My Twitter discussion with Ed Miliband
I follow Ed Miliband on Twitter. He is the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.
He Twittered,
pls #dontgiveup on a deal in Copenhagen.100pct determined to get ambitious,fair, effective deal…. see edspledge.com for more
So I did.
I tweeted back to him,
Are you absolutely sure that your facts about ‘climate change’ are correct before promising away billions of pounds?
Not imagining I would receive a reply. But I did:
yes,at met office today.CO2 concentrations highest for 650,000 years.co2 link to temp. clear, scientific effect
I didn’t tell him I am a Creationist and that ice core samples are a fraud; I just cut to the chase and asked him:
So wait. It was much warmer in the Middle Ages, with lower CO2. What does this tell us about CO2 and climate change?
Not imagining I would receive a reply. And I didn’t.
After Copenhagen, just expect the country to be even poorer.
Britain owes developing countries “climate compensation” of more than £17 billion a year for its contribution to climate change, according to a report by anti-poverty groups.
All because a religion has grown up around ‘global warming’. Actually, the planet’s not warming now, so it’s called ‘climate change’.
I think I see your problem. Global Overheating has got science, and you’re referring to a book of bronze age myths. Provide evidence for creation then your opinion might be worth something.
‘Climate Change’ is the fault of deniers. One scientist said in an interview he doesn’t want that, or even ‘Global Warming’. Global Overheating is what he wants people to understand. ‘Climate Change’ is a sop to people whose personal beliefs and wishes can’t take the thought they should stop being selfish.
What silly comments.
It’s nice to see some consistency from creationists (although, Stewart, for the record I found your “why are humanists so angry and rude?” comments over at that poor student’s blog a little bit rich, given your own propensity for indignation): one of the charges frequently levelled at you is that if you have a problem with the theory of evolution you should also reject germ theory, atomic theory, the theory of gravity. It’s lovely to see that you’re rejecting more of the scientific world’s output.
There’s an awful lot of compelling evidence both ways on climate change, and equally there are some bona fide secular experts who disagree with the hysteria surrounding it. I have no doubt that CO2 emissions are heating the earth, but I agree with Dr. Patrick Michaels that it’s not as bad as people make out.
The only thing that concerns me in this essay is that you say ice core samples are frauds. Can you expand on this? It points to either an incomplete understanding of the dating methods (possibly fuelled by our good friends at AiG) or a misunderstanding.
Welcome, George.
I was a bit strong on that blog. I try to put my case as best I can. I believe many humanists have issues that make them illogically wild, although “The Not-Quite-So-Friendly Humanist” seems friendlier and more placid than most I have encountered.
You asked about ice core samples. It seems to be generally taken that each layer represents a summer thaw, but in reality, several layers can be produced in a single season.
Layer counting isn’t especially concerned with the thawing of the layers. As you’re probably aware the samples being tested are usually drawn from environments in which seasonal cycles have very little bearing on the temperature. Furthermore as the samples are ice *layers* any fluctuations in temperature/thaw would become increasingly less apparent as you look further down the column.
Layer counting instead relies on establishing periods of fluctuating irradiance which are relative to a given environment rather than absolute barometers like radiocarbon dating. This measures the attenuation of light. There are other methods which are less accurate and are used to give “ballpark” figures as layer counting as a rule is phenomenally time consuming.
As an aside, layer counting has been peer reviewed on countless occasions, and is widely accepted by both secular and religious scientists (had to be careful not to say ‘Christian Scientists’ there–an oxymoron if ever I heard one, and possibly the most contemptible flavour of Christian, if you can even lump them in with Christians). Usually peer-review is a fairly good way of establishing accuracy in scientific research; and I don’t say that purely to tacitly draw a line under (through?) Ken Ham, Ray Comfort & Co.
My main point to the Secretary of State, which he didn’t respond to, was this:
“It was much warmer in the Middle Ages, with lower CO2. What does this tell us about CO2 and climate change?”
What does it tell us, George?
Stewart
I don’t have much to say about any creationist theories, or for that matter ice core sample theories. Both theories seem very simplistic to me. But I used to drive a refuse wagon sometime ago and I had to attend the local landfill site twice a day, and basically our behaviour is not sustainable if we wish to maintain a healthy environment.
Global warming aside, I think we are damaging our natural environment by behaving irresponsibly and in contradiction to many of the natural laws of nature, created or otherwise. Science does not have anywhere near all the answers, but God help you son if you are going to let that book run your life 100%. Much of it may have been inspired, but much of it is cockamamie primitive superstition.
“It was much warmer in the Middle Ages, with lower CO2. What does this tell us about CO2 and climate change?”
I’m not sure which records you’re using to substantiate that claim. I suspect Mr. Milliband didn’t answer because even using the most accurate records (chiefly Northern European) it’s debatable whether or not this is indicative of a global warm period or a microclimate. I think there’s credible evidence on both sides of the debate. My opinion is that we, and the rest of the industrialised world, could stand to cut our CO2 emissions a little, and that Copenhagen is a good thing.
That wasn’t really the point of my post, though. My point was that you’ve labeled ice core sample dating as fraudulent without substantiating why you believe it to be fraudulent, and that’s not on, really.
On a broader note I’ve read quite a lot of your posts on here and elsewhere regarding evolution and creationism, and I worry that you don’t understand the science of it; possibly because nobody has ever taken the time to explain it to you.
You’re clearly a smart guy, unlike a lot of the blinkered teenage Jesus drones who populate the internet, so if you’d like to, feel free to email me a sampling of your concerns with evolutionary biology and I’ll do my best to answer them and show you evidence. I’m not trying to prove anything about God (I used to be a Creationist and whilst I’m grateful that I am no longer remotely connected to Christianity, I do believe that Christianity and accurate, factual science are compatible) so do feel free to take me up on it!
@treesleeper
Both are very simplistic, but the important thing in this is that ice core sample ‘theories’ are testable and confirmable. They are peer-reviewed. They are beyond reasonable doubt.
Creationism starts out with a belief that a supernatural deity (usually the god of the evangelical or fundie Christian) created the world and then tries to use science to prove that.
This is why Creationism isn’t a mainstream belief. It’s not scientific.
Treesleeper:
You fall into the trap of believing the lies that the Bible is somehow anti-environment.
“And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.” Gen 2:15
I am for a cleaner, greener world. What I am against is a global cabal using dodgy theories to try to justify more taxation and eugenics.
George,
Thank you for your offer. You never know. Where are you coming from though? You said:
“I do believe that Christianity and accurate, factual science are compatible”
but then to Treesleeper:
“This is why Creationism isn’t a mainstream belief. It’s not scientific.”
First of all in response to George’s comment “There’s an awful lot of compelling evidence both ways on climate change”: I always like to see both sides of the story. I do my best to take a diplomatic stance in any argument as much as I can, however, as a science student myself I have done a LOT of reading of peer-reviewed articles and the IPCC reports and I can tell you that there is not a lot of compelling evidence both ways. There is a lot of compelling evidence supporting anthropomorphic climate change, there are some (mostly emotional and unfounded) arguments suggesting otherwise.
In response to this article, particular with regards to temperature and the middle ages – you need to be more specific about what you mean by ‘warmer’. This statement was very vague. Also, where does the data come from supporting this claim? When people talk about raising temperatures, they mean average global temperature (as a result of something called ‘radiative forcing’, have a read, it’s really interesting!). Also, this vagueness about raising temperatures is the reason people started referring to it as climate change rather than global warming – there are a lot of ignorant comments about ‘oh well i’d prefer it if it was warmer’ whereas global warming will not necessarily mean warmer weather – there is a difference.
I do of course respect that people have a different opinion than me, but i beg you to fully read and fully understand the science before bashing it – research in recent years has supported more and more that climate change as a result of human activity is a likelihood, yet the number of people denying climate change seems to increase all the time despite this. I paraphrase a quote i read somewhere – sure there’s a small chance the science is wrong, and we all feel a little bit stupid. But if the science is right…
Hello Devin,
I believe there has been a change in the climate. I can see a change locally from 30 years ago. I am not denying this much. What I wonder about is: how much of it is just part of a natural cycle?
Re. temperature and the Middle Ages, I was referring to the times when there were vineyards in England. I realise this doesn’t necessarily tie in with the global climate situation.
Because I know that ‘climate change’ is being used as a weapon by politicians to tax and set up a global government, I become extremely wary!
“But if the science is right…”
Sure, it’s bad luck for the Maldives and some other places, but vast swathes of the Northern Hemisphere will become habitable and agricultural land will increase to feed billions more people.
Maybe, it’s what mankind actually needs…
Discuss!
Feeding Billions more people off the back of what could be artificially induced, pollution based methods does not sound sustainable. It sounds foolish to me. Billions more people who will have billions more crap to dispose of.
I also believe in God, but I am cautious about much of the Bible. I can only say that there is a real spiritual dimension to me that I see no reason to deny, but at the same time I have a strong sense of what is needed here to keep things on a rational plane. If a bush suddenly bursts into flames and I start hearing voices, my first instinct is to hit the surgery, but I do believe that there is more to this world than what can be measured by the human brain.
As for tax collectors, they suck – but they are here to stay.
“I do believe that Christianity and accurate, factual science are compatible”
but then to Treesleeper:
“This is why Creationism isn’t a mainstream belief. It’s not scientific.”
Not sure what you mean, but I’ll expand.
Christianity and accurate, factual science are compatible: Christianity doesn’t preclude one from believing in evolution, vaccinations, germ theory, atomic theory, gravity, sterilisation, photosynthesis, etc. You ignore the parts of The Bible that Jehova’s Witnesses see as precluding them from having blood transfusions. I’m not saying you’re wrong for ignoring them, I’m saying you’re 99% right, but you need to apply this same logic to the parts of The Bible that you believe to be literal. For example you presumably have a problem with homosexuality, but you don’t sacrifice a pigeon every time you touch a woman who menstruates.
Nothing about Christianity is fundamentally stopping you from accepting that evolution was a part of God’s creation plan. Here’s an example of how you could justify it: when I ask you why God doesn’t heal amputees, it’s likely that you’ll give a rehash of the mysterious ways defence. I’d argue that evolution is significantly less mysterious (given that we understand it, and can observe it in action.)
The point is that there’s room in the Genesis account for evolution.
Christians accept that a lot of other parts of The Bible are non-literal accounts. In the real world, we know evolution is ‘true’ because we are fortunate to have a comprehensive fossil record littered with excellent transitional fossils, and we can observe both microevolution *and* speciation in real-time where possible (speciation of course occurs at different speeds in different species: humans have very little environmental pressure on them forcing them to speciate, but you can still see microevolution occurring. For example sex workers in Africa show an increasing immunity–yes, immunity–to HIV/AIDS). We can see evolution all around us.
Evolution and abiogenesis are not the same thing. They are not mutually exclusive.
The distinction I’m drawing in the second quote is that creationism isn’t scientific.
Scientists start with a question and seek answers. “Why does this happen?” “If I do this, will this happen?” “Can we make this do this?”
Creationism [claims to] already has an answer, and seeks evidence to support it. It’s in some ways the exact opposite of science.
It’s not fussy about where the evidence comes from either (Cf. Ray Comfort, a man with no scientific training whatsoever, arrogantly claiming that the banana is somehow tantamount to proof ‘of’ God. I am aware that Mr. Comfort has since apologised for this, but continues to make other equally fallacious claims.)
Hope that answers your question!
Treesleeper: “I also believe in God, but I am cautious about much of the Bible. I can only say that there is a real spiritual dimension to me that I see no reason to deny, but at the same time I have a strong sense of what is needed here to keep things on a rational plane. If a bush suddenly bursts into flames and I start hearing voices, my first instinct is to hit the surgery, but I do believe that there is more to this world than what can be measured by the human brain.”
That to me is the reasonable face of theism. There’s nothing that makes The Bible more compelling than the Qur’an or any of the other holy books. There’s no evidence that any of the “gods” are at work in the world today any more than Zeus or Thor. What’s enormously likely is that there is much more to the world than humans can comprehend.
My last say. I also think that nobody is going to make my life a misery because they say that God told some bloke something, which was written down in a book thousands of years ago. I don’t really care if it is chanted out in some creed every week either, it needs to pass the common sense test first.
Treesleeper
You said: ‘it needs to pass the common sense test first.’
Winston Churchill said: ‘The problem with common sense is that it is not very common’.
@English Viking: That’s as good an explanation as any as to why there are so many religious nuts about.
George Spencer
Possibly. It’s also a good explanation for the propagation of aggressive atheism.
Churchill meant that common sense is a good barometer to use, but that it’s not very commonly applied [by fundamentalist Christians.] It’s also worth pointing out that Churchill was an atheist.
(The square brackets above were me applying it to this context, rather than what Churchill meant to imply.)
George Spencer
Mr Churchill was not an atheist.
I think he could be accurately described as a nominal Christian. He made numerous references to God in his speeches, in letters to Roosevelt in 1940 he spoke of the need to ‘defend Christian civilisation’, he referred to ‘The Almighty’ in his retirement speech at Parliament and of his conviction that without God’s help the war would have been lost, also at the Hague conference years later. He married in a very lavish church ceremony, had his own children Christened, attended the christenings of other members of his family and swore numerous oaths to God in the course of his political career.
I do not say he was a Christian, nor that any belief in the existence of God motivated him to do the things he did, I simply state that, in light of the above, an atheist he was not.
@English Viking
None of the points you raise discredits the possibility of him being an atheist. I’m an atheist and the chances are if I do marry, it will be in a Church. Nor is it a new phenomenon for politicians to feel required to curry favour with with religious majority.
He described himself as an agnostic in his own journals. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to make the case for him being an atheist.
George,
“Christianity doesn’t preclude one from believing in evolution, vaccinations, germ theory, atomic theory, gravity, sterilisation, photosynthesis, etc.”
You’re mixing unconnected things there.
“For example you presumably have a problem with homosexuality, but you don’t sacrifice a pigeon every time you touch a woman who menstruates.”
Homosexual behaviour is a serious crime against nature. I am not a Jew, so don’t perform Jewish ceremonies.
“The point is that there’s room in the Genesis account for evolution.”
Only that limited evolution that makes changes within kinds of animal, as I said in another post? There is no room in Genesis for the TofE because it means that man and therefore Christ are descended from apes. Genesis records the earth being formed before the sun, moon and stars. Lots of things are out of synch with the generally accepted pattern of creation.
“In the real world, we know evolution is ‘true’ because we are fortunate to have a comprehensive fossil record littered with excellent transitional fossils”
Here your argument falls to pieces. If the fossil record is comprehensive then there should be an inundation of excellent transitional fossils. As there are few, if any, excellent transitional fossils, either the fossil record is not comprehensive or they simply don’t exist. After all this time, I think it is fair to assume that the fossil record isn’t littered with excellent transitional fossils because they don’t exist.
To prove my point, this is why there is such hype and sensationalism when a supposed ‘missing link’ is found. It’s desperation.
“Creationism [claims to] already has an answer, and seeks evidence to support it.”
Absolutely. And evolutionists also claim to have an answer, based on uniformitarianism (surely a philosophy) making the planet billions of years old. It too is a belief system.
George Spencer
I think that you would be hard pressed to find an avowed atheist who would have his children baptised. He could have had a Registry Office wedding, had he wished not to offend his ‘atheist’ dogma.
You say he described himself as ‘agnostic’. There is a world of difference between someone who says ‘I don’t know’ and someone who spouts the kind of rot that people like Dawkins come out with.
If he described himself as an agnostic, you do him a disservice to brand him an atheist.
You are not much of an atheist if you like the idea of a Vicar (of Christ) doing the splicing.
Choose you this day whom you will serve. Joshua 24 v 15
Stewart,
“Christianity doesn’t preclude one from believing in evolution, vaccinations, germ theory, atomic theory, gravity, sterilisation, photosynthesis, etc.”
You’re mixing unconnected things there.
The point I was, of course, making, is that evolution is just as scientifically valid as vaccinations, sterilisation, photosynthesis et al. Simply because you either choose to reject it or do not fully understand it doesn’t make it any less real. You wouldn’t reject Fermat’s Last Theorem as nonsense because you don’t understand it. Don’t do evolution the same disservice.
“For example you presumably have a problem with homosexuality, but you don’t sacrifice a pigeon every time you touch a woman who menstruates.”
Homosexual behaviour is a serious crime against nature. I am not a Jew, so don’t perform Jewish ceremonies.
How is homosexuality a ‘crime against nature’ when it’s an observable, naturally occurring phenomenon? It is an observable trait in almost every species on the planet, from giraffes to penguins to dolphins.
You’re not a Jew so you don’t obey the Jewish customs of the Old Testament? Then why do you observe the parts about Homosexuality? The Old Testament is, after all, the only place in The Bible where you’ll find anything about it…
“The point is that there’s room in the Genesis account for evolution.”
Only that limited evolution that makes changes within kinds of animal, as I said in another post? There is no room in Genesis for the TofE because it means that man and therefore Christ are descended from apes. Genesis records the earth being formed before the sun, moon and stars. Lots of things are out of synch with the generally accepted pattern of creation.
You’re not thinking before you write. There’s no room in a *literal interpretation of Gensis* for evolution, but that doesn’t mean that there is no room in Genesis for evolution. Plenty of (most?) Christians reconcile the two. It weakens your position in the world to reject evolution if you want to be seen as a credible individual. “Live in this world, but not of this world.” You’re not living in this world if you’re rejecting the swathes of compelling evidence for evolution.
“In the real world, we know evolution is ‘true’ because we are fortunate to have a comprehensive fossil record littered with excellent transitional fossils”
Here your argument falls to pieces. If the fossil record is comprehensive then there should be an inundation of excellent transitional fossils. As there are few, if any, excellent transitional fossils, either the fossil record is not comprehensive or they simply don’t exist.
This statement really shows an ignorance of science that is unfortunately common in creationists. This is the part of the discussion where your counterparts will usually dodge the points that follow. I’d encourage you not to.
1. All fossils are transitional fossils by their very nature. That’s how evolution works. But…
2. There are a lot of important fossils that we know show ancestry and concestry. Have a look at these links:
http://www.societyofheathens.com/2009/02/list-10-amazing-transitional-fossils.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/02/photogalleries/darwin-birthday-evolution/index.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIijwkaqKzY
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
3. The fossil record isn’t comprehensive because it relies on the process of fossilisation, which has a number of different factors. If the environment isn’t perfect then instead of fossils you get carbon.
After all this time, I think it is fair to assume that the fossil record isn’t littered with excellent transitional fossils because they don’t exist.
I have just shown you compelling proof of many different transitional fossils. I’ve also explained to you why the whole earth isn’t covered in the fossilised remains of everything that exists. Care to reconsider the above statement?
To prove my point, this is why there is such hype and sensationalism when a supposed ‘missing link’ is found. It’s desperation.
I’m sorry but this doesn’t constitute proof of anything. Perhaps you could use it as proof that the journals you read aren’t especially scientifically minded? You won’t find many peer-reviewed journals which claim Ardi was “the missing link”, which is just a colloquialism. However you will find a few that say it is “a missing link”.
“Creationism [claims to] already has an answer, and seeks evidence to support it.”
Absolutely. And evolutionists also claim to have an answer, based on uniformitarianism (surely a philosophy) making the planet billions of years old. It too is a belief system.
My point here is that the scientific ideal and the creationist ideal are diametrically opposed.
Creationism starts with an answer and seeks evidence for the answer. Science (not “evolutionists”) starts with questions and proceeds to answers. Do you not see how illogical the creationist ‘methodology’ is in the real world? Imagine if you were doing clinical drug trials and you were using the creationist method. “Drug C cures AIDS. Let’s find evidence to support it.”
I don’t object to people believing in an invisible God for whom there is no credible evidence. Thats’ faith. I don’t find faith as admirable or humbling as some people do, but I will accept it as a part of society. You are entitled to your own religious beliefs. However you are not entitled to your own scientific facts, and you seem to believe that one leads to the other.
Let me know how you get on with the transitional fossils.
@ English Viking
I think that you would be hard pressed to find an avowed atheist who would have his children baptised. He could have had a Registry Office wedding, had he wished not to offend his ‘atheist’ dogma.
I think the point I was making, if you read my post again (slowly this time) was that he was not an avowed atheist, but a closet atheist.
You say he described himself as ‘agnostic’. There is a world of difference between someone who says ‘I don’t know’ and someone who spouts the kind of rot that people like Dawkins come out with.
You show a profound ignorance of what agnosticism actually means. He doesn’t say *I don’t know*, he says “I can NEVER know, nor can ANYBODY know”. Dawkins says “we can probably know that it’s not true.” Churchill’s stance is similar. “We can never know one way or the other” [but the fact that he hasn't thrown his lot in with the church tells you just about all you need to know]
“If he described himself as an agnostic, you do him a disservice to brand him an atheist.”
I don’t think so. I rather think Churchill would like to stir up a little debate. But you aren’t making any headway into showing why it’s unlikely he wasn’t a closet atheist.
You are not much of an atheist if you like the idea of a Vicar (of Christ) doing the splicing.
Choose you this day whom you will serve. Joshua 24 v 15
Why should I mind any more than I mind the nonsense lyrics of nursery rhymes? Many harmless traditions are nonsensical. Fortunately we’re now seeing religion in general being ushered away from being a lifestyle and into a tradition. Build up that wall.
George Spencer,
If you are unaware of the difference between an agnostic and an atheist further debate is pointless. You conflate agnosticism with atheism and then paint me a fool for implying the same, which I plainly did not.
Be what you are, Mr Spencer. Be an atheist, if that is what you are. Be an agnostic, if that is what you are. I can accept either as reasonable. I cannot accept the hypocrisy of one who claims to be an atheist in one breath, but then claims to aspire to a Christian wedding, in a Christian church, with a Christian minister presiding, in the next.
God has a special place for hypocrites.
George,
More than one link holds your comment for moderation. I was on my way to bed, but I’ll try and answer your questions quickly:
Yes, evolution – as far as it goes – is valid. Totally and utterly. What the Creationist disputes is that evolution is responsible for complex structures. There is a limit to what evolution can do.
Why do these sort of debates always end up in homosexual territory? Everyone knew it was taboo behaviour until the social engineers came along and convinced you the nasty bigoted Christians are just hateful.
Also: no animal I know of is exclusively homosexual and even if it were, since when did mankind look to animals for tips on how to behave?
“Plenty of (most?) Christians reconcile the two.”
Agreed. Many have been fooled as I was not so very long ago.
Sorry, but you’re wrong about those transitional fossils. I see the ‘Top 10′ you linked to includes old Australopithecus afarensis (aka ‘Lucy’), whose partial skeleton was made up from bones collected over a large area and a life-size model made inventing features to make her look like she’s on her way to becoming human.
Like I already said: desperation.
As for No. 2 “Archaeopteryx, much like Tktaalik, is direct irrefutable evidence that transitional forms existed. While it may not be a direct ancestor to modern birds, although I think the evidence strongly points in that direction, it still proves transitional forms.”
That’s rubbish. Archaeopteryx is a fully functional prehistoric bird. Show me a real transitional form that has neither a reptile lung nor an avian one. You can’t.
And #1 is Homo erectus, which some scientists now think should be reclassified as Homo sapiens.
Desperate clutching at straws due to LACK of real evidence. FACT!
Good night.
George Spencer, an addendum.
You said: ‘You show a profound ignorance of what agnosticism actually means. He doesn’t say *I don’t know*, he says “I can NEVER know, nor can ANYBODY know.’
Your ignorance is equally profound if you do not include the clause ‘…but it is entirely possible that God exists’ in your description of an agnostic.
Be what you are, Mr Spencer. Be an atheist, if that is what you are. Be an agnostic, if that is what you are. I can accept either as reasonable. I cannot accept the hypocrisy of one who claims to be an atheist in one breath, but then claims to aspire to a Christian wedding, in a Christian church, with a Christian minister presiding, in the next.
God has a special place for hypocrites.
I don’t claim to aspire to them. I just said that it’s likely I’ll have one if I choose to marry, and it doesn’t worry me if that’s the case. It’s meaningless drivel, but it’s traditional. I equally wouldn’t worry if I married a Muslim girl in a traditional Muslim ceremony. Do you see the point? As for God having a special place for hypocrites, that’s as laughable as your own exceptionalist views. You cannot threaten me with eternal damnation because I don’t believe in it
Just like a Muslim can’t threaten you with the same at the hands of their God.
More than one link holds your comment for moderation. I was on my way to bed, but I’ll try and answer your questions quickly:
Ah yes, Wordpress does get a lot of spam. Apologies I forgot about that.
Yes, evolution – as far as it goes – is valid. Totally and utterly. What the Creationist disputes is that evolution is responsible for complex structures. There is a limit to what evolution can do.
That seems to be an arbitrarily introduced limitation to support your theism. Is there any secular evidence to support this?
Why do these sort of debates always end up in homosexual territory? Everyone knew it was taboo behaviour until the social engineers came along and convinced you the nasty bigoted Christians are just hateful.
They end up in this territory because Christians are hateful in regard to their treatment of homosexuals, both historically and, sadly, currently. It’s a genetic trait, it’s not something you can control any more than you can control being born with a proclivity for mathematics or red hair or autistic. It’s likely caused by prenatal testosterone levels (which are influenced by exposure to sunlight.)
If you held similarly antiquated views on the disabled then it would be equally detestable. You are allowing your bigotry to be shaped by a book written over a thousand years ago by bronze age tribesmen. It’s intellectual bankruptcy I’m afraid.
I’m exceedingly grateful for the fact that the UK appears to be an increasingly progressive place on this. I watched a stirring video of a WW2 veteran in the United States who was at a rally supporting the legalisation of gay weddings. He was asked “do you believe in equality for gay and lesbian people?” to which he answered “what do you think I was fighting for at Omaha beach?”
Also: no animal I know of is exclusively homosexual
I don’t quite see how that detracts from my argument one way or the other, but in case:
1. If you intend to imply that you don’t know of any animal which maintains an exclusive i.e. monogamous homosexual relationship, then there are reported instances, but the relative scarcity is more to do with the fact that most species rarely maintain a monogamous relationship of any sort.
2. In giraffe’s homosexual mating rituals are more common amongst males than heterosexual (including full anal sex and climax.)
3. About 60% of sexual activity in the bonobo species is homosexual.
4. Et cetera et cetera.
and even if it were, since when did mankind look to animals for tips on how to behave?
BECAUSE THE ANIMALS ARE MORE HUMAN THAN YOU IN THIS INSTANCE
It doesn’t worry them. They’re tolerant of it. Nobody is outcast for being different. They aren’t rampant homophobes. Put it this way: if someone was using a book of social etiquette written 1700 years ago in the modern world, you’d be incredulous. Hell if they were using one of the French etiquette books I had to copy lines from at school, written around the turn of the 19th century, you would be equally incredulous. What you are doing is the same thing: you are taking the outdated, outmoded beliefs from a book of bronze age superstitions.
“Plenty of (most?) Christians reconcile the two.”
Agreed. Many have been fooled as I was not so very long ago.
What heralded your miraculous change of heart, I wonder?
Sorry, but you’re wrong about those transitional fossils.
The scientific community will be sorry to hear that. Let’s see what exciting new evidence you have to dispute the hundreds of fossils I linked to.
I see the ‘Top 10′ you linked to includes old Australopithecus afarensis (aka ‘Lucy’), whose partial skeleton was made up from bones collected over a large area and a life-size model made inventing features to make her look like she’s on her way to becoming human.
Stewart, this is standard creationist fare. I’m slightly disappointed to read it. I’ll give you the full rebuttal that you merit, though:
Lucy’s partial skeleton was indeed found across a larger than usual area [for fossilised remains.] The remains were jutting out of the ground at intervals down a slope, revealed by erosion just above a volcanic sediment. We know that they are the remains of one single individual precisely because of that large area: not one bone is duplicated.
I don’t think you appreciate what “large” means in this context. Under normal conditions one would hope to find the remains grouped exactly as they were left, in situ: just as one might find them at a burial ground. That would be a normal grouping. As these samples are usually between 3-5 feet tall, anything above that could be considered a large grouping. As it is, here’s a diagram showing you how Lucy was found:
http://www.anthro4n6.net/lucy/composite.gif
Not such a large area, when you look at it. They didn’t survey the whole of Ethiopia, find two toothpick sized bones and then make a skeleton, as Ken Ham would have you believe!
The partial skeleton you refer to is 40% complete–which you would see as astonishing good fortune, if you knew what the chances were for finding such a skeleton in such good condition. The partial skeleton is rendered of bones found in the same grouping, but many more samples were found in the area (as is common: when conditions are good for fossilisation there are often several samples to be found in one region) including a skull in very good condition.
To date there are a couple of very good samples of Australopithecus: Taung child is a remarkably complete skull, but not as wonderfully whole as Mrs. Ples. These specimens were both found in South Africa.
You also seem to be incredulous that we can know so much about the creatures from recovering just 40% of their remains. That’s because they’re so different to us. Look at the carrying angle Lucy exhibits:
http://www.anthro4n6.net/lucy/pelvis3.gif
Remarkable. Be humbled by your lowly origins. If you believe absolutely in a God first and foremost, then the evidence is clear that he used evolution to create you. I might add that, to me, evolution is a system showing far more sophistication and elegance than the clumsy story of Genesis.
Like I already said: desperation.
I’m sure you’ll reconsider this in light of the above.
As for No. 2 “Archaeopteryx, much like Tktaalik, is direct irrefutable evidence that transitional forms existed. While it may not be a direct ancestor to modern birds, although I think the evidence strongly points in that direction, it still proves transitional forms.”
That’s rubbish. Archaeopteryx is a fully functional prehistoric bird.
Again you don’t seem to have an appreciation of what Archaeopteryx shows. It is demonstrably an intermediary form. You say it’s a fully-functional prehistoric bird, but actually it’s got more in common with reptiles than birds. I doubt you’ll be able to back up your claim, but here’s how we can show that it is a transitional form:
Avian characteristics:
Feathers,
Opposable hallux,
Two fused fucula clavicles
Pubis elongate and directed backwards
Reptile characteristics:
Premaxilla and maxilla are not horn-covered
Trunk vertebra are free, not fused (no bird specimen in history has free trunk vertebra)
Pneumatic bones
Pubic shafts with plate-like angled transverse (no bird has this, only other dinosaur is dromaeosaur)
Cerebral hemispheres are elongated and slender (cerebellum is also directly behind mid-brain and doesn’t impinge upon it in any way)
Neck attaches from rear (dino trait) not from below (bird trait)
Center of cervical vertebrae have concave articular facets.
Elongated bony tail with many free vertebrae to the tip, and NO pygostyle
Premaxilla and maxilla bones have teeth
Ribs slender w/out joints or uncinate processes. No articulation with sternum.
Pelvic girdle and femur joint is archosaurian.
Sacrum occupies six vertebrae (bird covers 23)
Metacarpals free, with flexible wrist/hand joint. (fused in birds)
Nasal openings far forward, separated from the eye by preorbital fenestra.
Deltoid ridge of the uterus faces anteriorly.
Claws on unfused digits.
Equal length of fibula and fibula.
Metatarsals are free not fused.
Gastralia is present (ventral ribs)
This list is an either/or. You can have things in one column OR the other. Not in both. I’m assuming you’re quoting from the AiG page on this specimen, but you should know that having a solitary ‘evolutionist’ who disagrees with the classification of the specimen doesn’t add credibility to the claim. (You wouldn’t be swayed by the fact that Francis Collins, the scientist who led the research into DNA and mapped the human genome, is both a Christian and believes in evolution…)
I think your “fully functional” faux pas may reveal another frailty in your understanding. You seem to believe that the specimen would be somehow crippled by its intermediary state; a common belief amongst creationists. It wouldn’t be: I won’t go into why it wouldn’t be as I’m not sure if that’s what you mean or not, but I’ll certainly discuss it if you do mean that.
Show me a real transitional form that has neither a reptile lung nor an avian one. You can’t.
I’ve just shown you a transitional form that has characteristics that, if present in another form, would conclusively define it as both reptile and avian. I assume your point about lungs is that old Creationist fare about the steps from reptile lungs to avian lungs being impossible?
Unfortunately you’re out of luck. There is a significant body of evidence to suggest that avian lungs evolved prior to birds, tangentially to theropods in the mid-Jurassic period, when global oxygen levels dropped for an unknown reason. The bird lung, which Creationists hold up as the gold standard in unique creation and which had previously not been documented in any other species, has viable ancestry in this age
Have a read of the below to get a good overview of this.
http://www.evolutionpages.com/bird_lung.htm
http://ajrcmb.atsjournals.org/cgi/content/full/31/1/8
http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/icm069v1
And #1 is Homo erectus, which some scientists now think should be reclassified as Homo sapiens.
I was unaware of this. Could you provide links? I know that some people want it to be reclassified as homo sapiens erectus, is this what you mean?
Desperate clutching at straws due to LACK of real evidence. FACT!
Once again I’ve furnished you with more information than the conjectured nature of your rebuttal merited. I hope you’re able to come back with something other than this sort of nonsense.
@English Viking again
You said: ‘You show a profound ignorance of what agnosticism actually means. He doesn’t say *I don’t know*, he says “I can NEVER know, nor can ANYBODY know.’
Your ignorance is equally profound if you do not include the clause ‘…but it is entirely possible that God exists’ in your description of an agnostic.
Not at all. True classical agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible to know. You don’t need to include caveats. I warmly suggest that you request a refund from whichever educational establishment you frequented (or possibly still frequent.)
That one ended up in the spam folder, George! Maybe I should have left it there, hehe.
The blog post was really about climate change. Anyway, archaeopteryx does have parts similar to both birds and dinosaurs. This in itself doesn’t mean it is not a created kind.
More later. Work beckons.
George Spencer,
I went to The School of Hard Knocks, and graduated The University of Life with a First. I need no refunds from my tutors. I’ll take as compliment that you think me possibly youthful enough to still be at school.
I am not the sharpest knife in the box, but I do know that agnosticism includes the aforementioned caveat. Believing that it is not possible to know whether God exists does not preclude His existence, something the agnostic readily admits. The reason I gave the clarification was to correct the impression that you tried to give, which was that agnostics deny the existence of God.
You have not proved your slur on the name of Churchill, only the depth of your own prejudice against religion.
@Stewart
The blog post was really about climate change.
Apologies. The digression is entirely my fault.
Anyway, archaeopteryx does have parts similar to both birds and dinosaurs. This in itself doesn’t mean it is not a created kind.
I’ll withhold anything else until you’ve had a chance to digest and respond, but you were contesting that Archaeopteryx is a bird, not evidence of a transition between birds and reptiles.
I don’t argue against the possibility of a God at the point of abiogenesis, I argue that we can trace everything back to that point through natural processes.
@English Viking
Clearly you didn’t study classics while you were at the school of hard knocks, but no matter. You continue to misunderstand agnosticism as applying specifically to your god. I shouldn’t wonder that you also confuse theism and deism too. I’m not going to engage with someone whose critical faculties are in such a state of delinquency.
George Spencer,
You wrote ; ‘You continue to misunderstand agnosticism as applying specifically to your god.’
No I don’t, you simply continue to insist that I do, whilst having no evidence for your assumption.
You are correct on one thing (I guess you can’t be wrong all the time), I didn’t study the classics. I did learn to use a dictionary though, it avoids the need to attribute my own, private meanings to words.
Just thought I’d bump this to see if a rebuttal is forthcoming on the fossil matters.