Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [OriginsTalk] Re: Everything atheists say is tainted. Prejudice-pandering?

Expand Messages
  • Susan Cogan
    ... if the designer exists, that is correct. All evolution is micro evolution. It proceeds by small incremental steps accumulating changes over millions of
    Message 1 of 28 , Aug 1 6:06 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      At 05:58 PM 7/31/2006, you wrote:
      >Phil S:
      >The evidence for macroevolution is not predicated on evidence for
      >the mechanisms for evolution. If design were the mechanism, then the
      >Designer must have worked in a progressive, evolutionary manner
      >building upon previous designs. It's still evolution whether or not
      >there may have been a Designer involved in the process. Plus,
      >these "designs" seem to parallel adaptations to a changing
      >environment. What a coincidence.
      >
      >Leavert: Sounds like a good argument/rebuttal for microevolution.
      >Yes, the designer has equipped each species with the ability to
      >adapt or microevolve.


      if the designer exists, that is correct. All
      evolution is "micro" evolution. It proceeds by
      small incremental steps accumulating changes over
      millions of years.

      >This does not make the case for
      >macroevolution. To go from microevolution to macroevolution with
      >results in NEW species is huge leap of faith.


      new species have been observed to emerge from time to time.

      >And yes I'm aware of
      >the disputed examples of macroevolution which can be in Talk Origin-
      >(the evolutionist's bible)


      If it were a Bible nobody would ever be able to update it.

      This means you are familiar with the observed
      instances of speciation and your remark about a
      leap of faith is empty rhetoric.

      >Phil S:
      >Since evolutionary biologists admit that abiogenesis is just a
      >hypothesis, creationists & IDers slam them for that. And if they did
      >claim abio to be a substantiated theory, they would be slammed for
      >lack of evidence. So why do you have to bring up abio? ... because
      >it is an easy non-issue to argue against?
      >
      >
      >Leavert: Is it a non-issue for your atheists friends who cling to
      >evolution? Furthermore, a lot of the same arguments used to prove
      >abiogenesis can also be used for evolution at the molecular level.


      millions of Christians believe evolution to be
      true. Some of the scientists investigating
      abiogenesis are Christian. You are arguing
      against atheism, not evolution. They are
      different subjects.

      >Phil S:
      >
      >Leavert's quotes were both inaccurate & out of date, as Susan has
      >already stated.
      >
      >Leavert:
      >
      >I believe one of the quotes was from 1995 or 1997 so then all the
      >information regarding human evolution would begin after those dates?
      >Furthermore, Susan did not prove that any nor all of the quotes were
      >inaccurate.



      I generally don't bother to expose out of context
      quotes unless it's easy. I exposed the coffin
      quote as a lie. It's interesting that you are so
      unconcerned about that you aren't going to bother
      rebutting it.

      >Leavert Yeah right. All what fossil evidence and molecular data?
      >>Fossils and molecular data do much more to hurt the theory of
      >>macroevoultion than it does to support it!
      >
      >Susan:
      >you are going to have to explain how--and be specific.
      >
      >Leavert:
      >
      >Just as an introduction:
      >
      >molecular evolution
      >
      >. Because of the barrier of the multi-billion DNA code, not only was
      >it impossible for life to form by accident,—it could never
      >thereafter evolve into new and different species either!


      this is an empty assertion. Any evidence to back it up?

      >Each
      >successive speciation change would require a totally new and
      >different—but highly exacting code to be in place on its very first
      >day of its existence as a unique new species.


      no it wouldn't. Species don't pop into existence by magic.

      >Because of the limits imposed by this genome or gene pool,—it is
      >impossible for one species to change into another species.


      an empty assertion. What limits? What is your evidence for limits.

      >And
      >without species change, there can be no evolution!


      that is correct.

      <out of context quote snipped>


      I don't see an explanation here. I just see
      assertions. "Joe Blow said so" isn't evidence. I
      want to know WHY molecular data contradicts
      evolution. Specifically how does it do that.

      <out of context quote snipped>


      >Susan:
      >
      >How does this array contradict evolution?
      >Creation "scientists" themselves debate over
      >which ones are "apes" and which ones are human.
      >That's because it's tough to tell. Most of the
      >skulls have both ape and human characteristics.
      >They are transitional fossils.
      >
      >Leavert:
      >
      >Our cranial (brain) capacity is totally different from the great
      >apes.
      >
      >Orangutans . . . . . . 275-500 cc.
      >Chimpanzees . . . . . 275-500 cc.
      >Gorillas . . . . . . . . . 340 -752 cc.
      >Man . . . . . . . . . . . .1100 -1700 cc.


      Modern orangutans, modern chimpanzees, modern gorillas, modern man.

      the fossils aren't modern. Of that array I showed
      you which ones are apes and which ones are human?
      http://members.cox.net/sbcogan/hominid.html

      >How do scientists explain the unusually large human brain?

      evolution. Hominid brains (as you can see from
      the link above) were getting larger and larger
      over time.


      out-of-context quote deleted

      >(2004): 1027-40.
      >
      >Susan:
      >
      >there are tons of dishonest out of context
      >creationist quotes as I proved with the "coffin"
      >quote above.
      >
      >Leavert:
      >
      >Attempted to proved. But while we're on the topic of dishonesty,
      >let's compare out of text quotes with numerous forgeries by
      >evolutionists and let's ask ourselves why? What's really behind
      >their intentions? Is there any other field of science inundated with
      >such dishonesty as evolution?


      Please present some out of context evolutionist
      quotes. I'd love to see them. There is a website
      somewhere that takes creationists remarks out of
      context, making them sound like evolutionists,
      but it's clearly labeled as a joke site. If I
      quote someone I generally provide a citation back
      to the original work. That way you can check the
      context for yourself--and I don't quote obscure
      35-year-old journals unless I've read the entire
      article myself.

      >In 1912, a well-known doctor and amateur paleoanthropologist named
      >Charles Dawson etc.


      anything more recent than 94 years ago?

      >Stephen Jay Gould, "Smith Woodward's Folly", New Scientist, April
      >5, 1979, p. 44

      I read this essay and have written an essay about
      Piltdown myself. It is a triumph of the
      scientific method. If Evolutionists were as
      dogmatic as most creationists believe you would
      never have heard about Piltdown man. Creationists
      did not expose the fraud which was perpetrated
      upon evolutionists. They exposed it themselves.
      And publicized it. Many books by evolutionists
      have been written about it speculating about who
      could have perpetrated the fraud. Dawson is a
      likely suspect, but nobody really knows.

      >In the wake of all this, "Piltdown man" was hurriedly removed from
      >the British Museum where it had been displayed for more than 40
      >years.

      actually a cast of it was displayed. If they had
      allowed the original bones out in public view, it
      probably would have been exposed a lot sooner. I
      think the British Museum still displays it. It's
      useless as a fossil, but it's an interesting
      chapter in science history.

      >Nebrask man

      nobody, not even the person who found "Nebraska
      man" really thought it was a hominid. It was a
      speculation picked up by the news papers. Nearly
      80 years ago.

      Anything more recent?

      And "you lie too" isn't as compelling an argument as you might think.

      Susan
      --
      ----
      Author of Amazon Shorts:
      "Their Bones Still Bleach"
      http://tinyurl.com/lfgj7
      "Merlin's Gate: The Weapon"
      http://tinyurl.com/fbmec

      $.49 you won't regret spending. Trust me.

      Much More Here: http://www.coganbooks.net





















      -------
    • leavert65
      Susan: This means you are familiar with the observed instances of speciation Leavert: No, this means that I am familiar with the supposed observed instances of
      Message 2 of 28 , Aug 1 3:20 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Susan:


        This means you are familiar with the observed
        instances of speciation

        Leavert:

        No, this means that I am familiar with the supposed observed
        instances of speciation which have been disputed over and over.


        and your remark about a
        leap of faith is empty rhetoric.

        Not exactly:


        „Ï ". 1 A prominent British biologist, a Fellow of the Royal
        Society, in the Introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's Origin
        of Species, said that "belief in the theory of evolution"
        was "exactly parallel to belief in special creation", with evolution
        merely "a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of
        nature". 2 2. L. Harrisoin Matthews, "Introduction" to Origin of
        Species (London, J.M. Dent and Sons 1971, p. X.

        „Ï "The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and
        biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded
        on an improved theory¡Xis it then a science or faith?"¡X*L.H.
        Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of the Species, by *Charles Darwin
        (1971 edition), pp. x, xi (1971 edition).

        „Ï "The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one
        becomes that evolution is based on faith alone . . exactly the same
        sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the
        great mysteries of religion."¡X*Louis Trenchard More, quoted in
        Science and the Two-tailed Dinosaur, p. 33.

        „Ï "What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever
        but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen¡Xbelief in the
        fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological
        experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by
        works."¡X*Arthur N. Field.

        „Ï "The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was
        to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the
        theory replaces God with and even more incredible deity¡Xomnipotent
        chance."¡X*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.

        „Ï "[Karl] Popper warns of a danger: `A theory, even a
        scientific theory, may become an intellectual fashion, a substitute
        for religion, an entrenched dogma.' This has certainly been true of
        evolutionary theory."¡X*Colin Patterson, Evolution (1977), p. 150.

        „Ï


        Susan:

        millions of Christians believe evolution to be
        true. Some of the scientists investigating
        abiogenesis are Christian. You are arguing
        against atheism, not evolution. They are
        different subjects.

        Leavert:

        Yes, millions of Christians blindly accept evolution but not due any
        direct observation or research but rather due to the foolish blind
        faith that they place in evolutionists.

        "Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document
        the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses
        of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of
        evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by
        his successors."¡X*S. Jaki, Cosmos and Creator (1982).

        Susan:
        I exposed the coffin
        quote as a lie. It's interesting that you are so
        unconcerned about that you aren't going to bother
        rebutting it.

        Leavert: Because I have so many more documented statements from
        scientists that say the exact same thing so why bother? Maybe if I
        was dealing with that issue alone I would have and still might.

        Susan:

        I generally don't bother to expose out of context
        quotes unless it's easy.

        Leavert:

        Then how do you KNOW they are out of context? Why don¡¦t you stop
        tying to insult the intelligence of readers by constantly
        regurgitating the phrase ¡§out of context¡¨ Do you really think that
        any objective minded person falls for tactic every time you write it
        in an effort to save time?

        Molecular Evolution

        Because of the barrier of the multi-billion DNA code, not only was
        >it impossible for life to form by accident,¡Xit could never
        >thereafter evolve into new and different species either!

        this is an empty assertion. Any evidence to back it up?


