tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post3362530488894472849..comments2024-03-16T21:32:23.088-04:00Comments on A Sure Word: Looking into the PastRKBentleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-36125026017862330032009-11-30T07:56:48.277-05:002009-11-30T07:56:48.277-05:00The funny thing about science is that it’s suppose...<i>The funny thing about science is that it’s supposed to be about things that are observable, testable, and repeatable. When we talk about unique events of the past, such as the supposed “Big Bang,” the events are neither observable nor repeatable. As a matter of fact, we can’t observe the past at all – we can only observe the present.</i><br><br>Actually molecular biologists observe the past every day when they compare DNA sequences of different species to accurately determine evolutionary relationships.<br><br>Evolution-deniers like yourself like to pretend the DNA in closely related species is similar because each creature was magically created by their god, also known as the invisible man with a magic wand.<br><br>That's a nutty idea, but even if it was true, the common designer idea does not work for ERVs. I talk about ERVs in my blog and I encourage you to go there and read what I said, watch the videos I recommended, and do some more research on your own to better understand this evidence for evolution.<br><br>There are millions of pieces of evidence for evolution, and exactly zero pieces of evidence that would make evolution false. The ERVs evidence I talk about in my blog is, in my opinion, one of the most powerful evidences for our evolutionary relationship with modern chimpanzee apes. I would call it lead-pipe evidence and smoking-gun proof. And there's a lot more evidence from the discoveries of molecular biologists that prove beyond any doubt that we share an ancient ape ancestor with the chimps, and a more distant ancestor with gorillas. This evolutionary relationship is now a basic scientific fact, accepted by every single serious biologist in the world.<br><br>If you refuse to do the hard work of learning the truth about the natural world, you are wasting your life. Do what you want, but I strongly recommend you try to find out why virtually the entire scientific community laughs at your ancient magical creation myth.<br><br>So please visit http://darwin-killed-god.blogspot.com/ and look for my thread called "Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs), the closest thing to a mathematical proof for evolution".<br><br>You will notice I have no respect for your religion, but please don't use my contempt for Christianity as an excuse to not educate yourself.Human Apehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11936967193312505472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-62499680092047246142009-11-30T08:40:30.340-05:002009-11-30T08:40:30.340-05:00If you believe evolution, you're welcome to yo...<i>If you believe evolution, you're welcome to your belief. But at least hear the other arguments. If you want to hold to your theory, be prepared to answer some of the arguments against it.</i><br><br>Most people would call you a hopeless cause and they would not waste time here like I'm doing now. However, I like to be optimistic and pretend even the most brainwashed people can be saved from the asylum they live in.<br><br>Your "If you believe in evolution" really bugs me, because I don't "believe" in evolution. Belief is a word scientists don't use. They accept ideas like evolution, if and only if those ideas have sufficient evidence to be likely to be true. If there isn't enough evidence, the idea is eventually discarded unless a new discovery requires a new look at that idea.<br><br>So biologists don't believe in evolution. They don't have to believe in it, because evolution has become an established truth, thanks to 150 years of scientific discoveries, all of which completely support the evolution idea, and no evidence has been found that contradicts evolution (despite what your favorite professional evolution-deniers tell you).<br><br>A big problem in America is a big and rapidly growing business called "Lying about science for Jeebus". This business is dishonest and completely out of control. These anti-science pro-Jeebus organizations make a good living from their gullible scientifically illiterate Christian customers, who will believe any childish nonsense without making any effort to understand it, as long as it doesn't threaten their cowardly belief in heaven.<br><br>The result is massive scientific ignorance in the most powerful country in the world, the USA. Meanwhile countries like China and India are likely to pass up America in scientific progress, which will be a disaster for our already very bad economy.<br><br>I will wait patiently for you to publish my comments, even though I obviously have nothing but contempt for your anti-science religious ideas, and I hope you will visit my blog and hopefully you will visit some other pro-science blogs to find out what the real world is like. If you make an effort to understand, you will find out modern biology is extremely interesting, and certainly nothing to be afraid of. Biologists like to help people understand, especially if they are honestly trying to learn something.Human Apehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11936967193312505472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-17453881517167496592009-11-30T21:33:12.201-05:002009-11-30T21:33:12.201-05:00It is actually incorrect to say that we cannot obs...It is actually incorrect to say that we cannot observe the past: you are looking intop far past when you look at the night sky. In fact, with the naked eye you can see almost 1000000 years into the past: the Andromeda Nebula. And with a pair of binoculars, that distance increases even more.<br><br>And, of course, we can "see" into the past when we observe the effects of past events. Geologic and fossil record, for example.<br><br>What's more, we <i>do</i> observe the Big Bang directly: cosmic background radiation is the Big Bang, trmendously diluted by the expansion of spacetime that has occurred since then.Jorgon Gorgonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17961096650184788709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-31994962929814526202009-12-01T00:25:26.696-05:002009-12-01T00:25:26.696-05:00Jorgon GorgonIt’s fairly common to assert that whe...Jorgon Gorgon<br><br>It’s fairly common to assert that when we observe starlight we are observing the past. However, we still observe starlight in the present. When we look at the Andromeda Galaxy, we are not looking “1000000 years into the past;” We are IN THE PRESENT looking at the light from stars that are 2.5 million light years away. Keep in mind that a light year is a measure of distance and not time.<br><br>Now, the distant starlight problem is certainly a poser for young earth creationists but that discussion is the subject of another post entirely. For now, I can only repeat what should be obvious – we can only observe the present. Certainly events of the past leave effects but we can only study those effects in the present. <br><br>Thanks for visiting my blog and for your interesting comments. God bless!!<br><br>RKBentleyRKBentleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-8070901260757886322009-12-01T00:27:42.190-05:002009-12-01T00:27:42.190-05:00Human ApeThanks for visiting my blog. I have publ...Human Ape<br><br>Thanks for visiting my blog. I have published and read your comments and thought I would take a moment to respond. However, after having read your first comment I’m not sure what there is to respond to. If I may paraphrase your comment, your argument seems to go something like this: “Evolution is a fact. Creationists are liars. Read a book and quit being stupid.” <br><br>Do I about have it? Your comment, though direct, is somewhat lacking in substance. I could try to respond but I’m afraid any response to such a shallow post would come off as sounding something like, “nu uh!”<br><br>You disagree with my point and have contempt for creationists. That much is obvious. You say that I’m a hopeless cause but I suspect you yourself are beyond convincing. May I point out one small detail? I was once in your shoes and believed evolution hook line and sinker. As a product of public schools, I was brainwashed into believing evolution and was a self-described agnostic. It was all I knew until I was an adult. For several years even after becoming a Christian, I continued believing in evolution. It was only as an experienced, mature, young man that I considered the arguments for a recent creation. I made a deliberate choice that special creation is the true and correct explanation of the origin of the universe.<br><br>Somehow, I doubt you’ve ever carefully considered arguments for creation. <br><br>Next, to your point about DNA, I beg to differ. Molecular biologists can only study DNA in the present. It’s really such an obvious point that I hardly feel it needs discussion. It is your theory that interprets the history of DNA but your theory is wrong and so your conclusion about the history of DNA is wrong.<br><br>Now it’s very nice of you to suggest what “evolution-deniers” like myself “pretend” about DNA but your characterization is nothing more than a straw man. You seem to suffer under the notion that I’ve never read about ERVs and don’t their place in evolutionary apologetics. <br><br>At the risk of digress I would assert that your post is a typical litany of logical fallacies invoked by militant evolutionists. It’s chock full of things like straw men and bald assertions with just a touch of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy (when you suggest that only “pro-science” blogs discuss the real world). <br><br>What else is there to say? Maybe I should just conclude by saying, “nu uh!” <br><br>Thanks again for visiting my blog. God bless!!<br><br>RKBentleyRKBentleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-12853981205305914472009-12-01T07:43:15.016-05:002009-12-01T07:43:15.016-05:00RKBentley, I read your comments on my blog, and I ...RKBentley, I read your comments on my blog, and I responded there. For your convenience here's my comments again, on your blog:<br><br><i>But of course, you're talking about ERVs. To that I would suggest that the very identification of "retroviruses" is incorrect.</i><br><br>But of course you don't know what you're talking about, unless you want to explain why you know more about molecular biology than all the molecular biologists in the world, including the world's best scientists who work at universities like MIT and Harvard. Perhaps you would like to visit MIT and tell those scientists why you, a non-scientist, know more about their jobs than they do.<br><br>Also, you have not bothered to answer the important question I asked in my ERVs thread. Please consider going there and answering it.<br><br>The question is - How did many ERVs find their way into perfectly identical locations in the chromosomes of people and chimps?<br><br>My ERVs thread is here:<br><br>http://darwin-killed-god.blogspot.com/2009/11/endogenous-retroviruses-ervs-closest_30.html<br><br>The correct answer, according to the world's biologists (and anyone with any common sense), is those ERVs are in perfectly identical locations in people and chimps because they were inherited from the same ancient ancestor, which proves beyond any doubt that we are distant cousins of chimps.<br><br>If you disagree, you have to answer the question, and you have to explain why you know more about biology than every biologist.<br><br>Actually, you don't have to do anything. You can pretend this powerful evidence will go away if you just ignore it, or you could pretend all the world's biologists are incompetent, and not geniuses like yourself.<br><br>One more thing, if you refuse to honestly answer the question (How did many ERVs find their way into perfectly identical locations in the chromosomes of people and chimps?) then you will have proven you're a waste of time.<br><br>And you really need to stop pretending you can tell biologists, who have about a million times better understanding of evolution than you do, that you know more about biology than they do. You really got a lot of nerve to say "I would suggest that the very identification of "retroviruses" is incorrect." and you really owe the world's biologists an apology. Do you also tell brain surgeons how to do their jobs?Human Apehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11936967193312505472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-91328973510177822242009-12-01T07:55:12.019-05:002009-12-01T07:55:12.019-05:00You wrote "We are IN THE PRESENT looking at t...You wrote "We are IN THE PRESENT looking at the light from stars that are 2.5 million light years away."<br><br>OK, just once in your life, try to think.<br><br>That light that you can see now, left that galaxy 2.5 million years ago. You are seeing right now, what that galaxy looked like 2.5 million years ago.<br><br>A light year is the distance light travels in one year. You knew that, right?<br><br>RKBentley, I'm concerned that you're one of those people who think they know everything, but when they speak or write, it becomes obvious to everyone else that you know absolutely nothing.<br><br>In other words, RKBentley, I think you are full of it. I mean really full of it.<br><br>Nothing personal. I've seen this attitude before in creationists. They think they know more about science than all the world's scientists, but it's obvious they (and you) don't even know what science is.<br><br>You believe the entire universe was magically created a few thousand years ago. That's not just bloody stupid. It's insane. Way beyond insane.<br><br>I'm sorry, but you got an extremely big problem mister. I'm starting to think you're hopeless, in other words your disease is incurable.<br><br>By the way, your comment moderation sucks. On science blogs they never moderate comments, and neither do I. And I don't cry when somebody uses vulgar language on my blog. There is absolutely no excuse to censor anything in this country.Human Apehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11936967193312505472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-39755354469517048422009-12-01T08:12:05.156-05:002009-12-01T08:12:05.156-05:00Sorry, just one more thing.Evolution does not need...Sorry, just one more thing.<br><br>Evolution does not need defending.<br><br>What does need defending is your childish belief in magical creation.<br><br>Remember that your imaginary problems with evolution, even if those problems were real, is not evidence for anything else, including magical creation.<br><br>So instead of providing evidence AGAINST something, you need to provide evidence FOR your magical creation religious belief.<br><br>Of course there's not one shred of evidence for magic, and of course it's idiotic to believe magic is real.<br><br>I often ask creationists, what magic words did your fairy use when it made cockroaches out of nothing? And did it use a magic wand?<br><br>Those would normally be ridiculous questions, but they are fair questions to ask about your bloody insane belief there's a god fairy who made every creature, every plant, and every species of bacteria out of nothing.<br><br>What you believe in is breathtaking insanity. Of course there never will be any evidence for it. That's why creationists spend so much time attacking science. They couldn't possibly defend their god-made-everything-out-of-nothing fantasy world. It's no wonder the rest of the Western world laughs at American creationist hicks.Human Apehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11936967193312505472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-88446969499529108772009-12-01T11:10:22.351-05:002009-12-01T11:10:22.351-05:00Human Ape,You wrote: “That light that you can see ...Human Ape,<br><br>You wrote: “That light that you can see now, left that galaxy 2.5 million years ago. You are seeing right now, what that galaxy looked like 2.5 million years ago.<br><br>A light year is the distance light travels in one year. You knew that, right?”<br><br>Oh the irony! You implore me to think while you rattle off words without thinking. Calm down for a moment and read what you wrote: “A light year is the DISTANCE light travels in one year” [emphasis added]. In my comment to you, I accurately defined a light year as a measure of DISTANCE and not TIME. You want to give the impression that it is precisely a measure of time. <br><br>At the risk of running off on a tangent, did you know the formula to determine speed is distance/time? And even though the speed of light may be constant, are you aware that time is relative? You act as though 1,000,000 light years distance automatically means 1,000,000 years of time. <br><br>Furthermore, you seem to ignore the rest of my point that, regardless of how long it took for the light to reach us, we only observe it in the present. If I took a five hour car trip to visit my aunt, she might see me pulling into her driveway. She is watching my arrival, not my five hour car trip.<br><br>The rest of your comments are more rant. You think I’m an idiot. I get it. That type of argument might be effective on a playground but I truly don’t think it’s very persuasive among adults. But hey, it’s your argument; if you think it works just keep it up.<br><br>God bless!<br><br>RKBentleyRKBentleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.com