Search This Blog

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Interview with Chance, the Evolution Fairy!!!

My comments in normal color.

My guest, the Evolution Fairy, in blue.

Interview with Chance, the Evolution Fairy


This is a real treat for me, thanks for taking the time to talk with Radaractive today!


Not a problem, if there is one thing I have, it is TIME! In fact, that is pretty much all I do have. So you are very welcome.


You know, you are the fairy or mythical concept or myth or however you would put it? Anyway, you are probably the very last one that I believed in...


Mythical concept? Hmmm. You talked to my publicist in advance? Mythological Concept is the official term. (scratches mythical and or mythological head)


Well, you have a lot of pseudonyms, so not sure what you prefer?


You can call me Chance, that is what my friends call me. But there are plenty of names I don't mind...


Chance? Great, just call me Radar. (shaking of hands) So these other names, what are a few of them you like?


Oh, "and then" or "by some means" or "in some manner" are all just fine. "Somehow" is another one I like. Years ago Happenstance was a name I liked but these days it sounds outdated, like being named Fauntleroy maybe?I get called Random Mutation all the time, but the mutations I know who are still alive are some pretty creepy characters and I would rather not be associated with them. The Evolution Fairy is a good one, actually, Toothy ought to like that.


Yeah, okay, Chance The Evolution Fairy it is!


Accident or accidental is another name I have come to accept. There is a hint of disaster or damage in verbiage like that. Nevertheless it works for me.


So, plenty of different names and euphemisms for you and most of them are fine with you?


Yes, but it irks me when I get ignored and they say something like "adapted" as if I didn't have anything to do with it...


Really? You must hate watching the National Geographic channel, then?


Too true. Adapted, adapted, adapted is all you hear from some of these narrators. You would think I didn't even exist and I am far and away the most important part of the story! Adapted is meaningless without me, right?


How so?


Well, think about it. Is there any means to explain the evolution of life without me? Is there any demonstrable means that can be tested or observed? NO! You either bring me in or the story is dead in the water, especially the beginning of life...


(Chuckling) Hey, you have a sense of humor! Dead in the water, I like that!


You like that? (smiles) Hey, you want to bring about an entire Universe from nothing? You need me. Life from non-life, complex from simple, information from no apparent source...Chance is the hero. Mix with immeasurable ages and stir and then, POOF! You got your Universe, your life, your DNA, your bacterial flagellum, name it! They really need me so I wish they would remember to specifically name me when they tell the stories. I am the all-important ingredient to explain pretty much any Atheist fairy tale you can think of, right?


As I was going to tell you, you were my last mythical, er, mythological concept to remain viable in my mind, so you are a special guest from my point of view.


Good, good. I think?


Yeah, well a big bunny hopping around leaving eggs and candy just didn't cut it in my mind, even when I was a little kid. I was thinking, yeah, that sounds like a story to me! Same thing with the Tooth Fairy. For one thing, if the Easter Bunny or some Fairy crept into the house my dog would have barked up a storm, man! I had a German Shepard when I was a little kid. Busy would bite anyone trying to sneak into my room for sure.


How old were you when you showed Tooth and Grabbit the mental door?


I don't know if I ever believed in either of them. But as a small child I figured that if I played along with the parents, they would keep giving me chocolate bunnies and half dollars under my pillow. No way I was ruining that deal!


Pretty smart kid, you were.


I had my moments. Grabbit?


Easter Bunny. He hates that name! I call him Grabbit because his character is all about kids going on egg hunts and trying to be the first to grab the eggs, so I call him Grabbit instead of Rabbit. I call those two Grabbit and the Money Honey!


The Money Honey is the Tooth Fairy?


Oh, man, Toothy is one hot looking fairy! Makes me wish I wasn't MYTHICAL, you know what I mean? Seriously fine fairy...she giggles when I call her that, too, and that makes Bunny Boy even madder.


So he has a Hare Trigger?


Are you married, Radar?


To the best wife North of the South Pole!


Your wife must have a sense of humor...or vast patience with bad puns.


She thinks I am funny. Poor kid. Yeah, I didn't buy the Santa Claus thing, either.


Santa Claus has a great marketing team. Just about any American child seven years old or younger wishes they had him on speed dial. He is big business. I think you understand that I have more real power and I appreciate that, but no one else gets the press Santa gets. He makes all these movie appearances, television specials and so on. If there is one big plastic light-up Santa in the world, there are a million! Surprises me that he didn't have you on his side at least until first grade.


Nope. It didn't make sense. When I was four years old, we didn't even have a fireplace so how the heck did some fat guy with a big bag of stuff get in the house? So the early forensic scientist/detective in me came out and I did an experiment...


This ought to be good...