        "Cells and organisms are also informed [intelligently designed and
        operated] life-support systems. The basic component of any informed
        system is its plan. Here, argues the creationist, an impenetrable
        circle excludes the evolutionist. Any attempt to form a model or
        theory of the evolution of the genetic code is futile because that
        code is without function unless, and until, it is translated, i.e.,
        unless it leads to the synthesis of proteins. But the machinery by
        which the cell translates the code consists of about seventy
        components which are themselves the product of the code."¡XMichael
        Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 147 [emphasis his].
        Not only did the DNA have to originate itself by random accident,
        but the translation machinery already had to be produced by accident¡X
        and also immediately! Without it, the information in the DNA could
        not be applied to the tissues. Instant death would be the result.
        "The code is meaningless unless translated. The modern cell¡¦s
        translation machinery consists of at least fifty macromolecular
        components which are themselves encoded in DNA [!]; the code cannot
        be translated otherwise than by products of translation. It is the
        modern expression of omne vivum ex ovo [¡¥every living thing comes
        from an egg¡¦]. When and how did this circle become closed? It is
        exceedingly difficult to imagine."¡X*J, Monod, Chance and Necessity
        (1971), p. 143.
        "Did the code and the means of translating it appear simultaneously
        in evolution? It seems almost incredible that any such coincidences
        could have occurred, given the extraordinary complexities of both
        sides and the requirement that they be coordinated accurately for
        survival. By a pre-Darwinian (or a skeptic of evolution after
        Darwin) this puzzle surely would have been interpreted as the most
        powerful sort of evidence for special creation."¡X*C.
        Haskins, "Advances and Challenges in Science" in American Scientist
        59 (1971), pp. 298.
        The code in both plants and animals is DNA, but DNA is chemically
        different than the amino acids, which it gives orders to make. This
        code also decides which of the 20 proteins the amino acids will then
        form themselves into.
        The biological compiler that accomplishes these code tasks is t-DNA.
        It changes DNA code language into a different language that the
        cells can understand¡Xso they can set about producing the right amino
        acids and proteins. Without these many t-DNA molecules, the entire
        code and what it should produce would break down
        How could all these codes, translation packages, and¡Xbiological
        compilers originate by the sheer randomness of evolution? The only
        way a new particle can be inserted into the code or translators is
        through mutations. But when they occur, they damage the packages and
        equipment, so that weakness and death result. This is because
        everything is so interlocked that one change always produces
        negative consequences.
        (Do not confuse these damaging mutations with the totally different
        process of normal gene reshuffling. Non-mutant recombinations and
        reshufflings are built into the genes within the reproductive cells¡X
        but that is not mutation. Because of these normal reshufflings, your
        children do not look exactly like you. But they are still human
        beings, not turtles or moss. They have not stepped out of their
        species into another.

        This translation package has also been termed an "adapter function."
        Without a translator, the highly complex coding contained within the
        DNA molecule would be useless to the organism.
        "The information content of amino acid sequences cannot increase
        until a genetic code with an adapter function has appeared. Nothing
        which even vaguely resembles a code exists in the physio-chemical
        world. One must conclude that no valid scientific explanation of the
        origin of life exists at present."¡X*H. Yockey, "Self Organization
        Origin of Life Scenarios and Information Theory," in Journal of
        Theoretical Biology 91 (1981), p. 13.

        „Ï "The evidence for Darwinism is not only grossly inadequate,
        it's systematically distorted. I'm convinced that sometime in the
        not-to-distant future, people will look back in amazement and
        say, 'How could anyone have believed this?' Darwinism is merely
        materialistic philosophy masquerading as science." Jonathan Well,
        Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology, specializing in vertebrate
        embryology, 1994, from UC Berkeley.


        Susan:


        Each
        >successive speciation change would require a totally new and
        >different¡Xbut highly exacting code to be in place on its very first
        >day of its existence as a unique new species.

        Susan:

        no it wouldn't. Species don't pop into existence by magic.


        Leavert: Right they were created.


        Susan:

        evolution. Hominid brains (as you can see from
        the link above) were getting larger and larger
        over time.

        Leavert:

        "Neanderthal man may have looked like he did, not because he was
        closely related to the great apes, but because he had rickets, an
        article in the British publication Nature suggests. The diet of
        Neanderthal man was definitely lacking in Vitamin D." ¡X*Neanderthals
        had Rickets," in Science Digest, February 1971, p. 35.
        Neanderthal features include a somewhat larger brow ridge (the supra
        orbital torus), but it is known that arthritis can make this more
        prominent. Virchow noted that the thighbone (femur) was curved, a
        condition common to rickets. Lack
        of Vitamin D causes osteomalacia and rickets, producing a subtle
        facial change by increasing the size of the eye cavity (orbit)
        especially vertically. *D.J.M. Wright in 1973 showed that congenital
        syphilis could also have caused the kind of bone deformities found
        in Neanderthal specimens. The same year, *H. Israel explained that
        certain living individuals today begin to develop Neanderthaloid
        features¡Xthe heavy eyebrow ridges, elongated cranial vault, and so
        on¡Xwith extreme age.
        ****Here are two facts you will not find in the textbooks: (1) In
        1908 a typical Neanderthal skeleton was found in Poland. It had been
        buried in a suit of chain armor that was not yet fully rusted.
        ("Neanderthal in Armour," in *Nature, April 23, 1908, p. 587.) (2) A
        Neanderthal skeleton was found in the Philippine Islands in 1910.
        Due to the extreme moisture of that land, it would be impossible for
        the skeleton to be as much as a century old ("Living Neanderthal
        Man," in 'Nature, December 8, 1910, p. 176).


        A third interesting fact is that the Neanderthals had larger
        craniums than we do! They had larger brains! This indicates
        digression of our race from a former longer-lived, more intelligent
        race, rather than evolutionary progression. Brain capacity is an
        important indicator of whether a cranium (the part of the skull
        which encloses the brain) belongs to an ape or a person.
        "The cranial capacity of the Neanderthal race of Homo sapiens was,
        on the average, equal to or even greater than that in modern man." ¡X
        *Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Changing Man," in Science, January 27,
        1967, p. 410.
        "Normal human brain size is 1450-1500 ccs; Neanderthal's is 1600
        ccs. If his brow is low, his brain is larger than modern man's." ¡X
        Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 87.
        "The brain case [of Neanderthal's] on the average was more than 13
        percent larger than that of the average of modern man." ¡XErich A.
        von Fange, "Time Upside Down, " in Creation Research Society
        Quarterly, June 1974, p. 23


        Susan:



        Please present some out of context evolutionist
        quotes. I'd love to see them. There is a website
        somewhere that takes creationists remarks out of
        context, making them sound like evolutionists,
        but it's clearly labeled as a joke site. If I
        quote someone I generally provide a citation back
        to the original work. That way you can check



        Leavert: Evolutionists are too busy coming up with human forgeries
        and other falsehoods to be bothered with out of text quotes. Is that
        suppose to make them more noble? Nonetheless, here you go.


        Behe Responds to Postings in Talk Origins Newsgroup


        I think you misunderstood me. I did not mean (and I did not say)
        that there is a separate mechanism for generating pseudogenes. I
        simply meant that the normal process of DNA replication or
        recombination, which sometimes generates pseudogenes, is very
        complex, and has not been explained in a Darwinian fashion either by
        Kenneth Miller or anyone else. (For example, Kornberg & Baker's 1992
        edition of "DNA Replication" has virtually nothing on how any of the
        steps of replication could evolve in a Darwinian fashion.) The point
        in my book was that the pseudogene argument is essentially "God
        wouldn't have done it that way, so Darwinian evolution must be
        true." Pseudogenes may be reasonable evidence for common descent,
        but the assertion that they show that life was produced by Darwinian
        mutation/natural selection has to be judged separately.



        Nebrask man

        Susan:

        nobody, not even the person who found "Nebraska
        man" really thought it was a hominid. It was a
        speculation picked up by the news papers. Nearly
        80 years ago.

        Leavert:

        ..And the deception lives on!

        Osborn received the tooth on March 14, 1922. He wrote to Cook: "I
        sat
        down with the tooth and I said to myself: 'It looks one hundred per
        cent
        anthropoid'." (Osborn, 1922b, p. 2) One month later, Osborn
        announced
        Hesperopithecus haroldcookii as the first anthropoid ape from America

        Even after seeing one of the casts, British paleontologist Arthur
        Smith Woodward, who had given the world Piltdown Man, was highly
        skeptical,
        feeling that "The occurrence of a man-like ape among fossils in
        North
        America seems so unlikely that good evidence is needed to make it
        credible." (Woodward, 1922)
        Despite Woodward's doubts, British anatomist Grafton Elliot
        Smith
        acknowledged Hesperopithecus as the third known genus of extinct
        hominids, along with Eoanthropus and Pithecanthropus (Smith, 1922),
        and
        also became an accomplice to an imaginative artistic reconstruction
        of
        Hesperopithecus that appeared in the Illustrated London News.
        (Forestier,
        1922)


        Piltdown Man:

        Susan:

        I read this essay and have written an essay about
        Piltdown myself. It is a triumph of the
        scientific method. If Evolutionists were as
        dogmatic as most creationists believe you would
        never have heard about Piltdown man. Creationists
        did not expose the fraud which was perpetrated
        upon evolutionists. They exposed it themselves.
        And publicized it. Many books by evolutionists
        have been written about it speculating about who
        could have perpetrated the fraud. Dawson is a
        likely suspect, but nobody really knows.


        Leavert:

        You have got to be kidding! Is this how Talk Origins sweeps the
        matter under the rug? I don¡¦t think that most people would view
        being lied to for 40 years by so- called respectable evolutionists a
        triumph. Or is this merely another attempt to insult the reader¡¦s
        intelligence?

        For more than 40 years, many scientific articles were written
        on "Piltdown man", many interpretations and drawings were made, and
        the fossil was presented as important evidence for human evolution.
        No fewer than 500 doctoral theses were written on the subject


        "The evidences of artificial abrasion immediately sprang to the eye.
        Indeed so obvious did they seem it may well be asked-how was it that
        they had escaped notice before?"
        Stephen Jay Gould, "Smith Woodward's Folly", New Scientist, April
        5, 1979, p. 44

        Good question! So how is it that so-called noble evolutionists
        allowed the deception to go one for 40 years!!!
      • Laurie Appleton
        Hi Susan, ... From: Susan Cogan To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 11:06 PM Subject: Re: [OriginsTalk] Re: Everything atheists say
        Message 3 of 28 , Aug 1 8:17 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Susan,

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Susan Cogan
          To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 11:06 PM
          Subject: Re: [OriginsTalk] Re: Everything atheists say is tainted. Prejudice-pandering?


