Maybe I'm missing something about this particular Creationist's arguement..

by Abaddon 69 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Jerry Bergman

  100 quarter hours (equal to amount of course work needed for a Ph.D.) is not 25 hours but 3 to 4 years full time study.
• 

  Abaddon

  Dr. Bergman,

  You will note when you first mentioned the amount of time you'd spent in biological sciences (rather than defending your interpretation of fitness) I commented I'd done that in my first term (a term is a third of s school year in England). Thus I flagged up the fact that the USA might use a different measuring system earlier on, and even specifically mentioned it in a subsequent post.

  As to "You seem to think that because man introduced the factors that made the dodo unfit for its changed environment, it doesn’t count as an example of selection. It does.'" I would say it was caused to go extinct by humans but this does not prove much as to Darwinism because humans could wipe all life off the earth (and have already wiped many forms of life off the earth) but this does not prove that all life evolved by the accumulation of mutations (the ultimate source of genetic information accordingly to Darwinists). read David Raup (see below)

  But that's DIFFERENT to what you say in the essay. In the essay you say;

  Now that the bird has been extensively studied, we realize that the facts do not support the evolutionary myth, but do support the moral bankruptcy of humankind.

  In the essay you are saying "the dodo doesn't support the theory of survival of the fittest", when in fact, it does, AND THEN, you try to link this unfounded assertation to the claim that "... humans could wipe all life off the earth ... but this does not prove that all life evolved by the accumulation of mutations ..." , which is a statement that I can completely agree with!

  It's like saying I could kill a man but it wouldn't prove that he could die from cancer...
• 

  Jerry Bergman

  Thanks for the clarification. I see my statement was not as clear as it should be.

  I said "Now that the bird has been extensively studied, we realize that the facts do not support the evolutionary myth, but do support the moral bankruptcy of humankind and it would be clearer to state as follows:

  Now that the bird has been extensively studied, we realize that the facts do not support the common dodo evolutionary myth, but do support the moral bankruptcy of humankind.

  Again thanks for the clarification. I need to check my revised version to see if the same ambiguity is present, and clarify it as well (this is why it is critical to have critics read your papers). This is also a problem creationists have. Our critics are glad to review and critique our papers, but only after we publish. The review should be before we publish, not after.
• 

  funkyderek

  Now that you've "clarified", am I correct in thinking that you agree the only "evolutionary myth" that's not supported by the facts is one that's not really held by any evolutionists?

  And the statement about the "moral bankruptcy of mankind" still seems like a non sequitur.
• 

  hooberus

  Soon Iraqi T-72 tanks will become extinct by the introduction of American M-1 Abrams tanks, therefore I conclude that this is proof that the T-72's evolved from roller-skates.

  Maybe the dodo situation is an example of some form of artificial selection, but it can it be extrapolated to prove the origin of the dodo itself ?
• 

  Jerry Bergman

  Hooberus You mean :Maybe the dodo situation is an example of some form of artificial selection, but can it be extrapolated to prove the origin of the dodo itself ? My responce is no.
• 

  Jerry Bergman

  In response to the above, let us get off attacking persons and look at the evidence. How do you explain the origin of the genome? How do you get a functional cell from a set of chemicals? Also, I assume that my offer above was rejected.
• 

  hooberus

  I would like to know the following:

  DNA/RNA

  1. What is the estimated minimum nucleotide length of DNA or RNA needed for a self-reproducing organism?

  2. How long of polymers (nucleotide length) of DNA or RNA have been formed in labs under realistic conditions? How close is this to the answer to question # 1.

  3. Will a forming polymer tend to lengthen or break apart under naturalistic conditions?

  4. Do all the sugars in DNA and RNA have to be either "right handed (D)" or "left handed (L)" or will a combination of both in the same molecule lead to functional nucleic acids?

  5. If only one type of sugar (D or L) will work, how could long polymers of DNA/RNA form from a 50/50 mixture? Has there been any naturalisic condition found which could separate the two out, leading to polymers of only 1 type being formed?
• 

  hooberus

  Jerry, I think that it would be good to start a new post on abiogenesis. I've thought about starting one. If you do I'll move my above questions there.

  • These creation/evolution debates seem to do better when restricted to a specific topic (like the "DNA and Mans Origin" topic) otherwise they seem meander all over the place.
  • When limited to a specific topic its harder for those who wish to engage in personal attacks to succeed as they should not be allowed to divert the issue to ad hominem attacks.
• 

  Jerry Bergman

  Hooberus

  Well put and I agree fully.