tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post8848323372832925183..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Are the "Good Guys" Losing in America?Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-70867051167558516622011-02-18T08:33:24.892-05:002011-02-18T08:33:24.892-05:00Tail bone
How is it a "tail bone" unles...<i>Tail bone</i><br /><br />How is it a "tail bone" unless it was at some point a "tail", Denny? :)Lone Primatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746801663695992138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-11022592299024992202011-02-18T08:29:08.191-05:002011-02-18T08:29:08.191-05:00appendix
A) The use of which is...? and:
B) Why ...<i>appendix</i><br /><br />A) The use of which is...? and:<br /><br />B) Why is it so superfluous to human survival that it has no life-limiting consequences to the organism upon its removal? That is to say, why design and incorporate it in the first place?Lone Primatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746801663695992138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-31836680464464715392011-02-18T08:26:46.487-05:002011-02-18T08:26:46.487-05:001. “efficient and optimized ‘design.’” vs. ineffic...<i>1. “efficient and optimized ‘design.’” vs. inefficient randomized evolution.</i><br /><br />Then why don't humans have just one sex? Your god does, after all. If he were after a one-body-fits-all solution, as you're suggesting to get around the stupidity of giving male mammals nipples, then why males at all? Why not simply make humans capable of parthenogenesis? Even some other vertebrates are capable of this, so apparently your god's not opposed to the idea.<br /><br />Nope, sorry, the efficiency suggestion falls on this hurdle.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>2. Because the Designer wants to be seen.</i><br /><br />Then why doesn't he just show up and shut all doubt down once and for all?<br /><br />I'm curious too as to why you've glossed over the rather incongruous detail that your god also saw fit to cluster an impressive amount of pleasure-receptive nerves around the anus, to the extent that every human being passes through an anal fixation stage. Seems a little at odds with the admonitions laid out in his supposed best-seller. Care to address that?Lone Primatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746801663695992138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-86803640499296508002011-02-16T15:05:41.179-05:002011-02-16T15:05:41.179-05:00Jud. This is one more answer to your question, “W...Jud. This is one more answer to your question, “Why do guys have nipples?” <br /><br />If an X chromosome sperm fertilizes an X chromosome egg, one of the two X chromosomes undergoes X-inactivation, which inactivates one of the X chromosomes, so that only one set of virtually duplicate genes can develop properly. Until about week six after conception, the human embryo’s male or female sexual elements (already genetically determined) are on a common developmental track, subject to the presence of an SRY gene (absence = female default). At about week seven, the embryo’s sexual organs are modified to further develop as either male or female. This six week common (male and female) developmental track can be seen to reflect a very efficient and optimized developmental ‘design’ model. Putting aside the notion of nipples being a vestige of unguided evolution (subject to more evolutionary change, I guess), a creation view/model can provide logical rationale for men having nonfunctional breasts and therefore nipples. This view is consistent with more and more formerly presumed vestigial anatomical organs (e.g. appendix, Tail bone, junk DNA) now known to have functional purpose. <br /><br />Jud, you asked me why guys have nipples. You said my answers were “factually incorrect.” I welcome your correction of my cited facts. Until then, I have given you rational scientific and teleological answers. I think the ball’s in your court to come up with a rational explanation for why nipples on guys are an purposeless accident. Woops. I think that’s an oxymoron.<br /><br />Lone Primate said... , “Denny: We understand the process. We're asking why your god would feel the need to ‘design’ males with ‘(undeveloped) nipples’ in the first place.” <br /><br />Two reasons, and I already gave you the first;<br />1. “efficient and optimized ‘design.’” vs. inefficient randomized evolution. <br />2. Because the Designer wants to be seen.Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01847742418650448178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-84196716203724602202011-02-08T12:16:20.980-05:002011-02-08T12:16:20.980-05:00Denny:
Functionally, nipples (even males) are gre...Denny:<br /><br /><i>Functionally, nipples (even males) are great "sensitive" areas to enjoy the pleasures (which God also created) of touch.</i><br /><br />So's the anus, Denny. What conclusions would you like us to draw from the fact that your god apparently designed that, too...?Lone Primatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746801663695992138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-86641311963506420812011-02-08T09:31:22.910-05:002011-02-08T09:31:22.910-05:00Denny:
An (female) egg fertilized with a male Y c...Denny:<br /><br /><i>An (female) egg fertilized with a male Y chromosome will consequently have (undeveloped) nipples.</i><br /><br />We understand the process. We're asking why your god would feel the need to "design" males with "(undeveloped) nipples" in the first place. A fetish? A place to hang a ring? A nice spot for pinch-clamps? What?Lone Primatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746801663695992138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40482962409781335632011-02-08T09:26:50.891-05:002011-02-08T09:26:50.891-05:00Denny:
Some do claim that the 2nd Chronicles pass...Denny:<br /><br /><i>Some do claim that the 2nd Chronicles passage does look suspiciously like pi</i><br /><br />What a surprise that people should do that when the ratio of a diameter and radius is evoked. Now even in places in the Deep South, if your kid gave gave 30 and 10 as the relative values for that circle, he'd flunk. Well, these are the relative values we're being given by the supposed designer of the universe. "Six by nine; forty-two. I always knew there was something fundamentally wrong with the universe..."Lone Primatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746801663695992138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90970279561062896662011-02-08T08:15:50.984-05:002011-02-08T08:15:50.984-05:00Denny:
Churches are not funded by the public.
Wh...Denny:<br /><br /><i>Churches are not funded by the public.</i><br /><br />What's the real problem, Denny? Scared to let the kids hear ALL the evidence? Scared to let them learn there's no way all those animals and their provisions could fit on a little boat, say, or that the inbreeding that would have resulted would mean most species would have quickly died out after the flood, etc.? If we're gonna teach the controversy, then hey -- LET'S TEACH THE CONTROVERSY!<br /><br /><i>Public schools, however, are funded by the public.</i><br /><br />And are governed, as I understand it, by a First Amendment that denies the establishment of a religion in public institutions, which the courts have held both creationism and ID to be. It's called "freedom".<br /><br />So fair's fair. If you want to intrude on science, then provide equal time to intrude on religion.Lone Primatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746801663695992138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40972655836572629352011-02-08T08:10:24.455-05:002011-02-08T08:10:24.455-05:00Denny:
Naturalists come to the table of science w...Denny:<br /><br /><i>Naturalists come to the table of science with the a priory view that the question and premise are not allowed to have any connection to anything that cannot be materially measured</i><br /><br />So do scientists. There's no difference between a "naturalist" and a "scientist", other than perhaps one describes the discipline and the other the actual practice of it.<br /><br /><i>He wants his knowledge measurable.</i><br /><br />That's because if it isn't measurable -- that is, in some way objectively demonstrable -- then it isn't really knowledge. It may be opinion, or belief, or even fiction. But it's not knowledge in any applicable sense. This is why we are able to speak of "science" effectively as one thing, whereas, except in the broadest possible terms, we cannot do the same with religions. Scientific disciplines complement each other, because their knowledge is demonstrable. Religions exclude one another, because their opinions are contradictory.<br /><br /><i>How do you measure a good husband?</i><br /><br />Objectively, you don't. Do you think someone who's held up as a model husband in Afghanistan, say, would be YOUR idea of a "good" husband? Or vice-versa? "Good" is just about as wishy-washy and subjective a term as the human mind has ever come up with. There are only a handful of very fundamental things most people agree on as "good"; the rest change with time, place, and circumstance. Things like gravity, the speed of light in a vacuum, and that replication errors occur in DNA, don't.<br /><br /><i>If the Bible offers reliable answers about husbands and is also consistent with science’s findings</i><br /><br />To quote the ephors of Sparta: "If".Lone Primatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746801663695992138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-2211620767777228592011-02-07T07:08:44.812-05:002011-02-07T07:08:44.812-05:00Denny writes:
1. I stand by my first brief layman...Denny writes:<br /><br /><i>1. I stand by my first brief layman’s explanation in this thread based in part on “Why do men have nipples?” at - http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-do-men-have-nipples - by Carleton University biology professor Andrew M. Simons in the September 17, 2003 issue of Scientific American. Quoting Simons, “… the genetic ‘default’ is for males and females to share characters, the presence of nipples in males is probably best explained as a genetic correlation that persists through lack of selection against them, rather than selection for them.” This could be interpreted as a design characteristic and creationism.</i><br /><br />Denny, if you cannot even understand that in the passage you quote and in the full article, Dr. Simons is saying the same thing I did, and completely disagreeing with your factually incorrect "brief layman's explanation" then there's no use taking this further. (Go ahead, ask Dr. Simons whether human eggs have two X chromosomes, or look it up in any decent biology text or online.)Judnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-68545347782970352362011-02-06T19:44:32.103-05:002011-02-06T19:44:32.103-05:005. The evidence for or against design works both w...<i>5. The evidence for or against design works both ways. If there is no conceivable point to God designing them, there is also no conceivable evolutionary advantage.</i><br /><br />This shows the incredible ignorance of Mr. Denny. I should probably stand aside and let Prof. Moran, who is far more knowledgeable about genetic drift then I am, comment on this but not all features in the animal kingdom are due to Darwinian natural selection. Genetic drift is also an engine of evolutionary change. There<br />there are a number of posts on this blog that describe genetic drift and I suggest that Mr. Denny look back in the archives.<br /><br />Mr. Denny still hasn't told us whether he accepts common descent or told us why other civilizations at the time of Joshua failed to note the loss of a day. How about it? Nor has he seen fit to comment on the waste elimination system/reproductive system combination, an example of incompetent design if I ever heard it.<br /><br />After Mr. Dennys' next response, I bring up the presence of ERVs in the genomes of virtually all animals, which Ed Brayton mentioned over at his blog as very strong evidence for common descent.SLCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-84088137745899246252011-02-05T21:25:31.930-05:002011-02-05T21:25:31.930-05:00SLC and Jud.
Here is my support for design/creati...SLC and Jud.<br /><br />Here is my support for design/creationism on the matter of human male nipples.<br /><br />1. I stand by my first brief layman’s explanation in this thread based in part on “Why do men have nipples?” at - http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-do-men-have-nipples - by Carleton University biology professor Andrew M. Simons in the September 17, 2003 issue of Scientific American. Quoting Simons, “… the genetic ‘default’ is for males and females to share characters, the presence of nipples in males is probably best explained as a genetic correlation that persists through lack of selection against them, rather than selection for them.” This could be interpreted as a design characteristic and creationism.<br /><br />2. Men can lactate and men exposed to the appropriate hormones will develop even breast tissue. This can happen in puberty when small amounts of estrogen can be produced. Since the (naturalistic) potential for males lactating without a nipple would be pointless and painful, I see this one favoring design/creationism.<br /><br />3. The argument re. male nipples concerns the physics and physiology of the human chest wall. Nipples serve as anchor points for small muscles within the skin. God used the one design of the chest wall that would work well for men and women. Another one for design/ creationism.<br /><br />4. Functionally, nipples (even males) are great "sensitive" areas to enjoy the pleasures (which God also created) of touch. Since human pleasure, as expressed in passion and sex, is more than the instinctive involuntary process experienced by non-human life, I think this favors design/creationism again.<br /><br />5. The evidence for or against design works both ways. If there is no conceivable point to God designing them, there is also no conceivable evolutionary advantage.Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01847742418650448178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-19046475704182330802011-02-05T16:29:13.514-05:002011-02-05T16:29:13.514-05:00If Mr. Denny accepts the claim in the Hebrew Scrip...If Mr. Denny accepts the claim in the Hebrew Scriptures that Joshua caused the sun to stand still for a day, how does he explain the fact that other civilizations in existence at the time of Joshua failed to note what would seem to have been a rather startling event?