Scientia Perceptum

Twitter Creationist Cult Devotees: @LeeTWimberly

noreply@blogger.com (ScientiaPerceptum) — Mon, 15 Jul 2019 01:32:00 +0000

It's time to start a database of #creationist advocates on Twitter.

Please feel free to add anytime to this list by linking the Twitter user's page who is spreading lies about science from #creationism as well as posts that deserve a Golden Crocoduck.

I'll begin with a current creationist star of Twitter=--> https://twitter.com/LeeTWimberly

The majority of Lee's postings are known P. R. A. T. T.s attacking #abiogenesis and claiming it as #evoluition as with his current blog post=--> https://wimberlymd.com/blog/on-the-emergence-of-life or just posting tweets of pure personal incredulity about the 2348BC Noachian flood mythology being refuted=--> https://twitter.com/LeeTWimberly/status/1150470193136750593

A conversation on science, evolution, and creationism between Twitter user @splinteredca and I.

noreply@blogger.com (ScientiaPerceptum) — Mon, 31 Dec 2018 16:35:00 +0000

Introduction Scientia (must admit I like that pseudonym) and myself have agreed to have open discussion concerning evolution. He has much more knowledge on the topic than myself; that is a point I readily concede. I'm engaging in this discussion to further my knowledge, not to necessarily argue, though that will likely come into play. I believe any worldview should be challenged, but challenged respectively. I have bias, as does everyone. I think it's critical to be open about bias, and will admit my own within this introduction. I speak for no one other than myself, and as careful as I try to be with phrasing, please assume the best or most logical possibility if I am unclear. I am aware you may consider certain arguments already refuted, but please address them regardless. Forgive the predictability of arguments. He has graciously allowed limited links to support our respective views as I do not have his scientific background; we will try to be selective as we want this to be as conversational as possible. The origin of the universe, abiogenesis and human consciousness all need to be considered IF the argument is for naturalism, and naturalistic evolution stemming from that. Assuming any of those 3 happened because, had they not happened, we wouldn’t be having this discussion is a prejudiced argument. It’s no different than a super-naturalist saying we exist therefore a god exists. Either view is possible, but neither is an argument that in itself removes skepticism. However, this conversation is, ultimately, concerned only with biology evolution - I do not accept naturalism, and my approach will reflect that; Scientia, I believe, does and his approach will reflect that. That reflection is not the light of the discussion that we want to focus on, but glimpses of it will surely be seen throughout the discussion by default and by bias. John Lennox has said there are two explanations for the Model T: the law of internal combustion and Henry Ford. 1 is the natural law, 1 is the agent cause. Neither conflicts with the other. If evolution is the natural law of creation, it does not, ultimately, affect the agent Creator. Intent of Argument In regards to evolution, obviously I accept certain tenants - my argument is against the scope of accepted evolution: single cell creatures evolving to the humans having this discussion. The condescension humour that passed through some of your minds reading that isn’t an argument, nor invited; I consciously avoided using words that would tempt it. To those who’s minds didn’t interpolate, thank you. My argument is not against science. If I can prevent getting disease by getting a vaccination, I’ll get a vaccination; if I slice my thumb open, I’ll use antiseptics - but both were being developed concurrently of, not because of, Darwin’s theory. Science has a rich history before Darwin, and many critical and foundational discoveries were made prior to any knowledge of the theory. It may now be fundamental in science, but it is not fundamental to science. William Kirby (introduced atomic theory into chemistry) wrote On the Power Wisdom and Goodness of God. As Manifested in the Creation of Animals and in Their History, Habits and Instincts slightly prior of Darwin writing his On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life - both had a mind for lengthy titles, but titles expressing very polar views. Reasons for Skepticism Platypuses, once thought a hoax, are very unique. Had they been found as fossils, would they have been considered transitional? Having variety, even if we have a broad scope that seems to range from 1 animal to another entirely, does not necessarily imply they were, or are, transitional. If they are always found buried in the required and expected order and layer, it is very compelling, but not conclusive without the presupposition that it is, in fact, the only explanation. That is not an argument for a deception of a god who layered bones in a way to evidence evolution; that argument of deception is ravings, and doesn’t belong in any discussion. I'd prefer to not have to say that, but I feel I need to clarify my position on that. In terms of what has been observed since Darwin we have rabbits to rabbits, birds to birds. The argument is the only difference is time; that is not persuasive, even considering the persuasive fossil record. YouTube channel ViceRhino used the analogy of a car; we can use the same car to move a local distance, or to move from Seattle to New York. The problem with that analogy (and how I view the argument itself) is that there are limits in that. Yes, we can move from Seattle to New York with that same car as easily as we can move locally. We cannot move from Seattle to London with that same car alone. We assume the cars motor has no limitations or that all destinations are within those limitations; no car has a limitless lifespan; each vehicle has a different expected lifespan. We assume, at least in this analogy, that we have neither mechanical problems nor limited fuel; or, if we do, we have resources to address both. Breeding of domesticated animals has less-elasticity, David Berlinski says, than what we would expect within the naturalistic evolution premise. As an example, it’s believed dogs have been bred for specific purposes for 6,000 - 9,000 years, but still remain dogs even with human intent to stretch it as much as possible. We have tea-cup Chihuahuas and Great Danes, but no more. Recorded history of civilizations only extends 5,000 - 6000 years; within that, dogs are still dogs. Admittedly, that is a spec in 4 billion years, but considering the extensive scope of single cell organisms to us, it bears weight. In that, there seems to be an ocean we can’t cross; the car seems to break down; the low fuel indicator seems to light up our dash. Different levels of eyes have been identified in different creatures, but that they conclusively demonstrate the developmental stages of the eye isn’t persuasive; it’s only evidence of unique characteristics of the eyes of the different creatures observed or examined. Anything else is conjecture. Similarities in physical characteristics or genetics does support evolution, but exclusively only if you consider it the 1 possibility. An analogy (source unknown) was computer coding; if they can re-use existing code, they do. Even great artists who’s work is extensive in form (painting, poetry, sculpting etc) or muse (death, love, nature etc) have similarities within their art. A designer incorporates past designs into new ones. "Most mutations, or many more mutations, are negative than those that are beneficial. The best you get is a ration of 10,000:1. In other words, mutations will tend to drive a species to extinction before it has the opportunity to naturally evolve. Unless it has a truly enormous population size, a body size less than 1 cm, and a generation time briefer than 3 months. Then you go to the field biologists: Where do you see speciation going on in the real world? They only see it for those species matching the mathematical limits. Those that don't, all they see is extinctions...When the species population drops to a few thousand, you have a zero probability of evolutionary advance. If you look at the fossil record, where do you see the evidence for the so-called transitional forms: it's creatures like whales and horses. And these are creatures with population levels so small, generation times so long, body sizes so huge, they have a zero probability for evolutionary advance. " - Hugh Ross Dating 13.8 billion years and 4.5 billion years is beyond the scope of the understanding of most (infinitely including myself), other than accepting the process done by those with the intelligence, education and means to do so. Dating the universe within seconds is striking. I accept both as true; but I would not stake my life, or the change in my pocket, against either claim. The age of the earth doesn’t impact my existence; if the earth is 4.5 billion years or 10,000 years, I still bleed and heal the same. If evolution is true, I still bleed and I still heal; but, the wound would require some stitching if I were to lose all skepticism.

3rd Creationist Cartoon change.

noreply@blogger.com (ScientiaPerceptum) — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 11:38:00 +0000

Brian Tweed: 2nd Response to 1st Question

noreply@blogger.com (ScientiaPerceptum) — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 17:47:00 +0000

As before I will be putting his questions and responses, as well as when he quotes me, in Blue, while my replies will be in Bold Green.

Brian,

Looking at the response I had already started, I found I’ve almost completed it, but I also found a pattern. What I found is you were almost never giving explanations for your claims. Instead you answer my questions with statements that seem to be based purely in opinion with NO facts to back up what you have stated.

My current responses below have “Brian2” directly after the section I am replying to for clarity of new verses old entries to you.

Hi SP
Since you have stated on your twitter account that you do not think I answered the question “Does the fossil record match claims of a Noachian Flood” and then added “I don't think he answered the ?” I will attempt to respond to both your additional questions and your accusations in this post.

First of all, I thought that it was a bit underhand to post your ‘accusation’ that I had not answered your ‘question’ in your twitter post, before you replied on Facebook. You know that I did not use twiiter, and therefore your accusation of me trying to sidestep your question was made ‘public’ even before you had informed me. The fact that you have chosen to ‘selectively publish’ our conversation on a blog is an interesting development, as this seems to indicate that you are more interested in having a ‘public discussion’ than you are interested in having a meaningful exchange of views. I also find it interesting that even though I am willing to stand behind my statements as my personal opinion, you would rather hide behind your anonymous pseudonym and avoid so many of my questions, whilst you accuse me of not answering yours.

As you can no doubt pick up from my statement above, I am not too happy with your actions, but as I have now made public a much fuller account of our discussion on my own blog, I will leave anyone that is interested in reading it, to get a better feel for how are discussion has ‘progressed’ over the 6 months since you suggested we have a discussion.

All this said, I will now try to respond once again to your posts, though I do not feel that you have put the same amount of time or effort into replying to my posts.

Brian2: The above three paragraphs after your introduction paragraph will be quickly addressed. First, the posting of your reply and my response to my first question occurred in the order of Blog, Twitter, & Facebook all within an hour of each other. It was not my intent to selectively publish content from our conversation on my blog, but it was of course (as the public can see from our conversations on March 25 and May 20) for it to be easier to track the treads of thought as Facebook posts are singular in nature and not an open forum. I’ve already discussed the reasons for having a Nome de Plume (being a public school teacher) and will address questions you feel I’ve avoided, but isn’t this why we agreed to restart the conversation with one question to each other? I’m sorry you feel like I’ve not put the “…same amount of time or effort into replying…” but I would have hoped you would have pressed those points at the time they were made. I will try to address them now.

As I stated in my reply to your twitter post, I do not think that you asked the question as succinctly on Facebook as you did in your ‘tweet’ If you had really asked me “Does the fossil record match claims of a Noachian Flood” I would have replied in a much different way than I did. As I do not believe that there is a clear ‘fossil record’ but it is actually closer to the truth to say that there are various ‘interpretations’ of the fossils that are found.

I would say that the questions that you asked were far more convoluted than the one you suggested on your tweet, and I was not really sure what you were asking. Perhaps that is more down to my ability to understand your question, than it was down to your ability to form your question, so I will attempt to answer it for you now, taking your additional questions and clarifications onboard.