          >
          >Leavert: Sounds like a good argument/rebuttal for microevolution.
          >Yes, the designer has equipped each species with the ability to
          >adapt or microevolve.

          SC: if the designer exists, that is correct. All
          evolution is "micro" evolution. It proceeds by
          small incremental steps accumulating changes over
          millions of years.
          >

          LA> On the contrary! This came to a head in an "Historic Conference of about 160 of the world's leading evolutionists in Chicage in 1980. At this conference;
          ---------------------
          "Their task was to consider the mechamisms that
          underlie the origin of species and the evolutionary
          relationships between species. . . . ."

          "The changes WITHIN a population have been termed
          MICROEVOLUTION, and they can indeed be accepted as a
          consequence of shifting gene frequencies. Changes ABOVE the
          species level -- involving the ORIGIN of NEW species and the
          establishment of HIGHER taxonomic patterns -- are known as
          MACROEVOLUTION."

          "The central question of the Chicago conference was
          whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be
          extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At
          the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the
          people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear,
          No."

          ("Evolutionary Theory Under Fire", An Historic conference in
          Chicago challenges the four-decade long dominance of the Modern
          Synthesis, Roger Lewin, SCIENCE Vol. 210, 21 November, 1980,
          p.883)(my emphasis)
          =================
          Laurie.

          "From my earliest training as a scientist, I was strongly brainwashed
          to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed."
          (Chandra Wickramasinghe, noted ex atheistic scientist, 1981)

          Recent Activity
          a.. 1New Members
          Visit Your Group
          Yahoo! News
          Space News

          Get the latest

          space related news

          Need traffic?
          Drive customers

          With search ads

          on Yahoo!

          Y! GeoCities
          Be Vocal

          Publish your opi-

          nions with a blog.
          .


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Todd S. Greene
          Looks like Alan is a guy who loves to use deceit-within-deceit in a self-referential cycle. Confusion is a good way to cover your tracks, and a time-honored
          Message 4 of 28 , Aug 1 10:20 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Looks like Alan is a guy who loves to use deceit-within-deceit in a
            self-referential cycle. Confusion is a good way to cover your
            tracks, and a time-honored tradition of creationists.

            Any creationist who pretends either by explicit or implicit
            statement that Christians who accept evolution don't exist is a
            complete liar. Alan jumps in to try to defend this popular
            creationist deceit by calling this fact ("Any creationist who
            pretends either by explicit or implicit statement that Christians
            who accept evolution don't exist is a complete liar.") a "bullcrap
            assertion." Yet it is Alan himself who has made the bullcrap
            assertion. He has made an assertion, which is completely bullcrap,
            and he never even attempts to explain his assertion or back it up.
            In other words, looks like I happened to find exactly one of those
            creationists I was referring to, and he took such offense at having
            this fact about this particular piece of creationist rhetoric that
            it motivated him to crawl out from under the rug creationists love
            to sweep their crap under.

            But that's not enough for Alan. Then he mixes up two different posts
            on two different subjects, throws in more of his comments about my
            post on the first, refers to my post on the second subject, and then
            adds comments about the second subject. Confusion is a creationist
            friend.

            --- In OriginsTalk, Alan- <steelville@...> wrote (post #12522):
            > First look at what Todd said about my calling him on a bullcrap
            > assertion, oldest trick in the book, accuse your opponent
            > instead of answering the issues, then when he calls you on it,
            > blame him also of using your own tactic:

            Indeed, it was Alan who leveled a baseless accusation against me
            while never addressing the issue. Circles within circles, Alan
            descends into his recursive web of empty rhetoric.

            > Todd said:
            >> Notice how Alan does nothing more than make a completely
            >> unsubstantiated personal assertion. Anyone - including Alan -
            >> who states or implies that evolution is just an atheistic
            >> conspiracy, or that Christians who accept evolution don't
            >> exist, is lying. Alan cannot change this fact with his
            >> "unadulterated bullcrap" (i.e., unsubstantiated and false
            >> assertion). Notice how when it comes to dealing with the facts
            >> - including the facts about the deceitful nature of creationist
            >> rhetoric - creationists run for the hills!
            >>
            >> Chuckling,
            >> Todd Greene
            >
            > Sounds more like cackling than chuckling. Now with the above
            > accusation in tactics above, look at the next piece of
            > unadulteraded bull-crap Todd came up with, as if it had to do
            > with answering anything like the science problems darwinians
            > have:

            The point of the subject that I happened to write about in the post
            Alan address was that any creationist who pretends either by
            explicit or implicit statement that Christians who accept evolution
            don't exist is lying (since the fact is that there are millions of
            Christians who accept evolution). It is Alan himself who never
            addressed the issue. He STILL has never address this issue.

            > (It's quite obvious that since their is no true empirical or
            > factual evidence of any common origin,

            Aha, here we observe a genuine creationist liar in action! We see
            Alan using one of the standard bullcrap creationist assertions
            that "there isn't any evidence for evolution" or "evolution isn't
            really science." Alan intentionally pretends that evolutionary
            science doesn't even exist, and it is by the use of rhetoric such as
            this that these creationists who use it demonstrate the deceitful
            nature of their rhetoric. (See below; it's a lot of information, so
            I've put it on the end of this post.)

            > or much less
            > abiogenesis, they always have to use examples from real
            > science to dump their arrogant ignorance):

            Again, Alan can't seem to comprehend what the subject is about. So
            he changes the subject and then pretends the comments I made are
            about the different subject he has referred to (his argument that
            evolution isn't science, which is a completely different issue than
            what I discussed in the post he now quotes). Confusion is the friend
            of creationists. No doubt Alan is changing the subject and using his
            red herring tactics precisely because he knows he cannot deal with
            the issue I was discussing.

            >> a. He's just saying that the Earth revolves around the Sun
            >> because he's an atheist.
            >>
            >> b. The idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun is based
            >> on the religion of atheism.
            >>
            >> c. The Earth going around the Sun is wrong because it's
            >> based on atheistic uniformitarian assumptions.
            >>
            >> d. The idea of the Earth orbiting the Sun was developed
            >> using methodological naturalism, which is
            >> anti-supernaturalistic, and so the Earth orbit idea is wrong.
            >>
            >> e. Earth orbiting the sun is based on man's wisdom, so
            >> there's something wrong with it.
            >>
            >> f. The idea that the Earth orbits the Sun is part of Satan's
            >> plot to overthrow belief in the Bible.
            >>
            >> It's QUITE OBVIOUS that every single idea expressed by these
            >> remarks is irrational.

            We quickly have Alan's number, and see the kinds of deceitful
            tactics he uses in his empty rhetoric.

            Will Alan ever actually address the issues I bring up in my posts?

            I seriously doubt it.

            - Todd Greene
          • Todd S. Greene
            ... [snip] ... [snip] I forgot to append the information. No doubt, Alan will just blatantly pretend this information does not even exist, which is standard
            Message 5 of 28 , Aug 1 10:27 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In OriginsTalk, Todd Greene wrote (post #12548):
              [snip]
              > We see Alan
              > using one of the standard bullcrap creationist assertions that
              > "there isn't any evidence for evolution" or "evolution isn't
              > really science." Alan intentionally pretends that evolutionary
              > science doesn't even exist, and it is by the use of rhetoric
              > such as this that these creationists who use it demonstrate
              > the deceitful nature of their rhetoric. (See below; it's a lot
              > of information, so I've put it on the end of this post.)
              [snip]

              I forgot to append the information. No doubt, Alan will just
              blatantly pretend this information does not even exist, which is
              standard operating procedure for young earth creationists. But here
              it is anyway...

              ----------------------------------------------------------------

              One of the Big Lie tactics of young earth creationists is to go
              around claiming "Evolution is not science" or "Evolution is a
              religion." As usual, the truth is otherwise...

              There are hundreds of scientific research articles about evolution
              published each and every year. Here's a selection of professional
              science journals (in the U.S. and the U.K.) that routinely or
              exclusively publish professional scientific research concerning
              evolution:

              PLoS Biology
              (published by the Public Library of Science)
              http://biology.plosjournals.org/

              PLoS Genetics
              (published by the Public Library of Science)
              http://genetics.plosjournals.org/

              Science
              (published by the American Association for the Advancement of
              Science)
              http://www.sciencemag.org/

              Nature
              http://www.nature.com/

              Journal of Biology
              (published by BioMed Central)
              http://jbiol.com/

              Journal of Evolutionary Biology
              http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1010-061X
              view online content:
              http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/rd.asp?code=JEB&goto=journal

              International Journal of Organic Evolution
              http://evol.allenpress.com/evolonline/?request=index-
              html#Evolution_Journal
              [link may be line-wrapped]

              Molecular Biology and Evolution
              (published by the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution)
              http://www.mbe.oupjournals.org

              Evolution & Development
              http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1520-541X

              Trends in Ecology & Evolution
              http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30339/de
              scription
              [link may be line-wrapped]

              Trends in Genetics
              http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/405918/d
              escription
              [link may be line-wrapped]

              Integrative and Comparative Biology
              (Journal of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology;
              published as the American Zoologist from 1961 to 2001)
              http://www.sicb.org/az/

              Invertebrate Biology
              (Journal of the American Microscopical Society)
              http://www.invertebratebiology.org/

              Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
              Biological Sciences
              http://www.pnas.org/current.shtml#BIOLOGICAL_SCIENCES

              Palobiology
              Journal of Paleontology
              (both published by The Paleontological Society)
              http://www.psjournals.org/paleoonline/?request=get-archive

              The Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology
              (published by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology)
              http://www.vertpaleo.org/jvp/

              Paleontologia Electronica
              http://palaeo-electronica.org/

              Cladistics
              The International Journal of the Willi Hennig Society
              http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0748-3007

              Evolution
              International Journal of Organic Evolution
              http://evol.allenpress.com/evolonline/?request=get-archive

              Biological Journal of the Linnean Society
              http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0024-4066

              Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society
              http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0024-4082

              Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society
              http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0024-4074

              Evolutionary Ecology
              (published in the Netherlands)
              http://www.springer.com/west/home/life+sci?SGWID=4-10027-70-35681186-
              0
              [link may be line-wrapped]

              Genetics
              http://www.genetics.org/

              Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
              http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/622921/d
              escription
              [link may be line-wrapped]

              Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences
              http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/index.cfm?page=1087

              Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research
              http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0947-5745

              Evolutionary Bioinformatics Online
              http://www.la-press.com/evolbio.htm

              --------------------------------

              Also see:

              29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
              by Douglas Theobald
              http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
            • Susan Cogan
              ... you know that speciation has been observed and the rationale for believing it has been observed. You aren t required to believe it. ... so what? They have
              Message 6 of 28 , Aug 2 3:44 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                At 05:20 PM 8/1/2006, you wrote:
                > Susan:
                >
                >
                >This means you are familiar with the observed
                >instances of speciation
                >
                >Leavert:
                >
                >No, this means that I am familiar with the supposed observed
                >instances of speciation which have been disputed over and over.


                you know that speciation has been observed and
                the rationale for believing it has been observed.
                You aren't required to believe it.