<br /><br />Mr. Denny is still avoiding the question as to whether pi = 3, as implied in the Hebrew Scriptures.<br /><br />Mr. Denny is still not responding to the query as to whether he accepts common descent, including humans. If he does not, he should explain the interesting observation concerning ape chromosomes 12 and 13 relative to human chromosome 2.<br /><br />I fail to understand how the article by Prof. Simons in any way, shape, form, or regard supports Mr. Dennys' creationist views. Mr. Denny still fails to inform us why a designer would endow males with nipples and how such a design is intelligent. Since they are useless on males, they seem to be rather extraneous.<br /><br />Just to keep rattling Mr. Dennys' cage, astrophysicist Neil Tyson has posited the question as to why a designer would design male mammals with a combined waste elimination system/reproductive system? Again, doesn't seem very intelligent to me.<br /><br />Incidentally, relative to the chromosome issue, Mr. Denny doesn't have to consult a retired evolutionary biology professor. There is a video available on Youtube which is a portion of a presentation by Brown Un. biology professor Ken Miller which carefully explains why the issue is strong evidence for common descent. He can also find a Youtube video of Dr. Tyson commenting on the combination waste elimination/reproduction system.SLCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36955836321028923912011-02-05T14:47:59.091-05:002011-02-05T14:47:59.091-05:00SLC and Jud , are you going to tell Carleton Unive...SLC and Jud , are you going to tell Carleton University biology professor Andrew M. Simons what you think of his ideas about why human males have nipples (published in Scientific American, September 17, 2003), or should I?Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01847742418650448178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-73735283515898299332011-02-04T21:16:59.325-05:002011-02-04T21:16:59.325-05:00SLC and Jud.
Well, you guys offer some interesti...SLC and Jud. <br />Well, you guys offer some interesting thoughts, and you seem to have gotten a real laugh at my expense. I’m going to ask a retired evolutionary biology professor and skeptic about some of your remarks. In the mean time, even though it’s not a classic creationist view, check-out “Why do men have nipples?” at http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-do-men-have-nipples (Scientific American, September 17, 2003) by Andrew M. Simons, a professor of biology at Carleton University in Ottawa, ON (Just down the road from Larry). I look forward to your reply. Later, I hope to supply a classic creationist view.Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01847742418650448178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-21033155820579824152011-02-04T14:40:05.115-05:002011-02-04T14:40:05.115-05:00SLC said..., “I notice that Mr. Denny failed to re...SLC said..., “I notice that Mr. Denny failed to respond to questions about … Joshua causing the sun to stand still for a day.” I have never spent time dissecting the Joshua 10 passage, either for its obvious scientific implications, its historical context, or its spiritual life lessons. However, in the absence of any contradicting scriptures, I accept it as literally true. I accept it, even though my basic understanding of cosmic and solar physics denies that life on earth could survive such an event. I accept it as literally true the same way I trust airlines for safe passage in an airplane built with a quarter million parts produced by the lowest bidders. Despite all the physical possibilities for a crash, airlines have proven reliable in overcoming those physical possibilities. I accept it the same way my wife accepts my fidelity to her. That is, she knows there are no physically measurable ways in which she can confirm my likelihood to be unfaithful. She knows that I am tempted, as any man is, when it comes to certain stimuli. But, she also knows that she can trust me based on almost four decades of day-by-day behavior. Her “faith” in me does include intellectual knowledge, but goes beyond the limits of knowledge. It goes to what I have demonstrated as non-physical fact (vs. faith) through the choices and motives I have revealed. My experience with life and God does the same for me, and therefore, I trust God. For skeptics, my literal acceptance of the Joshua passage may surface the dreaded “faith” issue. My experience with many skeptics has been that they apply a lot of scholarship to examining and understanding things like science and evolution. However, they often refrain from applying scholarship to scripture. And, if they do apply honest mental effort to examining scripture, they seem to stumble over the issue of a good God allowing suffering and/or death. The Bible is not a dime store novel - once read, put on the shelf. Nor is it, “Principles of Biochemistry,” a textbook.Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01847742418650448178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-84105565806138693292011-02-03T18:11:02.202-05:002011-02-03T18:11:02.202-05:00Re Denny