Brian2: I find this explanation confusing to say the least. I started my first question to you by laying out the Young Earth Creationist position as it is most commonly expressed by various organizations and individuals (such as AIG, Henry Morris, and Kent Hovind) with dates and events. I then mentioned various types of organisms, the list could have been much larger, that should have been found on the Ark according to YEC’s claims the fossil record being formed by the Noachian flood. My question was then based on the information I listed from YEC claims and the sequence of the fossil record/geological column and was very specific in that I was asking about recent/top layers and living organisms matching while the organisms from older/deeper layers not currently found alive and why there is no mixing of recent organisms throughout the fossil record/geological column. I asked a very specific question after clarifying the YEC position I feel it is the same question I posted on Twitter, but, again, I was focusing on specifics.

SP stated “the Earth was covered by water for a year which destroyed all life except that which was brought aboard a ship with eight humans”

To which I replied “it was only the ‘land dwelling animals with breath in their nostrils’ that needed to be saved, as those plants and organisms that could survive a flood did not need to be taken onboard the Ark”

Brian2: What is your basis for the claim that only those with “…breath in their nostrils…” were taken and are you also claiming that there were some animals/plants (what about fungi, protists and bacteria) that were on the Ark because they could not have survived the flood otherwise?

SP writes
Brian: Which is why I asked about a list of land dwelling animals that do not currently exist being on the Ark

Perhaps you are aware of the clarifications that I mentioned, but your original words did not convey them, which is why I felt it necessary to highlight the fact that not ‘all life’ on the planet was destroyed, as many sceptics try to suggest.

Brian2: What is your basis for this claim? What life was not on the Ark & not destroyed by the flood and how did it survive a yearlong deluge?

SP stated “In Genesis 6 & 7 it is claimed that the Ark contained 2 of every beast and foul of the Earth (7 of the clean types) including “every thing that creepeth upon the earth“

To which I replied by informing you that there only needed to be about 2-10000 animals, and not once again ‘everything’ as you suggested.

Brian2: What is the basis for this claim and can you give me a list of what organisms were taken aboard the Ark?

(SP comments)
Brian: So then what is a “kind” are all carnivores a “kind”, what about all animals in the same genus??? What is a scientifically testable definition of the word that would apply to all instances?

First of all, I will point out that these are actually new questions, even though we had apparently agreed to answer just one question at a time, to prevent the conversation ranging too far in each post. But as I do not mind answering your questions, as it helps me to further clarify the YEC point of view on this matter I will take some time to reply to these ‘new’ questions.

Brian2: These are not new questions I have brought up, but instead they are questions you have created by making claims without backing up or explaining your reasons for making these statements in answer to my original question.

As you are no doubt aware the statements in the bible are not claimed to be ‘scientifically testable definitions’ of words, but rather the recounting of historical facts to people such as us that were not there to witness the events.

Brian2: But you are claiming that the Noachian flood is a real event and therefore it should be scientifically testable. This means when you claim that “Kinds” were aboard the Ark, we should be able to discuss what this means and how it matches with the present.

Obviously, when we try to ascertain details about the events that happened many thousands of years ago in a distant land, we are limited in what we can actually ‘know’ for sure. This problem is multiplied many times over when you read a ‘scientific’ article by someone trying to work out from a few small damaged clues, what supposedly happened ‘millions of years ago’. This is one of the reason why ‘scientific’ articles are full of so many ‘fuzzy words’, such as ‘may have’, ‘could have’, ‘some think’, ‘it is hypothesized’ and such like. Though the articles may be written by great scientists, they are aware that much of what they believe to have happened in the distant past is just speculation and a certain degree of imagination.

Brian2: Yet, when a peer reviewed article is published it then becomes open for discussion and debate which can lead to predictions that are testable (of course the article itself is most likely based on this exact same situation which is why there are always citations to previous studies).

I therefore cannot give you a ‘scientific’ definition of a ‘kind’, but since we know that creatures only bring forth after their kind, we can speculate that this meant any animal that could mate and produce other viable offspring in the original created order was of the same ‘kind’. None of us know for sure what these created kinds were, but then as the bible is not a scientific text book which is to given to us to answer ‘every’ question we have, this is not surprising. Though it is only speculation at this stage, most YEC would agree that the ‘kind’ is closer to the ‘family’ level of the current system of biological classification.

Brian2: So then, how does this match with the fossil record? Are you now claiming that the organisms that boarded the Ark would not look like the ones that currently exist today? Can you give evidence to back up your claims? This claim is also invalidated by the FACT of the fossil record having organisms that look very similar to the ones we have today and that they are arranged in a order showing common descent.

Obviously, this means that the answer to your question: “are all carnivores a “kind”” the answer is no. As to your question “what about all animals in the same genus?“ we obviously cannot say for sure, but as the ‘family’ order can cover more than one ‘genus’ then it is unlikely that we can restrict a ‘kind’ to this order.

Brian2: Again, I am requesting evidence for this claim, but sticking your opinion that the Order Carnivora is not a “Kind”, but that Families are a “Kind” are you claiming (focusing on Families under the Order Carnivora) that what boarded and departed from the Ark were two of each of the Families in this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivora#Classification ?

This is not a problem only for creationist though, as when we find a fossil, we cannot be sure what ‘species’ it came from, and so sometimes “Families can be used for evolutionary, palaeontological and generic studies because they are more stable than lower taxonomic levels such as genera and species” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_(biology)

Brian2: First of all new species are assigned to new fossils all the time, so I’m not sure your basis for that claim. Secondly, you do realize that Humans are in the Family Hominidae which includes all species of Gorilla, Chimps and Orangutan. Lastly, your use of the quote from Wikipedia shows a lack of understanding of Cladistics & Systematics, so I suggest you do some research into what Monophyly and Clade mean in biology.

As most YEC would accept that a ‘kind’ is a much broader term than both ‘species’ and ‘genus’, we can accept the fact that all our present ‘breeds’ of dogs came from some representative of perhaps the ‘canidae’ family. If we found a fossil of all the different breeds of dogs, it is likely that they would be classed as different ‘species’, due to their immense differences in morphology. In fact apparently even Darwin realised that this may have been true of the pigeons.
Whilst reading Sean B. Carroll’s book “The making of the fittest”, he made this statement.
“Darwin pointed out that the varieties of pigeon were so markedly different from one another that if shown to an ornithologist and told that they were wild birds, they would each be ranked as well-defined species. But Darwin deduced correctly that they were all descended from the rock pigeon.” (P46)

Brian2: I’ve made the same claim about dogs, but of course these are a domestic species which means that humans are doing the breading and as such if humans disappeared then dogs would become biological species as they would be geographically isolated and many would be morphologically incapable of reproduction (AND they might be behaviorally different enough that they will not interbreed ***Added after my post on Facebook to Brian yesterday).

So, YEC would believe that all the animals that were on the ark were of the ‘kinds’ of creatures that were the ancestors of the living species we see about us now. We believe the principle that ‘life brings forth life’ and so we accept that all land animals alive now had a common ancestor on the ark, though it may have looked much different than many of the varieties of creatures alive now.

Brian2: And you evidence for this claim is…? But it is also nessesarry to point out that this statement CONFILCTS with your claim that all organisms found in fossil formations are there due to a one time flood. I made this point earlier in this round of replies and would like to you explain the evidence for why, as you say above, the life before and on the Ark “…may have looked much different…” and yet we find organisms in the fossil record that are almost exactly the same as “…varieties of creatures alive now.”

You on the other hand, believe that all organisms alive now came from a common ancestor that was once just dead chemicals.
Your belief that ‘dead matter brings forth life’ does not seem very scientific to me.

Brian2: Abiogenesis is a field of science we can address later, but will stick with questions relating to how you answered my question about the fossil record and the Noachian flood.

(SP comments)
Brian: So if we take your statement as is, how would we know the sedimentary rocks that were formed before the flood? Would we rely on the Law of Superposition only or is there another way to date these pre-flood fossil beds? The ones formed after the flood would be easy, again Law of Superposition, but they would only contain modern animals I assume? Would you agree??? Since you are claiming that one Flood that lasted only a year created all these (besides the aforementioned pre&post deposits), how do you explain Aeolian layers (some are so delicate as to contain spider footprints) mixed in with all the other layers? How does this occur when the whole Earth is completely covered by water?

Again, you are now breaking the agreed format, and whilst you want to pick and choose which questions that I have raised that you are willing to answer, I will attempt to give AN answer to these additional questions, though I doubt that they will satisfy you.

Brian2: This, again, is not a new question, but instead is my asking you to explain your answer to my original question.

Firstly, “how would we know the sedimentary rocks that were formed before the flood?“

As I mentioned at the beginning of my earlier post, I am not an expert in this area, and I would have to research this before I could give you a better informed opinion on it. My view is though that they are likely to be few and far between as they would likely be due to local flooding, so I cannot say much more about this at the moment.

Brian2: Ok, so I will wait for you to do the research necessary to answer this question.

Secondly, “Would we rely on the Law of Superposition only or is there another way to date these pre-flood fossil beds?”
The short answer would be no, we would not rely on the Law of Superpositon, as though this was an interesting hypothesis, it was not tested experimentally until recently, and it was seen to incorrect in the experiments that were carried out by Pierre Y. Julien, Ph.D of Colorado State University. If you doubt his qualifications they can be seen here, and you can watch a video of the experiments on youtube, though I am sure you will find some reason to dispute his findings.

Brian2: Instead of making an argument from authority, how about explaining your understanding of why you think the Law of Superposition is incorrect. What I found interesting about the video is lamination occurs all the time in all different types of layers and I’m not sure how it supports your claim that the Law of Superposition has been disproved. In my original question (and first response) I also brought up that Superposition correlates with Radiometric dating, but I’ll await an explanation.

Thirdly, “The ones formed after the flood would be easy, again Law of Superposition, but they would only contain modern animals I assume? Would you agree???“

No, I do not accept this, as I do not think that the Law of Superosition is actually a scientifically verified ‘law’, and therefore, I do not think that we can rely on it to ‘date’ fossils. Also, you seem to be ignoring what I acknowledge in my last post, that I accept variations and change over time in the creatures since the flood, so I do not think that every ‘species’ has remained unchanged since the flood but I accept what is now known as ‘micro-evolution’ in that organisms have changed over time, in minor ways that were present in the genetic code of the creatures when God created the various ‘kinds’ of animals. So, it is clear that I would believe that the creatures we see around us now are probably different in outward appearance from their ancestors that exited the Ark.

