Report on a Creation Evidence Expo

| 180 Comments

On Biodork there’s a guest post reporting a visit by several skeptics/atheists to a Creation “Evidence” Expo held recently in Indianapolis. A couple of excerpts to entice you to read it all:

It turns out creationism is still alive and kicking. Okay, maybe not kicking so much as floundering so it doesn’t drown.

Of some note, creationists have already picked up the ENCODE project’s “80% of the genome is functional” meme that’s polluting mainstream media and the blogosphere. (See T. Ryan Gregory for a representative critique of the PR misrepresentations of the ENCODE papers, and Nature News for an overview of some of the critiques. And here’s Nature’s portal to the ENCODE data.) At the Creation “Evidence” Expo YEC Nuclear chemist Dr. Jay Wile is reported to have used ENCODE’s bogus ‘80% functional’ claim:

He began quoting biology books from 1989 and talking about “junk DNA”. He informed the audience that junk DNA doesn’t exist because god made us and that they now know 80% of what our DNA does.

Ewan Birney, lead coordinator of ENCODE, has a lot to answer for.

180 Comments

Something threw me about Louise’s report. She said she outed herself as a non-believer at a recent expo and the audience cheered her. Huh? Why did an assembly of creationists react positively to the bailing of another believer?

If you think creationism is dead, how about some “new evidence “ for it? Check out Florida Citizens for Science blog http://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=1685

I’d write more, but I’m late to kill, steal and destroy.

Glen Davidson

Paul Collier said:

Something threw me about Louise’s report. She said she outed herself as a non-believer at a recent expo and the audience cheered her. Huh? Why did an assembly of creationists react positively to the bailing of another believer?

They were reacting to the opportunity to proselytize.

“Bring these unbelievers to us, so that we may know them”

ALIVE AND KICKING??? This forum exists because its kicking with impact.

We are living in a actual revolution in “science” subjects dealing with origins. The YEC part has maintained and progressed important numbers and demographics that insist the bible is not wrong on any point about origins. That evolution and company is wrong and we can prove it.

The ID part with just small numbers has made creationism(s) and opposition to evolution a modern famous movement. Everywhere everyone must address in some way this revolution. Politicians, science publications, and general media must all hustle to present to the public why ID etc are wrong. Book after book and blogs and everything shows its considered that the ID/YEC movement is dangerous to evolutionary biology or other ideas about origins and God in origins. It is so famous and popular now to take on evolution that even evolutionists in bokk after book try to grab attention by seeming to question evolution on some point!

It is a real and true historical event that in our day there is a powerful revolution against old conclusions in subjects dealing with origins.

Either this revolution will sweep away the old ideas or it will come to a fantastic flop that 20 years from now kids will write essays about in school.!

Creationism has successfully created a modern scientific revolution despite the results that time must still reveal. I think any student of western science should be excited about the present situation regardless of their position. A thing is happening here that could change human thought. Make sure your with the good guys folks!

Robert Byers said:

ALIVE AND KICKING??? This forum exists because its kicking with impact.

We are living in a actual revolution in “science” subjects dealing with origins. The YEC part has maintained and progressed important numbers and demographics that insist the bible is not wrong on any point about origins. That evolution and company is wrong and we can prove it.

The ID part with just small numbers has made creationism(s) and opposition to evolution a modern famous movement. Everywhere everyone must address in some way this revolution. Politicians, science publications, and general media must all hustle to present to the public why ID etc are wrong. Book after book and blogs and everything shows its considered that the ID/YEC movement is dangerous to evolutionary biology or other ideas about origins and God in origins. It is so famous and popular now to take on evolution that even evolutionists in bokk after book try to grab attention by seeming to question evolution on some point!

It is a real and true historical event that in our day there is a powerful revolution against old conclusions in subjects dealing with origins.

Either this revolution will sweep away the old ideas or it will come to a fantastic flop that 20 years from now kids will write essays about in school.!

Creationism has successfully created a modern scientific revolution despite the results that time must still reveal. I think any student of western science should be excited about the present situation regardless of their position. A thing is happening here that could change human thought. Make sure your with the good guys folks!

Stand with phlogiston theory as it sweeps away thermodynamics, relativity, and quantum mechanics, unless you want to be with the losing side (hint, it involves charred flesh)!

Glen Davidson

Robert Byers said:

Book after book and blogs and everything shows its considered that the ID/YEC movement is dangerous to evolutionary biology or other ideas about origins and God in origins.

It is dangerous in the sense that its proponents, who include those in positions of political authority, are attempting to undermine and erase everything we know about modern biology, as well as geology and other ACTUAL sciences.

Robert Byers said:

Creationism has successfully created a modern scientific revolution despite the results that time must still reveal.

How so? The overwhelming majority of scientists still denounce Creationism as pseudoscientific clap trap. The “revolution” is entirely in your head.

ALIVE AND KICKING??? This forum exists because its kicking with impact.

Honestly, that is true. The great rise of the ID movement, along with the concurrent resurgence and huge expansion of YEC (and OEC) advocacy, has essentially forced evolutionists (including the good ole Pandas) to go on the defensive. This website constitutes evidence

Permission to speak freely? Things are really at the point where you evolutionists will actually snarl and bite on each other for daring to say (and peer-review-publish) findings and conclusions that doesn’t fit the Darwin-Dogma-Dogfood script. An amazing development.

In fact, here’s some in-house snarling and biting right now:

Ewan Birney, lead coordinator of ENCODE, has a lot to answer for.

(Oooo-hh, sounds kinda bloody, doesn’t it? Ain’t no Inquisition like an evolutionist Inquisition, baby! Dr. Birney better watch his back, or he gonna git the RACK!!!)

Robert Byers said:

ALIVE AND KICKING??? This forum exists because its kicking with impact.

Creationism exists as a socio-political (bowel) movement, but not a scientific one.

Initiating delusion of adequacy in 3.. 2.. 1.. :

We are living in a actual revolution in “science” subjects dealing with origins. The YEC part has maintained and progressed important numbers and demographics that insist the bible is not wrong on any point about origins.

RiiIIiiIIiiight ! Expect for the FACT there was no world-wide flood - christians almost 200 years ago realized that !

And for the FACT that you have to bend, fold, spindle and mutilate REAL WORLD DATA to make it conform to the creationut ‘model’.

How, EXACTLY, does blubbering ‘IT WAS CREATED MY A MAGICAL SKY PIXIE !!!!!1!!!!’ qualify as a valid, useful, or scientific answer ?

The stupidity continues with :

That evolution and company is wrong and we can prove it.

Creationuts and IDiots have been claiming that for DECADES.

PUT UP OR SHUT UP !

(and no, blubbering ‘** I ** assert evolution cannot explain X; therefore, Xtian Magical Sky Pixie DIDIT !!!!!’ is not, has never been, nor will ever be a convincing argument).

The ID part with just small numbers has made creationism(s) and opposition to evolution a modern famous movement. Everywhere everyone must address in some way this revolution.

A socio-political bowel movement, meant as a mental laxative to shove Magical Skymanism into science where it never belonged.

Politicians, science publications, and general media must all hustle to present to the public why ID etc are wrong. Book after book and blogs and everything shows its considered that the ID/YEC movement is dangerous to evolutionary biology or other ideas about origins and God in origins.

Good thing that it is quite easy to show why IDiots and creationuts are wrong.

The only problem is that IDiots and creationuts are incapable of listening, and so, when shown to be wrong, merely bellow their misunderstandings and lies ever louder (in a feeble attempt to drown out reality with their sanctimonious screechings).

It is so famous and popular now to take on evolution that even evolutionists in bokk after book try to grab attention by seeming to question evolution on some point!

RiiIIiiIIIGHT ! They argue about the fine points of how evolution works, NOT WHETHER OR NOT IT WORKS.

A point the IDio-creationuts have YET to comprehend …

It is a real and true historical event that in our day there is a powerful revolution against old conclusions in subjects dealing with origins.

Ah, yes - ye olde ‘evolution is about to fall ANY DAY NOW !!!’

Creationuts have been saying that for 150+ years. They were wrong then. They are wrong now. And they will continue to be wrong until they can present postive evidence FOR IDio-creationism.

(and no, blubbering ‘evolution cannot explain X; therefore, GodDesigner DIDIT !!!!!’ will not cut it).

More vainglorious posturing :

Either this revolution will sweep away the old ideas or it will come to a fantastic flop that 20 years from now kids will write essays about in school.!

Creationism has been a flop in science for nearly 200 years; ID doesn’t even reach the status of hypothesis (since it has no testable mechanisms, predicts nothing, etc).

More santimonious gibbertwittery :

Creationism has successfully created a modern scientific revolution despite the results that time must still reveal.

Translation : we IDiots and creationuts are taking credit for the scientific revolution that DEMONSTRATES WE ARE WRONG AT EVERY TURN !

Egomaniacal wanking in 3.. 2.. 1..

I think any student of western science should be excited about the present situation regardless of their position. A thing is happening here that could change human thought. Make sure your with the good guys folks!

‘Change human thought’ as in ‘drag science and learning backwards 200 years so it conforms to one peculiar interpretation of ancient morality tales’. That is NOT a good thing !

The good guys are the ones that advanced science by studying the REAL WORLD and then TESTING THEIR IDEAS AGAINST IT.

Given the fact that IDiots and creationuts are unable or unwilling to test their ideas, the winner is EVOLUTION.

Unless, of course, you actually have EVIDENCE to the contrary ?

FL said:

Permission to speak freely? Things are really at the point where you evolutionists will actually snarl and bite on each other for daring to say (and peer-review-publish) findings and conclusions that doesn’t fit the Darwin-Dogma-Dogfood script. An amazing development.

In fact, here’s some in-house snarling and biting right now:

Ewan Birney, lead coordinator of ENCODE, has a lot to answer for.

(Oooo-hh, sounds kinda bloody, doesn’t it? Ain’t no Inquisition like an evolutionist Inquisition, baby! Dr. Birney better watch his back, or he gonna git the RACK!!!)

Creationists get published in legitimate, reputable scientific journals when they do legitimate science. It’s really that simple. Leonard Brand and Robert Gentry, for example, have been published repeatedly.

Birney is being crucified lately because of his poor PR handling of ENCODE, not because of any disagreements to do with evolutionary theory. Typical Creationist tactic… to toss the original context of a statement and replace it with their own…

FL said:

ALIVE AND KICKING??? This forum exists because its kicking with impact.

Honestly, that is true. The great rise of the ID movement, along with the concurrent resurgence and huge expansion of YEC (and OEC) advocacy, has essentially forced evolutionists (including the good ole Pandas) to go on the defensive. This website constitutes evidence

It is only evidence that reality is being ‘assaulted’ by droves of deranged f*ckwits that ‘think’ science can be overriden by political action.

Good thing that, IN REALITY, a scientific theory can only be overturned by ANOTHER SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

And neither ID nor any other form of creatorism ARE science - they are nothing more than glorificiations of ignorance. A way to STOP thinking and learning, yet feel good about being willfully ignorant.

Permission to speak freely? Things are really at the point where you evolutionists will actually snarl and bite on each other for daring to say (and peer-review-publish) findings and conclusions that doesn’t fit the Darwin-Dogma-Dogfood script. An amazing development.

In fact, here’s some in-house snarling and biting right now:

Ewan Birney, lead coordinator of ENCODE, has a lot to answer for.

(Oooo-hh, sounds kinda bloody, doesn’t it? Ain’t no Inquisition like an evolutionist Inquisition, baby! Dr. Birney better watch his back, or he gonna git the RACK!!!)

‘Interesting’ delusions you have there Foolish Loon.

The IDio-creationuts bellow from one side of their mouth : “DARWINISM IS MONOLITHIC GROUPTHINK !!!”, yet out of the other side of its mouth bellows “IT BE FALLING APART !!!!!”

In the real world, when folk say stuff DEMONSTRABLY AT ODDS WITH OBSERVED REALITY, they should expect a backlash.

The only way 80% of the genome could have a function is if you define ‘function’ so broadly that just about anything qualifies.

Kinda like saying ‘employment is at 100%’ - if digesting food qualifies as employment.

That is the main problem with the ENCODE fiasco - their definition of ‘function’ stops just short of ‘can be digested by DNase’. They detected many potential switches - whether they DO anything or not is a seperate question that will take a LOT of hard work to figure out.

After all, even long dead transposable elements can have regulatory sequences that DNA binding proteins can bind to AND SO WOULD QUALIFY AS ‘FUNCTIONAL’, even though they don’t do a thing.

Even the ENCODE scientists admit that they haven’t debunked junk DNA - IIRC, di0geneslamp provided quotes directly from them stating exactly that.

But all of those details are beyond your willfully limited understanding, aren’t they Foolish Loon ?

All that you see is a discussion about something you don’t understand, and immediately jump to ‘evolution be in trouble !! GO MAGICAL SKYMANISM !!!!!!’

Ewan Birney definitely has alot to answer for.

For example,over at the Huffington Post, the only one who has blogged credibly about the ENCODE results is Mike White:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/micha[…]1881788.html

On the other hand, the delusional James A. Shapiro reacted with ample enthusiasm by posting this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james[…]1873935.html

and then, he opted to post this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james[…]1893984.html

I must credit Diogeneslamp0 for being consistently the most consistently effective poster pointing out Shapiro’s breathtaking inanity in grossly misinterpreting the ENCODE results.

Finally, last but not least, here’s Shapiro’s rather unique take on Science Guy Bill Nye’s recent video condemning the teaching of creationism; his latest pathetic example of breathtaking inanity:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james[…]1919558.html

Let them keep on this ENCODE thing. If I’ve understood aright, the other thing the result tells us is that 20% of the genome does literally nothing – it’s chemically inert. Previously ‘junk DNA’ was a rhetorical own goal – a poor, hastily-coined term for sequences that didn’t have a clearly understood function, which allowed the IDs and creationists to crow with victory every time that a new function was discovered for a particular sequence and claim we’d eventually get to 100% and prove that God (or He Who Must Not Be Named Where People Can Hear Us, if you’re going for a cultural wedgie) was not a wastrel. By using the widest definition of ‘active’ possible, however, they’ve painted themselves into a corner. Just ask them to explain the remaining fifth…

YEC Nuclear chemist Dr. Jay Wile

YEC nuclear chemist? That’s an oxymoron, isn’t that?

FL said:

ALIVE AND KICKING??? This forum exists because its kicking with impact.

Honestly, that is true. The great rise of the ID movement, along with the concurrent resurgence and huge expansion of YEC (and OEC) advocacy,

You had 90% of the people in the mid-1800s. Now you have at most 50%. And what resurgence? YEC numbers seem to have been stable for the last 30 years.

Things are really at the point where you evolutionists will actually snarl and bite on each other for daring to say (and peer-review-publish) findings and conclusions that doesn’t fit the Darwin-Dogma-Dogfood script. An amazing development.

Nobody is disputing the scientific results of ENCODE. We don’t like how its been hyped, that is all. They used a very broad definition of ‘functional’ which has already lead to misunderstanding by the public (and probably will continue to do so). But change the term to “chemically active” or something else like that, and everyone here would be perfectly happy with the result.

So again, just to make this point clear: nobody is disputing that (bits of) the genome acts the way they describe. People are disputing whether ‘functional’ is the best word to describe what they found.

Either this revolution will sweep away the old ideas or it will come to a fantastic flop that 20 years from now kids will write essays about in school.

Evidently we don’t have to wait 20 years for the “fantastic flop.” We can enjoy it now!

Here’s a hint… when you describe a ‘scientific revolution’ as a ‘movement’, you probably don’t know what a scientific revolution even is.

As far as ‘movement’, well insert your own crude joke here, because that’s all ID really is.

Let me know when you decide to actually do anything sciency with Intelligent Design. You know, like create a valid hypothesis. One that is testable, discriminatory, and falsifiable. Then let me know when you actually get around to testing it, instead of blatantly misrepresenting other peoples’ work. Let me know when you have gotten together with all the other YECs, OECs, IDists, etc and come up with a single notion, instead of all the mutually contradictory ones that you all support because you don’t dare be seen to argue with one another.

Oh and, you still owe us a discussion of how to teach ID in schools, especially considering that 40% of science class must be labs. So feel free to describe a lab that shows ID in biology.

And just look at the quality and knowledge of ID/creationism’s followers!

Or, um, well…look, a wombat.

Glen Davidson

Matt Bright said:

Let them keep on this ENCODE thing. If I’ve understood aright, the other thing the result tells us is that 20% of the genome does literally nothing – it’s chemically inert. Previously ‘junk DNA’ was a rhetorical own goal – a poor, hastily-coined term for sequences that didn’t have a clearly understood function, which allowed the IDs and creationists to crow with victory every time that a new function was discovered for a particular sequence and claim we’d eventually get to 100% and prove that God (or He Who Must Not Be Named Where People Can Hear Us, if you’re going for a cultural wedgie) was not a wastrel. By using the widest definition of ‘active’ possible, however, they’ve painted themselves into a corner. Just ask them to explain the remaining fifth…

Problem is, Ewan Birney has been telling every interviewer he can that he’s confident the amount of “functional” DNA in further surveys will reach ~100%. And using ENCODE’s “definition” of function, that’s not entirely unlikely.

Well yeah, I suppose you’d get down to some sort of trivial structural stuff where you could argue the toss. That big string of Gs looks like it’s helping something bind to a histone, or preventing too much read-through from something upstream. Does it need to be that long, though? Maybe it does! Maybe God’s involved! Who knows? You don’t. Ahaaaaaa!!!

Is the game really worth the candle at that point, though? Maybe our only hope with these people is to back them into a place where the only arguments they can make are self-demolishing, in that they require the listener to know so much molecular biology even to follow them that they can immediately see why they’re bullshit.

Even there, Creationists have an “out” that might sound convincing. If there’s a small amount of DNA that definitely doesn’t do anything, they will go to the Fall-back position. That is, it’s DNA that was damaged since The Fall. “After all,” they’ll say, “everybody knows mutations are always bad and don’t produce anything useful.”

ksplawn said:

Even there, Creationists have an “out” that might sound convincing. If there’s a small amount of DNA that definitely doesn’t do anything, they will go to the Fall-back position. That is, it’s DNA that was damaged since The Fall. “After all,” they’ll say, “everybody knows mutations are always bad and don’t produce anything useful.”

And then we can hammer them with exactly how stupidly wrong they are. It’ll be fun!

Hi Byers & FL!

Since you think ID is such a great scientific slam-dunk maybe you can take a moment to explain it to us. My own cursory examination of the subject suggests that the ‘science’ bit is based on two claims 1} Some systems are Irreducibly Complex [IC] – ie, they could never have developed by any conceivable step-by-step process; and 2} that the existence of Complex Specified Information [CSI] requires an intelligent designer – and that CSI is detectible and measurable in all designed things.

I’m nor terribly interested in IC, though maybe you could give an example or two of a biological system that displays IC. Primarily I’d like an explanation of CSI; please describe how CSI can be detected and measured in several examples. Help cure my ignorance of ID by walking me through the math, step by step; show me exactly what is so blazingly obvious to you and other ID advocates, but that I seem to keep missing.

I eagerly await your concise & clear answer.

ogremk5 said:

ksplawn said:

Even there, Creationists have an “out” that might sound convincing. If there’s a small amount of DNA that definitely doesn’t do anything, they will go to the Fall-back position. That is, it’s DNA that was damaged since The Fall. “After all,” they’ll say, “everybody knows mutations are always bad and don’t produce anything useful.”

And then we can hammer them with exactly how stupidly wrong they are. It’ll be fun!

Exactly. You’ll never stamp the silliness out, but forcing them to a point where they have to appeal not just to scripture, but to some pulled-out-of-the-ass exegesis of their highly specific, sectarian fundie interpretation of that scripture, is a win. The IDers have to keep schtum, religious moderates get embarrassed and those who have been fooled into thinking they should ‘consider both sides’ on the subject get a faceful of exactly how stupid one of those sides actually is…

Robert Byers and FL both beautifully demonstrate the utter barrenness and malevolent uselessness of the Creationism/Intelligent Design movement.

Robert Byers repeatedly shows us how he has nurtured his self-inflicted inability to learn anything into arrogant self-delusion.

FL, in turn, shows us how his only reason for living is to spread lies and slander about everything and everyone whom he hates or does not share his unthinking hatred of science.

J. L. Brown said:

I eagerly await (Byers’ and FL’s) concise & clear answer.

You’re going to wait a while. I recommend taking up a hobby to help pass the time, like, knitting afghans for Clydesdales or piano cosies.

apokryltaros said:

J. L. Brown said:

I eagerly await (Byers’ and FL’s) concise & clear answer.

You’re going to wait a while. I recommend taking up a hobby to help pass the time, like, knitting afghans for Clydesdales or piano cosies.

I’ve been waiting on FL for over 2 years now. He keeps running away from me.

Don’t these creationists realize that they will be held accountable for withholding all of that evidence for ID/creationism, very likely leading to the loss of souls?

I realize that all of this evidence must be highly proprietary, since not a speck of legitimate evidence for ID/creationism ever leaks out into the public, but we’re talking about the mortal sin of sending souls to hell for lack of knowledge.

If they won’t think of us, still you’d suppose that they’d think of themselves. Maybe they just want so badly to be with us that they’re willing to go to hell for it.

Glen Davidson

Glen Davidson said:

Don’t these creationists realize that they will be held accountable for withholding all of that evidence for ID/creationism, very likely leading to the loss of souls?

They don’t care. All they want is to brainwash more Idiots For Jesus into giving them more money and more power. They literally don’t give a damn about those souls whom they fail to convince.

Byers, your severe reading comprehension problems again.

You completely ignored…

…geophysicists have performed direct radiometric dating samples on strata from the sea floor. If radiometric dating of strata 100 kilometers from the MAR (on both sides) gives a result of 10 million years old, strata 500 km away from the MAR gives a result about 50 million years old, and so on as you get farther from the MAR.

Before fundamentalists go dismissing radiometric dating, a few pioneers of radiometric/radiocarbon dating were Christian, look up Dr Laurence Kulp as one example. Scientists that are Christians routinely use radiometric dating in their field work, see here http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

One can’t cherry pick what he/she likes and pretend the rest doesn’t exist, unless you only want to fool yourself. You of course missed the point that multiple lines of independent evidence like magnetic pole reversals and radiometric dating give strong evidence the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (MAR) has been separating at a relatively constant rate the last nearly 200 million years.

We wouldn’t be surprised if you have run away from the mentioned Christian link about radiometric dating (click here) every time it’s been shown to you. I personally would understand, though. Even after I started to shed my YEC beliefs, I for spiritual reasons was still reluctant to check anything outside my YEC material from the Institute for Creation Research and the like.

But if by rare chance you have read the link here, what parts did you agree/disagree with? Use specific examples from the website.

Oh, even two centuries ago, most scientists (including Christian scientists) were abandoning the idea of a world wide Flood, including pioneering geologist Adam Sedgwick.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Sedgwick

If anything, Sedgwick and other Christians were understandably predisposed toward supporting a global Flood. But in the end even these presumptions came crashing down under the weight of evidence (click link here). Sedgwick and others during his time had the integrity to cut their losses. In this link, Sedgewick in 1831 recants his global Flood beliefs only a few short years after he had strongly supported a global Flood.

bigdakine said:

Robert Byers said:

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said:

Its fine that it separates from the centre. It just happened quick and only later does it sway about or in a minor way keeps pulling apart.

Laser measurements show the continents are separating from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (MAR) by a few centimeters a year. This rate of separation has been roughly the same the last 200 million years; we don’t need to assume a constant separation rate, for not only do we have magnetic pole reversals that are “frozen” into the rocks, geophysicists have performed direct radiometric dating samples on strata from the sea floor. If radiometric dating of strata 100 kilometers from the MAR (on both sides) gives a result of 10 million years old, strata 500 km away from the MAR gives a result about 50 million years old, and so on as you get farther from the MAR.

Before fundamentalists go dismissing radiometric dating, a few pioneers of radiometric/radiocarbon dating were Christian, look up Dr Laurence Kulp as one example. Scientists that are Christians routinely use radiometric dating in their field work, see here http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

When you say its been 200 million years you are assuming aplenty. The lasers ain’t been observing for that long! Whatever is noticed now need be nothing more then minor swaying or minor movement after a great separation event. It’s reasonable it would be that way. in fact its unreasonable too see a slow separation. This separation is the origin of smashed up corners and rising mountains and volcanoes everywhere on earth. The first guess should of been of a fast breck. They just didn’t imagine what could do that. We , creationists, can imagine the great flood year being the origin.

It all works with a fast action.

Robert, the measurements based on GPS are in excellent agreement with plate motion rates and directions determined from geophysical data such magnetic anomaly stripes coupled with radio-chronology, transform fault azimuths etc. Since the latter were determined years before GPS was brought to bear on plate motions, you are forced to claim that this agreement is a fantastic coincidence.

There is no data that supports any of your claims. None. However, all of the data gathered to date, supports Plate Tectonics.

No such thing as a slow opening you say? Try the East African Rift.

You’re a cartoonish buffoon. You should be proud of yourself.

Animation aside it still is the good point that all that is shown by any measurements is what would be if the separation happened within the year of the flood! Things would line up from the process and results of separation! It’s more likely , reasonable, and biblical, that the single original land mass broke up for the new post flood world.

No matter what your evidences, I can always be claiming the interpretation is wrong. I dont have to prove it, i dont have to provide any evidences of my own, all i have to do is just say i wont believe it and it cant be true. See, very simple. Just deny all reality no matter what. You dont have to know anything or learn anything or study anything. You should try it sometime. its easy. Of course i cant explain the actual evidence, i dont have to, im me!

genetics is atomic and unproven and continental drift is all hooey no matter what the real experts are saying. they may be experts but i am knowing better because i know what i want to believe.

Robert Byers said:

rob said:

Robert.

You are wrong.

The mid-Atlantic ridge is high (look at Google Maps) because it is still hot soon after formation of the ocean crust (hot rock expands). This is why Iceland is volcanically active and above sea level today.

As the newly created ocean floor moves away from the spreading center it cools and contracts. The ocean gets deeper away from the mid-Atlantic ridge (look at Google Maps).

The measured slope from the mid-Atlantic ridge to the deep Atlantic shows the spreading has been slow and steady at ~1 inch per year for ~150,000,000 years.

If at any time the Atlantic basin opened quickly we could measure it in the slope today.

These are simple measurements you can check or repeat yourself.

The Earth is old and shows it with simple measurements.

Simple measurements still need accurate interpretation! there is no problem with what you said as coming from a movement, within a year or so, and then having been broken it continues to separate or sway about. Yet calculating the present speed of separation is not evidence that was always it’s speed! It would look the way it looks whether fast or slow. In fact perhaps if it was slow it wouldn’t look as it does today but I’m speculating.

You’re still overlooking crustal cooling rates (and heat flow measurements), sedimentation rates (thicker sediments at the continental margins, decreasing steadily towards a spreading zone), radiometric dating of sea floor rocks, and magnetic reversal data (which has already been discussed in this thread). *All* of the data points to the same conclusion: Long term, slow spreading from the Mid-atlantic rift zone at speeds consistent with current measurements.

This leaves you with some choices that *ought* to be unpleasant. The least so would be that the scientists are right an YEC is wrong. A more disturbing conclusion–for you–would be that God *lies*, because you are interpreting the Bible to say one thing and the rocks (what you believe to be God’s creation) say something completely different.

Robert Byers said:

bigdakine said:

Robert Byers said:

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said:

Its fine that it separates from the centre. It just happened quick and only later does it sway about or in a minor way keeps pulling apart.

Laser measurements show the continents are separating from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (MAR) by a few centimeters a year. This rate of separation has been roughly the same the last 200 million years; we don’t need to assume a constant separation rate, for not only do we have magnetic pole reversals that are “frozen” into the rocks, geophysicists have performed direct radiometric dating samples on strata from the sea floor. If radiometric dating of strata 100 kilometers from the MAR (on both sides) gives a result of 10 million years old, strata 500 km away from the MAR gives a result about 50 million years old, and so on as you get farther from the MAR.

Before fundamentalists go dismissing radiometric dating, a few pioneers of radiometric/radiocarbon dating were Christian, look up Dr Laurence Kulp as one example. Scientists that are Christians routinely use radiometric dating in their field work, see here http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

When you say its been 200 million years you are assuming aplenty. The lasers ain’t been observing for that long! Whatever is noticed now need be nothing more then minor swaying or minor movement after a great separation event. It’s reasonable it would be that way. in fact its unreasonable too see a slow separation. This separation is the origin of smashed up corners and rising mountains and volcanoes everywhere on earth. The first guess should of been of a fast breck. They just didn’t imagine what could do that. We , creationists, can imagine the great flood year being the origin.

It all works with a fast action.

Robert, the measurements based on GPS are in excellent agreement with plate motion rates and directions determined from geophysical data such magnetic anomaly stripes coupled with radio-chronology, transform fault azimuths etc. Since the latter were determined years before GPS was brought to bear on plate motions, you are forced to claim that this agreement is a fantastic coincidence.

There is no data that supports any of your claims. None. However, all of the data gathered to date, supports Plate Tectonics.

No such thing as a slow opening you say? Try the East African Rift.

You’re a cartoonish buffoon. You should be proud of yourself.

Animation aside it still is the good point that all that is shown by any measurements is what would be if the separation happened within the year of the flood! Things would line up from the process and results of separation! It’s more likely , reasonable, and biblical, that the single original land mass broke up for the new post flood world.

Is there a Bible passage that says a single land mass magically broke apart because of Noah’s Flood?

Robert,

You are wrong again.

The slope of Atlantic sea floor (see Google Maps Satellite) would look different if it spread quickly or slowly.

Measurement of sea floor slope (you can have the measurements) shows that the Atlantic Ocean basin opened slow and steady at a rate of ~1 inch per year.

On another subject, there is a measured trans-Neptunian object orbiting our sun that is identified as Sedna 90377. Look it up.

Measurements of the orbital velocity (you can check or repeat them) show that Sedna takes 11,400 years to orbit the sun.

Has Sedna completed more than one orbit since formation?

Did god arrange things to trick us?

Robert Byers said:

rob said:

Robert.

You are wrong.

The mid-Atlantic ridge is high (look at Google Maps) because it is still hot soon after formation of the ocean crust (hot rock expands). This is why Iceland is volcanically active and above sea level today.

As the newly created ocean floor moves away from the spreading center it cools and contracts. The ocean gets deeper away from the mid-Atlantic ridge (look at Google Maps).

The measured slope from the mid-Atlantic ridge to the deep Atlantic shows the spreading has been slow and steady at ~1 inch per year for ~150,000,000 years.

If at any time the Atlantic basin opened quickly we could measure it in the slope today.

These are simple measurements you can check or repeat yourself.

The Earth is old and shows it with simple measurements.

Simple measurements still need accurate interpretation! there is no problem with what you said as coming from a movement, within a year or so, and then having been broken it continues to separate or sway about. Yet calculating the present speed of separation is not evidence that was always it’s speed! It would look the way it looks whether fast or slow. In fact perhaps if it was slow it wouldn’t look as it does today but I’m speculating.

apokryltaros said: Is there a Bible passage that says a single land mass magically broke apart because of Noah’s Flood?

Genesis 11:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother’s name was Joktan.

Now, remember that you’re dealing with someone who tells you that the Bible does not say that the Sun goes around a fixed Earth, but it does say that kinds are fixed. It is no great feat for such a methodology of interpretation to fit this verse to a single land mass breaking apart. The Bible means what he says it means, and there’s no disputing that.

Well see i says the earth is only five thousands of years old and the sun goes around the earth like it says in the bible if you are not to be agreeing then you are not doing astronomy cause astronomy is the study of stars and the sun is to big to be a stars so i says its the wrong interpretation also god made every little grasshopper by magic poof i said it i believe it and thats that

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said:

rob said:

Robert.

You are wrong.

The mid-Atlantic ridge is high (look at Google Maps) because it is still hot soon after formation of the ocean crust (hot rock expands). This is why Iceland is volcanically active and above sea level today.

As the newly created ocean floor moves away from the spreading center it cools and contracts. The ocean gets deeper away from the mid-Atlantic ridge (look at Google Maps).

The measured slope from the mid-Atlantic ridge to the deep Atlantic shows the spreading has been slow and steady at ~1 inch per year for ~150,000,000 years.

If at any time the Atlantic basin opened quickly we could measure it in the slope today.

These are simple measurements you can check or repeat yourself.

The Earth is old and shows it with simple measurements.

Simple measurements still need accurate interpretation! there is no problem with what you said as coming from a movement, within a year or so, and then having been broken it continues to separate or sway about. Yet calculating the present speed of separation is not evidence that was always it’s speed! It would look the way it looks whether fast or slow. In fact perhaps if it was slow it wouldn’t look as it does today but I’m speculating.

You’re still overlooking crustal cooling rates (and heat flow measurements), sedimentation rates (thicker sediments at the continental margins, decreasing steadily towards a spreading zone), radiometric dating of sea floor rocks, and magnetic reversal data (which has already been discussed in this thread). *All* of the data points to the same conclusion: Long term, slow spreading from the Mid-atlantic rift zone at speeds consistent with current measurements.

This leaves you with some choices that *ought* to be unpleasant. The least so would be that the scientists are right an YEC is wrong. A more disturbing conclusion–for you–would be that God *lies*, because you are interpreting the Bible to say one thing and the rocks (what you believe to be God’s creation) say something completely different.

Again. Sediment loading or dating measurements do not interfere with the fast and furious concept for separation. The dating thing is not proven by the way. Your list shows nothing that can’t be seen as confirming a fast breck! It looks and seems most likely to be what it is. A great earth movement including its bringing about smashing/splitting of other areas. Plate tectonics is one of the good things to come along for creationism. it explains a lot for us and for me explains the mechanism for the great power behind the water/sediment that was piled on earth during the flood. The dinos were covered by the sediment pushed by the water from the splitting continents. The dino egg accumulations were first drowned and then later covered powerfully by the sediment including such a pressure as to instantly fossilize them.

Robert Byers said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said:

rob said:

Robert.

You are wrong.

The mid-Atlantic ridge is high (look at Google Maps) because it is still hot soon after formation of the ocean crust (hot rock expands). This is why Iceland is volcanically active and above sea level today.

As the newly created ocean floor moves away from the spreading center it cools and contracts. The ocean gets deeper away from the mid-Atlantic ridge (look at Google Maps).

The measured slope from the mid-Atlantic ridge to the deep Atlantic shows the spreading has been slow and steady at ~1 inch per year for ~150,000,000 years.

If at any time the Atlantic basin opened quickly we could measure it in the slope today.

These are simple measurements you can check or repeat yourself.

The Earth is old and shows it with simple measurements.

Simple measurements still need accurate interpretation! there is no problem with what you said as coming from a movement, within a year or so, and then having been broken it continues to separate or sway about. Yet calculating the present speed of separation is not evidence that was always it’s speed! It would look the way it looks whether fast or slow. In fact perhaps if it was slow it wouldn’t look as it does today but I’m speculating.

You’re still overlooking crustal cooling rates (and heat flow measurements), sedimentation rates (thicker sediments at the continental margins, decreasing steadily towards a spreading zone), radiometric dating of sea floor rocks, and magnetic reversal data (which has already been discussed in this thread). *All* of the data points to the same conclusion: Long term, slow spreading from the Mid-atlantic rift zone at speeds consistent with current measurements.

This leaves you with some choices that *ought* to be unpleasant. The least so would be that the scientists are right an YEC is wrong. A more disturbing conclusion–for you–would be that God *lies*, because you are interpreting the Bible to say one thing and the rocks (what you believe to be God’s creation) say something completely different.

Again. Sediment loading or dating measurements do not interfere with the fast and furious concept for separation. The dating thing is not proven by the way. Your list shows nothing that can’t be seen as confirming a fast breck! It looks and seems most likely to be what it is. A great earth movement including its bringing about smashing/splitting of other areas. Plate tectonics is one of the good things to come along for creationism. it explains a lot for us and for me explains the mechanism for the great power behind the water/sediment that was piled on earth during the flood. The dinos were covered by the sediment pushed by the water from the splitting continents. The dino egg accumulations were first drowned and then later covered powerfully by the sediment including such a pressure as to instantly fossilize them.

So where in the Bible does it talk about Plate Tectonics? Where in the Bible does it say that Plate Tectonics is magically powered by the Magical Noah’s Flood?

rob said:

Robert,

You are wrong again.

The slope of Atlantic sea floor (see Google Maps Satellite) would look different if it spread quickly or slowly.

Measurement of sea floor slope (you can have the measurements) shows that the Atlantic Ocean basin opened slow and steady at a rate of ~1 inch per year.

On another subject, there is a measured trans-Neptunian object orbiting our sun that is identified as Sedna 90377. Look it up.

Measurements of the orbital velocity (you can check or repeat them) show that Sedna takes 11,400 years to orbit the sun.

Has Sedna completed more than one orbit since formation?

Did god arrange things to trick us?

Robert Byers said:

rob said:

Robert.

You are wrong.

The mid-Atlantic ridge is high (look at Google Maps) because it is still hot soon after formation of the ocean crust (hot rock expands). This is why Iceland is volcanically active and above sea level today.

As the newly created ocean floor moves away from the spreading center it cools and contracts. The ocean gets deeper away from the mid-Atlantic ridge (look at Google Maps).

The measured slope from the mid-Atlantic ridge to the deep Atlantic shows the spreading has been slow and steady at ~1 inch per year for ~150,000,000 years.

If at any time the Atlantic basin opened quickly we could measure it in the slope today.

These are simple measurements you can check or repeat yourself.

The Earth is old and shows it with simple measurements.

Simple measurements still need accurate interpretation! there is no problem with what you said as coming from a movement, within a year or so, and then having been broken it continues to separate or sway about. Yet calculating the present speed of separation is not evidence that was always it’s speed! It would look the way it looks whether fast or slow. In fact perhaps if it was slow it wouldn’t look as it does today but I’m speculating.

Not wrong. Any slope measurement works fine with a fast movement. Orbits of rocks is beside the point but is not evidence of its time in motion any more then a modern satellite is. The rock was put in the orbit by some event and is not evidence that there need even of been one revolution.

is not is not is not so there

apokryltaros said: So where in the Bible does it talk about Plate Tectonics? Where in the Bible does it say that Plate Tectonics is magically powered by the Magical Noah’s Flood?

Motivated persons can find whatever they want (and explain away whatever they do not want) in the Bible. If they are comfortable with the science of plate tectonics, they will find it in the Bible (just as they will ignore the Biblical support for geocentrism).

Beyers clearly does not understand correlation. He keeps responding as if your points are separate pieces of evidence that have been “misinterpreted.” He doesn’t get the correlation between data, e.g. magnetic stripes and plate movement rates, nor how devastating this is for creationist arguments. The whole concept of correlation seems to be too abstract for him to grasp. The odd mixture of obtuseness, obsession, and distinctive language usage, makes it pretty clear to me that he suffers from some form of “developmental delay” or traumatic brain injury or personality disorder.

Sylvilagus said:

Beyers clearly does not understand

Ya’ think?

Robert Byers said:

rob said:

Robert.

You are wrong.

The mid-Atlantic ridge is high (look at Google Maps) because it is still hot soon after formation of the ocean crust (hot rock expands). This is why Iceland is volcanically active and above sea level today.

As the newly created ocean floor moves away from the spreading center it cools and contracts. The ocean gets deeper away from the mid-Atlantic ridge (look at Google Maps).

The measured slope from the mid-Atlantic ridge to the deep Atlantic shows the spreading has been slow and steady at ~1 inch per year for ~150,000,000 years.

If at any time the Atlantic basin opened quickly we could measure it in the slope today.

These are simple measurements you can check or repeat yourself.

The Earth is old and shows it with simple measurements.

Simple measurements still need accurate interpretation! there is no problem with what you said as coming from a movement, within a year or so, and then having been broken it continues to separate or sway about. Yet calculating the present speed of separation is not evidence that was always it’s speed! It would look the way it looks whether fast or slow. In fact perhaps if it was slow it wouldn’t look as it does today but I’m speculating.

Only a mind as incredibly dense and as stupid as yours would ignore what rob has said. As for your comment to me, it’s not worth my time replying.

Robert Byers said: Simple measurements still need accurate interpretation! there is no problem with what you said as coming from a movement, within a year or so, and then having been broken it continues to separate or sway about. Yet calculating the present speed of separation is not evidence that was always it’s speed! It would look the way it looks whether fast or slow. In fact perhaps if it was slow it wouldn’t look as it does today but I’m speculating.

Epic fail, Booby Byers. You have just flunked your introductory college geology course test on plate tectonics.

Moo Moo said:

Don’t all dating methods depend on assumptions that may prove incorrect?

Of course. Science always uses assumptions that may prove correct, which is why its findings are tentative to varying degrees–and yet these “assumptions” have worked well enough to give us the modern world.

Furthermore, how do independent radiometric dating methods manage to agree with each other? And then, how does cyclostratigraphic dating agree with radiometric dating back to a couple hundred million years or so ago? Why do radiomectric dates typically accord well with the independent line of “relative dating”?

The “assumptions” aren’t exactly unreasonable ones to begin with, and when they happen to yield cross-correlating results we have considerable reasons to accept them.

Glen Davidson

Science always uses assumptions that may prove correct, which is why its findings are tentative to varying degrees–and yet these “assumptions” have worked well enough to give us the modern world.

Works better like this:

Science always uses assumptions that may prove incorrect, which is why its findings are tentative to varying degrees–and yet these “assumptions” have worked well enough to give us the modern world.

Glen Davidson

Moo Moo said:

Don’t all dating methods depend on assumptions that may prove incorrect?

Sure. For example, you might assume that your date is heterosexual, or that he told the truth about his age, or that he isn’t a serial killer, or that … What? Oh. Never mind.

Seriously, what Glen said.

Moo Moo said:

Don’t all dating methods depend on assumptions that may prove incorrect?

Sure. And how are those assumptions determined to be correct or incorrect? Why, by testing them. For example, the assumption of constant decay rates of radioactive isotopes has been tested in any number of ways, ranging from directly measuring them in lab tests where the material is subjected to various stressors (e.g., temperature and pressure stressors) to measuring the rate of decay of radioisotopes detected in supernova explosions (see here for a summary of one such test and here (behind a paywall) for a more technical description of it). The assumptions don’t merely hang unsupported.

If decay rates in the past varied as much as young earth creationism requires–by a factor of roughly 750,000–the surface of the earth would have vaprozied the surface of the earth. That would leave some pretty compelling evidence. The creationist RATE project, which purported to explain how radiometric dates would have been invalidated by decay rates faster than those presently measured, acknowledged that they had no solution for the heat problem it raises. One scientific critic wrote

There are, however, a number of serious difficulties with RATE’s hypothesis of accelerated decay. The RATE creationists acknowledge two of the most fundamental side effects of any such acceleration: heat and radiation. Aggregated over the 4.5 billion year history of Earth, radioactive decay has produced tremendous amounts of both. The acceleration of 4 billion years of decay into the first two days of the creation week and squeezing 500 million years into the year of the Flood (DeYoung 2005:150-151) is rather problematic. The Flood acceleration alone would have released enough energy to heat the Earth to a temperature of more than 22,000° C (Snelling 2005:183), which is roughly four times the temperature of the surface of the sun (DeYoung 2005:152). That amount of energy would have caused rocks, and presumably the entire crust of the Earth, to vaporize (DeYoung 2005:152; Snelling 2005:183).

Another scientific critic, a geologist, in a posting titled Were Adam and Eve Toast?, did a quantitative analysis of the problem for creationists. The answer to the title question, of course, is ‘Yes, well-burned toast’:

At 6000 years ago, it is pretty obvious that the entire Earth would be molten and Adam and Eve’s goose was cooked.

Moo Moo said:

Richard B. Hoppe said:

Moo Moo said:

Don’t all dating methods depend on assumptions that may prove incorrect?

Sure. And how are those assumptions determined to be correct or incorrect? Why, by testing them. For example, the assumption of constant decay rates of radioactive isotopes has been tested in any number of ways, ranging from directly measuring them in lab tests where the material is subjected to various stressors (e.g., temperature and pressure stressors) to measuring the rate of decay of radioisotopes detected in supernova explosions (see here for a summary of one such test and here (behind a paywall) for a more technical description of it). The assumptions don’t merely hang unsupported.

Thanks for this, although I was thinking more about the initial proportions of the isotopes in many cases.

Well if you go over to the carbon dating thread you will see that that is exactly the assumption they tested. See the thing is that scientists really do know what they are doing. They really do test their assumptions. They really do know how valid their conclusions are. Maybe you were thinking about creationists who don’t put forward testable hypotheses, don’t state or test their assumptions and don’t ever look at the real evidence.

Moo Moo said:

Richard B. Hoppe said:

Moo Moo said:

Don’t all dating methods depend on assumptions that may prove incorrect?

Sure. And how are those assumptions determined to be correct or incorrect? Why, by testing them. For example, the assumption of constant decay rates of radioactive isotopes has been tested in any number of ways, ranging from directly measuring them in lab tests where the material is subjected to various stressors (e.g., temperature and pressure stressors) to measuring the rate of decay of radioisotopes detected in supernova explosions (see here for a summary of one such test and here (behind a paywall) for a more technical description of it). The assumptions don’t merely hang unsupported.

Thanks for this, although I was thinking more about the initial proportions of the isotopes in many cases.

In the simplest cases, there is the parent isotope and no daughter isotope. That’s because many minerals exclude, say, lead (zircons exclude lead–it doesn’t work for crystallizing zircon), so any lead that shows up came from thorium or from uranium (different isotopes of lead from each).

