Search This Blog

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Big Lie Number 2 - Evolution is accepted fact - continued


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Another problem for macroevolution involves the nature and structure of life. In fact, the entire Darwinist narrative is missing a great deal of information:


1) Where did the Universe come from?


It just happened? There was nothing and then there was something


2) How did life begin?


It just happened? There wasn't life and then, voila, there was!


3) Where did the information come from?


It simply appeared out of nowhere.


Truly, the idea that the Universe just kind of happened by chance and that life just kind of happened by chance and that information just kind of happened by chance...does that sound like science?


INFORMATION


I've blogged a great deal about the lack of a logical explanation from a naturalistic point of view about the beginning of the Universe and the beginning of life itself. Sometimes Darwinists will complain that those are questions that predate the concept of evolution. Well, if you are a atheistic naturalistic materialist you will have to address those concepts at some point, but, okay, lets let those go for now. But then you come upon the problem of information.


All life has a great deal of information contained within. Rather than the generic "stuff" that scientists thought might comprise a typical cell, it is actually a wondrous array of micro-machines carrying out all sorts of processes, all run by coding in the DNA of the cell itself. It isn't just a matter of a blop of goo forming into the right shape and being zapped by a bolt of lightning, within that first supposed organism that began life has to be INFORMATION. Information is organized and precise and, in the case of a cell, if it is not correct the cell will not carry out functions properly and will likely die.


We've considered how unlikely it would be for a tornado to blow through a junkyard and assemble a 747. Yet, that scenario is more likely than the structure of a living cell simply happening out there in some puddle on a rock. But even if such a thing happened, it wouldn't be life. You see, a 747 needs fuel and electricity and crew members. It needs specific switches to be flipped and levers to be adjusted, pedals to be pushed, all sorts of operations in order for it to start up and taxi out to the runway and fly and then land. Not only would a tornado need to assemble a 747, it would have to assemble a crew and a school to send them to in order to learn to fly it and a staff of teachers to teach them and a source of power for the batteries to be charged and an entire oil company to pump up the crude oil and refine it into airplane fuel and transport it to the plane and of course it would have to have assembled a working fuel truck and a crew to design the airport and a work crew to lay out and pour the concrete for the airfield and...well, it just goes on and on.


Evolutionists have no explanation for where information, which is quite organized, may have come from. Without information, a cell is just a blop. Before we can even be awed by the incredibly intricate designs involved in a Paramecium or the remarkable series of systems involved in the process of Photosynthesis, we have to ask where the original information came from to run such things. Every living being, every process of that being, the very blueprint of every being that is DNA - all bear the hallmarks of being designed and all depend on very specific information.


MUTATION?


Could information have evolved? Did chaos mutate into information? Frankly, the idea is absurd on the face of it, is it not? We know that the Universe is running down, changing from order into disorder according to the Laws of Thermodynamics. For information to have taken the opposite path makes no sense, especially since Darwinists can show no means by which it may have occurred.


Incidently, you won't find any transitional forms in the fossil records, either. No race of animals with two-thirds of a working eye have been found in the fossils. No woodpeckers with half-formed tongues. No, when animals are found in the fossil record they appear to have fully-formed systems.


You will also not find macroevolution occurring in today's living creatures. All instances of change in the gene pool are either zero sum or losses of information. In order to have macroevolution you need gains in information, new information being added to the gene pool to form a new creature.