Brian2: And your evidence for these claims are…?

Perhaps you could define the ‘evolutionary biology’ that you want to discuss, and what you think you have ‘proof’ for, as perhaps I will agree with you more than you would seem to believe. I do not reject all definitions of ‘evolution’, so you will need to define what you mean by ‘evolution is a fact’ before we continue our discussion.

Brian2: That is a whole new question that I will address after you can answer my original question. If you like I will include that in my response to your first question of me as it relates to the part on Natural Selection.

Fourthly, “how do you explain Aeolian layers (some are so delicate as to contain spider footprints) mixed in with all the other layers? “

Obviously, as I am not an expert, this would require some further research before I could answer this, but our claim is not that the Flood covered the whole Earth for a year, as parts of it may have been covered at a later points than others, and as the land masses changed after the flood, there may have been parts that were covered slowly and as the tides rose and fell it may have been uncovered at various times too. Have you now changed that you want to discuss the fossil record and geology? If so I will have to read up more on these topics, but I thought you wanted to concentrate on the firm scientific knowledge about ‘biological evolution’ rather than on the highly speculative thoughts and hypotheses about what things may have been like ‘millions of years ago’.

Brian2: What evidence do you have for the claim that the entire surface was not covered for a whole year? Again, this is not changing the topic as it relates to my original question. I hope you can better answer this question after you do some research into Aeolian sedimentary types.

Fifthly,” How does this occur when the whole Earth is completely covered by water? “
The Flood was sent to destroy all the life forms that God had sent it to destroy, but this does not mean that all of the Earth was covered by water for the full year, it is likely to have ebbed and flowed over various parts of the land as some areas arose due to the tectonic activity that is likely to have accompanied the events, as mentioned in other parts of the bible.

Brain2: And your evidence for this claim is…?

To be continued...

My 2nd Creationists Cartoon changed to support Evolution

noreply@blogger.com (ScientiaPerceptum) — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 12:51:00 +0000

My 1st Creationist Cartoon changed to support Evolution

noreply@blogger.com (ScientiaPerceptum) — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 12:49:00 +0000

My First Question for Brian Tweed, his reponse and my reply.

noreply@blogger.com (ScientiaPerceptum) — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 00:41:00 +0000

The following is my first question to Brian (in Green) with his response (in Blue) and my reply (Bold Green).

Hi SP,
I will try to respond to your statements and question(s), but please bear in mind that I am not an expert, nor a spokesperson for YECs, though I will speak only as someone that accepts the bible as the word of God, and also accepts as accurate the interpretation of the bible that places the creation of the Earth as less than 10,000 years ago.

SP writes
“Being that you are a Young Earth Creationist, I am intrigued by the alternate explanations you have for a variety of concepts that are explained currently by scientific theories. To me, YEC means that you accept that all existence is no older than 10,000 years old and at some after the creation event the Earth was covered by water for a year which destroyed all life except that which was brought aboard a ship with eight humans. According to the Ussher Chronology, accepted by most YEC organizations the creation event was in 4004 BCE and the Flood occurred between 2349-2348 BCE, 6016 & 4361 years ago respectively.”

This is mostly true, but I do not stick firmly to particular dates such as those given by Ussher, but I am happy to use them as a template as a ‘rough guide’ to the timeframe. I do not though believe that the Flood “destroyed all life except that which wasbrought aboard a ship with eight humans” as it was only the ‘land dwelling animals with breath in their nostrils’ that needed to be saved, as those plants and organisms that could survive a flood did not need to be taken onboard the Ark.

Brian: Which is why I asked about a list of land dwelling animals that do not currently exist being on the Ark.

SP writes
“The Noachian Flood event is one that I’ve always been interested in as the claims made by creationists about his occurrence are easily tested by the scientific method. One claim that I’d like you to explain is the following. In Genesis 6 & 7 it is claimed that the Ark contained 2 of every beast and foul of the Earth (7 of the clean types) including “every thing that creepeth upon the earth”.

I will simply repeat that this gives the false impression that Noah needed to take every ‘species’ of organism onto the Ark, but this is incorrect as I have intimated above. Noah did not need to bring representatives of ‘every species’ as it was only representatives of the bird ‘kinds’ and the land dwelling creatures that breathed through their nostrils that needed to be taken unto the ark. This means that he only needed to take representatives of the amphibian, reptile, mammal and bird kinds unto the ark. If you check out the number of these ‘species’ living on Earth now there are only about 30000 ‘species’ of these, and many of these, such as bats, have many variations on the same kind of animal. So it has been estimated that there would only have need to be between 2-10000 animals on the ark. Perhaps you are aware that they are building a full size ark in the US at the moment to answer some of the sceptical questions that have been raised about it’s feasibility.

Brian: So then what is a “kind” are all carnivores a “kind”, what about all animals in the same genus??? What is a scientifically testable definition of the word that would apply to all instances?

SP writes
“Creationists also claim that all geological layers of the Earth were formed during this yearlong flood and therefore all the fossils in these layers were animals that existed before the flood.”

As I say, I am not an expert on this, but I would not say that it is necessary for ‘every’ fossil we find to have been laid down during the Flood, as there may have been local floods that created some of the fossil assemblages both before and after the Flood, but it is likely than these types are in the minority, and that most of the fossils are from the great Flood.

Brian: So if we take your statement as is, how would we know the sedimentary rocks that were formed before the flood? Would we rely on the Law of Superposition only or is there another way to date these pre-flood fossil beds? The ones formed after the flood would be easy, again Law of Superposition, but they would only contain modern animals I assume? Would you agree??? Since you are claiming that one Flood that lasted only a year created all these (besides the aforementioned pre&post deposits), how do you explain Aeolian layers (some are so delicate as to contain spider footprints) mixed in with all the other layers? How does this occur when the whole Earth is completely covered by water?

SP writes
“Taking these claims together means that if you can find an animal in the fossil record, it was part of the menagerie on the Ark and would have included: Dinosaurs, Pleistocene Megafauna (like Glyptodons, Megatherium, Mammoths/Mastodons), Acanthostegians, Ichthyostegians, Temnospondyls, Diadectomorphas, Captorhinids, Gorganopsia, Dicynodontia, Dimetrodons, Anthracosaurs, Cynodonts, & Pterosaurs to name a few.”

Yes I do believe that some dinosaurs were on the Ark, but as we don’t know how many different types there were, I can’t list them, but there may have been 100-500 different kinds of them. As for the other creatures on your list, if we assume that each of them were land living creatures that needed to be on the Ark, then yes, I do believe that representatives of their kinds needed to be on the Ark. I would suspect though that some of them will need to be discussed for other reasons as I am sure that you will want to use them to ‘prove’ evolution, but we can leave that discussion until another time.

Brian: Actually the short list I gave you was of currently extinct land animal groups which I brought up as they (and the others I did not list) apply directly to my question below: “…why it is that we ONLY find animals alive today that are the most recent in the fossil record and NOT any of the other millions of species…” . This is the real crux of the question, why would a worldwide flood lead worldwide fossil deposits that contain modern organisms at the top layers only?

SP writes
“the Law of Superposition & Radiometric Dating are used to determine the relative and absolute ages of life we find in the fossil record, which brings me to my question.”

As I am sure you are aware, I will dispute the accuracy of these dating methods, but since this is not part of your present question, I will leave this for the moment.

Brian: I hope when you “…dispute the accuracy of these dating methods…” you also will explain why alternative geochronological techniques using different materials all converge on the same dates.

SP writes
“Given that there has been a HUGE variety of life that has existed on the Earth (as evident from the fossil record), that YEC’s claim that all the fossil bearing rock (even all strata) were produced during the Noachian Flood event, and that at least two of all beasts and foul were carried on the Ark that existed before the flood, why is it that we only find animals alive today that are the most recent in the fossil record and NOT any of the other millions of species that, according to modern science, date to the end of the last ice age?”

Perhaps the best way to start my reply to this question would be to clear up some common misunderstandings / misconceptions which are promoted in the books of most of the evolutionary biologists that I have read.
I am not aware of any YEC that believes that the life-forms which are with us today are in the exact forms as the ones that were created by God in the beginning. Any YEC that I know of, accept a limited form or ‘evolution’ if you define the word as ‘change over time’. This seems to be one of the roots of the misconceptions which are perpetuated by many evolutionists.
YEC accept both natural selection and mutations as real processes that can explain some of the variations of the different kinds of creatures that we observe. So we do believe that the original kinds of creatures that God created have ‘changed over time’ and therefore we do not deny every type of ‘evolution’ if this is how you define it. Maybe you should define what you mean by ‘evolution’ as maybe I accept a lot more of it than you think ;-)

To further address your question above, I only believe that a few thousand kinds of land animals needed to be on the Ark. I would also believe that after the animals left the Ark many of them had to adapt to new and unfamiliar environments.

Brian: Ok, so your opinion is that only a few “kinds” needed to be on the Ark, but I still would like to know why the most recent fossil species are the ones found current living and why we do not find species deeper in the fossil record/radiometricly dated to be older currently alive?

This would have meant that genetic variability, natural selection and mutations, lead to variations and adaptations in the populations of these kinds of animals.
I am not sure that there were ‘millions’ of species in the past, but many that are now called separate species, were perhaps just numerous variations on the kinds of animals that left the ark. When you mention ‘millions’ of species you are probably referring to the vast majority of organisms that did not need to be on the Ark, such as plants, insects and aquatic life.
Even within the 30,000 or so land living, air breathing creatures on the Earth at the moment that are many different variations of the same type of animals. Apparently about 1/5 of all mammals on the Earth at the moment are bats! When you also consider the many different ‘breeds’ of dogs there are, it is quite easy to understand that many of what are described as ‘new species’ in the fossil record, are really only variations of already ‘discovered’ creatures.
As for when the last ice age was, many YEC believe that the Flood may have started an ice age which lasted for a 1000 years or so, and this means that many of the creatures that are alive today are only the survivors of both the Flood and the different climate that ensued after the Flood. Not all of the creatures would have adapted equally well to the new conditions, and no doubt many of them have gone extinct since the Flood due to a number of different reasons, including predation by man.

Brian: So I’m still waiting for you to explain why only the most recent animals in the fossil record are the ones alive today and why we do not see those recent organisms distributed throughout the fossil record?

SP Writes
“Concurrently, why are none of the species that currently exist found in any of the other layers of sediments if they were all laid down during one event, the Noachian Flood, and, as claimed by YEC’s, all organisms found all sedimentary layers must have existed together before the flood?”

