[_ Old Earth _] Dr. John Sanford interview

[spartakis]

His comments on the interview shares a lethal problem for evolution. I am sure some here will say he is wrong but with his credentials I will go with him. Just a good video to watch for those who don't believe microbes to men. Watch from beginning to the end.
Updated with new video

[video=youtube;K8KbM-xkfVk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8KbM-xkfVk[/video]

[video=youtube;-d-J974AlF0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d-J974AlF0&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/video]

 

[Barbarian]

Nice graphics. Creationists always put a lot of money into the CGI stuff. As usual, not so much in research.

1. First goof Creationist asserts that if there's a bad mutation, natural selection can't do anything about it. In fact, natural selection removes those. Rookie error. Let's move on.

2. Brief clip from Dr. John Sanford. Context edited out. We'll get to that...

3. Sanford tries his best to help creationism. He is obviously aware of the fact that almost all mutations do nothing measurable to living things. But this doesn't help much, so he suggests that they can't be truly neutral, and therefore, must be harmful.

Listen to the clip and watch how often he blinks when he's making the statement.

When one is distributing taffy, you can expect that one to:
offer shorter responses
make more speech errors - more um's, er's ah's...
blink more
fidget more
http://www.truthaboutdeception.com/lying-and-deception/detecting-deception/nonverbal-cues.html

It's hooey, and he clearly knows it. BTW, Sanford admits his position is due to his fundamentalist religious beliefs. His testimony in the Kansas case indicates his conversion to creationism was after he adopted a fundamentalist religious belief.

Let's go on....

The one with the beard announces that mutations cause a "loss of information." But information scientists have shown that every new mutation causes an increase in information in a population.

Zhang, J., Y.-P. Zhang and H. F. Rosenberg, 2002. Adaptive evolution of a duplicated pancreatic ribonuclease gene in a leaf-eating monkey. Nature Genetics 30: 411-415. See also: Univ. of Michigan, 2002, How gene duplication helps in adapting to changing environments. http://www.umich.edu/~newsinfo/Releases/2002/Feb02/r022802b.html

----

Towards a unifying approach to diversity measures: Bridging the gap between the Shannon entropy and Rao's quadratic index
Carlo Ricottaa, Corresponding author contact information, E-mail the corresponding author,
Laszlo Szeid
Abstract
The diversity of a species assemblage has been studied extensively for many decades in relation to its possible connection with ecosystem functioning and organization. In this view most diversity measures, such as Shannon's entropy, rely upon information theory as a basis for the quantification of diversity. Also, traditional diversity measures are computed using species relative abundances and cannot account for the ecological differences between species. Rao first proposed a diversity index, termed quadratic diversity (Q) that incorporates both species relative abundances and pairwise distances between species. Quadratic diversity is traditionally defined as the expected distance between two randomly selected individuals. In this paper, we show that quadratic diversity can be interpreted as the expected conflict among the species of a given assemblage. From this unusual interpretation, it naturally follows that Rao's Q can be related to the Shannon entropy through a generalized version of the Tsallis parametric entropy.
Theoretical Population Biology
Volume 70, Issue 3, November 2006, Pages 237–243

Nice try, guys. I may go a little deeper (and I do mean deeper) later.

 

[spartakis]

Nice graphics. Creationists always put a lot of money into the CGI stuff. As usual, not so much in research.

1. First goof Creationist asserts that if there's a bad mutation, natural selection can't do anything about it. In fact, natural selection removes those. Rookie error. Let's move on.

2. Brief clip from Dr. John Sanford. Context edited out. We'll get to that...

3. Sanford tries his best to help creationism. He is obviously aware of the fact that almost all mutations do nothing measurable to living things. But this doesn't help much, so he suggests that they can't be truly neutral, and therefore, must be harmful.

Listen to the clip and watch how often he blinks when he's making the statement.

When one is distributing taffy, you can expect that one to:
offer shorter responses
make more speech errors - more um's, er's ah's...
blink more
fidget more
http://www.truthaboutdeception.com/lying-and-deception/detecting-deception/nonverbal-cues.html

It's hooey, and he clearly knows it. BTW, Sanford admits his position is due to his fundamentalist religious beliefs. His testimony in the Kansas case indicates his conversion to creationism was after he adopted a fundamentalist religious belief.

Let's go on....

The one with the beard announces that mutations cause a "loss of information." But information scientists have shown that every new mutation causes an increase in information in a population.

Zhang, J., Y.-P. Zhang and H. F. Rosenberg, 2002. Adaptive evolution of a duplicated pancreatic ribonuclease gene in a leaf-eating monkey. Nature Genetics 30: 411-415. See also: Univ. of Michigan, 2002, How gene duplication helps in adapting to changing environments. http://www.umich.edu/~newsinfo/Releases/2002/Feb02/r022802b.html

Nice try, guys. I may go a little deeper (and I do mean deeper) later.

Since you said brief clip I am assuming you just watched till the first one they show 3 clips and you can get the whole interview if you want. Dawkins couldn't even give an example of added information. Watch the rest of the video I am sure you will really try and go after their character then :toofunny. Like I said before when evolutionist only have character attacks instead of empirical evidence it says a lot. And gene duplication we have went over that already come on. I guess you will come back when you try and find dirt on John.

 

[Barbarian]

Since you said brief clip I am assuming you just watched till the first one

A bit past the first. The one in which Sanford is blinking, stuttering, and fidgiting while trying to explain why he believes the vast majority of mutations aren't really neutral after all.

they show 3 clips and you can get the whole interview if you want. Dawkins couldn't even give an example of added information.

Too bad for him. Your atheist buddies don't seem to do very well in creationist videos, do they?

Watch the rest of the video I am sure you will really try and go after their character then .

In the first one, it jumps right out at you, doesn't it? Count the number of times he blinks when he's trying to reclassify neutral mutations as harmful ones.

Like I said before when evolutionist only have character attacks instead of empirical evidence it says a lot. And gene duplication we have went over that already come on.

Frustrating to be reminded um? Would you like me to show you again how it increases information? And actually, I think more of Sanford for the fact that he's nervous and fidgity when making that video. It means his conscience hasn't been seared yet.

 

[spartakis]

A bit past the first. The one in which Sanford is blinking, stuttering, and fidgiting while trying to explain why he believes the vast majority of mutations aren't really neutral after all.



Too bad for him. Your atheist buddies don't seem to do very well in creationist videos, do they?



In the first one, it jumps right out at you, doesn't it? Count the number of times he blinks when he's trying to reclassify neutral mutations as harmful ones.



Frustrating to be reminded um? Would you like me to show you again how it increases information? And actually, I think more of Sanford for the fact that he's nervous and fidgity when making that video. It means his conscience hasn't been seared yet.

So that's all you got? He didn't look bad to me. Should of watched the rest very good. So your two evolutionist buddies top in the field Gould, Dawkins, and top in the field Dr Sanford (could name more but no use) all say they can't. Dawkins does say a limited yes but can't give an example. All you have is a information theory that was created to find out how much information can fit into a telephone line. . It really hurts you when someone don't agree with your hypothesis. Just like your buddy Dawkins.



Formerly an atheist[9] since the mid-1980s, Sanford has looked into theistic evolution (1985–late 1990s), old Earth creation (late 1990s), and young Earth creation (2000–present). According to his own words, he did not fully reject Darwinian evolution until the year 2000. An advocate of intelligent design, in 2005 Sanford testified in the Kansas evolution hearings on behalf of intelligent design, during which he denied the principle of common descent and "humbly offered... that we were created by a special creation, by God."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Sanford

 

[jesseedavis]

And actually, I think more of Sanford for the fact that he's nervous and fidgity when making that video. It means his conscience hasn't been seared yet.

Barb, do you allow for the option that maybe YE creationists have it right? (Just as you argue and tirelessly defend your standpoint to convince those who oppose this view as though you, yourself are indeed right.) More importantly, do you have a hard time with YE creationists or even ID's being your brethren? Do you disagree with the notion that YE creationists or the like may in fact have a clear conscience in their relationship with our Father?

I also ask everyone else these same questions. Spartakis, do you deny that Barbarian or others of his viewpoint are brethren in Jesus? Just as you want to defend your points and attempt to refute his points, do you hold it against him that you also do this same notion?

I will also offer maybe another alternative. Do either of you, or anyone else reading this just talk and argue pointlessly, knowing fullwell that your opposite are "seared" or "set in their ways" or however you'd want to put it? Does anyone in here just refute and defend just for the sake of refuting and defending?

 

[Barbarian]

So that's all you got?

As you learned earlier, most mutations don't do much of anything at all. So when Sanford was trying to find a way to make it seem like they are harmful, he was clearly uncomfortable, and his blink rate went up rapidly. Notice that the other signs of deception were also there.

And here's why...

Do all gene mutations affect health and development?

No; only a small percentage of mutations cause genetic disorders—most have no impact on health or development. For example, some mutations alter a gene’s DNA base sequence but do not change the function of the protein made by the gene.
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/mutationsanddisorders?show=all#neutralmutations

He didn't look bad to me.

Blink rate went off the scale. And reading the above, you can guess why.

Should of watched the rest very good. So your two evolutionist buddies top in the field Gould, Dawkins, and top in the field Dr Sanford (could name more but no use) all say they can't.

Sorry. You've been snockered again. Gould acknowledges that information increases in populations during evolution. In fact, some of it involves his earliest work:
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/1997/01.09/SnailsCaughtinA.html

Surprise.

Dawkins does say a limited yes but can't give an example. All you have is a information theory that was created to find out how much information can fit into a telephone line. .

As you learned, it's routinely used by biologists to measure information in populations.

(Sandford admits his findings are determined by his religious beliefs)

Yep. It's why he's one of that tiny minority who don't accept evolution. All of them, so far, for religious reasons. But watching him stumble through a justification for claiming neutral mutations are harmful, it's hard to think he doesn't know what he's doing.

 

[Barbarian]

Barb, do you allow for the option that maybe YE creationists have it right?

Two reasons to think they don't.

1. Genesis. YE denies God's word on the origin of life.

2. Evidence. We can clearly see that their new doctrine is contrary to reality.

(Just as you argue and tirelessly defend your standpoint to convince those who oppose this view as though you, yourself are indeed right.)

Not all ideas are equally valid. People may differ on the Easter Bunny but...

More importantly, do you have a hard time with YE creationists or even ID's being your brethren?

Nope. God doesn't care if you approve of the way He did creation or not. The problem as you may have noticed, is that YE creationism is a great atheist-maker.

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.
Former YE creationist and ICR graduate Glenn Morton.

Do you disagree with the notion that YE creationists or the like may in fact have a clear conscience in their relationship with our Father?

I would hope so. If they are invincibly ignorant of the biblical contradictions of their new doctrine, then they are blameless in God's eyes.

I will also offer maybe another alternative. Do either of you, or anyone else reading this just talk and argue pointlessly, knowing fullwell that your opposite are "seared" or "set in their ways" or however you'd want to put it? Does anyone in here just refute and defend just for the sake of refuting and defending?

I don't have any hope of convincing Sparticis. But other people read the exchange, and if I can prevent someone from going through the things Morton and his friends did, then it's worthwhile.

 

[spartakis]

Barbarian Dawkins admitted Gould did not believe mutations added info, its amazing how you deny facts. Wouldn't you think he would want Gould on his side. I posted this in the other thread with links but just like you watch videos you only read half of what someone says. Sanford beliefs came from his findings. Posted a link but can also post a video interview where he talks about his findings and how surprised he was on how much his findings matched what the Bible teaches but you would have to watch an 11 minute video.

 

[spartakis]

Barb, do you allow for the option that maybe YE creationists have it right? (Just as you argue and tirelessly defend your standpoint to convince those who oppose this view as though you, yourself are indeed right.) More importantly, do you have a hard time with YE creationists or even ID's being your brethren? Do you disagree with the notion that YE creationists or the like may in fact have a clear conscience in their relationship with our Father?

I also ask everyone else these same questions. Spartakis, do you deny that Barbarian or others of his viewpoint are brethren in Jesus? Just as you want to defend your points and attempt to refute his points, do you hold it against him that you also do this same notion?

I will also offer maybe another alternative. Do either of you, or anyone else reading this just talk and argue pointlessly, knowing fullwell that your opposite are "seared" or "set in their ways" or however you'd want to put it? Does anyone in here just refute and defend just for the sake of refuting and defending?

No evolution and old earth should not be a salvation issue as long as they trust Christ as their Saviour. What I will do is contend for the faith like we are told to. When you teach someone you can't take the Bible literally and salvation by works then ya you are leading others astray. The difference between me and barbarian is I believe God's word as my authority he takes higher up members of his church as authority. I take God's word as it's context states, he can't take it literal. His beliefs rely on evolution being true mine rely on Gods word being true. So I will contend for the truth of the Gospel and the truth of what the Bible teaches.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian Dawkins admitted Gould did not believe mutations added info, its amazing how you deny facts.

It's a fact that you repeatedly declined to show us a statement from Gould saying so. That does decrease your credibility considerably.

If you have something where Sanford can produce some evidence that neutral mutations are harmful, I'd be pleased to see it. Watching a video seemed to be a waste of time, with the two guys inventing misconceptions about science most of the time.

If you don't understand it well enough to discuss it here, what makes you think it's right?

 

[jesseedavis]

No evolution and old earth should not be a salvation issue as long as they trust Christ as their Saviour. What I will do is contend for the faith like we are told to. When you teach someone you can't take the Bible literally and salvation by works then ya you are leading others astray. The difference between me and barbarian is I believe God's word as my authority he takes higher up members of his church as authority. I take God's word as it's context states, he can't take it literal. His beliefs rely on evolution being true mine rely on Gods word being true. So I will contend for the truth of the Gospel and the truth of what the Bible teaches.

Please understand that I'm not trying to instigate or antagonize anyone when I say this. You, Spartikus, say, "I believe God's word as my authority he takes higher up members of his church as authority. I take God's word as it's context states, he can't take it literal. His beliefs rely on evolution being true mine rely on Gods word being true." Barbarian, you say, "1. Genesis. YE denies God's word on the origin of life.

2. Evidence. We can clearly see that their new doctrine is contrary to reality."

Quick observations: First, you both show a very passionate stance for the Word of God respectively. You both are zealous of the truth and are deeply concerned with those who read these posts and exchanges between members. I do commend you both for this and please do not lose any of this!

However, I also see that you both believe conflicting views of the Bible and both claim that your perspective is of God and rightly divides His Word. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Regardless of how patient you currently are, Barb, and how much you are holding back at those whom you have patience for, we must remember as St. Augustine said, ". . . consider how foolish it is rashly to assert that Moses intended one particular meaning rather than any of the others. If we engage in hurtful strife as we attempt to expound his words, we offend against the very charity for the sake of which he said all those things ."(Augustine 1997, XII.35) I would expect that you of all people in this forum would be seeking to show us how this is done, you think?

Also remember that he said about different hermeneutical styles, "History is when things done by God or man are recounted; allegory when they are understood as being said figuratively; analogy, when the harmony of the old and new covenants is being demonstrated; aetiology, when the causes of the things that have been said and done are presented." (Augustine 2002c, 2.5)

The point I'm trying to throw on the table is that not only do the people who stumble onto these boards see threads, evidence, etc. for both sides of the fence, but they also see the heart being poured out. Nearly any and every unbeliever will see first and foremost our relationships and our attitudes towards our own brethren and all other things are just gravy.

Don't get me wrong, we should sharpen each other and we should constantly examine ourselves and the Scriptures to further instruct us. We should hold tightly our beliefs and what we know from the Lord, but also be ever growing in knowledge and in faith. None of this at the expense of attacking each other (even in love, respect, play, etc.) for all to see.

On this same note, another question you each can answer, if you will. Do you expect to learn anything from each other? Not just about the Scriptures, and about doctrines, but also in sciences and in evidences we've each come across?

 

[spartakis]

It's a fact that you repeatedly declined to show us a statement from Gould saying so. That does decrease your credibility considerably.

If you have something where Sanford can produce some evidence that neutral mutations are harmful, I'd be pleased to see it. Watching a video seemed to be a waste of time, with the two guys inventing misconceptions about science most of the time.

If you don't understand it well enough to discuss it here, what makes you think it's right?

The answer in practice is complicated and controversial, all bound up with a vigorous debate over whether evolution is, in general, progressive. I am one of those associated with a limited form of yes answer. My colleague Stephen Jay Gould tends towards a no answer. I don’t think anybody would deny that, by any method of measuring —whether bodily information content, total information capacity of genome, capacity of genome actually used, or true (“Stuffit compressed”) information content of genome —there has been a broad overall trend towards increased information content during the course of human evolution from our remote bacterial ancestors. People might disagree, however, over two important questions: first, whether such a trend is to be found in all, or a majority of evolutionary lineages (for example parasite evolution often shows a trend towards decreasing bodily complexity, because parasites are better off being simple); second, whether, even in lineages where there is a clear overall trend over the very long term, it is bucked by so many reversals and re-reversals in the shorter term as to undermine the very idea of progress. This is not the place to resolve this interesting controversy. There are distinguished biologists with good arguments on both sides.
http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/articles/the-information-challenge/
Notice when he does talk about an increase it is all speculation and under the assumption microbe to men would be correct.


I guess Dawkins lied about it. I guess he takes it better than you. A lot more humbler and agrees he does not know all the answers yet. Seems like anybody that disagrees with you is just plain stupid . I could go through some of Gould's work but I am sure whatever I find will not please the Almighty barbarian. Sanford actually has some good stuff (would explain but since it would be a waste of my time cause you are smarter then the guy that invented the gene gun. All I will waste for you on it is a video) on it he is extremely intelligent and like I said and posted his findings are why he changed his beliefs. I would explain it to you but it would be a waste of my time cause no matter how many top scientists in their field said the same thing it would be wrong to you. Remember the other thread that is one of the reasons I posted videos there because after multiple facts and links they all didn't matter and was wrong. I understand everything pretty well and go off of the leaders in the research. Dr. Endler has some good stuff to. But with you it is a waste of time anymore I could post multiple scientists in their field said the same thing it would be wrong to you. And why would I explain the video when you can watch it. You watch the rest of it yet?

 

[spartakis]

Please understand that I'm not trying to instigate or antagonize anyone when I say this. You, Spartikus, say, "I believe God's word as my authority he takes higher up members of his church as authority. I take God's word as it's context states, he can't take it literal. His beliefs rely on evolution being true mine rely on Gods word being true." Barbarian, you say, "1. Genesis. YE denies God's word on the origin of life.

2. Evidence. We can clearly see that their new doctrine is contrary to reality."

Quick observations: First, you both show a very passionate stance for the Word of God respectively. You both are zealous of the truth and are deeply concerned with those who read these posts and exchanges between members. I do commend you both for this and please do not lose any of this!

However, I also see that you both believe conflicting views of the Bible and both claim that your perspective is of God and rightly divides His Word. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Regardless of how patient you currently are, Barb, and how much you are holding back at those whom you have patience for, we must remember as St. Augustine said, ". . . consider how foolish it is rashly to assert that Moses intended one particular meaning rather than any of the others. If we engage in hurtful strife as we attempt to expound his words, we offend against the very charity for the sake of which he said all those things ."(Augustine 1997, XII.35) I would expect that you of all people in this forum would be seeking to show us how this is done, you think?

Also remember that he said about different hermeneutical styles, "History is when things done by God or man are recounted; allegory when they are understood as being said figuratively; analogy, when the harmony of the old and new covenants is being demonstrated; aetiology, when the causes of the things that have been said and done are presented." (Augustine 2002c, 2.5)

The point I'm trying to throw on the table is that not only do the people who stumble onto these boards see threads, evidence, etc. for both sides of the fence, but they also see the heart being poured out. Nearly any and every unbeliever will see first and foremost our relationships and our attitudes towards our own brethren and all other things are just gravy.

Don't get me wrong, we should sharpen each other and we should constantly examine ourselves and the Scriptures to further instruct us. We should hold tightly our beliefs and what we know from the Lord, but also be ever growing in knowledge and in faith. None of this at the expense of attacking each other (even in love, respect, play, etc.) for all to see.

On this same note, another question you each can answer, if you will. Do you expect to learn anything from each other? Not just about the Scriptures, and about doctrines, but also in sciences and in evidences we've each come across?

This is another problem with all the contradictions. Barbarian claims to believe the Bible and claims evolution is okay in the Bible but you can't take a book God gave us as a historical facts literal. So the people that do take it literal don't believe the Bible . And he also denies the Hebrew calendar and text that date back to 160ad that state young earth and creation. And that young earth creation was the way of science until 1800's. Then was revived in the 1900's. All this was shown with wiki links and was wrong to barbarian. No matter how many facts you have unless they agree with barbarian they are wrong.

 

[jesseedavis]

This is another problem with all the contradictions. Barbarian claims to believe the Bible and claims evolution is okay in the Bible but you can't take a book God gave us as a historical facts literal. So the people that do take it literal don't believe the Bible . And he also denies the Hebrew calendar and text that date back to 160ad that state young earth and creation. And that young earth creation was the way of science until 1800's. Then was revived in the 1900's. All this was shown with wiki links and was wrong to barbarian. No matter how many facts you have unless they agree with barbarian they are wrong.

Good points, valid points for sure. Barb indeed has to answer these questions for himself. This response is an example of exactly what is seen all over the place in and out of the forums. Allow me to be blunt for a second. Your response to the question was to shift the scope to your opposition. I know I must be careful to tread a loving line myself, however please be careful to not be slanderous about your friend and your brother in Jesus. Pointing out erroneous views and the dangers of these views is excellent, but at the expense of your brother's integrity and dignity can be dangerous. Can you see how this may further taint his witness to those not yet in the Lord who come across this discourse? Or yours?

1 Corinthians 13:2 "And though I...understand all mysteries, and all knowledge...and have not charity, I am nothing."

 

[Barbarian]

The answer in practice is complicated and controversial, all bound up with a vigorous debate over whether evolution is, in general, progressive. I am one of those associated with a limited form of yes answer. My colleague Stephen Jay Gould tends towards a no answer. I don’t think anybody would deny that, by any method of measuring —whether bodily information content, total information capacity of genome, capacity of genome actually used, or true (“Stuffit compressedâ€) information content of genome —there has been a broad overall trend towards increased information content during the course of human evolution from our remote bacterial ancestors. People might disagree, however, over two important questions: first, whether such a trend is to be found in all, or a majority of evolutionary lineages (for example parasite evolution often shows a trend towards decreasing bodily complexity, because parasites are better off being simple); second, whether, even in lineages where there is a clear overall trend over the very long term, it is bucked by so many reversals and re-reversals in the shorter term as to undermine the very idea of progress. This is not the place to resolve this interesting controversy. There are distinguished biologists with good arguments on both sides.
http://www.skeptics.com.au/publicati...ion-challenge/

Notice when he does talk about an increase it is all speculation and under the assumption microbe to men would be correct.

Normally, a conclusion based on confirmed evidence is called a "theory."

I guess Dawkins lied about it.

We could always test it. Assuming birds did evolve from dinosaurs, would that be an increase in information or not? Show us the numbers, or if the math is a problem for you, show us whatever quantitative measure you can figure out.

Seems like anybody that disagrees with you is just plain stupid .

You spend a lot of time thinking up opinions for other people. Wouldn't it work better if you learned about the issue and gave us some evidence to support your beliefs?

I

could go through some of Gould's work but I am sure whatever I find will not please the Almighty barbarian.

It wouldn't matter. If you actually supported your claim and I continued to twit you for not doing it, I'd be pretty much marginalized, wouldn't I?

Sanford actually has some good stuff (would explain but since it would be a waste of my time cause you are smarter then the guy that invented the gene gun.

That thing about you inventing opinions for others? It's not working for you.

All I will waste for you on it is a video) on it he is extremely intelligent and like I said and posted his findings are why he changed his beliefs. I would explain it to you but it would be a waste of my time cause no matter how many top scientists in their field said the same thing it would be wrong to you.

Ironically, the vast majority of "top scientists" accept evolution. So your bandwagon approach is a sure-fire loser for you. Try again.

 

[spartakis]

The answer in practice is complicated and controversial, all bound up with a vigorous debate over whether evolution is, in general, progressive. I am one of those associated with a limited form of yes answer. My colleague Stephen Jay Gould tends towards a no answer. I don’t think anybody would deny that, by any method of measuring —whether bodily information content, total information capacity of genome, capacity of genome actually used, or true (“Stuffit compressed”) information content of genome —there has been a broad overall trend towards increased information content during the course of human evolution from our remote bacterial ancestors. People might disagree, however, over two important questions: first, whether such a trend is to be found in all, or a majority of evolutionary lineages (for example parasite evolution often shows a trend towards decreasing bodily complexity, because parasites are better off being simple); second, whether, even in lineages where there is a clear overall trend over the very long term, it is bucked by so many reversals and re-reversals in the shorter term as to undermine the very idea of progress. This is not the place to resolve this interesting controversy. There are distinguished biologists with good arguments on both sides.
http://www.skeptics.com.au/publicati...ion-challenge/

Normally, a conclusion based on confirmed evidence is called a "theory."

Well it's a conclusion based on assumptions of common decent. Based on assumptions of evidence. Could get into this more about the evidence we have but once again this thread was to discuss this video and to what Dr. Sanford was talking about especially human degeneration in his other clips. Watch them yet?

We could always test it. Assuming birds did evolve from dinosaurs, would that be an increase in information or not? Show us the numbers, or if the math is a problem for you, show us whatever quantitative measure you can figure out.

Math is not a problem, but why waste the time, if there was hard evidence for birds evolving from dinosaurs then that would obviously be an increase of information. That's why its important for us to observe this today if evolution was more than an assumption, but we don't. You can debate about a very limited amount added but even that would not be enough for microbes to man. And You did read what dawkins gave as Goulds answer correct, and that his own limited yes was based on microbes to man being true.

You spend a lot of time thinking up opinions for other people. Wouldn't it work better if you learned about the issue and gave us some evidence to support your beliefs?

I did that in another thread me and multiple people provided evidence that was continually disregarded because it did not go with your beliefs. Some what we were presenting is what Dr. Sanford is talking about in this video. Seems you should learn more about the issue, 2 of the top in the field don't seem to agree with you, the one that says a limited yes admits he can not prove it. Dr. Sanford and many others would also say no. But you say yes and its a fact whoever disagrees needs to learn more. I am really done with showing you evidence anyway, considering you deny any facts presented.

It wouldn't matter. If you actually supported your claim and I continued to twit you for not doing it, I'd be pretty much marginalized, wouldn't I?

Well my claim is more supported than yours. I claim information can not be added, empirical evidence points to that. Dr. Sanford, Gould and many others say no. Dawkins says limited on his assumption that microbes to man is happened but admits he has no example and can not prove it. You state its a fact and anybody who believes otherwise should learn more and etc....

That thing about you inventing opinions for others? It's not working for you.

well if Dr. Sanford is not lying then he don't know what he is talking about? Is that your feeling, it sounded like it. If not let me know I will point you to the direction of some info of where he explains what we are talking about.

Ironically, the vast majority of "top scientists" accept evolution. So your bandwagon approach is a sure-fire loser for you. Try again.

Well scientist use to all think maggots on meat was spontaneous generation, they also all once believed scum on top of a pond was a spontaneous generation. Sorry I don't jump on bandwagons and would't try and get anybody to. What I was showing is about mutations. The process claimed to make evolution possible, has empirical evidence that shows new novel features could not come about that way. I know no matter what I show you I am wrong, same thing happened else where. But there are many scientist who agree with creation. And as you see one of the world leading genetic researcher went from believing darwinism to creation based on his findings. Some will always deny the word of God no matter if Christ was performing miracles in front of them.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
Normally, a conclusion based on confirmed evidence is called a "theory."

Well it's a conclusion based on assumptions of common decent.

You got it backwards. Darwin started out as a creationist of sorts, and the evidence convinced him of evolution.

Could get into this more about the evidence we have

But you didn't like the way that turned out, um?

Barbarian, about "information:"
We could always test it. Assuming birds did evolve from dinosaurs, would that be an increase in information or not? Show us the numbers, or if the math is a problem for you, show us whatever quantitative measure you can figure out.

Math is not a problem, but why waste the time

It would do wonders for your credibility, for one thing. But I see you have no idea what "information" means in biology, so you're not going to venture a guess.

if there was hard evidence for birds evolving from dinosaurs then that would obviously be an increase of information.

Show us that. Use whatever method you want to analyze the two, and show us how you did it.

You can debate about a very limited amount added but even that would not be enough for microbes to man.

Since you've brought up "information", just focus on dinsaurs to birds. Show us that there would have to be an increase in "information" for that to happen. With numbers and show us how you did the analysis.

Barbarian chuckles:
You spend a lot of time thinking up opinions for other people. Wouldn't it work better if you learned about the issue and gave us some evidence to support your beliefs?

I did that in another thread me and multiple people provided evidence that was continually disregarded because it did not go with your beliefs.

Everyone must have missed that. Surprising. And you can't show us again, because...?

Some what we were presenting is what Dr. Sanford is talking about in this video. Seems you should learn more about the issue, 2 of the top in the field don't seem to agree with you, the one that says a limited yes admits he can not prove it.

Apparently, that's not what they said, but in any event, all you have to do is show us the numbers (or whatever quantitative stuff you want) that show the evolution from dinosaurs to birds would involve an increase in "information." Good luck.

Barbarian chuckles:
It wouldn't matter. If you actually supported your claim and I continued to twit you for not doing it, I'd be pretty much marginalized, wouldn't I?

Well my claim is more supported than yours. I claim information can not be added,

I showed you how every new mutation adds information to a population. I even did the number for you. C'mon, do you think people didn't notice?

empirical evidence points to that. Dr. Sanford, Gould and many others say no.

Since you've been repeatedly challenged to show that Gould said it, and repeatedly refused to do that, your claim isn't taken very seriously. Did you really think it doesn't matter if you don't support your claims?

Dawkins says limited on his assumption that microbes to man is happened but admits he has no example and can not prove it. You state its a fact and anybody who believes otherwise should learn more and etc.

I very much doubt that Dawkin's said "microbes to man", which is a creationist strawman. But you're on. Show us that he said it.

Barbarian chuckles:
That thing about you inventing opinions for others? It's not working for you.

well if Dr. Sanford is not lying then he don't know what he is talking about?

The stammering, fidgiting and blinking he did when he was trying to establish that neutral mutations aren't really neutral, did have an effect, yes. He clearly knows that what he was saying is not consistent with the evidence.

Barbarian, regarding Zeke's bandwagon strategy:
Ironically, the vast majority of "top scientists" accept evolution. So your bandwagon approach is a sure-fire loser for you. Try again.

Well scientist use to all think maggots on meat was spontaneous generation,

Another reason you erred in using "look how many scientists agree with me." Not only are they a tiny minority, the evidence shows they are wrong.

Sorry I don't jump on bandwagons

Then it was a bad move on your part to say "look how many scientists agree with me."

What I was showing is about mutations. The process claimed to make evolution possible, has empirical evidence that shows new novel features could not come about that way.

As you learned, there are no truly "novel features." Everything is something that was modified from pre-existing things. The new, irreducibly complex enzyme system formed by Hall's E. coli, for example, was the result of modifying an existing enzyme to a new function.

I know no matter what I show you I am wrong, same thing happened else where.

Comes down to evidence. You're taking a drubbing because you don't have any. And science has a mountain of it.

(Tries the bandwagon ploy again)

But there are many scientist who agree with creation.

Creation, yes. Creastionism, not so much. About 0.3% of biologists.

And as you see one of the world leading genetic researcher went from believing darwinism to creation based on his findings.

Based on his new religion. And his boss, an evangelical Christian, acknowledges the fact of common descent. So do about 97.7% of biologists.
Your bandwagon broke down, again.

Some will always deny the word of God no matter if Christ was performing miracles in front of them.

YE creationists, for example, deny God's word in Genesis.

 

[spartakis]

You got it backwards. Darwin started out as a creationist of sorts, and the evidence convinced him of evolution.

That don't matter, that is his fault. We have seen top genetic researcher/ atheist turn to Christ/creation because of his findings. Anthony flew was a strong atheist who once he studied genetics turned to God. I am sure that don't make a difference to you so why should darwin being convinced of his own ideal make a difference to me?

But you didn't like the way that turned out, um?

No gets old presenting facts only to have someone ignore them and keep throwing in contradictions as to their beliefs.

It would do wonders for your credibility, for one thing. But I see you have no idea what "information" means in biology, so you're not going to venture a guess.

Why would I answer an insult to my intelligence? It's pretty simple. You know if you can figure out where it came from you can win over a million dollars from the origin of life foundation.

Show us that. Use whatever method you want to analyze the two, and show us how you did it.

Since you've brought up "information", just focus on dinsaurs to birds. Show us that there would have to be an increase in "information" for that to happen. With numbers and show us how you did the analysis.

Why would I waste my time, are you saying there would be no information gain if a dinosaur to bird mutation took place? Of course there would be an increase of information, just for feathers alone.

Everyone must have missed that. Surprising. And you can't show us again, because...?

Ya everybody can go and look at the other thread I posted that you decided to take totally off topic and destroy, its closed now but everyone can still see it.

I showed you how every new mutation adds information to a population. I even did the number for you. C'mon, do you think people didn't notice?
Since you've been repeatedly challenged to show that Gould said it, and repeatedly refused to do that, your claim isn't taken very seriously. Did you really think it doesn't matter if you don't support your claims?

We have went over this theory of information and you can see your buddy dawkins answer quit wasting my time. Did you not read the link I posted it states from a fellow colleague stated his position, and it was the opposite of his.

I very much doubt that Dawkin's said "microbes to man", which is a creationist strawman. But you're on. Show us that he said it.

increased information content during the course of human evolution from our remote bacterial ancestors

Is that not good enough? No he did not say microbes to man that is how I summed it up.
The link is in my other post to you, maybe you should read and be open minded.

The stammering, fidgiting and blinking he did when he was trying to establish that neutral mutations aren't really neutral, did have an effect, yes. He clearly knows that what he was saying is not consistent with the evidence.

He blinks like that in many of the interviews I have seen of him, some he is not even talking science. But whatever you can use to state he is lying.

Another reason you erred in using "look how many scientists agree with me." Not only are they a tiny minority, the evidence shows they are wrong.

Actually I was talking about mutations, not evolution. I gave you examples of what the top evolutionist in the field said, and you disagree. Whats new? Everything is wrong to you. What amazes me is how much more humble an atheist can be about what he does not know, and admitting it.

As you learned, there are no truly "novel features." Everything is something that was modified from pre-existing things. The new, irreducibly complex enzyme system formed by Hall's E. coli, for example, was the result of modifying an existing enzyme to a new function.

As you have learned a dinosaur can not turn into a bird without adding features, an invertebrate can not turn into a vertebrate without developing a back bone and the list goes on. How many times do we need to go over hall's e coli experiment? Is that all you have for any type of evidence ( which we have addressed already).

Comes down to evidence. You're taking a drubbing because you don't have any. And science has a mountain of it.

You really sound like a little kid. No I have plenty of it, same science and evidence you look at. You just look at it with your head stuck on evolution has to be right, the evidence sure does not prove it.

(Tries the bandwagon ploy again)


Creation, yes. Creastionism, not so much. About 0.3% of biologists.



Based on his new religion. And his boss, an evangelical Christian, acknowledges the fact of common descent. So do about 97.7% of biologists.
Your bandwagon broke down, again.

His boss is and matters because?
Like I said before maybe you will read it this time.

Most scientist use to think maggots on meat was spontaneous generation, they also once believed scum on top of a pond was a spontaneous generation. Sorry I don't jump on bandwagons and would't try and get anybody to.

YE creationists, for example, deny God's word in Genesis.

YE creationist believe God's word as it was written. Genesis is given as a historical book. They believe it as God wrote it. You do not take it in context how it was written, so you deny God's word in Genesis. Are you so blind you can't even see and admit to that.

Look at what you have done so far. So far you have not produced any evidence, all you have done is try and insult me and the people on the video. I posted this video to talk about the second two clips that are a lot more interesting than the first one (which like he said everybody knows ), but yet you have not even watched them.
Do you not see how you are making yourself look? When you stop insulting people's intelligence, trying to make them out a liar, start reading what people are saying and not commenting on something till you have watched it all :waving


Updated 1st post with new video of what was in the 2nd and 3rd clip of the original video.
Posted for open discussion about the video.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
You got it backwards. Darwin started out as a creationist of sorts, and the evidence convinced him of evolution.

That don't matter

Matters a lot. It demonstrates that your claim is false.

We have seen top genetic researcher/ atheist turn to Christ/creation because of his findings.

You got that backwards too. Sanford became a fundamentalist first, and then turned his back on science.

Anthony flew was a strong atheist who once he studied genetics turned to God.

Flew thinks the Christian God is a "cosmic Saddam Hussein." I'm not sure who he turned to, but that's not God.

I am sure that don't make a difference to you

Yes, it does matter. It should matter to you, too. If that's your idea of "turning to God", then we'll just have to disagree.

so why should darwin being convinced of his own ideal make a difference to me?

Darwin thought God created the first living things. That might not mean anything to you, but it does give lie to your claim that evolution was designed to promote atheism.

No gets old presenting facts only to have someone ignore them and keep throwing in contradictions as to their beliefs.

It's O.K. I'm a very patient guy.

Barbarian, regarding why one should provide evidence for one's claims:
It would do wonders for your credibility, for one thing. But I see you have no idea what "information" means in biology, so you're not going to venture a guess.

Why would I answer an insult to my intelligence?

It's pretty simple. If someone calls you on a claim about what someone said, and you can't show that he said it, then your credibility takes a hit.

Barbarian, regarding "information" claim:
Show us that. Use whatever method you want to analyze the two, and show us how you did it.

Since you've brought up "information", just focus on dinsaurs to birds. Show us that there would have to be an increase in "information" for that to happen. With numbers and show us how you did the analysis.

Why would I waste my time

It would go a long way to restoring your credibility.

are you saying there would be no information gain if a dinosaur to bird mutation took place?

I'm asking you to show us. That will require some numbers.

Of course there would be an increase of information, just for feathers alone.

Dinosaurs had feathers. Try again.

Barbarian observes:
I showed you how every new mutation adds information to a population. I even did the number for you. C'mon, do you think people didn't notice?
Since you've been repeatedly challenged to show that Gould said it, and repeatedly refused to do that, your claim isn't taken very seriously. Did you really think it doesn't matter if you don't support your claims?

Barbarian suggests:
I very much doubt that Dawkin's said "microbes to man", which is a creationist strawman. But you're on. Show us that he said it.

(couldn't show it)

Is that not good enough? No he did not say microbes to man

That wasn't so hard, was it? Now do you have anything from Stephen Gould that shows he said what you claimed?

Barbarian observes:
The stammering, fidgiting and blinking he did when he was trying to establish that neutral mutations aren't really neutral, did have an effect, yes. He clearly knows that what he was saying is not consistent with the evidence.

He blinks like that in many of the interviews I have seen of him, some he is not even talking science.

I notice though, when he got off that subject, the blinking and fidgeting stopped.

Barbarian chuckles:
Another reason you erred in using "look how many scientists agree with me." Not only are they a tiny minority, the evidence shows they are wrong.

Actually I was talking about mutations, not evolution. I gave you examples of what the top evolutionist in the field said, and you disagree.

Since most biologists, including "top biologists" disagree with him, that's another mistake. The bandwagon argument is always going to backfire on you.

Whats new? Everything is wrong to you. What amazes me is how much more humble an atheist can be about what he does not know, and admitting it.

If so, you're certainly not an atheist.

Barbarian observes:
As you learned, there are no truly "novel features." Everything is something that was modified from pre-existing things. The new, irreducibly complex enzyme system formed by Hall's E. coli, for example, was the result of modifying an existing enzyme to a new function.

As you have learned a dinosaur can not turn into a bird without adding features

That's a testable belief. Show me something a bird has, that couldn't have evolved from dinosaurs.

an invertebrate can not turn into a vertebrate without developing a back bone and the list goes on.

The evidence shows that this happened gradually, from the chordates. Want to learn about it?

How many times do we need to go over hall's e coli experiment?

As often as you deny that it can happen.

Barbarian observes:
Comes down to evidence. You're taking a drubbing because you don't have any. And science has a mountain of it.

You really sound like a little kid.

Well, you know how childish Barbarians are...

No I have plenty of it, same science and evidence you look at. You just look at it with your head stuck on evolution has to be right, the evidence sure does not prove it.

Now would be the time to bring it out, then.

(Tries the bandwagon ploy again)

Barbarian, regarding the idea that scientists endorse creation:
Creation, yes. Creastionism, not so much. About 0.3% of biologists.

Barbarian observes:
Based on his new religion. And his boss, an evangelical Christian, acknowledges the fact of common descent. So do about 97.7% of biologists.
Your bandwagon broke down, again.

His boss is and matters because.

Francis Collins. Evangelical Christian, director of the Human Genome Project, and yes, an evolutionist.

Sorry I don't jump on bandwagons and would't try and get anybody to.

Then your "look how many scientists agree with me" was a big mistake for you.

Barbarian observes:
YE creationists, for example, deny God's word in Genesis.

YE creationist believe God's word as it was written.

Nope. They cling to their new doctrine of "life ex nihilo."