Neo-Darwinists will make claims that they have found something that supports their ideas in living organisms from time to time and then you never hear of it again because those claims always prove to be false. Let me give an example:


~~~~~~~


Evolution Shooting Itself in the Foot
by Dr. Georgia Purdom, AiG–U.S.
April 30, 2008


"Gene duplications followed by subsequent mutation of the duplicated genes are often cited by evolutionists as a mechanism for adding new information to the genome and providing new functions to the organism. Over millions of years this is thought to lead from molecules to man. Sean Carroll, author of a recent article in Nature on gene duplication in yeast,1 states, “This is how new capabilities arise and new functions evolve. This is what goes on in butterflies and elephants and humans. It is evolution in action.”2 However, to my “surprise,” Carroll’s research showed exactly the opposite—the complete impotence of gene duplication and mutations as a force driving molecules-to-man evolution.


Investigating 100-million-year-old Events


Carroll and others studied the galactose use pathway in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, commonly known as baker’s yeast. This pathway enables yeast to metabolize the sugar galactose. S. cerevisiae is thought to have evolved from the yeast Kluyveromyces lactis 100 million years ago.1 Supposedly, the whole genome of K. lactis was duplicated—some of the duplicated genes were lost, and some were kept. This resulted in the formation of S. cerevisiae.


The focus of the research was two specific genes found in S. cerevisiae, GAL1 and GAL3, which code for proteins that function in the galactose use pathway. In the “ancestral” K. lactis one gene (called GAL1) serves the function of both GAL1 and GAL3. Carroll’s team believes that this is evidence of the past duplication event which led to S. cerevisiae.1


It is important to note that the two genes in S. cerevisiae do not perform any new or different function than the one gene in K. lactis. This has been observed in other studies of supposed gene duplications—rather than resulting in “neofunctionalization” (new functions) the result is “subfunctionalization” (dividing of the functions among two or more genes).1 A model that has been developed to account for this is called duplication-degeneration-complementation (DDC) and “. . . explains the preservation of duplicate genes by a neutral mechanism in which each paralogue [duplicated gene] accumulates loss-of-function mutations (degeneration) that are complemented by the other copy.”1


Let us look at an analogy to better understand this. Suppose I have a TV, and one day it loses the ability to produce sound, although it still has the ability to produce pictures. I go to a used TV shop and find the exact same make and model of TV as the one I have at home, though this one produces sound but not pictures. I purchase the broken TV, take it home, and put it beside my broken TV. The two broken TVs complement each other (they have different defects), and together make it possible for me to see the picture and hear the sound for any given TV program. However, my broken TVs are not doing anything new. So, obviously the DDC model is not sufficient alone for evolution to occur, since no new functions are being gained and this is a requirement for molecules-to-man evolution. Rather, DDC is seen as a first step to preserve the duplicated genes, as non-functional genes would not be selected for and are lost via genetic drift (just as most people would probably throw away the broken TVs).


The next step in this model is additional mutations that modify the genes so that they perform their current function “optimally” and eventually perform completely new functions (although the latter was not observed in the yeast study). DDC is thought to relieve an “adaptive conflict”.1 Genes (and their proteins) typically perform multiple functions (i.e. they may serve in multiple metabolic pathways, etc.). Thus, many mutations that might optimize one function of the gene would harm another function of the gene (the adaptive conflict), and so, the majority of mutations would be detrimental and selected against.


The situation resembles a stalemate in which the genes essentially do not change. Duplication resolves this conflict by allowing each duplicated gene to perform a singular function. The overall function of the genes in a given pathway is preserved, and now mutations in the genes can be selected for that will optimize that specific function. This supposedly happened in S. cerevisiae with the GAL1 and GAL3 genes (duplicate of the GAL1 gene in K. lactis), and this led to “. . . more complex and, in some ways, [a] more optimal genetic pathway.”1


Were You There?


Once again we have a classic case of circular reasoning. The scientists must assume evolution is true to claim that duplication events 100 million years ago led to the species S. cerevisiae, but then claim that these duplication events are evidence of “evolution in action.” It cannot be evidence for something if you must assume that something is already true to interpret the evidence!


The DDC Model and Creation


The DDC model by itself may potentially fit within a creation framework. The model encompasses mutations in genes that lead to loss of information and/or function. These mutations could potentially compensate for each other if this were occurring in two copies of the same gene. This would resemble a case where individuals are carriers for certain recessive genetic disorders: they have two copies for every gene (one from mom and one from dad); one copy is defective (mutations), and one is normal (no mutations). The normal gene compensates for the defective gene, and thus, the individual does not have the disease. Duplication of genes followed by compensatory mutations may be a mechanism for survival of organisms in a post-Fall world.