This is again a misconception, though we believe that the ‘ancestors’ of all living kinds of animals were on the Ark, we do not claim that they have all survived to this time, nor that they have not changed. We accept that many of the descendants of those that were on the Ark have not survived to this day, for a number of different reasons, so we do not believe that the animals that live today existed in the same form back on the Ark or before it. If you want to narrow down your enquiry to something more specific I will be happy to reply, but this is just a general reply to a general question.

Brian: I refer again to my question directly above. You must have some type of explanation for why only the top most layers of the fossil record represent the current flora/fauna existing today and why, if a worldwide flood caused all (or nearly all) the sedimentary layers we do not find any recent organisms mixed into the older/deeper layers or any organisms of those older/deeper layers alive today. This seems like a question that YEC’s like yourself would have to answer to be taken seriously when denying modern evolutionary biology’s explanation for the same facts.

I have attempted to answer your question and I await your response to my last post before we move on.

Brian: I’m sorry, but I don’t see an answer to my question. Can you please try again.

Q & A with Brian Tweed. His first question(s) & my response.

noreply@blogger.com (ScientiaPerceptum) — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 19:48:00 +0000

Instead of trying to keep up with an exponentially growing thread, I asked Brian if we could restart out conversation asking one question. He agreed and both his question(s) along with my response is below...

Hi SP
Thank you for informing me that you are now ready to resume our discussion, and I hope that it will be beneficial to us both.

As you are well aware, reading discussions between atheists and theists of any sort on the internet is not always an uplifting way to spend your day, mainly, but not only, because rarely do you find that the two parties have much courteous or respect for the oppositions point of view. Whilst it is certain that we shall disagree vehemently on the subject matters, hopefully we can approach the debate in a manner that acknowledges that our opponent has the right to disagree, and we will not need to portray them as ignorant or foolish for seeing things differently than we do ourselves.

I know that your preference is to have a discussion solely about the validity of the evolutionary biological version of the ‘creation story’ as opposed to the biblical view of the origin of life that I hold, and I am more than happy to discuss the details of that shortly. I would though like to lay out some of my objections to your viewpoint before I ask you my first question.

I am off the opinion that the universe as a whole requires an explanation, as there is an astronomical amount of matter out there, (pun intended ;-) the simple fact that the universe exists at all seems to require some sort of explanation.

In my view, before this universe began, there existed a very powerful, intelligent Being, (whom I believe is now known as the God of the bible) that chose to create the universe, and at the same time, created laws to govern the universe, so that it can be understood by you and I, creatures that this Being also created. So, my view postulates that before this universe or any of the matter that it contains ever existed, there was a Being capable of creating all of it, and endowing it with the properties that we see in the here and now. Since the appearance of the universe from nothing requires an explanation, the bible I believes gives me a plausible one, in that God, who existed before all of time, space and matter, used His power to create it all that we can see.

You would agree, I will assume, (and await any corrections to any errors I may make in presenting your view) that the origin of the universe requires an explanation, but as an atheist, you reject the view that God exists, and therefore you reject this explanation of why time, space and matter came into being. In your view, (if you agree with the majority of atheists that I have heard give there explanation of why there is a universe at all) all of the matter that we can observe in the universe appeared suddenly, for some unknown reason, out of nothing. Apparently, at this time, again for no known reason, all of the laws that govern the universe began to guide the formation of our present observable universe. Since the beginning, which you believe was about 13.7 billion years ago, the matter in the universe has simply followed ‘laws’ (for which you have no explanation of), and the combination of these ‘laws’ working on the matter, over extremely long periods of time, have ‘created’ stars, planets, and the inhabitants of the planets. In your view, you and I are simply the product of unguided processes that have worked over immense periods of time to ‘create’ the complex systems such as the ‘fine tuned’ universe and of course the human brain, by which we can learn about, and make sense of it all.

In short, you believe that order came from disorder, laws came from lawlessness, and intelligibility came from unintelligibility. I don’t know if you think that this sounds reasonable and logical to you, but to me it seems like a gigantic stretch of credibility, and I don’t have enough faith to believe it ;-). But if this is what you want to believe, I am open to hear your logic in coming to this position.

I find it far more logical and reasonable to believe that the ‘fine tuning’ that we observe in the universe indicates a ‘Fine-tuner’, the order in the universe was the product of a Planner, and the complexity of life and life processes, is the result of a Grand Designer, which is real and not just illusory.

So, with that background for why I find your position illogical and against common reason, I will focus down on the area of evolutionary biology that I would like to discuss first. I will start with a simple question, which can be answered by you by a simple yes or no. I will then hope that you will follow up this simple answer with further details of why you agree or disagree with the statement.

Here are some quotes from the book ‘Why evolution is true’ by Jerry A. Coyne.

“For the process of evolution- natural selection, the mechanism that drove the first naked, replicating molecule into the diversity of millions of fossil and living forms- is a mechanism of staggering simplicity and beauty.” (Introduction xvii)

“The truth - that we, like lions, redwoods and frogs, all resulted from the slow replacement of one gene by another, each step conferring a tiny reproductive advantage – is surely more satisfying than the myth that we were suddenly called into being from nothing.” (Introduction xxi)

“Life on Earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species - perhaps a self-replicating molecule- that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection.” (P3)

So, after reading these statements my question to you is:
Do you believe that natural selection, “the mechanism that drove the first naked, replicating molecule” through the “slow replacement of one gene by another”, is the process by which “a self-replicating molecule” has been transformed into mankind?

Brian

My response follows...

Brian,

I’ll leave your opinion on Cosmology and instead address the end of your post about Biology, but will say that I view your description of the scientific explanation for physical cosmology as a straw-man of the actual facts that the Big Bang theory explains. I think that before I can address this statement I will need to see you give a synopsis of what the majority of physicists articulate as Big Band theory compared to what I perceive as your misrepresentation of that scientific theory.

As for your question about natural selection, no I do not believe that natural selection is responsible for humanity. I know that Natural Selection is the best scientific explanation (along with Genetic Drift from Founder Effect & Bottle Necks, Gene Flow, Sexual Selection, Biased Mutations, among other mechanisms) for the fact of the diversity of life found today and in the fossil record. I do not accept upon faith (believe) what others have told me about how life on this planet has changed over time, but instead I have researched the facts and explanations of those facts and understand that Evolutionary Biology is the best account for the fact of common descent with modification.

Yours,

Brian Tweet from 29Mar2012

noreply@blogger.com (ScientiaPerceptum) — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 11:46:00 +0000

Brian,

I moving our conversations here as Facebook is not the best area to keep track of or reply to your posts (one reason being I cannot access it at my school). This post will be a reply for both the comments on the 29th of March. One is copied the other is just a link to another video (both links below)...

Hi SP,
I find it very interesting that you continue with your evolutionary propaganda on twitter, and criticise (sic) those that do not answer your questions to your satisfaction, but yet you have not replied to several of my posts yet, nor answered the questions I posed to you.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt for a little longer and assume that you may have ordered or purchased the book I recommended for you and are presently reading it.

In the meantime, here is a short video illustrating some of the flaws in the evolutionary story, which features the author of the book I recommended to you.

By the way, if you wish to recommend a book to me to read which will help to convince me that your view is correct, please feel free to, as I am happy to read any book which you feel 'proves' your point of view.

Brian Tweed

...and your second recommended video is found here

Now before I respond to (or even watch either of these videos) I need you, Brian, to clarify for me what evidence you believe the videos are giving you that refutes why current Evolutionary Biology is not the most valid theory to explain the facts that are observed.

The reason I will not watch the videos before your explanations of what the video is telling you and why you think it refutes Evolution, is that I find the idea of saying read this or what that without explaining why to be repugnant to our conversation. If we are to learn from each other why each of us holds to our point of view it cannot be done by proxy of telling the other person to watch/read without explaining why it supports your point of view.

Yours,

Conversations with Brian Tweed on Facebook.

noreply@blogger.com (ScientiaPerceptum) — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 11:41:00 +0000

Recently I've been having a conversation with Brian Tweed on Facebook, but we have both been hindered by the limitations of this format for our type of discussion. As such I have moved his last post here so to allow for a greater ease of use and response. Enjoy...

Hi SP, as there seems to be little continuity to our discussion on here, as you do not reply to many of my posts, I will have to start another new post, in an attempt to focus our discussion.

(Scientia Perceptum writes) Our discussions have had nothing to due with theology (I thought I explained that to begin with),

I am afraid you this was not my understanding, as your initial response to me stated

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding Brian. When I started our conversation I thought that I pointed out that my interests were only in the purely scientific reasons that creationists claim they have a better explanation than that given by modern Evolutionary Biology. This meant that our conversations would be limited to changes in life over time and not dealing with the origins of the Universe, solar system, or life.

(Scientia Perceptum writes) “My aim is to understand the basis for and purpose of the belief that creationists hold”

Since you stated that this was your aim, it is obvious that those that you refer to as ‘creationists’ are going to have a worldview which has theology as its “basis”.
You also betray your own “theology” which you acknowledge as atheism, by promoting both your atheism and anti Christian opinions in your last few tweets.
It is interesting that you claim to want to have a meaningful discussion, but when you are given the opportunity to do so with a Christian that accepts the young Earth position, you claim that you are very busy, whilst at the same time you continue to post your atheistic worldview tweets that attack both Christianity and ‘creationists’.
I sense that you are not as sincere as you are trying to make out. This is very disappointing, as I saw this as an opportunity to have a meaningful discussion with someone holding an opposing viewpoint, that was capable of presenting their views in a rational and reasonable manner, you have not showed yourself willing to engage in this up to this point.

Of course the basis of creationism is theology (thank you for admitting that as some creationists will not), but that does not mean that every question can be answered with "God did it" and be considered an alternative to the scientific theories of Evolutionary Biology that explain the facts observed.

As science cannot say anything about the existence or non-existence of any deities it is neither atheistic or theistic in nature. The fact that I am an atheist also has nothing to due with a scientific discussion between you and I whether creationism can be considered a scientific alternative to Evolutionary Biology and I will never use it as such.

As for your claim that I attack creationism in my tweets, it is true, yet I do so ONLY on a scientific nature and their religion or religious beliefs do not enter into it (unless they are making a claim about history of life that is completely unscientific and it is only their attacks on science that I address). To your claim that I've attacked Christianity, I looked back at the last month of tweets and cannot find one time that I've said anything of that nature, so I await evidence of this statement.