I waited until long after I had gone to bed on Christmas Eve, trying to stay awake. Sure enough, I heard faint noises and I snuck out of my room. There were voices in the kitchen. I snuck a peek. My Dad was wearing a Santa hat and eating a cookie and my Mom was putting a ribbon on a toy trombone that hadn't been under the tree when I went to bed. Man, I snuck back to bed and I had such a funny feeling.


Sorrow, disappointment...anger?


Naw, I just thought it was so CUTE that my parents were pretending there was a Santa Claus to make it more fun for me. I mean, it didn't, I just liked the presents and the food and visiting relatives but I just loved them for it anyway...thought it was silly though. I was either four or five then, not sure which. My parents divorced before I started second grade so there weren't many full family Christmases to remember.


So did you tell them you knew?


And cut down on the "from Santa" presents?! But I did wake them up in the morning by making all sorts of horrible noises on that toy trombone. I kept my secret until I was in second grade and I got in trouble because I told the next door neighbor there was no Santa Claus...no, in fact what happened is that the kid, his name was Bennie, he asked me if I believed in Santa and I said no. Then he went home crying like a baby and told his mom, who was kind of a Doberman with lipstick when she was sober and worse when drunk. I think his mother wanted to spank me and then hang me but my Mom stepped up and kept me out of trouble. Trouble is, Bennie's mom was supposed to babysit me between the time I came home from school and my Mom got home from work so I became a latchkey kid at a young age...just because I didn't believe in Santa and didn't want to lie about it. My poor Mom, newly divorced, single parent, and her babysitter wanted to have her only son put in jail for the sake of Santa Claus!


This post is entitled Evolution Fairy interviews Radar? Right?


Good point. So, forgive me, tell me about your early years first.


Ah, the early years! Did you know that I am older than Santa or Toothy or even Grabbit Rabbit? I was among the very first alternatives to God considered by mankind! You had to have a Christmas before you had a Santa, you needed Easter for an Easter Bunny and it took awhile before pillows became popular so Toothy came along later, too. But I was discussed by Chinese mystics and Greek intellectuals long before those other guys came along.


Okay, I suppose I can see that. Some people worshipped the Sun or a bull or a snake but some with more imagination considered more abstract concepts like you...


Thank you very much for noticing that I am a high-end abstract concept and not some simple leftover from a fertility ceremony like Grabbit. Nor am I a 20th Century refugee from a Universal Studios monster movie or Project Blue Book. I am one of the first of my kind and I have way more staying power than the rest. People always give up on Santa but millions keep me on their mantle until the very end.


In my case, it was a question of the Loch Ness Monster or you, which one would be the last to go? In fact, later on I had to re-think Nessie as simply a leftover dinosaur.


Nessie? He's not even in the union! Sasquatch and Champ and Nessie and all of those guys belong to the FOB - Fraternal Order of Beowulf. You can't be in the MCU - Mythological Concepts Union - if you are now or ever were actually in existence. Santa got a pass there because he is so far from the actual guy he is based on they declared him a true myth. Beowulfers are real or used to be real, anyway. We are two very, very different organizations!


You know some, uh, guys, from the FOB?


Well, you see that is a problem. I cannot comment on that.


WHAT? Why in the world not? (raised eyebrows followed by wrinkled brow and hands outstretched questioning. I was truly surprised here)


You see, let's just pretend that Sasquatch, just for arguments sake, that there really are a few of them hanging out deep in the woods trying to avoid humans, right?


Okay. For arguments sake...


Good. So, you see, they have a lot of publicity as mystery creatures, things that might or might not be...if they did exist and, remember, being hypothetical here...


It's a given...


Correct. So if somebody actually captured a living Sasquatch or one that had just died and was intact, what happens?


It's big, big news!


Oh sure, for a little while. But then Sasquatch would just become another animal that is very rare and pretty soon no one would talk about them anymore. Think about it. How often do you talk about Coelecanths at the dinner table? Rare animals are somewhat interesting, extinct animals somewhat interesting, but mysterious unknowns have real power. So IF there are any pleisiosaurs living in any lakes, seas or oceans anywhere I frankly cannot discuss them.


So where does the Beowulf name come from?


You think all these liberal English Literature teachers would be assigning Beowulf as required reading if they knew it was an actual account of men dealing with a dinosaur problem? Heck no, they would bury that thing as deep as they could! But if it is about a mythological beast (real or not in actuality) then it becomes a favorite toy.


So you aren't saying that the Loch Ness Monster is real, but if he was he would just be a dinosaur?


Technically speaking, Radar, you should know quite well that seagoing beasts like pleisiosaurs and pliosaurs are not dinosaurs according to their Paleontological classification and neither are pterodactyls.


My bad. But you are saying that Nessie either is or was real?


So you say. I cannot comment.


