechanical and ecological aspects."

Raath, "The theropod Syntarsus and its bearing on the origin of birds."

Schaller, "Wing evolution."

Peters, "Functional and Constructive Limitations in the Early Evolution of Birds."

Gauthier, "Phylogenetic, functional, and aerodynamic analyses of the origin of birds and their flight."

Bock, "The arboreal theory for the origin of birds."

Rayner, "Mechanical and ecological constraints on flight evolution."

Peters, "Constructional and Functional Preconditions for the Transition to Powered Flight."

Taquet, "Two new Jurassic specimens of coelurosaurs (Dinosauria)"

Rietschel, "Feathers and wings of Archaeopteryx , and the question of her flight ability."

Molnar, "Alternatives to Archaeopteryx; a Survey of Proposed Early or Ancestral Birds."

Now, do these really sound like the kinds of papers that would be presented at a conference where they decided that what we have is merely a unique bird and not any sort of transitional?

 

A little more memory refreshing.

We will now see what the very authors you originally cited have to say.

You cited Dodson and Howgate. I asked you for evidence that these guys thought that archy was only a bird and not a transitional to support your assertion. I say that to not do so shows that you know what they were really saying and chose to assert that they were saying something else regardless. You did not support your assertion and instead choose to merely repeat yourself. So I'll do your work for you. But you will not like the results.

Why do we not first make a direct quote from Howgate?

Howgate, M. E. 1984. "The teeth of Archaeopteryx and a reinterpretation of the Eichstätt specimen". Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 82: 159-175.

"However, these authors present a decidedly ambiguous reconstruction of the Archaeopteryx ankle; it shows the ascending process associated equally with the astragalus and calcaneum. The Archaeopteryx ankle depicted by Martin et al. (1990, fig. 1G) seems, in fact, to be structurally intermediate between the theropod ankle and the neornithiform bird ankle."

Well, it seems that he may have thought it was a transitional after all.

Then I came across your very reference.

Dodson, P., 1985, International Archaeopteryx Conference: Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, vol. 5, p. 177-9.

In here, Dodson lists over 20 specific shared characteristics between Archeopteryx and specifically coelurosaur theropods. I think he was making a case for archy being a transitional, don't you?

Let me give you another reference from Dodson.

Barsbold, R.; Maryanska, T. & Osmolska, H. 1990. Oviraptorosauria. In: Weishampel, D. B.; Dodson, P. & Osmolska, H. (eds.), The Dinosauria. 249-258. University of California Press, Berkeley.

In this reference, the gentleman you cite discusses how some dinosaurs, such as Oviraptor and Ingenia, have furculas like birds as further evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

You might want to see this reference of his.

CHINSAMY A., CHIAPPE L. & DODSON P. (1994): "Growth rings in mesozoic avian bones: physiological implications for basal birds". J.Vert.Paleont. 14(3, Suppl.): 21A

You will notice the word "basal" in the title. This means that he is studying the first birds and recognizes and accepts that they evolved.

One more reference for you.

Smith, J.B., You H., and P. Dodson. 1998. "The age of the Sihetun quarry in Liaoning Province, China and its implications for early bird evolution". Geological Society of America Abstracts with Program, 30(7):38A.

See the phrase "bird evolution" in the title? You still assert that he thinks archy is just a bird and not a transitional? This paper ties the specimens found in Liaoning with other bird transitionals.

Now do you see why I doubted you? Now do you see that the people you quote as saying archy was just a bird really say that it was actually a transitional?

 

They may accept that birds evolved; however, they cannot show how, when, or why. In fact they have no examples. They only have real birds. This isn't science. What they say actually is confusing (as creationists are pointing out). Satan is the author of confusion. No doubt he has had a hand in influencing many books on evolution (if not ALL that promote it).

 

If archy is a "real bird" then tell us why it has dozens of features which are present in NTHER bird but that are present in the theropod dinosaurs? Tell us what those series of feathered animals that are more and more reptile like than archy are then if all we have are "real birds?" I'll just ask for one. Microraptor. A small dinosaur with fully formed flight feathers on all four limbs but an anatomy that shows that it was not capable of full powered flight. Bird or reptile? If archy is a bird then why does it not have a beak?

And while I am asking questions, do you think Bob is trying to mislead us on what the presenters at the conference he referenced had to say about archy?