                >and your remark about a
                >leap of faith is empty rhetoric.
                >
                >Not exactly:
                >
                >
                >
                >Susan:
                >
                >millions of Christians believe evolution to be
                >true. Some of the scientists investigating
                >abiogenesis are Christian. You are arguing
                >against atheism, not evolution. They are
                >different subjects.
                >
                >Leavert:
                >
                >Yes, millions of Christians blindly accept evolution but not due any
                >direct observation or research but rather due to the foolish blind
                >faith that they place in evolutionists.


                so what? They have no problem harmonizing
                evolution and Christianity. That you do is your problem.


                >Susan:
                >I exposed the coffin
                >quote as a lie. It's interesting that you are so
                >unconcerned about that you aren't going to bother
                >rebutting it.
                >
                >Leavert: Because I have so many more documented statements from
                >scientists that say the exact same thing so why bother? Maybe if I
                >was dealing with that issue alone I would have and still might.
                >
                >Susan:
                >
                >I generally don't bother to expose out of context
                >quotes unless it's easy.
                >
                >Leavert:
                >
                >Then how do you KNOW they are out of context?


                because every time I track one down it is
                artfully edited to make the author sound like he
                or she is saying something they don't believe.
                That's why. Maybe some of your quotes are genuine. It could happen.

                >Why don¡¦t you stop
                >tying to insult the intelligence of readers by constantly
                >regurgitating the phrase ¡§out of context¡¨ Do you really think that
                >any objective minded person falls for tactic every time you write it
                >in an effort to save time?


                why are you insulting our intelligence with those
                quotes? Who cares what those people say? Why don't you make your own arguments?


                >Molecular Evolution
                >
                >Because of the barrier of the multi-billion DNA code, not only was
                > >it impossible for life to form by accident,¡Xit could never
                > >thereafter evolve into new and different species either!
                >
                >this is an empty assertion. Any evidence to back it up?
                >
                >
                >"X*J, Monod, Chance and Necessity
                >(1971), p. 143.

                Philosopher of biology and anti-Darwinian.
                There's nothing here about a barrier to change.



                > But when they occur, they damage the packages and
                >equipment, so that weakness and death result. This is because
                >everything is so interlocked that one change always produces
                >negative consequences.

                this is demonstrably untrue since both neutral
                and beneficial mutations happen all the time.

                > Jonathan Well,
                >Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology, specializing in vertebrate
                >embryology, 1994, from UC Berkeley.

                Wells is a creationist who cribbed most of his stuff from Gish and Morris.



                >Susan:
                >
                >
                >Each
                > >successive speciation change would require a totally new and
                > >different¡Xbut highly exacting code to be in place on its very first
                > >day of its existence as a unique new species.
                >
                >Susan:
                >
                >no it wouldn't. Species don't pop into existence by magic.
                >
                >
                >Leavert: Right they were created.


                and are still being "created" every few years.
                Please explain why 99.8% of all species that ever lived are now extinct.



                >Susan:
                >
                >evolution. Hominid brains (as you can see from
                >the link above) were getting larger and larger
                >over time.
                >
                >Leavert:
                >
                >"Neanderthal man may have looked like he did, not because he was
                >closely related to the great apes, but because he had rickets, an
                >article in the British publication Nature suggests. The diet of
                >Neanderthal man was definitely lacking in
                >Vitamin D." ¡X*Neanderthals had Rickets," in
                >Science Digest, February 1971, p. 35.


                you are aware, aren't you, that there are
                hundreds of specimens of Neanderthal of various
                ages? Did every single one of them have rickets?
                This is a common creationist argument. It
                originated in the 19th century and has been
                treasured by creationists ever since. It's silly.

                of course, I have no idea what this has to do
                with hominid brains getting larger over time.


                >Susan:
                >
                >
                >
                >Please present some out of context evolutionist
                >quotes. I'd love to see them. There is a website
                >somewhere that takes creationists remarks out of
                >context, making them sound like evolutionists,
                >but it's clearly labeled as a joke site. If I
                >quote someone I generally provide a citation back
                >to the original work. That way you can check
                >
                >
                >
                >Leavert: Evolutionists are too busy coming up with human forgeries
                >and other falsehoods to be bothered with out of text quotes. Is that
                >suppose to make them more noble? Nonetheless, here you go.
                >


                give me 3 from the last 5 years. If evolutionists
                are busy doing it there should be lots and lots
                of examples for you to choose from.


                >Behe Responds to Postings in Talk Origins Newsgroup
                >
                >
                >I think you misunderstood me. I did not mean (and I did not say)
                >that there is a separate mechanism for generating pseudogenes. I
                >simply meant that the normal process of DNA replication or
                >recombination, which sometimes generates pseudogenes, is very
                >complex, and has not been explained in a Darwinian fashion either by
                >Kenneth Miller or anyone else. (For example, Kornberg & Baker's 1992
                >edition of "DNA Replication" has virtually nothing on how any of the
                >steps of replication could evolve in a Darwinian fashion.) The point
                >in my book was that the pseudogene argument is essentially "God
                >wouldn't have done it that way, so Darwinian evolution must be
                >true." Pseudogenes may be reasonable evidence for common descent,
                >but the assertion that they show that life was produced by Darwinian
                >mutation/natural selection has to be judged separately.

                this is part of an argument, not an out of
                context quote. Nobody quoted Behe in a way to
                make him seem like an evolutionist.


                >Nebrask man
                >
                >Susan:
                >
                >nobody, not even the person who found "Nebraska
                >man" really thought it was a hominid. It was a
                >speculation picked up by the news papers. Nearly
                >80 years ago.
                >
                >Leavert:
                >
                >..And the deception lives on!


                nobody has believed Nebraska man since about
                1926. That's living on? Only in the fevered creationist imagination.



                <snip 3 quotes from 1922!>






                >Piltdown Man:
                >
                >Susan:
                >
                >I read this essay and have written an essay about
                >Piltdown myself. It is a triumph of the
                >scientific method. If Evolutionists were as
                >dogmatic as most creationists believe you would
                >never have heard about Piltdown man. Creationists
                >did not expose the fraud which was perpetrated
                >upon evolutionists. They exposed it themselves.
                >And publicized it. Many books by evolutionists
                >have been written about it speculating about who
                >could have perpetrated the fraud. Dawson is a
                >likely suspect, but nobody really knows.
                >
                >
                >Leavert:
                >
                >You have got to be kidding! Is this how Talk Origins sweeps the
                >matter under the rug? I don¡¦t think that most people would view
                >being lied to for 40 years by so- called respectable evolutionists a
                >triumph. Or is this merely another attempt to insult the reader¡¦s
                >intelligence?


                the people at the British Museum were the ones
                lied to. They were fooled. It was evolutionists
                who finally figured it out, not creationists.

                >For more than 40 years, many scientific articles were written
                >on "Piltdown man", many interpretations and drawings were made, and
                >the fossil was presented as important evidence for human evolution.
                >No fewer than 500 doctoral theses were written on the subject

                the 500 doctoral theses are often brought up by
                creationists but there's no evidence that it's
                true. The truth is by the mid-1930s Piltdown was
                irrelevant. It didn't fit with anything else that
                was being discovered. People were still fooled.
                They thought maybe it was a mistake of some kind.
                They didn't realize they'd been defrauded. It was
                not until about 1952 when it was displayed along
                with some other hominid fossils that someone
                finally thought "fraud." Once the idea occurred,
                it was easy to prove. If evolutionists were so
                dishonest, you would NEVER have even heard of Piltdown.


                >"The evidences of artificial abrasion immediately sprang to the eye.
                >Indeed so obvious did they seem it may well be asked-how was it that
                >they had escaped notice before?"
                >Stephen Jay Gould, "Smith Woodward's Folly", New Scientist, April
                >5, 1979, p. 44
                >
                >Good question! So how is it that so-called noble evolutionists
                >allowed the deception to go one for 40 years!!!

                the originals were locked away in a vault--they
                were extremely rare and valuable, after all.
                Scientists studied casts. That's pretty common.
                Even Johanson only has a cast of Lucy. The
                original bones are locked up in Chad (I think).

                So evolutionists were fooled a half-century ago.

                Does that mean it's okay if you cut and paste dishonest quotes now?

                Susan
              • leavert65
                you know that speciation has been observed and the rationale for believing it has been observed. You aren t required to believe it. Leavert: You re going to
                Message 7 of 28 , Aug 2 7:19 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  you know that speciation has been observed and
                  the rationale for believing it has been observed.
                  You aren't required to believe it.

                  Leavert:

                  You're going to pretend to tell me what I know now? Wow, That's a
                  new one.


                  Leavert::

                  Yes, millions of Christians blindly accept evolution but not due any
                  >direct observation or research but rather due to the foolish blind
                  >faith that they place in evolutionists.

                  Susan:


                  so what? They have no problem harmonizing
                  evolution and Christianity. That you do is your problem.

                  Leavert: Uhm, ok… Sounds like three pointer for the creationists!
                  Thanks!! So it's ok for kids to learn and accept evolution by faith.
                  Ok gottcha



                  Leavert:
                  >
                  >Then how do you KNOW they are out of context?

                  Susan

                  because every time I track one down it is
                  artfully edited to make the author sound like he
                  or she is saying something they don't believe.
                  That's why. Maybe some of your quotes are genuine. It could happen.

                  Leavert:

                  So you don't know you only assume. And you have no clue as to how
                  few or how many are genuine. Sounds honest enough.


                  Leavert:

                  >Why don¡¦t you stop
                  >tying to insult the intelligence of readers by constantly
                  >regurgitating the phrase ¡§out of context¡¨ Do you really think that
                  >any objective minded person falls for tactic every time you write it
                  >in an effort to save time?

                  Susan:
                  why are you insulting our intelligence with those
                  quotes? Who cares what those people say? Why don't you make your own
                  arguments?

                  Leavert: Quite simply because I like you and Phil are not experts in
                  the field. Just like in a court of law, no matter how learned or
                  intelligent the lawyer may feel that she is, they will bring in
                  experts. Why do you think that is?


                  Leavert:

                  But when they occur, they damage the packages and
                  >equipment, so that weakness and death result. This is because
                  >everything is so interlocked that one change always produces
                  >negative consequences.

                  Susan:

                  this is demonstrably untrue since both neutral
                  and beneficial mutations happen all the time.

                  Leavert:

                  Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism in its
                  natural environment. Almost all observable mutations are harmful;
                  some are meaningless; many are lethal



                  I took a little trouble to find whether a single amino acid change
                  in a hemoglobin mutation is known that doesn't affect seriously the
                  function of that hemoglobin. One is hard put to find such an
                  instance." George Wald, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian
                  Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M.
                  Kaplan, pp. 18–19.
                  However, evolutionists have taught for years that hemoglobin
                  alpha changed through mutations into hemoglobin beta. This would
                  require, at a minimum, 120 point mutations. In other words, the
                  improbability Wald refers to above must be raised to the 120th power
                  to produce just this one protein!



                  "Even if we didn't have a great deal of data on this point, we could
                  still be quite sure on theoretical grounds that mutants would
                  usually be detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a
                  highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning living body. A
                  random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes
                  which constitute life is almost certain to impair it—just as a
                  random interchange of connections in a television set is not likely
                  to improve the picture." James F. Crow (Professor of Genetics,
                  University of Wisconsin), "Genetic Effects of Radiation," Bulletin
                  of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 14, January 1958, pp. 19–20.

                  Each mutation occurring alone would be wiped out before it
                  could be combined with the others. They are all interdependent. The
                  doctrine that their coming together was due to a series of blind
                  coincidences is an affront not only to common sense but to the basic
                  principles of scientific explanation. Arthur Koestler, The Ghost in
                  the Machine (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1968), p. 129


                  "No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any
                  kind of evolution." Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living
                  Organisms (New York: Academic Press, 1977), p. 88.
                  "I have seen no evidence whatsoever that these [evolutionary]
                  changes can occur through the accumulation of gradual mutations."
                  Lynn Margulis, as quoted by Charles Mann, "Lynn Margulis: Science's
                  Unruly Earth Mother," Science, Vol. 252, 19 April 1991, p. 379.
                  "Do we, therefore, ever see mutations going about the
                  business of producing new structures for selection to work on? No
                  nascent organ has ever been observed emerging, though their origin
                  in pre-functional form is basic to evolutionary theory. Some should
                  be visible today, occurring in organisms at various stages up to
                  integration of a functional new system, but we don't see them: there
                  is no sign at all of this kind of radical novelty. Neither
                  observation nor controlled experiment has shown natural selection
                  manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene, hormone, enzyme
                  system or organ." Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (London:
                  Rider, 1984), pp. 67–68.

                  "It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though
                  geneticists have been breeding fruit-flies for sixty years or more
                  in labs all round the world—flies which produce a new generation
                  every eleven days—they have never yet seen the emergence of a new
                  species or even a new enzyme." Gordon Rattray Taylor (former Chief
                  Science Advisor, BBC Television), The Great Evolution Mystery (New
                  York: Harper & Row, 1983), p. 48.

                  Mutations are more than just sudden changes in heredity; they also
                  affect viability [ability to keep living], and, to the best of our
                  knowledge invariably affect it adversely [they tend to result in
                  harm or death]. Does not this fact show that mutations are really
                  assaults on the organism's central being, its basic capacity to be a
                  living thing?" —*C.P. Martin, "A Geneticist Looks at Evolution," in
                  American Scientist, p. 102

                  "Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is
                  no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals,
                  speciality journals, or book—that describes how molecular evolution
                  of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even
                  might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution
                  occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments
                  or calculations. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct
                  experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims
                  of knowledge, it can truly be said that—like the contention that the
                  Eagles will win the Super Bowl this year—the assertion of Darwinian
                  molecular evolution is merely bluster." Behe, p. 186.




                  Sue:
                  Jonathan Well,
                  >Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology, specializing in vertebrate
                  >embryology, 1994, from UC Berkeley.

                  Wells is a creationist who cribbed most of his stuff from Gish and
                  Morris.

                  Leavert: Says who "Joe Blow"?

                  Susan:
                  and are still being "created" every few years.
                  Please explain why 99.8% of all species that ever lived are now
                  extinct.

                  Leavert:
                  Before I bother to do that please give me Joe Blow's real name.

                  Susan:
                  you are aware, aren't you, that there are
                  hundreds of specimens of Neanderthal of various
                  ages? Did every single one of them have rickets?
                  This is a common creationist argument. It
                  originated in the 19th century and has been
                  treasured by creationists ever since. It's silly.

                  Leavert:

                  Identify your Joe blow

                  Susan:
                  of course, I have no idea what this has to do
                  with hominid brains getting larger over time.

                  Leavert:

                  The small stature of these individuals was a big surprise. Skull
                  capacity of Homo floresiensis, as it was named, is only 380cc – yet
                  evidence of stone tools, upright posture and other "derived" (i.e.,
                  advanced) characteristics seemingly contradicts the suggestion these
                  were primitive. Maybe it's not brain volume but complexity that
                  matters; after all, DNA can store 1018> bits of information in one
                  cubic millimeter. "The whole idea that you need a particular brain
                  size to do anything intelligent is completely blown away by this
                  find," remarked Henry Gee. Everyone seems to be agreeing on one
                  thing: this astonishing find is going to rewrite the textbooks on
                  human evolution – again.

                  Leavert:

                  Evolutionists are too busy coming up with human forgeries
                  >and other falsehoods to be bothered with out of text quotes. Is that
                  >suppose to make them more noble? Nonetheless, here you go.
                  >
                  Susan:

                  give me 3 from the last 5 years. If evolutionists
                  are busy doing it there should be lots and lots
                  of examples for you to choose from.

                  Leavert:
                  Which ones are they still claiming as man's ancestor that I haven't
                  spoke about already?

                  Leavert:
                  Behe Responds to Postings in Talk Origins Newsgroup
                  >
                  >
                  >I think you misunderstood me. I did not mean (and I did not say)
                  >that there is a separate mechanism for generating pseudogenes. I
                  >simply meant that the normal process of DNA replication or
                  >recombination, which sometimes generates pseudogenes, is very
                  >complex, and has not been explained in a Darwinian fashion either by
                  >Kenneth Miller or anyone else. (For example, Kornberg & Baker's 1992
                  >edition of "DNA Replication" has virtually nothing on how any of the
                  >steps of replication could evolve in a Darwinian fashion.) The point
                  >in my book was that the pseudogene argument is essentially "God
                  >wouldn't have done it that way, so Darwinian evolution must be
                  >true." Pseudogenes may be reasonable evidence for common descent,
                  >but the assertion that they show that life was produced by Darwinian
                  >mutation/natural selection has to be judged separately.


                  Susan:

                  this is part of an argument, not an out of
                  context quote. Nobody quoted Behe in a way to
                  make him seem like an evolutionist

                  Leavert:
                  Sounds like you're splitting hairs, misquoting/out of context. Is
                  one supposed to be more justifiable? One's ok and the other isn't?

                  Nebrask man

                  Susan:

                  nobody, not even the person who found "Nebraska
                  man" really thought it was a hominid. It was a
                  speculation picked up by the news papers. Nearly
                  80 years ago.

                  Leavert:

                  ..And the deception lives on!
                  Susan:
                  nobody has believed Nebraska man since about
                  1926. That's living on? Only in the fevered creationist imagination.
                  Leavert:
                  The deception is can be found in your previous statement


                  Osborn received the tooth on March 14, 1922. He wrote to Cook: "I
                  sat
                  down with the tooth and I said to myself: 'It looks one hundred per
                  cent
                  anthropoid'." (Osborn, 1922b, p. 2) One month later, Osborn
                  announced
                  Hesperopithecus haroldcookii as the first anthropoid ape from America

                  Even after seeing one of the casts, British paleontologist Arthur
                  Smith Woodward, who had given the world Piltdown Man, was highly
                  skeptical,
                  feeling that "The occurrence of a man-like ape among fossils in
                  North
                  America seems so unlikely that good evidence is needed to make it
                  credible." (Woodward, 1922)
                  Despite Woodward's doubts, British anatomist Grafton Elliot
                  Smith
                  acknowledged Hesperopithecus as the third known genus of extinct
                  hominids, along with Eoanthropus and Pithecanthropus (Smith, 1922),
                  and
                  also became an accomplice to an imaginative artistic reconstruction
                  of
                  Hesperopithecus that appeared in the Illustrated London News.
                  (Forestier,
                  1922)

                  Leavert:
                  >For more than 40 years, many scientific articles were written
                  >on "Piltdown man", many interpretations and drawings were made, and
                  >the fossil was presented as important evidence for human evolution.
                  >No fewer than 500 doctoral theses were written on the subject

                  Susan:

                  the 500 doctoral theses are often brought up by
                  creationists but there's no evidence that it's
                  true.

                  Leavert:

                  >No fewer than 500 doctoral theses were written on the subject
                  Malcolm Muggeridge, The End of Christendom, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans,
                  1980, p. 59
                • Laurie Appleton
                  To All, ... From: Todd S. Greene To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 3:20 PM Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Everything atheists say is
                  Message 8 of 28 , Aug 3 5:31 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    To All,

                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: Todd S. Greene
                    To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 3:20 PM
                    Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Everything atheists say is tainted. Prejudice-pandering?


                    Looks like Alan is a guy who loves to use deceit-within-deceit in a
                    self-referential cycle. Confusion is a good way to cover your
                    tracks, and a time-honored tradition of creationists.

                    LA> With a style like that of Todd, it is no wonder that his own site does not keep him busy. Why are so many evolutionists such anti-social types? Could that be related to the sort of personality that is attracted to the idea that we are all just reworked or renovated "monkeys"?

                    LA> Perhaps Todd would benefit by reading of the research of some ex-atheists, whose whole attitude to life and to other people changed dramatically when they found from their scientific investigations, that there was indeed; "The Case for a Creator" (Lee Strobel, 2004)! For example;

                    --------------------------
                    "During his academic years, Lee Strobel became convinced that God was outmoded, a belief that coloured his ensuing career as an award winning journalist at the "Chicago Tribune". Science had made the idea of a Creator irrelevant -- or so Strobel thought." (outside back cover of the book entitled' "The Case for a Creartor, 2004, "A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence that Points Toward God." (ISBN 0-310-24050-6 soft jacket, Zondervan)
                    ================



                    Laurie.

                    "From my earliest training as a scientist, I was strongly brainwashed
                    to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate
                    creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed."
                    (Chandra Wickramasinghe, noted ex atheistic scientist, 1981)

                    Recent Activity
                    a.. 2New Members
                    Visit Your Group
                    Yahoo! News
                    Space News

                    Get the latest

                    space related news

                    New business?
                    Get new customers.

                    List your web site

                    in Yahoo! Search.