Aren't you concerned for yourself, then? If we capture a big supposedly prehistoric sea creature from Lake Champlain and prove their existence, it is bad news for them. Once science is satisfied that you are just too far fetched to believe, conversely, that is the end for you as well, yes?


I'm not worried.


But I am right, though. I mean, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, everyone eventually realizes they are fake but people like to teach little kids to believe in them so they are going to have a long shelf life. But you? You aren't a warm and fuzzy story for little kids so if they ever find out you are a fake, it isn't going to be pretty...I would think the world would turn on you hard?!


Not happening! I have more juice than anybody else in the MCU. I never worry about that at all.


You should be! The whole Hutton/Lyell long geographical ages hypothesis is falling completely apart. Every rock layer on earth other than the lowest bedrock has been shown to be the result of catastrophes and the fossil record is all about sudden burial associated with massive water events. In other words, the Noahic Flood is going to become accepted again within the next one hundred years.


That will not matter to me.


But study of the Sun has shown that it would have certainly made the planet uninhabitable even one billion years ago and probably that is a conservative estimate. Those long ages for life to develop on Earth are going away. You absolutely must have untold millions and billions of years within which to work.


You never heard of "hopeful monsters?" Punctuated equilibrium? The people who are determined to believe in me will continue to find ways to do it in the face of literal mountains of evidence to the contrary. Just take a good look at the scientific community today. Read your own blog! You nailed it in one of your earliest posts.


You read my blog?


I read all of my press clippings. Directly or indirectly you have been writing about me for years now. I agree with you in this, that world view trumps all else. Atheists, naturalistic materialists as you like to call them, they need to believe in something. EVERYBODY believes in something. No one is without a religion, they come with different labels on the outside and differing contents on the inside the box but the box itself is worldview and we all have one.


I am not just on the periphery, I am an intrinsic part of the worldview of those who prefer not to believe in God, or at least the actual Creator God. There will always be people who hate God no matter what. Sure, there are millions on the fence who may decide to become (sighs) Christians at some point and most of them will abandon me. It is funny that some of them keep in touch with me even after they get saved, isn't it?


Funny is not the word I would use. Sad. Puzzling. Illogical. It is certain to me that you cannot fully believe in the God of the Bible and the concept of evolution by common descent from one original organism via natural selection through mutation by chance over time. Arrgh! That is a mouthful. Neo-Darwinism.


Chance! You had to mention me when you said all that!


Yes, you have to be there for their explanation of the beginning of the Universe and the cause of information and abiogenisis and on and on ad nauseum.


So it shall be. Long after they get tired of Santa and forget Grabbit I will still be on their lips and on the pages of their grant applications and in between the covers of their textbooks. I am ubiquitous! I don't really think your blog makes much of a dent in my following, actually. It is one reason I agreed to be interviewed.


Wait, you agreed to this interview because you don't think my blog will make any difference?


As long as God is paying the light bills on existence, I am going to be around. I am a concept, after all, so I have no consequences to fear, do I? When the Creator God pulls the plug on everything, I will disappear and then I get to find out what oblivion feels like. But no Hell for me. I have nothing to lose, so I am going to enjoy the ride.


You are telling me you believe in God?


Well, duh! He made men, men can think abstractly, and therefore I could exist. If God had been happy with a world of little fishies and birdies there would be no me. He allowed for my existence and I have no problem admitting it. Why not? Heck, I bet Moses could come back from the dead and show Richard Dawkins that cool staff of his and Dawkins would just cling to me that much tighter. You see, the fact that men like to worship themselves and their ability to cook up cool and complicated hypotheses about origins without resorting to God brings me into play.


There are many, many people who refuse to believe in God because God is too simple. They lump Him in with Santa Claus as being mythological and then they resort to me because I seem to be part of something so elegant and brilliant that they are proud of themselves for believing it. There are plenty of people who think they are using their minds to discover facts about the nature of all things but in truth they are just building temples to their own intellect. Trust me, those temples don't get built in a day and they do not get taken down easily, but if they fall they fall fast and they fall hard!


Chance, I had a pretty big one myself.


Came down in one moment, didn't it?


Yes it did. There was, and in fact there still is, a lot of rubble to clear away. But once Jesus came in that temple I had built to myself came down like Samson himself was pushing away the pillars!


Jesus Christ is very good at that. But He made me, too, so I cannot be mad at Him even if we find ourselves on opposite sides in the big war. Satan has co-opted me and interjected himself into science with me as part of his weaponry. Talk about marketing, by the way, the whole cartoon character with the horns and tail and pitchfork! I mean, Satan has made himself into Porky Pig with a big eating utensil in the eyes of the world. They are more likely to believe in ET than consider Satan a real being!