Lastly, as I've stated a few times now, the reason I've moved our discussion here is to give me more time to allow for our conversation to occur. Facebook is blocked at my school and moving here will allow me much more time and access to our discussions. As for tweets, those require almost no time and, if you have been following them closely over the last month, are almost purely devoted to current news event relating to Evolution including people & a thread with one particular creationist requesting that he back up his claims with facts.

(Scientia Perceptum writes)… but instead I've hoped would be based purely in science.

I can see that you have a high regard for the discipline of science and the scientific method, as do I, but we must be aware that ‘science’ does not tell us anything, and it is how we ‘interpret’ the information that we discover that makes the difference.
You seem to be oblivious to the fact that our worldviews effect HOW we interpret the information we are presented with. Whilst ‘science’ may not have a bias, it is people that ‘interpret’ the results, and they most certainly do have a bias.
My point is that whilst you may wish to exclude ‘theology’ from the discussion, this is not something that is possible in actuality. The position that we hold as regard to God and a Creator greatly affects the conclusions we arrive at.
You also seem oblivious to the fact that Christianity is the only worldview that makes total sense of the world around us. You think that you can use science, reason and logic to reach your opinion, but ignore the fact that if atheism is true, there is no reason to trust science, reason or logic! Atheism cannot account for the fact that there are laws of logic, or laws of nature, and instead you must rely on the Christian God to account for their presence in the first place.

Before addressing the nature of science, I will again reiterate that any theological stance is not allowed and if one is letting their "...position...(that they) hold as regard to God and a creator..." affect their conclusions, than right away we know they have left the realm of science and are discussing only theology. I will not address the claims about laws in logic or nature, as again by limiting them to being only explainable by the deity of Christianity your claims are purely theological in context and not a discussion I'm interested in having.

To the point about the nature of science, as the final part of the process is that of peer review, the point about "bias" can be disregarded as the only bias is that supporting the methodology of science itself. Science is systematic method builds theories to explain facts about the world & that works to eliminate biased interpretations of those facts. For a more detailed explanation of the nature of science (which matches and expounds upon my statements above) see the official position by the NSTA.

(Scientia Perceptum writes)…I've tried to take time to read, reread, clarify, and find citations for my comments

I have seen very little actual content from you, as you have not answered my questions, even though I have answered yours.

Which, again, is why I moved out conversations here off Facebook, the FB format was not working.

(Scientia Perceptum writes)…(at this point I will request that we, again, address evolution {with geological evidence} as the focus of our discussions)

I have told you that I am happy to answer any questions that you address to me, and you have stated that you wanted to take one topic at a time. I understood that when I answered your questions that I was free to ask you any question I wished as ‘My aim is to understand the basis for and purpose of the belief that atheist evolutionary biologists hold’.

Again you are confusing theology with science. There are many Evolutionary Biologists who are religious, including Christian, and they understand that their theology cannot and should not influence the science they study and report on.

I can understand why you want to avoid this, as I am sure you are aware that atheists have very few reasonable answers to the questions that interest most people, such as the origin of matter, physics and chemistry, which are essential prerequisites for the origin of life. It appears that you want to ignore discussing how the lego bricks were manufactured or how they came to exist in the first place, and jump straight to the assembled models themselves.

My field of study is not the origins of matter, my understanding of physics is limited to conceptual, but I have taken some higher level chemistry courses (including organic chemistry in college), but again how life originated (there are many working hypotheses in Abiogenesis) has NOTHING to do with the study of Evolution. Life on Earth could have originated in various ways, but the fact of increasing morphology throughout geological history, convergent phylogenetic trees from paleontology and genetics (to name a few) and other observed facts are not explained by any other scientific theory EXCEPT the one I studied for my Bachelors in Science; Evolutionary Biology. The claim you've made is a common straw man fallacy that should be dropped.

I did though attempt to focus our discussion in an earlier post, one which you have yet to reply to, in which I suggested that we focus on one of the main claims of common ancestry, and we examine the Primary axiom, which is the ‘supposed’ mechanism, by which evolutionary biologists seem to place their ‘faith’ in.
I have suggested that we take genetics as our first topic, and examine the ‘evidence for evolution’ which you seem to feel is conclusive. Have you given any consideration to my post? As I have yet to learn if you are willing to discuss this topic, which was on your list of ‘evidences’ for evolution.

Please re-post the question here and I will get to it shortly. The "timeline" aspect of Facebook does not allow easy or uninterrupted access that I need to keep this conversation on the track we are both requiring.

(Scientia Perceptum writes)…but again request that we make sure that science be to only topic in our conversations.

I am happy to discuss science, but to restrict our conversation to ‘only’ science seems to be very narrow minded, as my worldview can explain why science can even work in the first place, whilst yours has no reason to accept science as a reliable basis for knowledge, and instead you rely on the Christian worldview to explain the basis of science, and then reject the conclusions that it leads us to.

I see that as another theological statement that has nothing to do with how the current Nature of Science. If you would like to start another conversation on history of the philosophy of science, I would be interested, but it must be a different thread so as to not distract from our discussion of the scientific validity of creationism or Evolutionary Biology.

Scientia Perceptum writes)…Given your statement above, are you claiming that "Creationism" is not scientific, but instead is a religion?

Perhaps you could be more specific, as I am not sure which statement you are referring to. As for your terminology, I do not use the term “Creationism” that is your term, and one which is usually used in a derogatory manner. I believe that God created the heavens and the Earth, and that science can help us to learn about His creation, but as for your ‘beliefs’, I think that there is little support for them in real science, and it is necessary to ignore a lot of the things that real science has revealed to support your evolutionary beliefs.

That sounds like a great beginning to a conversation on whether Creationism (I believe you have claimed to be a Young Earth Creationist) or Evolution is scientifically valid explanation of the observable facts.

Scientia Perceptum writes)…My reason for asking is that my concerns over the "creationism vs evolution controversy" is that both are claimed to be purely based in science by creationists and that is my only focus.

I would be interested in a citation, as I do not know of any biblical creationists that claim this. We acknowledge that both creation and evolutionism ;-) rely on information that is ‘beyond’ the reach of the scientific method. You cannot use the scientific method to support your beliefs, and must at some point admit that science is unable to answer every question.

I defer to my prior statement seen directly above the answer to this one.

Scientia Perceptum writes)… So, in your view, is creationism (the one you claim to follow) based purely in science and if so, how so????

I have explained to you before, that my beliefs are based on information that I have gathered from various different disciples, including physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, cosmology and biology. They are not though limited to these, as I also include logic and reason, as well as historical records in coming to my point of view.
My belief in God as the Creator of the universe takes all of these things into consideration, but as I have also stated before, I have more than all of these, as I have the testimony of an Eyewitness Himself who was actually there and has given us a reliable account of what happened in the book of Genesis.

In opposition to this, your view requires you to ignore reason and logic and historical information, and to deny several scientific principles to reach your conclusion that all life ‘evolved’ by natural processes from a common ancestor.

So no my views are not based ‘purely’ in science, but then neither are yours.

I will defer this to my prior statement and during our discussions on whether our evidence, your accepted form of Creationism or my acceptance of modern Evolutionary Biology, will prove to be a more scientific explanation as to the diversity of life on Earth.

Scientia Perceptum writes)… I am (I glean from your comments and page you are retired) heavily involved in work, professional life (today I ran a naturalist walk through a local conversation land informing my audience on the natural history of the area), and personal life and think should realize that my replies are based on my own sense of conveying the known facts in science and cannot delve into metaphysical conjecture.

I found it extremely amusing that your ‘interpretation’ of the information was so faulty in working out my age, and yet I am sure that this will not dent your confidence too much in believing that you are right about the age of the Earth, even though you must make so many assumptions to reach your conclusion, which may be equally as bad as the false assumptions you made about me ;-)

As we go into the facts which are explained by scientific theories , we will see which of our claims are backed up as to the age of the Earth.

Scientia Perceptum writes)… I suggest that we start our conversation anew based purely on the common descent of all life as inferences about the origin and nature of the universe are not my field of education/inquiry nor do they concern the fact that geological, morphological, embryological, fossil, and genetic information {all fields taking evidence from different facts} give matching phylogenetic tree, as the origin of the Earth/Universe does not (in my opinion) affect events that occur after the start of life on Earth itself.

As I have said before, I do not think that all of this information produces the unified picture that you imagine, and I have said that I would be willing to discuss any and all of them one topic at a time. I have suggested that we start with genetics, I will leave you to decide if you want to start with this one of the other fields you mention, but as you believe that all life has ‘evolved’ from a common ancestor, it would seem sensible to discuss the feasibility of the ‘supposed’ mechanism for this process.

Brian

Ok, so the start of our conversation will be whether genetics supports your Creationist view (again from previous conversations I am assuming you are a Young Earth Creationism advocate as you've indicated you believe the Earth to be around 10,000 years old) or if my mainstream scientific view best explains the evidence and proves common ancestry of all life on Earth.

Thank you again, Brian, for your time and please make all responses here (again I cannot access Facebook at school, where I do most of my work) and when needed I will start a new thread on new lines of conversation that we start.

Yours,

Scientia Perceptum

Back in the Saddle again.

noreply@blogger.com (ScientiaPerceptum) — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 23:39:00 +0000

I'm back in the saddle again. After a long hiatus due to work, the birth of my first child & a new house, I've decided to start posting to my blog on a regular basis with in-depth views of interactions I've had with creationists (mainly from Twitter). Let's start by checking out CopyPasta poster-child "Cowboy" Bob "Piltdown Superman" Sorensen the "StormBringer"(pretentious much) whose Twitter and Blog accounts are a testament to scientific illiteracy.

There are many posts at his Blog that I'll be tackling, but the first thing to remember (before your visit) is to research evidence for the brand of anti-science that Bob spouts aka Young Earth Creationism ...most of what you will read is Copied and Pasted directly from some creationist website with Bob just repeating fallacious creationist icons. Often when you read his commentaries, you start to question if he even read the article he is referring to, as repeatedly it has nothing to do with the article he copies from and/or is giving a link for you to check out .

I’ll start with Mr. Piltdown Cowboy’s blog entry from the 6th of February of this year as seen below...

The first thing to point out is that only the text in black, the top paragraph and next two sentences, are Bob's "original" contributions, with the brownish text below (almost three times the amount of his writing) all copy and pasted from the linked article. The article Bob is trying to comment on is from Creationresearch.org's "Peer Reviewed" Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal and is titled "Time Required for Sedimentation Contradicts the Evolutionary Hypothesis". Before going into Bob's "summary" of this article, I'd like to quote from the introduction from the article as the quote is a synopsis of the article as a whole.