                    Y! GeoCities
                    Free Blogging

                    Share your views

                    with the world.
                    .


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Todd S. Greene
                    If anyone wants to take a further look (and, no, I m not assuming you do) at the style of Laurie Appleton, who exemplifies the anti- science, pro-pseudoscience
                    Message 9 of 28 , Aug 4 8:25 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      If anyone wants to take a further look (and, no, I'm not assuming
                      you do) at the style of Laurie Appleton, who exemplifies the anti-
                      science, pro-pseudoscience mentality of young earth creationists,
                      who have personalities attracted to the idea that they have an
                      infallible statement by a god telling them the world didn't exist
                      more than about 6,000 years ago, just try this:

                      Google search: "Laurie Appleton"
                      http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Laurie+Appleton%22

                      Oh, yeah, by the way, notice that Laurie Appleton never even
                      addressed even a single aspect of the problem I pointed out how
                      young earth creationist rhetoric is based on an irrational argument!
                      Pretty much what you expect from these guys. Notice how Laurie tries
                      to bring Lee Strobel to his defense, but, of course, Lee Strobel is
                      not a young earth creationist, since Strobel thinks young earth
                      creationism is a false idea about reality. In other words, yet
                      another irrational tactic by Laurie!

                      Chuckling,
                      Todd Greene


                      --- In OriginsTalk, Laurie Appleton wrote (post #12565):
                      > --- Todd Greene wrote:
                      >> Looks like Alan is a guy who loves to use deceit-within-deceit
                      >> in a self-referential cycle. Confusion is a good way to cover
                      >> your tracks, and a time-honored tradition of creationists.
                      >
                      > To All,
                      >
                      > With a style like that of Todd, it is no wonder that his own
                      > site does not keep him busy. Why are so many evolutionists such
                      > anti-social types? Could that be related to the sort of
                      > personality that is attracted to the idea that we are all just
                      > reworked or renovated "monkeys"?
                      >
                      > Perhaps Todd would benefit by reading of the research of some
                      > ex-atheists, whose whole attitude to life and to other people
                      > changed dramatically when they found from their scientific
                      > investigations, that there was indeed; "The Case for a Creator"
                      > (Lee Strobel, 2004)! For example;
                      >
                      > --------------------------
                      >
                      > "During his academic years, Lee Strobel became convinced that
                      > God was outmoded, a belief that coloured his ensuing career as
                      > an award winning journalist at the "Chicago Tribune". Science
                      > had made the idea of a Creator irrelevant -- or so Strobel
                      > thought." (outside back cover of the book entitled' "The Case
                      > for a Creartor, 2004, "A Journalist Investigates Scientific
                      > Evidence that Points Toward God." (ISBN 0-310-24050-6 soft
                      > jacket, Zondervan)
                    • Alan-
                      Phil replies: I was simply making the point that there IS NO EVIDENCE FOR DESIGN in the first place. There is evidence for evolution and there is evidence for
                      Message 10 of 28 , Aug 4 8:25 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Phil replies:
                        I was simply making the point that there IS NO EVIDENCE FOR DESIGN
                        in the first place. There is evidence for evolution and there is
                        evidence for natural selection, but design is supported by no
                        evidence - just speculation and mumbo jumbo about statistical
                        probabilities & complexity.

                        ==> THERE IS MUCH MORE EVIDENCE /*FOR*/ DESIGN THAN its logical
                        opposite. The DESIGN of the digitally recorded biological information in
                        the LANGUAGE of the GENETIC CODE is self-obvious. Unseen only to the
                        "None is so blind as he who will not see".

                        Meantime you have separate fossil histories for "kinds" of animals,
                        plants, and even microorganism. With billions of microfossils, nobody
                        has seen any major fossil continuum between the groups, except another
                        discrete kind.

                        A five-year old kid could draw lines connecting a bunch of randomly
                        placed dots on a piece of paper, and betcha he could connect the red
                        dots with other red dots. There you go! Stephen Gould's "bush" of
                        "evolution"!! ROTFL!

                        --Alan
                      • Alan-
                        Alan exposes darwinism as faith masquerading as science (falsely so-called), Todd comes along and post a long list of science journals that publish all kinds
                        Message 11 of 28 , Sep 2, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Alan exposes darwinism as faith masquerading as science (falsely
                          so-called),

                          Todd comes along and post a long list of science journals that publish
                          all kinds of "evolutionary" science articles all the time.

                          Therefore, we can conclude, Todd relies on an "argument from authority"
                          to make his case. Argument from authority is equivalent to "Because I
                          said so, and I'm an authority", or, majority vote among the
                          self-selected demographic, or from the self-congratulating heirarchical
                          structures.
                          It's a good thing that some people actually paid attention to the
                          science Copernicus and Galileo did, rather than just shutting down their
                          minds simply because the majority of professional "scientists" told them
                          to.

                          In Todd's authoritative world, we'd still think the sun (and presumably
                          the universe) revolved around the Earth in a geocentric solar system.

                          Biologists observe nature, and then invoke the great iconic creator of
                          "Evolution" (their name for darwinism) to "explain" it. Makes for a
                          great and oxymoronic non-teleological teleology, but in the real world
                          it means squat. Null. Zero. Zip. Nada. Finches have beaks. The beaks
                          have been measured as short as x, and as long as y. That's it. The rest
                          of it is day-dreaming. (Actually more like a nightmare--of their own
                          making).

                          --Alan
                        • Todd S. Greene
                          ... Therefore, we can conclude that Alan is not as smart as Balaam s ass (Alan s phrase) because he is apparently incapable of realizing that professional
                          Message 12 of 28 , Sep 2, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In OriginsTalk, Alan- <steelville@...> wrote (post #12769):
                            > Alan exposes darwinism as faith masquerading as science (falsely
                            > so-called),
                            >
                            > Todd comes along and post a long list of science journals that
                            > publish all kinds of "evolutionary" science articles all the
                            > time.
                            >
                            > Therefore, we can conclude, Todd relies on an "argument from
                            > authority" to make his case. Argument from authority is
                            > equivalent to "Because I said so, and I'm an authority", or,
                            > majority vote among the self-selected demographic, or from the
                            > self-congratulating heirarchical structures.
                            |[snip]

                            Therefore, we can conclude that Alan is not as smart as Balaam's ass
                            (Alan's phrase) because he is apparently incapable of realizing that
                            professional science journals actually publish *scientific research*.
                            Of course, if Alan does realize that, then in his remarks above he
                            has chosen to lie about it and just pretend that they don't. Either
                            conclusion destroys his young earth creationist nonsense.

                            Should Alan respond to this matter again, just watch how he will keep
                            right on pretending that the research doesn't even exist. (Read the
                            subject header.) Young earth creationist rhetoric is built on a
                            mountain of deceits like this.

                            - Todd Greene
                          • Clare Wilson Parr
                            ... Talk about attributing your own method of operation to others.... It s unfortunate that both of your conclusions are baseless. Your deceitful rhetoric
                            Message 13 of 28 , Sep 6, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On 9/3/2006, Todd S. Greene wrote:

                              >--- In OriginsTalk, Alan- <steelville@...> wrote (post #12769):

                              > > Alan exposes darwinism as faith masquerading as science (falsely
                              > > so-called),
                              > >
                              > > Todd comes along and posts a long list of science journals that
                              > > publish all kinds of "evolutionary" science articles all the
                              > > time.
                              > >
                              > > Therefore, we can conclude, Todd relies on an "argument from
                              > > authority" to make his case. Argument from authority is
                              > > equivalent to "Because I said so, and I'm an authority", or,
                              > > majority vote among the self-selected demographic, or from the
                              > > self-congratulating heirarchical structures.
                              >|[snip]
                              >
                              >Therefore, we can conclude that Alan is not as smart as Balaam's ass
                              >(Alan's phrase) because he is apparently incapable of realizing that
                              >professional science journals actually publish *scientific research*.
                              >Of course, if Alan does realize that, then in his remarks above he
                              >has chosen to lie about it and just pretend that they don't. Either
                              >conclusion destroys his young earth creationist nonsense.

                              Talk about attributing your own method of operation to others....

                              It's unfortunate that both of your "conclusions" are baseless. Your
                              deceitful rhetoric only demonstrates that you're apparently
                              incapable of answering an opponent's arguments, so you're reduced
                              to attacking the person instead.

                              Funny. You profess to be a one-man truth squad, but it seems to me
                              that you _manufacture_ opportunities to call your opponents liars
                              on the one hand, and studiously ignore your comrades' plainly
                              deceitful rhetoric day after day after day on the other....

                              "Professional science journals" also publish mountains of
                              *unscientific research* and then there are the lies....

                              Just a couple of hot-off-the-presses examples of the "scientific
                              research" that "professional science journals" publish:

                              ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
                              Chimps consider risk when crossing roads

                              September 6, 2006

                              STIRLING, Scotland (UPI) -- Scottish and Japanese scientists say
                              they`ve discovered chimpanzees evaluate risk when crossing roadways.

                              The finding, which broadens our understanding of primate
                              cooperation, also suggests chimpanzees draw on an evolutionarily
                              old principle of protective 'socio-spatial' organization that
                              produces flexible, adaptive, and cooperative responses by a group
                              of individuals facing risk.

                              The research is reported by Kimberley Hockings and James Anderson
                              of Scotland`s University of Stirling and Tetsuro Matsuzawa at the
                              University of Tokyo.

                              They say understanding how chimpanzees cross roads as a group helps
                              shape our hypotheses about the emergence of hominoid social
                              organization.

                              The study is detailed in the Sept. 5 issue of the journal CURRENT
                              BIOLOGY.

                              Copyright 2006 by United Press International

                              <http://urlcut.com/1cbfe>
                              ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

                              Scientists reconstruct primeval cognition

                              September 6, 2006

                              LEIPZIG, Germany (UPI) -- Max Planck Institute researchers in
                              Germany and the Netherlands have used psychological research
                              techniques to successfully reconstruct primeval cognition.

                              The scientists say that since fossils do not preserve thoughts, we
                              have been unable to glean insights into the cognitive structure of
                              our ancestors. But anthropologists at the Max Planck Institute for
                              Psycholinguistics in the Netherlands and the Max Planck Institute
                              for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany used an alternative
                              research method -- comparative psychological research -- to
                              discover some strategies shaped by evolution are evidently masked
                              very early on by the cognitive development process unique to humans.

                              'The unique human cognitive development seems to mask some of our
                              evolved strategies even before we reach the age of three,' said
                              study leader Daniel Haun. 'In future experiments, we therefore want
                              to find out which areas of cognitive development in humans, for
                              example language acquisition, are responsible for this
                              restructuring of cognitive preferences.'

                              The study appears in the journal CURRENT BIOLOGY.

