when I searched for acanthostega on AiG the only article focusing on it was written by Andrew Snelling. A link would've been nice.
Yes and I wish I could show you that, but the mods of this site tell me that debate was then located on a General Apologetics forum which has since been shut down, and my archived discussion is no longer accessible. Much the pity as I compared two of AiG's articles on acanthostega, one written by Snelling and one by someone else a few years later. Both articles showed distortions of data and both contradicted each other. For example, IIRC Snelling said Acanthostega was "just" a salamander who's legs were fully developed and therefore couldn't be considered a transitional species, while the other guy said Acanthostega was "just" a weird fish who's legs and skeleton clearly were NOT able to support its body out of water, and he suggested that it couldn't be a transitional species for THAT reason.
In fact one of the clearest proofs that a specimen is a transitional species is when creationists can't agree on which "kind" they think it should belong to, even though they both agree it should be on "100%" on one side or the other.
Of the two authors, Snelling was obviously the least honest. I've asked the mods of this site to try and make that discussion available to me, and they came back to say that is no longer possible. But one of them said she might be able to copy pieces of it and send those to me as a PM. That will do.
Did he actually claim that he believed the rocks were billions of years old? I'd bet not.
Yes he did. That's how we know he was lying about them when, in 1990, he reported to the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy in Melbourne that
"the oldest rocks in the Koongarra area, domes of granitoids and granitic gneiss, are of Archaean age [older than 2.5 billion years].
The Archaean rocks are mantled by Lower Proterozoic [between 2.5 billion and 543 million years old]
metasediments: all were later buried deeply, heavily folded and, between 1870 and 1800 million years ago, were subjected to regional metamorphism at considerable temperatures and pressures." There were a number of other references in that article, as in his prior submissions, when he stated similar ages as matters of simple fact. At the same time, he also posted articles to AiG, (then known as the Creation Science Foundation) wherein he very clearly illustrated his bias that he would base his beliefs on what he thought the Bible meant and not on what any amount of evidence actually implied. Indeed the AiG and every other creationist apologetics propaganda mill says much the same thing, as if that wasn't another admission of dishonesty in itself. Instead they act like that kind of unreasonable close-minded dogmatism is something to proud of!
There is no indication that the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy in Melbourne knew that Snelling didn't really believe what he portraying as factually correct. But it is clear in his comments to AiG/CSF that he wilfully rejects any and all evidence that stands against his dogmatic interpretation of his religious doctrine. Both are dishonest.
If I were to interpret things the way you did then I could've given you many examples for part 2 of your challenge. Ken Miller would be number 1 with his "tale of two chromosomes". He confidently claimed that human chromosome 1 was a fusion of what used to be two ape chromosomes. In actuality it was more likely to be a fusion of what used to be two HUMAN chromosomes.
Wrong, and Miller showed why it was wrong, by positively identifying the specific location of the fusion point in, and relation to, the genome of other apes.
The only reason a person would believe that is because he believed in evolution.
No, there are other reasons. Whether you want to accept this or not, humans
are a subset of apes -in the same sense that lions are a subset of cats, and iguanas are a subset of lizards, and so on. As I said before, this is a fact easily proven, one which evolution explains, and creationism cannot.
Humans and apes both have exclusive information in our chromosomes.
No we don't. There is not one trait common to all other ape species which is not also found in humans. So Ken Miller did not misrepresent anything, but you just did.
"And AiG's publications of willfully deceitful bigoted tract publications was the catalyst that first pulled me into these debates. They actually said that all Hindus secretly worship the Christian devil!"
didn't find that article either. A link would be nice.
Would it really make a difference? Whether I provide a link or not, you already know you will dismiss it either way no matter what.
It was a Chick track called
The Traitor that was handed out in the 1990s, and the back cover gave the number for AnswersInGenesis. It was the first I ever heard of them.
I mentioned Gitt in my second post here.
Yes, and I read SLP's confirmation of my prediction that Gitt's claims would only be either (a) an untestable assumption, blind speculation asserted as fact without any supportive evidence whatsoever, (which is apparently what Gitt hoped it was) or else it would be (b) testable and already known to be wrong. There doesn't appear to be a 3rd category for creationist claims. That's why I am still waiting for you to answer my challenge to produce an exception to that rule by presenting something that is both verifiably accurate and positively indicative of your position.
Jerry Coyne (professor of ecology)- "After all, we want our grants funded by the government, and our schoolchildren exposed to real science instead of creationism. Liberal religious people have been important allies in our struggle against creationism,
True.
and it is not pleasant to alienate them by declaring how we feel.
True.
This is why, as a tactical matter, groups such as the National Academy of Sciences claim that religion and science do not conflict.
True, although there are religious views which really don't conflict at all.
But their main evidence the existence of religious scientists is wearing thin as scientists grow ever more vociferous about their lack of faith.
This is true also. The existence of ANY religious scientists, such as Miller's traditional Catholocism, Bakker's Pentacostal ministry, or Dobzhansky's Orthodoxy, -proves that science and religion need not conflict.
In red Coyne admits that he does not really feel that evolution and the bible mix.
He may feel that way, but that is not what he said. Miller and Bakker both feel that the Bible and evolution DO mix, but they still would have used the same phrase Coyne did, as they're both opposed to creationists too.
You see, 'creationist' does not mean 'Christian' or 'theist'. Creationism is defined in part by its rejection of, and objection to, evolution specifically and scientific methodology in general, and also by its dogmatic reverence, and very narrow interpretation of scripture as apriori over evidence of any kind be it logical or physical. Consequently Creationism is literally anti-science because it stands against everything science is or seeks to acheive. How? Primarily by their rejection of methodological naturalism, also known as the scientific method.
In purple he admits that he lies to religious people to get them on their side. Of course he used the euphemism "tactical matter".
I understand and share what I think Coyne is also feeling here, that it would be dishonest to assert as fact that which is not evidently true, and that is what religion does. But that again is not a scientific matter as science does not comment on the existence or non-existence of any god, but leaves the [extremely improbable remote] possibility open, which I do too. There is still no lie to be found here, and the existence of so many Christian evolutionists proves that.
I said they weren't completely different notions. Both are ideas of how life can rise from non life.
Then you said that Louis Pasteur disproved abiogenesis, proving that you don't know the difference between it and Spontaneous generation, the old supernatural explanation which Pasteur disproved.
Spontaneous generation: (proposed by Anaximander in the 6th century BCE, and disproved in a series of of experiments from 1668 to 1861) is the idea that fermentation and putrefaction activates a latent 'vitalism' [spiritual fluid] in all matter, thus recycling organic refuse (garbage) into new forms of already complex [albeit vile] organisms from virus and bacteria all the way to fully-formed animals such as flies and even rats.
Abiogenesis: Propoosed by Rudolph Virchow in 1855, and coined by Thomas Huxley in 1870; the current hypothesis attempting to explain the origin of life by proposing that developtment of life requires a prior matrix, thus an intricate sequence of chemical stages must have enhanced naturally occuring replicative proteins enabling the development of genetic precursers in protobiont cells which would then begin to evolve.
If life cannot rise by natural means then it has to rise by supernatural means. I don't see how that is illogical.
You already explained this; If we still haven't figured out how life arose, you suggest that we should give up trying to find the real answer and just assume it happened by magic. But as I already explained, that excuse has never turned out to be the right answer on any occassion when it has ever been applied. That's why I am still waiting for you to point out one occasion in the history of science when assuming supernatural explanations has ever improved our understanding of anything -instead of actually impeding our progress which has apparently always been the inevitable result of all supernatural assumptions. They're made up out of nothing -as excuses pretending to 'know' what no one even can know, as they're untestable, and they offer no practical application of any kind in any field. So what good can it do to call anything a miracle?
The history of science is littered with failed expirements and overturned ideas that were once held as absolute fact.
I agree with the first part of your statement. The purpose of science is to improve understanding, and the only way to do that is to seek out flaws in our current perception and correct them. You obviously can't do that if you won't even admit that any flaws could even exist. That's why science never considers anything 'absolute' fact. That's also why it necessarily must adhere to methodologies which do not permit faith. In fact, by requiring (a) that all positive claims be based on positive evidence, (b) that all such claims must be testable and potentially falsifiable, (c) that the evidence must be factual (objectively verifiable), and (d) that these must withstand critical analysis in peer review, science is the antithesis of faith.
Produce a single verifiably accurate argument of evidence indicative of miraculous creation over biological evolution or any other avenue of actual science. Because you still haven't shown one which you can show to be either (a) positively indicative or (b) verifiably accurate.
I showed you two (and I'm pretty sure a.) was not apart of your original request.
Yes it was. In the last private message I sent you on YouTube, I specifically asked you for a verifiably accurate argument of evidence
indicative of miraculous creation over biological evolution or any other avenue of actual science. But you didn't give me anything that actually indicated anything supernatural. What you presented instead was a negative argument wherein you assume that magic is the default position whenever we haven't figured out the real answer yet.
Not only that, but Gitt's option was also based on an assumption which he apparently thought was untestable, so you haven't met either criteria.
Abiogenesis is an evident certainty. We KNOW it happened.
But there is not one example of it.
Not yet, but we still know it happened. It's like waking up in jail with a hangover. Just because you can't yet peice together every detail of how you got there doesn't change the fact that someone put you in there, even if you don't yet know how or why. Or would you say you got there by magic?
Maybe you're not clear on what abiogenesis is. Let's break it down. Bio means life. When you put an 'a' in front of the word it means the exact opposite of. So 'abio' means non life. Genesis means beginning. Abiogenesis literally translates into "non life beginning". Or as we would understand it in english "life beginning from non life". abiogenesis is the supposed theory of life rising from non living material.
I was much more clear when I broke this down for you before. Regardless, whether you accept the 'prior matrix' requirement or not, you clearly do believe that there was once a time when there was no life on this planet, and then there was. I believe it happened naturally. You believe this happened magically. However science can only ever consider natural explanations.
I argued that life can only rise from life.
And that is evidently not the case. The recent breakthroughs in abiogenesis research, (which I showed you earlier) prove that we are getting closer to figuring out exactly how that happened whether you want to admit to that or not. There is never a 'need' for supernatural explanations, and if you resort to supernatural explanations, (ie magic) then you have failed in your attempt to do science.