<body>
Hip and Thigh: Smiting Theological Philistines with a Great Slaughter. Judges 15:8

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Bob's World

Musing from An Evolutionist...

Bob the evolutionist has been faithfully contributing to the comments of a couple my posts. He's trying his hardest to get us non-Darwinian evolutionists un-brainwashed from mythical god fairy religions.

Bob's also an atheist, a product of Catholic grammar school where the nuns must have beat his hand a bit too hard with a ruler. Atheist often like to chide us religious folks (the god fairy believers, as Bob calls them), as to why there is evil in the world if God is so good. Usually they like to appeal to illustrations of children being butchered in some diabolical way and ask why, if God is good, didn't He intervene in stopping the butchering of children.

Bob has his own theodicy with which to contend from his own worldview. This is usually where the Bob's in the world become unraveled in their consistency. On the one hand, they wish to embrace the blind, pitiless indifference of Darwinian evolution soaked in red by tooth and claw and disease and suffering, but then want to take seriously the problem of evil and complain against the God of the Bible as committing numerous autrocities.

Do I really need to tell you why I felt terrible for a very long time after my mother's death? Did you think atheists are inhuman?

When faced with the reality that the consequences of an evolutionary worldview tend to devalue the significance of humanity, the Darwinians rush to rescue evolution by explaining the mechanics of why they believe disease exists in the world. They then explain how atheists are humans at heart and are as equally upset about death and dying as the religious god fairy believers. The problem, however, is the unaddressed disconnect on the part of Darwinians as to why they ought to feel upset at evolution just taking its course upon a young mother of four children who is dying of cancer. Evolution is blind, pitiless and indifferent, why then should we care?
Even chimpanzees grieve over the death of their close relatives. Isn't that interesting?
Ah, but the Darwinian Bob appeals to the old "monkey see, monkey do" argument. Chimps grieve over the death of a close relative, just like human beings. I've not seen any chimp funerals, but drawing this illustration out a step further: Chimps also eat their babies, commit gang rape against females, and cannibalize the bodies of dead rivals. Yet, when humans do these sorts of things, we are outraged, and put the person down. Would Bob have us emulate chimps in these other areas? Why or why not? And therein lies the disconnect. Its one thing to say evolution supplies all the answers to life's complex problems, and it is quite another to be morally outraged when evolution is just taking its course.

Labels: ,

29 Comments:

Blogger Makarios said...

and yet another thing to lay your faith on science yet make dogmatic claims that are cannot be justified by science.

1:24 PM, October 26, 2009  
Blogger Mike Felker said...

Great example of an inconsistent atheist. I've always wondered why, in a universe consisting of nothing but atoms banging around, atheists have a problem with chopping up globs of protoplasm? (i.e. butchering babies) As you pointed out, the natural realm does it all the time in much greater proportions, so maybe the atheist should object to nature as well as the "fairy god?"

3:30 PM, October 26, 2009  
Blogger Escovado said...

"Bob's also an atheist, a product of Catholic grammar school where the nuns [with moustaches] must have beat his hand a bit too hard with a ruler."

Fixed that for you, Fred. ;)

6:42 AM, October 27, 2009  
Blogger Siarlys Jenkins said...

I'm interested in your self-description as a "non-Darwinian evolutionist." I thought I was the world's first Biblical evolutionist. Usually, when I think I am unique, I find I am wrong, and somewhere there is someone who has put some part of what I was groping toward in better prose than I could ever have done. That's why God made so many of us.

I'm not anti-Darwin. I simply conclude, from reading Genesis as well as basic biology, that Darwin recognized, feebly and incompletely, a few points biologists had previously missed about how life works and how it developed. The work since Darwin has fleshed things out a good deal better. Newton said he stood upon the shoulders of giants. He didn't really, but he did stand on the shoulders of generations who had each worked out a little bit more of what human knowledge is capable of providing. Which is not all there is.