OK Mr. Denny, I'll put it this way, ...Re Denny<br /><br />OK Mr. Denny, I'll put it this way, is pi equal to 3 as implied by the Hebrew scriptures? That's a yes or a no.<br /><br />As for Judge Jones, as he has explained on several presentations he has made, any decision he made had to be based on the Lemon law, which is the result of a Supreme Court decision. Thus, based on the Lemon Law, any judge who ruled differently would be overturned by a higher court because it was obvious that the Dover schoolboards' policy did not have a secular purpose. That's what the Lemon law says. If Mr. Denny doesn't like the Lemon law, take it up with the Supreme Court. Mr. Dennys' ignorance of constitutional jurisprudence is as manifest as his ignorance of science.<br /><br />I really get a laugh out of Mr. Dennys' explanation of why human males have nipples. If, in fact, humans are the result of an intelligent design, the presence of useless nipples on males does not seem very intelligent to me. Would Mr. Denny care to elucidate us as to what is intelligent about nipples on a human male. By the way, most male animals don't have nipples.SLCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-69485324999593790762011-02-03T16:45:01.710-05:002011-02-03T16:45:01.710-05:00@Denny -
I don't want to sound critical about...@Denny -<br /><br />I don't want to sound critical about this, but your explanation is factually incorrect. There are gaps in your knowledge about how humans (and by extension other organisms) develop, and this affects your ability to judge whether a creation/design explanation is scientifically satisfactory. However, even in the incorrect explanation you gave, there is the germ of an idea that will help explain why evolution, not creation/design, gives the only scientifically satisfactory explanation of why men have nipples.<br /><br />Let me first run through what actually is the case for sperm and ova. When these cells are formed from precursor cells, the number of chromosomes is halved. In that process, one of the two "gender chromosomes" is taken to form each sperm or egg. Thus eggs do *not* have two X chromosomes, they have one (and each sperm does *not* have X and Y chromosomes, it has either/or), and eggs are therefore not "female." The fact that we all come from fertilized eggs is therefore not responsible for the fact that both men and women have nipples. Think about it for a moment, and you can see it doesn't work: we all come from fertilized eggs, but we do not all have ovaries. <br /><br />However, your description, erroneous as it was, captures the beginnings of an idea that shows why evolutionary biology provides the explanatory power which creation/design utterly lacks. That essential idea is *contraint*. Evolution is constrained by the materials available to it, meaning predecessor species and their genomes. This makes evolution an essentially conservative process. Even changes in body plans that appear large externally tend to be created by rather conservative changes on the genetic level, for example by duplication of prior genetic code rather than wholesale changes in large areas of that prior code.<br /><br />Now, thinking of evolution as a constrained, conservative process, let's look at the differences between men and women. Men and women cannot both have ovaries or both have testes. That degree of sexual differentiation is absolutely necessary for reproduction. It is also (luckily for us men) necessary to human survival that women have nipples. Other animals feed their young in other ways, but we are constrained by our more recent ancestry to the provision of milk. <br /><br />On the other hand, it is not necessary to species survival that men must differ from women concerning the presence of nipples. And quite evidently, nothing has occurred in the way of selection or neutral genetic variation to differentiate men from women in this regard. Thus the presence of this apparently useless bit of equipment on the male body is not at all problematic or unexpected from an evolutionary perspective.<br /><br />On the other hand, consider creation/design. It is utterly unconstrained. There is no apparent reason that any creator/designer would or should provide men with such useless equipment. Thus creation/design can only answer "Well, that's what the Creator/Designer decided, for reasons we can't understand." In fact, that's all it can *ever* answer regarding any fact of morphology. Giving the same answer for everything, Creation/Design thus renders itself useless to answer anything.