                              Copyright 2006 by United Press International

                              <http://urlcut.com/1cbff>
                              ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

                              The most recent example of the "scientific research" that
                              "professional science journals" publish lies about:

                              Nature

                              Published online: 23 August 2006

                              doi:10.1038/442858b

                              Early embryos can yield stem cells... and survive

                              Could extraction technique resolve ethical problems?

                              Helen Pearson

                              A single cell can be teased from a human embryo and used to produce
                              stem cells while leaving the embryo intact. The process, published
                              online in Nature this week, could enable stem-cell lines to be
                              generated without the controversial destruction of human embryos �
                              but some ethical objections remain.

                              Embryonic stem cells, prized for their ability to make other tissue
                              types, are typically extracted from an embryo that has developed
                              into a hollow ball called a blastocyst. The process pulls the
                              embryo apart and destroys it.

                              This week's paper shows that stem-cell lines can be grown from less
                              developed embryos � balls of eight to ten cells � and the process
                              could leave them unscarred (I. Klimanskaya et al. Nature
                              doi:10.1038/nature05142; 2006).

                              The technique is similar to that used for preimplantation genetic
                              diagnosis, an option during in vitro fertilization (IVF) in which a
                              single cell is extracted from an embryo and tested for genetic
                              disorders. Last year, a team led by Robert Lanza of Advanced Cell
                              Technology in Worcester, Massachusetts, showed that single cells
                              extracted from mouse embryos in this way could be grown into
                              stem-cell lines (Y. Chung et al. Nature 439, 216�219; 2006).

                              Since then the team has taken cells from 16 spare IVF human
                              embryos, and put them into culture. From a total of 91 cells, the
                              researchers grew two embryonic stem-cell lines that have survived
                              for eight months so far and are able to form different types of
                              tissue. In the experiment, the embryos were dismantled cell by
                              cell; but other embryos should survive the extraction of a single
                              cell, just as they do in preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Lanza
                              says that the researchers should be able to achieve a higher
                              success rate for cell lines by adjusting the cell culture
                              conditions. Several other groups have been trying similar
                              approaches, but with no reported success so far.

                              "It shows it's possible to make any number of lines in future
                              without harming embryos or impairing their development," says
                              bioethicist Ronald Green, head of Dartmouth College Ethics
                              Institute in Hanover, New Hampshire, and an ethics adviser to
                              Lanza's company. "I think it's a way out of the moral impasse in
                              the United States." President George W. Bush has limited federally
                              funded research on human embryonic stem cells to lines derived
                              before August 2001, on the grounds that he is opposed to destroying
                              embryos to create more lines.

                              Still, the technique is unlikely to answer all ethical concerns
                              (see Nature 437, 1076�1077; 2005 doi:10.1038/4371072b). There are
                              fears that removing a cell from an embryo will lower its chances of
                              implantation in the womb, or alter its development and cause later
                              health problems for the resulting child. Lanza answers this by
                              saying that the risks of the procedure are minimal and that it
                              would only be performed on embryos that are to undergo
                              preimplantation genetic diagnosis anyway. Others object that the
                              removed cell itself may have the potential to develop into an
                              entire new embryo, and that this is being destroyed.

                              The method joins a raft of other techniques that have been proposed
                              for deriving ethically sound human embryonic stem cells, such as
                              using embryos that have been genetically altered so that they
                              cannot develop into babies. "None of those methods was likely to
                              satisfy all the critics, and I don't think this one will either,"
                              says Tom Murray, president of the Hastings Center, a bioethics
                              research institute in Garrison, New York.

                              <http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060821/full/442858b.html>
                              ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

                              >Should Alan respond to this matter again, just watch how he will keep
                              >right on pretending that the research doesn't even exist. (Read the
                              >subject header.) Young earth creationist rhetoric is built on a
                              >mountain of deceits like this.


                              Funny. You profess to be a one-man truth squad, but it seems to me
                              that you _manufacture_ opportunities to call your opponents liars
                              on the one hand, and studiously ignore your comrades' plainly
                              deceitful rhetoric day after day after day....
                            • Todd S. Greene
                              ... ass ... that ... research*. ... This is Clare purposely ignoring the fact that I purpose quoted Alan s own reference to Balaam s ass. In other words, Clare
                              Message 14 of 28 , Sep 9, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Clare Wilson Parr <turandot@...>
                                wrote:
                                >
                                > On 9/3/2006, Todd S. Greene wrote:
                                >
                                > >--- In OriginsTalk, Alan- <steelville@> wrote (post #12769):
                                >
                                > > > Alan exposes darwinism as faith masquerading as science (falsely
                                > > > so-called),
                                > > >
                                > > > Todd comes along and posts a long list of science journals that
                                > > > publish all kinds of "evolutionary" science articles all the
                                > > > time.
                                > > >
                                > > > Therefore, we can conclude, Todd relies on an "argument from
                                > > > authority" to make his case. Argument from authority is
                                > > > equivalent to "Because I said so, and I'm an authority", or,
                                > > > majority vote among the self-selected demographic, or from the
                                > > > self-congratulating heirarchical structures.
                                > >|[snip]
                                > >
                                > >Therefore, we can conclude that Alan is not as smart as Balaam's
                                ass
                                > >(Alan's phrase) because he is apparently incapable of realizing
                                that
                                > >professional science journals actually publish *scientific
                                research*.
                                > >Of course, if Alan does realize that, then in his remarks above he
                                > >has chosen to lie about it and just pretend that they don't. Either
                                > >conclusion destroys his young earth creationist nonsense.
                                >
                                > Talk about attributing your own method of operation to others....

                                This is Clare purposely ignoring the fact that I purpose quoted
                                Alan's own reference to Balaam's ass. In other words, Clare engages
                                in blatant deceit in her rhetoric. Which comes as no surprise.

                                > It's unfortunate that both of your "conclusions" are baseless.

                                Look at the sheer absurdity of what Clare is saying with this
                                statement. I make the statement that hundreds of science research
                                articles about evolution are published every years. To back up my
                                statement, I provide dozens of references to professional science
                                journals that publish hundreds of science research articles about
                                evolution every year. Along comes Clare, who then writes that my
                                statement is "baseless."

                                When creationists use rhetorical tactics such as this, they
                                demonstrate that they have little understanding of the English
                                language.

                                > Your deceitful rhetoric
                                > only demonstrates that you're apparently incapable of answering
                                > an opponent's arguments, so you're reduced to attacking the
                                > person instead.

                                Of course, it is Clare who deceitfully pretends my statement is
                                baseless, even while she obviously and blatantly ignores the meaning
                                of the word, who deceitfully says that I'm the one using deceitful
                                rhetorical, and who demonstrates that she's incapable of dealing with
                                the facts, by simply ignoring them and pretending they don't exist.

                                > Funny. You profess to be a one-man truth squad, but it seems to
                                > me that you _manufacture_ opportunities to call your opponents
                                > liars on the one hand,

                                Fortunately for me, here we observe Clare herself doing the
                                manufacturing she attributes to me.

                                > and studiously ignore
                                > your comrades' plainly deceitful rhetoric day after day after
                                > day on the other....

                                Notice the blatant lack of substantiation.

                                > "Professional science journals" also publish mountains of
                                > *unscientific research* and then there are the lies....

                                Notice the blatant lack of substantiation.

                                > Just a couple of hot-off-the-presses examples of the "scientific
                                > research" that "professional science journals" publish:

                                We look forward to Clare explaining what the "lies" are supposed to
                                be.

                                Bear in mind that this is the young earth creationist Clare we're
                                talking about - who as a young earth creationist is a person who is
                                utterly mired in antiquated long-discredited *religious dogma* who
                                yet deceitfully tries to pretend that their concerns are about
                                *science*, when *all* of us know it isn't scientific concerns that
                                have anything to do with young earth creationism at all. These are a
                                people who ignore any and all geology, paleontology, astronomy,
                                physics, chemistry, biology, and any other science that they attack
                                on the basis of their religious doctrine.

                                - Todd Greene

                                Greene's Creationism Truth Filter
                                http://creationism.outersystem.us/