When the Roman church, and many of the early Protestants, adhered to the geocentric theory of astronomy, there was no sound Biblical foundation, it came from Aristotle and Ptolemy, pagans both. Strip away the bad science, which everyone had come to assume was somehow Biblical, and God is still God, whatever insights the new science provides into what God actually did. Rather, the insights show us a little more clearly the mechanics which resulted from the divine commands which the Bible teaches us about.

So it is with biology. There is nothing in evolution that can't be found in Genesis. Genesis is a much more sophisticated account than human reasoning has given it credit for. And of course that is really obvious when it comes to Biblical astronomy. Science cannot prove or disprove that "God said 'Let there be light'." Science has shown, unequivocally, that at the very beginning of space and time, there was a great burst of light, which for all we can tell was creation ex nihilo.

7:56 PM, October 28, 2009  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

I'm interested in your self-description as a "non-Darwinian evolutionist."

Darwinianism is a philosophical world view that is utilized to interpret the world, in this case, the so-called scientific world. It is similar to Marxism being used to interpret political issues.

People are under the mistaken notion that Darwinianism is equal to science and it is "scientific," but that is a misnomer.

I simply conclude, from reading Genesis as well as basic biology, that Darwin recognized, feebly and incompletely, a few points biologists had previously missed about how life works and how it developed.

But "how life supposedly works" and the origins of life and the history of our planet are two entirely separate things and the Darwinian view of the origins of life is utterly incompatible to how the Bible reveals to us about the origin of life. People attempt to synchronize Darwinian evolutionary constructs with biblical revelation in Genesis, but the two are contradictory.

Ultimately it comes down to which authority we are going to acknowledge that informs our perspective of our world view. One that is solely designed to explain away God's sovereignty over His creation, or the one exalting the sovereign God of creation.

There is nothing in evolution that can't be found in Genesis.

If one defines evolution as being created kinds adapting to their environment within their biological boundaries, then there is nothing contradictory with Genesis. If however one defines evolution as descent with modification over millions of years so that one species develops into an entirely new species from molecules to man, then that is not found in Genesis.

5:17 AM, October 29, 2009  
Blogger bob said...

Chimps also eat their babies

That's interesting. Did Jane Goodall witness this?

I think you're making things up, but I will stand corrected if you provide a link or something.

By the way, you might be interested to know all atheists eat babies for breakfast.

The fact is chimpanzee apes, who developed from the same ancient ape ancestors we developed from, have many similarities to the modern human ape species, including both our good and bad qualities. That's just plain fact. You should read about Jane Goodall for more information.

It's also interesting that before Darwin's published his evidence for his brilliant, powerful, and simple Natural Selection idea (an idea that is now stronger than ever thanks to mountains of powerful molecular evidence), some person (sorry I forget who, I could look it up if you're interested) checked out and compared the inside of a dead human body and a dead chimpanzee body and found them to be very much the same, a lot more similarities than differences.

Also, you should know the structure of the brains of chimps and people are very similar, the major difference being the size, we developed larger brains and the fossil record that the creationists keep lying about show a gradual increase in brain size in our ancient human ancestors.

Facts. This is what creationists fear the most, and that's why they are constantly spreading lies about discoveries in evolutionary biology. It's those darn facts that keep tripping the creationists up.

More facts: Our common ancestor split apart about 5 or 6 million years ago (according to molecular evidence and you can't deny this evidence if you don't know what you're talking about). The two groups evolved differently, one lineage separated again and developed into both chimpanzees and bonobos, the other lineage also lead to more than one lineage - there was more than one human species, our branch is the only one that survived.

Meanwhile creationists, the most boring and uneducated people of the 21st century, throw out all this human knowledge and pretend the chimps, the bonobos, and people apes were all magically created out of nothing.

Who to trust here? The wackos with their evidence-free belief in magic, or thousands of scientists and 150 years of scientific discoveries, backed up by mountains of powerful evidence?

Normal people go with the evidence.

Creationists throw out the evidence and worry about the pitiless indifference of the real world, and so choose to live in a childish everything-is-magic-just-believe-in-the-dead-Jeebus-preacher-man-and-I-will-fly-up-to-the-clouds-when-I-drop-dead fantasy world.

I really should get my own blog.

9:15 AM, October 29, 2009  
Blogger bob said...

