Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews

[E. Albright]

Originally posted by Krsqk:
As for translating from Greek/Hebrew, there are difficulties involved translating. That said, the difficulties are not insurmountable, or no one would translate anything. At least those two Languages had not been popularly spoken for quite some time, so their "meaning creep" should have been very limited, at the least. They had been studied throughout the Middle Ages, though, in the classic literature, so denotation/connotation were determinable.

I need to let this die, but I'm starved for complex conversation, so I'll make one Last (I hope) thrust. I again suggest that you look at Quine's Indeterminacy of Translation argument, even though it may not be easy to lay hands on. Translation is certainly possible, but one can never be certain that it's "right". Translation is certainly possible, but it's impossible for translation to be certain. And the more esotaric and abstract the subject, the more likely one is to have problems. Ostention (sp?) only works with things which one can reasonably point to examples of, and even it has its limits.

Look, my major beef can be described thusly: you're not claiming that you're successfully interpreting the Bible, you're claiming that you're authoratatively interpreting the Bible, that you're literaly interpreting the Bible. You're saying that you can clearly and unabiguously determine exactly what it is meant to communicate. This implies that no one may disagree with said interpretation (even though scads of people necessarily shall). What gives your interpretation privledged status over any other arbitrary interpretation, aside from your assurance that it clearly means such-and-such? You say "I think that lack of 100% certainty [...] is not reason for discounting the probability of successfully interpreting a text", but this has the nasty implication that there is one definate, set meaning to be extracted, and that you'll somehow "know" when ya get it. If you want to claim literal interpretation, you need this claim. Well, given that all y'all literal interpreters don't agree on exactly which literal interpretation is "right", why should we'uns assume that there is a single correct "literal" interpretation?

Brèf, literal interpretation is oxymoronic...

E. Albright

[E. Albright]

Originally posted by Krsqk:
First, to effectively communicate to a wide variety of people, it should be able to be taken at face value, unless it clearly indicates otherwise. Second, I think in some cases (definitely not all), the issue is not one of interpretation, but application. "I know what this says, but what does it mean in my life?" Third, the majority of conflicts are between the literal and allegorical camps. Disagreements on interpretation between literalists are usually limited to points of detail, not doctrine.

I need to shut up. Really. So this shall be my parting word. Besides, I don't think there's really any reason to continue this line of discussion, as we appear to have hit a semantic brick wall. I think we're using the word "interpretation" differently. I say this for two reasons.

First, you continue to return to phrases such as "face value", which outright eliminates the possibility of textual interpretation as I'm using the word. Yes, words can have a "face value", but it's subjective. Comprehension of text (or any communication) is not a matter of objective comprehension, but of subjective interpretation ("To me word X means concept Y, word A means concept B, word Q means concept R, and thus phrase ABC means concept N", to brutally oversimplify).

Second off, you speak of application v. interpretation. I'm inclined to take this as suggesting that you mean interpretation as "God said XYZ; what does he want us to do?", rather than "God said XYZ; what does he want to communicate by saying XYZ?". This returns us to the fallacy of intentionality; i.e., the notion that one can necessarily extract a communicator's intended "message" from a communication. I have a feeling the root of our problem is actually a touch more esoteric than what has thus far been discussed; I'm wanting to accuse you of subscribing to the existence of universals. If this is the case, our discussion would need to move to a higher level to achieve any meaningful resolution, and I doubt you'd want to go there (not that I'm sure that I, cut off from English-language reference material of the non-Internet-y variety, would want to either, mind you).

Oh, and regarding whether literalists disagree over detail or doctrine, well... I present Exhibit A as a non-mainstream (but certainly not without a following) literal doctrine...

The Bible definitely includes the perspective of the men who wrote it. That's why books which mostly parallel each other can present totally different sides of a story (i.e., 1/2 Kings and 1/2 Chronicles). If you really believe that this passage rules out literal interpretation, then smack yourself in the head next time you say "sunrise" or "sunset."

...or I suppose that this might be the root of our semantic problem. Literal interpretation means more than just taking something non-allegorically; it means reading the text as the author intended it to be read. Unless you're the author, you can't do so. And if you've got other people writing the text for you, you stand no chance of communicating anything outside of "the perspective of [ those ] who wrote it"... By admitting the preceeding, mind you, you've interposed at least one more layer of subjective interpretation between the reader and the Reavealed Truth. And in any and all fairness, you need to include a layer for the translator(s), too; even if you think one can write something that can be read with an "objective interpretation", I dearly hope that you don't think that objective translation is possible (Douglas Hofstadter's marvelous Le Ton Beau de Marot: In Praise of the Music of Language raises some interesting points in this regard).

Okay, I'm done. Really. Tongue-biting (finger-biting?) shall now commence.

E. Albright

[ Edit: UBB code cleaning ]

[ December 18, 2002, 11:41: Message edited by: E. Albright ]

[Krsqk]

You have not offered any arguments to justify creationism or a belief in the Christian God. You just say that you believe what the Bible says. IMHO, that is not a good basis for beliefs of any sort.

First, the original goal wasn't to prove or disprove evolution, but to demonstrate that it is as much a faith as belief in creationism. If there's any doubt on that score, I'd be glad to begin again.

Second, reasons to believe in creation and reasons to believe in God are quite different areas of discussion (although belief in God should also signify a belief in creation). Again, my efforts haven't been focused on proof/disproof of either side. Greatly simplified, I look at both theories, determine what each predicts in the words, and then look at the world for what I actually see.

What is there to see? Evolution demands a fossil record jam-packed with transitional forms of all sorts in all stages between all species (unless you Subscribe to punctuated equilibrium). For that matter, I would expect at least some fossils of failed species--"transitional" forms that didn't make it. There is a total, 100% absence of transitional forms in our fossil record--not a single missing link. The probability for evolution is absolutely absurd. The odds for the formation of life, alone, are far above 10^55, the "line of improbability"; let alone any other part of evolution. Research into radio-polonium halos indicates the earth could never have been a molten mass. The earth's rotational speed (or the sun's rising speed ) is slowing down. Millions or billions of years ago, the winds would have been thousands of miles per hour. Short-period comets should have long ago been exhausted. No Oort cloud has ever been found; it was based upon faulty calculations. Furthermore, it is supposed to be 50,000 AU from the sun; no telescope could pick up a comet-sized object at that range, rendering it unprovable. Fossil meteorites are rarely found in lower layers of the earth; if those layers were exposed for millions of years, there should be thousands or millions of meteorites found. Jupiter and Saturn are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it. They should have cooled off long ago. Io is losing matter to Jupiter, and should have disappeared by now. The amount of He-4 in the atmosphere is several orders of magnitude below what it should be for an ancient earth. The erosion of the continents should have been accomplished in 14 million years at present rates. The rock encasing oil deposits would crack after ~10 thousand years. It's not cracked--we still have oil "gushers." There is very little sediment on the ocean floor. The expansion of the Sahara desert should have engulfed all of Africa in a few hundred thousand years. Ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica have a maximum depth of 14 thousand feet. Planes which crashed in Greenland in 1942 were found under 263 feet of ice. Earth's population should be much higher after hundreds of thousands of years. It reflects about 4-5 thousand years of growth. The oldest coral reef is less than 4200 years old. The oldest living tree is 4300 years old. Stalactite and stalagmite formations do not reflect thousands of years/inch. There are 50-inch stalactites under the Washington Monument. The Mississippi River delta only reflects ~30,000 years of accumulated sediment. Topsoil formation rates do not support billions or even millions of years, but a few thousand.

On the other hand, I would expect the fossil record to closely reflect our current speciation. I would expect hundreds of creation stories in different cultures. I would expect depictions of ancient humans coexisting with dinosaurs (see the Ica stones, for one massive example--how did they accurately depict dinosaurs in their art if they'd never seen one?) I would expect evidence of catastrophism in geology--and many geologists are returning to catastrophism. I would expect massive amounts of fossil fuels. I would expect a lack of ancient geological formations. I would expect many polystrate fossils (such as fossilized trees running vertically through "millions of years" of rock layers). I would expect to still see short-period comets. I would expect the moon to still have short-life isotopes like U-236 and Th-230.

[edit--typos]

[ December 18, 2002, 15:31: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[Phoenix-D]

Time to wack a few minor errors..comments I do not understand or can't answer at the moment deleted. Mostly because I'm too lazy to do the needed research at the moment (finals will do that. )

"What is there to see? Evolution demands a fossil record jam-packed with transitional forms of all sorts in all stages between all species (unless you Subscribe to punctuated equilibrium). For that matter, I would expect at least some fossils of failed species--"transitional" forms that didn't make it."

AKA extinct species? Like, oh, Neanderthol (sp)? Fossils can only form under specific circumstances, as well. Especially for soft-bodied organisms.

"There is a total, 100% absence of transitional forms in our fossil record--not a single missing link."

Hmm. I'm pretty sure this is incorrect simply because I've seen pictures of primitive whales. They -don't- look like modern whales, and have several land-based features. That's microevoltion, but the point stands.

The probability for evolution is absolutely absurd. The odds for the formation of life, alone, are far above 10^55, the "line of improbability"; let alone any other part of evolution."

Time factor. Also interesting that you claim to know the odds, but say we don't know what the early earth was like. If we don't know what the early earth was like, we *can't* get any real odds. Just wild guesses.

"The earth's rotational speed (or the sun's rising speed ) is slowing down. Millions or billions of years ago, the winds would have been thousands of miles per hour."

You're assuming it falls off at the same rate as current. Rotational speed only affects wind by affecting the heating rate (and producing greater Corlis, but that shouldn't icnrease wind speed).

"Short-period comets should have long ago been exhausted."

How many did we start with?

"Jupiter and Saturn are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it. They should have cooled off long ago."

Lesse..heat out there would have to be from radioactive decay and/or pressure. Radioactive decay heat drops exponentially. At the start they would cool much faster than at the end.

"Io is losing matter to Jupiter, and should have disappeared by now."

Io didn't have to from when Jupiter did.

"The erosion of the continents should have been accomplished in 14 million years at present rates."

Volcanic activity creates more land area, as do a few other things IIRC. The continental drift maps that show the continents the -exact same size and shape- as today are weird, though.

"The rock encasing oil deposits would crack after ~10 thousand years. It's not cracked--we still have oil "gushers.""

For every single deposit? Somehow I doubt it.

"There is very little sediment on the ocean floor."

The oldest ocean floor found is a few hundred million years old. It's contunally destroyed, and that takes the sediment with it.

"The expansion of the Sahara desert should have engulfed all of Africa in a few hundred thousand years."

Assuming it expanded at the current rate. There's evidence some human activites increase desertifcation, and for that matter climate change can do the same (or shrink it).

:Earth's population should be much higher after hundreds of thousands of years. It reflects about 4-5 thousand years of growth."

Are you familiar with an exponential growth curve? Or carrying capacities? I assume you mean with that. the population has had restraints removed recently; infant mortality and deaths from disease are down, farming increases the amount of food and thus the population that can survive, etc.

"The oldest coral reef is less than 4200 years old. The oldest living tree is 4300 years old."

Living things -die-. That answers the tree part. You might as well state that the oldest human isn't more than 100 years old, therefore the earth can't be more than X years old.

As for the coral, the ocean floor would take care of most of the very old deposits. Erosin (sp could elimiate the rest after a few thousand years. Coral only grows under certain conditions, and not all coral is reef-forming.

"Stalactite and stalagmite formations do not reflect thousands of years/inch. There are 50-inch stalactites under the Washington Monument."

WACK! Oh, sorry, I broke it off. Seriously, formation rates could vary. I don't remember exactly how they form, but I'm fairly certain they need water to form. The WM recieves quite a lot more water than most caves. Speaking of which, -under- the moment? Uh, where? In the basement? The momument itself, being really tall tapered pillar, doesn't seem well-suited to form those.

"The Mississippi River delta only reflects ~30,000 years of accumulated sediment."

Which happens to blow the literal creationist 6000-year viewpoint out of the water if true, but hey. Hmm. I'm no expert on rivers, but I know the Mississippi has moved course at least once (IIRC the 1812 earthquake moved it a bit)

"Topsoil formation rates do not support billions or even millions of years, but a few thousand."

I'm assuming you mean net formation rate. See the desert comment.

Phoenix-D

[Krsqk]

"AKA extinct species? Like, oh, Neanderthol (sp)? Fossils can only form under specific circumstances, as well. Especially for soft-bodied organisms."
Neanderthal man was shown to be an old man with severe bone/joint disease (arthritis?). The misshapen face is a result of acromegaly--the forehead and other bones thicken with age.

"Hmm. I'm pretty sure this is incorrect simply because I've seen pictures of primitive whales. They -don't- look like modern whales, and have several land-based features. That's microevoltion, but the point stands."
No "transitional form" in the fossil record has stood the test of time. Each one has been shown to be something other than what it was first thought to be. Have you seen photos of the skeletons? Or just drawings of the fleshed-out artist's conception? Need I remind you of Java man and his history?

"Time factor. Also interesting that you claim to know the odds, but say we don't know what the early earth was like. If we don't know what the early earth was like, we *can't* get any real odds. Just wild guesses."
The odds I gave are just a statistical probablity of assembling 1/5 of the typical enzyme chain found in our simplest organisms (50 instead of ~250). At 100 trillion "attempts" per second, using a factorial system (which assumes wrong combinations are not re-used, something not true of true random chance), it would take 30 trillion trillion times longer than the universe is posited to have existed to ensure the correct combination. (The odds were about 1/10^64.) That's generously assuming all the correct enzymes already exist and assuming an agent to try different combinations. Not to mention that enzyme chains are pretty finicky things--you can't just mix and match them in any order and get useful things.

I don't think you understand the vastness of 10^55 (the limit of improbability}. Given 30 billion years (the approximate proposed existence of the universe), you have to try 1.057*10^37 combinations per second. That's simply an enormous number, far beyond human comprehension. And that's 9 orders of magnitude below the origin of one component of a "simple" life form.

The truth is, there are no "simple" life forms; single-celled organisms are far more complex than we understand. As you've said, each cell has a built-in defense system, power plants, feeding system, etc. The odds of all of those parts evolving simultaneously (as you say must have happened) would be much, much higher than what I've posted here.

"How many [comets] did we start with?"
Short-period comets only have a life-span of 10,000 years.

[edit starts here--I clicked Add Post instead of Alt-Tabbing.]

"Lesse..heat out there would have to be from radioactive decay and/or pressure. Radioactive decay heat drops exponentially. At the start they would cool much faster than at the end."
So, in ~4.6 billion years at the present rate, they should be done cooling by now, and you're saying that the rate of cooling would exponentially increase as we go further back in time? I'm not understanding how this helps you out.

"Volcanic activity creates more land area, as do a few other things IIRC. The continental drift maps that show the continents the -exact same size and shape- as today are weird, though."
Volcanic "spewing" doesn't account for enough new mass to make up for it, though. AFA the continental drift maps, why is Africa actually shrunk? What about all that dirt in between the continents on the ocean floor? The continents don't actually float, you know.

"You might as well state that the oldest human isn't more than 100 years old, therefore the earth can't be more than X years old."
No, it's just odd that no living creature on earth would be over 4500 years old, which would be expected if creation/the Flood were true.

"Which happens to blow the literal creationist 6000-year viewpoint out of the water if true, but hey."
Except for the Flood. Besides, it also would be a lot closer to 6,000 than to whenever the Last Ice Age (or whatever other massive climate change would have drastically altered the earth's topography) ended allowing the Mississippi to form.

[ December 18, 2002, 18:43: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by Krsqk:
First, the original goal wasn't to prove or disprove evolution, but to demonstrate that it is as much a faith as belief in creationism. If there's any doubt on that score, I'd be glad to begin again.

Second, reasons to believe in creation and reasons to believe in God are quite different areas of discussion (although belief in God should also signify a belief in creation). Again, my efforts haven't been focused on proof/disproof of either side. Greatly simplified, I look at both theories, determine what each predicts in the words, and then look at the world for what I actually see.

I have no problems to this point...

Originally posted by Krsqk:


What is there to see? Evolution demands a fossil record jam-packed with transitional forms of all sorts in all stages between all species (unless you Subscribe to punctuated equilibrium). For that matter, I would expect at least some fossils of failed species--"transitional" forms that didn't make it. There is a total, 100% absence of transitional forms in our fossil record--not a single missing link. The probability for evolution is absolutely absurd. The odds for the formation of life, alone, are far above 10^55, the "line of improbability"; let alone any other part of evolution.

'Probability' is irrelevant. Proof is what matters, and it is lacking.

Originally posted by Krsqk:

Research into radio-polonium halos indicates the earth could never have been a molten mass. The earth's rotational speed (or the sun's rising speed ) is slowing down. Millions or billions of years ago, the winds would have been thousands of miles per hour. Short-period comets should have long ago been exhausted. No Oort cloud has ever been found; it was based upon faulty calculations. Furthermore, it is supposed to be 50,000 AU from the sun; no telescope could pick up a comet-sized object at that range, rendering it unprovable. Fossil meteorites are rarely found in lower layers of the earth; if those layers were exposed for millions of years, there should be thousands or millions of meteorites found. Jupiter and Saturn are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it. They should have cooled off long ago. Io is losing matter to Jupiter, and should have disappeared by now. The amount of He-4 in the atmosphere is several orders of magnitude below what it should be for an ancient earth. The erosion of the continents should have been accomplished in 14 million years at present rates. The rock encasing oil deposits would crack after ~10 thousand years. It's not cracked--we still have oil "gushers." There is very little sediment on the ocean floor. The expansion of the Sahara desert should have engulfed all of Africa in a few hundred thousand years. Ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica have a maximum depth of 14 thousand feet. Planes which crashed in Greenland in 1942 were found under 263 feet of ice. Earth's population should be much higher after hundreds of thousands of years. It reflects about 4-5 thousand years of growth. The oldest coral reef is less than 4200 years old. The oldest living tree is 4300 years old. Stalactite and stalagmite formations do not reflect thousands of years/inch. There are 50-inch stalactites under the Washington Monument. The Mississippi River delta only reflects ~30,000 years of accumulated sediment. Topsoil formation rates do not support billions or even millions of years, but a few thousand.

Whoa! Whoa!

This is one huge mass of overly-quick conclusions. Just a few corrections/amplifications...

The earth's rotation is slowing because of the gravitational drag of the moon. It is slowing at a rate measured in hundredths of a second annually. It will be billions of years before the earth rotates at the same speed that the moon orbits, resulting in the same part of the earth always facing the moon. How does this relate to the Biblical time scale of ~4,000 years?

Winds, btw, are created by heat differences in the atmosphere, not the earth's rotation.

Jupiter is supposed to be radiating about twice as much energy as it receives, yes. Jupiter and Saturn (and to a lesser extent all the other gas giant planets) are generating energy by the simple mechanism of their huge bulk generating enough pressure and heat to cause a little bit of fusion. Jupiter is only a little bit too small to have become a star, you know. Planets about 4 times the size of Jupiter are called 'brown dwarfs' these days. It's also possible that the rocky cores of these planets have some heavy elements in them, just like earth, and there is some nuclear fission going on.

And speaking of the earth, there are lots of geological processes going on that build up the continents. Using scientific information about erosion to claim that they should have eroded away by now, while ignoring the other scientific information about the building processes, is disingenuous.

I don't know where you get the bit about oil strata cracking. Why would oil strata crack and not other strata? Why would any stata crack? Other than the usual fault lines cause by major movement, of course... In other words, what the farg are you talking about? This is gibberish.

No, the Sahara should not have engulfed all of Africa. A desert is not a living thing that grows and seeks out more space. It's simply an area where certain climate conditions exist. During the Last Ice Age the area now called 'the Sahara' was more like the Great Plains in the US with grasslands and rivers. Its current expansion is actually due to human activities like over-grazing.

Ice cores... this is more gibberish. Ice flows, it doesn't just sit there. The depth is determined by how much greater the rate of deposition is than the rate at which it can flow away. There are hundreds of thousands of tons of icebergs calving off of Greenland every year. Where are they coming from if the ice cap is static? You should know this if you know enough to learn about the depth of the ice cap. This is another clear case of disingenuousness.

There is a huge difference between proving that the scientific worldview is not an air-tight, accomplished fact and using half-truths and clever omissions to try to prove the literalist 'Creation' worldview.

Originally posted by Krsqk:

On the other hand, I would expect the fossil record to closely reflect our current speciation. I would expect hundreds of creation stories in different cultures. I would expect depictions of ancient humans coexisting with dinosaurs (see the Ica stones, for one massive example--how did they accurately depict dinosaurs in their art if they'd never seen one?) I would expect evidence of catastrophism in geology--and many geologists are returning to catastrophism. I would expect massive amounts of fossil fuels. I would expect a lack of ancient geological formations. I would expect many polystrate fossils (such as fossilized trees running vertically through "millions of years" of rock layers). I would expect to still see short-period comets. I would expect the moon to still have short-life isotopes like U-236 and Th-230.

[edit--typos]

I don't see any of these 'expectations' as supporting the 'young earth' (or 'young universe' as the case may be) hypothesis. Many of them are true, yes, but these require the same detailed reasoning to understand as the other phenomena you discussed too superficially. Catastrophism does not preclude long periods of relative calm. Short period comets are just long period comets that have been bumped to a shorter orbit by encounters with a planet. Etc... all these things are quite explainable with the scientific knowledge we have today. The problems only come when the 'scientific' types over-extend their theories in their partisan efforts to blot out all other world-views.

[ December 18, 2002, 21:13: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[Fyron]

Wow Krsqk, that long post hurt your argument a lot more than helped it.

It is nice to alter evidence to fit in with your pre-conceived notions, isn't it?

[ December 18, 2002, 19:37: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Wanderer]

So many tuppenies in the pot. Perhaps enough to buy a round? Here's another couple:

Originally posted by Krsqk:
The truth is, there are no "simple" life forms; single-celled organisms are far more complex than we understand. As you've said, each cell has a built-in defense system, power plants, feeding system, etc.

Just as physicists keep finding smaller and smaller sub-atomic particles, so I found my biology classes spoke of smaller and smaller bits of organisms until I lost count/got bored.

The odds of all of those parts evolving simultaneously (as you say must have happened) would be much, much higher than what I've posted here.

I don't think any 'defence' system would appear immediately - you'd need the presence of hazards (defend itself from other organisms? but this is the first one ) and time for those to develop. Yes this would make any such creature very vulnerable for a (long) period, but if enough survive...

You're right that such complex things aren't likely to appear (talking evolution-style not creation-style ) all at once. The logical answer is that they didn't but developed over time. If that makes the initial stages of life on earth that we're postulating look utterly useless compared to modern-day amoebae, so be it. That doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

As for the probability stuff - did you factor in the number of stars in the universe and the number of planets likely to be circling them? It could be that life on Earth was an amazing piece of luck and that there are 10^20 (is it a billion galaxies with a billion stars? guess 20 planets per system including all the satellites) lifeless hulks out there. Is trying 100 trillion times a second reasonable? How did you get that number?

Plus you needn't run the simulated attempts enough times to ensure that the initial formation occurs, only to show that there is a significant chance of it happening. If you said "I can only get the figures to say 5%" I'd say "Well, we're here aren't we?"

A quick sound-bite:
Just because something is statistically improbable doesn't make it impossible.

On the other hand, I doubt play the lottery...

Oh, and the current vogue for universe age is about 14 billion years (at least at the time of writing, by the time I hit Preview Post it could have changed again... )

"How many [comets] did we start with?"
Short-period comets only have a life-span of 10,000 years.

I don't know the figures for comet-life, but surely it matters little given that new ones can appear? They're only icy rocks that get too close to the sun, and there's a huge number of rocks out there.

"Jupiter and Saturn are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it. They should have cooled off long ago."

Er, I don't think so. But I can't find anything useful, either way, in the first twenty Google results.

Volcanic "spewing" doesn't account for enough new mass to make up for it, though.

Aye, it's plate tectonics - if two plates meet they tend to push each other up (e.g. the Himalayas are the result of the Indian sub-continent pushing against the main Asian plate [or someone hid a lot of ancient fish fossils up there for a laugh ] also see Iceland and the mid-Atlantic ridge). Eroded soil doesn't disappear off the planet - I'd expect to see the material again eventually.

Sorry if this is a bit rambling, have been on the phone whilst writing it.

[Phoenix-D]

Fyron, I don't say this very often, but.. That wasn't helpful. Sssh.

Phoenix-D

[Krsqk]

I'm at a loss for where to start. First of all, I am not capable of personally verifying every piece of information I post here in the time frame permitted by this discussion. If all parties followed this rule, Posts would come about once every three weeks. I rely on others who have done research and trust that their information is both reliable and up to date. Obviously, both I and my sources are capable of error, and I am ready to learn when my information is in error. I am not a master of every branch of the sciences, nor do I have the time or the ability to stay current of even the major scientific journals. If you do, you either have a lot more free time than most or play much less SE4 than the majority of forum-readers.

That said, there is no cause to label me as "disingenuous" or state that I have altered the facts. On the one hand, I am to be an ignoramus, unlearned in basic science. On the other, I am to be learned enough in all the sciences that I am consciously editing or selecting which data I present. Which one is it to be?

Frankly, I am disappointed that members of this usually tolerant and friendly community would jump to such a conclusion so rapidly. One might recount previous instances where individuals determined to cause strife were shown much more courtesy than I have been here. An attack on one's character is not helpful to either side in a debate. Indeed, that is how debates of this nature have been stereotyped, although this one had not been personalized up to this point.

If this debate will continue in this direction, it is over on this side. E-mail and personal Messages are much better suited for that kind of communication.

I will do what research I can on the points I have posted. I do find it unlikely that none of them have merit or pose challenges to the evolutionary perspective. Keep in mind, again, that nothing I post is intended to be empirical proof for or against either viewpoint. Both are outside of the realm of empirical science. My post dealt with what I would or would not expect to observe in our universe based on each worldview. To construe it as submitted proof is to take it out of context.

I would enjoy the continuance of this civil debate, provided all parties (and the Moderators) involved find it agreeable.