The problem comes with the next step, which involves mutations that supposedly lead to “optimization” of the singular functions of the genes (and eventually to new functions of the genes). Natural selection does not occur at the DNA (genotypic) level—only at the whole organism (phenotypic) level.3 The mutations in the duplicated genes would need to lead to proteins that significantly alter the fitness or survival of the whole organism. The article indicated that the fitness differences in the yeast studied were very small, requiring an extremely sensitive assay.1 Thus, it is likely that these “optimization” mutations would not accumulate and be lost by genetic drift.


Not “Evolution in Action”


What is clearly not shown in the article is evidence for molecules-to-man evolution. Instead, we observe just how powerless duplication and mutation really are for adding new information that leads to the gain of new functions. However, the authors of the article seem to think otherwise. Carroll states, “They [GAL1 and GAL3 in S. cerevisiae] became optimally connected in that job [their role in the galactose use pathway]. They’re working in cahoots, but together they are better at the job the ancestral gene held. Natural selection has taken one gene with two functions and sculpted an assembly line with two specialized genes.”2 The Nature article also states, “After whole-genome duplication, S. cerevisiae GAL1 and GAL3 were integrated into a more complex and, in some ways, more optimal genetic pathway.”1


These statements are a clear example of prejudicial conjecture on the part of the scientists and not based on fact. The terms optimal, better, and more complex are based solely on their conjecture or assumption that the more “advanced” S. cerevisiae evolved from the more “primitive” yeast K. lactis 100 million years ago. The preferred evolutionary scenario would seem to be just the opposite: S. cerevisiae would be the ancestor, since it requires two genes for the same job that K. lactis manages to do with just one gene.


Carroll states, “We retraced the steps of evolution.”2 “Retraced”? What they did was concoct an evolutionary scenario with which to interpret the data in order to get an evolutionary conclusion! Evolution infers a gain of new information and new functions. All of the mutations they think have occurred in the GAL1 and GAL3 genes in S. cerevisiae are loss of information and/or function mutations when compared to the GAL1 gene in K. lactis. They involve the loss of binding sites for proteins, the loss of enzymatic activity, and the loss of orientation of the binding sites. So, no new information, no new functions, and yeast are still yeast!


Carroll also states, “When compounded over time, these very small changes [that have led to the formation of GAL1 and GAL3 in S. cerevisiae] make one group of organisms successful and they out-compete others.”2 Within a creationist framework it is possible that K. lactis and S. cerevisiae are members of the same kind of yeast and that alterations (including duplications and mutations) occurred in the past leading to the formation of S. cerevisiae from K. lactis or vice versa. Both K. lactis and S. cerevisiae exist today; so, it may be that certain environmental conditions have led to their formation from each other.


The evidence seems to fit the creationist orchard model of variation within a kind while not supporting the evolutionary tree of life model of evolution from one kind to another. It is also possible that S. cerevisiae and K. lactis are representatives of different created kinds of yeast and that the genetic differences in GAL1 and GAL3 are merely part of the original created genetic diversity. Once again we are presented with evidence of God’s amazing design and provision in a post-Fall world for even some of the smallest members of His creation."

-->

Footnotes


Chris Todd Hittinger and Sean B. Carroll, “Gene Duplication and the Adaptive Evolution of a Classic Genetic Switch,” Nature 449 (2007): 677–682.


ScienceDaily, “A Gene Divided Reveals the Details of Natural Selection,” October 15, 2007.


John Sanford, Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome (Lima, New York: Elim Publishing, 2005).



21 comments:

Anonymous said...

I thought that these last two posts would be more connected, so I waited to make a comment.

Re: Snellings' article in your first post. If the earth were 6,000 years old, maybe this would matter. But, it isn't. I'm sure you think plate tectonics and Pangea are just more vehicles of the atheist conspiracy. I'm no geologist so I won't go further into that, but there are plenty of peer reviewed articles you can read regarding those topics.

Speaking of peer reviewed articles, why not present a peer reviewed article about this topic? Oh, right...the conspiracy again(unless answers in genesis is some sort of peer reviewed online journal...).

Re: "Evidence" #1: fossils of sea creatures high above sea level. Following that link yields nothing surprising. Again, if he earth were 6,000 years old, maybe there is no explanation of why a cephalopod is found in the himalayas. But considering what science accepts, the old earth, it would make sense that a more simple ocean creature is found in the himalayas. Why did the author only mention cephalopods? Why is there a difference in the fossils found at the grand canyon and in the himalayas if they were all deposited at the same time? Does it seem weird that less complex marine biology is found in the himalayas, which took a lot of time to rise and probably did so early enough that more complex marine biology isn't found there(only forms from the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic eras are found...hmmmmm).