My research has focused on empirical experiments showing how strata form, a topic about which little work has been done.

The article makes passing reference to Radiometric Dating, and instead is a critique of modern/historical theories about the process by which sedimentary rock is formed. The attacks in this article are mainly against our understanding of sedimentary rock formation are from Steno and his 17th century writings, a history of studies on the formation of sedimentary rock, and some cherry-picked papers showing how some formations form rapidly.

Getting back Bob. I have to start by asking myself "why does he not give Hovind credit since he does nothing but repeating Hovind almost word for word?"

How can I make this claim? Simple, because, unlike Bob and almost every creationist I've encountered, I back up my claims with evidence. If you have ever tried to make a count the number of factual errors, scientific misrepresentations, and outright lies about science in a single Hovind seminar, I think you would agree with me that "Seminar 4 - Lies in the Textbooks" wins hands down as you would only need to get about half way though before making the call on this point. I'll bet that Bob watches Hovind's seminars so often that he repeats Hovind without even knowing it.

Proof #1 that Bob is a Hovind parrot/plagiarist. Bob said...

One of the largest flaws in evolutionists' "logic" is the circular reasoning of the fossil record. How old is the fossil? You can tell because of the rock layers that contained it. How can you tell how old the rock layers are? Because of the fossils in them.

Which is exactly what Hovind says here.

Next Bob states that...

The so-called geologic column only exists in textbooks, not in nature.

Boy Bob that sounds familiar...oh ya, Hovind said it here.

Need I say more?

Please comment on my interpretation (as any scientist would expect), give feedback on why you support or do not support Cowboy/Bob/Piltdown Superman/Stormbringer/Sorensen, or any other comments on this post so I can look at my Performance and get Feedback for Revision as per Darwin though Baba.

SP

The text of an agreement for format and subject of a debate between "DoctorAnswers" and myself.

noreply@blogger.com (ScientiaPerceptum) — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 11:22:00 +0000

This is an exact copy of that text taken from our Skype conversation.

[9/6/2009 9:30:43 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: Hey Nick.
[9/6/2009 9:31:15 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: I just got home from a few days in the mountains (Hiking/Camping) and saw your message on my profile.
[9/6/2009 9:32:07 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: I don't check my profile page that often so if you would like to get hold of me sooner an e-mail or skype call would be quicker.
[9/6/2009 9:32:48 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: I would LOVE a debate so contact me ASAP about your suggestions for a format and we will bang it out for a time
[9/6/2009 9:32:49 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: Thanx,
[9/6/2009 9:32:52 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: Yours
[9/6/2009 9:32:54 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: SP
[9/6/2009 9:33:28 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: BTW it is Sunday 9:30 PM my time and 6:30 yours
[9/6/2009 9:35:21 PM] DoctorAnswers: Have you thought of any ideas?
[9/6/2009 9:37:11 PM] DoctorAnswers: I alow evolutionists to give suggestions and then I alow part of what they want to discuss. So that they can't complaine and say that I am formating everything so that they will fail
[9/6/2009 9:42:41 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: Hey there. What I ment by format is how the debate will be conducted and what the specific subject will be.
[9/6/2009 9:42:52 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: Just a sec, let me get my headset
[9/6/2009 9:44:03 PM] *** Call to DoctorAnswers, duration 11:01. ***
[9/8/2009 5:17:44 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: Hey Nick, Have you thought about the format and subjects for the debate?
[9/8/2009 5:25:12 PM] DoctorAnswers: yes I have
[9/8/2009 5:26:09 PM] DoctorAnswers: I was thinking that I might bring up the idea of humans having 46 chromosomes and chimps having 48.
[9/8/2009 5:27:34 PM] Nick: It seems odd that can happen when we know of the disorders children have with 45
[9/8/2009 5:29:08 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: Ok, so a subject to start out with would be the chromosome #'s of humans compared with other primates.
[9/8/2009 5:29:13 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: What about the format?
[9/8/2009 5:29:52 PM] Nick: probably have 3 different videos of a subject for both of us
[9/8/2009 5:30:03 PM] Nick: then refute and then conclude
[9/8/2009 5:30:50 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: Please clarify? What would you like the debate to look like?
[9/8/2009 5:32:15 PM] Nick: We both have our topics. We have a into vid then 3 I have 3 vids and you have 3 vids and then we refute those vids. Then conclude
[9/8/2009 5:37:21 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: So do you mean what You start with a intro, then I have an intro, then we have 3 rounds of back and fourth, concluding with a final statement from each of us?
[9/8/2009 5:37:38 PM] Nick: Yes
[9/8/2009 5:37:53 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: Ok.
[9/8/2009 5:38:02 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: When would you like to start?
[9/8/2009 5:38:50 PM] Nick: I might hava a video up today if I come up with two more ideas
[9/8/2009 5:46:41 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: The reason I asked is that I have a busy week at school (it just started this week) and will not have a lot of time to make a video, BUT can bust one out on Saturday.
[9/8/2009 5:48:23 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: So...how about this as a schedule (which is the next thing we need to talk about anyway): the debate starts Saturday with your Intro. I will produce and post an intro the same day, after yours, and then you will post a response.
[9/8/2009 5:49:01 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: How many days would you like between your Intro and the response to my intro?
[9/8/2009 5:49:20 PM] Nick: I have time on the weekend and Tuesday
[9/8/2009 5:51:54 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: So does that mean that we should have the times between each section as being 3 days??? IE: you post your intro and I post mine on Saturday. You will then post a response on Tuesday and I will do the same. AND then we continue with this pattern?
[9/8/2009 5:52:35 PM] Nick: Yes that is fine because I will have enough break to do my homework
[9/8/2009 5:54:26 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: Nice!!! Ok, so I will await your intro on Saturday before posting mine. On Tuesday I will post a response to your intro after you have done the same and then we can work out dates for the additional responses and rebuttals at this point.
[9/8/2009 5:54:41 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: Does that sound like a plan?
[9/8/2009 5:54:49 PM] Nick: Good plan
[9/8/2009 5:57:05 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: So to clarify right away I would like to point out that ALL Great Apes (humans, chimps, gorillas, and oranatangs) besides humans have 48 chromosomes, while humans are the only Great Ape that has 46 and that is the topic we are debating with its relation to evolution.
[9/8/2009 5:57:29 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: Also I suggest that we have to give references to our claims
[9/8/2009 5:57:45 PM] Nick: Yes I will give URLS
[9/8/2009 5:58:01 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: Would you limit yourself to only peer reviewed references?
[9/8/2009 5:58:22 PM] Nick: Yes
[9/8/2009 5:59:29 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: Nice. Ok, so I will post this conversation on my blog (given your permission) and advertise the debate on YouTube. Sound like a plan?
[9/8/2009 6:00:22 PM] Nick: permissiongranted and thank you for asking because I know qdragon1337 does not ask
[9/8/2009 6:02:47 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: Not a problem Nick. I'll contact you with any additional clarification, questions and references before Saturday and please feel free to mirror my advert video on YouTube before the debate. BTW http://scientiaperceptum.blogspot.com/
[9/8/2009 6:05:04 PM] Nick: My blog although I forgot about it until you brought up yours http://www.blogger.com/home?pli=1
[9/8/2009 6:05:18 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: Thank you

There are a few things I would like to point out.

First of all Nick gave me permission to post this conversation at 6:00:22.

Next, we agreed (5:26:09) that the topic of debate was going to be why all great apes besides humans have 48 chromosomes while humans have 46 (although Nick only points out chimps as an example in the above text). I must say at this point that I thought this would be the only subject for this debate, but I guess I should have specified that before closing the conversation.

Lastly it should be pointed out that Nick agreed (5:58:22) that he would back up his claims with PEER reviewed sources.

So, this being said, Nick posted his first video Yesterday, the 11th of September, with a range of topics following the route of obfuscation I like to call "The Hovind Hop"©, which is just a version of the "Gish Gallop". Due to this fact and that the majority of topics he has decided to tackle are not not limited to evolution I will change the debate title to "Creationism vs. Science" to better reflect what is being discussed.

Of course Nick did not give one peer reviewed reference to back up his claims, so I'll remind him of his agreement to do so during my opening statement. I also feel that it will be necessary to point out in my opening statement that he has now chosen the topics he wishes me to address and that responses should be limited to subjects brought up in my rebuttals and the topics of my opening statement.

Well, let the fun begin!

Eric Hovind's Grand Mistake

noreply@blogger.com (ScientiaPerceptum) — Mon, 25 May 2009 20:52:00 +0000

I just watched Eric's "Grand Canyon" video here and posted this comment on his blog

Eric,

I just thought, for now, that I would point out a HUGE error in your video.

From second 32-35 you state and point to the entrance and exit of the Colorado River, BUT you mixed them up and pointed at the wrong sides. You first point to the Northeast part saying it is the exit, when in fact it is the entrance of the river into the canyon. You then point to the West part and say the river enters here when, in fact, this is the exit.

Oops a major mistake, but on par with your facts about science in general so maybe it was a Freudian slip.

Better luck next time,

SP

Now before pointing out his inaccuracies about the scientific facts of the formation of the Grand Canyon I'm going to wait to see if he posts this comment, or if he erases his video and starts anew.

When the going gets tough, NephilimFree BLOCKS you from making comments on his videos.

noreply@blogger.com (ScientiaPerceptum) — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 20:58:00 +0000

I woke up today (Sunday January 11th) and watched a few new videos from channels I subscribe to on YouTube. One of the videos was from NephilimFree and titled "Evolution Quickshot - Speciation"

Now although NephilimFree was one of the first people I subscribed to when joining YouTube and I've watched many of his videos, I've never felt the need to comment on anything he has posted, until today.

Before even getting through all ten minutes of his video I made a couple of comments...

Starting your video, NephilimFree, by quote mining invalidates the rest of your claim.

For everyone wondering the video was taken from Kent Hovind's "Debate #8 - Wayne State University" and if you watch the rest of what Dr. Moore was saying from that debate you will find out why the rest of what NephilimFree says is completely incorrect.

Sad attempt at deception NF!

And

A salamander and a Gila Monster are both lizards??? That is the first time I have ever heard anyone call a group of AMPHIBIANS, the Order Caudata, a reptile.

Your whole video seems to be nothing more than an argument from incredulity.

After watching the video all the way through I posted two more comments...

NephilimFree, you should really do some basic research before making a comment or video so you don't remove all doubt of your ignorance.

Point of Fact - Phylum Porifera existed in the Ediacaran and chemical markers push their existence back even older.
Phylum Placozoa dated to the Ediacarian with the fossil Dickinsonia as an example.
Phylum Cnidaria dates to at least the Ediacaran.
The origin of Phyla Annelida and/or Arthropoda can placed in the Ediacarian by Spriggina fossils.

cont...

And

cont...

Phylum Mollusca can be pushed back to the Ediacaran with the fossil Kimberella.

AND then comes the fact that MANY, to many to mention here, Phyla come into existence AFTER the Cambrian including most Phyla of plants.
So it is completely FALSE that "...all phylum (sic) and body plans of life came to be at once." in the Cambrian Explosion.

Also how is a KIND defined in a way that a taxonomist or evolutionary biologists could understand? What animals/plants are in the same kind??

I was hoping that NephilimFree would give his reasons for making such inaccurate statements for why he thinks that salamanders are LIZARDS and when Phyla are known to appear in the fossil record, but instead he blocked me from being able to make any further comments.

At the same time he made the following scientifically inaccurate assertions (my comments are in quotations)...

"Phylum Mollusca can be pushed back to the Ediacaran with the fossil Kimberella."

We do not observe new morphological feautes [sic] arise(ing?) in mollusk fossils.

"Phyla come into existence AFTER the Cambrian including most Phyla of plants"

None. All phylum [sic] and body plans appear in the Cambrian.

Firstly we do observe "...new morphological..." FEATURES arising in mollusca after the Cambrian with the best example being the most recent molluscan: The Class Scaphopoda did not exist until the Ordovician. Besides this, new morphological features show up in mollusca throughout their history as verified by anyone researching the evolutionary changes in molluscan Orders, Families, and Genera over time.

Secondly all, I will repeat that ALL, land plant Phyla do not come into existence until after the Cambrian with the first appearing in the Ordovician. The first vascular plants do not appear until the Silurian and the most recent Phyla, the Angiosperms, do not appear until over 350 million years after the Cambrian.

Next NephilimFree said...

"Also how is a KIND defined in a way that a taxonomist or evolutionary biologists could understand?"

The closest relation to evolutionist taxonomy is family, as I stated in so many words in the video.

"What animals/plants are in the same kind??"

Do your own homework.

According to NephilimFree a “creationist KIND” is defined as a taxonomic Family. Really??? Ok if that is true then according to NephilimFree Oranatanges, Gorillias, Chimpazees, and Humans (along with all extinct homonids like Australopithecenes) are the same KIND since they all fall within the Taxonomic Family of Hominidae.
Thank you, NephilimFree, for admitting that Humans are Great Apes, now I hope you will retract the statements in your video that deny this.

I've done my homework, now do your own.

What next...

"you should really do some basic research before making a comment or video so you don't remove all doubt of your ignorance."

I know more about evolutiosm [sic] than you do obviously, since you think phylum [sic] arose after the Cambrian.

"Phylum Placozoa dated to the Ediacarian"

Radiometric dating uses a material of presumed age as the control for calibration. It is not capable of dating anything.

Since I've already proven that many Phyla postdate the Cambrian period I will skip to your a comment by you that negates EVERYTHING you have to say about the occurrence of when new morphological adaptations occur.

If you, NephilimFree, claim that radiometric dating is "...not capable of dating anything." then I don't know how you can even begin to claim that "All phylum [sic] and body plans appear in the Cambrian." since to claim this you have to rely upon radiometric dating. I guess you cannot make any claims about the ages of fossils, the origins of new morphologies, or ANYTHING relating to the geological ages of anything.

Let's continue...

"by quote mining invalidates the rest of your claim"

I quote a scientist and that invalidates something? You are totally lost in space.
Not surprising. You're an evo!

"and if you watch the rest of what Dr. Moore was saying from that debate you will find out why the rest of what NephilimFree says is completely incorrect"

Moore is as lost as you are.

You, NephilimFree, did not quote Dr. William Moore, instead you mined the beginning of a rhetorical statement in a debate and showed this in your video out of context as an introduction to your entire argument and everything you said afterwards. Your intellectual dishonesty for not posting ALL of Dr. Moore's definition/commentary on how speciation is defined in biology negates everything you claim in the rest of your video.

Since NephilimFree does not want Dr. Moore to define speciation then I suggest that everyone watches the debate. It can be found on YouTube in sections and the entire debate can also be downloaded from various sources online.

What one will find is that species, according to science, are defined in different ways and one must understand these definitions before making an agrument either for or against speciation or if speciation has occured. Since NephilimFree does not address the different definitions or any known instances of speciation then we cannot rely on his statements that it does not occur.

Next comes my favorite responce by N.F. about a statement he made in his video. Between 5:53 and 6:05 he said...

Take for example, uh, a Gila Monster and a salamander, are they the same kind? Well certainly not. They're both LIZARDS of a different kind.

I found this statement so ignorant of reality I had to ask N.F. if he really thought this was true.

"A salamander and a Gila Monster are both lizards???"

National Geographic:
ht tp : // animals . nationalgeographic . com / animals / reptiles / gila-monster . h t m l

"the venomous Gila monster (pronounced HEE-luh) is the largest lizard native to the United States."

Totally lost are we?

NephilimFree is again claiming that SALAMANDERS ARE LIZARDS.

As you can see from my comment above I said "That is the first time I have ever heard anyone call a group of AMPHIBIANS, the Order Caudata, a reptile." but instead of correcting his mistake (did you even look up Caudata NephilimFree???) or admitting that he was wrong NephilimFree gives a link about a Gila Monster.

Well to answer your rhetorical question: Yes, I think you are lost.

Caudata are an Amphibian (not Reptile, like Lizards) taxonomic Order that includes all Salamander species.

Evolutionists never cease to amaze me with thier ignorance. That's why I issued my challenge to them.

ScientiaPerceptum, you would serve yourself well to take that challenge. You would not make a goon of yourself so much if you actualy understood evolution theory and the evidences which destroy is [sic] so thoroughly.

Well NephilimFree apparently I cannot take your challenge and prove that the ignorance, about the scientific reality of Evolutionary Biology, is yours when you block me from posting any further comments on your videos.

What are you so afraid of me saying? If you allowed me, someone with an undergrad in Evolutionary Biology, to reply to your claims are you afraid that your subscribers would learn the extent of your ignorance of the facts that make up the Scientific theory of Biological Evolution or do are you afraid that you would have to apologize for your incredulous and inaccurate statements???

At this point, you, NephilimFree, have proven that like almost all creationists that your only evidence for the pseudoscience that you spew is censorship of the scientific reality.

S.P.

A reply too long for the YouTube Comments regarding a01011399's Jan 3rd 2008 video

noreply@blogger.com (ScientiaPerceptum) — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 06:05:00 +0000

On January 3rd 2008 YouTube user a01011399, a.k.a. Daniel, made a video response titled "re The word Evolution and why Hovind should never be trusted." to user k87jury which can be found here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddtkANheDjs

The same day I responded to his comments and a mini debate began. Instead of dealing with the limited space allowed there I have moved the "debate" here.

Below is my original post followed by our "debate" in the comment section.

ScientiaPerceptum
If you dont understand these terms (or understand the terms of a debate) then how can you even start to address any of the above topics.

In essence, you have failed before you even start.

Before you start a debate, you need to understand the terms you will be debating in their context. Next you need to stick to the rules of the debate (which means you need to stick to the topic), and last you need to supply real information instead of relying on your ignorance as an excuse.

a01011399
evolution has many different meanings, that is why you have to define evolution

ScientiaPerceptum
Wrong Daniel!!!

In science evolution has ONLY ONE MEANING and that is the point you "don't get".

In science evolution is: "The process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations (change in allele frequencies over time). Biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generations."

If you, Daniel, say again that "evolution has different meanings" then you should be labled a LIAR.

a01011399
Nope stellar evolution and biological evolution are 2 different things
Besides your definition for evolution sounds more like Mendel laws. Darwinian evolution is much more that just ´´change in the allele frequencies´´

a01011399
´´The process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations´´
Creationists also accept that, so are you suggesting once again, that creationists and evolutionists agree?
You definition is not accurate and it is misleading, a better definition for evolution is: ´´the idea of complex organisms coming from simpler forms

AND

a01011399
yes I do undestand that, what I don´t understand is why are evolutionist making such a big deal with this

ScientiaPerceptum
The reason that Scientists, among them Evolutionary Biologists, make "...such a big deal..." about "...this..." is that if one does not start out using the correct terminology with the correct definitions then it is USELESS to start a conversation.

It has been shown, and continues to be seen repeatedly (you, Daniel, are a perfect example), that CREATIONISTS (Anti-science advocates) build strawmen of real scientific concepts and deliberately derail discussions by misusing vocabulary.

a01011399
Ok kent hovind describes the 6 different kinds of evolution, (cosmical, chemical, stellar, organic, macro and micro) and he claims that if you are going to debate you have to specify what the debate is going to be about. In my opinion there is nothing wrong with that, but you might have a different opinion, so tell me why is hovind being dishonest?

After this back and forth I wrote the following and intended to place it in the comments section, but found my comment became too long. I am hoping Daniel will reply here, but we will see where this goes now.

Again, Daniel, you are WRONG!

You do not seem to have the capability comprehend how words are used when one is talking about the SCIENTIFIC definition. Being that you have proved this as FACT based on your previous statements, I will start over and take this a little slower for you so you can work through your ignorance.

1. Words sometimes have different meanings depending on the CONTEXT in which they are used.

2. I will ONLY (AGAIN ONLY) be discussing and defining words based on their SCIENTIFIC meanings (which I’ve already done above).

3. In SCIENCE the word EVOLUTION only pertains to the field of BIOLOGY.

4. If you use the word EVOLUTION outside of the field of BIOLOGY in a SCIENTIFIC discussion then you are using it incorrectly.

5. In SCIENCE there is NO SUCH THING as cosmic, stellar, planetary, or organic evolution. Again there is NO SUCH THING in science as cosmic, stellar, planetary, or organic evolution, these DO NOT EXIST when you are using the word evolution in science.

6. IN SCIENCE when one is talking about the history of the Universe then we call that PHYSICAL COSMOLOGY which is under the SCIENTIFIC field of ASTROPHYSICS. See the word PHYSICS? Do you know the difference between PHYSICS and BIOLOGY in SCIENCE Daniel?