I meant "before Darwin published", not "before Darwin's published".

I proofread and proofread and still never get it right.

9:18 AM, October 29, 2009  
Blogger Escovado said...

"That's interesting. Did Jane Goodall witness this?

I think you're making things up, but I will stand corrected if you provide a link or something.
"

Why are you so lazy, Bob? Here, let me spoon feed you: Chimps also eat their babies

"Facts" and "More facts"

Well, Bob, if you bothered to present any facts then maybe we poor, ignorant creationists would be quaking in fear of them. The truth of the matter is that every "fact" you posted is nothing but a series of conjectures based upon a heap of questionable assumptions. It is these assumptions that creationists question, but you don’t seem to deal with them.

Stories of how our “common ancestors” split apart millions of years ago make for entertaining programs on the Discovery Channel, but they are just that: stories. So...let me get this straight. If someone made up a story about how something might have evolved and enough people choose to believe it, then it automatically becomes a fact? That sounds more like a mythology to me.

Since I’m am engineer at heart, I prefer to deal with the more basic nut-and-bolts of how things get implemented. So would you please explain to me how that base-four digital information storage and retrieval system and the information stored in it appeared? And, please, don’t resort to magical explanations by saying that the evolution god did it. OK?

10:47 AM, October 29, 2009  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Escavado, that was pure gold. I was just going to reference the BBC Earth series where they have a rather disturbing scene of one rival chimp group attacking and killing a second one and the victorious group eats the bodies of the dead rivals. We had to sort of fast forward through that portion because it was scaring the kids.

11:10 AM, October 29, 2009  
Blogger bob said...

Thanks for that information. It explains why I love the taste of dead human babies for breakfast so much.

based upon a heap of questionable assumptions

No, not quite. The facts I listed are based on something called EVIDENCE. Can you say that word? Why don't you give it a try. Evidence, evidence, evidence. Please practice saying and understanding that important word.

The evidence for the basic scientific fact called evolution has been accumulating for 150 years, and I will talk about one of my favorite pieces of evidence later in these comments.

What interests me very much is the amount of evidence the creationists have for their anti-science religious belief called "magical creation".

The amount of evidence for this childish idea is exactly zero and it always will be zero, because how can a person possibly test for magic.

About that evidence I promised you. Here it is, in my own words, but you really should look it up, preferably from a real scientist and not a professional liar for Jeebus.

ERVs also known as Endogenous RetroViruses.

There's nothing in the Bible about ERVs. Isn't that interesting? I doubt that the dead Jeebus preacher man, who Christians believe was the son of the Master of the Universe, ever heard of ERVs.

You got to look it up for the details, but here's a short summary for you: There are several ERVs found in the exact same location in the genome of human apes and chimpanzee apes. There are a fewer number of ERVs found in the exact same location of human apes and gorilla apes. The reason for this is gorillas are a more distant cousin of humans than chimps are.

How does a creationist explain those ERVs found in the exact same place in two different species? Well, they go running to their favorite professional liar, and they cut and paste their dishonest bull**** without bothering to understand what they are copying and pasting.

For example the lawyers and fake scientists who work for the Christian creationist organization called the Discovery Institute (which has never discovered anything, and which scientists call the Dishonesty Institute), have the following explanation for ERVs which you can look up at their website that doesn't allow comments so that real scientists can't point out how bloody stupid they are.

The Disco retards say ERVs are functional, and therefore they are not evidence for evolution.

This is called "changing the subject" to avoid the real point of this evidence. It does not matter if ERVs are functional or not. What matters is a ERV, which is inserted into the DNA of an individual animal long after that species first appears, and is inherited and can eventually spread throughout an entire species, and it becomes a DNA marker that identifies that species. What is interesting is many of the ERVs found in human DNA also appear in the exact same location in chimps. How is that possible? Well, since molecular biologists know ERVs are inherited, the only possible explanation is those ERVs were inherited from the same ancestor, the common ancestor of the two ape species, chimpanzee apes and human apes.

Whether or not ERVs are functional might be interesting, but this is not important when talking about why those ERVs are there in the exact same locations.

