http://www.getexpelled.com/_downloads/expe...eadersguide.pdf
It's kind of hard to debate them when they bring no evidence to their side, but I think I have determined what their side is. They are lying anti-Christs who want to use lawyers tricks to pretend they have science on their side.
QUOTE
Introduction
91% of Americans believe in God.
78% of Americans believe that God created human beings in our present form, or guided an evolutionary process that led to our present form.
91% of Americans believe in God.
78% of Americans believe that God created human beings in our present form, or guided an evolutionary process that led to our present form.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Introduction 91% of Americans believe in God. 78% of Americans believe that God created human beings in our present form, or guided an evolutionary process that led to our present form. “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” – Charles Darwin, Introduction to The Origin of Species |
Great, but polls aren't relevant facts for an argument about what happened when none of those people were present. The Creationist jab of "were you there?" only makes sense when you are addressing the uninformed opinion of non-experts. And if they quoted Darwin's sentiment, then one would expect them to bring facts and arguments. But I find no facts.
Also, Darwin was not talking about educating children, but in learned men having scientific debate on what general principles should be adopted by all people. It is fair for judges to judge on evidence and scientists to judge on facts, but having children who have no interest in biology learn millions of facts prior to making some decision? How is that fair or even sane?
Also, Darwin was not talking about educating children, but in learned men having scientific debate on what general principles should be adopted by all people. It is fair for judges to judge on evidence and scientists to judge on facts, but having children who have no interest in biology learn millions of facts prior to making some decision? How is that fair or even sane?
QUOTE
Despite the fact that most Americans believe that God created life,
Distortion - their own poll says only 48% believe God created life. Another 30% believe God guided evolution. And the rest either said God had nothing to do with it or didn't have an instant opinion.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Despite the fact that most Americans believe that God created life, |
Distortion - their own poll says only 48% believe God created life. Another 30% believe God guided evolution. And the rest either said God had nothing to do with it or didn't have an instant opinion.
the only “origin of life” theory taught in the majority of American schools is Neo-Darwinism,
the only “origin of life” theory taught in the majority of American schools is Neo-Darwinism,
Because, by definition, the mechanisms of Modern Evolutionary Theory consist the only scientific theory of origin of species, and, by law, Creationism, Creation Science and Intelligent Design are not only not science, but are establishments of Religion as prohibited by the First Amendment. The very fact that these are American schools should make Americans proud that they aren't teaching our kids religion.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/1...loo_in_dov.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/1...loo_in_dov.html
QUOTE
which at its core holds that a random undirected process has led from non-life to all of the marvellous complexity we see in the living world.
First of all, Modern Evolutionary Theory does not say that complexity is favored in non-life -- organic chemistry and thermodynamics say that. Second, once populations of reproducing systems with heredity exist, evolution is a theorem, not a theory. Thirdly, because evolution is unguided (by intelligence) complexity is guaranteed. Actual intelligent engineers don't value complexity -- it arises from a failure to design and to piecewise and opportunistically adopt the least innovation which gives competitive advantage. And fourthly, Darwinian evolution isn't random -- natural selection is a most demanding non-random constraint. Neutral drift may be random, but natural selection remains to shape the population.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| which at its core holds that a random undirected process has led from non-life to all of the marvellous complexity we see in the living world. |
First of all, Modern Evolutionary Theory does not say that complexity is favored in non-life -- organic chemistry and thermodynamics say that. Second, once populations of reproducing systems with heredity exist, evolution is a theorem, not a theory. Thirdly, because evolution is unguided (by intelligence) complexity is guaranteed. Actual intelligent engineers don't value complexity -- it arises from a failure to design and to piecewise and opportunistically adopt the least innovation which gives competitive advantage. And fourthly, Darwinian evolution isn't random -- natural selection is a most demanding non-random constraint. Neutral drift may be random, but natural selection remains to shape the population.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/
Recent scientific discoveries have raised serious questions about the theory of Darwinian evolution,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/
Recent scientific discoveries have raised serious questions about the theory of Darwinian evolution,
"Serious questions" in this case means: did bats evolve flight or echolocation first. More recent scientific discovers answered this question.
There is no evidence that there are serious scientific questions raised by any ID proponent at this time.
http://www.talkdesign.org/cs/node/42
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/...v_8_29_2002.asp
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/...s_2_15_2001.asp
http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/resou...65252685546.asp
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/johnson.html
There is no evidence that there are serious scientific questions raised by any ID proponent at this time.
http://www.talkdesign.org/cs/node/42
QUOTE
while at the same time giving birth to a scientific theory called intelligent design.
Nope. Court defeats for Creationism and Creation Science spawned non-scientific, non-theory intelligent design, which seems to be a question-asking campaign, and not any type of scientific theory.http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/...v_8_29_2002.asp
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/...s_2_15_2001.asp
http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/resou...65252685546.asp
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/johnson.html
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| while at the same time giving birth to a scientific theory called intelligent design. |
Nope. Court defeats for Creationism and Creation Science spawned non-scientific, non-theory intelligent design, which seems to be a question-asking campaign, and not any type of scientific theory.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/...v_8_29_2002.asp
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/...s_2_15_2001.asp
http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/resou...65252685546.asp
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/johnson.html
Despite the compelling modern science in support of intelligent design,
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/...v_8_29_2002.asp
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/...s_2_15_2001.asp
http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/resou...65252685546.asp
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/johnson.html
Despite the compelling modern science in support of intelligent design,
Which is where?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
QUOTE
and despite the fact that most Americans want the evidence for
This is a distortion by bad poll question. In order to teach ALL the evidence for evolution, we would have to teach every child virtually every scientific paper in biology, geology, biochemistry, paleontology, medicine, (and by they way these people define it, physics, astronomy, cosmology, and archeology). Every child would have to know more than a modern Ph.D. Not Galileo, Newton and Einstein together could possibly be expected to learn that much.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| and despite the fact that most Americans want the evidence for |
This is a distortion by bad poll question. In order to teach ALL the evidence for evolution, we would have to teach every child virtually every scientific paper in biology, geology, biochemistry, paleontology, medicine, (and by they way these people define it, physics, astronomy, cosmology, and archeology). Every child would have to know more than a modern Ph.D. Not Galileo, Newton and Einstein together could possibly be expected to learn that much.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
and against Darwin’s theory taught in schools,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
and against Darwin’s theory taught in schools,
Oh, well that part is easy. Trivial in fact. It takes zero time to present zero facts. All ID people have are lawyers questions and lawyers games with words.
QUOTE
any questioning of Darwinism is systematically suppressed in nearly all academic and scientific communities.
Please describe the system? Maybe it's just tired people wondering why you are rehashing Paley's 1801 Natural Theology without scientific evidence? Maybe your friends are tired of you standing on the table and shouting when the proper place to make your case is with evidence?QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| any questioning of Darwinism is systematically suppressed in nearly all academic and scientific communities. |
Please describe the system? Maybe it's just tired people wondering why you are rehashing Paley's 1801 Natural Theology without scientific evidence? Maybe your friends are tired of you standing on the table and shouting when the proper place to make your case is with evidence?
The suppression of new scientific ideas
The suppression of new scientific ideas
Ideas??? You said it was a theory! Ideas are suppressed all the time. If you want to let all the ideas out, then you have anarchy, satanism, geocentrism, pedastry, Marxism, Fascism, violent overthrow of the government and completely true and detailed sex education, and various religions as ideas that should not be suppressed. Is that what you are advocating?
So you just want to teach satanism, sex education and creationism from Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity and a few other religions, Intelligent Design, and Evolution?
So you just want to teach satanism, sex education and creationism from Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity and a few other religions, Intelligent Design, and Evolution?
– presents today’s students with a onesided argument in the court of public opinion.
QUOTE
– particularly those that pertain to the origins of life
So you just want to teach satanism, sex education and creationism from Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity and a few other religions, Intelligent Design, and Evolution?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| – particularly those that pertain to the origins of life |
So you just want to teach satanism, sex education and creationism from Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity and a few other religions, Intelligent Design, and Evolution?
– presents today’s students with a onesided argument in the court of public opinion.
Since only scientific theories have facts to support them, they are they only ideas which should be allowed into court.
Science is about making generalizations that explain the behavior of the universe. These generalizations are called theories. A theory has to explain all the facts which are known at the time, and be useful in predicting new facts. So facts are the bedrock on which good science builds its theories.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html
QUOTE
It’s as if they’re a jury being shown evidence for only ONE SIDE of the case.
I was on a jury once. The defense lawyer didn't want us to belief the police officer on some detail or other. So the trial was held up while we waited for the officer's partner to come back from vacation. All the jurors agreed that the second officer, the defense witness, did not weaken the case of the prosecution, but strengthened it. Sometimes the facts only help one side because the other side is LYING.Science is about making generalizations that explain the behavior of the universe. These generalizations are called theories. A theory has to explain all the facts which are known at the time, and be useful in predicting new facts. So facts are the bedrock on which good science builds its theories.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It’s as if they’re a jury being shown evidence for only ONE SIDE of the case. |
I was on a jury once. The defense lawyer didn't want us to belief the police officer on some detail or other. So the trial was held up while we waited for the officer's partner to come back from vacation. All the jurors agreed that the second officer, the defense witness, did not weaken the case of the prosecution, but strengthened it. Sometimes the facts only help one side because the other side is LYING.
Science is about making generalizations that explain the behavior of the universe. These generalizations are called theories. A theory has to explain all the facts which are known at the time, and be useful in predicting new facts. So facts are the bedrock on which good science builds its theories.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html
All evidence from the opposing side is being thrown out of court, not by the jury or even the judge, but by the side presenting the contrary argument!
Science is about making generalizations that explain the behavior of the universe. These generalizations are called theories. A theory has to explain all the facts which are known at the time, and be useful in predicting new facts. So facts are the bedrock on which good science builds its theories.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html
All evidence from the opposing side is being thrown out of court, not by the jury or even the judge, but by the side presenting the contrary argument!
Facts are facts. The "rules of evidence" in a court don't apply. Science is not allowed to throw out facts because they don't like them. But all ID has are lawyers tricks, and science is not forgiving of hucksters.
QUOTE
It’s suppression at its worst, where the implications reach far beyond the classroom.
It will not be suppression but prosecution for copyright violation if you don't duly license the Harvard animation before showing it to audiences, even audiences that get in for free.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It’s suppression at its worst, where the implications reach far beyond the classroom. |
It will not be suppression but prosecution for copyright violation if you don't duly license the Harvard animation before showing it to audiences, even audiences that get in for free.
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed seeks to expose this suppression
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed seeks to expose this suppression
... by making it up. The list of firings and death threats against high school biology teachers is much longer than the list of creationists you found who were too lazy and negligent in their careers to gain promotions.
You don't even know what suppression is. You are distorting the meaning of that word.
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/eandp.pdf
You don't even know what suppression is. You are distorting the meaning of that word.
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/eandp.pdf
QUOTE
and give today’s students a glimpse into the amazing discoveries that modern science is revealing.
So, are you saying science is more powerful and more awe-inspiring than God?QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| and give today’s students a glimpse into the amazing discoveries that modern science is revealing. |
So, are you saying science is more powerful and more awe-inspiring than God?
In the pages of this Expelled Discussion Guide, you’ll be given the facts being hidden from most students today.
In the pages of this Expelled Discussion Guide, you’ll be given the facts being hidden from most students today.