7. IN SCIENCE when one is talking about how Stars form and their “life cycles” we would also ask a scientist who studies ASTROPHYSICS, but one that specializes in Stars. Stars form when a giant molecular cloud undergoes gravitational collapse. To understand how stars change over time we then refer to the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram.

8. IN SCIENCE stars and planets form from the same materials, but the model used to explain how planets occur is called the Solar Nebular Model under the field of ASTROPHYSICS again. Around a young star, a protoplanetary disk will occur and lead to the formation of planets by accretion of the surrounding nebula.

9. IN SCIENCE how the Earth has changed over time is described by fields of science called GEOLOGY and GEOPHYSICS, can you say GEOPHYSICS Daniel? See how the words GEOLOGY and PHYSICS are combined?

10. IN SCIENCE the study of how life came from non-life is called ABIOGENESIS and is contained under the field of CHEMISTRY. There are many different scientific models, theories, and hypothesis under the study of ABIOGENESIS and thousands of scientists worldwide that contribute to the scientific understanding of how inanimate matter could have formed the first living organisms.

11. IN SCIENCE, under the field of BIOLOGY we have the study of how living organisms change over time from the FIRST life until today and that is called EVOLUTION and is studied by those in the field of EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY.

12. EVOLUTIONARY THEORY in science is, again under the field of BIOLOGY, defined various ways, but they all have the same meaning. Here is definition different from my previous one above, BUT having the same meaning: “Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.”

In essence, BIOLGICAL EVOLUTION says that the changes, again CHANGES, in a populations genes determined by the interaction of that population with its environment (natural selection) can lead to the formation of unique morphology and/or behavior over time allowing for the divergence of a new isolated interbreeding population, which is different from, but related to the parent population. These genetic changes continue to add up leading to new species, genera, families, orders, and classes of organisms within a genetically nested hierarchy.

Your, Daniel, ignorance of how BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION is defined is evident in your feeble attempt to equate it with Mendelian inheritance which SAYS NOTHING about genetic changes. Mendel’s Laws only refer to the segregation of EXISTING genes and their independent assortment.

Your strawman of BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION as simple organisms giving rise to more complex ones also proves your ignorance since EVOLUTION is NOT directional since EVOLUTION only deals with POPULATIONS and not individual organisms and those populations can LOSE acquired traits and genes allowing the daughter population to be simpler then the parent population.

The main problem you, Daniel, have is that you, as a anti-science creationist, do not accept the FACT that acquired heritable changes in a population’s gene pool can lead over GREAT PERIODS of time, millions/billions of years, to changes such as an limbless and jawless aquatic vertebrate giving rise to a tetrapod land mammal and must bury your head in the sand to ignore the convergent evidence from fossils and genetic analysis.

Until you, Daniel, learn the REAL SCIENTIFIC evidence on which the FACT of BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION is based you will continue to be mislead by deceptive snake-oil charlatans who are selling lies under the guise of religion.

A converstation with Jack from youtube.com/user/CreationHelp

noreply@blogger.com (ScientiaPerceptum) — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:37:00 +0000

On the 13th of September 2008 Jack Morgin started a YouTube channel named "CreationHelp" and posted his first video entitled "Evolution is a LIE (Links)" where he introduced himself and gave 4 websites to check out along with a book thinks is a good source of information pertaining to Creationism.

I then left a comment on his page seen here http://www.youtube.com/profile_comment_all?user=CreationHelp welcoming him and asking a few questions. He responded with a comment on my channel on the 15th saying:

What four conflicting statements? Yes, I am saying that Young Earth Creationism is what I beleive, instead of the theory of evolution taught in biology. No I do not disagree with science, just the theory of evolution.

I appreciate that you watched my video. I am going to make some more soon.

Thanks, Jack.

I responded the same day stating that:

I am also glad to hear you say that you will be only discussion Biology as most YECreationists do not seem to understand that Cosmology (with theories based in Physics about the Big Bang), Abiogenesis (with theories based in Chemistry about life coming from non-life), Radioactive Decay (Physics again used to date the age of the Earth at 4.56 Billion years old), Plate Tectonics (with theories based in Geology about how land masses over the Earth have changed over billions of years), etc..... are scientific ideas that are NOT part of Evolutionary Biology.

Later that day he retracted his previous statement with this correction:

am sorry if I did not use the correct words when writting my reply to your previous comment. I do not beleive in the theroy of evolution, I also don't beleive in...

the big bang
life coming from non-life
and the earth being 4.56 billion years old (I belieive 6000)

I do belive in Plate Tectonics, however I beleive it happened about 4000 years ago, during the tower of babel, as described by the bible.

I will tell you some of what I beleive:

6000 year old earth
six day literal creation of time, the earth, all of space, and heaven.
that God only created two original humans to populate the earth.
Cain married his sister.
Noah's year-long-global flood.
tower of bable being destroyed, followed by movement of the earths continental plates, and the seperation of languages.

Thank you,

Jack

I wanted to respond, but the comment section does not allow large posts so I will post my response here...

Jack,

I’m sorry to hear you retract your previous statement and now claim to not be in support of science at all. I feel this is a correct assessment of your statements (that you are against ALL of science) and let me explain why.

At first you had said that “I do not disagree with science, just the theory of evolution.” Which meant that the only science you did not accept was Evolutionary Biology (and maybe just some parts and not all of it, but we will have to discuss that later). NOW you have said that you do not accept theories of Cosmology, giving the big bang as an example, or Atomic Theory, saying that the Earth is only 6000 years old. By making these statements you have said, in essence, that you do not accept ALMOST EVERYTHING in the field of Physics, even though Atomic theory is used every day for Nuclear power, Chemotherapy, and in your statement also means that you do not accept that atoms or the discrete parts of atoms (like the electron or proton) exist. Since isotope ratios are also used to date the Earth, and you stated that Abiogenesis (life from non-life) is incorrect, then you have also made a claim that ALMOST EVERYTHING in the field of Chemistry is also wrong. By stating that 2 humans populated the Earth starting only 6000 years ago and that “Cain married his sister” you have said that ALLMOST EVERYTHING in the field of Archeology, Anthropology, and Genetics is incorrect. By making the statement that there was a yearlong global flood and that the Earth’s plates moved to their current positions in the last 4400 years (James Ussher gave the date as 2349 BCE and Kent Hovind states a similar date of around 2400 BCE) and that this was the time that all languages appeared then you are claiming that ALLMOST EVERYTHING in the fields of Geology, Archeology (again), Anthropology (again), Electromagnetic theory, Linguistics, Chemistry (again due to ocean isotopes), Physics (again due to laws of motion among other things), Ecology, and , of course, Biology are incorrect.

I’m sure I missed a few examples from your last claims of particular fields of science you are asserting to be incorrect, but as you can see just by your few simple statements you have made it seems like you are declaring ALL science to be incorrect. Before you make the statement that “if we cannot observe it in a lab it is not science” then do some research about how science works as scientific explanations can be formed not only by “Experimental Science”, but also by “Historical Narratives” which in the field of Archeology, for example, have been used to explain who wrote the “Dead Sea Scrolls” and when as have other parts of Scripture (not to mention that they were dated using Carbon 14 radiometric dating and isotope ratios along with other experimental and non-experimental methods).

The last thing I would like to clarify is your use of the term “belief” when talking about science. In science theories are provisionally accepted explanations of the facts (available evidence) and can never be shown to be absolutely correct. This is easy to understand since as technology advances we are able to learn more and more about the natural world AND as more and more research is conducted we find new facts (evidence) that can change, update, clarify, support, or deny our current understanding of a theory. So a theory in science is never “believed” as this term does not apply to scientific theories. I do not “believe” in gravity since I accept the fact that objects are attracted to the each other with a strength in ratio to the objects mass AND our understanding of how that attraction occurs is EXPLAINED by a scientific theory. I don’t “believe” that the Earth rotates around the Sun, but instead I understand how it does so by a theory called Heliocentrism. (BY THE WAY both of the previously mentioned theories have far less evidence than the theory of Biological Evolution through Natural Selection.)

Science is a manmade way to understand reality. If you read Stephen J. Gould’s “Rocks of Ages” and understood his concept of Nonoverlapping Magisteria you will find that there are other ways of understanding reality, BUT those other ways start with different assumptions and answer different questions. Theology asks and answers different questions, and uses different methods in doing so, than Science. Science is based in starting assumptions and methods that Theology does not use. Science cannot say ANYTHING about the existence or workings of God for if it did then we would be out of the realm of science. Theology cannot say how purely natural forces lead to changes in species over time OR how these same natural forces have lead to the formation of the Earth, solar system, galaxy, or the Universe since the limit of a purely natural explanation denies the supernatural and therefore God.

In my studies to obtain a Bachelors of Science in Evolutionary Biology I took many classes in philosophy of science, epistemology, and even theology. If you would like further clarifications on the subject I offer my assistance.

S.P.

I feel that it needs to be pointed out that Young Earth Creationists are anti-science as you can see from my reply as, by their statements, they don't accept ALL of science.

Scientia Perceptum

Twitter Creationist Cult Devotees: @LeeTWimberly

A conversation on science, evolution, and creationism between Twitter user @splinteredca and I.

3rd Creationist Cartoon change.

Brian Tweed: 2nd Response to 1st Question

My 2nd Creationists Cartoon changed to support Evolution

My 1st Creationist Cartoon changed to support Evolution

My First Question for Brian Tweed, his reponse and my reply.

Q & A with Brian Tweed. His first question(s) & my response.

Brian Tweet from 29Mar2012

Conversations with Brian Tweed on Facebook.

(Scientia Perceptum writes) “My aim is to understand the basis for and purpose of the belief that creationists hold”

(Scientia Perceptum writes)… but instead I've hoped would be based purely in science.

(Scientia Perceptum writes)…I've tried to take time to read, reread, clarify, and find citations for my comments I have seen very little actual content from you, as you have not answered my questions, even though I have answered yours.

Scientia Perceptum writes)… So, in your view, is creationism (the one you claim to follow) based purely in science and if so, how so????

Back in the Saddle again.

The text of an agreement for format and subject of a debate between "DoctorAnswers" and myself.

Eric Hovind's Grand Mistake

When the going gets tough, NephilimFree BLOCKS you from making comments on his videos.

A reply too long for the YouTube Comments regarding a01011399's Jan 3rd 2008 video

A converstation with Jack from youtube.com/user/CreationHelp

(Scientia Perceptum writes)…I've tried to take time to read, reread, clarify, and find citations for my comments

I have seen very little actual content from you, as you have not answered my questions, even though I have answered yours.