For ERVs, the childish "The common designer magically created people and chimps that way" does not work because those ERVs were inserted long after those species first appeared.

There's millions of other pieces of evidence for evolution, but the above evidence is in my opinion perhaps the most powerful and most undeniable evidence for the idea that we share an ancestor with chimps.

If you still don't get it, then what can I possibly do for you people?

11:40 AM, October 29, 2009  
Blogger bob said...

Sometimes, not very often, actually only once so far in my lifetime, I find a creationist who doesn't have his head permanently buried in the sand. This happened a few months ago. After the above explanation I gave him, and after he watched a video about it, he admitted that ERVs are a big problem for the magical creation idea, and he promised to buy and read the three books I recommended. I bet by now he has rejected magic and now accepts the science of evolution. He may or may not still believe in the god fairy, but at least he probably is greatly enjoying learning about how the real world works.

A big part of growing up is when a person learns to be grateful to find out he's been wrong all his life. It's better to be wrong but eventually fix the problem, than to die without ever knowing the truth.

For me, that's my motto. If evidence shows that I'm wrong about something, I'm darn glad to find out about it, and if somebody provides me with this evidence, I make sure he knows I'm very grateful.

11:42 AM, October 29, 2009  
Blogger donsands said...

"He may or may not still believe in the god fairy, but at least he probably is greatly enjoying learning about how the real world works."

And do you believe in gas fairy, or a molecule fairy?

Bob, you never answered where you think all this cosmos came from?

Was there an eternal something; something that always was?

I'd really like to know what you think.

I see the cosmos as created by God. And Jesus of Nazerath testifies to this truth, fact, and evidence.

So, what do you have for your fairy?

1:21 PM, October 29, 2009  
Blogger bob said...

"Bob, you never answered where you think all this cosmos came from?"

Don't know. Don't care.

I'm interested in modern biology, and not so much other branches of science.

Saying "I don't know" is much more honest than invoking Jeebus, which has never solved any scientific problem.

So what do you believers in god-did-it think about those ERVs? I have never heard of any valid criticism of this evidence, because there isn't any. Usually creationists just ignore it. Their heads are very comfortable buried in the sand.

My only suggestion for people who worry about the religious implications of evolution is this: Hide your god-of-the-gaps where scientists are less likely to chase it away. And the only safe place for it that I know of is just before the Big Bang, because scientists can only speculate about that, as far as I know.

But come back in a few hundred years, and that problem might be solved. The god-of-the-gaps eventually gets chased out, no matter where it hides.

Perhaps a better suggestion for creationists is to consider the atheism idea. That's a big leap from believing in Jeebus, but you people have no idea how wonderful it is to be completely free of all medieval superstitions. After throwing out all religious ideas, and spending time studying science, many people are amazed by how easy it is to understand scientific concepts, and how incredibly interesting those ideas are. Suddenly, everything starts to make sense. The truth will make you free, and that is a worthy goal in my opinion.

2:05 PM, October 29, 2009  
Blogger Escovado said...

"The facts I listed are based on something called EVIDENCE."

Sorry Bob….nice try, but no cigar.

All the things that you listed are not facts; they are conjectures based in an interpretation of evidence. And the interpretation of that evidence is based on the assumptions of those doing the interpretation.

For example, the raw evidence in the field of paleontology is the genuine fact that a fossil of some creature was found in a certain location and depth in a geological formation. Now, the interpretation that this fossil is either six-thousand years old or sixty-million years old is based on a series of assumptions on the part of a scientist regarding the nature of past geological processes. And the interpretation of the evolutionary significance of said fossil is based on the assumption of its age and upon another series of assumptions about the nature of biological processes--including the assumption that macro evolution occurs in the first place. And so it goes…as the evolutionary paradigm has been built up over the past 150 years, the magnificent edifice of evolution is impressive to behold, but it is still constructed from a million just-so stories that don’t hold much credibility when critically examined.

On the contrary, I believe that it is you, Bob, who does not understand the definition of evidence.

And don’t try changing the subject by throwing red herrings around about the Discovery Institute and endogenous retroviruses. All you have done is behave like a blithering fool by regurgitating the same mindless pap over and over again.

Biological evolution falls apart at its most fundamental level. The discovery that our DNA contains base-four, error-correcting codes, which are stored, retrieved, copied, and processed to instruct machines to fabricate the complex proteins that make up living organisms, has rendered any attribution to unaided chance as absurd in the extreme.

Either explain the origin of biological information or stop wasting my time.

3:30 PM, October 29, 2009  
Blogger Escovado said...

Fred,

"Escavado, that was pure gold."

In Bob's case, it feels more akin to casting pearls before swine. But thanks for the compliment. ;)

3:35 PM, October 29, 2009  
Blogger Escovado said...

I almost forgot, for the benefit of the readers here regarding ERVs, please be sure to check out: NONFUNCTIONAL MOLECULAR EVIDENCE—ENDOGENOUS RETROVIRUSES? from the True Origin web site.

Be sure to also see Human Endogenous Retroviruses (HERVs)—Evolutionary “Junk” or God’s Tools? from Answers in Genesis.

3:52 PM, October 29, 2009  
Blogger donsands said...

"Don't know. Don't care."-Bob

Thanks.

4:05 PM, October 29, 2009  
Blogger Escovado said...

Oh yes, yes, and one more thing I forgot! The section of the paragraph I posted that said 'The discovery that our DNA...has rendered any attribution to unaided chance as absurd in the extreme.' was taken from LAmbert Dolphin's web Site: No Such Thing as Chance!

That's the perils of posting comments on a blog and not being able to edit them. Sometimes one forgets to add the proper references. :)

4:13 PM, October 29, 2009  
Blogger bob said...

Escovado, just as I predicted, a believer in magic, you, went running to a liar for Jeebus, never bothering to understand, and never bothering to read, the dishonest garbage he wrote.

Please list the contributions your favorite liar has made to modern biology.

Of course there is no such list. No discoveries. Nothing. I never even heard of this person.

Does your liar suggest an alternative to evolution? Would that alternative be god's magic wand, and did he provide evidence for that magic wand?

No, of course not. Creationists can't defend their bloody stupid belief in magic, so they attack scientific discoveries instead, hiding their bull**** with several paragraphs of scientific sounding nonsense.

I give up. Creationists are creationists for a good reason. They are just plain terrified of the real world, and they couldn't understand a simple scientific concept (like ERVs) even if their lives depended on it.

The business called LYING-FOR-JEEBUS has become a huge business in America, which has millions of gullible customers (but zero scientists) who will believe anything they say without ever bothering to understand what they are saying.

The result is massive scientific ignorance and a country (America) that has become the laughing-stock of the Western world.

4:38 PM, October 29, 2009  
Blogger bob said...

Escovado provided us with some bull**** from Answers in Genesis.

Amazing. Escovado actually thinks I would be impressed by an organization that believes the entire vast universe was magically created 6,000 years ago (instead of about 14,000,000,000 years ago).

You just proved to me beyond any doubt that you are a total waste of time and you are totally full of it. I might as well discuss science with a dog than try to explain anything to you.

6,000 year old universe. Stupid and insane are not strong enough words to describe this idea.

4:44 PM, October 29, 2009  
Blogger bob said...

"No Such Thing as Chance!"

I totally agree.

Of course natural selection is NOT chance, which creationists would understand if they had any common sense and if they took a break from getting all their information from god-soaked lying pigs.

4:47 PM, October 29, 2009  
Blogger Escovado said...

Yet another classic fail from Bob.

Natural selection creates nothing new; it only serves to sieve out unfit variants and defective mutants. Of course, Bob is apparently a lot smarter than Jacques Monod, one of the founding fathers of modern evolutionary theory:

"We call these events accidental; we say that they are random occurrences. And since they constitute the only possible source of modifications in the genetic text, itself the sole repository of the organism's hereditary structures, it necessarily follows that chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution: this central concept of modern biology is no longer one among other possible or even conceivable hypothesis. It is today the sole conceivable hypothesis, the only one that squares with observed and tested fact. And nothing warrants the supposition--or hope--that on this score our position is likely ever to be revised."

Chance and Necessity
Jacques Monod
(New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971), pp. 112 - 113
(Emphasis in the original)

Bob, you have steadfastly refused to directly answer any questions. Instead, you have chosen spew out a string of logical fallacies and insults. You have demonstrated a complete lack of ability to present reasoned arguments for your position. You are an embarrassment to atheists everywhere. But that’s OK, because I do have atheist friends who aren’t stark raving lunatics, so I know you aren’t representative of all atheists.

So, Bob, I would like to present you with a couple of ATHEIST DEMOTIVATORS that you can print up and hang on your office wall: Atheism and Atheist Reason.

I'm done feeding this troll.


Fred,

My apology for the first DEMOTIVATOR being a bit off-color, but it was too apropos to pass up! Thanks for letting me play in your sandbox. :)

5:39 PM, October 29, 2009  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

No. I appreciate the interaction. I have been busy today so I haven't had the time to participate. Only by God's grace will Bob have his eyes opened. I allowed him to post his rants because I think it is important for lurkers and other visitors to see that the Bob's of the world can easily be answered and that they don't have it all figured out like they claim.

Bob, your visit is drawing to an end. I may have one more post in response to some things you wrote. Maybe. But my patients is wearing thin of the mocking. You have mentioned on a couple of occasions that you need to get your own blog. I would welcome it. Blogger or Wordpress is two great places to begin. Give it a shot. There is plenty of room on the internet for one more bitter atheist rant blog.

6:20 PM, October 29, 2009  
Blogger Siarlys Jenkins said...

Bob, have you forgotten that the Romans said Christians have occult ceremonies where they drink the blood of babies?

Fred, you seem to have missed that Genesis says, "the God said, let the waters bring forth" and continues then God created every living creature that the waters brought forth -- that is a continuing pattern of creation. All that the biologist have done is observe some of the material results of the divine creation.

Those who argue in the name of Darwin that it all "just happened" are way beyond what science could ever demonstrate. But, those who argue that evolution couldn't have happened are simply underestimating God. C.S. Lewis pointed out that when a prayer is answered, there is a material chain of circumstances which is part of the answer, so that anyone could say "see, it just happened." So it is with evolutionary biology -- the very empirics resulting from the divine command can be used to say "see, it just happened randomly" but that doesn't make it so.

However, you still haven't answered my question. I know what a non-Darwinian is, but what is a non-Darwinian evolutionist?

6:52 PM, October 29, 2009  
Blogger steve said...

bob said...

“The fact is chimpanzee apes, who developed from the same ancient ape ancestors we developed from, have many similarities to the modern human ape species, including both our good and bad qualities.”

What’s your basis for distinguishing between good and bad qualities? According to Darwinian philosopher Michael Ruse, our sense of right and wrong is illusory.

“We developed larger brains and the fossil record that the creationists keep lying about show a gradual increase in brain size in our ancient human ancestors.”

To establish that progression, you’d have to chart out a continuous series of links. But according to Darwinian Henry Gee in Deep Time, fossils are so isolated by vast stretches of time that we can’t begin to establish direct lineage.

“Creationists throw out the evidence and worry about the pitiless indifference of the real world, and so choose to live in a childish everything-is-magic-just-believe-in-the-dead-Jeebus-preacher-man-and-I-will-fly-up-to-the-clouds-when-I-drop-dead fantasy world.”

The moral consequences of naturalistic evolution are hardly trivial. Bob acts as if it’s important to believe the “facts” and go with the “evidence.”

But if, for the sake of argument, naturalistic evolution were true, then it wouldn’t matter if naturalistic evolution were true. If there is no afterlife, then the folks who believe the “facts” and the folks who disbelieve the “facts” share a common fate. It would make no difference to the cemetery if you died a Darwinian or a fundamentalist. Natural selection doesn’t care what you believe.

“The facts I listed are based on something called EVIDENCE. Can you say that word? Why don't you give it a try. Evidence, evidence, evidence. Please practice saying and understanding that important word.”