<br /><br />So: Evolutionary theory gives a thorough explanation that can be tested and factually verified, while Creation/Design is helpless in the face of a question any 7-year-old might ask.Judnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-88971055595778829492011-02-03T14:39:11.194-05:002011-02-03T14:39:11.194-05:00SLC said... “Mr. Dennys' comments about Judge ...SLC said... “Mr. Dennys' comments about Judge John Jones III are totally ludicrous.” The fact that the judge is a theist means little, since most Christians seldom confront the conflicts presented by naturalistic (atheistic) evolution and their theistic faith. They mostly have more important things to do that engage in the kinds of contest that we are having. So, what’s so ludicrous about me agreeing on the general point that the Dover trial was dead from the start?<br />2. “I notice that Mr. Denny responded to the pi = 3 query by avoiding the question. Typical creationist ploy.” I haven’t see a question regarding the 2 Chronicles passage, but I agreed that some have the notion that it represents pi. Please tell me the question, so I can avoid being called a ‘ployist’.<br />3. “I notice that Mr. Denny failed to respond to questions about the common descent of apes and humans and the issue of Joshua causing the sun to stand still for a day.” Forgive me. Have you seen how many questions have been pejoratively directed at me? I have a life too, you know. Sometimes I pick the points I like best. Other times I watch TV, love my grandkids, spend all day shoveling snow, worry about my honey bees in the frigid weather, and wonder if I’ll ever have a full-time job again, which would limit my ability to answer questions even further. I'll go back and see the context of the “issue of Joshua” and see what I can do. Have a good day!Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01847742418650448178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51924631069703558972011-02-03T14:13:29.528-05:002011-02-03T14:13:29.528-05:00Jud said..., “Why do guys have nipples?” Any huma...Jud said..., “Why do guys have nipples?” Any human being that understands that the female egg contains two X chromosomes, and that a male sperm could provide another X chromosome, knows that the resulting zygote will be female. Hence, a human egg is a female and will have female characteristics like nipples. An (female) egg fertilized with a male Y chromosome will consequently have (undeveloped) nipples. This fact has nothing (apparent to me) to do evolution or creation theoryDennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01847742418650448178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5165642981386634212011-02-03T09:37:38.585-05:002011-02-03T09:37:38.585-05:00Re Denny
1. Mr. Dennys' comments about Judge...Re Denny<br /><br />1. Mr. Dennys' comments about Judge John Jones III are totally ludicrous. In the first place, the judge knew nothing about evolution when the trial started. As he has stated in several presentations since the trial, the testimony was the biology course that everybody who witnessed it wished he/she had had in college. In the second place, the judge is a theist, a communicant of the Lutheran Church in America. No atheist he. In third place, anybody who read the transcript would realize that the defenses' only competent witness, Michael Behe, was totally discredited under cross examination. Prof. Behes' scientific reputation, such as it was, was shredded. In the fourth place, the plaintiffs' expert witness, Prof. Ken Miller is a devout Catholic, no atheist he. In the fifth place, the defenses' attempt to discredit plaintiffs' witness Prof. Barbara Forrest was pathetic and amounted to nothing more then a smear attack on her as an atheist. The judge was manifestly unimpressed. In the sixth place, defense witnesses Buckingham and Bonsall and were caught lying on the witness stand. I can reliably inform Mr. Denny that judges to not appreciate it when witnesses take the stand in their courtroom, swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and then get caught lying. When that happens, they tend to take it out on the side that put them up (c.f. Lance Ito and Terry Ruckriegle). In fact, the judge was so annoyed that he took over the questioning of Buckingham himself after the latters' tissue of lies and evasions. Observers in the courtroom stated that the judge was red in the face with anger as he adjourned for the day. <br /><br />2. I notice that Mr. Denny responded to the pi = 3 query by avoiding the question. Typical creationist ploy.<br /><br />3. I notice that Mr. Denny failed to respond to questions about the common descent of apes and humans and the issue of Joshua causing the sun to stand still for a day.SLCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-45686403780130775262011-02-03T07:05:04.937-05:002011-02-03T07:05:04.937-05:00Denny writes:
Hugh Ross’ book “Creation as Scien...Denny writes: <br /><br /><i>Hugh Ross’ book “Creation as Science” contains Table F.1: called Predictive Tests For Creation/Evolution Models that (for example purposes) lists only 89 brief and specific predictive ‘tests.’</i><br /><br />I'll just give you one simple test, and we'll see how creation/design does vs. evolutionary theory, OK? It's so simple a 5-year-old could think of it, so if creation/design can't provide a valid answer, there's absolutely no reason to give such a "theory" any credence, is there? Here it is: Why do guys have nipples?<br /><br />There is a logical, testable (and confirmed), parsimonious answer from an evolutionary perspective. Please provide one from a creation/design perspective.Judnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-15434959441223027232011-02-02T20:04:09.617-05:002011-02-02T20:04:09.617-05:00Jud said... “If there were a competing testable th...Jud said... “If there were a competing testable theory, no court case need be brought.” <br />Precisely. Hugh Ross’ book “Creation as Science” contains Table F.1: called Predictive Tests For Creation/Evolution Models that (for example purposes) lists only 89 brief and specific predictive ‘tests.’ The Table has four columns. One for Naturalism (Evolution), Young-Earth, Theistic Evolution, and Hugh Ross’ Reasons To Believe (Old-Earth) Model. The rows of the table list scientific predictions from each view in the Simple sciences, the Complex sciences, plus Theology and Philosophy, against which actual scientific findings from all fields of science can be matched to validate or invalidate each view’s predictions. At the RTB web site (ww.reasons.org), a search for “rtb model” goes to the many recent scientific discoveries that RTB believes confirm its model over evolution’s.<br /><br />Jud said... “…since an unbiased judge by definition cannot have in mind the predetermined goal of a non-atheistic result.” I read the transcript of the Dover, PA (ID) case, and it seemed to me that the judge was biased in favor of evolution. It’s arguable that evolution in that case represented atheism. It seems to me that evolution at Sandwalk is seldom anything else.<br /><br />Jud said... “… people such as yourself keep asking for a theory that incorporates such a requirement in spite of the testing results.” No. People such as myself keep asking for an ‘interpretation’ that is not shaped by a predisposition to atheism. For example, Larry would have us believe that his atheism is completely disconnected from the way he interprets science data. That’s like saying that Charlie Sheen separates his show’s plots from his personal behavior. Both Larry and Charlie mingle their worldviews with their professions. The difference between them is that Larry has integrity, and his work has great value.Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01847742418650448178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-70514881073031722132011-02-01T20:02:05.520-05:002011-02-01T20:02:05.520-05:00SLC said... Re Denny, “Here's another query fo...SLC said... Re Denny, “Here's another query for Mr. Denny. In 2nd Chronicles, it is stated that a bowl was made with a diameter of 10 cubits and a circumference of 30 cubits. That would seem to imply the pi = 3. How's that pragmatic claim coming along?”<br /><br />In anticipation of the apocalypse blizzard tonight, I’ve been warming up the generator and getting the candles out. Maybe I missed something. Some do claim that the 2nd Chronicles passage does look suspiciously like pi, the mathematical constant. But, I don’t get your connection between this and former thread references to pragmatism.Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01847742418650448178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-30267279568679481702011-02-01T18:48:00.408-05:002011-02-01T18:48:00.408-05:00What a joke this blog is, teemimg with one named b...What a joke this blog is, teemimg with one named blowhards terrified at being identified It is just one more Pharyngula, After The Bar Closes or Panda's Thumb without a scintilla of signficant commentary. The only difference beween Sandwalk and the others is that Larry Moran hasn't banished me - yet. He prefers to just pretend that godless, aimless Darwinism is settled science immune to criticism. <br /><br />That has been the posture of the Darwinians for a century and a half during which Darwin's Victorian dream has been destroyed several times by some the greatest biologists of that interval. It is no longer acceptable to ignore the critics of the biggest hoax in the history of science.<br /><br />Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for Darwinian mysticism.<br /><br />jadavison.wordpress.comJohn A. Davisonhttp://jadavison.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com