But there are also ways of dealing with the case when daughter isotopes did exist originally in the mineral–often by figuring out how much of that element was in the mineral by finding out how much of an isotope not produced by radioactive decay is currently present, then figuring out how much daughter was produced for the modern ratio to now exist.

They aren’t just guessing.

Glen Davidson

Robert,

Yes actually, you are wrong.

If the Atlantic basin opened in 10,000 years, the sea floor slope would be horizontal between mid-Atlantic Ridge and the continental margin (no time to cool and contract). To have the current measured slope the ocean crust must release heat. This is a function of time and the distance from the zone of formation (like Iceland).

To have the slope that is measured today and that you can see in Google maps satellite (or download etopo1), many millions of years are required.

The Earth is old. Simple measurements show it.

Robert Byers said:

rob said:

Robert,

You are wrong again.

The slope of Atlantic sea floor (see Google Maps Satellite) would look different if it spread quickly or slowly.

Measurement of sea floor slope (you can have the measurements) shows that the Atlantic Ocean basin opened slow and steady at a rate of ~1 inch per year.

On another subject, there is a measured trans-Neptunian object orbiting our sun that is identified as Sedna 90377. Look it up.

Measurements of the orbital velocity (you can check or repeat them) show that Sedna takes 11,400 years to orbit the sun.

Has Sedna completed more than one orbit since formation?

Did god arrange things to trick us?

Robert Byers said:

rob said:

Robert.

You are wrong.

The mid-Atlantic ridge is high (look at Google Maps) because it is still hot soon after formation of the ocean crust (hot rock expands). This is why Iceland is volcanically active and above sea level today.

As the newly created ocean floor moves away from the spreading center it cools and contracts. The ocean gets deeper away from the mid-Atlantic ridge (look at Google Maps).

The measured slope from the mid-Atlantic ridge to the deep Atlantic shows the spreading has been slow and steady at ~1 inch per year for ~150,000,000 years.

If at any time the Atlantic basin opened quickly we could measure it in the slope today.

These are simple measurements you can check or repeat yourself.

The Earth is old and shows it with simple measurements.

Simple measurements still need accurate interpretation! there is no problem with what you said as coming from a movement, within a year or so, and then having been broken it continues to separate or sway about. Yet calculating the present speed of separation is not evidence that was always it’s speed! It would look the way it looks whether fast or slow. In fact perhaps if it was slow it wouldn’t look as it does today but I’m speculating.

Not wrong. Any slope measurement works fine with a fast movement. Orbits of rocks is beside the point but is not evidence of its time in motion any more then a modern satellite is. The rock was put in the orbit by some event and is not evidence that there need even of been one revolution.

Thanks for the links. I’m sure Behe will do some actual research and publish a rebuttal paper soon. Or not.

It is easy to get sidetracked by the details of percentages and what actual functional interactions between RNA and DNA segments mean. The important lesson to be learned from these studies, in my opinion, is a broader appreciation of how complex the genome is. The more we peel away the layers the more functionally interactive it all becomes. It is no longer meaningful to ask how many genes we have because we can no longer define a gene by the geographic location of bases, and we can no longer define how evolutionarily advanced an organism is by how many genes it has. It is becoming evident that the order in which genes are expressed, their post transcription modifications, etc. are vastly more important in determining the final outcome. This level of mind-boggling series of controls and counter-controls leads me and, increasingly, eminent scientists from around the world, to begin to re-examine the basic tenets of evolution. It is becoming clearer with each discovery that the sheer complexity of the genome and its regulatory mechanisms needs a more robust theory than the simplistic model of spontaneous mutations and natural selection, even though, on a local level, these mechanisms have a very important role. People like Simon Conway Morris, Cambridge Professor of evolutionary biology, and John Kearns, Harvard geneticist, have each expressed doubt about the standard evolutionary model for different reasons and join hundreds of other eminent scientists who are calling for a more robust model. Evan Olsen has even proposed a model based on chaos theory by which DNA is a fractal attractor which guides the evolutionary process toward a defined goal. If all this sounds like blasphemy, let us not be tempted to give Michael Behe’s infantile Intelligent Design model any more due than to admit that his concerns over the ever-increasing complexity of the genome are seeping into the mainstream scientific community.

Bill Maz said:

If all this sounds like blasphemy, let us not be tempted to give Michael Behe’s infantile Intelligent Design model any more due than to admit that his concerns over the ever-increasing complexity of the genome are seeping into the mainstream scientific community.

Sorry, but no Behe doesn’t have anything to do with new discoveries in molecular genetics. That’s like trying to claim that astrology is driving the discovery of exoplanets. Real scientists are making the discoveries and they don’t have anything to do with any intelligent designer.

Bill Maz wrote

It is becoming clearer with each discovery that the sheer complexity of the genome and its regulatory mechanisms needs a more robust theory than the simplistic model of spontaneous mutations and natural selection, even though, on a local level, these mechanisms have a very important role.

Since that “simplistic model” does not accurately represent current evolutionary theory, omitting an enormous amount that we’ve learned since 1859, and since it misrepresents what it includes (“spontaneous mutations”?), I call straw man on Maz.

Bill Maz further wrote

People like Simon Conway Morris, Cambridge Professor of evolutionary biology, and John Kearns, Harvard geneticist, have each expressed doubt about the standard evolutionary model for different reasons and join hundreds of other eminent scientists who are calling for a more robust model.

“Hundreds of eminent scientists”? Who? Where are these calls? I read a good deal of evolutionary literature, both pop science books and the technical literature, and I’m not aware of the claimed chorus of calls.

Bll Maz further wrote

Evan Olsen has even proposed a model based on chaos theory by which DNA is a fractal attractor which guides the evolutionary process toward a defined goal.

Ahhh, yes. Fractal attractors. Invoking fractals has almost the same status as invoking quantum theory in feng shui, something I actually read in the Columbus Dispatch last weekend. Here is the first paragraph of Evan Olsen’s landmark paper:

The sine circle map θn+1=θn+Ω-(k/2π)sin(2πθn) is investigated from a relativistic perspective. The Ω (frequency ratio) or average shift of the angle theta or winding number is conjectured to be a lorentz contraction (alpha) or α=Ω. This has ramifications for space-time theory and because of its relation to chaos theory also has ramifications to DNA. The winding number in the sine circle map is investigated experimentally by the Josephson junction in a microwave field. DNA is considered to be a strange attractor and its structure is related to this new theory of space-time. Space-time is an oscillator and so is matter, and thus space-time is the causation of life.

It fairly shrieks “crank science!”

Yeah, let us crank up the science!!!!

(I know, but that sounds better than the way you phrased it!)

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Richard B. Hoppe published on October 1, 2012 10:49 AM.

Wallace Online was the previous entry in this blog.

Amanita muscaria is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter