DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**legal-advicer** · 12-21-2009, 07:43 AM

Paul G. Humber, with his usual flair for careful reasoning posted four threads today attempting to "prove" the Biblical Creation myth.

All four were based on Harum Yahya's laughable Atlas of Creation.
(This was the book whose first edition illustrated a "caddis fly" as part of an argument for creationism. the fly in question, however, was not even an insect. It was a fishing fly! You could see the hook!).

All of Humber's posts failed to offer proof of creationism for the following reasons:

1. Yahya's examples were all of animals or plants that were not supposed to have evolved in the last 30-50 million years. However, Yahya apparently did not indicate which species of animals or plants he was illustrating. Therefore it is impossible to check up on him.

2. Periods of stasis are the norm in the evolution of most organisms. The concept of Punctuated Equilibrium (PE) with which Humber is quite familiar, postulates stasis (equilibrium) punctuated by relatively brief (10 million or so year-long) bursts of accelerated evolution. In another thread, Humber said that he believed that what Stephen J. Gould said about PE was true. Now he seems to have conveniently forgotten!

3. PE is now the dominant paradigm for the evolution of life. As a result periods of up to 50 million years without change in a particular species is no challenge at all to paleontologists and evolutionary biologists. They actually serve to support the central tenets of PE, and therefore support an evolutionary explanation.

4. Yahya states that some of these plants and animals were unchanged for more than 50 million years! That's almost 1,000 times as long as Humber claims that the Earth has existed. Which is it, Paul? You can't have it both ways, at least not in the real world.

Therefore, Humber's four attempts to offer scientific proof for creationism failed pathetically. In fact, they serve to bolster current evolutionary thought.

Humber will go far in the creationist community with such wild, illogical ravings. Perhaps he should seek "professional help."

Evolution 4
Creationism 0

Note: the threads in question have now been merged, apparently by a moderator.

12-21-2009, 07:43 AM	#9
legal-advicer Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 615 Senior Member	Paul G. Humber, with his usual flair for careful reasoning posted four threads today attempting to "prove" the Biblical Creation myth. All four were based on Harum Yahya's laughable Atlas of Creation. (This was the book whose first edition illustrated a "caddis fly" as part of an argument for creationism. the fly in question, however, was not even an insect. It was a fishing fly! You could see the hook!). All of Humber's posts failed to offer proof of creationism for the following reasons: 1. Yahya's examples were all of animals or plants that were not supposed to have evolved in the last 30-50 million years. However, Yahya apparently did not indicate which species of animals or plants he was illustrating. Therefore it is impossible to check up on him. 2. Periods of stasis are the norm in the evolution of most organisms. The concept of Punctuated Equilibrium (PE) with which Humber is quite familiar, postulates stasis (equilibrium) punctuated by relatively brief (10 million or so year-long) bursts of accelerated evolution. In another thread, Humber said that he believed that what Stephen J. Gould said about PE was true. Now he seems to have conveniently forgotten! 3. PE is now the dominant paradigm for the evolution of life. As a result periods of up to 50 million years without change in a particular species is no challenge at all to paleontologists and evolutionary biologists. They actually serve to support the central tenets of PE, and therefore support an evolutionary explanation. 4. Yahya states that some of these plants and animals were unchanged for more than 50 million years! That's almost 1,000 times as long as Humber claims that the Earth has existed. Which is it, Paul? You can't have it both ways, at least not in the real world. Therefore, Humber's four attempts to offer scientific proof for creationism failed pathetically. In fact, they serve to bolster current evolutionary thought. Humber will go far in the creationist community with such wild, illogical ravings. Perhaps he should seek "professional help." Evolution 4 Creationism 0 Note: the threads in question have now been merged, apparently by a moderator.
	Quote