This pamphlet is ridiculously shorter than an Advanced Placement biological textbook. Honestly, how many facts can you list? In summary, none. (See below.)
http://scienceavenger.blogspot.com/2007/08...xpelled-he.html
QUOTE
“In today’s world, at least in America, an Einstein or a Newton or a Galileo would probably not be allowed to receive grants to study or to publish his research.”
—Ben Stein
Since when is Ben Stein competent to give an informed opinion on this hypothetical question?—Ben Stein
http://scienceavenger.blogspot.com/2007/08...xpelled-he.html
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| “In today’s world, at least in America, an Einstein or a Newton or a Galileo would probably not be allowed to receive grants to study or to publish his research.” —Ben Stein |
Since when is Ben Stein competent to give an informed opinion on this hypothetical question?
http://scienceavenger.blogspot.com/2007/08...xpelled-he.html
Wonderful assertions. This is based on what exactly, besides Stein's paranoia that is? Again, who specifically has not been allowed to receive a grant or to study a subject, or to publish his research? Have grants been intercepted en route by The Atheist Conspiracy ™? Have manuscripts of ID science been confiscated prior to publication? Just how might someone go about halting study? This sounds like Stein has been reading 1984 again.
Expelled is not about scientific persecution. It's about sour grapes. The ID folks refuse to do science, and refuse to publish their hypotheses in the scientific literature. The censorship is theirs, not that of science. Like true dogmatists, despite refutations from all branches of science, including those like mathematics and physics which have no pro-evolution bias, they cling to their views and invent conspiracy theories to explain their failure to garner support outside their sycophantic cabal. Seeing Ben Stein fall into this black hole of pseudoscience is quite sad.
Skipping ahead....
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI200.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE440.html
http://scienceavenger.blogspot.com/2007/08...xpelled-he.html
Wonderful assertions. This is based on what exactly, besides Stein's paranoia that is? Again, who specifically has not been allowed to receive a grant or to study a subject, or to publish his research? Have grants been intercepted en route by The Atheist Conspiracy ™? Have manuscripts of ID science been confiscated prior to publication? Just how might someone go about halting study? This sounds like Stein has been reading 1984 again.
Expelled is not about scientific persecution. It's about sour grapes. The ID folks refuse to do science, and refuse to publish their hypotheses in the scientific literature. The censorship is theirs, not that of science. Like true dogmatists, despite refutations from all branches of science, including those like mathematics and physics which have no pro-evolution bias, they cling to their views and invent conspiracy theories to explain their failure to garner support outside their sycophantic cabal. Seeing Ben Stein fall into this black hole of pseudoscience is quite sad.
Skipping ahead....
QUOTE
Cosmology Summary:
* The universe had a beginning and therefore requires a cause beyond itself.
Misstates cosmology and fundamental physics. The visible portion of Universe had a beginning. There exist many ideas of the nature of that beginning, and each requires a different cause.* The universe had a beginning and therefore requires a cause beyond itself.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI200.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE440.html
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Cosmology Summary: * The universe had a beginning and therefore requires a cause beyond itself. |
Misstates cosmology and fundamental physics. The visible portion of Universe had a beginning. There exist many ideas of the nature of that beginning, and each requires a different cause.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI200.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE440.html
* The universe has an exquisite order that is governed by mathematical laws that testify to a designer.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI200.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE440.html
* The universe has an exquisite order that is governed by mathematical laws that testify to a designer.
Non sequitur. The mathematical laws include probability and quantum physics. That means that the regularity that the religious interpreters of Newton relied upon has been gone for one hundred years
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/the...-revisited.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI301.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html
http://www.physlink.com/Education/essay_weinberg.cfm
Cosmologically, they have no facts, just the double-talk of desperate lawyers.
QUOTE
* The universe and the earth are tailor-made for advanced life. If any factor were slightly different, life could not exist.
Untrue. The universe and the vast majority of Earth are hostile to human life. Numerically, beetles out number us, and algae outweighs us. The Earth occupied no specially designed niche in the Milky Way galaxy and the Milky Way is on a collision course with the Andromeda galaxy.http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/the...-revisited.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI301.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html
http://www.physlink.com/Education/essay_weinberg.cfm
Cosmologically, they have no facts, just the double-talk of desperate lawyers.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| * The universe and the earth are tailor-made for advanced life. If any factor were slightly different, life could not exist. |
Untrue. The universe and the vast majority of Earth are hostile to human life. Numerically, beetles out number us, and algae outweighs us. The Earth occupied no specially designed niche in the Milky Way galaxy and the Milky Way is on a collision course with the Andromeda galaxy.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/the...-revisited.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI301.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html
http://www.physlink.com/Education/essay_weinberg.cfm
Cosmologically, they have no facts, just the double-talk of desperate lawyers.
Molecular Biology Summary:
* A single cell is vastly more complicated than anything humans have ever engineered.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/the...-revisited.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI301.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html
http://www.physlink.com/Education/essay_weinberg.cfm
Cosmologically, they have no facts, just the double-talk of desperate lawyers.
Molecular Biology Summary:
* A single cell is vastly more complicated than anything humans have ever engineered.
Which is evidence that favors the opinion that it was not designed.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI101.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI102.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI010.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI101.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI102.html
QUOTE
* Genetic information requires an intelligent source, because in our uniform and repeated experience information always comes from an intelligent source.
Complete misstatement of information theory.http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI010.html
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| * Genetic information requires an intelligent source, because in our uniform and repeated experience information always comes from an intelligent source. |
Complete misstatement of information theory.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI010.html
* The probability of a cell being formed through chance and mutation is zero.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI010.html
* The probability of a cell being formed through chance and mutation is zero.
Not relevant, since neither Evolution nor Creationism said it came about by chance.
And the reason it is not relevant is that the Creationists don't do the correct calculations.
http://www.talkdesign.org/cs/theory_is_as_theory_does
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/...Speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
And the reason it is not relevant is that the Creationists don't do the correct calculations.
http://www.talkdesign.org/cs/theory_is_as_theory_does
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_2.html
QUOTE
* Breeding of plants and animals produces variations within species, not fundamentally new organisms.
Not true. Maize is a different species. Speciation has been observed many times in the wild and in the laboratory.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/...Speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| * Breeding of plants and animals produces variations within species, not fundamentally new organisms. |
Not true. Maize is a different species. Speciation has been observed many times in the wild and in the laboratory.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/...Speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
* Mutations are almost always harmful or neutral, and those
that are beneficial cannot create genuinely new genetic information.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/...Speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
* Mutations are almost always harmful or neutral, and those
that are beneficial cannot create genuinely new genetic information.
Not true. Even in ID laboratory experiments beneficial mutations which created new information have been observed. (Thank you, Ann Gauger!) Then there's the various species of nylon-metabolizing bacteria.
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB904.html
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/02/id-intelligent.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html
More double-talk of desperate lawyers.
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB904.html
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/02/id-intelligent.html
QUOTE
* Organisms contain complex, integrated systems that could not have developed one piece at a time through an unplanned process.
This is not evidence but argument from personal incredulity. It was Paley (1801) who proposed the eye as perfection, and Darwin (1859) who used it to help set the threshold for accepting his theory. Game, Set and Match to Evolution. Today, everyone of Darwin's required intermediates in vertebrate eye evolution is known to actually exist in nature.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html
More double-talk of desperate lawyers.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| * Organisms contain complex, integrated systems that could not have developed one piece at a time through an unplanned process. |
This is not evidence but argument from personal incredulity. It was Paley (1801) who proposed the eye as perfection, and Darwin (1859) who used it to help set the threshold for accepting his theory. Game, Set and Match to Evolution. Today, everyone of Darwin's required intermediates in vertebrate eye evolution is known to actually exist in nature.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html
More double-talk of desperate lawyers.
Paleontology Summary:
* Darwin’s theory requires thousands of transitional species, and yet there is an incredible lack of transitional fossils among the millions found.
Just a lie, exploiting the public's general lack of education in geology. A very old lie.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transi...art1a.html#gaps
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller.html
http://www.tim-thompson.com/trans-fossils.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html
Yet, more double-talk of desperate lawyers.
Where is the evidence FOR Intelligent Design? There is none. Theologically, if there was scientific evidence for God, then people would have no need for faith in God, only science. Is this what the movie producers want? Are they anti-Christs?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html
More double-talk of desperate lawyers.
Paleontology Summary:
* Darwin’s theory requires thousands of transitional species, and yet there is an incredible lack of transitional fossils among the millions found.
Just a lie, exploiting the public's general lack of education in geology. A very old lie.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transi...art1a.html#gaps
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller.html
http://www.tim-thompson.com/trans-fossils.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
QUOTE
* New animal groups appear abruptly in the fossil record fully formed, requiring a massive increase in new genetic information to be produced— information that points to intelligent design.
Abruptly doesn't mean "in a day" or "in a year" but "over tens of millions of years." Fully formed, seems to mean, "in the manner of natural evolution of life" not "unexpectedly not half-assembled like an explosion in an assembly line plant." Even Eighteenth century paleontologists would have torn apart this supposed evidence, 100 years before Darwin.http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html
Yet, more double-talk of desperate lawyers.
Where is the evidence FOR Intelligent Design? There is none. Theologically, if there was scientific evidence for God, then people would have no need for faith in God, only science. Is this what the movie producers want? Are they anti-Christs?
To promote ignorance is clearly an evil - however mate, people like you act as a potent medicine to this 'disease'. 
QUOTE (rpenner+)
Distortion - their own poll says only 48% believe God created life. Another 30% believe God guided evolution. And the rest either said God had nothing to do with it or didn't have an instant opinion.
You know it's gonna be pretty pathetic when they distort the results of their own poll.
And in their same lawyer way they're going to say they're asking the serious questions, the questions that matter!
And in their same lawyer way they're going to say they're asking the serious questions, the questions that matter!
Facts are facts. The "rules of evidence" in a court don't apply. Science is not allowed to throw out facts because they don't like them. But all ID has are lawyers tricks, and science is not forgiving of hucksters.
That might explain why the ID'ers are miffed about their "theory" getting thrown out of schools. They took that and distorted it to look like they were being "supressed" by "Big Science".
<insert random Creationist argument here>
<insert random Creationist argument here>
To promote ignorance is clearly an evil - however mate, people like you act as a potent medicine to this 'disease'.
Agreed. Excellent post, rpenner.
Ben Stein has "expelled" reasoning, logic and rational thought! My own humble opinion is that he knows better, but created and promoted this solely in order to MAKE MONEY, however ill-earned!
Yes, this is the 'irony' for 'deniers of hard fact', that they will only spur Honest people on to make further discoveries!
It is a no-lose situation for what is Real, as it is also necessarily the only thing that actually exists, thus can be found.
g.
You know it's gonna be pretty pathetic when they distort the results of their own poll.
QUOTE
Oh, well that part is easy. Trivial in fact. It takes zero time to present zero facts. All ID people have are lawyers questions and lawyers games with words.
And in their same lawyer way they're going to say they're asking the serious questions, the questions that matter!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Oh, well that part is easy. Trivial in fact. It takes zero time to present zero facts. All ID people have are lawyers questions and lawyers games with words. |
And in their same lawyer way they're going to say they're asking the serious questions, the questions that matter!
Facts are facts. The "rules of evidence" in a court don't apply. Science is not allowed to throw out facts because they don't like them. But all ID has are lawyers tricks, and science is not forgiving of hucksters.
That might explain why the ID'ers are miffed about their "theory" getting thrown out of schools. They took that and distorted it to look like they were being "supressed" by "Big Science".
QUOTE
Where is the evidence FOR Intelligent Design? There is none. Theologically, if there was scientific evidence for God, then people would have no need for faith in God, only science.
<insert random Creationist argument here>
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Where is the evidence FOR Intelligent Design? There is none. Theologically, if there was scientific evidence for God, then people would have no need for faith in God, only science. |
<insert random Creationist argument here>
To promote ignorance is clearly an evil - however mate, people like you act as a potent medicine to this 'disease'.
Agreed. Excellent post, rpenner.
The main reason why ID leads to suppression of grants is because the claimants will say "For this grant, I intend to show that the knowledge we can gain from Scientific Investigation X is limited and cannot be understood in a more basic way."
It's not very enterprising!
It's not very enterprising!
Great post. 'Expelled' is an act of desperation, they are losing ground faster and faster. Its over.
Ben Stein is in a sad position. He is a smart man, theres no telling what the ID people had to do to get him to support their babble. Using the 'creationist' beliefs of anyone who lived prior to Darwin is absurd as they has no other explanation for life at hand, and many of them were forced into religion either directly or indirectly by the rigid times and the overinflated church. I also feel compelled to point out that religious leaders wrote letters to Einstein asking that he leave America when he revealed that he didn't believe in a 'personal god'. Why try use him as an ally now?
Ben Stein is in a sad position. He is a smart man, theres no telling what the ID people had to do to get him to support their babble. Using the 'creationist' beliefs of anyone who lived prior to Darwin is absurd as they has no other explanation for life at hand, and many of them were forced into religion either directly or indirectly by the rigid times and the overinflated church. I also feel compelled to point out that religious leaders wrote letters to Einstein asking that he leave America when he revealed that he didn't believe in a 'personal god'. Why try use him as an ally now?
QUOTE
If creationists really wanted to prove that second law rules out evolution, there is one way and one way only to do it. Here are the steps:
1. Properly define the initial state of the biosphere, or any part of it, as it existed at a time before the evolutionary changes in question took place. Let this be state 1.
2. Then define the final state of the same system as it would exist after the evolutionary changes took place. This would be state 2.
3. Carefully define a suitable, reversible path joining the initial and final states defined above.
4. Correctly evaluate deltaSsys as the integral of dqrev/T over the reversible path in step 3.
5. Correctly evaluate deltaSsurr as the corresponding entropy change for the surroundings.
6. Evaluate the sum, as deltaSsys + deltaSsurr in hopes it will come out less than zero.
That’s all there is to it. Had the creationists truly proved that evolution contravenes the second law, one or more such analyses would long ago have been found in the creation science literature. But no such refutation is to be found anywhere in their books or tracts. Only the counterfeit “proofs” based on such vacuous notions as “comparative complexity” and such are to be found, and these are totally without foundation. Instead of wasting space here on any of their counterfeit “thermodynamic proofs,” I thought it better to outline a possible method, partly based on classical thermodynamics, that might be used to show that the evolution of living organisms, whatever direction it may take, might never violate the law of increasing entropy.
From: "Thermodynamics, Creationism, and Evolution" by John W. Patterson at http://www.americanatheist.org/smr97/T3/thermodynamics.html1. Properly define the initial state of the biosphere, or any part of it, as it existed at a time before the evolutionary changes in question took place. Let this be state 1.
2. Then define the final state of the same system as it would exist after the evolutionary changes took place. This would be state 2.
3. Carefully define a suitable, reversible path joining the initial and final states defined above.
4. Correctly evaluate deltaSsys as the integral of dqrev/T over the reversible path in step 3.
5. Correctly evaluate deltaSsurr as the corresponding entropy change for the surroundings.
6. Evaluate the sum, as deltaSsys + deltaSsurr in hopes it will come out less than zero.
That’s all there is to it. Had the creationists truly proved that evolution contravenes the second law, one or more such analyses would long ago have been found in the creation science literature. But no such refutation is to be found anywhere in their books or tracts. Only the counterfeit “proofs” based on such vacuous notions as “comparative complexity” and such are to be found, and these are totally without foundation. Instead of wasting space here on any of their counterfeit “thermodynamic proofs,” I thought it better to outline a possible method, partly based on classical thermodynamics, that might be used to show that the evolution of living organisms, whatever direction it may take, might never violate the law of increasing entropy.
Ben Stein has "expelled" reasoning, logic and rational thought! My own humble opinion is that he knows better, but created and promoted this solely in order to MAKE MONEY, however ill-earned!
QUOTE
To promote ignorance is clearly an evil - however mate, people like you act as a potent medicine to this 'disease'.
Yes, this is the 'irony' for 'deniers of hard fact', that they will only spur Honest people on to make further discoveries!
It is a no-lose situation for what is Real, as it is also necessarily the only thing that actually exists, thus can be found.
g.
Voluntary polls tend to be biased (as was once wonderfully demonstrated in an infamous eighties sex survey).
Only people with strong opinions tend to reply to them.
People that are happy with the status quo tend to be more complacent then those that are not.
I'd be interested in seeing the wording of the actual questions as well (Having studied statistics, and dealt with it at a professional level).
As my signature says "Incompetence is bad enough, but to persist is unforgivable"
Only people with strong opinions tend to reply to them.
People that are happy with the status quo tend to be more complacent then those that are not.
I'd be interested in seeing the wording of the actual questions as well (Having studied statistics, and dealt with it at a professional level).
As my signature says "Incompetence is bad enough, but to persist is unforgivable"
Ben Stein’s premise is that academia has expelled anyone not supporting the canonized and approved ideology. As laughable as this claim and his related movie is, take the following as a prime example of how what Ben Stein claims is not exactly reflected in his actions. After being is so many debates about ID and CS, I fear that these types of actions are more typical than atypical of the more vocal supporters of ID.
Expelled from Expelled.
Link
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
Expelled from Expelled.
Link
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
QUOTE
There is a rich, deep kind of irony that must be shared. I'm blogging this from the Apple store in the Mall of America, because I'm too amused to want to wait until I get back to my hotel room.
I went to attend a screening of the creationist propaganda movie, Expelled, a few minutes ago. Well, I tried … but I was Expelled! It was kind of weird — I was standing in line, hadn't even gotten to the point where I had to sign in and show ID, and a policeman pulled me out of line and told me I could not go in. I asked why, of course, and he said that a producer of the film had specifically instructed him that I was not to be allowed to attend. The officer also told me that if I tried to go in, I would be arrested. I assured him that I wasn't going to cause any trouble.
I went back to my family and talked with them for a while, and then the officer came back with a theater manager, and I was told that not only wasn't I allowed in, but I had to leave the premises immediately. Like right that instant.
I complied.
I'm still laughing though. You don't know how hilarious this is. Not only is it the extreme hypocrisy of being expelled from their Expelled movie, but there's another layer of amusement. Deep, belly laugh funny. Yeah, I'd be rolling around on the floor right now, if I weren't so dang dignified.
You see … well, have you ever heard of a sabot? It's a kind of sleeve or lightweight carrier used to surround a piece of munition fired from a gun. It isn't the actually load intended to strike the target, but may even be discarded as it leaves the barrel.
I'm a kind of sabot right now.
They singled me out and evicted me, but they didn't notice my guest. They let him go in escorted by my wife and daughter. I guess they didn't recognize him. My guest was …
Richard Dawkins.
He's in the theater right now, watching their movie.
Tell me, are you laughing as hard as I am?
I went to attend a screening of the creationist propaganda movie, Expelled, a few minutes ago. Well, I tried … but I was Expelled! It was kind of weird — I was standing in line, hadn't even gotten to the point where I had to sign in and show ID, and a policeman pulled me out of line and told me I could not go in. I asked why, of course, and he said that a producer of the film had specifically instructed him that I was not to be allowed to attend. The officer also told me that if I tried to go in, I would be arrested. I assured him that I wasn't going to cause any trouble.
I went back to my family and talked with them for a while, and then the officer came back with a theater manager, and I was told that not only wasn't I allowed in, but I had to leave the premises immediately. Like right that instant.
I complied.
I'm still laughing though. You don't know how hilarious this is. Not only is it the extreme hypocrisy of being expelled from their Expelled movie, but there's another layer of amusement. Deep, belly laugh funny. Yeah, I'd be rolling around on the floor right now, if I weren't so dang dignified.
You see … well, have you ever heard of a sabot? It's a kind of sleeve or lightweight carrier used to surround a piece of munition fired from a gun. It isn't the actually load intended to strike the target, but may even be discarded as it leaves the barrel.
I'm a kind of sabot right now.
They singled me out and evicted me, but they didn't notice my guest. They let him go in escorted by my wife and daughter. I guess they didn't recognize him. My guest was …
Richard Dawkins.
He's in the theater right now, watching their movie.
Tell me, are you laughing as hard as I am?
A big hit on the film's credibility is that they edit the film to make it look like Richard Dawkins believes that life on earth arrived via space spores or ETs. The fact that they edit the film to imply something false shows that there is limited intent to be truthful.
Richard Dawkins and P Z Myers discussing the movie Expelled after Myers was expelled from the movie theatre.
Enjoy.
YouTube Link
Enjoy.
YouTube Link
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Mar 26 2008, 11:31 AM)
A big hit on the film's credibility is that they edit the film to make it look like Richard Dawkins believes that life on earth arrived via space spores or ETs. The fact that they edit the film to imply something false shows that there is limited intent to be truthful.
As well as falsifying their claims that they didn't do exactly that.
I wish I had a link, but just look for the producers blogs. They specifically claim they did no editing like what the bleep do we know did.
As well as falsifying their claims that they didn't do exactly that.
I wish I had a link, but just look for the producers blogs. They specifically claim they did no editing like what the bleep do we know did.
I looked for "turnabout is fair play" and found this in the wiki for Dawkins' "root of all evil?" documentary
Is there a parallel?
QUOTE
In a video log posted on YouTube, Youssef Al Khattab alleges that the producers altered and misconstrued the interview with him which resulted in irrational answers to Dawkins's seemingly rational questions.[20]
Is there a parallel?
QUOTE (rpenner+Mar 23 2008, 05:40 AM)
It will not be suppression but prosecution for copyright violation if you don't duly license the Harvard animation before showing it to audiences, even audiences that get in for free.
Well, perhaps it's not the Harvard animation. Perhaps they commissioned a knockoff or perhaps they digitally altered or traced the Harvard animation to make their one. The instant opinion of people who have seen both is that it looks like the Harvard animation and that might be enough to call it a derivative work. If only Harvard had lawyers to ... oh, wait. They do.
Actual biochemists and physicists point out that the operation of a Brownian ratchet would not be so smooth as animated, even if all the water molecules were actually ATP, so the case for the clockwork perfection of the cell is based on an artistic liberty which also appears in the copy.
Objective Reality -> Research Articles -> Molecular Models -> Art Decision -> Harvard CGI -> Derivative copy -> Creationist Argument
Because
Objective Reality -> Creationist Argument
is not going to work.
But someone raised the question about all the popular songs (including the Beetles) which were in the "Rough Cut" which was being shown all around the U.S. and asked if they were licensed.
Well, perhaps it's not the Harvard animation. Perhaps they commissioned a knockoff or perhaps they digitally altered or traced the Harvard animation to make their one. The instant opinion of people who have seen both is that it looks like the Harvard animation and that might be enough to call it a derivative work. If only Harvard had lawyers to ... oh, wait. They do.
Actual biochemists and physicists point out that the operation of a Brownian ratchet would not be so smooth as animated, even if all the water molecules were actually ATP, so the case for the clockwork perfection of the cell is based on an artistic liberty which also appears in the copy.
Objective Reality -> Research Articles -> Molecular Models -> Art Decision -> Harvard CGI -> Derivative copy -> Creationist Argument
Because
Objective Reality -> Creationist Argument
is not going to work.
But someone raised the question about all the popular songs (including the Beetles) which were in the "Rough Cut" which was being shown all around the U.S. and asked if they were licensed.
QUOTE
I looked for "turnabout is fair play" and found this in the wiki for Dawkins' "root of all evil?" documentary
Might be true, but if you watch the interview(even if it was edited) Youssef comes off as a little over the top and crazy.
The documentary didn't treat him as a 'witness'(someone who testifies to some fact) but rather as an 'illustration'(someone who demonstrates a character trait).
An 'illustrative' character in a documentary might be the video clip of a heavily bearded mad-man shouting "Jesus hates Darwin"(as seen in several documentaries). He can be presented in two very different ways, either to show that some people who support Creationism are insane or to show that all creationists are insane. If he is portrayed as the quintessential creationist then it is dishonest. If he is portrayed as a crazy person who happens to be a creationist then that is still 'ok'. Even if he later shaved and stopped yelling.
Dawkins is obviously going to be presented as the quintessential scientist...and distorting his interview IS intellectually dishonest.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I looked for "turnabout is fair play" and found this in the wiki for Dawkins' "root of all evil?" documentary In a video log posted on YouTube, Youssef Al Khattab alleges that the producers altered and misconstrued the interview with him which resulted in irrational answers to Dawkins's seemingly rational questions.[20] Is there a parallel? |
Might be true, but if you watch the interview(even if it was edited) Youssef comes off as a little over the top and crazy.
The documentary didn't treat him as a 'witness'(someone who testifies to some fact) but rather as an 'illustration'(someone who demonstrates a character trait).
An 'illustrative' character in a documentary might be the video clip of a heavily bearded mad-man shouting "Jesus hates Darwin"(as seen in several documentaries). He can be presented in two very different ways, either to show that some people who support Creationism are insane or to show that all creationists are insane. If he is portrayed as the quintessential creationist then it is dishonest. If he is portrayed as a crazy person who happens to be a creationist then that is still 'ok'. Even if he later shaved and stopped yelling.
Dawkins is obviously going to be presented as the quintessential scientist...and distorting his interview IS intellectually dishonest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KTsJeVLSZs
I watched the video reply. The first bit shows how crazy the guy is ("children killed during suicide attacks are better off anyway!"), but he really is upset that Dawkins changes the words that comes out of his mouth (and the order the questions were asked).
If EXpelled was honest, they could release the entire interview, unedited
I watched the video reply. The first bit shows how crazy the guy is ("children killed during suicide attacks are better off anyway!"), but he really is upset that Dawkins changes the words that comes out of his mouth (and the order the questions were asked).
If EXpelled was honest, they could release the entire interview, unedited
So let me get this straight. According to this follower of this “peaceful” religion, everyone is born a muslim and if they are not a muslim in adult life, then they have been led astray.
Contrary to what this and many muslim apologists state, it is part of the muslim faith to view apostates as worthy of death or ill treatment. So I guess by his own admission anyone who is not a muslim as an adult is a defacto apostate or has committed the crime of leaving Islam.
Even the xian religion states it is a matter of choice to follow their god or not. Islam appears to have a build in catch 22 to excuse violence and murder of the non-muslim.
Contrary to what this and many muslim apologists state, it is part of the muslim faith to view apostates as worthy of death or ill treatment. So I guess by his own admission anyone who is not a muslim as an adult is a defacto apostate or has committed the crime of leaving Islam.
Even the xian religion states it is a matter of choice to follow their god or not. Islam appears to have a build in catch 22 to excuse violence and murder of the non-muslim.
I don't know if he actually specifies that all nonMuslims are apostates (and subject to all the penalties thereof). It doesn't make sense, really, since it's okay to be a Jew or Christian in the Muslim faith.
I think you can only be apostate if you're an adult and reject your adult faith.
I think you can only be apostate if you're an adult and reject your adult faith.
Yes, but in Islam, Jews and Christians are second class citizens who must pay a tax in order to be allowed to live. It is called Dhimmi.
Link
You may be correct about the apostate classification. Perhaps Kafir would be more applicable but I doubt the treatment would be any less severe in the end.
Link
You may be correct about the apostate classification. Perhaps Kafir would be more applicable but I doubt the treatment would be any less severe in the end.
Genesplicer...not to resurrect a dead argument...but what the hell no one is saying anything interesting.
No, In ISLAMIC COUNTRIES Jews and Christians are "second-class citizens".
While the Islamic Faith supports Dhimmi, it does not require it(at least as far as I understand).
Also, it is not a "tax to live", rather it is a tax to stay in the country.
My understanding is that you aren't killed if you refuse to pay the tax, you are asked to leave.
If you don't leave, then you might be killed....but many countries impose a similar penalty....
QUOTE
Yes, but in Islam, Jews and Christians are second class citizens who must pay a tax in order to be allowed to live. It is called Dhimmi.
No, In ISLAMIC COUNTRIES Jews and Christians are "second-class citizens".
While the Islamic Faith supports Dhimmi, it does not require it(at least as far as I understand).
Also, it is not a "tax to live", rather it is a tax to stay in the country.
My understanding is that you aren't killed if you refuse to pay the tax, you are asked to leave.
If you don't leave, then you might be killed....but many countries impose a similar penalty....
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
No, In ISLAMIC COUNTRIES Jews and Christians are "second-class citizens".
While the Islamic Faith supports Dhimmi, it does not require it(at least as far as I understand).
Yes, it is required by Islam. It is often refernced that Sura 9:29 is the justification - "feel themselves subdued"
Link
And that leads to a good question. According to whom? The Islamic apologists we normally get in the Western world paint a much different picture than the demands and public statements, not to mention actions, of the Islamic leadership and the Muslims in general.
Take a glance back to the protest over the comment of the Pope in regards to Islam. There was and is a very well published protest picture of Muslims holding up a sing that translated states, amongst other items of note, “Pope know your place”. This is in reference to the second class status that Muslims general see at the place for all non-Muslims.
And again, look at the historic application of dhimmi and the associated tax. This is an item of note mention in and on Muslim media as a given as are the threats against non-Muslims and their place as lesser beings in Islamic society.
And that leads to a good question. According to whom? The Islamic apologists we normally get in the Western world paint a much different picture than the demands and public statements, not to mention actions, of the Islamic leadership and the Muslims in general.
Take a glance back to the protest over the comment of the Pope in regards to Islam. There was and is a very well published protest picture of Muslims holding up a sing that translated states, amongst other items of note, “Pope know your place”. This is in reference to the second class status that Muslims general see at the place for all non-Muslims.
And again, look at the historic application of dhimmi and the associated tax. This is an item of note mention in and on Muslim media as a given as are the threats against non-Muslims and their place as lesser beings in Islamic society.
Also, it is not a "tax to live", rather it is a tax to stay in the country.
The tax is called jizya. Link
The Arabic term jizya appears in verse Qur'an 9:29, but the Qur'an does not specify jizya as a tax per head. According to Paul Heck, the jizya taxation seems to be a developed form of the Sassanian practice of taxation.[9]
Combined with the practice of, historic application of and desire purpose of dhimmi, consider the following:
Link
Link
Link
Taxation
Main article: Jizya
Dhimmi communities were subjected to the payment of taxes in favor of Muslims — a requirement that was central to dhimma as a whole. Sura 9:29 stipulates that jizya be exacted from non-Muslims as a condition required for jihad to cease. Failure to pay the jizya could result in the pledge of protection of a dhimmi's life and property becoming void, with the dhimmi facing the alternatives of conversion, enslavement or death (or imprisonment, as advocated by Abu Yusuf, the chief qadi — religious judge — of Abbasid caliph Harun al-Rashid).[84]
And again, dhimmis has several restrictions on their rights and status
While the Islamic Faith supports Dhimmi, it does not require it(at least as far as I understand).
Yes, it is required by Islam. It is often refernced that Sura 9:29 is the justification - "feel themselves subdued"
Link
QUOTE
9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
And that leads to a good question. According to whom? The Islamic apologists we normally get in the Western world paint a much different picture than the demands and public statements, not to mention actions, of the Islamic leadership and the Muslims in general.
Take a glance back to the protest over the comment of the Pope in regards to Islam. There was and is a very well published protest picture of Muslims holding up a sing that translated states, amongst other items of note, “Pope know your place”. This is in reference to the second class status that Muslims general see at the place for all non-Muslims.
And again, look at the historic application of dhimmi and the associated tax. This is an item of note mention in and on Muslim media as a given as are the threats against non-Muslims and their place as lesser beings in Islamic society.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low. |
And that leads to a good question. According to whom? The Islamic apologists we normally get in the Western world paint a much different picture than the demands and public statements, not to mention actions, of the Islamic leadership and the Muslims in general.
Take a glance back to the protest over the comment of the Pope in regards to Islam. There was and is a very well published protest picture of Muslims holding up a sing that translated states, amongst other items of note, “Pope know your place”. This is in reference to the second class status that Muslims general see at the place for all non-Muslims.
And again, look at the historic application of dhimmi and the associated tax. This is an item of note mention in and on Muslim media as a given as are the threats against non-Muslims and their place as lesser beings in Islamic society.
Also, it is not a "tax to live", rather it is a tax to stay in the country.
The tax is called jizya. Link
QUOTE
Under Islamic law, jizya or jizyah (Arabic: جزْية; Ottoman Turkish: cizye) is a per capita tax levied on the state's non-Muslim citizens. The tax was levied on able bodied men of military age,[1] (with some exemptions,[2][3] though these were discarded at various points in history[4]). From the point of view of the Muslim rulers, jizya was a material proof of the non-Muslims' subjection, "just as for the inhabitants it was a concrete continuation of the taxes paid to earlier regimes."[5] In return, non-Muslim citizens were permitted to practice their faith, to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy, to be entitled to Muslim protection from outside aggression, to be exempted from military service and taxes levied upon Muslim citizens.[6][7][8] The tax liable on Muslims was the zakat.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Under Islamic law, jizya or jizyah (Arabic: جزْية; Ottoman Turkish: cizye) is a per capita tax levied on the state's non-Muslim citizens. The tax was levied on able bodied men of military age,[1] (with some exemptions,[2][3] though these were discarded at various points in history[4]). From the point of view of the Muslim rulers, jizya was a material proof of the non-Muslims' subjection, "just as for the inhabitants it was a concrete continuation of the taxes paid to earlier regimes."[5] In return, non-Muslim citizens were permitted to practice their faith, to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy, to be entitled to Muslim protection from outside aggression, to be exempted from military service and taxes levied upon Muslim citizens.[6][7][8] The tax liable on Muslims was the zakat. |
The Arabic term jizya appears in verse Qur'an 9:29, but the Qur'an does not specify jizya as a tax per head. According to Paul Heck, the jizya taxation seems to be a developed form of the Sassanian practice of taxation.[9]
Combined with the practice of, historic application of and desire purpose of dhimmi, consider the following:
Link
QUOTE
The word dhimmi (plural dimam) literally means "protection, care, custody, covenant of protection, compact; responsibility, answerableness; financial obligation, liability, debt; inviolability, security of life and property; safeguard, guarantee, security; conscience" and ahl-dhimmi is "the free non-Muslim subjects living in Muslim countries who, in return for paying the capital tax, enjoyed protection and safety."[9]
Link
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The word dhimmi (plural dimam) literally means "protection, care, custody, covenant of protection, compact; responsibility, answerableness; financial obligation, liability, debt; inviolability, security of life and property; safeguard, guarantee, security; conscience" and ahl-dhimmi is "the free non-Muslim subjects living in Muslim countries who, in return for paying the capital tax, enjoyed protection and safety."[9] |
Link
Taxation
Main article: Jizya
Dhimmi communities were subjected to the payment of taxes in favor of Muslims — a requirement that was central to dhimma as a whole. Sura 9:29 stipulates that jizya be exacted from non-Muslims as a condition required for jihad to cease. Failure to pay the jizya could result in the pledge of protection of a dhimmi's life and property becoming void, with the dhimmi facing the alternatives of conversion, enslavement or death (or imprisonment, as advocated by Abu Yusuf, the chief qadi — religious judge — of Abbasid caliph Harun al-Rashid).[84]
And again, dhimmis has several restrictions on their rights and status
.
That doesn't really seem to be a requirement of the religion
That doesn't really seem to be a requirement of the religion
Take a glance back to the protest over the comment of the Pope in regards to Islam. There was and is a very well published protest picture of Muslims holding up a sing that translated states, amongst other items of note, “Pope know your place”. This is in reference to the second class status that Muslims general see at the place for all non-Muslims.
And again, look at the historic application of dhimmi and the associated tax. This is an item of note mention in and on Muslim media as a given as are the threats against non-Muslims and their place as lesser beings in Islamic society.
Your entire rant against Islam seems to be a bit odd.
Yes, Muslims prefer theocratic governments.
They treat Christians and Jews as second-class citizens to some degree, and outright hate all other religions. The entire problem with the system is that it is a theocracy, and any theocracy is going to behave similarly.
You seem to want a Muslim theocracy to start behaving like a secular government...while still being a theocracy?
Why don't you address the real problem, THEOCRACY?
If we accept that a theocracy is a legitimate form of government, then the behavior of Islamic states is tolerable and acceptable.
NO...
Jews are OBVIOUSLY the "people of the book"
Muslims readily admit that they worship the same God as Jews and Christians. This is why Jews and Xians are not considered "heathens"...
You are probably just confused because of the modern "Israel" conflict.
Muslims hate Israel, but not because it is a Jewish state
NO...
Jews are OBVIOUSLY the "people of the book"
Muslims readily admit that they worship the same God as Jews and Christians. This is why Jews and Xians are not considered "heathens"...
You are probably just confused because of the modern "Israel" conflict.
Muslims hate Israel, but not because it is a Jewish state
The Quran gives a sequence of 3 prophets, Abramam, Jesus, Mohamed. This places Christianity closer to Islam than Judaism, and is a distinction I've seen many times in Islamic-centered texts. All mention of the "People of the book" which I've seen in these text excludes Jews.
EDIT: This disagreement probably stems from the various interpretations of the Quran. My resources are primarily Sunni interpretations, and I can't recall whether or not the Shiite interpretations differ on this point. Probably, they do.
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
My understanding is that you aren't killed if you refuse to pay the tax, you are asked to leave.
If you don't leave, then you might be killed....but many countries impose a similar penalty....
Link
Currently, that again may be the case for much of the Islamic world, but it is not what most Muslims publically call for or their religious leaders state in public. And what of the ongoing slavery of black Africans by Muslims to this day that is considered and example of dhimmi?
If you don't leave, then you might be killed....but many countries impose a similar penalty....
Link
Currently, that again may be the case for much of the Islamic world, but it is not what most Muslims publically call for or their religious leaders state in public. And what of the ongoing slavery of black Africans by Muslims to this day that is considered and example of dhimmi?
I'm pretty sure that it's clear that Islam cannot be used as a form of government. It's one of the harsher religions, but I really can't think of any religion I'd be okay with as a system of government.
QUOTE
Yes, it is required by Islam. It is often refernced that Sura 9:29 is the justification - "feel themselves subdued"
That doesn't really seem to be a requirement of the religion
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Yes, it is required by Islam. It is often refernced that Sura 9:29 is the justification - "feel themselves subdued" |
That doesn't really seem to be a requirement of the religion
Take a glance back to the protest over the comment of the Pope in regards to Islam. There was and is a very well published protest picture of Muslims holding up a sing that translated states, amongst other items of note, “Pope know your place”. This is in reference to the second class status that Muslims general see at the place for all non-Muslims.
And again, look at the historic application of dhimmi and the associated tax. This is an item of note mention in and on Muslim media as a given as are the threats against non-Muslims and their place as lesser beings in Islamic society.
Your entire rant against Islam seems to be a bit odd.
Yes, Muslims prefer theocratic governments.
They treat Christians and Jews as second-class citizens to some degree, and outright hate all other religions. The entire problem with the system is that it is a theocracy, and any theocracy is going to behave similarly.
You seem to want a Muslim theocracy to start behaving like a secular government...while still being a theocracy?
Why don't you address the real problem, THEOCRACY?
If we accept that a theocracy is a legitimate form of government, then the behavior of Islamic states is tolerable and acceptable.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Mar 27 2008, 05:38 PM)
Yes, but in Islam, Jews and Christians are second class citizens who must pay a tax in order to be allowed to live. It is called Dhimmi.
Link
You may be correct about the apostate classification. Perhaps Kafir would be more applicable but I doubt the treatment would be any less severe in the end.
I don't know why the Wiki article lists Jews as "people of the book" but my understanding from every source I have (And I own quite a library on the subject of Jihad and Islam) is that Jews are not considered to be "People of the book."
Throughout the Quran, most edicts are not presented as commands, and such is the case with the Dhimmi. It is pretty much up to the Caliph to determine whether or not Christians can live as free citizens (with a few catches) or whether or not to charge them the Dhimmi and subdue them. All heathens (including Jews) should either be killed, enslaved, or charged the Dhimmi (which should increase each year until they can no longer afford to pay it, at which point they must either convert or be sold into slavery).
NOTE: All of these claims stem from more or less "original" research, based on a hard copy of several texts I own on the subject. I may be wrong on some point or another, as I don't have the ability to double check myself at the moment. Please take my claims as educated ones, but do so with a grain a salt.
And the Jihad is a state which -according to Mohamed- Should be maintained until the entire world is one great big Caliphate.
It's a warriors religion, almost as much so as Ásatrú.
Link
You may be correct about the apostate classification. Perhaps Kafir would be more applicable but I doubt the treatment would be any less severe in the end.
I don't know why the Wiki article lists Jews as "people of the book" but my understanding from every source I have (And I own quite a library on the subject of Jihad and Islam) is that Jews are not considered to be "People of the book."
Throughout the Quran, most edicts are not presented as commands, and such is the case with the Dhimmi. It is pretty much up to the Caliph to determine whether or not Christians can live as free citizens (with a few catches) or whether or not to charge them the Dhimmi and subdue them. All heathens (including Jews) should either be killed, enslaved, or charged the Dhimmi (which should increase each year until they can no longer afford to pay it, at which point they must either convert or be sold into slavery).
NOTE: All of these claims stem from more or less "original" research, based on a hard copy of several texts I own on the subject. I may be wrong on some point or another, as I don't have the ability to double check myself at the moment. Please take my claims as educated ones, but do so with a grain a salt.
And the Jihad is a state which -according to Mohamed- Should be maintained until the entire world is one great big Caliphate.
It's a warriors religion, almost as much so as Ásatrú.
I think it is past the time when the civilized world can AFFORD to tolerate the intollerance of any religion, I'm squarely with Dawkins and Hitchens on this point. As long as they behave themselves, they can believe and practice anything they like, but when they start sounding like the former jew, now muslim nutjob, we may have to clean the gene pool.
Grumpy
Grumpy
QUOTE
I don't know why the Wiki article lists Jews as "people of the book" but my understanding from every source I have (And I own quite a library on the subject of Jihad and Islam) is that Jews are not considered to be "People of the book."
NO...
Jews are OBVIOUSLY the "people of the book"
Muslims readily admit that they worship the same God as Jews and Christians. This is why Jews and Xians are not considered "heathens"...
You are probably just confused because of the modern "Israel" conflict.
Muslims hate Israel, but not because it is a Jewish state
QUOTE (PuckSR+Mar 28 2008, 11:53 AM)
NO...
Jews are OBVIOUSLY the "people of the book"
Muslims readily admit that they worship the same God as Jews and Christians. This is why Jews and Xians are not considered "heathens"...
You are probably just confused because of the modern "Israel" conflict.
Muslims hate Israel, but not because it is a Jewish state
The Quran gives a sequence of 3 prophets, Abramam, Jesus, Mohamed. This places Christianity closer to Islam than Judaism, and is a distinction I've seen many times in Islamic-centered texts. All mention of the "People of the book" which I've seen in these text excludes Jews.
EDIT: This disagreement probably stems from the various interpretations of the Quran. My resources are primarily Sunni interpretations, and I can't recall whether or not the Shiite interpretations differ on this point. Probably, they do.
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
That doesn't really seem to be a requirement of the religion
How can you say that when the Sura states:
And this is the Sura that Muslims themselves have cited and continue to cite as the foundation for the dhimmi and related tax.
And this is the Sura that Muslims themselves have cited and continue to cite as the foundation for the dhimmi and related tax.
Your entire rant against Islam seems to be a bit odd.
Yes, Muslims prefer theocratic governments.
They treat Christians and Jews as second-class citizens to some degree, and outright hate all other religions. The entire problem with the system is that it is a theocracy, and any theocracy is going to behave similarly.
Zoarastoriasm is included as people of the book by most accounts. But I think you are white washing the second-class status of the non-Muslims.
Not at all. The problem is the attitude of a theocracy. Again, the cited video where the representative of this supposedly peaceful religion states that all are born muslim setting up a nice catch 22 for persecution of non-Muslims.
Not at all. The problem is the attitude of a theocracy. Again, the cited video where the representative of this supposedly peaceful religion states that all are born muslim setting up a nice catch 22 for persecution of non-Muslims.
Why don't you address the real problem, THEOCRACY?
Because it is not just a theocracy that is the problem. It is a mentality of the Muslims that are akin to any other cult seeking total domination. Yes, theocracy is one part of the problem but so are claim of justifiable violence, subjugations and rule.
And if this were only happening in Islamic theocracies, I would care less other than to comment on their backwards society, but this is a problem occurring around the world in non-Islamic countries.
And no one of a sound mind would accept a theocracy as such much less the cultish lunacy of 7th century Islamic thinking still practiced to this day.
How can you say that when the Sura states:
QUOTE
9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
And this is the Sura that Muslims themselves have cited and continue to cite as the foundation for the dhimmi and related tax.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low. |
And this is the Sura that Muslims themselves have cited and continue to cite as the foundation for the dhimmi and related tax.
Your entire rant against Islam seems to be a bit odd.
Yes, Muslims prefer theocratic governments.
They treat Christians and Jews as second-class citizens to some degree, and outright hate all other religions. The entire problem with the system is that it is a theocracy, and any theocracy is going to behave similarly.
Zoarastoriasm is included as people of the book by most accounts. But I think you are white washing the second-class status of the non-Muslims.
QUOTE
You seem to want a Muslim theocracy to start behaving like a secular government...while still being a theocracy?
Not at all. The problem is the attitude of a theocracy. Again, the cited video where the representative of this supposedly peaceful religion states that all are born muslim setting up a nice catch 22 for persecution of non-Muslims.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You seem to want a Muslim theocracy to start behaving like a secular government...while still being a theocracy? |
Not at all. The problem is the attitude of a theocracy. Again, the cited video where the representative of this supposedly peaceful religion states that all are born muslim setting up a nice catch 22 for persecution of non-Muslims.
Why don't you address the real problem, THEOCRACY?
Because it is not just a theocracy that is the problem. It is a mentality of the Muslims that are akin to any other cult seeking total domination. Yes, theocracy is one part of the problem but so are claim of justifiable violence, subjugations and rule.
And if this were only happening in Islamic theocracies, I would care less other than to comment on their backwards society, but this is a problem occurring around the world in non-Islamic countries.
QUOTE
If we accept that a theocracy is a legitimate form of government, then the behavior of Islamic states is tolerable and acceptable.
And no one of a sound mind would accept a theocracy as such much less the cultish lunacy of 7th century Islamic thinking still practiced to this day.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+)
And no one of a sound mind would accept a theocracy as such much less the cultish lunacy of 7th century Islamic thinking still practiced to this day.
I couldn't agree more. Apologists for Islam are trying to portray their religion as analogous to Christianity, but the sad fact is, the violence undertaken in the name of Christianity was done in spite of their prophet's advocacy for pacifism, whereas the violence undertaken in the name of Islam is usually done so because of their prophet's advocacy of violence.
Your 47 links(if I counted right) don't inspire confidence.
The first and probably the last link I will bother with a visitation.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI010.html
The Last Three of Four Replies:
No recognized theory of information (i.e., the statistical theory of Shannon et al, and the algorithmic theory of Kolmogorov, Chaitin, and Solomonoff) has a law of conservation of information. William Dembski and Werner Gitt have each invented their own nonstandard information theories, but neither of these theories is used in science or engineering, and their claims are not supported by the vast body of research into information theory.
Even if there were a law of conservation of information, it would not necessarily invalidate evolution. Information is transferred from the environment to organisms by natural selection and other processes.
Normally, physical laws get to be considered laws after they are tested and verified by independent sources under very many various conditions. For Dembski to claim a new physical law without any testing whatsoever is hubris of the highest magnitude.
+++++++++++++++
Charles Seife(2006):
Chapter7 "Quantum Information"
"...as far as scientists can tell, Nature never destroys information or creates it. Decoherence is not a matter of getting rid of information; when a superpostition collapses and a qubit on an object such as an atom gets "wiped out," it is transferred to the environment, not destroyed. Indeed, the process of decoherence obeys two laws of quantum information known as the no-cloning and no-deletion rules. These rules, which follow from the mathematics of quantum theory, state that qubits can be moved from place to place but can never be duplicated with perfect fidelity or be entirely erased. Thus, decoherence is neither creating information nor destroying it. Nature is just taking information from an object and spreading it out into the environment. Information seems to conserved." In the beginning was information and this beginning seems to bypass poster Rpenner.
MrB.
I couldn't agree more. Apologists for Islam are trying to portray their religion as analogous to Christianity, but the sad fact is, the violence undertaken in the name of Christianity was done in spite of their prophet's advocacy for pacifism, whereas the violence undertaken in the name of Islam is usually done so because of their prophet's advocacy of violence.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Mar 28 2008, 11:22 AM)
And the Jihad is a state which -according to Mohamed- should be maintained until the entire world is one great big Caliphate.
It's a warriors religion, almost as much so as Ásatrú.
It's a warriors religion, almost as much so as Ásatrú.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Mar 27 2008, 10:38 PM)
You may be correct about the apostate classification. Perhaps Kafir would be more applicable but I doubt the treatment would be any less severe in the end.
I'm not too sure about the difference between apostate and kufr. I think the kufr has multiple meanings (based on context) but that it's still a fairly nasty description. I've not seen any Qur'anic or Hadith text which proscribes anything but death to apostates.
I'm not too sure about the difference between apostate and kufr. I think the kufr has multiple meanings (based on context) but that it's still a fairly nasty description. I've not seen any Qur'anic or Hadith text which proscribes anything but death to apostates.
Your 47 links(if I counted right) don't inspire confidence.
The first and probably the last link I will bother with a visitation.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI010.html
The Last Three of Four Replies:
No recognized theory of information (i.e., the statistical theory of Shannon et al, and the algorithmic theory of Kolmogorov, Chaitin, and Solomonoff) has a law of conservation of information. William Dembski and Werner Gitt have each invented their own nonstandard information theories, but neither of these theories is used in science or engineering, and their claims are not supported by the vast body of research into information theory.
Even if there were a law of conservation of information, it would not necessarily invalidate evolution. Information is transferred from the environment to organisms by natural selection and other processes.
Normally, physical laws get to be considered laws after they are tested and verified by independent sources under very many various conditions. For Dembski to claim a new physical law without any testing whatsoever is hubris of the highest magnitude.
+++++++++++++++
Charles Seife(2006):
Chapter7 "Quantum Information"
"...as far as scientists can tell, Nature never destroys information or creates it. Decoherence is not a matter of getting rid of information; when a superpostition collapses and a qubit on an object such as an atom gets "wiped out," it is transferred to the environment, not destroyed. Indeed, the process of decoherence obeys two laws of quantum information known as the no-cloning and no-deletion rules. These rules, which follow from the mathematics of quantum theory, state that qubits can be moved from place to place but can never be duplicated with perfect fidelity or be entirely erased. Thus, decoherence is neither creating information nor destroying it. Nature is just taking information from an object and spreading it out into the environment. Information seems to conserved." In the beginning was information and this beginning seems to bypass poster Rpenner.
MrB.
QUOTE (Genesplicer+)
Not at all. The problem is the attitude of a theocracy. Again, the cited video where the representative of this supposedly peaceful religion states that all are born muslim setting up a nice catch 22 for persecution of non-Muslims.
The attitude of the theocracy is perfectly acceptable IF theocracies are a legitimate form of government.
The truth is that theocracies are evil, hate-filled, and malicious forms of government. It doesn't really matter which religion forms the theocracy.
Your 47 links(if I counted right) don't inspire confidence.
The first and probably the last link I will bother with a visitation.
You insane idiot...
What in Gay Jesus are you talking about?
No one was discussing anything you posted about.
The attitude of the theocracy is perfectly acceptable IF theocracies are a legitimate form of government.
The truth is that theocracies are evil, hate-filled, and malicious forms of government. It doesn't really matter which religion forms the theocracy.
QUOTE (MrB+)
Your 47 links(if I counted right) don't inspire confidence.
The first and probably the last link I will bother with a visitation.
You insane idiot...
What in Gay Jesus are you talking about?
No one was discussing anything you posted about.
Are you drunk again... ?
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 28 2008, 11:32 PM)
QUOTE (rpenner+Mar 23 2008, 05:40 AM)
QUOTE (Expelled Materials+)
* Genetic information requires an intelligent source, because in our uniform and repeated experience information always comes from an intelligent source.
Complete misstatement of information theory.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI010.html
Your 47 links(if I counted right) don't inspire confidence.
The first and probably the last link I will bother with a visitation.
Yes, we know your ability to do research is low. That's why I linked to an on-line review article or review articles. It stands in place for at least the following:
Claude E. Shannon, "A Mathematical Theory of Communication I", Bell System Technical Journal, 27, pp. 379–423, July, 1948.
Claude E. Shannon, "A Mathematical Theory of Communication II", Bell System Technical Journal, 27, pp. 623–656, October, 1948.
Claude E. Shannon. "Prediction and entropy of printed english." Bell System Tech. J. 3 (1950), 50-64.
A. N. Kolmogorov. "Three approaches to the quantitative definition of information." Problemy Peredaci Informacii 1 (1965), 3-11. In Russian. English translation in Problems Inform. Transmission 1 (1965), 1-7 and Internat. J. Computer Math. 2 (1968), 157-168.
G. J. Chaitin. "On the length of programs for computing finite binary sequences." J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 13 (1966), 547-569.
G. J. Chaitin. "On the length of programs for computing finite binary sequences: statistical considerations." J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 16 (1969), 145-159.
G. Chaitin. "Information-theoretic limitations of formal systems." J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 21 (1974), 403-424.
J. R. Cole, R. E. Funk, L. R. Godfrey, and W. Starna. "On criticisms of 'Some Paleolithic tools from northeast North America': rejoinder." Current Anthropology 19 (1978), 665-669.
F. Goebel. "On the number of Hamiltonian cycles in product graphs." Technical Report 289, Technische Hogeschool Twente, Netherlands, 1979.
E. R. Berlekamp, J. H. Conway, and R. K. Guy. Winning Ways, For Your Mathematical Plays. Academic Press, 1982.
J. Byl. "Self-reproduction in small cellular automata." Physica D 34 (1989), 295-299.
M. C. Caldwell, D. K. Caldwell, and T. L. Tyack. "Review of the signature-whistle
hypothesis for the Atlantic Bottlenose Dolphin." In S. Leatherwood and R. R. Reeves, editors, The Bottlenose Dolphin, pp. 199-234. Academic Press, 1990.
X. Chen, S. Kwong, and M. Li. "A compression algorithm for DNA sequences and its applications in genome comparison." In Proc. 10th Workshop on Genome Informatics, pp. 52{61, 1999.
C. Adami, C. Ofria, and T. C. Collier. "Evolution of biological complexity." Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 97 (2000), 4463-4468.
A. Apostolico and S. Lonardi. "Compression of biological sequences by greedy off-line textual substitution." In Proc. IEEE Data Compression Conference (DCC), pp. 143-152, 2000.
Victor J. Stenger, "The emperor's new designer clothes." Skeptical Briefs, Dec. (2000)
A. Channon. "Passing the ALife test: activity statistics classify evolution in Geb as unbounded." In J. Kelemen and P. Sosik, editors, Proc. 6th European Conference on Advances in Artificial Life (ECAL 2001), Vol. 2159 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 417-426. Springer-Verlag, 2001.
Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit. "Information theory, evolutionary computation, and Dembski's 'complex specified information'". (2003)
Physicists, Computer Scientists, Mathematicians without any "Darwinian taint" are all totally rejecting Dembski's interpretation, in some cases decades before he made it.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI010.html
Your 47 links(if I counted right) don't inspire confidence.
The first and probably the last link I will bother with a visitation.
Yes, we know your ability to do research is low. That's why I linked to an on-line review article or review articles. It stands in place for at least the following:
Claude E. Shannon, "A Mathematical Theory of Communication I", Bell System Technical Journal, 27, pp. 379–423, July, 1948.
Claude E. Shannon, "A Mathematical Theory of Communication II", Bell System Technical Journal, 27, pp. 623–656, October, 1948.
Claude E. Shannon. "Prediction and entropy of printed english." Bell System Tech. J. 3 (1950), 50-64.
A. N. Kolmogorov. "Three approaches to the quantitative definition of information." Problemy Peredaci Informacii 1 (1965), 3-11. In Russian. English translation in Problems Inform. Transmission 1 (1965), 1-7 and Internat. J. Computer Math. 2 (1968), 157-168.
G. J. Chaitin. "On the length of programs for computing finite binary sequences." J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 13 (1966), 547-569.
G. J. Chaitin. "On the length of programs for computing finite binary sequences: statistical considerations." J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 16 (1969), 145-159.
G. Chaitin. "Information-theoretic limitations of formal systems." J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 21 (1974), 403-424.
J. R. Cole, R. E. Funk, L. R. Godfrey, and W. Starna. "On criticisms of 'Some Paleolithic tools from northeast North America': rejoinder." Current Anthropology 19 (1978), 665-669.
F. Goebel. "On the number of Hamiltonian cycles in product graphs." Technical Report 289, Technische Hogeschool Twente, Netherlands, 1979.
E. R. Berlekamp, J. H. Conway, and R. K. Guy. Winning Ways, For Your Mathematical Plays. Academic Press, 1982.
J. Byl. "Self-reproduction in small cellular automata." Physica D 34 (1989), 295-299.
M. C. Caldwell, D. K. Caldwell, and T. L. Tyack. "Review of the signature-whistle
hypothesis for the Atlantic Bottlenose Dolphin." In S. Leatherwood and R. R. Reeves, editors, The Bottlenose Dolphin, pp. 199-234. Academic Press, 1990.
X. Chen, S. Kwong, and M. Li. "A compression algorithm for DNA sequences and its applications in genome comparison." In Proc. 10th Workshop on Genome Informatics, pp. 52{61, 1999.
C. Adami, C. Ofria, and T. C. Collier. "Evolution of biological complexity." Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 97 (2000), 4463-4468.
A. Apostolico and S. Lonardi. "Compression of biological sequences by greedy off-line textual substitution." In Proc. IEEE Data Compression Conference (DCC), pp. 143-152, 2000.
Victor J. Stenger, "The emperor's new designer clothes." Skeptical Briefs, Dec. (2000)
A. Channon. "Passing the ALife test: activity statistics classify evolution in Geb as unbounded." In J. Kelemen and P. Sosik, editors, Proc. 6th European Conference on Advances in Artificial Life (ECAL 2001), Vol. 2159 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 417-426. Springer-Verlag, 2001.
Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit. "Information theory, evolutionary computation, and Dembski's 'complex specified information'". (2003)
Physicists, Computer Scientists, Mathematicians without any "Darwinian taint" are all totally rejecting Dembski's interpretation, in some cases decades before he made it.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 28 2008, 11:32 PM)
QUOTE (Charles Seife+2006)
Chapter7 "Quantum Information"
"...as far as scientists can tell, Nature never destroys information or creates it....
In the beginning was information and this beginning seems to bypass poster Rpenner
That's not an argument about information (1950 information theory) aka bits in a description (1970 computer science) aka entropy (1800's thermodynamics). That's a Professor of Journalism writing a bad popular physics description of Unitarity (in 1930's physics language) aka qubits (in 2000 quantum computing language). For example, the number of qubits in mixed and unmixed gases in the same. The information or bits or entropy of the mixed gases is higher than the unmixed gases.
You completely ignore point one. What does the word information mean when ID people use it?
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI010.html
Even better yet, look at how the pamphlet uses it:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI010.html
Even better yet, look at how the pamphlet uses it:
Modern genetics has shown us that a single human cell contains as much digital information in its DNA as the Encyclopedia Britannica—all thirty volumes—three or four times over. ...
What is the source of that information encoded in the DNA? Dr. Stephen Meyer points out that
"...as far as scientists can tell, Nature never destroys information or creates it....
In the beginning was information and this beginning seems to bypass poster Rpenner
That's not an argument about information (1950 information theory) aka bits in a description (1970 computer science) aka entropy (1800's thermodynamics). That's a Professor of Journalism writing a bad popular physics description of Unitarity (in 1930's physics language) aka qubits (in 2000 quantum computing language). For example, the number of qubits in mixed and unmixed gases in the same. The information or bits or entropy of the mixed gases is higher than the unmixed gases.
You completely ignore point one. What does the word information mean when ID people use it?
QUOTE
Dembski defines his information as Shannon uncertainty, which is equivalent to entropy. We know that entropy can and does increase. Dembski's law of conservation of information is simply wrong.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI010.html
Even better yet, look at how the pamphlet uses it:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Dembski defines his information as Shannon uncertainty, which is equivalent to entropy. We know that entropy can and does increase. Dembski's law of conservation of information is simply wrong. |
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI010.html
Even better yet, look at how the pamphlet uses it:
Modern genetics has shown us that a single human cell contains as much digital information in its DNA as the Encyclopedia Britannica—all thirty volumes—three or four times over. ...
What is the source of that information encoded in the DNA? Dr. Stephen Meyer points out that
QUOTE (Stephen Meyer+)
Everything we know from our uniform and repeated experience is that information always comes from an intelligent source. So when we find information in the cell in the form of the digital code in DNA, the most likely explanation is that DNA also had an intelligent source.
Stephen Meyer, like Seife, is also a non-scientist.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/in...1&isFellow=true
But he is clearly talking about Shannon information which is to say bits, not qubits.
And even if there was a law of conservation of information, in the same breath they say intelligent brains violate this law. That's some shoddy physical law! None of Newton's Universal Gravitation, nor the laws of Thermodynamics, nor the laws of electromagnetism nor the laws of quantum physics have exceptions for intelligent beings.
Stephen Meyer, like Seife, is also a non-scientist.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/in...1&isFellow=true
QUOTE
Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science
But he is clearly talking about Shannon information which is to say bits, not qubits.
And even if there was a law of conservation of information, in the same breath they say intelligent brains violate this law. That's some shoddy physical law! None of Newton's Universal Gravitation, nor the laws of Thermodynamics, nor the laws of electromagnetism nor the laws of quantum physics have exceptions for intelligent beings.
>>> Physicists, Computer Scientists, Mathematicians without any "Darwinian taint" are all totally rejecting Dembski's interpretation, in some cases decades before he made it. <<<
Dembski's interpretation of what?
I introduced Dembski by way of a link you provided in the opening post.
Seife doesn't mention Dembski but he is surely smart enough to have heard of the guy. He lamely tries to defeat intelligent design with a footnote. That won't do it. And yet, he makes a creationist argument about the (future) importance of information. That's strange but that is why I thought it fair to put in his words, which is interesting as I just read it before this thread popped into my brain as information. Information is impact or it is the media. We need two different words for that distinction, in my esteemed opinion.
MrB.
If this thread is to go on further, I think Seth Lloyd ought to mentioned.
Now that I have mentioned him, I'll save him for later.
Dembski's interpretation of what?
I introduced Dembski by way of a link you provided in the opening post.
Seife doesn't mention Dembski but he is surely smart enough to have heard of the guy. He lamely tries to defeat intelligent design with a footnote. That won't do it. And yet, he makes a creationist argument about the (future) importance of information. That's strange but that is why I thought it fair to put in his words, which is interesting as I just read it before this thread popped into my brain as information. Information is impact or it is the media. We need two different words for that distinction, in my esteemed opinion.
MrB.
If this thread is to go on further, I think Seth Lloyd ought to mentioned.
Now that I have mentioned him, I'll save him for later.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 30 2008, 01:44 PM)
QUOTE (rpenner+Mar 29 2008, 11:49 AM)
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 28 2008, 11:32 PM)
QUOTE (rpenner+Mar 23 2008, 05:40 AM)
QUOTE (Expelled Materials+)
* Genetic information requires an intelligent source, because in our uniform and repeated experience information always comes from an intelligent source.
Complete misstatement of information theory.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI010.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI010.html
Your 47 links(if I counted right) don't inspire confidence.
The first and probably the last link I will bother with a visitation.
The first and probably the last link I will bother with a visitation.
Yes, we know your ability to do research is low. That's why I linked to an on-line review article [of] review articles. It stands in place for at least the following:
Claude E. Shannon, "A Mathematical Theory of Communication I", Bell System Technical Journal, 27, pp. 379–423, July, 1948.
[ 14 references removed because of MisterBelfry's laziness in research. ]
Victor J. Stenger, "The emperor's new designer clothes." Skeptical Briefs, Dec. (2000)
[ 1 reference removed because of MisterBelfry's laziness in research. ]
Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit. "Information theory, evolutionary computation, and Dembski's 'complex specified information'". (2003)
Physicists, Computer Scientists, Mathematicians without any "Darwinian taint" are all totally rejecting Dembski's interpretation, in some cases decades before he made it.
Dembski's interpretation of what?
Claude E. Shannon, "A Mathematical Theory of Communication I", Bell System Technical Journal, 27, pp. 379–423, July, 1948.
[ 14 references removed because of MisterBelfry's laziness in research. ]
Victor J. Stenger, "The emperor's new designer clothes." Skeptical Briefs, Dec. (2000)
[ 1 reference removed because of MisterBelfry's laziness in research. ]
Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit. "Information theory, evolutionary computation, and Dembski's 'complex specified information'". (2003)
Physicists, Computer Scientists, Mathematicians without any "Darwinian taint" are all totally rejecting Dembski's interpretation, in some cases decades before he made it.
Dembski's interpretation of what?
Since your post of Mar 28 2008, 11:32 PM, the subject has been "Information Theory" which is based on the Expelled promotional materials, which are based on the quote by Stephen Meyer which is based on the statements of William Dembski which were shown to be wrong decades before Dembski wrote them, by mathematicians, physicists and computer scientists.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 30 2008, 01:44 PM)
I introduced Dembski by way of a link you provided in the opening post.
How does this sentence make sense when people are aware that you and I are not the same person!
In the opening post, I linked to the Expelled promotional materials (where Dembski is vaguely cited on page 18) and this page from the Index of Creationist Claims where Dembski is directly cited as the source of the unreliable claim. Anyone who has followed the ID political movement knows names like Dembski, Wells and Johnson. It's like you are trying to take credit for my knowing the names Pol Pot or Mao Tse-Tung or Stalin.
In the opening post, I linked to the Expelled promotional materials (where Dembski is vaguely cited on page 18) and this page from the Index of Creationist Claims where Dembski is directly cited as the source of the unreliable claim. Anyone who has followed the ID political movement knows names like Dembski, Wells and Johnson. It's like you are trying to take credit for my knowing the names Pol Pot or Mao Tse-Tung or Stalin.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 30 2008, 01:44 PM)
Seife doesn't mention Dembski but he is surely smart enough to have heard of the guy. He lamely tries to defeat intelligent design with a footnote. That won't do it.
Bwahahaha (the sound of derisive laughter), you just admitted Seife never intended his words to mean what you wanted them to mean. You admit to being just another Creationist quote-miner.
Pray tell us, why a footnote makes the authors words less important?
Pray tell us, why a footnote makes the authors words less important?
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 30 2008, 01:44 PM)
And yet, he makes a creationist argument about the (future) importance of information.
I don't see that. If fact you never told us what material you took the 2006 Seife quote from.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 30 2008, 01:44 PM)
] That's strange but that is why I thought it fair to put in his words, which is interesting as I just read it before this thread popped into my brain as information. Information is impact or it is the media. We need two different words for that distinction, in my esteemed opinion.
Heh.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 30 2008, 01:44 PM)
If this thread is to go on further, I think Seth Lloyd ought to mentioned.
Now that I have mentioned him, I'll save him for later.
Now that I have mentioned him, I'll save him for later.
What a cop-out.
QUOTE (DuzmA+seven and a half days ago)
Using the 'creationist' beliefs of anyone who lived prior to Darwin is absurd
The beliefs are the same, afaik. This strawman of special creation is wierd s*hit. The one belief that did make creationists look silly is that fossils are artifacts of God to test human's faith in Him. Well, they are but we now emphasize that the fossils are reminders of a judgement day due to wickedness that God was fed up with. Sound familiar?
First comes water, then comes fire and oceans are no more.
Why the wierd s*hit?
I really don't know who Darwin was arguing against. I mean, who really believed rabbits (as an example) spontaneously appeared from something other than rabbits(or the rabbit kind) in the last two or the last three or the last four millennia?
What is special creation in recorded history(barring Jonah's great fish)? Biology is very important in the Bible! It is race and grace, man. Devolution by means of Supernatural Selection is my working model.
It is now realized Aaron's descendants have a special genetic marker and like the throne of England, these markers are meant to survive.
Biological Devolution is very important to those who want a little more action then death and taxes.
Evolution is just nonsense in comparison.
The beliefs are the same, afaik. This strawman of special creation is wierd s*hit. The one belief that did make creationists look silly is that fossils are artifacts of God to test human's faith in Him. Well, they are but we now emphasize that the fossils are reminders of a judgement day due to wickedness that God was fed up with. Sound familiar?
First comes water, then comes fire and oceans are no more.
Why the wierd s*hit?
I really don't know who Darwin was arguing against. I mean, who really believed rabbits (as an example) spontaneously appeared from something other than rabbits(or the rabbit kind) in the last two or the last three or the last four millennia?
What is special creation in recorded history(barring Jonah's great fish)? Biology is very important in the Bible! It is race and grace, man. Devolution by means of Supernatural Selection is my working model.
It is now realized Aaron's descendants have a special genetic marker and like the throne of England, these markers are meant to survive.
Biological Devolution is very important to those who want a little more action then death and taxes.
Evolution is just nonsense in comparison.
QUOTE (TheDoc+ about the same time period)
That might explain why the ID'ers are miffed about their "theory" getting thrown out of schools.
Ahh, excuse me, who actually managed to have Discovery Institute's material in the public school curriculum? It has to be in before it can be actually taken out, you know.
Ahh, excuse me, who actually managed to have Discovery Institute's material in the public school curriculum? It has to be in before it can be actually taken out, you know.
QUOTE (Rpenner+)
...Expelled promotional materials, which are based on the quote by Stephen Meyer which is based on the statements of William Dembski which were shown to be wrong
What quote, what statements... not in evidence as far as I can tell.
Yes, I am the judge. And I may be the *only* impartial judge on this forum=24.
MrB.
Yes, you may call me the dumb judge—that dumbness keeps me impartial.
What quote, what statements... not in evidence as far as I can tell.
Yes, I am the judge. And I may be the *only* impartial judge on this forum=24.
MrB.
Yes, you may call me the dumb judge—that dumbness keeps me impartial.
I disagree that "the judge" is without bias. Manmade Global Warming is a con game -- Jun 11 2007, 02:05 PM
MisterBelfry is a Day-Age Creationist who believes in geologic periods of time reflecting actual millions of years. He believes in special creation, presumably occurring over hundreds of millions of years to introduce innovation, and a separate process called "devolution," to introduce something else, I know not what.
Manmade Global Warming is a con game -- Jun 19 2007, 12:02 PM
But he quotes Rare Earth, a speculative popular science book by Peter Douglas Ward and Donald Brownlee which was referred to by Michael Behe in the Dover trial, and tries to interpret this book in terms of "devolution," even though the authors actually speculate that spontaneously originating simple life might be abundant in the galaxy.
The Speed Of Gravity -- Jun 19 2007
For various unscientific reasons, his believes go beyond geocentrism, to the assumption of an absolute un-rotating Earth, and casually accuses Eddington of fraud in his 1919 measurements even though he believes in GR lensing.
Perhaps this completely eccentric personal choice about what sources to credit and what sources to slur in public extends to this forums formatting commands, which is why his typical post is so difficult to unwind from the long included quotes.
So we need to work with his special limitations.
MisterBelfry is a Day-Age Creationist who believes in geologic periods of time reflecting actual millions of years. He believes in special creation, presumably occurring over hundreds of millions of years to introduce innovation, and a separate process called "devolution," to introduce something else, I know not what.
Manmade Global Warming is a con game -- Jun 19 2007, 12:02 PM
But he quotes Rare Earth, a speculative popular science book by Peter Douglas Ward and Donald Brownlee which was referred to by Michael Behe in the Dover trial, and tries to interpret this book in terms of "devolution," even though the authors actually speculate that spontaneously originating simple life might be abundant in the galaxy.
The Speed Of Gravity -- Jun 19 2007
For various unscientific reasons, his believes go beyond geocentrism, to the assumption of an absolute un-rotating Earth, and casually accuses Eddington of fraud in his 1919 measurements even though he believes in GR lensing.
Perhaps this completely eccentric personal choice about what sources to credit and what sources to slur in public extends to this forums formatting commands, which is why his typical post is so difficult to unwind from the long included quotes.
So we need to work with his special limitations.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 31 2008, 01:36 AM)
QUOTE (DuzmA+Mar 23 2008, 12:56 PM)
Great post. 'Expelled' is an act of desperation, they are losing ground faster and faster. Its over.
Ben Stein is in a sad position. He is a smart man, theres no telling what the ID people had to do to get him to support their babble.
Ben Stein is in a sad position. He is a smart man, theres no telling what the ID people had to do to get him to support their babble.
QUOTE (rpenner+Mar 23 2008, 05:40 AM)
I received this explicit invitation to "Join the debate"
http://www.getexpelled.com/_downloads/expe...eadersguide.pdf
http://www.getexpelled.com/_downloads/expe...eadersguide.pdf
QUOTE
Despite the compelling modern science in support of intelligent design,
Which is where? QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Despite the compelling modern science in support of intelligent design, |
Which is where? and despite the fact that most Americans want the evidence for
This is a distortion by bad poll question. In order to teach ALL the evidence for evolution, we would have to teach every child virtually every scientific paper in biology, geology, biochemistry, paleontology, medicine, (and by they way these people define it, physics, astronomy, cosmology, and archeology). Every child would have to know more than a modern Ph.D. Not Galileo, Newton and Einstein together could possibly be expected to learn that much.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
QUOTE
and against Darwin’s theory taught in schools,
Oh, well that part is easy. Trivial in fact. It takes zero time to present zero facts. All ID people have are lawyers questions and lawyers games with words. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| and against Darwin’s theory taught in schools, |
Oh, well that part is easy. Trivial in fact. It takes zero time to present zero facts. All ID people have are lawyers questions and lawyers games with words. any questioning of Darwinism is systematically suppressed in nearly all academic and scientific communities.
Please describe the system? Maybe it's just tired people wondering why you are rehashing Paley's 1801 Natural Theology without scientific evidence? Maybe your friends are tired of you standing on the table and shouting when the proper place to make your case is with evidence?
Using the 'creationist' beliefs of anyone who lived prior to Darwin is absurd as they has no other explanation for life at hand, and many of them were forced into religion either directly or indirectly by the rigid times and the overinflated church. I also feel compelled to point out that religious leaders wrote letters to Einstein asking that he leave America when he revealed that he didn't believe in a 'personal god'. Why try use him as an ally now?
Using the 'creationist' beliefs of anyone who lived prior to Darwin is absurd as they has no other explanation for life at hand, and many of them were forced into religion either directly or indirectly by the rigid times and the overinflated church. I also feel compelled to point out that religious leaders wrote letters to Einstein asking that he leave America when he revealed that he didn't believe in a 'personal god'. Why try use him as an ally now?
The beliefs are the same, afaik.
Are you saying that your theology is the same as William Paley's?
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/paley.html
Are you saying that your theology is the same as William Paley's?
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/paley.html
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 31 2008, 01:36 AM)
This strawman of special creation is wierd s*hit.
Special Creation is the opposite of Common Descent. If the major plant, microbe and animal types did not share common ancestry, then they must have had individual special creations. As new forms show up in the fossil record spread out over at least 500 million years, perhaps longer for soft-bodied organisms, that fact of origin of species needs to be explained by either special creation or common descent. So it's not a straw-man -- it is part and parcel of evolution denialism.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 31 2008, 01:36 AM)
The one belief that did make creationists look silly is that fossils are artifacts of God to test human's faith in Him.
I disagree. I believe that there are over a hundred arguments made by creationists that are patently silly to people familiar with the facts and evidence of the natural world.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 31 2008, 01:36 AM)
Well, they are but we now emphasize that the fossils are reminders of a judgement day due to wickedness that God was fed up with. Sound familiar?
It sounds like Young-Earth Creationism and Biblical Literalism involving a genocidal World Wide Flood. But the fossil record is not consistent with any world-wide flood.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 31 2008, 01:36 AM)
First comes water, then comes fire and oceans are no more.
Why is Revelations reliable? Why is Genesis reliable?
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 31 2008, 01:36 AM)
Why the wierd s*hit?
Because you are trying to twist reality to fit your preconceptions, the resulting map would, I imagine, get very weird indeed.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 31 2008, 01:36 AM)
I really don't know who Darwin was arguing against. I mean, who really believed rabbits (as an example) spontaneously appeared from something other than rabbits(or the rabbit kind) in the last two or the last three or the last four millennia?
The common ancestor to all rabbits and hares in the family Leporidae have been dated to at least 50 million years ago. Your unadorned question is based on some unexplained context of your preconceptions.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 31 2008, 01:36 AM)
What is special creation in recorded history(barring Jonah's great fish)?
Genesis, Chapters 1 and 2, if the Bible is history. In Natural history, new forms, never before seen, appear at fixed times and places in the fossil records -- if you reject common descent, then you must assume special creation of these forms. Professional Historians don't trust Genesis and professional biologists don't reject common descent because of preconceptions, so special creation might be a totally made up thing.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 31 2008, 01:36 AM)
Biology is very important in the Bible! It is race and grace, man. Devolution by means of Supernatural Selection is my working model.
I disagree. The Bible is very thin on biological information and some of it is wrong. Rabbit and hares do not chew "cud" like cows ( Leviticus 11:3–6 ) but ingest cecal pellets.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 31 2008, 01:36 AM)
It is now realized Aaron's descendants have a special genetic marker
Evidence not in thread.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 31 2008, 01:36 AM)
and like the throne of England, these markers are meant to survive.
Evidence not in thread.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 31 2008, 01:36 AM)
Biological Devolution is very important to those who want a little more action then death and taxes.
There's that made-up word again. What is the scientific theory of "Devolution?" It sounds so very 80's.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 31 2008, 01:36 AM)
Evolution is just nonsense in comparison.
Evidence that you know what that word means in not in evidence in this thread.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar