Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Dr Grady McMurtry - What are his qualifications and scientific expertise?

Dr Grady S McMurtry describes himself as "Full-time International Creation Emissary, Biblical Scientific Creationist, Apologist" and operates the organisation called "Creation Worldview Ministries", based in Orlando Florida, which appears to have no other staff (according to their web site).

Given his high profile in the UK on Revelation TV recently and his novel ideas on genetics, global warming and plate tectonics I thought I would check out his qualifications and record of scientific research in these areas. He is usually addressed on his TV appearances as "Dr Grady" and there is great deference to his qualifications: the implication being that he knows better than the viewers. In fact, although he has a general science education it appears to be in agricultural related subjects and his Doctorate is in theology, not science, and is not from a recognised university of any standing.

Summary of this article
Dr Grady McMurtry's qualifications appear to consist of an undergraduate degree in agriculture (majoring in forestry) and a masters degree in environmental science.
His doctorate is in theology and from a non accredited private college that does not make doctoral theses available for public scrutiny. His second doctorate is honorary. He does not seem to be involved in any academic research work. His family background suggests that he is the son of Grady Louis McMurtry who was head of the secret society Ordo Templi Orientis founded by Aleister Crowley.

To add balance to this article I have included direct links to videos of interviews and discussions with Dr McMurtry so that readers can make up their own minds. In January 2009 I also added a section entitled "in his defence" which includes some points in his defence which were emailed to me by a reader.

Academic Background
Stated qualifications from his web site
http://www.creationworldview.org/aboutus.asp
BS, University of Tennessee, Institute of Agriculture
MS, State University of New York, College of Environmental Science
DD, School of Theology, Columbus, Georgia
DLitt, Mid-Continent University, Kentucky
Regent of the School of Theology, Columbus, Georgia
Adjunct Professor, School of Theology, Columbus, Georgia
Florida Christian College, Guest Lecturer


My research so far

BS, University of Tennessee, Institute of Agriculture
This is an undergraduate degree in agriculture, not science.
McMurtry is not listed on their web site as a notable graduate although eleven astronauts and many scientists are!

MS, State University of New York, College of Environmental Science
MS is a post graduate degree (masters degree). Grady McMurtry's MS is in forestry and was issued by the State University College of Forestry at Syracuse University in 1972. This is part of the State University of New York, an umbrella for various institutions in New York state mainly providing vocational qualifications. The College of Environmental Science based in Syracuse concentrates on forestry and related areas. Current MS degrees from this school are taught degrees and not research based. It is unclear how much research was involved in his MS. His masters degree thesis was entitled "The Redwood National Park : a case study of legislative compromise" (source).

DD, School of Theology, Columbus, Georgia
DD is a Doctor of Divinity (i.e. theology) and is not related to any scientific discipline. Dr McMurtry has stated in interviews that it is a doctorate in Christian apolagetics.

I cannot locate such a school of theology.
No link to it from his web site, but on http://www.lwcf.com/college/faculty.htm he is listed as having a degree from Christian Life School of Theology, so this may be the correct name.
This is listed as a private college at http://www.directoryofeducation.net/colleges_universities/USA/Georgia/Christian+Life+School+of+Theology/508/
Their web site www.clst.edu is not working and the domain name appears to no longer be registered.
Their web site was linked from the page footers on http://www.lwcf.com/college/info.htm which is a non accredited bible college so there may be some connection between them.

According to http://www.ohwy.com/ga/h/hx425302.htm
"Christian Life School Of Theology is a non-profit private institution, located in Columbus, Muscogee County, GA. Total enrollment is approximately 50. The program lasts for less than one year. Popular programs include Religion/Religious Studies."

The founder of Christian Life School of Theology, Ronald Cottle, has been accused by the US Attorney of runing a sham university called Tri-Valley University. This follows complaints about Christian Life School of Theology (which later changed its name to "Beacon University").

According to this report in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram (subscription required):
Christian Life students complained that they had been duped into believing the school was accredited, prompting the school to reach a settlement with the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board in 2003, agreeing to refund tuition. Christian Life, which later changed its name to Beacon University, also received a settlement payment in exchange for no longer awarding degrees.

Dr McMurtry appears on the staff list of the connected Beacon Institute of Ministry - Richmond Center


DLitt, Mid-Continent University, Kentucky
In 2011 Dr McMurtry received a second doctorate (Doctor of Letters) from Mid-Continent University of Mayfield, Kentucky.

Mid-Continent University is a conservative baptist university with an interest in biblical orthodoxy. It runs a Center for Biblical Creation. It does not offer doctoral study programmes.

According to this article the doctorate was "earned":
recently earned his Doctor of Letters from Mid-Continent University.

But according to this other article it is honorary:
Mid-Continent University bestowed the degree of Doctor of Letters (D. Litt.) upon Dr. Grady S. McMurtry on January 31, 2011.

Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis has an honorary doctorate from the same University, but does not use the title "doctor". This article shows Ken Ham's graduation.


His scientific research
I have been unable to find any research papers authored or co-authored by Grady S McMurtry in any peer reviewed journal. This does not mean that there aren't any. I just can't find them, but if there were a lot of articles I think I would have. He appears to not be currently involved in any academic research or investigation.

His title of Adjunct Professor
This comes from the same college where he got his DD: "Total enrollment is approximately 50".


In his defence (this section added 27/01/2008)

I have been emailed by someone who says:

"Dr Mcmurtry actually graduated first in his class at University and is a member of Mensa. DD is a proper doctorate awarded to him."



This all appears to be correct and I am happy to add it to this article for balance, while at the same time pointing out that being generally clever does not make you an expert on geology or evolutionary biology. His doctorate is an honorary one and its in theology, not in a scientific subject. I am not denigrating him as a person, just asking logical questions about his real scientific expertise.


His beliefs

A summary of his claims about Evolution:
http://www.cft.org.za/articles/evolution_wrong_mcmurtry.htm

A video summarising some of his novel ideas about plate tectonics and other evolution related issues:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QY2RLeye9o

An article written by him giving his views on Global Warming and "Environmental Terrorism":
http://christianobserver.org/the-difference-between-christian-conservation-and-environmental-terrorism/

And from his own web site:
I Dr. Grady S. McMurtry have been studying the Global Warming/Global Cooling controversy since the 1960s. Even when I was an evolutionist scientist and teacher, I knew that neither was true. I am completely convinced that the controversy is 100% politically motivated and not based on good science. The promoters of either view are either extreme socialists or extreme communists. Their sole primary purpose in promoting either view is to destroy Christian capitalism and replace it with extreme socialism/communism based upon the religion of Secular Humanism.

Finances
Public records of his organisations finances can be found here:
http://lippard.blogspot.com/2007/01/creationist-finances-creation-worldview.html

His donation to the 2008 Republican presidential campaign:
http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=name&lname=Mcmurtry&fname=Grady&search=Search


Links to other articles about Dr Grady McMurtry
http://hjhop.blogspot.com/2007/04/honorary-doctor-of-nothing-grady-s.html
http://fundiewatch.blogspot.com/2007/04/teaching-bad-science-would-help-us.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxRXfduYt1Y


Videos of some of his TV appearances

Dr McMurtry tells the story of his early life and conversion:
http://blip.tv/file/2775387

Revelation TV "World in Focus":
Part 1 - http://blip.tv/file/673356
Part 2 - http://talkgod.blip.tv/file/686989/ (includes a phone in)

Revelation TV Programme "Creation, Science and the Bible" filmed in Israel:
Part 1 - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RwWZSlHLYFY
Part 2 - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=CuCzs8RJjMA
Part 3 - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=FkAQMK3nB1Y
Part 4 - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cvf8la48fxM
Part 5 - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8X8cTmHANhg

Speaking on "Creation Evangelism" at Harvest Temple Church, Georgia, August 2009 (the talk starts about 45 minutes in):
http://vimeo.com/6130257

In October 2010 Revelation TV broadcast a live debate between Dr McMurtry and the the Filipino televangelist Eli Soriano (known as "Brother Eli") who does not believer in a young earth. This programme was followed a few days later by a second recorded show of the debate which had continued after the live broadcast ended. 

This can be viewed on YouTube:


His family background?
His name got me wondering if he was related to Grady Louis McMurtry whom I had heard of as one of the leaders of the Thelema religion founded by Aleister Crowley.

According to his often repeated testimony, Dr Grady S McMurtry was born In San Francisco and raised on the campus of the University of California at Berkeley where his father was a student and then a lecturer. He became a Christian at the age of 27 and 18 months later became a committed creationist.

The oddest similarity is that Grady Louis McMurtry had a son born in San Francisco in 1946 (November 13th) which would make him 62 if he was still alive. This information is given in a letter that McMurtry sent to Crowley asking Crowley to draw up a horoscope for his new son (a task he declined).

The son was named Grady Shannon McMurtry (Grady S McMurtry - another coincidence?), and moved with his parents to the University of California, Berkeley where his father had funding under the GI Bill to study for a political science degree. By 1948 he had completed his bachelors and masters degrees, as was common under post war accelerated academic programmes. (source: http://user.cyberlink.ch/~koenig/rf/rf5.htm ).

After serving in the Korean war Grady Louis McMurtry returned to Berkeley where he was graduate student and teaching assistant in the Political Science Department. He was there until 1956, when his son would have been nine years old.

By 1959 he had moved to Sacramento to work as a management analyst for the State Department of Labor.

In 1962 he became disillusioned with the leadership of the OTO (the Thelema order he belonged to) and went to work at the department of Treasury in Washington DC. He also taught night classes in politcal science at George Washington University.
Betwen 1969 and 1974 he was back in California running his own version of the OTO from the house he shared with his wife until they separated in 1974. He died in 1985.
Grady Louis McMurtry also published many volumes of poetry, science fiction and esoteric writing.

For more information about him see this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grady_McMurtry
He appears at the end of this video doing some rather odd things:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcoF1EanWdw

The name Grady S and the Berkeley connection seem too much to be a coincidence. How many Grady McMurtrys could there have been on the campus at the same time? But if he is the son of Grady L why hide it? It would be an even bigger testimony of conversion. It may be that his mainstream supporters would be put off by the connection to Crowley (whom they would view as a Satanist, although the truth is much more complex).

Here are photographs of Grady L and Grady S at similar ages. They do look quite similar apart from the beard:




In conclusion, this is an intriguing side issue and hopefully someone can clarify the story and solve the mystery. It may just be a coincidence after all.
Please leave a comment if you know any more.


Update 28 Mar 2009


The mystery is apparently solved. According to this page Dr Grady S McMurtry IS the son of Grady Louis McMurtry, but was disowned by his father. This article also seems to confirm that Grady S studied for an MS (masters degree) in Forestry at Syracuse university:
This fact has long been known but not openly publicized. ... In truth; in Volume I of Grady Louis McMurtry’s biography ‘IN THE NAME OF THE BEAST’ I mentioned how Shannon was born on November 13th 1946 and in Volume II, I point out that “Shannon began attending the University of Tennessee at Knoxville” and later he attended “Syracuse University as a graduate student majoring in forestry.” ...... So, is the evangelist Grady Shannon McMurtry really Grady Louis McMurtry’s son? We don’t like to admit it but yes, he is ... in fact, on Shannon’s own website [http://www.creationworldview.org/aboutus.asp] he admits to getting his B S at the University of Tennessee, Institute of Agriculture and that he later attended State University of New York at Syracuse to get his M.S.. ... as did Grady's son. Coincidence? How many Grady Shannon McMurtrys could have been attending these two school at the same time and studying the same thing? So, if people wondered why Grady Louis McMurtry disowned his son I guess it could be said that father and son couldn’t be farthest apart!

The ten year old Grady S McMurtry is mentioned in the book The Unknown God: W.T. Smith and the Thelemites By Martin P. Starr (see here for the quote).

Given that his father disowned him its a bit of a mystery why he does not mention this. maybe he feels it would undermine him in the eyes of fundamentalists or it would taint his stories about Berkeley? His background is significant for other reasons. I wonder if being brought up in that sort of an environment makes it easier to reconcile belief in the wildly supernatural assertions of creationism with a firm belief in scientific principles?


Update 27th Sept 2009
I found an interesting account in another blog of an encounter with Dr McMurtry at a church in the USA. Click here to read it.

Update and reflections 29th January 2013
Since this article was first published many of the links in it will be to pages that no longer exist. During 2011 a large number of web sites were created promoting Dr McMurtry's expertise. Most of these have the same content and you can find them by clicking here to see a Google search. Some use free hosting services and others domains  like drgrady-mcmurtry.com, drgradysmcmurtry.net, drgradysmcmurtry.org. All of the domain based ones resolve to the same IP address (203.27.227.94) which hosts similar sets of web sites for other people with similar designs to the McMurtry ones.  They are all interlinked so it may be some attempt to gain search engine rankings for each other or for his main web site.

Disclaimer
All of this information is in the public domain.
If you have more detailed information or wish to correct any of it please leave a comment and I will approve it for immediate publication on this page (the only exception being comments which include profanity, which it is my policy never to approve).

Linking to this article
If you have a blog or web site please feel free link back to this article from it.


402 comments:

1 – 200 of 402   Newer›   Newest»
Gordon said...

Here is a video summary of some of Dr McMurtry's beliefs about creation and evolution. At 6:04 he says he was raised in the palaeontology labs at Berkley, however his father lectured undergraduates in political science, not a true scientific discipline. I feel he skates over this issue to give the impression that he was brought up in a scientific family. In fact his father had some very odd religious beliefs and was a friend of Jack Parsons, who although being a rocket scientist was very interested in occult magick, as was McMurtry senior.

McMurtry was therefore brought up in a household where believing weird things was not considered incompatible with science even if the weird things themselves contradicted accepted science.

I think this upbringing is significant, as it may allow him to say with such authority that certain things are true based on his beliefs when he knows that they contradict generally accepted science.

romber said...

Given your logic, then anything Darwin said doesn't count either. His only real qualification was in Theology. How typical that you try to character assassinate and therefore avoid addressing any of the points he raises in his seminars (this assumes you have actually listened to any of his talks)
I have noticed that athiests cannot directly address any of the scientific objections that creationists raise. Why is this the case?

Gordon said...

You are making a basic, but common error. Evolutionists are not all atheists. In fact most professing Christians believe in Evolution - a fact that some fundamentalists find very uncomfortable. Therefore you should be asking if evolutionists have ever been able to come up with answers to the type of issues that Dr Grady McMurtry raises.

I am glad to say that Evolutionists have answered all of creationisms claims over the years. Starting with Charles Darwin himself who spent a large part of On the origin of Species dealing rhetorically with objections to the theory he was proposing.

The reason why creationists get tied up in knots is that they often don't understand the process of natural selection which is at the heart of evolution and is not random chance. It is a very simple mechanism and in its own way quite miraculous.

As for Dr McMurtry, it is not me who is drawing attention to his qualifications, but himself. He makes great play of mentioning his degrees at every opportunity as if they give him greater authority to speak on the issue. Clearly they do not (which is what you just said but directed the comment to Darwin instead).

Of course, Darwin did not have a degree in evolutionary biology because he hadn't discovered evolution yet. A point of logic which may escape some people.

And as for being a member of Mensa; well it wouldn't take me long to find an evolutionary biologist who was also a member, so that doesn't make what he says any more or less correct than anyone else.

Why do you trust Dr McMurtry's theories over those that have been worked out by many scientists over many years? Presumably you are quite happy to take medicine which has also been developed by scientists over many years, without feeling that you need to question its effectiveness.

I think the answer is that just as Galileo showed that the sun does not revolve round the earth, evolution challenges Christians to accept that they are not the centre of the universe. A rather humbling notion, especially for the self exalting kind of Christians who tend to be very pro creationism.

Alan said...

You need to get a life.

Gordon said...

I am not sure what you mean. I have a very busy and varied life, between my work, family life and musical interests.

Alan said...

http://truthisbetterthanlies.blogspot.com/

Gordon said...

If someone like Grady McMurtry is standing up in a public place claiming to be an expert, and knowing better than the established scientific community, then his qualifications and expertise are a legitimate issue for debate.

If you read my article you will see that the facts presented appear to be correct and nobody has produced any information that contradicts it.

If they do then I will happily add it to the article. The issue is not whether he is right or wrong, but whether his apparent scientific expertise is credible or relevant to the subjects he is making considerable claims about.

I think his family background is relevant because if someone is brought up in an environment where its possible to reconcile regular science with wildly contradictory religious beliefs then that may have a bearing on how their critical faculties develop.

I read your article about me, but I am not sure how being a trumpet player makes me unqualified to comment or give an opinion on these issues. I have no scientific qualifications at all, but I don't claim to and I don't claim to be an expert on evolutionary biology or climate change either.

Alan said...

The trumpet player highlight was just a bit of cheeky fun.

So Gordon, by your principle, unless a person has relevant qualifications for a particular field of study they have no right whatsoever to comment, criticise, study, teach or become an expert in that field?

That's astonishing coming from you who seems to have become an expert in personal attacks! Self taught obviously.

As for family backgrounds, that is just such a week argument.

You, being an atheist will undoubtedly have no balance in your appraisal whatsoever if someone has a 'religious' background.

"I think his family background is relevant because if someone is brought up in an environment where its possible to reconcile regular science with wildly contradictory religious beliefs then that may have a bearing on how their critical faculties develop."What a classic bit of snobbery!

Your own family background must have been wonderfully neutral and perfectly balanced.

Gordon said...

"So Gordon, by your principle, unless a person has relevant qualifications for a particular field of study they have no right whatsoever to comment, criticise, study, teach or become an expert in that field?"They can certainly comment or criticise but they can't try and give their opinions added weight by giving the appearance of academic qualifications in the subject that they do not have.

Its not a personal attack. Dr McMurtry is publicly putting forward a position I don't agree with so I am criticising it, just as someone else might criticise an MP's expenses, or someone else might criticise Richard Dawkins. It is fair debate.

It seems to me that most Christians do not actually believe in freedom of speech and it worries me greatly what sort of world we would live in if they were running it.

I have explained why I think his upbringing is relevant, but to give an example, his father was a friend of Jack Parsons, who while being a great scientist believed all sorts of weird religious stuff which was contrary to known science. This type of upbringing may influence someone who is otherwise intelligent not to experience any cognitive dissonance (intellectual uneasiness) between the supernatural and evidential science.

Anyway the creationist thing is a non issue really, except where it has the potential to affect science education. The fact is that there are very few creationists. Most Christians do believe in evolution and you do not need to believe in creationism to be a Christian. Even hardened creationists tend to keep it to Sundays and are happy to benefit from science that is derived from evolutionary research on other days of the week.

Alan said...

"It seems to me that most Christians do not actually believe in freedom of speech and it worries me greatly what sort of world we would live in if they were running it."Ever heard of the Pot calling the Kettle black?

With this statement you then go on as if you're the 'thought police'.

"they can't try and give their opinions added weight by giving the appearance of academic qualifications in the subject that they do not have."I think you'll find he was merely pointing out, as many people do; they are at least 'academics' and are therefore not stupid. It's just weight.

Should he have kept quiet about his academic achievements?

"who while being a great scientist believed all sorts of weird religious stuff which was contrary to known science. "Highbrow and snobbish! Anything that breaks conventions is rejected therefore. It's a pity your logic was not applied to Darwin.

Let's face it Gordon,you are just a hater of all things Christian aren't you? I mean to say it would be better if you were just honest about that instead of covering your hatred in a shroud of science.

"you do not need to believe in creationism to be a Christian.

Even hardened creationists tend to keep it to Sundays and are happy to benefit from science that is derived from evolutionary research on other days of the week."
Actually to call God a liar is to reject Christ. Those Christians should take note. I'm into Jesus 24/7

I'd love to know what benefits can be derived from evolution.

Dear, dear. You really think you're a free thinker. When actually your thoughts are completely surrounded and immersed in a spurious branch of science which is driven solely by an atheist agenda in schools and universities. You know that's true.

Alan said...

Creationist science is evidential also by the way.

Creationists take note of the evidence and then see if it fit's the scenario of biblical creation, evolutionists interpret the evidence in light of the scenario of evolution and dare I say it, the big bang theory.

Gordon said...

Well I don't agree with you, and the great thing is that I don't have to.

I do believe in free speech. I allowed you to respond to me here, unlike your blog which does not even allow comments!

Alan said...

"I do believe in free speech. I allowed you to respond to me here, unlike your blog which does not even allow comments!"Tsk tsk. Free speech advocate and judgemental. In one breath!

I never realised the settings on my blog were so until we started this conversation. I think I have rectified that.

I have had some colourful abuse from 'atheists' in the past and must have changed the setting.

Of course, you could have worked that one out rather than just judgmental!

I notice the comments here require approval. Thought police oversight! ;-)

Gordon said...

"I notice the comments here require approval. Thought police oversight! ;-)"No its just to prevent spam or the occasional expletive ridden response which people sometimes try to post.

I see where you are coming from, I used to be a creationist, but I don't agree with you, and I don't have to. This is the basis of western democracy and what separates us from theocratic states like Iran or England under Cromwell.

Alan said...

You're only real gripe with Dr McMurtry is his stance and belief on origins of species! The other stuff is just an attempt to side swipe him in the hope that you can damage his credibility.

Do you examine so closely those 'experts' who agree with your branch of science and atheism?

I would wager you don't.

On another note,
Have you ever considered what a catastrophic blunder you have made in jumping from Creationist to Evolutionists when evolution is highly improbable and screamingly impossible?

Come back, you know it makes sense.

Gordon said...

Well He doesn't really have much credibility as a scientist. He is more of a theologian.

The thing about evolution is that we keep finding evidence that fits what we would expect to find if evolution was correct. Its overwhelming really, and people like McMurtry, Ken Ham and John McKay rely on misrepresenting evolution as "random chance" or overstating their own expertise to prevent anyone feeling like they can answer back.

I am not an expert on evolutionary biology. I am also not an expert on human medicine, but I am quite happy to accept the opinion of a medical doctor rather than a quack. The same goes for quack scientists making statements about evolution. I will tend to take their opinions with a pinch of salt.

Worse still, they give the impression that if you are not a creationist you can't be a true Christian, which is clearly not the case. I do not believe in God and I believe in evolution, but I know lots of people who so believe in God who also believe in evolution.

Zandorv said...

I just wanted to say that this is the first unbiased article I have been able to find about Dr. McMurtry on the web. Everything else has been from an entirely biased source. So, props to you for trying to be as unbiased as possible, whether you agree with the guy or not.

Alan said...

It would truly be an unbiased article if the writer was not an atheist. Atheists always have one agenda when writing or commenting about Christians - to defame them in anyway they can.

So, this is a lot of things; but unbiased? Never.

Gordon said...

It would truly be an unbiased article if the writer was not an atheist. Atheists always have one agenda when writing or commenting about Christians - to defame them in anyway they can.

So, this is a lot of things; but unbiased? Never.
I find that quite insulting considering that many of my friends and family are Christians.

Christianity and creationism are not synonymous. If it was proved that evolution was not true it would not automatically follow that God did it.

You also seem to have odd ideas about atheism. I don;t believe in God. I don't hate Christians or hate the Church, but I do believe in freedom of thought and freedom of expression. Do you, or would you rather this article was deleted?

Alan said...

"I find that quite insulting considering that many of my friends and family are Christians."

Let's not be silly about this Gordon. We're both big boy's. Getting offended by truth is painful but I'm sure you'll be okay soon.

Try and look beneath the surface. That is the surface and veneer that we present to the world. At least admit that in this case and with this guy, you have an agenda that is firmly based and rooted in your 'world view' and atheism!

If you visit the atheist central (Richard Dawkin's forum) you will clearly see that most atheists do have a single reson d'etre. (pardon the bad French) God haters.

Gordon, dont say you're not a God hater because the evidence is there. Jesus said, "you are either for me or against me!" There is no middle ground.


"Christianity and creationism are not synonymous. If it was proved that evolution was not true it would not automatically follow that God did it."

What would follow Gordon? Creationism is as old as Adam and has never changed. If you really actually read some Creation science journals instead of making sweeping comments based on guess's and second hand information, maybe you would actually know why it is that so many people believe as I do.

Also, Christians who believe in evolution are just plain ignorant. Wishy washy lukewarm jokers who need to read the Bible rather than watch the Discovery channel.

Not everyone who goes to church on a Sunday or even who takes to the pulpit are 'Christians.'

Gordon said...

Enough said really!

Pastoral Metodista - Escolar e Universitária said...

I want to write to you by email, is it posible?

Gordon said...

Hello
If you wish to email me you will find my contact details here:

http://www.hudson.nu/contact.html

I am the author of this article. I am not Dr Grady McMurtry!
If you want to contact him you will need to go to his web site www.creationworldview.org

X. Dell said...

Excellent post. You managed to a very sharp criticism without polemnics. You make a very compelling argument here that Dr. McMurtry's background would proclude expertise in the sciences necessary to sustain serious argument. And, of course, there's little doubt as to his parentage.

Thanks for linking me to this page.

Christopher Crentsil said...

hey guys. I don't wish to go to deep in today. As i am on my phone and can not write too intensely. I'd like to say though...

The way the world is of course there is some atheists that hate christians and vice versa. Remember though evolution theory is just a theory and such is a choice of belief. Science although fundamentally claims to be based on observations often in the past as far back as i have read into, theory after theory based on observations which has led down wrong paths before of course not all theories.

My message is one of humility. Knowledge is only power to one who is wise to use it.

The bible teaches us that the scholars of this world who proclaim to be wise he shall made foolish.

I think this is very interesting topic. I don't believe it's fair to judge or verify someones information based on there position or qualification. People often maybe more often than not abuse a position of power. Scientists and priests alike. So to assume someones information is more credible because of such things seem unwise to me. To accept anything without a full understanding of what your signing up to. If you do choose to do so i think it's important to bare in mind that you are subject ( in my opinion ) to the same criticisms as religious believers are subject too.

My opinion anyway.

Michael said...

This is great. I just moved from the Detroit area and this man is a regular speaker on a local Christian talk radio show. He is always referred to as an "astrophysicist" and "former Evolution Scientist turned Creation Scientist." This article needs to be read before each introduction of this man.

Eternal Holy Youth said...

Yes! Grady Louis McMurtry, Hymenaeus Alpha 777 of the OTO is this guy's father. This can be confirmed somewhere here: http://www.cornelius93.com/ContentsPage.html
If you scroll down about a couple of pages you'll see many articles by and about Grady (Sr.)This is the website of Jerry Cornelius, Achad Osher 583 Grady's spiritual heir. He discussed Grady's son in a post on his blog some time ago.

Mike said...

This is a bizarre page. It reminds me of politicans making personal attacks rather than tackling issues head on. I was hoping to find a discussion of the content of Dr McMurtry's lectures and writings. For example, the distance of the Moon from Earth, year on year; volcanoes; magnetic fields; all of which provide evidence that the Earth is new (1000s of years old) that is so compelling that it demands an answer from those who say it is billions of years old, a view which appears to be pure theory.

It is vitally important that Christians deliver good science (for example Sir John Houghton), for the quest for truth means that faith in God and science go hand in hand. I would love to see an intelligent discussion.

By the way, you don't need to stoop to subterfuge to delve into Dr McMurtry's past. Why not give him a call? If he wanted to hide who his father was, he would have changed his name. It's a pretty unusual one after all.

Mike Buckland, MA Modern Languages (Cambridge University) and a lover of Christ and science.

Gordon said...

The purpose of this article is to examine his qualifications and the reason for doing so is because he makes considerable capital of his qualifications.

This article has no stated intention to deal with any of those issues you have listed. There are many web sites out there devoted to doing such things.

Alchemist87 said...

I've actually debated McMurtry at a US college with my colleagues. He is nothing more than a fast-talking old-school YEC possessing no valid credentials in biology and a Bible-school doctorate from an institution that is harder to find than Jimmay Hoffa. As is typical of most of his kind, he is all fancy rhetoric with no substance. Old, tired, worn-out, long-debunked junk sums it up.

Good work, Gordon, on exposing this chap's background.

sabertooth1980 said...

Gordon has the upper hand in this "debate". Alan has had to resort to red herrings and logical fallacies for his claims.

ballroom said...

Thanks for this - I DO NOT HAVE THE knowledgwe scientific or otherwise to make any significant impact on this discussion, but what I have noticed is that so far we have not concentrated on WHAT Dr M is saying, and how credible it is. Qualifications should not be so important as the substance of his claims etc. I saw one where he had some photographic evidence that this chap HAECKEL (an early big name in Evolution in the 1800's) had fraudulently claimed that our human foetuses are identical to dog ones, and that he had faked it. Well, surely that is significant, and notable evidence. At school I was taught that making assumptions, in science or otherwise, is unwise, and this seems to me to be what Evolutionists from Darwin onwards have done quite consistently. Their evidence has been proved by Dr M to be flawed, especially in the Carbon14 area. Surely, someone out there knows the truth about this, apart from tearing Dr McMurtry apart? BTW, X.Dell, it just did not understand your post, or where you are coming from. Are you on Dr M's side, or Gordon's? To me, qualifications are irrelevant, if one has credible or reliable evidence. Facts, facts, facts.

Gordon said...

This article does not address any of his claims, just his qualifications. Grady McMurtry makes various claims and has various opinions. Rather than collating incontrovertible evidence he tends to use rhetorical questions and then reinforce his opinions with his apparent qualifications and scientific background. Its quite misleading as he is not even a doctor of science, but he does nothing to dispel the conception that he might be when he gets interviewed.

There are plenty of places to debate creation vs evolution. This is not one of them.

Alastair Carnegie said...

A good Christian friend asked me to check out Dr Grady S McMurtry, and this blog looked interesting. As a Roman Catholic Priest, I guess I should declare a strong 'Thological Bias'. I also hold a 'Honorary Doctorate' from Proffessor Sher Singh Sher (Lion of Lions)who was my guest c. 1973/74 when he came to address the Lambeth Conference and also our UK Parliament. There may be a record of this at The Golden Temple. Professor Sher Singh Sher left me with the parting words "Seek and you shall find" (A pun, I suspect)...I adore mathematics and physics, and am an avid 'groupie' of both subjects. Dr Grady S McMurtry's theories are certainly on the edge of the bell curve...and may chime with a few enthusiastic followers, but are not quite my cup of tea. On the subject of 'Theological Time' (I am qualified to speak on the subject) there is a very interesting Vedic Chronology. Lord Brahma, who is Lord Mahavisnu's micro-expansion, Lord Garbokashayivisnu's empowered creator of this micro-cosmos, He lives for 101 years and one day, plus a very precice extra time. Lord Brahma's year is 360 days, (as we have 360 degrees in a circle) His days are of 12 hours duration, as are His nights. He creates during His days, and replenishes His Cosmos at night (Maintanance) Lord Brahma's 'second' is equivalent to a Lakh or 100,000 of our terrestrial years. 12 x 60 x 60 x 100,000 = 4.32 Billion years, about as long as our planet has existed. Now read the Vedic commentary on the extra allotted time just past the 101 years and a day, and obtain the value of "Pi" to 33 sinnificant figures. Neat! and a nice way to educate children with a 'memorable' version of the ratio of the diameter to the circumference of a circle. Let's not go into the ancient 'calculus' Kalakalanayaam... thousnds of years old....blah!

Steve France said...

Hello
'many professiing christians believe in evolution'...

REALLY? Where did you get this from? Probably just your view and you state it as fact? Just like evolutionists do.

Your belief system and presuppositions are reflected completely truthfully by what God himself says about you..

You're a sinner
You hate God
You dont want to believe in God
You are of the devil and not of God

God tells is the book of Romans, chapter 1, verse 18-20 through Paul.. "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse"

Because of your sin nature you rebell against God. You are stubborn and selfish, and do not wish to repent of your sins as God the son, Jesus Christ tells you to do. Look at nature, look at the human body, look at the universe.

Its design and order all over the place.. God's glory is cleary seen.

Luke 17:26-27 says.."Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all"

Be warned... you can disbelieve, but God is speaking to you every day dude through creation. I pray you repent, and believe.

Gordon said...

How can you make these sort of statements about me without ever having met me or knowing me?

You're a sinner - presumably so are you.
You hate God - how can I hate someone I don't believe exists?
You dont want to believe in God - I would dearly love to believe in God, but the problem is evidence.
You are of the devil and not of God - thats a cop out really, so anyone who disagrees with you on a point of doctrine is of the devil?

This idea that I somehow hate Christians is entirely bogus. I have lots of Christian friends and family members. I work full time for a Christian organisation and work closely with local ministers of evangelical denominations. I have good relations with these people (presumably you assume they must be of the devil as well if they "consort" with me).

Where does it say in the bible that salvation is in any way linked to believing in a young earth and creationism?

Answer: There is no link between the two and I covered this in this article:

http://www.ecalpemos.org/2009/04/can-you-be-christian-and-believe-in.html

If it was that important then Jesus or Paul would have made a big thing out of it. They clearly didn't.

If you would like to read about how I found myself without faith you can read an article here:

http://www.ecalpemos.org/2008/01/from-christian-to-atheist.html

charles allan said...

WHAT ABOUT DARWIN AND LYELL'S QUALIFICATIONS ?
Darwin failed in everything and then scraped a degree in Theology.
Lyell was a lawyer and knew nothing about geology.
It is the TRUTH that matters not qualifications. But if your into qualifications
why believe Darwin and Lyell and Dawkins and
Attenborough who comment outside their field
of expertise all the time.
I heard that Dawkins refused a debate with BEHE
since it was out of his field.

Scientists still believe in Darwins crazy theory. But Darwin had more excuse since he
thought a cell was a blob.

An average standard grade student has more knowledge about cellular biology than Darwin had.
Peer review ? does this box ticking exercise
mean anything when dangerous drugs get "peer review" ???

Gordon you are wrong about Jesus Paul and Peter.
They said that on the deliberate ignoring of the creation sentence will be pronounced.

Eg " God is known by the things he has made.............

charles allan said...

SELECTION OF THE FITTEST IS NOT A DESIGN MECHANISM.
Even evolutionists now admit this - it can select the fastest antelope - but it would still be an antelope.
It cant redesign the DNA of a bear into a whale
which is what Darwin thought - he knew nothing
about DNA . What are YOUR qualifications for
making this statement.

Gordon said...

This article is not about creation vs evolution.

The issue of qualifications is not that Dr McMurtry has none, but that he claims to have them, but doesn't. He does his argument no favours by doing this.

Most Christians do not believe in creationism and accept evolution. Until the early 1990's it was entirely possible to be an evangelical Christian in the UK without being a creationist. Now the creationist position is being made a touchstone of people's faith and this is wrong, as is the move towards a denial of reason in all its forms as a test of faith.

charles allan said...

Gordon thanks for publishing my last two comments. I listen to Grady a lot and have found nothing he is saying contradicts other maybe more qualified scientists.

Such things as ALL coal carbon dating to around 40,000 years.
There should not be a trace left.
Same with diamonds C14 dating to 40,000 years. Fossils are dating around 40,000 years.

In a national geographic program they documented how a deer turned into a whale. They did not explain how about 3 billion characters of DNA code of a deer changed into a
whales DNA that can capture squid
12000 ft under the sea. This is unscientific fairy story with no evidence whatsoever.
How would the DNA of a deer know how to change its DNA into say a sonar device better than any human can make. How does the whale /deer evolve an underwater feeding mechanism at the same time as its offspring. You dont need a PHD to see the impossibility of this.
I have been in education for 25 years and I am not impressed by a paper qualification but how the student thinks.
Dawkins and Attenborough are really taxonomists. Eg two stone
bones look the same so the creatures must be related. But they always talk and write out of their fields.