Regarding your newest post, you assume darwinism precludes god and god as the creator of life. From what I understand of it, Darwinism doesn't even try to deal with the beginning of life. Additionally, there are plenty of god believing evolutionists. Your explanation of the beginning of life, Radar, presents us with as much evidence as darwinism does about the beginning of life--- that's right, none. Since science depends on testable hypotheses and evidence, it seems unlikely that science will produce an answer for the origin of life, and, ya know what? I'm fine with that. That what happened 6 billion years ago is unknowable is acceptable by me, and I don't need to fill the gap with an explanation.

Your argument is basically, "I can't believe that this could have occurred naturally, thus god must have done it". Talk origins has a whole section on the argument from ignorance.

Your example of the 747 is pretty off. Cells, yes, are very complex. But they evolved for billions of years before they became what we know today as cells. The first life wasn't a "747"- that is just ridiculous. You also imply the odds argument in this example, which is also quite ridiculous. Again, talk origins deals with this nicely, and I won't just cut and paste their thoughts here.

~lava

radar said...

Re: Snellings' article in your first post. If the earth were 6,000 years old, maybe this would matter. But, it isn't. I'm sure you think plate tectonics and Pangea are just more vehicles of the atheist conspiracy. I'm no geologist so I won't go further into that, but there are plenty of peer reviewed articles you can read regarding those topics.

Pangea and plate tectonics...the idea behind Pangea is in no way antithetical to a Biblical flood, but rather tends to be an accepted idea among YEC, that there well may have been one continent before the flood. Plate tectonics does not conflict, does it?

Speaking of peer reviewed articles, why not present a peer reviewed article about this topic? Oh, right...the conspiracy again(unless answers in genesis is some sort of peer reviewed online journal...).

I do receive a peer-reviewed publication once a month and will make sure to publish one of those papers when the next one comes. I know that AIG and CMI publish articles that reference peer-reviewed papers but keep in mind that peer-reviewed papers tend to be highly technical and difficult for laymen.

Furthermore, yes, it is difficult for creationists to get their papers that touch on creationism peer-reviewed because their peers won't review them. Did you see the movie, Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed? The naturalistic materialistic science world is attempting to stifle any mention of ID or YEC. It's kind of like Myanmar...they only want the people to hear of anything that agrees with their worldview.

Re: "Evidence" #1: fossils of sea creatures high above sea level. Following that link yields nothing surprising. Again, if he earth were 6,000 years old, maybe there is no explanation of why a cephalopod is found in the himalayas. But considering what science accepts, the old earth, it would make sense that a more simple ocean creature is found in the himalayas. Why did the author only mention cephalopods? Why is there a difference in the fossils found at the grand canyon and in the himalayas if they were all deposited at the same time? Does it seem weird that less complex marine biology is found in the himalayas, which took a lot of time to rise and probably did so early enough that more complex marine biology isn't found there(only forms from the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic eras are found...hmmmmm).

"Science accepts" is, as I have found, not in any way an evidence of truth. Naturalistic materialistic scientists accept that the Earth is millions of years old. But their proofs tend to go haywire. Dating methods of all types have proven to be unreliable, as we have found new lava flows (produced within the last few decades) giving ages of millions of years. The accepted age of the Earth as an old-earther is simply a guess based largely upon whatever your world view might be. Not only that, the uniformitarian point of view has been disproven by the nature of the rock layers, which reflect a catastrophic origin. My question to you is, how can you believe in what the old-eathers say when the rock records don't fit? All the rock folds that reflect an elastic period, all the layers in the wrong order, all the cross-layering that is typical of flood patterns...

Regarding your newest post, you assume darwinism precludes god and god as the creator of life. From what I understand of it, Darwinism doesn't even try to deal with the beginning of life. Additionally, there are plenty of god believing evolutionists. Your explanation of the beginning of life, Radar, presents us with as much evidence as darwinism does about the beginning of life--- that's right, none. Since science depends on testable hypotheses and evidence, it seems unlikely that science will produce an answer for the origin of life, and, ya know what? I'm fine with that. That what happened 6 billion years ago is unknowable is acceptable by me, and I don't need to fill the gap with an explanation.

No, I have a written record in the Bible that explains how the Earth was created and where life comes from. The Genesis account actually fits the evidence without making up all sorts of just-so stories. Yes, I know that all sorts of believers also accept some or most of Darwinian theory, which to me is an untenable dichotomy...and I have given it a great deal of thought. I began as one of them and I understand where they are coming from. It is an easy thing to do. But I decided that I had to know as much as I could know whether the Genesis account was true or just a fairy tale. Anyway, the Bible predates Darwin and the Genesis account is evidence. The question is then whether you are willing to accept that evidence.

Your argument is basically, "I can't believe that this could have occurred naturally, thus god must have done it". Talk origins has a whole section on the argument from ignorance.

No, my argument is not that at all. I pointed out and have pointed out in the past, that the evidences support the Biblical Creation model much better than the Darwin model. I am not arguing from ignorance at all. The rock layers support the flood. The design of living creatures and systems support a Designer. The fine-tuning of the Universe supports a Designer. Every aspect of the Universe seems to support the idea of a Creator God. It is the Darwinists who argue from ignorance (of God). Better to say that Darwinists believe that "I can't believe that there is a God, so this must have simply happened by chance." A logical view of their assertions reveals that they are simply faint hopes piled on top of just-so stories piled on top of complete dependence on "chance" as a creator and designer.

Your example of the 747 is pretty off. Cells, yes, are very complex. But they evolved for billions of years before they became what we know today as cells. The first life wasn't a "747"- that is just ridiculous. You also imply the odds argument in this example, which is also quite ridiculous. Again, talk origins deals with this nicely, and I won't just cut and paste their thoughts here.

Okay, show me the evidence that there were creatures without DNA. Just one of your bone cells in your body rivals a 747 in complexity. Do you have any idea just how remarkably complex life really is? You've been indoctrinated to accept "millions of years" but where is the proof of that?

Remember the Tyranosaurus that was found that still had flesh and bone rather than fossil parts? That finding kind of put a kibosh on the "Millions of Years" arguments, although Darwinists kind of hem-and-haw past it. But guess what? They found that this so-called ancient life form had cells that look and are composed in the same way modern cells are...it was just another animal.

As to talkorigins, I would avoid them just as I avoid Dr. Dino. I can interrupt my series to show just how useless talkorigins really is and maybe I should. Does anyone want me to illustrate why talkorigins is not a good source of information?
Go ahead and dare me. :-)

Anonymous said...

Radar, I'll try and respond to your points later, but I am generally curious as to the questions I asked. Specifically, I'd like to know the answers to these questions from my first comment:

(regarding marine life in the himalayas from a Snelling article you linked to)Why did the author only mention cephalopods? Why is there a difference in the fossils found at the grand canyon and in the himalayas if they were all deposited at the same time? Does it seem weird that less complex marine biology is found in the himalayas, which took a lot of time to rise and probably did so early enough that more complex marine biology isn't found there(only forms from the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic eras are found...hmmmmm).

~lava

Taxandrian said...

Quite busy at the moment, so I don't really have the time to reply to this really entertaining article at length, but here's a fun video for you to watch, Radar:

Why Young Earth Creationists Must Deny Gravity
part 1 - part 2 - part 3 - part 4 - part 5


Enjoy! ;)

radar said...

regarding marine life in the himalayas from a Snelling article you linked to)Why did the author only mention cephalopods?

That Snelling article was a short one that used cephalopods as an example, it did not assert that only cephalopods are found on Mt. Everest, in fact, see the article excerpt below.

Why is there a difference in the fossils found at the grand canyon and in the himalayas if they were all deposited at the same time?

The flood would have produced fossils during the initial flooding stages, when mud slides buried higher organisms as they attempted to flee the rising waters. The huge amount of sediments generated would have simply buried most bottom-dwelling sea life in place, but the nature of flows and currents would have kept some in clear enough water to survive. Some higher animals would have made it to high ground and only succumbed when the waters had covered everything. There are footprints in the Grand Canyon region that have been determined to be that of dinosaurs running in shallow waters, probably at the last stage of the initial flood.

Many fossils are a result of strong flood currents that sorted material according to size and specific gravity.

There would also be fossils generated in the rapidly changing world after the flood, when the Ice Age took place. Mudslides would be common in a new landscape of still-elastic layers of mud-and-sand that had not yet become rock.

Does it seem weird that less complex marine biology is found in the himalayas, which took a lot of time to rise and probably did so early enough that more complex marine biology isn't found there(only forms from the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic eras are found...hmmmmm).

You can find layers like that a few thousand feet lower as well. There are limestone layers within a few miles of my house that only contain the same kinds of bottom-dwelling creatures. Rock layers often reflect sorting, as I explained. Sometimes they reflect aggregations of like animals, which makes sense if herds of animals were overcome by a wall of mud and also if they all fled together and then perished together on higher ground.

Consider this excerpt from...

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/catastrophism.htm

Catastrophism -- Empirical Evidence

Catastrophism is supported by actual, recorded history. Nearly 300 ancient flood legends have survived the ravishment of time. Legends of a worldwide deluge, commonly known as the "Noachian Flood," are found in Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, North American and South America. Furthermore, earth's sedimentary layers with the fossil record seem to suggest a past marine cataclysm. Sedimentary rock (sandstone, siltstone, shale, limestone, etc) is primarily the result of moving water, laid down layer upon layer by hydrologic sorting. Animals whose fossil remains are found within those layers must have been caught in this running water appear to have been buried and preserved. The remains, as well as the rocks, would be sorted according to density or specific gravity. Otherwise, the carcasses would rot or be scavenged. Approximately 95% of all earth's fossil remains discovered thus far are marine invertebrates. Of the remainder, approximately 4.74% are plant fossils, 0.25% are land invertebrates (including insects), and 0.0125% are vertebrates (the majority of which are fish). Roughly 95% of all land vertebrates discovered and recorded to date consist of less than one bone. The overwhelming majority of the plant fossils found appear to demonstrate an instantaneous burial. The leaves are pressed in fine sediment as if placed between the pages of a book and show no signs of decay or rot.

Catastrophism -- The Noachian Flood
Catastrophism is supported by the evidential data. Catastrophism supports the Noachian Flood. Dramatic evidence is everywhere except in the popular press. For instance, who is aware that fossil remains of clams (found in the closed position, indicating they were buried alive) have been found atop Mt. Everest? What about whale fossils and petrified trees that stand upright through multiple sedimentary layers supposedly separated by millions of years? It is a remarkable time to reinvestigate the facts and determine your own position.

radar said...

"Why Young Earth Creationists Must Deny Gravity
part 1 - part 2 - part 3 - part 4 - part 5"

Jocular fallacies...I recommend D. Russell Humphries - http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/humphreys-dr.html

His book - Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe

http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.htm

By the way, the Pioneer anamoly?

"Creation Cosmologies Solve Spacecraft Mystery

by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.*
A groundbreaking new technical paper1 shows that several creationist cosmologies can explain the "Pioneer anomaly," a decades-old mystery about distant spacecraft. Big Bang theorists cannot use this solution, yet they have found no alternative explanation they can agree upon. Thus the Pioneer data are evidence against the Big Bang and for a biblical, young universe."

- http://www.icr.org/article/3472/

Taxandrian said...

Jocular fallacies...

Please point them out. Better yet: post a reply in the text comments on YouTube where you specifically point by point refute the videos.

His book - Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe.

Please point to peer-reviewed articles in reputable scientific magazines that refute the points made in the videos. Books won't do.

Please try again. Do you deny gravity, Radar?

radar said...

Like I said, the naturalistic scientific community is much like the government of Myanmar. They control what is allowed to be discussed and reviewed. I can understand if you don't want to take the time to read the book, but it is there if you change your mind. If you really want to see what the other side says, read it. If you are satisfied to feel as if you made points in a comment thread, good enough.

You will understand if I decide not to take the time to go over all of that video series point-by-point. Maybe one day I will take it on as a series, but I am involved in a series right now and am going to stick to that. Those videos take a lot of time and go over a lot of stuff. Humphries has covered these topics in his book and I am not going to reinvent the wheel.

Of course I know there is a gravitational force. Of course I know that there are those who dispute the Big Bang and the math involved on several key points. Humphries book addresses those points. 'Nuff said.

radar said...

By the way, if you go to the article link you will see that Dr. Humphries has a large number of peer-reviewed articles that do not directly impact origins, but when he publishes something contrary to the norm it can only be reviewed by creationist peers - there are also a few of those listed.

Taxandrian said...

Like I said, the naturalistic scientific community is much like the government of Myanmar. They control what is allowed to be discussed and reviewed.

Can you back up that statement? Personally, I can back up the statement that 'the creationist 'scientific' community is much like the government of Myanmar. They control what is allowed to be discussed and reviewed'.
From the Instructions to authors (pdf) for Answers Research Journal, a 'scientific journal' founded by Answers In Genesis, so they could have peer-reviewed articles too:

VIII. Paper Review Process
Upon the reception of a paper the editor-in-chief will follow the procedures below:
A. Receive and acknowledge to the author the paper’s receipt.
B. Review the paper for possible inclusion into the ARJ review process.
The following criteria will be used in judging papers:
1. Is the paper’s topic important to the development of the Creation and Flood model?
2. Does the paper’s topic provide an original contribution to the Creation and Flood model?
3. Is this paper formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework?
4. If the paper discusses claimed evidence for an old earth and/or universe, does this paper offer a very
constructively positive criticism and provide a possible young-earth, young-universe alternative?
5. If the paper is polemical in nature, does it deal with a topic rarely discussed within the origins
debate?
6. Does this paper provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatical-historical/normative interpretation
of Scripture? If necessary, refer to: R. E. Walsh, 1986. Biblical hermeneutics and creation. Proceedings
First International Conference on Creationism, vol. 1, pp. 121–127. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation
Science Fellowship.


There you have it: only articles that support creationism, the flood model, and scripture will be accepted. What was it you said about what is allowed to be discussed and reviewed, again?

Humphries has covered these topics in his book and I am not going to reinvent the wheel.

Concession accepted. Thank you.

radar said...

Since the general scientific community will not discuss creation-related issues, this organization is dedicated to just that subject.

During the reign of Hitler in Nazi Germany, if an underground organization only allowed Jews/dissidents and/or people who wished to help hide Jews/dissidents, would you have considered them to be exclusionist? Or were they simply trying to survive in a hostile environment?

Since idealogues like Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers control the standard scientific dialogue, YEC and ID proponents have been forced to form their own peer groups. It will be thus until the rest of the scientific community knocks down their "Berlin Thought Wall."

Therefore, concession is most notably NOT given!

Taxandrian said...

During the reign of Hitler in Nazi Germany, if an underground organization only allowed Jews/dissidents and/or people who wished to help hide Jews/dissidents, would you have considered them to be exclusionist? Or were they simply trying to survive in a hostile environment?

*sigh* Radar, what is it with this Hitler obsession of yours? Could you please steer clear of Godwin's Law for once, if you wish to be taken seriously? Really.
By the way: it's a bad analogy. Creationists claim that they hold the truth; since when is truth being proved by keeping other ideas out? What is so threatening then, that Answers Journals only wishes to publish articles that support its view? And why do the articles have to 'provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatical-historical/normative interpretation
of Scripture'? Didn't you say in another post here that 'this is a scientific question first and a worldview question second.'?

Double standard, anyone?

Since idealogues like Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers control the standard scientific dialogue...

Even these two individuals themselves would say you're giving them too much credit. There are others, too: Kenneth Miller, Francis Collins. Why do you single out the atheists?

Therefore, concession is most notably NOT given!

OK, bring on the evidence, then. Show how you can be a YEC without having to deny gravity.

PoLiTiCaL AnImAl said...

i started it rantandravepolitics.blogspot.com

radar said...

"OK, bring on the evidence, then. Show how you can be a YEC without having to deny gravity."

Okay, I am standing up. I am not holding on to anything. Am I floating up into the air? No. Aha, I have demonstrated that gravity works upon a YEC proponent. Next question?

radar said...

Tax, idealogues LIKE doesn't mean I don't include Miller, for instance. I mean the entire crowd.

You use Godwin's law as a lame excuse to avoid facing the argument...so I guess that means I am right. Creationists had to form their own peer groups to review scientific papers and studies when they were excluded from the naturalistic mainstream and that is all there is to it. When naturalists quit censoring ID and YEC ideas and quit blackballing scientist who don't adhere to the party line maybe creationist peer groups will no longer be necessary.

You make me laugh! Did the racists back in the 50's and 60's complain about how exclusionary the "black only" water fountains, bathrooms, restaurants and hotels were? That's what you are doing...

Anonymous said...

It looks like the argument has veered from your ideas of sorting. I too will not reinvent the wheel. Here is part of an article pointing out many problems with your sorting ideas. There are many other problems, but these seem to be pretty glaring:

How was the fossil record sorted in an order convenient for evolution? Ecological zonation, hydrodynamic sorting, and differential escape fail to explain:

* the extremely good sorting observed. Why didn't at least one dinosaur make it to the high ground with the elephants?
* the relative positions of plants and other non-motile life. (Yun, 1989, describes beautifully preserved algae from Late Precambrian sediments. Why don't any modern-looking plants appear that low in the geological column?)
* why some groups of organisms, such as mollusks, are found in many geologic strata.
* why organisms (such as brachiopods) which are very similar hydrodynamically (all nearly the same size, shape, and weight) are still perfectly sorted.
* why extinct animals which lived in the same niches as present animals didn't survive as well. Why did no pterodons make it to high ground?
* how coral reefs hundreds of feet thick and miles long were preserved intact with other fossils below them.
* why small organisms dominate the lower strata, whereas fluid mechanics says they would sink slower and thus end up in upper strata.
* why artifacts such as footprints and burrows are also sorted. [Crimes & Droser, 1992]
* why no human artifacts are found except in the very uppermost strata. If, at the time of the Flood, the earth was overpopulated by people with technology for shipbuilding, why were none of their tools or buildings mixed with trilobite or dinosaur fossils?
* why different parts of the same organisms are sorted together. Pollen and spores are found in association with the trunks, leaves, branches, and roots produced by the same plants [Stewart, 1983].
* why ecological information is consistent within but not between layers. Fossil pollen is one of the more important indicators of different levels of strata. Each plant has different and distinct pollen, and, by telling which plants produced the fossil pollen, it is easy to see what the climate was like in different strata. Was the pollen hydraulically sorted by the flood water so that the climatic evidence is different for each layer?

How do surface features appear far from the surface? Deep in the geologic column there are formations which could have originated only on the surface, such as:

* Rain drops. [Robb, 1992]
* River channels. [Miall, 1996, especially chpt. 6]
* Wind-blown dunes. [Kocurek & Dott, 1981; Clemmenson & Abrahamsen, 1983; Hubert & Mertz, 1984]
* Beaches.
* Glacial deposits. [Eyles & Miall, 1984]
* Burrows. [Crimes & Droser, 1992; Thackray, 1994]
* In-place trees. [Cristie & McMillan, 1991]
* Soil. [Reinhardt & Sigleo, 1989; Wright, 1986, 1994]
* Desiccation cracks. [Andrews, 1988; Robb, 1992]
* Footprints. [Gore, 1993, has a photograph (p. 16-17) showing dinosaur footprints in one layer with water ripples in layers above and below it. Gilette & Lockley, 1989, have several more examples, including dinosaur footprints on top of a coal seam (p. 361-366).]
* Meteorites and meteor craters. [Grieve, 1997; Schmitz et al, 1997]
* Coral reefs. [Wilson, 1975]
* Cave systems. [James & Choquette, 1988]


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#r7Stewart

~lava

Taxandrian said...

Okay, I am standing up. I am not holding on to anything. Am I floating up into the air? No. Aha, I have demonstrated that gravity works upon a YEC proponent. Next question?

Like I said earlier: concession accepted. No further questions necessary. :-)

Tax, idealogues LIKE doesn't mean I don't include Miller, for instance. I mean the entire crowd.

The question still stands: why single out the atheists?

You use Godwin's law as a lame excuse to avoid facing the argument...so I guess that means I am right.

You used Hitler to make a (bad) analogy to avoid answering the original question...so I guess that means I am right.
Anyway...I'm not going to take the flame-bait here, but I'll simply ask the same question again and hope you are willing to answer it this time:
Can you back up your statement that 'the naturalistic scientific community is much like the government of Myanmar. They control what is allowed to be discussed and reviewed.'
I stated the same thing about the creationist 'scientific' community, and I provided evidence to back up my statement. Could you PLEASE do the same, Radar?
PLEASE point us to author instructions from reputable scientific magazines that clearly state that articles that support a global flood, creationism, or biblical scripture are NOT accepted, or otherwise unambiguously displays censorship or hostility towards those ideas?
Because, until you do that, your claim that creationist 'scientists' are censored and blackballed in the mainstream scientific journals is just that: a claim.

So again: please back up your statement. Then you'll have all the more reason to laugh! :-P

Taxandrian said...

Oh, and by the way, Radar:

Does anyone want me to illustrate why talkorigins is not a good source of information?
Go ahead and dare me. :-)


Let's make it a positive instead of a negative. How about illustrating why Answers in Genesis IS a good source of information?

Anonymous said...

Let's make it a positive instead of a negative. How about illustrating why Answers in Genesis IS a good source of information?

Let's make it a negative too...I'll dare you. Why is Talk Origins not a good source of information?

~lava

radar said...

Lava brings up good points in detail that will require some detail to answer, so it will be a blog post. i owe lava a Part Four and also Talk Origins will be a Part Three.

Tax, the expelled movie exposed the scientific community for the censors they are. The NCSE openly proclaims their mission is to stamp out any creationist or ID teaching in school systems. How can you even question the fact that the powers that be in the scientific community do their best to stifle anything but evolution?

Taxandrian said...

Radar,

Could you PLEASE provide the evidence I asked for, instead of trying to go off-topic?

Guess I'll have to ask again (third attempt):

Can you back up your statement that 'the naturalistic scientific community is much like the government of Myanmar. They control what is allowed to be discussed and reviewed.'
I stated the same thing about the creationist 'scientific' community, and I provided evidence to back up my statement. Could you PLEASE do the same, Radar?
PLEASE point us to author instructions from reputable scientific magazines that clearly state that articles that support a global flood, creationism, or biblical scripture are NOT accepted, or otherwise unambiguously display censorship or hostility towards those ideas.

How can you even question the fact that the powers that be in the scientific community do their best to stifle anything but evolution?

Because you keep avoiding to provide evidence to back up your statement. Please do so. Thanks.