Like I said, I am going to have my followers and no matter how much evidence you post on this blog, the average guy who posts arguments on this blog has already superglued me onto his worldview. You just aren't adequate with all the facts and articles and arguments you can muster, not to take down a big humanistic temple all by yourself.



Chance, I suppose that is true, but I keep hoping for the one reader now and then who will think about the whole concept and look into everything with an open mind and heart. I hope and pray for the few who might come to know Christ because someone showed them there was an alternative to billions of years of hopeless and meaningless death and struggle for no purpose and with no plan.


(big smile) Well, like I always say, THERE'S ALWAYS A CHANCE!


~~~~~~~


Chance the Evolution Fairy appeared on this blog courtesy of the Mythological Concepts Union. All rights reserved. Thanks to the Fraternal Order of Beowulf in the most hypothetical possible way, naturally. Both organizations have a strict no picture/no autograph policy so please, no requests for autographed photos, thanks in advance. Chance can be reached at:

whenpigsfly@hellfreezesoverforthestanleycup.myth

32 comments:

highboy said...

Good stuff.

Anonymous said...

...But He made me, too, so I cannot be mad at Him even if we find ourselves on opposite sides in the big war. Satan has co-opted me and interjected himself into science with me as part of his weaponry...There we have it. Evolution is the work of the devil. Believe in evolution, follow the devil. And rot in hell for eternity because of it.

Funny that evolution herself would admit to it.


lava

Anonymous said...

formatting got messed up there. sorry.

lava

Anonymous said...

Man, are your standards low or what, hb?

This just in, Radar Takes the Straw Man Argument to Ridiculous New Heights! Oh my science, that is one horrific post. Again, even if you ignore most of the religious content/dogma, it's way way too long and it isn't even remotely funny. For those of you who don't know what a straw Man is (hb), here's an excerpt from the Wikki page on the subject.
"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."
Hey Radar, so we are now (again) clear that you're a master debater when it comes to opposing arguments you construct all by yourself. That said, I'm not sure what else we should expect from you Kimbal. I mean, every single time a real person presents you with an actual argument, you run away and hide (and/or let your equally ignorant wife post some of her very own drivel - what's next, dodge-posts from the brainwashed progeny that Debbie refers to in her rant?).
Why don't you actually debate a real live person on your front page, Radar? You know, let someone that really knows what they're talking about on the subject of evolution, climate change, etc., speak for themselves and make their own points?
I'm sure that creeper or any of your regular dissenters would gladly step up to the plate for an email debate where they are free to go back and forth with you post-for-post/email-for-email (in fact, I think scohen had made numerous offers to do just that).
Radar, please stop attempting to fool yourself and others by trying to make the arguments to which you are so hopelessly opposed. I mean, if you think about it, you are probably one of the least qualified people on the planet to do that. What with your penchant to bury your head in the sand when presented with a cogent argument that doesn't fit with your "worldview". Not to mention, and I know this is a sore spot, you really don't appear to have the intellectual capacity to make said arguments without disingenuously warping them so that they are easier for you to knock down (like how you constantly refer about abiogenesis when attempting to refute evolution - I mean, come on man, this one has been explained to you countless times, yet you still keep doing the same thing over and over). So, I repeat, you should just let someone else come up with those pesky opposing points for you in a real live debate and see what happens. I mean, any idiot can win a debate with themselves, can't they? ...Or did I just blow your mind?

- Canucklehead

radar said...

Chance the Evolution Fairy. Not Evolution itself. I am referring to the "and then somehow by unknown means and processes the unobservable by some miracle just happened and I don't know how". The whole idea is when you nail an evolutionist down about how a single cell organism came about, i was by chance. How do more complex creatures and systems come about? By chance occurrence. How did the Universe come into being? Etc, etc.

I will make this simple so even Canucklehead can understand. Your personal attacks on me and my family just make you less likeable and in no way make a good point on your behalf. Belligerent ignorance may win in a bar fight but not in a debate. I suppose we could call your responses belligerants!Naturalistic materialists have no good explanation for where the Universe came from and the Big Bang thing keeps changing. They add and subtract things to their suppositions, add more and more billions of years.

They have no idea how life came to be.

They have no idea where and how information was transmitted into matter.

They have tried to show evolution happening in nature and so far have been providing proof that it does not.

Chance is the magic wand, the fairy, the unexplained cause of all these miraculous things.

Christians believe that God created all these things and our documentation goes back to long before Darwin's great great great great great great great great etc grandfather was alive.

It is either by God or by chance.

radar said...

As to rotting in hell, that is a result in failure to atone for sin and not whether or not you believe in evolution. Lots of people who do believe in evolution are also saved by the grace of God. Plenty of evolution naysayers have said "no" to Jesus Christ as well. The two are not synonymous.

However, a logical worldview cannot hold to both of them if the logic is followed all the way to the end. Thus, I will need to demonstrate this so we can address that specific misconception.

No, there have been no commenters who have answered the basic questions I have presented and all the stuff I supposedly "dodged" were simply rabbit trails designed to take the spotlight off of the main issues.

No one has been able to answer the information challenge, for instance. No one has been able to explain away rapid speciation, which has been proven by scientific standards while all testing ever done on fruit flies and bacteria has failed to demonstrate the mechanism needed to produce new kinds of creatures or organic systems.

chaos_engineer said...

There's nothing really new about the evolution stuff, so I think I'll address the other points with a couple of quotes from Terry Pratchett's "Hogfather".

First a quick summary: This is a fantasy novel set in a world that parodies our own. The "Hogfather" is their version of Santa Claus. One year the Hogfather is missing, and Death has to fill in and deliver gifts.

Here's the dialogue from a key scene. (I'm using the BBC Television script, which is a little more compact than the original book.)

Death: Humans need fantasy to *be* human. To be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape.

Susan: With tooth fairies? Hogfathers?

Death: Yes. As practice, you have to start out learning to believe the little lies.

Susan: So we can believe the big ones?

Death: Yes. Justice, mercy, duty. That sort of thing.

Susan: They're not the same at all.

Death: You think so? Then take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder, and sieve it through the finest sieve, and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet, you try to act as if there is some ideal order in the world. As if there is some, some rightness in the universe, by which it may be judged.

Susan: But people have got to believe that, or what's the point?

Death: You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?
In the fantasy world of the book, if enough people believe in a thing, it will physically come into being.

It's a little bit more complicated in the real world. It's important that we believe in Santa Claus, in the "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus" sense.

But it's also important not to get too carried away. Belief in Santa shouldn't become fully dogmatized, to the point where the tenets of Santaism are allowed to cause real harm to real human beings. Suppose scientists observe that reindeer are too heavy to fly, and that there's no physical workshop located at the North Pole. If we get upset and accuse them of being agents of a diabolical anti-Santaist conspiracy, then we've maybe gone too far.

One more quote. This one is from the original novel:

This is very similar to the suggestion put forward by the Quirmian philosopher Ventre, who said, "Possibly the gods exist, and possibly they do not. So why not believe in them in any case? If its all true you'll go to a lovely place when you die, and if it isnt then you've lost nothing right?" When he died he woke up in a circle of gods holding nasty-looking sticks and one of them said, "We're going to show you what we think of Mr Clever Dick in these parts...".

highboy said...

Its awesome how Canuck keeps posting this long drawn out monologues as to how bad radar's arguments are while not actually ever coming up with one himself/herself. I guess the trolling part takes up to much time to actually come up with something substantial.

And yes canuck, an email debate would be much better. Kimbal can type back and forth with a dissenter. Its not like he's able to do that on his blog. Oh, wait...

But methinks if Canuck had anything to say, he/she/it would have said it already.

radar said...

chaos you do make a very good point. I certainly do not believe most people who believe in evolution have decided to partake in a diabolical plot against God. They have simply chosen to believe what they think is the most likely scenario.

Many people simply take on the orthodox viewpoint without examining it carefully. I seek to cause them to examine their point of view carefully.

A few have deliberately decided that anything to do with a God and accoutability to such a being would hinder their ability to do what they prefer to do, often something rather nasty, and they know full well that they are warring on a spiritual plane against God. Both prominent Huxleys made it clear they were well aware of the implications of evolution and that acceptance of evolution would free them from many societal restraints.

Hitler certainly believed in Darwin's viewpoint and thought he was doing a good thing by helping to "cleanse" the world of inferior humans. Margaret Sanger and those of her ilk (look up "Eugenics") began planned parenthood primarily as a means to limit the poor and non-white populations. So certainly ideas associated with evolution have been utilized to do great evil in the last 150 years.

But if someone is determined to do evil, they will, whether they use Islam (a few hundred thousand Islamoterrorists are hungry for your blood) or Christianity (so-called) like the Jim Jones cult or Aliens like the Heavens Gate people. John Gacy was a child's clown and a child's nightmare personified in the same container.

I doubt many people bent on doing evil ever visit this site. Some believe things that are far from what I believe and some dialogues are worth having and some are just name-calling. I thank you, chaos, for actually making a point.