                                > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
                                > Chimps consider risk when crossing roads
                                >
                                > September 6, 2006
                                >
                                > STIRLING, Scotland (UPI) -- Scottish and Japanese scientists say
                                > they`ve discovered chimpanzees evaluate risk when crossing roadways.
                                >
                                > The finding, which broadens our understanding of primate
                                > cooperation, also suggests chimpanzees draw on an evolutionarily
                                > old principle of protective 'socio-spatial' organization that
                                > produces flexible, adaptive, and cooperative responses by a group
                                > of individuals facing risk.
                                >
                                > The research is reported by Kimberley Hockings and James Anderson
                                > of Scotland`s University of Stirling and Tetsuro Matsuzawa at the
                                > University of Tokyo.
                                >
                                > They say understanding how chimpanzees cross roads as a group helps
                                > shape our hypotheses about the emergence of hominoid social
                                > organization.
                                >
                                > The study is detailed in the Sept. 5 issue of the journal CURRENT
                                > BIOLOGY.
                                >
                                > Copyright 2006 by United Press International
                                >
                                > <http://urlcut.com/1cbfe>
                                > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
                                >
                                > Scientists reconstruct primeval cognition
                                >
                                > September 6, 2006
                                >
                                > LEIPZIG, Germany (UPI) -- Max Planck Institute researchers in
                                > Germany and the Netherlands have used psychological research
                                > techniques to successfully reconstruct primeval cognition.
                                >
                                > The scientists say that since fossils do not preserve thoughts, we
                                > have been unable to glean insights into the cognitive structure of
                                > our ancestors. But anthropologists at the Max Planck Institute for
                                > Psycholinguistics in the Netherlands and the Max Planck Institute
                                > for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany used an alternative
                                > research method -- comparative psychological research -- to
                                > discover some strategies shaped by evolution are evidently masked
                                > very early on by the cognitive development process unique to humans.
                                >
                                > 'The unique human cognitive development seems to mask some of our
                                > evolved strategies even before we reach the age of three,' said
                                > study leader Daniel Haun. 'In future experiments, we therefore want
                                > to find out which areas of cognitive development in humans, for
                                > example language acquisition, are responsible for this
                                > restructuring of cognitive preferences.'
                                >
                                > The study appears in the journal CURRENT BIOLOGY.
                                >
                                > Copyright 2006 by United Press International
                                >
                                > <http://urlcut.com/1cbff>
                                > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
                                >
                                > The most recent example of the "scientific research" that
                                > "professional science journals" publish lies about:
                                >
                                > Nature
                                >
                                > Published online: 23 August 2006
                                >
                                > doi:10.1038/442858b
                                >
                                > Early embryos can yield stem cells... and survive
                                >
                                > Could extraction technique resolve ethical problems?
                                >
                                > Helen Pearson
                                >
                                > A single cell can be teased from a human embryo and used to produce
                                > stem cells while leaving the embryo intact. The process, published
                                > online in Nature this week, could enable stem-cell lines to be
                                > generated without the controversial destruction of human embryos ­
                                > but some ethical objections remain.
                                >
                                > Embryonic stem cells, prized for their ability to make other tissue
                                > types, are typically extracted from an embryo that has developed
                                > into a hollow ball called a blastocyst. The process pulls the
                                > embryo apart and destroys it.
                                >
                                > This week's paper shows that stem-cell lines can be grown from less
                                > developed embryos ­ balls of eight to ten cells ­ and the process
                                > could leave them unscarred (I. Klimanskaya et al. Nature
                                > doi:10.1038/nature05142; 2006).
                                >
                                > The technique is similar to that used for preimplantation genetic
                                > diagnosis, an option during in vitro fertilization (IVF) in which a
                                > single cell is extracted from an embryo and tested for genetic
                                > disorders. Last year, a team led by Robert Lanza of Advanced Cell
                                > Technology in Worcester, Massachusetts, showed that single cells
                                > extracted from mouse embryos in this way could be grown into
                                > stem-cell lines (Y. Chung et al. Nature 439, 216­219; 2006).
                                >
                                > Since then the team has taken cells from 16 spare IVF human
                                > embryos, and put them into culture. From a total of 91 cells, the
                                > researchers grew two embryonic stem-cell lines that have survived
                                > for eight months so far and are able to form different types of
                                > tissue. In the experiment, the embryos were dismantled cell by
                                > cell; but other embryos should survive the extraction of a single
                                > cell, just as they do in preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Lanza
                                > says that the researchers should be able to achieve a higher
                                > success rate for cell lines by adjusting the cell culture
                                > conditions. Several other groups have been trying similar
                                > approaches, but with no reported success so far.
                                >
                                > "It shows it's possible to make any number of lines in future
                                > without harming embryos or impairing their development," says
                                > bioethicist Ronald Green, head of Dartmouth College Ethics
                                > Institute in Hanover, New Hampshire, and an ethics adviser to
                                > Lanza's company. "I think it's a way out of the moral impasse in
                                > the United States." President George W. Bush has limited federally
                                > funded research on human embryonic stem cells to lines derived
                                > before August 2001, on the grounds that he is opposed to destroying
                                > embryos to create more lines.
                                >
                                > Still, the technique is unlikely to answer all ethical concerns
                                > (see Nature 437, 1076­1077; 2005 doi:10.1038/4371072b). There are
                                > fears that removing a cell from an embryo will lower its chances of
                                > implantation in the womb, or alter its development and cause later
                                > health problems for the resulting child. Lanza answers this by
                                > saying that the risks of the procedure are minimal and that it
                                > would only be performed on embryos that are to undergo
                                > preimplantation genetic diagnosis anyway. Others object that the
                                > removed cell itself may have the potential to develop into an
                                > entire new embryo, and that this is being destroyed.
                                >
                                > The method joins a raft of other techniques that have been proposed
                                > for deriving ethically sound human embryonic stem cells, such as
                                > using embryos that have been genetically altered so that they
                                > cannot develop into babies. "None of those methods was likely to
                                > satisfy all the critics, and I don't think this one will either,"
                                > says Tom Murray, president of the Hastings Center, a bioethics
                                > research institute in Garrison, New York.
                                >
                                > <http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060821/full/442858b.html>
                                > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
                                >
                                > >Should Alan respond to this matter again, just watch how he will
                                keep
                                > >right on pretending that the research doesn't even exist. (Read the
                                > >subject header.) Young earth creationist rhetoric is built on a
                                > >mountain of deceits like this.
                                >
                                >
                                > Funny. You profess to be a one-man truth squad, but it seems to me
                                > that you _manufacture_ opportunities to call your opponents liars
                                > on the one hand, and studiously ignore your comrades' plainly
                                > deceitful rhetoric day after day after day....
                                >
                              • Clare Wilson Parr
                                ... Excuse me. You are doing the ignoring. My statement is relative to your method of operation. Neither Alan s nor your reference to Balaam s ass is relevant
                                Message 15 of 28 , Sep 12, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  On 9/9/2006, Todd S. Greene wrote:

                                  > >>>Therefore, we can conclude, Todd relies on an "argument from
                                  > >>>authority" to make his case. Argument from authority is
                                  > >>>equivalent to "Because I said so, and I'm an authority", or,
                                  > >>>majority vote among the self-selected demographic, or from the
                                  > >>>self-congratulating heirarchical structures.
                                  >>
                                  > >>[snip]
                                  > >>
                                  > >>Therefore, we can conclude that Alan is not as smart as Balaam's
                                  > >>ass (Alan's phrase) because he is apparently incapable of
                                  > realizing
                                  > >>that professional science journals actually publish *scientific
                                  > >>research*. Of course, if Alan does realize that, then in his
                                  > remarks
                                  > >>above he has chosen to lie about it and just pretend that they
                                  > don't.
                                  > >>Either conclusion destroys his young earth creationist nonsense.
                                  > >
                                  > >Talk about attributing your own method of operation to others....
                                  >
                                  >This is Clare purposely ignoring the fact that I purpose quoted
                                  >Alan's own reference to Balaam's ass. In other words, Clare engages
                                  >in blatant deceit in her rhetoric. Which comes as no surprise.

                                  Excuse me. You are doing the ignoring. My statement is relative to
                                  your method of operation. Neither Alan's nor your reference to
                                  Balaam's ass is relevant to my statement. Your mischaracterization
                                  of my statement is a perfect example of the dishonest tactics that
                                  are your method of operation.

                                  > >It's unfortunate that both of your "conclusions" are baseless.
                                  >
                                  >Look at the sheer absurdity of what Clare is saying with this
                                  >statement. I make the statement that hundreds of science research
                                  >articles about evolution are published every years. To back up my
                                  >statement, I provide dozens of references to professional science
                                  >journals that publish hundreds of science research articles about
                                  >evolution every year. Along comes Clare, who then writes that my
                                  >statement is "baseless."

                                  Right. Your statement, like all fallacies, is baseless.

                                  Your bald argument from authority _assumes_ the very point at
                                  issue, as Alan rightly pointed out. "Professional science journals
                                  publish hundreds of 'science research' articles about 'evolution'
                                  every years [sic]! Therefore, 'evolution' is a fact!"

                                  Claims predicated on an appeal to authority not only fail to
                                  support the truth-value of the claim, the appeal to authority is
                                  invoked to protect a contention / thesis, etc., from scrutiny, to
                                  stifle criticism -- as history testifies to.

                                  >When creationists use rhetorical tactics such as this, they
                                  >demonstrate that they have little understanding of the English
                                  >language.

                                  Baseless: Without a basis in reason or fact. Synonyms: groundless,
                                  idle, unfounded, unwarranted, wild.

                                  > >Your deceitful rhetoric only demonstrates that you're
                                  > >apparently incapable of answering an opponent's arguments,
                                  > >so you're reduced to attacking the person instead.
                                  >
                                  >Of course, it is Clare who deceitfully pretends my statement is
                                  >baseless, even while she obviously and blatantly ignores the meaning
                                  >of the word, who deceitfully says that I'm the one using deceitful
                                  >rhetorical, and who demonstrates that she's incapable of dealing with
                                  >the facts, by simply ignoring them and pretending they don't exist.

                                  Well, thanks! You've proven my point ... again!

                                  > >Funny. You profess to be a one-man truth squad, but it seems to
                                  > >me that you _manufacture_ opportunities to call your opponents
                                  > >liars on the one hand,
                                  >
                                  >Fortunately for me, here we observe Clare herself doing the
                                  >manufacturing she attributes to me.
                                  >
                                  > >and studiously ignore your comrades' plainly deceitful rhetoric day
                                  > >after day after day on the other....
                                  >
                                  >Notice the blatant lack of substantiation.

                                  The OriginsTalk archive offers a wealth of substantiation.

                                  > > "Professional science journals" also publish mountains of
                                  > > *unscientific research* and then there are the lies....
                                  >
                                  >Notice the blatant lack of substantiation.

                                  Um, I posted just two examples of the UNscientific 'research'
                                  published by "professional science journals to substantiate my claim:"

                                  Chimps consider risk when crossing roads / Current Biology
                                  <http://urlcut.com/1cbfe>

                                  Scientists reconstruct primeval cognition / Current Biology
                                  <http://urlcut.com/1cbff>

                                  There are hundreds and hundreds of similarly UNscientific examples
                                  of "science research articles about 'evolution'" published by
                                  "professional science journals," [another example that caught my
                                  attention this morning: _Dad's Smell Puts The Kibosh On Inbreeding_
                                  / American Journal of Human Biology] that anyone can read by
                                  visiting any of the "professional science journal" websites, or a
                                  public library, or a bookstore....

                                  >We look forward to Clare explaining what the "lies" are supposed to
                                  >be.

                                  Can't you read?

                                  > > The most recent example of the "scientific research" that
                                  > > "professional science journals" publish lies about:
                                  > >
                                  > > Nature
                                  > >
                                  > > Published online: 23 August 2006
                                  > >
                                  > > doi:10.1038/442858b
                                  > >
                                  > > Early embryos can yield stem cells... and survive
                                  > >
                                  > > Could extraction technique resolve ethical problems?
                                  > >
                                  > > Helen Pearson
                                  > >
                                  > > A single cell can be teased from a human embryo and used to
                                  > produce
                                  > > stem cells while leaving the embryo intact. The process, published
                                  > > online in Nature this week, could enable stem-cell lines to be
                                  > > generated without the controversial destruction of human embryos �
                                  > > but some ethical objections remain.
                                  >
                                  > > <http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060821/full/442858b.html>
                                  > > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

                                  Or there's Nature's Lanza interview podcast:
                                  <http://www.nature.com/nature/podcast/v442/n7105/nature-2006-08-24.mp3>].


                                  >Bear in mind that this is the young earth creationist Clare we're
                                  >talking about - who as a young earth creationist is a person who is
                                  >utterly mired in antiquated long-discredited *religious dogma* who
                                  >yet deceitfully tries to pretend that their concerns are about
                                  >*science*, when *all* of us know it isn't scientific concerns that
                                  >have anything to do with young earth creationism at all. These are a
                                  >people who ignore any and all geology, paleontology, astronomy,
                                  >physics, chemistry, biology, and any other science that they attack
                                  >on the basis of their religious doctrine.

                                  More thanks! Yet again you've proven my point!
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.