Compare the bones of a poodle and
a great dane - totally different -but they are still dogs.

The theory of evolution does not even have a rationale now that the
DNA code has been discovered.

I can give you lots of quotes from
diehard but honest evolutionists who say they have found nothing to support the theory in 150 years.

They know that selection of the fittest cannot design a new creature but can sometimes select the most suitable DNA in a species
eg for a racehorse or a carthorse
but still horses.

I have never seen him pushing his qualifications and we all have skeletons in our family history - whats his ancestors got to do with what he is saying.

Jesus was a creationist who said if you dont believe the books of Moses you will not believe in me. In that way an eternal sentence
was pronounced on the rich man's brothers .
Frightening yes - have a look at Dr Rawlings
website ONCE a athiest cardiac surgeon . He brings people back from the dead- terrifying.

Gordon said...

I don't want to extend this into a debate about evolution, but if someone is giving an apparently scientific presentation and has the title "Dr" the logical assumption is that the person is a scientist, not someone with an honorary doctorate in theology. At the time Grady McMurtry was launched in the UK by Revelation TV there was great emphasis placed on his qualifications because this gave his claims greater authority to the general public. He often talks about being brought up in a University where his father was a professor and that he spent time in the science labs. However, his father was a lecturer in political science, not science science. That's why his family background is important.

Gordon said...

If belief in creationism is not necessary to be a Christian then why make a big thing of it? Surely it will just put people off. I know it puts me off! 20 years ago it was not the touchstone of orthodoxy that it is now.

I don't think Jesus did believe in Genesis 1-3 as a historical record. He was a Jew so he would have been able to recognise the poetry and metaphor. Just as there does not need to be a literal prodigal son, there does not need to be a literal Adam.

I can't imagine Jesus believing that God put Adam to sleep, removed a rib and made Eve from it. God would not need to do that to create Eve. The reason its there is as a poetic way of explaining the relationship between male and female. If you take it as a historical record you lose a lot of the message it contains.

bonnie43uk said...

Hi Gordon, I have just seen one of Dr McMurty's lectures on Revelation tv. I thought i would check out his credentials, I could find nothing on Wikipedia ( apart from a page on his father, and his links with Alister Crowley). He made a big point in his lecture about the fallacy of "random chance" & "survival of the fittest", I would have thought someone of his "alledged" calibre would have a decent grasp on the workings of evolution.

charles allan said...

GORDONS BLOG RE EVOLUTION

Bonnie - if you know anything about evolution you will understand
that Darwins " natural selection "
is NOT a DESIGN process. Darwin's Finches are still Finches and his Iguanas are still Iguanas. The Finch's beak has an inbuilt mechanism to adapt to surroundings.

Darwin had an excuse - he knew nothing about cellular biology
and failed everything except " Theology - which with his dad's influence - you know.....nice big house etc.

Your DNA contains a 3 billion
character code all about you.
It is wrapped into every cell in your body . It is 7 foot long and never gets tangled.

It is your code and is fixed and even corrects itself for errors.

Don't worry your descendants will not be " selected" to turn into a bird or a whale.

What Dr Mcmurtry is saying is backed up by intelligent design scientists Like Behe and Denton.

So you should look at what he is saying rather than scrummaging about his past. Lyell the “ father”
of geology was a lawyer .

To believe evolution you have to believe that a pig cow or Darwins Bear redesigned its DNA BY ACCIDENT into a squid chasing whale - which can dive to 12000 feet.
Have you ever thought of any fish
evolving out of the sea into an mammal - then evolving back into a whale ??????

Can you give me one intermediate
example - their should be thousands
as Darwin himself said.

CHRISTIAN Love from 6 day creationist Christian - Charles Allan .

charles allan said...

Bonnie why not listen to what he is saying
rather than trying to dish the dirt on him and
his family. We all have skeletons in our cupboards.
He is not the only creationist and
also says that a scientific belief in creationism is not necessary for salvation as long as you believe that God is all powerful and Jesus came in the flesh was crucified and rose from the daed.

Ben said...

Charles, there are a few obvious "intermediates" from a land-going mammal to a whale. Look at hippopotami or manatees, for instance.

If you're interested in understanding evolutionists' arguments, I recommend talkorigins.org or pandasthumb.org as two excellent resources. They should be able to address many of your objections.

charles allan said...

Ben talk origins is an evolutionary website which looks as if it is fairly discussing .
The Hippo and Manatee are creatures in their own right - they are not recognised as intermediates by any authority.

Here are some honest evolutionists :-
Colin Patterson Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum of natural history " It is easy to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another ... but such stories are not part of science”

“fossils may tell us many things but one thing they can never disclose is whether they are ancestors of anything else “.

“We have access to the tips of the tree , the tree is a theory , and the people who pretend to know about the tree and to describe what went on it – how the branches came off and the twigs came off … are I think telling stories”


Stephen Jay Gould scientist and famous evolutionist “ the lack of intermediate life forms “ persists as the trade secret of palaeontology”

American museum of natural history - Niles Eldridge “ we palaeontologists have said the history of life supports …. the story of gradual adaptive change … all the while knowing that it does not”.

Professor David Kitts – geology - uni of Oklahoma - a convinced evolutionist “ evolution requires intermediate forms between species and palaeontology does not provide them”

I can give you many more – nothing has been found after 150 years - don't be duped by false science.

Darwin thought adaptation was evolution – his finches are still finches and iguanas just swimming iguanas . A poodle is a dog just like a great Dane – not evolution – merely breeding and they look totally different .

Why not study "answers in Genensis"

I became a Christian at 35 only after I had
removed all doubts about evolution and became
a creationist - which I have studied for 25 years - so I know all about talk origins.

Selection of the fittest is not evolution - you
can select the fittest antelope but evolution
means one creature evolving into another creature. Darwin was confused here due to lack
of knowledge - he was not trained - there was
no cellular biology in those days .

Email said...

Having watched dr. grady and this new guest named brother eli in revelation tv. I am pretty much convinced with brother eli's explanation about the age of the earth, very englightening. I think dr. grady is just pretending to be scientist. I find dr. gradys arguments very ridiculous.

charles allan said...

email -His arguments are not his own they are based on science and
many creationist scientists agree with him. Darwin Dawkins and Attenborough pretend to be scientists but none of them were trained in this discipline. Darwin
had no qualifications as a scientist - have you read all the blogs ?

Is God's word in the Bible true or false - this is what you only can decide - but the latest scientific
evidence is that it is true.
Lyell the lawyer who kick started
Darwin had no scientific qualifications whatsoever.
Please read the rest of the blogs.

Gordon said...

Was there really a good Samaritan? If there wasn't does it make the story contain any less truth? Something does not need to be literally true to contain truth so suggesting that denying the literalness of Genesis is to deny the Christian message is nonsense. I say that given that whoever wrote Genesis was not_there when the events depicted happened.

charles allan said...

Gordon - why would an all powerful
creator God be unable to give us the literal truth of his Bible.
Jesus said " if they will not believe the books of Moses they will not believe in Him". If we say the Genesis account is false then we are left with evolution.

However there is no evidence for evolution or blind chance.

Why would God give us false account ????

There is also the evidence of prophecies especially about Jesus
which were fulfilled.

Gordon said...

The Bible is not entirely literal. it includes poetry, allegory and other forms of writing. You are making the mistake of tying the concept of "truth" with the faithful reporting of historical events. Truth can be obtained in other forms of writing such as the parables of Jesus (which are not true in the way you use that word).

charles allan said...

Gordon
Bible study shows clearly where there is allegory or metaphor eg the song of Solomon etc but the Genesis account is literal truth.
I actually take as literal the good Samaritan
and the rich man in hell since Jesus would know all past and present history.
If you could give me an example of where you
think that the Bible is not true.
However there are plenty of Bible believing websites which explain this better than I could.

Gordon said...

Unfortunately you have not got my point at all, which is that truth is not defined by historicity. Truth can be contained in an entirely fictional story. I suspect most fundamentalists have a very materialistic worldview and are unable to see how that could be the case.

Anonymous said...

In a Revelation TV programme - Nov 2010
Dr Grady Mc. suggested that the Earth's orbit was slowing down as the Babylonians had 360 days in a year - giving rise to the 360 degrees in a circle.
This is misleading as the Sumarians in the 3rd mil. BC had already mathematically calculated pi based on base 60 and had divided the circle in 6 equal parts.
This formula was assumed latter by the Babylonians, who incidentally based their year on LUNAR cycles - 29/30 days - giving a roughly a 360 day measurement for a year.
Similarly, the Hebrew calander also based their year on LUNAR cycles and a year equalled 12 cycles, although every 2nd/3rd year the calander was adjusted to 13 cycles. This now forms the basis for the Jewish calander.
Both the Julian and Gregorian calanders employ SOLAR cycles = roughly 365 days for a calculated year - although lunisolar calculations are still used to establish the date of Easter.
Contrary to Dr Grady Mc's assertion that the Earth's orbit about the Sun has slowed, the reality is that its orbit has nothing to do with decreasing velocity, but the method of measurement of a yaer - lunar or solar orbits.
Indeed, if we assume Dr Grady Mc is correct - then the Earth must historically and culturally orbit at different rates - Babylonian, Hebrew, Gregorian and even Buddhists calculate their year on lunar observaions.

Anonymous said...

Charles Allan - Anon. I am not really into the calender year studies but the Bible does say that the earth and the universe will wear out like a cloth.
( Peter)
Eg the moon has been moving away from earth so it should have disappeared into space or have started so close to the earth as to be impossible - IF evolution was true (eg 4 billion years x by
3-4 inches per year).

Plus the Bible says GOD stopped the sun for Joshua and also made it go backwards to reassure
Hezekiah that he was healed.
I read a study on this reconciling it to Calendar changes.

However a lot of creationists are
not yet fully acquainted with
Mr Sugenis's and Mr Bennet's book
"Galileo was wrong the church was right". Mr Bennet is a physicist.

This looked crazy to me until I
read that many astronomers - atheists like Hubble and Hoyle
said you could not prove heliocentrism or geocentrism.
Nasa still uses geocentric calculations. Einstien also said this as a result of relativity we cannot prove either system.

Galileo was not really debating the Pope but his fellow scientists.
All the Pope asked him to do was not make a pronouncement until the debate was finished. Galileo was
imprisoned in luxury but still held
to his equations which other astronomers were debunking.


Many astronomers and physicists (athiest and believers)
hold a geocentric position - if you Google up "the earth is not moving" or Galileo was wrong the church was right".

So what I am getting at is the rotation of the universe around the earth ( which is still) is slowing down.

This may sound ridiculous but look
up the websites.

The Magisterium has not changed its
position on this since it holds that scripture must be infallible.

Anon. IF you are into this kind of study let me know what you think.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics would point to the fact that the universe is slowing down due I think mainly to friction.

The Universe had to start with energy - where did it come from ?????

Anonymous said...

GORDON
Charles Allan
GORDON -why are you moving away from your first love of Jesus and embracing this Darwinion athiestist
nonsense - he was not qualified and his beliefs were based on a fear of Hell. He was transported onto then world stage by Lyell an athiestic masonic lawyer who aim was to remove Moses from science.

Get back to your first love of Jesus before it is too late . IE
It would have been better never to have known salvation than to turn back from it (PETER). I pray you repent and turn back now or you will end up eternally separated from God in Hell where the worm dieth not and the flames are never extinguished .

Gordon said...

Charles, you seem to be saying that to be a Christian a person has to believe in a young earth. As the earth is clearly a lot older than this (for various observable reasons, not least that all the species known to have existed could not have lived at the same time in one stable ecosystem) then it means that it is a faith based on a lie.

However, if a young earth is taken out of the equation as a requirement for salvation then all bets are off, because the claims of Jesus are metaphysical and therefore not testable.

I find it very sad that Christianity has taken the approach that it has to depend on a lie to prove its validity when it could explore things like the teachings of Jesus which seem to have at least some relevance to everyday life.

Anonymous said...

Am just watching another Revelation Tv programme broadcast 1am 14th Nov 2010.
It is a repeat programme - Howard Conder said the date was 29th Jan - without giving the year.
The programme was a two-way discussion between HC and Dr GM.
During the initial conversation, Dr GM said his was 61 - if he was born in Nov 46 - the exact date of the live programme must have been 29th Jan 2007. (HC later said that they were on Genesis TV)
HC read out the alleged credentials of Dr GM - indicating that Dr GM had sceience degrees without specifying the exact science discipline.
Dr GM then indicated that his father was a Professor at Berkley - this is contrary to other evidence to indicate that his father as a teacher assistant.
Dr GM claimed that he had assess to the paleontology labs at Berkley and started teaching evoluion from the age of 8 and continued teaching evolution to both children and adults for the next ten years.
As the programme continued, HC clearly stated that Dr GM had advanced science qualificaions in paleontology - this was not denied by Dr GM who continued to offer a long debate on dinosaurs.
During this discussion Dr GM made very evident mistakes:
1. Describing dinosaur and bird bones, he said that birds have hollow bones, 'unlike humans who have solid bones.'
2. He claimed that Mary Schwestzerlt who discovered a dinosaur fossil with 'flesh' was being stopped from presenting her findings.
Indeed, the BBC News Mar 2005, broadcast the finding and the New Scientist April 2007 presented an article on the fossil's 'soft' collagen. The article indicated that the dinosaur's collagen reacted with chicken callagen and its DNA was similar to frog and newts - scientific evidence that in fact support evolution.
3. During the phone-in period, 'Dr GM said hat scientist will deliberately deny the exisence of 'small dinosaurs' as they want to make money by impressing the public.
4. Dr GM claimed that the speed of light is slowing down and this has been measurable since 1675 - he did not mention the alleged measuring intrument. He also claimed that the speed of light could have been '10 million' times faster than it is at the moment. Again this was another isolated, unqualified statement.
At 2am the programme is still being broadcast and I am going to bed.

Anonymous said...

Additional note:
At 2.10am Dr GM announced in the repeat programm that he was an expert in Hebrew from he age of 8 and he has written books on Hebrew calanders.
If this is the case, then I am grossly surprised that he has made a fundamental mistake - vis-a-vis my earlier comments re calanders.

While writing this, in answer to a phone-in, Dr GM idicated that a baby is 'fully-fomed at 8 weeks - it just gets bigger'.
Specialists will disagree - a baby's lungs, for example, are not fully-formed until about 22 weeks.
And he calls himself a scientist!!!!

Anonymous said...

Charles Allan says :-
Gordon I can't see why all the species could not live on the earth at the same time. Where is the evidence for this ? The pre flood climate was much more amenable.
The evidence points to a young earth eg coal oil and diamonds date to around 40,000 years. C14 is now found deep in the fossils layers when there should be young.

There is no evidence for evolution
- it is faith based.

Jesus did not lie - He said if you
not believe the books of Moses you will not believe in Him and his line in traced back to Adam.

It is important because evolutionary phylosophy has turned
many from the Gospel.

Anonymous said...

Anon. Charles Allan : Dr Mary S. sawed a dino bone in two and said she found what appeared to blood corpuscles. There is a lot of debate about this - why not look up
a creationist site on this.
Obviously the evolutionists came down on this like a ton of bricks
and eventually obfuscated the arguments and a long time later said it was rust.
I wonder if you have heard of the film Expelled. It is not helpful to scientific careers to be a creationist.

National Geographic has pictures
of soft dino tendons which had been
hydrated - have you ever heard of
70 million year old meat ??

The speed of light has been slowing
down according to measurements over
about the last 400 years.

DNA was created and used by God to create all creatures - we have about 50% of our DNA in common with
bananas - this does not mean a thing. We have more of our DNA in
common with other creatures and plants.
Two houses built of similar materials does not mean one house "evolved" from another.
They still had to be designed and built.

It is impossible for a code like DNA to have made itself in a muddy
pool - even a simple mold can have
around 500,000 base pairs.
Why not go to one of Behe's lectures currently in the UK.

As for a baby being fully formed at
8 weeks I think there are websites
on this but it depends what you mean by fully formed.

A car can be made fully formed but
will not go until we put petrol in it.

Anonymous said...

Anon. As for honesty in science
Haeckels fraudulent drawings of
"re capitulation in the womb" are
still in school textbooks among
lots of other unproven faith based
evolutionary theories.
Haeckel was expelled for fraud.

Anonymous said...

Anon - there are plenty of websites
which say a baby is fully formed by
8 weeks - some say 12 weeks but it is still growing.
As for the Calendar stuff I have never studied this.

Anonymous said...

Anon - the speed of light has been
measured since about 1650.

"Alan Montgomery, the Canadian mathematician, has also analyzed the data statistically and has concluded that the decay of c, the velocity of light, has followed a cosecant-squared curve with a correlation coefficient of better than 99%. "

A New Perspective

"This curve would imply that the speed of light may have been 10-30% faster in the time of Christ; twice as fast in the days of Solomon; and four times as fast in the days of Abraham. It would imply that the velocity of light was more than 10 million times faster prior to 3000 b.c. This possibility would also totally alter our concepts of time and the age of the universe. The universe might actually be less than 10,000 years old!"
I read recently that scientists had
slowed down light , stopped it and restarted it again ?

Joshua said...

Charles Allan, you claim to have studied 'creation science' for 25 years? Now, aside from 'creation science' being an oxymoron, I'd like to debate the science behind it. I have no real qualifications as of yet, although I'm currently studying for an undergraduate degree in Biological Sciences at the University of Sheffield so would like to think I do have some authority on the subject, however small.

If you wish to email me, you should be able to find my email address from this comment as I've posted under my google account.

Gordon, this is an excellent article. I came across this guy on youtube, and as with any creation 'scientist' I became sceptical of the way he uses his title 'doctor'. So just wanted to check his qualifications out for myself and now I see that it is actually fraudulent. I'm pretty sure that in the UK unless you have a doctorate from an accredited establishment, be that an MD, PhD, DD, it has to be accredited otherwise it is against the law to use the title Dr. in your credentials.

So on Revelation TV, this guy could be breaking UK law although I'm not sure of US law.

I'm thinking this because of 'Dr' Gillian McKeith in the UK was sued for using the title Dr as it was misleading as she had an unaccredited PhD so I'm guessing the same applies here.

Many thanks

Josh

charles allan said...

Joshua
Not sure what this obsession with
qualifications is about but if you read the blogs he seems to be allowed to call himself doctor.
It is about facts - are they true
or false.
Darwin was a theologian and Lyell was a lawyer and no one has called them to question yet their theories remain unchanged and
unproven for 150 years.
Why not read all my blogs from July and see what you don't agree with.
Many of my comments are anonymous
since google often rejects password.

Charles

charles allan said...

Joshua I went to the Michael Behe
lecture in Glasgow Caledonian uni- it was sold out. I was with a biology student. The evidence for ID of the human cell and flagellum is overwhelming. The lecture was well received.
PS Talk Origins website is evolutionary so you are highly
unlikely to get a balanced viewpoint - but it usually pops up first if you are googling.

One of my beliefs is that DNA
cannot be changed by genetic damage
into a new creature -millions or billions of changes are involved.

Darwin thought a bear might change
into a whale but he was a self taught taxonomist and knew nothing
about DNA and cellular biology.

Useful information cannot be added
to the genome by random mutations
in order to produce say eg whale sonar.
Google up Prof Richard "Dawkins
Stumped" not about the pause
but his confused answer re adding information to the Genome.

Joshua said...

Wow Charles, you've just basically regurgitated what the creationists and IDiots have taught. You clearly have no idea of how evolution ACTUALLY works.

For your points, one by one:

Evolution certainly has been proven over the last 150 years, and it has been proven COUNTLESS times. I'll come onto the evidence later on.

Irreducible complexity. It's a grand idea and certainly would disprove evolution by natural selection if an example ever was found. But frankly, a proper example has never been found, and all examples put forward by Intelligent Designers have been debunked. Even the fabled 'flagellum'.

Here is a video detailing how a fully functional flagellum could evolve through multiple functional intermediates. Each step involves the modification of only a single protein.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w

So the flagellum has been debunked - evolution could certainly give rise to a complex flagellum through random changes through mutation with natural selection favouring the beneficial mutations and weeding out the harmful ones.

Onto your point about DNA mutations:

"One of my beliefs is that DNA
cannot be changed by genetic damage
into a new creature -millions or billions of changes are involved."

I wholeheartedly agree!

NO biologist would EVER claim that it could! And the fact is, thousands of mutations are indeed required for macro evolution - this exactly what you get. However, only one mutation happens at a time and this happens over millions of years, it's not a giant leap, it's progressive one mutation after another.

Joshua said...

Just realised I haven't actually provided any evidence yet of evolution. I'll come onto that in the next post after yours, but just in case you think I'm fishing for time, here's what I'll be covering: ERVs, atavisms, fossils, chromosomal fusion, and that should be it for it. I already know what I'm gonna say pretty much so yeah we'll come on to them after I've read yours, I just felt my post was becoming a little lengthy.

Thanks,

Josh

Gordon said...

The irreducibly complex argument is bogus. Behe uses the example of a mousetrap, forgetting that every part of a mousetrap has other potential uses. You can see this explained in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW_2lLG9EZM

Or as Richard Dawkins explains, half a wing is better than no wing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTP6Pnjb4BI

However, this article is not really about evolution vs creation. What upsets me is that misrepresentation of someone as an expert when they are not.

In the McKeith case it was the Advertising Standards Authority who prevented her using the title "Dr" as it would be assumed to mean more than it does to a UK audience. Until recently UK qualifications were given lower names than US ones. For example, all ministers in the US tend to have an MDiv which is an undergraduate degree. MDiv here is a research based postgraduate degree. They also hav "taught" doctorates in the US, something we don't have here. Getting a PhD in the UK is a serious business requiring novel research. Here in Scotland it used to be even stricter and you couldn't get a bachelors degree without doing subjects in other faculties over four years. The need for foreign students money has reduced these requirements and where we had "faculties" we now have "schools".

charles allan said...

Gordon – that the mousetrap can be used for other purposes is totally fallacious.
The other “purpose” would still have to be intelligently designed and made.

I could take a car engine and make a water pump using the pistons and drive
it with the battery and flywheel etc but this does not mean that the car AND
the water pump were not intelligently designed.

This was adequately covered by BEHE. The evolutionists had to devise a get
out scenario – but what a weak one

charles allan said...

Half a wing is useless

charles allan said...

Josh you are right you have not said much
about how complex biological machinery can design and make itself whether slowly or quickly.
I do know what evolutionists believe-
the 150 year old theory of an untrained man
who did not have the tools of the trade and admitted there was no evidence of gradual
transformation through intermediates.
He did not even know about genetics.

NATURAL SELECTION is not a design mechanism -
it can select the fastest antelope but it remains an antelope.

Here are some honest evolutionists :-

Colin Patterson Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum of natural history " It is easy to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another ... but such stories are not part of science”

“fossils may tell us many things but one thing they can never disclose is whether they are ancestors of anything else “.

“We have access to the tips of the tree , the tree is a theory , and the people who pretend to know about the tree and to describe what went on it – how the branches came off and the twigs came off … are I think telling stories”


Stephen Jay Gould scientist and famous evolutionist “ the lack of intermediate life forms “ persists as the trade secret of palaeontology”

American museum of natural history - Niles Eldridge “ we palaeontologists have said the history of life supports …. the story of gradual adaptive change … all the while knowing that it does not”.

Professor David Kitts – geology - uni of Oklahoma - a convinced evolutionist “ evolution requires intermediate forms between species and palaeontology does not provide them”

I can give you many more – nothing has been found after 150 years - don't be duped by false science.


Darwin thought adaptation was evolution – his finches are still finches and iguanas just swimming iguanas . The finches have a built in
mechanism for adapting their beaks.

A poodle is a dog just like a great Dane – not evolution – merely breeding but they look completely different.

Darwin mistook breeding for evolution but it
has now been replaced by genetic damage.

I would prefer your own words rather than talk
origins (which is blatantly evolutionary) and other websites.

Could you give ONE example of useful information added to the genome - ie one useful
mutation - there should be billions or trillions. Professor Dawkins could not.

Could you state in your own words the stages
of say a deer and other mammal becoming a whale. Say ten stages. Where would it start
- How would random genetic damage know how to design sonar. The probability mathematics involved are mind boggling.

Dr Coppedge (stats) calculated that the chance
of a single protein molecule being arranged by
chance is 1 in 10 to the power of 161.
There are about 10> 80 atoms in the universe.

We would need numbers of 10 to the power of 81 universes for this protein to happen by chance.

This is ONE protein!

I did not think that Behe and thousands of other scientists that don't believe Darwins
were stupid.

It is just a denial of God's creation.

charles allan said...

Josh - mutations can go backwards as well as forwards - in other words mutations are clueless as to the end product - which needs
design . Prof Dawkins was quoted as saying
- biological machinery "looks" designed.
I will let those words speak for themselves.

Gordon said...

Half a wing is not useless as it would break your fall from a small height. Half sight might not let you read but it might stop you walking off the edge of a cliff.

However, not withstanding the evidence for or against evolution, my argument against the ID movement is that (and I quote from this article):

"Intelligent design is worse than creationism because it starts with a definite lie. By claiming “this is nothing to do with religion” intelligent design organisations, staffed by evangelical Christians with religious objectives, start from an immoral position which is at odds with the purported character of God (who is supposed to be true and righteous)."

I think this is an insurmountable problem for proponents of ID.

Gordon said...

I have written about Behe in this article:

http://www.ecalpemos.org/2010/12/behe-intelligent-design-and-christian.html

charles allan said...

INTELLIGENT DESIGN - watched the youtube.
He sat there intelligently designing a tieclip and said there is no intelligent design.

Who would make the tieclip which also had irreducible parts and complexity for a tieclip. What a fallacious argument for a scientist

Gordon said...

Charles, do you see my point about ID being based on a lie and therefore belittling the Christian faith?

Much better for people to be honest and say they are creationists.

charles allan said...

Prof Dawkins was quoted as saying - living things "appear" to have been intelligently designed.
Who designed the half wing or the "half" eye.

Denton and many other scientists who believe
in intelligent design are not Christians.

Some even believe aliens from outer space were
involved .

But you know it is to do with The God of Abraham Issac and Jacob - and you seem to deny
this.

Evolutionists often pretend that their science
is not against religion but they know fine well
it is. I guess evolutionary theory is the reason that you have lost your faith.

charles allan said...

Gordon - why would the truth be an insurmountable problem - why should a Christian
not preach design and allow the hearer to make
up his own mind about who did it.

Preaching about the creation was done in the Bible by Jesus Peter Paul and many others.

"God can be clearly seen in the things he has
made.......and condemnation was preached to those that supress the truth. There will be no excuse as Paul said.
I think you are swallowing a camel and choking on a gnat here.

charles allan said...

Well lets see all evolutionists state they are
athiests. I don't really see your point - it
is evidence both sides should looking at.

charles allan said...

Gordon - your arguments are incredible - I could use a paintbrush for many different uses
but someone had to design and manufacture the
paint brush - I just don't see what you are
trying to prove.

Gordon said...

So you are saying that its OK for ID people to lie and say they are not actually religious if its for the right ends?

Anyway this is way off topic now, but Christians do themselves no favours with this sort of nonsense. Sure, they can argue for creationism f they want, but don't lie about it.

Joshua said...

Charles, you're beginning to annoy me.

You're purposely gliding over points I'm making and rehashing bullshit from the creationists and intelligent design movement.

First off, I'm not rehashing things from talk origins. I've only ever been on that website a couple of times in reality, and in fact I'm synthesising knowledge from my university education; something that you probably don't understand.

Half a wing is not useless. As Gordon has rightly pointed out, even a couple of millimetres of extra surface area may give you just the amount of resistance you'd need to simply jump from one tree to another. That's advantageous.

You keep banging on about Darwin being untrained as he didn't know anything about genetics or the anatomy of the cell. You're right! That's what makes his theory even more beautiful. Yet what you fail to realise is that the discovery of DNA was probably the most groundbreaking evidence of its time in favour of evolution, but creationists will somehow claim that it wasn't. But I don't think most creationists understand how DNA works.

Natural Selection is a design mechanism, and it's quite easy to see how it is.

Imagine a block of ice. Keep chipping away at certain, non-random places in a structured manner and eventually you end up with a beautiful ice sculpture. Natural selection works in exactly the same way. It 'chips' away at the defective organisms that aren't adapted to living in their environment as well as ones who are, and eventually 'shapes' the gene pool. Even a moron can understand that, so will you at least please try to.

Joshua said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joshua said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joshua said...

PLEASE STOP QUOTE MINING. It's extremely dishonest, and shows you up to not only being a liar, but to also somebody who's got no real argument!

Firstly, just because those people said it, it doesn't make it true. You're using argument from authority which is a fallacy. Secondly, it's extremely dishonest. The 9th commandment is "Thou shalt not bear false witness" Yet that's EXACTLY what you're doing when you quote mine these people! You know full well that they believe in evolution, because you're stating that they're 'honest evolutionists' !!! So why take a tiny obscure quotation and then use it to justify your position?

As I've said, firstly it adds no weight to your argument whatsoever, and secondly it shows you up to be a downright liar.

Watch this video here about creationist immorality and quote mining:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoZW7-3YSns

Watch carefully when he comes to quote mining. It's extremely immoral so please stop or God's going to get very angry with you and may smite you for misrepresenting him. If you're trying to promote creationism and you're forced to do it by lying then you're not selling creationism to anyone.

That's all I'm gonna say on your quote mining now, so please stop because it's infuriating.

"Darwin thought adaptation was evolution"

Here you're sort of correct, but not just one adaptation, usually many. Adaptations produce variations, and if a species is somehow divided e.g. by geographical isolation, over thousands of years those species will undergo several adaptations, e.g. shifts in frequencies in the gene pool. If those species met up again somehow a couple of thousands of years later and the adaptations were so great that they could no longer mate with each other and produce viable offspring, thus speciation has occurred. There's been thousands of examples of this happening in the wild, and even set up in laboratory conditions with Drosophila (at my university I've seen research papers published on this myself).

Joshua said...

Here you say that you prefer if I use my own words rather than talk origins'. Charles, tell me, have you ever heard of the word 'hypocrisy' before??? Firstly, as I've stated before, I've only ever visited that website a few times, it's not my favourite place to go. Most of my information comes from reading and my university. Lectures and lecture notes are great but they only give you some information, true academics read as much literature on the subject they can. Seen as though evolution pertains greatly to my field of study, I'm quite well read on the subject and have read from many different sources, be it books, the internet, wikipedia's even good every so often, and finally sources that I'm almost positive that you've never read from; scientific peer-reviewed journals.

So stop saying I'm rehashing information from just one source, I find that highly offensive.

Joshua said...

"Could you give ONE example of useful information added to the genome ie one useful mutation - there should be billions or trillions. Professor Dawkins could not"

Firstly, if you'd ever bothered to read Dawkins for yourself and not listened to the lies creationists spout about him, you would've realised that Dawkins can and has given examples of beneficial mutations.

You ask for just one beneficial mutation, here's a list (quick search in Google does wonders) of many.

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

I'll go into detail about one which is only briefly mentioned here, and that's the beneficial production of an enzyme called nylonase. Now, as you may already know, nylon wasn't actually invented until 1935.

So here we have a bacteria, collectively dubbed as 'nylon-eating bacteria' that has been discovered in the 1970s which is able to digest a product that hasn't even existed for 50 years as it's a man-made product. So there would be absolutely no use for any enzymes able to digest the nylon before 1935 as there was no such thing!

But in 1970s these bacteria were discovered that had nylon-digesting capabilities. Bit strange eh?

This is a classic example of a beneficial mutation, and actually the mutation has been discovered and well documented. Basically, a frameshift mutation occurred (resulting in either the insertion or deletion of a base pair) causing the whole frame to 'shift' along, resulting in an entirely new protein being constructed - the nylonase enzyme.

Here's the reference to a scientific paper documenting the mutation:

Ohno, S. (1984) Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the preexisted internally repetitious coding sequence. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA vol(81), pp.2421-2425

Or here's a handy link to the article if you're clueless on how to find it: http://www.pnas.org/content/81/8/2421.abstract

Joshua said...

So I've given you many examples of beneficial mutations in the link provided, if you did a search yourself you'd find them too but you're too lazy to do that. I've even gone into detail about one such beneficial mutation producing an entirely new protein which is able to digest a product that's only just been invented. Please don't skip over this and pretend I never said it.

"Could you state in your own words the stages of say a deer and other mammal becoming a whale. Say 10 stages. Where would it start."

I'm not quite sure if you've deliberately put the deer in there to piss me off as a straw-man.

You before stated that Darwin thought a bear might change into a whale but I stated that Darwin never believed this. A deer would NEVER turn into a whale either. So I'm not sure whether you don't listen to what I say, are deliberately trying to be an arse, or are stupid enough to think that evolutionists really do believe deers change into whales.

http://darwiniana.org/landtosea.htm

Please follow that link for detail on how the whale evolved and transitional forms that have been found.

Joshua said...

"Dr Coppedge (stats) calculated that the chance of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10 to the power of 161. There are about 10>80 atoms in the universe"

This point tells us absolutely nothing. Proteins do not arrange themselves by chance. Through this point you have demonstrated that you clearly have absolutely no knowledge of molecular biology or protein synthesis. Your knowledge in biology in general is extremely lacking. Proteins do not fold themselves by chance mate. Proteins fold themselves according to their structure and coiling which is determined by their make-up of peptides. Many different bonds form to hold the protein structure together as it folds, and this is a completely natural inevitable process. One example is hydrogen bonding where the protein will fold itself over and form a weak hydrogen bond where if you take your mind back to chemistry classes all those years ago where a hydrogen atom interacts with an electronegative atom such as oxygen or nitrogen. This isn't due to random chance, this is due to the protein make-up (it's peptides) thus forming its structure and determining the way it folds. It's the protein's shape that ultimately defines its purpose.

Again, I must stress that any high school biology student would be able to tell you this. So your point is completely redundant, it adds nothing intelligent to the discussion, in fact it further proves your incompetence in the field of biology.

Joshua said...

"Mutations can go backwards as well as forwards - in other words mutates are clueless as to the end product - which needs design." You then go onto say how Dawkins admits biological machinery looks designed.

What I think you're trying to say here is that mutations can be both beneficial and detrimental. Of course they can, they can also be neutral, and in fact most mutations are neutral - they do nothing at all. But of course, some can go 'backwards' - they can be harmful. But this is no problem as that organism with the harmful mutation is less likely to survive and reproduce and thus is weeded out by natural selection, and that harmful gene is weeded out from the gene pool (the design of natural selection). Dawkins of course does admit it looks designed, and so do I. That's because it is designed by natural selection, and to anyone who isn't educated in evolutionary process it does look as if it was created intelligently. But just because it looks as if it was doesn't mean it was and evolution provides a far more satisfying and fulfilling explanation than any designer; plus there's far far more evidence in favour of evolution.

I've just realised that most of my post was cut off before. I actually posed a far more length post with more videos on, so I'm gonna post that again immediately after this one.

Joshua said...

Here's my first reply, in full:


Wow Charles, you've just basically regurgitated what the creationists and IDiots have taught. You clearly have no idea of how evolution ACTUALLY works.

For your points, one by one:

Evolution certainly has been proven over the last 150 years, and it has been proven COUNTLESS times. I'll come onto the evidence later on.

Irreducible complexity. It's a grand idea and certainly would disprove evolution by natural selection if an example ever was found. But frankly, a proper example has never been found, and all examples put forward by Intelligent Designers have been debunked. Even the fabled 'flagellum'.

Here is a video detailing how a fully functional flagellum could evolve through multiple functional intermediates. Each step involves the modification of only a single protein.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w

So the flagellum has been debunked - evolution could certainly give rise to a complex flagellum through random changes through mutation with natural selection favouring the beneficial mutations and weeding out the harmful ones.

Onto your point about DNA mutations:

"One of my beliefs is that DNA
cannot be changed by genetic damage
into a new creature -millions or billions of changes are involved."

I wholeheartedly agree!

NO biologist would EVER claim that it could! And the fact is, thousands of mutations are indeed required for macro evolution - this exactly what you get. However, only one mutation happens at a time and this happens over millions of years, it's not a giant leap, it's progressive one mutation after another.

Joshua said...

"Darwin thought a bear might change
into a whale but he was a self taught taxonomist and knew nothing
about DNA and cellular biology."

Darwin NEVER says that a bear might change into a whale, where on earth are you getting this tripe from?

Bears do not suddenly just give birth to whales, nor are bears distant ancestors of whales. They certainly share a common ancestry millions of years back however, as they are both mammals.

"Useful information cannot be added
to the genome by random mutations
in order to produce say eg whale sonar."

Again, I completely agree. But again, no biologist would ever claim this, that sonar capabilities just appeared in one generation. Sonar has been shown to evolve in successive steps to produce ears that work better and better under water (when the ancestor first moved into water) and then eventually ended up using sonar. Again, no giant leaps

Please watch this next video on youtube to see an example of how there's no giant leaps in evolution, only tiny micro changes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0wwhSlo1NI

Joshua said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joshua said...

"Google up Prof Richard "Dawkins
Stumped" not about the pause
but his confused answer re adding information to the Genome."

I've seen that video, and also read the background on it. If you actually read what happened, the creationist trolls lured him into an interview under false pretences, he believed the interview was to do with something completely different. He pauses because he's just suddenly cottoned on to what it was about and his answer is confused simply because he was confused! You try be taken by surprise and then asked a question on your expertise completely out of the blue with only a maximum of 25 seconds on camera to try and process what's going on in your mind and come up with a coherent answer yourself. I guarantee you'll perform exactly the same as Prof. Dawkins.

Dawkins has since given several examples on how new information can be added to the genome.

Joshua said...

Most high school biologists are probably are aware of how new information can be added to a human genome, it's not rocket science.

One example is gene duplication. Genes are often duplicated in an organism's genome, resulting in two genes of the same function. This often goes uncorrected by DNA transcriptase because it rarely proves harmful. However, once you do have 2 copies of a gene, mutating one of those genes to produce another protein entirely different to the first will usually not have an harmful effects to an organism because the first gene is still active and producing the necessary protein. Thus, the new gene is a gene, in effect, with an entirely fresh start and can undergo mutations which will eventually inevitably give rise to a beneficial protein, which is therefore selected for by natural selection as it helps the organism survive/reproduce, and thus becomes more abundant in the gene pool. Ergo, new information has been added to the gene pool.

Anyway, this is becoming a length post, so please, as I know Christians often talk of searching for the truth, please please please come at this with an open mind and at least watch my videos. If anything you'll find them light entertainment but hopefully they'll educate your jaded mind.

Cheers,

Josh

charles allan said...

I need time to go through your lengthy web quotemining.
Darwin in his writings saw bears
catching fish and knowing nothing about DNA proposed they might be the ancestors of whales. In none of my posts have I said that a whale popped out of a bear - it is
supposed to be gradual - in small steps - thus making it acceptable.
Although this is impossible - I know the theory of evolution but don't believe it.

You have not really answered the questions I asked you in your own words.

Eg Explain in your OWN words say in ten stages how any mammal
became a whale - deer bear pig
cow whatever.
How would random mutations design
anything - I can see why you are getting annoyed because you realise
it is impossible .

Give me ONE beneficial mutation
that added USEFUL information to the genome IN YOUR OWN WORDS.
Eg give me one which would be a minute movement towards sonar development.


Gene duplication is a mistake.





















The deer evolving into a whale is
a national geographic documentary -
It was hilarious - pure digital
manipulation - google up.

You did not read my refutation
of Behe's critics - THE TIE CLIP
MUST BE DESIGNED AND ASSEMBLED and
is irreducably complex FOR A TIE PIN not a mousetrap.

Is this the level of logic in universities. ( I am a retired lecturer so I am not necessarily
impressed with paper qualifications)

Joshua said...

HAHAHAHA you were a lecturer? Of what exactly? And at what institution? Don't make me laugh. You're asking me to provide my own examples. I am not yet a scientist, and am still completing my degree. Yet when I provide you with countless other sources from real scientists they're not good enough as you want me to provide you with me own?

I provided you with a detailed peer-reviewed scientific paper and you scorn that it isn't enough as it's not my own example. Can you not see the fallacy there? We only know what we are taught, we synthesise information from other people and form our own coherent arguments. So as of yet I have not performed research myself and am relying on the (reliable) research of others. Where's the problem in that?

Surely you can see the absurdity of asking me to give evidence of evolution, yet prevent me from using research by anyone that's not me. That's like me asking you to explain Christianity to me without ever mentioning the Bible. It's absurd to the highest degree.

"Darwin in his writings saw bears catching fish and knowing nothing about dNA proposed they might be the ancestors of whales."

Joshua said...

I stand corrected, after some research he did actually suggest this but I was unable to find it in my copy of The Origin of Species. Here's why:

"In 1859 Charles Darwin suggested that whales were descended from bears (after a furore of scientific criticism he withdrew the point from later editions of The Origin of the Species)."

source: http://www.squidoo.com/whale-evolution

My bad. But as you can see he corrected this himself, so why go on about it?

By the way, I try to reference all my sources, and it's something that you should consider doing (as an ex-lecturer you should know better). We do not magically come to know information, instead we read it, absorb it and synthesise it. Which stresses the point that you're asking me to put things in my 'own words' is even more absurd.

All the previous examples were in my own words, synthesised from external reading I've done (such as scientific papers). So please don't patronise me to put things into my own words.

You're asking me again to give one beneficial mutation that added useful information to the genome but asking it IN MY OWN WORDS. See my previous post on nylonase and nylon-eating bacteria. That was in my own words constructed with sufficient evidence from reliable peer-reviewed sources.

"Gene duplication is a mistake" - yes it is, it's a mutation. But this is no refutation of my argument, gene duplication clearly demonstrates how new information can be added to the genome.

I'll have a google about your deer documentary, and the tie clip. But even if a tie clip is irreducibly complex, that proves nothing because it's man-made. If you can find a biological mechanism that is irreducibly complex then please do let me know.

charles allan said...

Josh - all living organisms are irreducibly complex .

Joshua said...

LOL Charles, I love how you ignore all my points and through a straw-man out there. Way to go! Proper behaviour of a lecturer/teacher there.
Charles, if all organisms are irreducibly complex then why did Behe focus solely on the flagellum and nothing else? (The flagellum of course has been shown to certainly not be irreducibly complex and can arise through successive progressive mutations one at a time).

charles allan said...

IF YOU BELIEVE EVOLUTION ?
Josh - whales porpoises seals all
sea air breathing mammals must have come from land animals.
Plus all land animals must have come from the sea.

eG The peer reviewed scientific papers said that the coelacanth fish was our ancestor because of its little tootsies - until a live one was found by a fisherman unchanged from its fossil ancestors.

Hilarious yes - scientific papers?
- peer review ???

"God will make fools of the wise"

charles allan said...

Joshua he focussed on the flagellum
because it was mechanical and easy for the layman to understand .

It was when he was studying it
he had the realisation that it could not have happened by chance.
What is wrong with this - he could have chosen the millions of enzyme
reactions in a liver but not very
hard hitting for a lecture.

The flagellum is a great in your face example - hard to obfuscate it
- that's why the Devil hates it and
uses athiests to attack it in every way.

charles allan said...

All research starts usually with your own words - a scientist will
hypothesise then produce a theory
so without research the theory still has to make some sort of sense in your own words.
Darwin proposed a theory which was never proved or researched. It is swallowed whole by millions.

You should be able to exaplain in your own words your theory of how fish or mammals can change places.

Joshua said...

"I need time to go through your lengthy web quotemining"

LOL I forgot about this. Are you aware of what quote mining is? It's quoting things out of context. I'm fairly sure that you won't find any quotations in my posts out of context, they're all provided with sources and quoted in context. Please don't belittle me and hypocritically accuse me of things just because I've brought to attention your quote-mining fixation.

Joshua said...

'All research starts usually with your own words'
I'm inclined to disagree, because most research is built on previous research but I'll go with you on this one for the sake of it.

When you say Darwin's theory was never proven or researched and was swallowed whole by millions, are you talking about his bear --> whale hypothesis, or his theory of evolution?

I sincerely hope you're talking about the former, because if so I would certainly agree and it was torn apart by many scientists.

His theory of evolution on the other hand has been well researched and proven beyond all reasonable doubt over the last 150 years.

Fish and mammals don't change places, biologists would never argue that they did. I think you mean whales and other mammals, because after all whales are mammals (and so are dolphins). Hopefully you're not getting mixed up on your taxonomy here.

As for my hypothesis on it, I can only speculate because I haven't done the research myself. But if you're really asking me to speculate, which is exactly what it appears you are doing, I would suggest that food was scarce in their particular area so they had to start moving to water to hunt for food (as tigers often swim for fish). They became more and more dependent on the food source in the water, and adapted to staying under water for longer, and capturing prey easier. Eventually, over time, they there was no reason for them to come back onto land because they had become so good at catching prey under water, and the genes for making legs (which are still present in whales and dolphins) were switched off, maybe in their entirety, I don't know I'd have to research it, and relied solely on their tales to move which have of course by now adapted to move them fluently through water.

You get whales nowadays born with legs, proving they still have the genes for making legs. These are called atavisms. Tell me, if they were created individually and specially for water, why would they need the genes for making legs? Wouldn't that be completely useless and a form of 'junk DNA' ? Yet they do, funnily enough, just like humans have the genes for making tails (and some humans are born with fully-functional tails which that have full conscious control over) and snakes have genes for making legs, chickens have genes for making teeth etc. etc. Hope this satisfies you.

Josh.

charles allan said...

The whales supposed legs are not legs for walking but are used as muscle anchors especially when breeding.

You are making the same mistake as Darwin - if bones look similar
they must be related or descended

Evolution supposes that Fish became mammals and mammals evolved
back into the sea.

If you reread my "quotemining" you
will see that evolution has no evidence whatsoever.

charles allan said...

TIGERS SWIMMING - KEY PHRASE

"Get adapted" to swim underwater.
Who or How would they adapt.
Do you mean that somehow the blind
process of evolution somehow changes the tiger's DNA - how would it know how to do this.

Billions of humans have been around
for thousands of years but none
have grown feathers to save flight
costs or flippers.
Everyone is still a human although
we have gene damaged humans.
I will read the rest tomorrow

cheers Charles

Joshua said...

You don't know what quote mining is do you? Quote mining is quoting sources out of context in order to discredit the source. Where I mention your quote mining, I am referring to how you quote evolutionary scholars out of context to support your argument, e.g. the above quotations such as:

"Colin Patterson Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum of natural history " It is easy to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another ... but such stories are not part of science”

“fossils may tell us many things but one thing they can never disclose is whether they are ancestors of anything else “.

“We have access to the tips of the tree , the tree is a theory , and the people who pretend to know about the tree and to describe what went on it – how the branches came off and the twigs came off … are I think telling stories”


Stephen Jay Gould scientist and famous evolutionist “ the lack of intermediate life forms “ persists as the trade secret of palaeontology”

American museum of natural history - Niles Eldridge “ we palaeontologists have said the history of life supports …. the story of gradual adaptive change … all the while knowing that it does not”.

Professor David Kitts – geology - uni of Oklahoma - a convinced evolutionist “ evolution requires intermediate forms between species and palaeontology does not provide them”

I can give you many more – nothing has been found after 150 years - don't be duped by false science."

You even refer to Richard Dawkins several times quoting him saying things appear to be designed.

This is quote mining at it's finest. You're fishing for quotations to support your argument but ignoring the quotations' context which often then go on to disprove your own argument.

Joshua said...

As for my example before, I freely admit I'm not expert on the evolution of whales and that was my best guess. Without properly researching it or testing my hypotheses, they are as good as yours. But that's exactly what you wanted, so you could debunk my hypothesis and therefore feel like a winner.

But that's rather immoral now isn't it?

"Who or How would they adapt" - I was referring to ancestors of wales. They would adapt through a change in allele frequency, selecting more favourable traits that helped them survive in water. How can you not understand the simplest concept of natural selection? Are you mentally handicapped?

Of course the blind process of evolution somehow changes the ancestor's DNA. Again, you show that you do not even have the understanding of a high school student. Mutations occur in DNA, most of them doing nothing at all, but occasionally you get a beneficial mutation. This is selected for my natural selection and thus you get a shift in the frequency of alleles in the gene pool.

'How would it know how to do this?' Again, I asked if you are mentally handicapped in any way. It doesn't know how to do this, mutations are RANDOM. It doesn't need to know how to do this in order to be able to do this. Mutations happen, and some of them are beneficial. That's undisputed across the scientific community, even Behe agrees with that. Natural selection favours beneficial mutations and they become more abundant in the gene pool. Simple high school stuff.

'Billions of humans have been around for thousands of years but none have grown feathers to save flight costs or flippers. Everyone is still a human although we have gene damaged humans."

You're just conveying your stupidity here for the world to say. How can you argue on a subject that you have next to no knowledge of?!

Evolution would never predict that humans would grow feathers or flippers. There's no selection pressure to grow feathers or flippers.

Everyone is still indeed human, although we have great variation within humanity. The most laughable part of your point is "billions of humans have been around for thousands of years" Mega LOL.

A thousand years is a tiny tiny measurement when it comes to evolutionary time. Try hundreds of thousands of years and then you'll be more accurate.

So what do we get if we go back through hundreds of thousands of years of human history? A lot of variation. We get Homo sapiens (us), Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo habilis, Homo floresiensis, I could go on and on. DNA testing has proven that Neanderthals were a separate species to us, yet they buried their dead and made tools. Very similar but a separate species. How do you answer this?

Put your fingers in your ears and pretend it isn't real?

How do you answer the irrefutable genetic proof that we are 100% cousins with chimpanzees, that we 100% share a common ancestry?

Joshua said...

Wow I really need to try and cut my posts down. There's so much to say though to refute your ignorance, and I have a habit of going through your points one by one. And whereas I put sometimes too much you put way too little and ignore many of my points.

charles allan said...

Josh - A quote summarises an person's viewpoint - they have been used for thousands of years.
A quote is not in context by definition - Evolutionists quote
"evolution is a fact" all the time
knowing that they will not require
evidence.

These quotes are true so why would
these eminent evolutionists be lying.
There is nothing wrong with a quote
This quotemining slur seems to be a tactic of evolutionists probably
beacuse it stops them from obfsucating the simplicity of the creation argument with obscure scientific papers and Gnosis.

charles allan said...

SELECTION PRESSURE
No such thing - evolution has no thinking power - its knows nothing
- it cannot work out whether a human needs feathers - or is too heavy to fly - it is totally random. So we should have lots of feathers in many animals if you are daft enough to follow a 150 year old theory.

By the way have you ever studied the irreducable complexity of the feather - astonishing.

charles allan said...

CHIMPS ARE NOT YOUR ANCESTORS.

The original expirement was flawed
- but is now about 90% OF DNA . But there are also switch on and off genes.
This means there could be diferences of upwards of 200 million base pairs.

Did I not read in the newspapers that we have about 80% of our DNA shared with sea sponges !!!!

And bananas DNA 50% shared - could you imagine a greater difference between bananas and humans.

You are making Darwins mistake - if
something looks similar it is .
He thought chimps looked and behaved like us - he was a taxonomist.

It was certainly never 100% if it
was 100% chimps would be human.

charles allan said...

NO BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS
The only one put forward is sickle cell - a disease.
What does a half whale half deer do
to survive. It can't compete with fish or deer. Since sonar is so complex how would random damage
make sonar - it took thousands of scientists and engineers to design and make it and dolphins whales etc
have far superior sonar.

Joshua said...

Wow. Just wow. You are beyond talking to you know that? I've never seen a person who is so unable to use their critical faculty as you. So you think it's okay to quote people out of context because you know that deep down they know they're lying about evolution and after all, you're completely correct? OMFG. I can provide you with hundreds of scientific papers on evolution, all supporting it. Scientific papers on Intelligent Design in PubMed? 2. Scientific papers supporting ID in PubMed? 0/2. ID is not science nor is it true.

"Evolution has no thinking power- its knows nothing'
Well done, did you work that out all by yourself?

Natural selection is not conscious, it isn't able to think. However, it does select for the fittest and selects against the weakest in terms of survivability and reproductive fitness. That's selection pressure.

Imagine a species in a multicoloured environment. That species has organisms of all different colours because they can camouflage almost anywhere in the environment.

Then all of a sudden their environment changes, to say, green. Now, only the green ones have camouflage and all the others get eaten. So only the 'green genes' survive. This is what is known as selection pressure. It is not conscious, it happens all by itself. It's a natural phenomena, there's no intelligence behind it.

Even a primary school student can grasp this simplest of simple concepts. But you can't? Does that mean you have the intelligence level of a toddler?

And no, I haven't ever studied the irreducible complexity of the feather because it doesn't exist. Although feathers are remarkable organs indeed.

Joshua said...

I'm in two minds whether to continue this debate. You're clearly so stuck in your ways that no amount of evidence will ever change your mind.

That's the difference between scientists and creationists. If one piece of evidence came up that disproved our theories, we would be forced to follow the evidence and abandon it. But with creationists, because you believe you already have all the answers and that they were revealed through divine revelation, NOTHING will ever change your mind and you will remain adamant until the day you die (or until you see the fallacy of your thinking).

Joshua said...

'NO BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS'

Did you not read my post about nylon-eating bacteria? That's a perfect example of a beneficial mutation adding new information.

'CHIMPS ARE NOT YOUR ANCESTORS'

Nobody ever said chimps are our ancestors you moron. We share a common ancestry with them, they are our cousins. What about endogenous retroviruses which prove 100% that we share a common ancestry?

Do you even know what an endogenous retrovirus (ERV) is?

charles allan said...

JOSH
I SAID HUMANS HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR
THOUSANDS OF YEARS SINCE I AM A CREATIONIST.
But you would say they have been
around for millions of years so they have time to evolve feathers etc and maybe even sonar (as if ).
So you DO have the time under your theory.

Josh I am trying to beat your arguments but for your own good hoping and praying that you will believe in a Creator God who can give you eternal life or put you in Hell forever.

So I admit to sowing seeds which you might need later in life.

Before Lyell the lawyer came along
nearly all geologists believed the
sedimentary layers with bilions of fossils came from Noah's flood .

Carbon dating of ALL coal diamonds
gas and oil is around 40,000 years.
The fossil record is dating young.

A good creationist website is
Answers in Genesis or Dr McMurtry
site on Revelation TV.

You have been brainwashed by the university system.

charles allan said...

Joshua - I think the creationists
try to look at the evidence but
evolutionists just attack the books of the Bible or the creationists.

Unless you believe in the Books of Moses you will not believe in me -
Jesus .
The rich man in Hell wanted an angel to speak to his brothers but
Jesus said they have the books of Moses - if they will not believe in the books of Moses they will not believe an angel if they appeared in front of them.

Joshua said...

LOL Answers in Genesis is a very very good creationist website, I often go on there for a good laugh.

You're right, carbon dating is only accurate up to maybe a maximum of 62,000 years. But carbon dating isn't used to date things beyond this era. It's quite funny how creationists focus on carbon dating but ignore a good dozen other dating method that all prove the Earth (including carbon dating) is much older than 6,000 years. So LOL.

Homo sapiens haven't been around for millions of years, they have only been around for about 100,000 years or do. Hominids have been around for about 2 million years though, e.g. our ancestors such as Turkana Boy which is 1.5 million years old:

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

The fossil is of a hominid that definitely is NOT homo sapien or modern man. The boy was very probably a lot stronger than a fully grown adult modern human as well.

I think it is YOU my friend who has been brainwashed by your abhorrent cult you call Christianity.

Joshua said...

"Joshua - I think the creationists
try to look at the evidence but
evolutionists just attack the books of the Bible or the creationists."

Where do you come up with this? This is priceless! The reality is creationists just use the Bible to say this is the truth, now let's find any evidence to support it and ignore any that contradicts it (you've already acknowledged the fact that carbon dating proves the earth to be at least 40,000 years old). Evolutionists, or in fact scientists in general, look at all the evidence and then piece together a theory that encompasses all the evidence, thus evolution. Any evidence that appears to contradict evolution is investigated and a lot of the time it proves to be false BUT there are times when evolution has been updated in the light of new evidence.

charles allan said...

Josh - I was enjoying the debate and would think I have failed if you discontinue and would be sad if you say I don't believe in evidence - that is exactly what creationists look for - evidence.

In every debate I have watched the creationists put forward evidence
but the evolutionists attack the
Bible or the creationists credentials or character.

Kent Hovind (now in jail due to charity laws - thought he was a church) took on four evolutionists in the uni of Califonia and utterly demolished them. You can google up his website.

He was a biology teacher with good debating skills .

Have a look and come back with your opinion.

Joshua said...

No I'm going to carry on Charles. If you're really open to evidence then let's look at the evidence for evolution now, okay?

First off, have you ever heard of an endogenous retrovirus (ERV) ?

charles allan said...

Josh - I have hardly mentioned the
Bible.

Joshua said...

Charles, you're correct, I was generalising, But can we stay focused now on the evidence for evolution, instead of discrediting intelligent design/creationism?

charles allan said...

RETRO VIRUSES
Don't no any of this but I see a virus as the curse in Genesis.
But guess that the virus will have
inbuilt retro design and will remain a virus - it will not evolve outside of a virus .
The flu virus mutates but is always a flu virus - the mutation
is built in - although I have not
studied this.
But it does not explain how a fish
beacme a mammal or a mammal became
a whale porpoise ,dolphin etc

charles allan said...

Joshua - Bacteria can eat petrol
diesel and lots of other things - they have inbuilt adaptability -
why should they not be able to eat
nylon which is a petro byproduct.

charles allan said...

RADIOMETRIC DATING
A group of PHD's take 200 year old lava to various labs and the highest date was 1.2 billion years
????????????

As a lecturer said on radio dating
- keep the faith.


Diamonds and coal should have no
C14 at all- but they do . Why 40,000 years - well there was less C14 in the atmosphere before Noah's flood .

Joshua said...

Actually, an endogenous retrovirus (ERV) is a virus that inserts its own DNA into the host's DNA so that when the replicates its own DNA it also replicates the viral DNA producing more of the viruses.

HIV works like this. It inserts its own DNA into human DNA so when that human DNA is copied the viral DNA will be copied also. Through this you can work out descendants.

For example, if I were to contract an ERV, and it were to infect my sex cells, then I would pass that viral DNA onto my offspring. They would also pass the viral DNA onto their offspring, and them onto their offspring, and so on.

Eventually, say 500 years later, being long dead I will have many descendants. You will be able to prove those people are descendants of me because if they share this same retroviral DNA I have to be their ancestor. Because what are the odds of exactly the SAME virus, inserting itself into exactly the SAME location (in 3 billion base pairs) in an individual? The odds are astronomical. So you can trace all my descendants back to a common ancestor - me - through this retroviral DNA.

So what relevance does this have to evolution?

Well, what if I were to tell you that humans and chimps share the same retroviral DNA? Think of the odds of this being wrong with just 1 piece of retroviral DNA. It's irrefutable with just 1 ERV.

Now what if I were to tell you that humans and chimps share FOURTEEN independent pieces of endogenous retroviral DNA in our genomes. It's conclusive proof that we share a common ancestry and there's no escaping it. This is just one of many proofs that I can go into later if you like, but you say you like evidence, here's a very strong piece of evidence for common descent.

charles allan said...

JOSHUA - you call the cult of christianity abhorrent -does this not give away your motivation .

How can Jesus heal the sick -live
a cross filled life - give his life for you - was totally sinless
- how can his folowers be called
abhorrent.

Joshua said...

"Joshua - Bacteria can eat petrol
diesel and lots of other things - they have inbuilt adaptability -
why should they not be able to eat
nylon which is a petro byproduct."

Just wanted to expand on this point one last time. The point is, if these bacteria were created by individual creation, then what use would a nylon-digesting enzyme be? The nylonase serves no other purpose other than to digest short strands of nylon; not petrol. Since nylon is a human invention and dates to 1935, how can this enzyme have existed before this date? The enzyme would be completely useless and a waste of resources up until this time. Not only that, it's been shown that a frameshift mutation actually produced this enzyme from a related but similar protein structure. It's a NEW piece of information, a brand new gene, there's no escaping it mate :)

Joshua said...

Charles, I'd said before let's ignore all these other posts and just focus on the evidence. I find the Christian God to be a bit of a tyrant, especially in the OT and Revelation. But let's focus on the evidence for evolution here.

charles allan said...

RETRO VIRAL DNA PROVING WE ARE CHIMPS

I have not studied this but can't
understand how it proves we evolved
from a fish . Which fish did we come from - the coelacanth - the mudskipper.
Why would the infestion of a virus
prove evolution - this is what I can't understand.
But I will study it tomorrow.

Joshua said...

Charles, you've missed the point entirely.
It doesn't prove we evolved from fish, and it's not meant to.

What it does prove is that chimps and humans are cousins - we have a common ancestry. You've missed the mark completely. So it proves evolution because we have a single ancestor.

charles allan said...

I find that evolutionists move into micro things like bacteria and viruses - this is mainly to obscure the fact that they can't
find the fish that walked out of the sea and evolved into humans nor
the mammal which decided to evolve
back into the sea - you will notice
how Josh had great difficulty explaining this - so they resolve to viruses and bacteria to try
to obfuscate the argument.

Joshua said...

Charles, please, you're creating lots of straw-men and completely ignoring the main point!

I'm not talking about fish to mammal evolution here.

I'm talking about HUMAN evolution. Please try and understand this, it's remarkably simple.

You can prove a common ancestry through ERVs. All my descendants will be able to prove that they had a common ancestor (me) through ERVs beyond any doubt.

You can prove that human beings and chimpanzees have a common ancestor through ERVs!!!!

Humans and Chimps are completely different species. Creationists say that we do not have a common ancestor, and that we did not evolve from primates.

Yet this is irrefutable proof that we DID evolve from primates and that humans and chimps share a common ancestor, meaning we're cousins. Just like my children's children's children's children etc. can find out they're distant cousins through ERVs, this proves humans and chimps came from an original source (common ancestor).

E.g. Common Ancestor species has lots of children and they have lots of descendants. These descendants split into two different camps, and eventually one camp becomes human and the other camp becomes chimp.

How can you not see that this proves the common ancestry?

charles allan said...

ERV's I dont even know what they are but I know when you said 100%
of our DNA is shared with chimps that it was false.
I will have a look at this virus
tomorrow.

PS would this mean everone with hair is related.

Where did the chimps come from
- there is no accepted line.

What came before the chimp.

How does evolution rearrange
2 million base pairs to produce humans.

Joshua said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joshua said...

Charles, please show me where I said that we share 100% of our DNA with chimps. You again are LYING. Stop LYING.

I have never said this, stop putting words in my mouth.

No, it DOESN'T mean that everyone with hair is related. It's got NOTHING to do with that!! Although, everyone with hair is related, because every human being on the planet is related in some way or another.

You're just throwing out straw-men.

Humans and chimps 100% have a common ancestry and you're just stuffing your fingers in your ears and ignoring the evidence. I thought you said you followed the evidence. Again, you're a LIAR.

Joshua said...

Charles, did you know that you bearing false witness is breaking the 9th commandment?

And your clear lack of knowledge of ERVs just prove how uneducated you are in this subject. If you had truly studied both side you would have heard of ERVs, it's well-known throughout the scientific community.

Charles Allan, you claim you are in search of evidence. Yet, when irrefutable proof of human evolution is presented to you, you stuff your fingers in your ears and pretend it isn't real, or pretend you don't understand it, or say it doesn't prove anything because it doesn't prove how fish evolved into mammals.

You're just a narrow-minded old man who's stuck in his ways and will never be convinced. Time to get real.

Gordon said...

Joshua and Charles

The Internet can be a very frustrating form of communication and its easy for people's tone to be misunderstood so don't jump to too many conclusions about each other. You would probably find you got on quite well in real life. I have often found that to be the case.

Please try to keep this on topic, which would be things to do directly with Grady McMurtry.

Thank you!

charles allan said...

Josh - retroviruses seem to be
present in other creatures like sheep and can have a useful function or be the result of past
infections. I have not spent a lot
of time on this . Not sure how it proves evolution - I mean we have
common DNA with all living creatures which we would expect if there was a Creator or if evolution
is true.

I was more interested in how fish
evolved out of the sea and mammals
evolved back in - so I was looking
for say 10 stages as to how this
could happen. You did not really
explain this key plank of evolution.

Can't understand why giving quotes makes me a liar.

I did see the 100% dna somewhere
- I note two deletions.

Say bird flu is a retro virus
and I catch it - does that mean
I share common descent.

According to evolutionary theory
we all have common descent from
the first living cell which magically appeared in a muddy pool.

charles allan said...

Josh - just watched a youtube
"CREVO RANT Nylonase is not new information"
The bacteria is already programmed
to steal parts from existing information to digest the nylon.

If you remove the nylon the bacteria reverts back again.
It will always be bacteria.

The flu virus is programmed to mutate - it is not new information
It will always be a virus.

Joshua said...

Charles, first off let me start by asking you something.
If proof of evolution was presented to you and you realised that it was irrefutable proof, then would you ever accept it? Would you hold your hands up and say, "Hey, I got it wrong, evolution is true after all" IF proof was ever presented to you?

Because if not, then this is a complete waste of time. And in case you're wondering, yes I would quite happily accept it if proof was given to me that there was a God and that He created the universe and everything in it in 6 literal days 6000 years ago. I would accept it if it were proven.

Anyway, let's please wrap up this ERV business. You have very clearly misunderstood the evidence.
Just forget about the fish evolving to mammals FOR NOW we can come back to that later, but let's focus on human evolution and ERVs.

Let me explain to you again, as clear as I can, what an ERV is. Please read very carefully, and pay close attention. If you do not understand it, then read it again until you do. Work with me a little here.

An endogenous retrovirus is a virus that inserts its own DNA into your DNA if it infects you, so when you replicate your DNA, you also replicate the viral DNA thus producing more copies of that virus.

Now if a person was to be infected by an ERV, and that ERV infected the person's sex cells, that ERV would be passed on GENETICALLY to the person's offspring. So his offspring would also have this viral DNA in their own DNA. And when they sexually reproduce, THEIR offspring will also have this ERV encoded into their DNA. And so will their offspring, and so on.

Hundreds of years down the line, if two people were to meet up and have their DNA sequenced, and it was found that both their DNA contained retroviral DNA coding for exactly the same virus in exactly the same location in their genome, then it would be indisputable that those two people shared a common ancestor.

This is because the odds of exactly the same virus infecting two different ancestors in exactly the same locations in the DNA are astronomical, we're talking billions here (remember the 3 billion base pairs in human DNA). So the only logical conclusion is that these two different people, who share this same retroviral DNA, must have a common ancestor (the person 2 paragraphs up) who initially got infected with this viral DNA.

So how does this apply to human evolution?

Well, as I've already stated and as you've probably already guessed now, humans and chimps share not just one, but FOURTEEN individual pieces of retroviral DNA across our genomes.

So that means that a long long time ago, a species must have been infected by endogenous retroviruses (14 in total over a long time lineage), and eventually split to produce Homo sapiens (humans) and Pan troglodytes (common chimps) because they share these retroviral DNA in their genome. There's no other explanation for it (unless God deliberately put it there to fool us).

I hope this clears things up for you, please read it carefully.

Thanks,

Josh

P.S. those deleted posts are due to my accidental double-posting. I normally type replies up in a text editor and then paste them into the box, the deleted messages are where I went wrong so in fact everything you read here is all I have ever written and you haven't missed anything from what's been deleted. I'm sure Gordon would be willing to confirm that for you. And just to clarify, I have never once said that chimps share 100% of our DNA. That is simply not true, because if it were then they would be the same species as us. I am not an idiot.

Also, we share 99% of our genome with chimps (the part that actually codes for protein) but only 94% of our total DNA and this includes the non-coding parts of DNA. This is to be expected and is predicted by evolution because since our split (6 million years ago) our DNA has accumulated neutral mutations and junk in the non-coding parts so there is some discrepancy but this is predicted by evolution anyway.

Cheers.

charles allan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
charles allan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
charles allan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
charles allan said...

Gordon not my own work but from
Proslogion website .
Evolutionists think that these sequences, which they call ERVs, are the remnants of retroviral infections that occurred long ago. In fact, they think that they can find ERVs that humans share with other primates, and by tracking the similarities between human ERVs and the ERVs in other primates, they can demonstrate evolutionary relationships. This, however, leads to a paradox.
When evolutionists actually compare the gene sequences of RNA viruses that exist today and make their typical assumptions about mutation rates and evolutionary dynamics, they come to the conclusion that the RNA viruses we see today originated, at most, 50,000 years ago. Why is this a paradox? Well, remember that retroviruses are RNA viruses, and they are supposed to have been infecting primates long before humans evolved. Thus, in evolutionary terms, they need to be much older than 50,000 years old.

The paper I linked above has a good discussion of this paradox, and it proposes three explanations for the fact that the RNA viruses we see today seem to be of far-too-recent origin. The first two explanations revolve around the assumptions used to produce the conclusion that these viruses originated only 50,000 years ago. According to the paper, it is possible that the mutation rate assumptions are wrong, which would mean the figure of 50,000 years is wrong. It is also possible that the concluded evolutionary relationships are wrong, which would also mean the figure of 50,000 years is wrong.

The third explanation is that the 50,000-year figure is correct, and that the previous RNA viruses that gave rise to the current viruses are all extinct now. In other words, RNA viruses have been around for a long, long time, but the ancient lines have all gone extinct, and only the most recent lines are around right now.

Dr. Borger proposes a fourth explanation. He doesn’t think the assumptions about mutation rates are correct, but he does think that the relative order of origin is. In other words, he thinks that people came first, and retroviruses came later. In fact, he thinks that retroviruses have formed as a result of the design of different creatures’ genomes.

In his articles, he argues that God created the original kinds of creatures with genomes that were designed to produce variation. These original genomes, which he calls baranomes, had several elements that were designed to produce genetic variation. He calls these elements variation-inducing genetic elements (VIGEs), and he thinks their function is to encourage genetic variation that leads to adaptation. He identifies specific types of VIGEs in the genomes of the major forms of life, and ERVs are one kind of VIGE in mammals.

So where do retroviruses come from? According to Dr. Borger


Now that we have redefined ERVs as a specific class of VIGEs, which were present in the genomes from the day they were created, it is not difficult to see how RNA viruses came into being. RNA viruses have emerged from VIGEs…all RNA viruses have their origin in the genomes of living cells through recombination of host’s DNA elements (genes, promoters, enhancers). Every now and then such an ‘unfortunate’ recombination produces a molecular replicator: it is the birth of a new virus. Once the virus escapes the genome and acquires a way to re-enter cells, it has become a fully formed infectious agent.

charles allan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
charles allan said...

The sheer number of ERVs:
Joshua of 30,000 ERV's only 7 have
been found in common between chimps and humans. Methinks you have copied "talk origins ".

This is not my own work :-

In this light it is interesting to note that over 30,000 different ERVs are known within human genome. The range of the total human genome occupied by ERV sequences is anywhere from 1% to 8% - depending upon the reference (with more recent references favoring 8% or greater). The same range is true for the chimp genome as well.41 In fact, more recent work suggests a 45% ERV origin for the human genome at large (Mindell and Meyer 2001) and 50% for mammalian species in general . In any case, of these tens of thousands of recognizable ERVs, only seven are currently known to infect both humans and chimps at identical locations within the separate genomes . Isn't it interesting that out of 30,000 ERVs only 7 of them are known to have inserted at the same site in humans and chimps? - What are the odds given the known preference of many ERVs for fairly specific hot spot insertions? Yet, this is the argument for ERVs being evidence of common descent as per Talk.Origins:

Joshua said...

Charles, I had exactly the same problem with my posts, it was saying it wasn't accepting them but then I found out it was, hence all my deletions earlier.

Anyway, you never provided a source for your article Charles, you only said it came from Proslogion, but didn't link.

Also, instead of rushing straight off to creationist websites, why not do some unbiased research first from both sides of the field? I believe I have already read the article you're quoting from.

BY THE WAY. Please stop saying that you think I've copied talk origins. I've said time and time again that I've only ever been on that website a few times before.

Also, it's not me cutting and pasting websites word for word is it? I'm putting everything into my own words here, you're just cutting and pasting for the hell of it.

Anyway, onto the bulk of your (Proslogion's) argument. Basically, other than your creationist copying and pasting, I can find NO source that supports this notion that ERVs, or RNA viruses are only 50,000 years old. I've searched scientific journals online, I've searched through textbooks, and ALL of them point to ERVs being millions of not billions of years old. So please link me your source, and I'd like to check their sources out because I've found nothing to support it I'm afraid. All his arguments rest on the assumption that ERVs are only 50,000 years old. They are not, and every scientific article support that they are in fact millions, maybe billions of years old.

The creto's have probably just found some obscure journal (that I can't seem to find) and thought they'd struck gold because high mutation rates suggest that they're no more than 50,000 years old.

But think about it, the actual argument makes no sense? Because of high mutation rates within the viral DNA (due to a lack of RNA polymerases) the viruses change loads and therefore must only be 50,000 years old. What's even worse is that the article claims 'evolutionists' believe this.

"When evolutionists actually compare the gene sequences of RNA viruses that exist today and make their typical assumptions about mutation rates and evolutionary dynamics, they come to the conclusion that the RNA viruses we see today originated, at most, 50,000 years ago."

He's made a VERY sweeping statement here, yet he provides no source. Also, notice the blatant trickery, and dishonesty. Look very closely at the

"that the RNA viruses we see today originated, at most, 50,000 years ago."

Here, this ghost scientific paper he's using is saying that the RNA viruses we see today originated a max of 50,000 years ago. But that's ONLY the viruses we see today. This says nothing more than we've worked out that today's strains of RNA viruses are no more than 50,000 years old. Whoopy-do. Doesn't prove that the origin of RNA viruses started 50,000 years ago at all, in fact far from it. Yet that's what this guy is seeming to claim.

Again, it's amazing how often Christians and ID's 'bear false witness'; seeming to deliberately lie in order to get their point across. This is very immoral.

Your final paragraph actually supports common descent, I'm not sure how he's managed to conclude that just because 7 have been documented (from where he's sourced) then this somehow invalidates the argument. What complete nonsense.

In reality, many many many different species share ERVs because they are somehow related. Dogs and cats share ERVs because they are of course related.

Here is a good post:

http://www.christianforums.com/t5784958/

This guy explains it better than I do and is more scientific about it. Read on for the rest of the discussion if you will where the creationist gets pretty much owned because he's quoting irrelevant material as deliberate straw-men and the evolutionist picks him up on it.

Joshua said...

By the way, you never answered my question that I posed to you at the very beginning of my previous post, so I'll post it again here (and add another one after it).

"Charles, first off let me start by asking you something.
If proof of evolution was presented to you and you realised that it was irrefutable proof, then would you ever accept it? Would you hold your hands up and say, "Hey, I got it wrong, evolution is true after all" IF proof was ever presented to you?

Because if not, then this is a complete waste of time. And in case you're wondering, yes I would quite happily accept it if proof was given to me that there was a God and that He created the universe and everything in it in 6 literal days 6000 years ago. I would accept it if it were proven."

And my next question is relevant; ERVs are pretty compelling evidence and I know you're desperately reading online and copying and pasting to me to try and refute it, but just stop and think for a second: if ERVs really did prove evolution, would you accept it? Would you then change your worldview and hold your hands up and admit error? Or would you never accept it and be in constant search of ways to try and undermine it? Be honest with me (and yourself).

Cheers,

Josh

charles allan said...

Josh – I would be a fool if I was to believe evolution on one piece of disputed evidence – so the
answer is No. Especially since there is so much evidence against the theory of evolution.
This is the first time I posted a paper but it seemed relevant – was well referenced – and he seems
a competent biologist.
There is plenty evidence for creation . There is plenty of evidence for the existence of Jesus.
There is also prophetical evidence of his coming and his method of death – prophecy which
has been proven to have been written before the event.

To find the paper google up Dr Borger proslogian ERV

charles allan said...

Josh Still waiting for answer to my
question - How would a mammal evolve into a whale by random genetic damage.
Give say 10 stages of this process.

Joshua said...

Charles, could you link me to the article please. I doubt he's a competend biologist if he doesn't accept evolution (seen as though 99.98% of biologists accept the fact of evolution).

there is no evidence for creation, and there is some evidence of Jesus' existence.
there's no evidence of Jesus' return either apart from anecdotal evidence from a book where a guy probably have a bad trip on some shrooms.

And I've already told you about a mammal evolving into a whale, I don't know off the top of my head, and you've forbidden me to use any external sources so I'm at a loss.

If I can't research my answer then I simply have to say I don't know, and then I smug reaction from you like "HA! I knew he couldn't. This proves evolution is wrong to me even more."

Again, you just completely ignored one of my questions, so I'll post it again until you do acknowledge it:

"Charles, first off let me start by asking you something.
If proof of evolution was presented to you and you realised that it was irrefutable proof, then would you ever accept it? Would you hold your hands up and say, "Hey, I got it wrong, evolution is true after all" IF proof was ever presented to you?

Because if not, then this is a complete waste of time."

Get with the times Charles, and also stop enforcing your nomadic view on society. You agree with every other area of science, especially where medicine is concerned. I don't hear you complaining about that, or about atomic theory. But evolution, even though it's been proven beyond all reasonable doubt and is almost universally accepted amongst scientists, just because it contradicts some books written by a bunch of nomads you refuse to believe in it.

Again, get with the times. Maybe it's time to 'evolve' yourself (excuse the pun) and get a grip with reality?

charles allan said...

Evolution is not accepted by thousands of scientists - indeed the quotes I gave you were from evolutionists who said they had found no evidence. "get with the times" or "nomads" is not science.

Most research must start with some
sort of anecdote or bare bones theory - so how did the deer evolve
into a whale by random genetic damage.
Where would the mutation occur.
It would also have to breed with another deer with the same mutation (the statistical probability of this happening is mind boggling and would have to happen billions of times) or the
mutations would be corrected or be bred back into the population or lead to its death.
Did the deer get flippers first or a blowhole or both. What does the deer whale feed on and survive long enough for this enormous change to take place.
There would need to be billions of perfect whale design mutations.

I am not surprised you find it difficult - I have never seen an answer to this. Genetic Mutations accidentally designing sonar ?
- someone is on mushrooms.

There is a website where over a thousand scientists are agreed that
Darwin's theory is unproven - christians ,evolutionists, scientists of other faiths have signed it.

EVIDENCE - Deers mate and give birth to ...... deers.

Selection of the fittest will select the fittest whale or the fittest deer but it will never evolve a deer or cow into a whale.

Gordon said...

Any argument against evolution has to be able to explain all the species that no longer exist, and why remains of those are not found alongside modern species.

I have also yet to hear from Christians why they think that lying to people about their motivation is acceptable (claiming that ID is nothing to do with religion).

Christians also need to explain why belief in YEC is necessary to be a Christian (which they clearly do believe although they may dance around that in an uncomfortable fashion).

Gordon said...

This article is getting close tot he maximum number of comments possible on a post so I am going to have to either delete some comments soon or lock it.

charles allan said...

Gordon extinction does not prove
either theory - it happens all the
time. Plus new species are discovered not proving either theory.
I deleted the long blog that I posted three times.

Joshua said...

Gordon, very well said. It's a shame that this article is beginning to reach the maximum number of comments, I wasn't aware that that was possible.

Charles, I'm beginning to get very pissed off with you and your ignorance and blatant dishonesty. You are gravely mistaken on the level of support for evolution too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Scientific_support

"The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields ofbiology, paleontology, anthropology, and others.[16][17][18][19][20] One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science". An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution". A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists"

Clearly, there is very little support for creationism within the scientific community.

The next in Wiki made me laugh:

"Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific, pseudoscience, or junk science."

Couldn't have said it better myself Wiki, well done! This is another blatant LIE the creationists sell - that there is very little support for evolution within the scientific community and that the theory is becoming outdated. In fact evolution is one of the most widely supported theories in ALL OF SCIENCE and perhaps the most widely supported theory in biology, along with cell theory.

As for the the quotations you gave me are completely out of context!!! This is typical and deliberate LYING from creationists. EVERY SINGLE ONE of those people on your list SUPPORTS evolution. It's funny how you even quote from the late Stephen Jay Gould - one of the greatest pioneers and evolutionary biologists that has ever lived.

Another example, Colin Patterson Senior who you quote heavily from, says this in his book titled Evolution:

"In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal,Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . ."

Showing CLEARLY that he is in full support of evolution and transitional fossils.

So, Charles, that makes you a LIAR.

So please don't give me any more bullshit quotes, because you're just weakening your case. This is what is known as QUOTE-MINING - quoting authors out of context to support your own argument when in actual fact the authors of those quotations would be offended that you dared use them in that way.

A question for you, is that very Christian? NO IT IS NOT. So please stop doing it.

An excellent point Gordon has brought up is when Christians lie to people saying that you can't believe in Christianity and accept the truth of evolution.

Joshua said...

And Charles, how do YOU explain all the mass extinction then? How do you explain the fact that 99.99999% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct?

And instead of putting evolution on trial, let's now turn our attention to the bullshit behind creationism.

Firstly, let's look at the creation story itself. According to the Bible and you ignorant creationists, God created a perfect world in which there was no death and all species got on happily together. But then mankind disobeyed God and let death into the world and from that point on disease and predation took hold and everything became nasty. Now, if evolution really is a lie, and all organisms are exactly the same as when they were first created by God, then what the hell was the point in spider venom and webs? Webs are deliberately there to trap other insects, and there's absolutely no other use for venom than to KILL prey.

So, before the fall, when there was supposedly no death, what was the purpose of venom, in spiders, snakes, etc?

And if there was no disease before the fall, then what about all those bacteria? Remember, according to you, each bacterium was specially created by God, individually. So how did they survive in host organisms without causing disease? Remember, each organism is exactly the same now as it was 6000 years ago when God first created it. So these bacteria need hosts to survive. Did God just create a massive bubble around each and every animal and Adam and Eve? If so, why didn't all the bacteria die out? They need hosts to survive.

The absurdity of this story demonstrates what a load of bullshit Genesis is.

The fact that Genesis 1 and 2 have completely different creation stories is testament to this!!!

Joshua said...

Genesis 1 says Man was the pinnacle of God's creation, the last thing God created. Genesis 2 however says that all animals were created AFTER man because man was lonely and then Adam had to name them all and then God finally created woman. So you have 2 different contradictory stories, which do you go with Charles? Doesn't that create somewhat a dilemma for you?

And what about Noah's Ark? LOL This story takes the absurdity to new extremes. There are an estimated 20 million to 150 million species on this planet. How the hell do you get 2 (or sometimes SEVEN) of EVERY SINGLE SPECIES onto a boat?

This is making me laugh out loud just thinking about it. And what about feeding all those animals? What about the carnivores who can only eat meat or prey on specific types of animals? How come they didn't eat the other animals with them?

This isn't even going into the genetics of it all. The modern cheetah is in severe trouble because its gene pool is extremely low due to a genetic bottleneck it went through about 100,000 years ago. Due to this fact, cheetahs are an endangered species who have very little resistance to disease because there's almost no variation within their species. This is due to the genetic bottleneck, which is where a species undergoes near extinction but only a few survive. But because only a few survive, they have very little variation within the species and face extinction.

So how does this apply to Noah's Ark? Well if you're claiming that every single species on this planet was reduced to just 2 of it's kind (or 6 in man's case) then how come we don't see any of these problems that cheetah's face in EVERY SINGLE SPECIES? Every single species should, according to you, be suffering the exact same problems that cheetah's are facing now due to this severe genetic bottleneck of the entire population of the planet 5000-6000 years ago. Can you not see the absurdity in this?

I guess now because your backwards, ignorant thinking prevents you from daring to question your beliefs. Ignorance is bliss isn't it?

http://www.thristhan.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/ignorance-is-bliss.jpg

charles allan said...

JOSHUA - Only 8 people out of billions were saved out of the FLOOD which you can clearly see evidence of today.
It does not go by numbers but the truth.

charles allan said...

NOAH's ark - plenty of space - 480 man years of building time - look up the Genesis Flood by Morris and Whitcomb - The book which changed my life.

Joshua said...

HAHAHAHA wait - you actually believe that story??? I was just taking a stab at the story, didn't know you actually believed in Noah's Ark. Dear God.

There's no hope for you Charles, I should just give up now.

You just ignored all my arguments against Noah's ark, and just said it was possible :P

Not only that, you completely ignored all my other arguments.

What about Genesis 1 & 2 completely contradicting each other? You haven't even acknowledged that. Typical creationist tripe.

BTW, if only 8 people were saved from the flood, then where's the evidence in our DNA? There is no evidence. You're talking utter shite as usual.

Dominic Swain said...

I've been reading some of this thread. It makes interesting reading. Josh and Gordon have made some great points and it seems that you are just ignoring them Charles.

Two things occurred to me. With regards to a whale (aquatic mammal) evolving from a land based mammal, why don't you have a think about a Hippopotamus Charles? To me it gives us a great way of thinking about how fully land based animals may transition to life in the water. The hippopotamus looks very much like a land-based animal to me. However, it is sem--aquatic and spends a lot of its time in the water. It shows many adaptaptions to life in water, for example the nostrils moving towards the top of its head so that it can breath while almost fully submerged. Now imagine, that variations exist in the hippopotamus population so that with each successive generation small modifications of morphology occur. Legs become shorter, webbing develops between toes. Gradually a single hippopotamus population may evolve towards a fully aquatic lifestyle. These changes may take thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions of years. But it isn't implausible at all. Also, as an interesting side note - molecular evidence puts the cetaceans (including whales and dolphins) as the closest living group to the Hippopotamus.

If you accept that dogs can evolve into other dogs, then what do you think drives the change of form between a great Dane and a poodle? It is differences in their genotype, and that's all evolution is about. A gradual accumulation of differences in the gene pool over time. Its really simple, it isn't ludicrous like a deer morphing into a whale over a few generations.

Thinking again of the difference in form between dogs in evolution; its just a convenience for us to call them all dogs but it doesn't alter how they evolve or how their genetic make-up is constructed. If you say an ancestral wolf can evolve into a poodle but a land based animal can never evolve into an aquatic mammal - then you are kidding yoiurself about evolution and what it means.

Anyway enough from me. Thanks for all the blog entries guys!

charles allan said...

Josh - this is false there is no contradiction - just reiteration.
Plus Gen 2 includes the garden of Eden and gives more detail- this is an old chestnut - a different area of the world. Of course I believe in the Ark how could you not as a Christian.
Noah's ark took more than 400 man years to build and the earth was altogether in one place .
Everyone had longevity and came to scoff at Noah's preaching. then the flood came. It could hold about 35,000 different KINDS - see Morris and Whitcomb.
The earth was divided in the days
of Peleg. Even the evolutionists believe the earth was divided -they only disagree on the timescale.
The hippo is not an intermediate and this has never been put forward by any competent palaeontologist.
A wolf is he same species as a dog
eg a poodle. The poodle and all dogs are the same family as dogs hyenas etc - KINDS- adaptation and breeding not evolution .
LOOK UP my quotes from famous evolutionists - nothing has been found.

charles allan said...

Josh - only air breathing mammals
were destroyed. Someone said all the insects in the world could have their eggs on a bit of floating vegetation. It does not count fish and insects . About 35000 species were the maximum KINDS but many scientists think it was a lot less.

charles allan said...

Josh - you are wrong about the amount of air breathing KINDS.
Where did you get this figure from
"talk origins" I think.

charles allan said...

According to your timescale Dominic billions of humans have been swimming for millions of years
- do you know of any that are evolving flippers or gills or sonar.
Not one out of billions .

Gordon said...

I found there was a limit to the number of comments when I went to set comments to span across several pages with numbers at the bottom. We will see what happens.

However, that still does not answer the issue of why fossils of later creatures are not found along side earlier ones. Also, why belief in YEC is now necessary to be a christian when it wasn't 20 years ago.

charles allan said...

Anyone could have gone onto the Ark but everyone loved sin . So then the door was closed by God and that was it - over 400 years of preaching by Noah and then it started raining and the floodgates of the deep were opened and judgment was fixed.

Joshua said...

Charles you are absolutely hopeless, and rather infuriating. You IGNORE the main arguments from people, which is just downright rude, and write utter bullshit to the stuff you do bother to read.

Do you not know what a brain is? Or how to use one?

Once again, let me destroy every single one of your arguments. Starting with the fact that Gen 1 and 2 contradict each other:

Genesis 1:24-27

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 
    26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
 27 So God created mankind in his own image, 
   in the image of God he created them; 
   male and female he created them.
See, all animals were created, and then man and woman was created last.
Genesis 2:18-22:
 18 The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
 19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.
   But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
Which clearly states God creating ALL the wild animals and ALL the birds in the sky 'for it is not good for man to be alone'. Clearly, there is a huge contradiction.

Joshua said...

Now onto Noah's ark:
Aside from the ridiculousness of you claiming that an ark could hold 35,000 different KINDS (which is still bullshit because there's still probably at least a million different KINDS out there assuming you're referring to genome) how do you explain fish?
How come either freshwater fish or saltwater fish didn't die out? Use your head for once Charles, and consider the fact that Noah didn't take fish on his ark with him, but some fish live in saltwater conditions and some fish live in fresh water conditions. So either the flood was salt water and thus all the fresh water fish would've died out, or the flood was fresh water and thus all the salt water fish would've died out. But we still have both today? How do you propose that happened? Your intellectual ineptness is so glaring it's comical.
That's actually a very good point about the hippos, well done Dominic. And as for Charles, please stop acting like a dick and use your head. Dogs are not the same species as wolves. If dogs were the same species as wolves, they would be able to mate with wolves and produce viable offspring. Can they do that? No? Then that makes them different species. Again, your lack of knowledge is blatant.
"LOOK UP my quotes from famous evolutionists - nothing has been found."
I can't believe you've dared bring this up again. I've already exposed you as being a liar with your quotes before. So I'm going to post it again here in case Dominic hasn't already read it.
"As for the the quotations you gave me are completely out of context!!! This is typical and deliberate LYING from creationists. EVERY SINGLE ONE of those people on your list SUPPORTS evolution. It's funny how you even quote from the late Stephen Jay Gould - one of the greatest pioneers and evolutionary biologists that has ever lived.

Another example, Colin Patterson Senior who you quote heavily from, says this in his book titled Evolution:

"In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal,Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . ."

Showing CLEARLY that he is in full support of evolution and transitional fossils.

So, Charles, that makes you a LIAR.

So please don't give me any more bullshit quotes, because you're just weakening your case. This is what is known as QUOTE-MINING - quoting authors out of context to support your own argument when in actual fact the authors of those quotations would be offended that you dared use them in that way.

A question for you, is that very Christian? NO IT IS NOT. So please stop doing it."

PLEASE READ THE ABOVE. And stop LYING.

And please stop saying I visit talk origins.

Answer me this, please - do you bother to read a single word I write? I've already stated at least FOUR TIMES that I've only ever been on talk origins a couple of times, and rarely use it as a source. So stop being a prick and saying I'm using that website when I've already stated several times that I do not.

Gordon brings up a very good point though Charles.
How do you respond to his point: why don't we ever find fossils of earlier creatures with later ones. If creation were true, we'd find fossils all jumbled up together, e.g. man with trilobites, apes with dinosaurs etc. Yet, we don't. Isn't that a tad peculiar?

Dominic Swain said...

You really didn't grasp the point I was making Charles. I'll give it one more try, please read this and have a think about it.

Apparently you accept that within "kinds" (however you are defining that) some form of evolution can take place. Thus, dogs can breed and produce different forms. Now, thanks to molecular biology we can look at the genomes of two different dog breeds, we can read their genetic code - quite literally. We would see great similarity between them in most places and slight changes in a few key places. Those changes would indicate the differences between the two forms which you see in the flesh - the visible phenotype. Now, by your own definition you accept that this change is possible. So, I have to ask you, what is to stop further changes over time in that genetic code (because if we take a large population of any species there is variation in their genes, and when they breed those genes prosper differentially in the gene pool). If you allow changes of any sort in the genetic code then there is no difference between a wolf evolving into a poodle or a small insectivorous mammal evolving into a large carnivorous one, for example. There is also nothing stopping a land based animal evolving into an aquatic one either. All it involves is the same minor genetic changes which you have admitted can occur - add a lot of them up over a long time and you get a large change. Otherwise its like you saying that you can keep saving pennies to make a pound, but its impossible to keep saving pennies to make 10,000 pounds. Small changes + long time periods = large change.

I did not state that the hippo was an intermediate or transitional form. Also, I think you are getting confused. When scientists talk of intermediate forms you should not think in terms of abrupt changes in form. All that occurs is a gradual change in form over a long time, do not think of species changing in jerky and abrupt movements but rather in a very slow and continual process.

If we find fossil B is intermediate between species A and C, that does not mean that evolution occurred in 3 steps - A then B then C. It means that species B is of a form which represents a stage that evolution went through. The transitional form B may be a direct ancestor, but it may be from a sister group (you can think of this like a cousin).

The Hippo shows how a land based animal form may adapt to an aquatic life. Of course the hippo isn't a transitional form, it's an extant species. Where its future evolution will go I can't guess, but if it remains in the water for most of its time it is very possible that the species will develop more aquatic adaptations.

Finally, you said that according to my timescale billions of humans have been swimming for millions of years. I have made no mention of this, and nothing about evolution is "my" timescale, I can only comment on the evidence which provides a timescale for us. Modern Homo sapiens hasn't existed for millions of years so I don't know what you are referring to. Furthermore, humans aren't mainly aquatic so why would they evolve flippers or gills? If there is no selection pressure for a trait then it won't evolve. Evolution doesn't predict that humans should evolve aquatic traits at all. We are land based and thus have adaptations for living on land. The Hippopotamus is not entirely land based so it MAY evolve more aquatic adaptations in the future - that was my point, in fact it already has some. The hippo shows how a land animal (it clearly has land animal type adaptations too) can start to exploit a new ecological niche.

Think about it - carefully. Please.

charles allan said...

Josh - this argument about two creation stories has been going for centuries - it is just recapitulation - with more detail
about Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden - it follows the ancient
Hebrew style.

charles allan said...

Dominic - the dogs have not evolved
into other KINDS - they are still
dogs. This is why even evolutionists are still looking for
missing links. I know that gradualism is behind Darwinism but
there is no evidence that one KIND
evolves into another kind.
What was the whale BEFORE it became
an aquatic animal. You think the Hippo is a missing link - what was it before it became aquatic ??

Dominic Swain said...

Hi Charles,

Just to reiterate I didn't say the hippo was a missing link or transitional form, did you read my post? I quote:

"Of course the hippo isn't a transitional form, it's an extant species"

I was trying to get you to think about how animals can gradually progress from being mainly land based to being mainly aquatic.

Also, please define a KIND. What constrains the changes in genes so that they cannot cross this "kind" barrier?

Joshua said...

Charles, they quite clearly contradict each other. Genesis 1 clearly states man and woman being created last. Genesis 2 clearly states this:

"18 And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” 19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name."

Please at least attempt to give a more coherent argument other than 'they don't contradict each other.' You're not validating your claim. I am and using respectable bible verses to do so.

Also, please define what you mean by "kind" as it is not recognised by any biologist as a true taxonomical term.

Thanks,

Josh

charles allan said...

Dominic - according to Darwins theory the hippo must have come from some other creature - going -
right back to the elusive single cell in the muddy pool. So according to your own theory it must be transitional.
The KINDS mentioned in the Bible
can relate to different species but not always. Since the poodle
has lost genetic information - the
original dogs that God made would
have all the DNA required to produce the variations such as wolf
hyena etc

Joshua said...

Charles, did you deliberately ignore my post?

And for once in fact you are right (at the beginning of your post) but for all the wrong reasons. All creatures that exist today are transitional, and all fossils you find are transitional. The fossil record is some of the greatest evidence for evolution because of the thousands upon thousands of transitional fossils that have been found.

But again you do that extremely dishonest and immoral thing of blurring truth with lies. Your true statement 'according to Darwin's theory the hippo must have come from some other creature going right back to the elusive single cell in the muddy pool' is a deliberate straw-man and blatant dishonesty.

You LIED (once again) claiming Dominic stated that the hippo was a transitional form between mammals and whales, here I quote:
'you think the hippo is a missing link' - Dominic never stated that it was a missing link or transitional form. So again you have been caught out lying, like so many times before.

Please stop because you're really not selling Christianity to me here if Christians think it's okay to lie in order to win an argument.

Dominic Swain said...

Hi Charles,

Arguments about whether the hippo is transitional or not are really just playing with words. I brought it up as an example of how an animal may start to change its behaviour (becoming more aquatic, even though it still has a form based on land-living adaptations), and that this will start to favour changes towards aquatic living. The point is that any species is not immutable and can change over time as it adapts to its way of life.

I have to go back and ask you to define what a "kind" is. When we breed dogs we are causing their genotypes to change. The genetic code is universal and it is the same whether we are talking about dogs, hippos, whales, birds, frogs or fish. What changes is the way in which the code is arranged in the DNA strands present (I am trying to keep this simplistic). If the genotype in dogs can change within this so called dog "kind" then what prevents it from changing beyond the boundaries of this supposedly fixed form? I am pressing this point because you seem certain that dogs can evolve into other dogs - but not beyond that. What is the genetic or molecular basis of this argument?

Also, what is the evidence for the apparent loss of DNA in a Poodle? Don't assume that smaller forms must have less DNA, because there isn't always such a simple relationship between size of genome and complexity of animal (although broad generalisations could be made).

Thanks,

Dominic

charles allan said...

God - said that each Kind would
reproduce after their Kinds.

So once again - what came before the Hippo as per your theory of Darwin.

charles allan said...

Dominic - the genetic code would be
universal since it was designed by a creator God who created all things living.

charles allan said...

Joshua - you say the hippo is not transitional then you say all creatures are transitional - even though I gave you quotes from famous evolutionists saying they
have found nothing.

I mean what kind of science is it saying the mantra "all creatures are transitional" with no evidence.

Are we related to bananas with 50%
of our DNA ?????????

Gordon said...

Forget science.

Creationism is bad theology because it is based on a wilful lie (that the earth is only 6500 years old).

charles allan said...

Gordon - about 6750 years old according to Rabbi scholars. But I read that one Rabbi found a "missing 200 years in Chronicles"
don't know if this is true.
Why do you say it is a lie - where
is your evidence. You say evolution is not important but I think that is why you have lost your faith ( assuming you have).

"If you do not believe in the Books of Moses - you will not believe in Me " Jesus'
After the 6000 years there will be a Sabbath - the 1000 year reign of Jesus in the Millenium - Jesus reigning from Jerusalem - kind of matching the 7 day week.

You can see the world moving in this way - are you blind to current events - " Can a country be born in a day " Israel.

You are following Darwin rather than Jesus .
"watch that no one has an evil unbelieving heart ...... Paul.

The Millenium will be an amazing time - " the lion will lie down with the lamb ... a child can play with a snake - it is back to vegetarianism - where everyman has his own vineyard (farm) no more big
banks or business to exploit you - why would you refuse this .

Dominic Swain said...

Gordon - sorry if my involvement in this conversation is way off topic. I hope you don't mind me posting here.

Charles, I hadn't intended to steer the conversation over to the specific evolution of hippos, it really isn't particularly relevant to the reason why I used them as an example. I wanted you to think about the existing form as we see them today.

I am not an expert specifically on hippo evolution, but I do know that molecular evidence shows they shared an ancestor with cetaceans (dolphins, whales etc) around 60 million years ago. The ancestor was most likely semi-aquatic and the lineage that gave rise to the hippos was the anthracotheres. If you want to explore this fully, this is not the place to do it. We need to discuss things in very technical detail and look at various sources - if you want to do this then let me know. I'm up for having a focused conversation on hippo evolution elsewhere.

Finally, you have said that of course the genetic code is universal. If you accept that, and you accept that evolution within "kinds" is possible then you really have no basis to deny evolution on a larger scale. What mechanism is there to prevent the universal genetic language changing one species into a species with a different form over time? There are not separate types of DNA, one for the dog "kind", one for the fish "kind" etc. If you do know of a sound biological reason that prevents DNA from allowing animals to evolve from one kind to another, then please let me know and also provide some evidence. You are likely to win a nobel prize for that kind of breakthrough, so I am very willing to listen.

I am open to your arguments but you need to be consistent and back them up with evidence. I suggest you stop fixating on hippo evolution and have a think about the implications of a universal genetic code and what that means to the unity and interconnectedness (and relatedness) of all life on Earth.

Many thanks,

Dominic

charles allan said...

Molecuar evidence showed they shared an ancestor ?? this is an assumption eg like we share an ancestor with bananas since we share 50% of DNA.
There are two theories - Darwinism
which says we are all descended from the elusive first single cell.
Never proven. Never replicated.

OR God created DNA to form all the KINDS of living creatures. Some of the kinds have separated into eg
poodles and wolves.

I believe in the second - that God created all living things.

Gordon said...

Charles, its not either - or.

What you are doing is saying that to be a Christian you have to deny all reason and deny evidence you can see with your own eyes. For me this includes the fossilised trees and the tracks of long extinct giant centipedes that I see in the rocks at Crail beach.

Creationists have made it impossible for me to be a Christian and liberal Christians have not helped but viewing creationism as evidence of great faith and refusing to criticise it.

charles allan said...

Gordon
Creationists do not deny fossils-just the timescale - there are fossilised trees at Mt St Helens from only a few years back. There
is a fossilised cowboy boot.
Creationists say that fossils came
from the Noachin flood. If you believe that Jesus was the son of GOD ,came in the flesh and was resurrected - I don't see why there
is no room in the church for people
who believe in the flood. After all
Jesus spoke of it.
There are many other recent fossils
eg from lava at Pompei.
Only a global flood can produce the cements that left the tracks.
The Paluxy tracts of man and dino in Texas are evidence of the flood.
The sediments at Mt St Helens look
ancient but are not.

Dominic Swain said...

I agree with Gordon. If you really think that to be a Christian you must accept the Bible as a document which is scientifically accurate, then I don't believe anyone who looks at the evidence openly and honestly can accept that the Bible is scientific fact. I also used to be a Christian, but the view of many creationists really frustrated me and in many ways this contributed to my loss of faith (it is by no means the only reason - neither is evolution the only reason).

Charles - all life is related and we are related to banana plants (and I suppose therefore to bananas which are just the fruit of the tree) - but we are extremely distantly related.

I know you will denigrate this fact but if you study biology in depth you will see why this is the case. The plant (plantae)kingdom split from the animal kingdom very early in the evolution of eukaryotic life. But because all plants are eukaryotes (multi-celled life) we as mammals are more closely related to them, than to prokaryotes (single-celled organisms). I could go into incredible amounts of details but there is a wealth of evidence that shows this to be true.Let me know if you are interested in knowing more.

You still haven't explained how dogs can evolve within their kind but animals cannot evolve beyond their kind - especially in light of your admission that DNA is indeed a universal code. This is fundamental to your argument and you must have a sound biological reason for believing it. You are contradicting accepted scientific fact and therefore you must have good evidence for doing so.

Once you look into biological science you will see that the boundary between any two species is sometimes very small and blurred - this idea you have of fixed immutable "kinds" is not supported by any evidence.

Finally, there is major evidence refuting the supposed footprints of man and dinosaurs cast in the rocks together near the Paluxy river. I am happy to provide the evidence if you are interested, but suffice it to say that the interpretation that dinosaur and man lived (and walked!) side by side is utterly erroneous.

Many thanks,

Dominic

charles allan said...

I have seen the debunking evidence
by desperate evolutionists on the Paluxy basin (probably talk origin) but have the original photographs. I don't believe I am
related to a banana or a hippo but I am a descendant of Adam and Eve.

The Heart mountain is supposedly resting on strata 250 million years younger- The Lewis mountain rests on strata supposedly 500 million yrs younger as does the Matterhorn and many alpine mountains - this makes a comedy out of the geologic column and the timescale. Mountains don't get blown along.

Dominic Swain said...

Charles,

You are attacking most scientific fields without thinking through your arguments. Turning to geology briefly (I am not a geologist but I have studied some areas of geology to a moderate level), you are again making the mistake of seeing mountains as fixed and static objects. The Earth's surface is highly dynamic. Rocks are weathered, sediments are transported, new rocks are laid down, magma is extruded onto the surface, fault lines develop, uplift occurs, mountain building happens as tectonic plates collide. I am not commenting specifically on the Lewis mountain or the Matterhorn, but it is entirely possible for sections of entire geological starta to be upturned and inverted and for deposition to continue on the new layers. The landscape of mountains DOES change, but of course they don't get blow along. Again, you need to go into depth to understand this in more detail, and again I am happy to discuss this further if you wish.

This idea of fixed immobile objects and species simply placed by God on the Earth is such a dry uninteresting explanation, especially when compared with the glorious workings of a highly dynamic Earth and biota.

You still haven't tackled the DNA issue in the evolution of kinds.

What evidence (beyond a picture) have you got that will convince me that the footprints are indeed human and dinosaur? What is the analysis, what kind of dinosaur was it, when was it deposited? And if it is true, what was the situation captured in these footprints? A man walking his friendly dinosaur pet? There is so mjuch evidence that shows that dinosaurs and humans are separated by tens of millions of years of evolutions.

Many thanks,

Dominic

Dominic Swain said...

That should read "geological strata" above - not starta.

Apologies.

charles allan said...

These mountains are sedimentary and there is no evidence of any friction on the contact line.
For a mountain to move intact for
about 50 miles is impossible especially since there is no thrust
friction evidence - who moved the mountains ?
Marco Polo ( I think) observed dragons ( the old word for dino)
pulling carts in China.
There is so much evidence for creation if you would look.

charles allan said...

Dominic - I have tackled DNA from the creationist point of view if you read my posts.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 402   Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

To leave a comment you need one of the account types listed (e.g. Google/Gmail, Wordpress, Open ID). This gives you the option to be notified of replies to your comments.