But do you believe it? Do you believe there is no good in the world? Do you believe we make up our own rules and gods and heroes and villains because there is no real purpose or plan to life, but it is merely a cosmic accident?

Myself, I believe I can present enough evidence to show that neither the Universe nor life nor mankind could have reasonably simply happened by chance (my good old friend, ha ha) but had to have been purposefully designed and created. Therefore I go forward.

Anonymous said...

Radar, your sense of humour is appreciated.
Here's something similar in return:

Dear Theologian:

Dear Theologian,

I have a few questions, and I thought you would be the right person to ask. It gets tough sometimes, sitting up here in heaven with no one to talk to. I mean really talk to. I can always converse with the angels, of course, but since they don't have free will, and since I created every thought in their submissive minds, they are not very stimulating conversationalists.

Of course, I can talk with my son Jesus and with the “third person” of our holy trinity, the Holy Spirit, but since we are all the same, there is nothing we can learn from each other. There are no well-placed repartees in the Godhead. We all know what the others know. We can't exactly play chess. Jesus sometimes calls me “Father,” and that feels good, but since he and I are the same age and have the same powers, it doesn't mean much.
Enjoy!

highboy said...

Anonymous, the letter you posted would be humorous and even more profound if it wasn't based on an entire slew of assumptions. But its interesting how people try to somehow relate their thought process and behaviors to an omniscient, omnipotent, eternal being, as if even the most avid believer was capable of grasping such a thing.

highboy said...

"Hitler certainly believed in Darwin's viewpoint and thought he was doing a good thing by helping to "cleanse" the world of inferior humans"

Uh-oh radar, you better hide. Scohen is on his way to throw Goodwin's Law at you and then you're in big trouble.

Anonymous said...

highboy,

The humorous part is that you find Radar's article 'good stuff', while you criticize the one I linked to for being 'based on an entire slew of assumptions'.
I'll leave it to you to figure you what exactly is the humorous part about that.

Thanks for the good laugh anyway!

radar said...

Assumptions?

Naturalistic Materialists assume, with absolutely no evidence demonstrate the assumption, that:

1)Existence arises from nothing

2)Information arises from matter

3)Non-life arises from life

4)Complex life forms arise from simple life forms

Four ridiculous assumptions, unfounded, that are nothing more than an attempt to thrust the metaphysical into science at the expense of discovering further truth. Laugh? Perhaps crying would be a more appropriate response.

Anonymous said...

Radar,

As with your fan, highboy, the reason why your and his reaction are so funny and laughable goes way over your head, apparently.

Doesn't make it any less humorous, though. You too: thanks for the laugh!

highboy said...

Anonymous: I'm glad you find it amusing and let me tell you, the fact that an anonymous internet troll who I will never meet is laughing at me from his mother's basement really has me worked up. Honestly. And nice dodge ignoring the fact that you posted some moronic clap trap that doesn't even make sense in comparing to radar's post. But I guess the cop out you provided for yourself that its "over our head" makes up for your incompetence. And radar only posted a few of the assumptions your link is based on, none of which were even on my own list. Here are your other assumptions:

1. God has no one to talk to because He hasn't told you there was someone He can talk to.
2. God created the thoughts in angels heads.
3. Angels think.
4. God, an eternal omniscient, omnipotent being, has a human brain that thinks.
5. Angels are submissive always. (Lucifer ring a bell genius?)
6. God is lonely.

Anonymous said...

Radar,

the basic idea of your humorous interlude is nice, even though it goes on a little too much.

The obvious nonsense in your post and comments aside ("an entire Universe from nothing", "They have tried to show evolution happening in nature and so far have been providing proof that it does not") on which you have previously been challenged and (surprise surprise...) took a pass, I'm just curious:

Are you really contending that there is no such thing as random chance?

Are you claiming that everything is preordained and/or guided by God?

Random chance doesn't exist?

-- creeper

radar said...

No one has successfully challenged my contention that evolution has been demonstrated to be a failure in nature. I haven't taken a pass on that subject. I posted articles about every bacterial generational study I could find that claimed to demonstrate evolution and showed that they were all examples of either speciation using the genetic material already available in the organism, that they were artificially altered by the observer and/or they were a horizontal mutation in which one and one spot only on the genetic ladder was changed.

Much testing of thousands of generations of bacteria in recent years have shown that, whether by information loss (speciation) or by horizontal mutation, never was there more than one mutation passed down to the next generation, whereas to form a new organ or system several mutations must happen at once and be passed down. I did not pass on the challenge, I answered it and refuted it.

Never will any scientists be able to show a bacteria turning into anything else or a fruit fly turning into anything else. Since even with the help of scientists hungry for evolution no evolution is ever detected in organisms with very fast generational transitions (some bacteria can replicate in about 20 minutes) then evolution remains unproven, or as I prefer to say, it has been shown to be a failed hypothesis.