The word “fact” is not itself a fact. The word “evidence” is not, itself, evidence.

“The amount of evidence for this childish idea is exactly zero and it always will be zero, because how can a person possibly test for magic.”

Notice that instead of trying to convince people through the use of reason, he tries to shame them. This tactic betrays a lack of confidence in the “evidence.” If he had the evidence on his side, why would he resort to shame?

Moreover, if naturalistic evolution were true, then it makes no difference to the cemetery whether you were childish or mature. One grave is just like another.

“There's nothing in the Bible about ERVs. Isn't that interesting?”

There’s nothing in the Bible about carburetors. Isn’t that interesting?

“About that evidence I promised you. Here it is, in my own words, but you really should look it up, preferably from a real scientist and not a professional liar for Jeebus. ERVs also known as Endogenous RetroViruses…There's millions of other pieces of evidence for evolution, but the above evidence is in my opinion perhaps the most powerful and most undeniable evidence for the idea that we share an ancestor with chimps.”

So that’s his high card. Very well. His evidence doesn’t get any better than this.

“How does a creationist explain those ERVs found in the exact same place in two different species?”

Actually, Dembski and Wells discuss that in The Design of Life. And Bob presents no counterargument to their discussion. His high card is a deuce of clubs.

6:17 AM, October 31, 2009  
Blogger donsands said...

Thanks Steve. Well done.
Have a blessed Lord's day.

7:25 AM, October 31, 2009  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Yes. Steve is a God send.
I am truly thankful I have him, and a host of other readers to offer their withering responses in my absence. Especially when I have a weekend full of harvest festivals I have to attend with the babies.

9:21 AM, October 31, 2009  
Blogger Siarlys Jenkins said...

OK, time for a Biblical evolutionist to weigh in again. It almost drives me to despair to hear professed atheists using God's Creation to prove his Word false, when none other than Galileo Galilei observed that God's Creation cannot be contrary to his Word. (Therefore, God must have known that the earth revolves around the sun, can anyone REALLY show where in the Bible is says otherwise???)

There are indeed many gaps in the fossil record. They leave room for many possibilities. What is not in doubt is the succession of different life forms, and the billions of years in which they have lived. Nor does the Bible say otherwise.

Evolution is not a neat little process of things gradually changing into other things. There are catastrophic extinctions, and frankly, most of those hominids out there are NOT our direct ancestors. They didn't all gradually start to have progeny a little more like us. A few of one species might have been the ancestors of something new, but most of them kept right on having ramapithecus babies, until they all died out.

Human beings emerged from a genetic bottleneck within the last 50,000 years, which means a very small number of individuals became physically isolated from all others of their kind, and changed over a geologically short period of time. It is in the nature of genetic bottlenecks that we cannot tell what came earlier. Somehow, out of this very isolated condition, came unique new beings with language, art, vastly improved technological capabilities... sound like anything you've read somewhere?

Chimpanzees are genetically very similar to humans, and physically not too dis-similar, but there are very significant differences. For one thing, human babies will point things out to each other without even being socialized to do so, and chimpanzees never do that. Gang rape is also much more common among chimps, as is cannibalism of rivals. We've got something chimps don't. Call it soul.

All that geologists, biologists and paleontologists are able to do is piece together some of the physical results of great commands like "Let the water bring forth the living thing that hath life..." and "Let us make man in our own image..." Science tells us what happened afterward, just as the Hubble Telescope and the COBE satellite are telling us what happened right after God said "Let there be light." When Eustace tried to explain what a star IS, one of C.S. Lewis's characters replied "That is not what a star IS, it is one of the things a star DOES."

It is kind of unfortunate that so many Christians think they have to deny the evidence in order to keep faith with the issuer of the commands, but then, with so many annoying atheists giving a watered-down version of evolution to prove what science can never test, one way or the other, it is understandable.

7:47 PM, October 31, 2009  
Blogger Siarlys Jenkins said...

P.S. The harvest festivals sound great. I just wrapped up a month doing tours with school children at a pumpkin farm, with corn mazes and stuff.

7:48 PM, October 31, 2009  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home