Up Coming TV

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:31 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:I've already submitted two comments to this blog post - reproducing my email of 13 August to AiG about Ken Ham's 'duh duh' article and also flagging the BBC 'Autopsy' series (currently awaiting moderation): http://evoanth.wordpress.com/2012/08/13 ... d-mondays/

Will examine the blog and then the AiG response ... later.


My message to AiG:
"
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... bomination
Lying is evil.

Does your signage include:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/ ... 7.abstract
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6018/750.abstract
If not, WHY not.
I note that you DO rely on a dated Nature paper from 2000 to try and support your 'case' (footnote 23).

I have written to you many many times about your Lucy fraud.

I have just attempted to comment about your deliberately deceitful behaviour under Mr Benton's blog.

"...the community of evolutionary scientists is not quite as committed to the belief that Lucy was not a knuckle-walker as our undergraduate critic believes".
COMPLETELY UNTRUE
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01nlzsh
This thorough programme did discuss the Laetoli footprints.

Creation science (the young Earth versions specifically) is NOT genuine science because it is not evidence-based. It is a form of dogma and apologetics. It is also parasitical upon real science that it doesn't like.

"They realize that any model describing life’s origins or earth’s history must be consistent with that biblical account to even have a possibility of representing reality." Well, you have confirmed what I just said about DOGMA. You hunt for evidence and conjectures to back up the BIBLE - even though the Bible never ever discusses fossils.

Your 'refutation' of Mr Benton includes as footnote 18 the 2012 paper cited by Mr Benton as saying that the 'Lucy' species had six lumbar vertebrae (which I cannot read): http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 8412000218
You say of this paper: "A recent biomechanical study confirmed that overall function, when six lumbar vertebrae are present, is the same." Humans, whether with the normal five, or with six, are bipedal (I assume you are mainly referring to humans). So what is your point?

"Lucy’s anatomy may suggest a gait that differed somewhat from that of the chimp, but on its best day it was not actually bipedal." Were you there?

Maybe Mr Benton doesn't know the mind of all creationists. He does however know that you are perpetrating a high-profile fraud at the Creation Museum while [edit - with] your depiction of 'Lucy' as an extinct 'gorilla'."
Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:38 am

After some hours (in the case of the first two) my three attempted comments here STILL 'await moderation' - which may mean that they currently only appear on my screen.
http://evoanth.wordpress.com/2012/08/13 ... d-mondays/
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Oct 27, 2012 1:29 am

Email sent to Ken Ham and friends:


On his Facebook page on Friday:
http://www.facebook.com/aigkenham
"Well you don't have read a secular article to know Lucy was an Ape--just come to the Creation Museum where we expose the false evolutionary ideas and teach people the truth about the bones of this creature.
A news article recently states:
"It turns out Lucy's shoulder sockets were similar to those of modern apes." It's worth reading the whole article--just so typical of what happens withe the evolutionary belief--it keeps 'evolving.'
Read this article:
http://io9.com/5954898/humanity-never-h ... irculation
I have included a photo of myself standing beside the popular LUCY exhibit at the Creation Museum that was installed this year."

I have read the link. Mr Ham is touting this article - but it does NOT help him in his quest to deny huge rafts of established scientific understanding.

THIS IS WHAT THE AUTHOR WRITES:

"What this means is that the whole idea of a simple "missing link" between humans and our ape cousins is false. There was no one, single moment when humans leapt from the trees to find a new existence on land. It happened gradually, over millennia, with different individuals from different species testing out what it would mean to live far from the protection of sheltering forests. Instead of thinking of our transition to walking as a "missing link," it would be more accurate to say the transition was a long chain, in which one kind of life shaded into the other very gradually."

"What this new discovery highlights is the degree to which evolutionary changes don't always have an easy beginning and ending. We'd like to believe there was a simple missing link between ape-like humans and human-like humans - perhaps a single species that provides a nice bright line between us and chimps. But the more we learn, the more we realize there is no species like that. There are species who started the exploration process, taking those first treks across the treeless savannahs, and there are species who continued that process.
To truly grasp how evolution works, we need to let go of the myth that there were radical distinctions between early human species."

The author is NOT suggesting that the new paper shows that humans did not evolve from ape-like creatures. And the idea that the 'Lucy' species spent some time in the trees is NOT new.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6106/514.short

So there is strong evidence that 'Lucy' - over 2 million years ago - climbed in the trees like a modern ape. AND that she also walked bipedally when on the ground, unlike most modern apes but like human beings. Interesting!

Science - a quest for understanding.

Young Earth Creationism - a bid to spread confusion and misinformation in order to discredit so-called 'bad' science.

I'm adding this reply to Adam Benton's blog.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Oct 27, 2012 3:04 am

The Newitz article: "Lucy's shoulder sockets were similar to those of modern apes".

Ken Ham's spin to try and justify portraying 'Lucy' as some sort of knuckle-walking gorilla: "Lucy was a Ape".

His biased fans do not examine his claims carefully but just lap them up:
"That's what evolution is, a fairy story taught to grown ups!"
"Go Ken Ham, creation museum, and those affiliated with a biblical perspective on how we came 2 be".

Heaven will contain a sizeable contingent of knaves and fools.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Oct 27, 2012 7:25 pm

The Creation Museum fraudsters are trying to make a connection between 'Lucy''s shoulder sockets and how she walked when on the ground but the connection is entirely bogus. She spent time in the trees - but also could walk bipedally when on the ground as other fossil evidence reveals. Evidence which Ken Ham and his cronies ignore - for rather obvious reasons. Their flawed 'reasoning' is that if the Lucy species was ape-like because of its shoulder sockets, even like a modern ape, then she must have knuckle-walked when on the ground - as shown at the Creation Museum - like modern chimpanzees and gorillas. Utter nonsense - and in fact modern bonobos can walk bipedally some of the time.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Oct 27, 2012 7:41 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:Email sent to Ken Ham and friends:


On his Facebook page on Friday:
http://www.facebook.com/aigkenham
"Well you don't have read a secular article to know Lucy was an Ape--just come to the Creation Museum where we expose the false evolutionary ideas and teach people the truth about the bones of this creature.
A news article recently states:
"It turns out Lucy's shoulder sockets were similar to those of modern apes." It's worth reading the whole article--just so typical of what happens withe the evolutionary belief--it keeps 'evolving.'
Read this article:
http://io9.com/5954898/humanity-never-h ... irculation
I have included a photo of myself standing beside the popular LUCY exhibit at the Creation Museum that was installed this year."

I have read the link. Mr Ham is touting this article - but it does NOT help him in his quest to deny huge rafts of established scientific understanding.

THIS IS WHAT THE AUTHOR WRITES:

"What this means is that the whole idea of a simple "missing link" between humans and our ape cousins is false. There was no one, single moment when humans leapt from the trees to find a new existence on land. It happened gradually, over millennia, with different individuals from different species testing out what it would mean to live far from the protection of sheltering forests. Instead of thinking of our transition to walking as a "missing link," it would be more accurate to say the transition was a long chain, in which one kind of life shaded into the other very gradually."

"What this new discovery highlights is the degree to which evolutionary changes don't always have an easy beginning and ending. We'd like to believe there was a simple missing link between ape-like humans and human-like humans - perhaps a single species that provides a nice bright line between us and chimps. But the more we learn, the more we realize there is no species like that. There are species who started the exploration process, taking those first treks across the treeless savannahs, and there are species who continued that process.
To truly grasp how evolution works, we need to let go of the myth that there were radical distinctions between early human species."

The author is NOT suggesting that the new paper shows that humans did not evolve from ape-like creatures. And the idea that the 'Lucy' species spent some time in the trees is NOT new.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6106/514.short

So there is strong evidence that 'Lucy' - over 2 million years ago - climbed in the trees like a modern ape. AND that she also walked bipedally when on the ground, unlike most modern apes but like human beings. Interesting!

Science - a quest for understanding.

Young Earth Creationism - a bid to spread confusion and misinformation in order to discredit so-called 'bad' science.

I'm adding this reply to Adam Benton's blog.



To my incredulity, the EvoAnth blog site appears to have REJECTED my intended comment as above. I've just re-submitted it.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Oct 27, 2012 9:39 pm

My post has now appeared. Twice!
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby Peter Henderson » Sat Oct 27, 2012 9:42 pm

I've just watched the creationist road trip last night.

What laugh, especially Robinson's encounter with with Donald Prothero. Sums the whole thing up.

Robinson seemed extremely uncomfortable throughout, almost as if he wanted to say "what on earth made me sign up for this".

Like most YECs, I encounter, he admitted he wasn't a scientist yet knew so much about science ??????

Still, at least one of the party went away re evaluating her beliefs so I suppose that was a result of sorts. Unusual for any YEC to admit they may have got things wrong. None of the scientists involved said anything about Atheism, even Coyne

Still, I may go along to Robinson's talk on this at Bellyhenry Presbyterian Church, which isn't that far away (a 5 minute drive). It should be interesting !
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Oct 27, 2012 9:51 pm

Just replied to 'Apologia' on the EvoAnth blog. He or she (I suspect the former) ended their post with: "I challenge you to read up on Creationist material to see what their defense is for believing the Bible before you make assumptions that may not be true. What if we are right – the Bible is true and God made the earth? What does that mean for you when you die? If we’re wrong, we’ve lost nothing but if we’re right, you lose everything.
Are you willing to gamble your eternal destiny based on the assumption that we’re wrong without having examined the whole issue from both sides – thoroughly?"
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby cathy » Sun Oct 28, 2012 8:11 am

Are you willing to gamble your eternal destiny based on the assumption that we’re wrong without having examined the whole issue from both sides – thoroughly?"
um, yep.

Derren Brown programme coming up soon bout realigion. Know nothing about it other than after the Apocalypse one that is on at the moment there will be
'a stunt called fearless........and another which will take a psychological look at religion and belief.'
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby Roger Stanyard » Sun Oct 28, 2012 9:26 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:Just replied to 'Apologia' on the EvoAnth blog. He or she (I suspect the former) ended their post with: "I challenge you to read up on Creationist material to see what their defense is for believing the Bible before you make assumptions that may not be true. What if we are right – the Bible is true and God made the earth? What does that mean for you when you die? If we’re wrong, we’ve lost nothing but if we’re right, you lose everything.
Are you willing to gamble your eternal destiny based on the assumption that we’re wrong without having examined the whole issue from both sides – thoroughly?"


It's just a minor variation of Pascal's Wager and is not relevant to "creation science".
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Oct 28, 2012 9:20 pm

cathy wrote:
Are you willing to gamble your eternal destiny based on the assumption that we’re wrong without having examined the whole issue from both sides – thoroughly?"
um, yep.

Derren Brown programme coming up soon bout realigion. Know nothing about it other than after the Apocalypse one that is on at the moment there will be
'a stunt called fearless........and another which will take a psychological look at religion and belief.'


"Are you willing to gamble your eternal destiny based on the assumption that we’re wrong without having examined the whole issue from both sides – thoroughly?" It was a loaded question. He was assuming I had not (a) thoroughly investigated young Earth creationism as well as the evidence-based claims by the international scientific community and (b) believed the Christian gospel now or previously and been an evangelical Christian.

I've just added a further brief comment.

By the way, THIS thread shows how many non-Christians attack the pseudo-scientific apologetics of creationism whilst - usually - respecting people for having theistic/Christian beliefs (see the most recent comments): http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com ... /#comments
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Oct 29, 2012 10:21 pm

Marc is cherry picking the 'Lucy' shoulder sockets story - which has been discussed under the EvoAnth blog - see at Science.

This does not alter the fact that the species walked bipedally some/much of the time when it was not in the trees.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby cathy » Wed Oct 31, 2012 9:35 am

This does not alter the fact that the species walked bipedally some/much of the time when it was not in the trees.
Marc seems to be expecting Lucy to be one kind or another. He's confused by the fact she isn't. Thats cos evolution does't really work with creationist kinds.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Up Coming TV

Postby Brian Jordan » Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:37 am

cathy wrote:
This does not alter the fact that the species walked bipedally some/much of the time when it was not in the trees.
Marc seems to be expecting Lucy to be one kind or another. He's confused by the fact she isn't. Thats cos evolution doesn't really work with creationist kinds.
And because the creationists haven't an agreed definition of what a "kind" is. Clean or unclean, by twos or sevens, is all they have to go on. It's then complicated by the fact that Noah's family had eight members so they must have gone in two by two, representing four "kinds". I believe it's customary to identify those "kinds" with races, but surely four hominin species would better fit the fossil record. Cries of "Get those dinosaurs fed, Lucy!" would have rung round the decks.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 8 guests