~~~~~~~

As to the theologian thing, if you were a Christian you would realize that God has millions of people talking to him simultaneously and he also is willing to dialogue with us one on one.

~~~~~~~

Random chance is not a technical term, but we do like to figure out the odds of certain things happening. While we cannot accurately predict whether a flipped coin will land "heads" or "tails", we can statistically say that it is likely that, in a thousand throws, we will be right at or very close to 500 results on each side. Statistics and probability studies are valid fields of scientific endeavor.

But honest statisticians know that the odds against the spontaneous generation of a Universe, of life, of information, of highly complex systems like photosynthesis, that they are extremely unlikely to the point that they are best described as impossibilities. Yet so many scientists close their eyes and swallow these impossibilities whole, because of metaphysical reasons and not because of good evidence.

radar said...

Why did Guillermo Gonzalez lose his tenure and get villified at Iowa State University despite being one of the most honored Astronomers in the United States at a relatively young age? Because he helped produce the book and movie, "The Privileged Planet."

Bruce David won a commentary contest on the Uncommon Descent blog with this entry:

To vastly over simplify the actual state of affairs, there are two kinds of people in the world: those whose highest value is truth, and those for whom being right is more important than anything else.

Imagine that you have grown up into a smug atheist, secure in your beliefs, looking down your nose with benign condescension on those benighted souls who, being either ignorant, stupid, insane, or (dare I say it) wicked, persist in believing in that ancient superstition, the existence of a Creator. Now imagine that suddenly, without warning, science itself has begun to turn on you–cosmology has determined that the Universe had a beginning, the fundamental constants of physics and cosmology are turning out to have been incredibly fine tuned to support the existence of life, the stunning complexity and sophistication of the cell beggars any naturalistic explanation of its origin, and the neo-Darwinian synthesis is being called into question by unanswerable attacks on its explanatory power.

In such a situation, if you are one of those for whom being right is your highest value, one who has identified yourself as a member of the elite who know the obvious truth of things, all this evidence for the existence of a Creator will not just be a threat to your beliefs, it will be a threat to what you imagine is the very core of your being.

And now Guillermo Gonzalez adds fuel to this blaze by providing powerful evidence that the earth itself, the home of and support for human life, is in a highly improbable position perfect for the pursuit of scientific inquiry. Is it any wonder that this is a threat?

The great thing about Antony Flew is that his life has been devoted to a genuine search for truth, and he has always respected those with whom he disagreed. Thus, he had no emotional stake in the outcome of his inquiries, and when the evidence became overwhelming for the existence of a Creator, he happily changed his mind. He is one of my heroes.
Mine too! Antony Flew's goal had been to know the truth, or to know as much about the truth as he could uncover no matter what that truth would be. He found that the evidence called him away from atheism and evolution and towards design and a Creator. Intellectual honesty combined with enough humility to recognize that one could be wrong. Some commenters would do well to read Flew's book and find out why he abandoned Darwin.

Anonymous said...

This blog, and you Radar, are beyond ridiculous. You supposedly respect Anthony Flew because he had "Intellectual honesty combined with enough humility to recognize that one could be wrong."? No you don't. You like him because he went from Atheist to Creationist (kinda' like you), pure and simple. In fact, your statement about Flew flies directly in the face of everything that you stand for. You are the exact opposite of what you describe as admirable. Yet you apparently don't see it. Somehow, you don't see it. You just have to understand how laughable it sounds to us "commenters", for you Mr. Radaractive, YEC, to laud "intellectual honesty" (and apparently with a straight face). I mean, you go against scientific consensus on many topics Radar, consensus based on pure, independent, scientific research done by hundreds, if not thousands, of people vastly more qualified than you, in their chosen fields. And by flying your fundamentalist faith so furiously, you are admitting that if you were to discover some evidence that contradicts what you know to be true, based on the bible, you would refuse to acknowledge it. And, in fact, you have done exactly that in the past - creepers Ice Cores, relative to the age of the earth, challenge, being yet another one that you conveniently "took a pass" on. In conclusion Radar, you have actually demonstrated, through your own actions, that you absolutely do not have enough humility to recognize that you could be wrong. Wait, what was it you respected so much about Flew, again?

- Canucklehead

By-the-way Radar, if, like you say, you were actually ever an atheist/humanist at one point in your life, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you were definitely doing it wrong.

Anonymous said...

"No one has successfully challenged my contention that evolution has been demonstrated to be a failure in nature."Um, where did you contend this exactly?

I haven't taken a pass on that subject. I posted articles about every bacterial generational study I could find that claimed to demonstrate evolution and showed that they were all examples of either speciation using the genetic material already available in the organism, that they were artificially altered by the observer and/or they were a horizontal mutation in which one and one spot only on the genetic ladder was changed."No, you pointed out how in a limited set of experiments, bacteria somehow were still bacteria, and claimed that the fact that they failed to change into something other than bacteria shows a failure of the theory of evolution.

When challenged to explain how the results you claimed would be expected according to the theory of evolution are actually predicted by the theory of evolution, or how this is even compatible with current understanding of biology (as opposed to, perhaps, some kind of cartoony medieval version), you took a pass.

But for some reason you have the audacity to repeat this claim. That's not surprising to regular readers of this blog, but these public displays of intellectual dishonesty will be pointed out to you and your readers on occasion.

I'll ask you again:

"Please explain how the theory of evolution would predict that in a limited set of experiments bacteria would evolve into "non-bacteria", i.e. would not just change species, not just genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom, but a full domain.""Much testing of thousands of generations of bacteria in recent years have shown that, whether by information loss (speciation) or by horizontal mutation, never was there more than one mutation passed down to the next generation, whereas to form a new organ or system several mutations must happen at once and be passed down."1. What were these experiments designed to test for?

2. Could you explain the logic of concluding from a limited set of experiments of this nature that something could never happen given vastly more time?

"I did not pass on the challenge, I answered it and refuted it."I must have missed something here. Exactly which challenge did you answer and refute?

"Never will any scientists be able to show a bacteria turning into anything else or a fruit fly turning into anything else."Of course they won't. That kind of macroevolution can not be demonstrated in a human lifetime.

And please do yourself a favour and read up on what bacteria actually are - and take a moment (better yet, several moments) to think about what it would mean for bacteria to turn into "something other than bacteria".

"Since even with the help of scientists hungry for evolution no evolution is ever detected in organisms with very fast generational transitions (some bacteria can replicate in about 20 minutes) then evolution remains unproven, or as I prefer to say, it has been shown to be a failed hypothesis."No, it only shows that your understanding of biology and the theory of evolution is extremely minimal, which I imagine is due to willful ignorance on your part.

Scientists "hungry for evolution" have demonstrated evolution in experiments, as has been pointed out to you before - it just happens not to be the cartoonish impossibility that you so ignorantly demand (I recall something like "bacteria turning into something other than bacteria", "bacteria growing arms and legs").

Maybe your kids still have some biology textbooks lying around. There are some basics you may want to catch up on.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"Random chance is not a technical term, but we do like to figure out the odds of certain things happening. While we cannot accurately predict whether a flipped coin will land "heads" or "tails", we can statistically say that it is likely that, in a thousand throws, we will be right at or very close to 500 results on each side. Statistics and probability studies are valid fields of scientific endeavor.

But honest statisticians know that the odds against the spontaneous generation of a Universe, of life, of information, of highly complex systems like photosynthesis, that they are extremely unlikely to the point that they are best described as impossibilities. Yet so many scientists close their eyes and swallow these impossibilities whole, because of metaphysical reasons and not because of good evidence."
I think we've been over this (a couple of years back) and questioned your own existence, since statistically it is so incredibly unlikely.

But basically, you're not contending that everything is pre-ordained or completely guided by the hand of God... and you're on board with the idea that random chance exists, right?

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

No hb, that ^^ right there ^^ was some "Good stuff". Nice posts creeper.

- Canucklehead

Anonymous said...

Incidentally, this just stuck out at me: "to form a new organ or system several mutations must happen at once and be passed down".

It seems that Radar has absorbed some elements of the irreducible complexity argument and is now throwing them around somewhat meaninglessly.

-- creeper

BTW, what's up with Blogger's formatting? For some reason it skips the break to the next paragraph after bold and italic markup.

Anonymous said...

"Science was my most favorite subject, especially the Old Testament."

- Kenneth the Page, 30 Rock


-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"information loss (speciation)"

Far as I know, this debate is still wide open. You have still - despite numerous requests from I think Taxandrian - failed to define information in any quantifiable way in order to back up your claim that microevolution (which is not what speciation is; speciation is macroevolution, not microevolution) or "variation within kind" as I think you call it represents a loss in information.

Here are some other questions that AFAICT you took a pass on:

1. What do you mean by "losing specific small portions of the DNA chain"? Chromosomes are "specific small portions of the DNA chain". What, other than chromosomes, are you referring to here? What, if not chromosomes, do you think is getting lost?

2. What do you think the theory of evolution predicts to happen in an experiment with bacteria? Do you think that it predicts that they will turn into something other than bacteria in a set amount of time? If so, what are you basing your opinion on?

3. I've pointed out to you that a simple google search will uncover a number of experiments in which bacteria speciated. In what way do you consider it "wise" for you to not read such information and take it on board? Is willful ignorance - because that's exactly what this is - really a "wise" stance? Does Christianity dictate willful ignorance and dishonesty? Not last time I checked.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"But honest statisticians know that the odds against the spontaneous generation of a Universe, of life, of information, of highly complex systems like photosynthesis, that they are extremely unlikely to the point that they are best described as impossibilities."

Just out of curiosity, do these "honest statisticians" sit around and calculate the odds of World War II having happened, of Napoleon being born, of Euripides having written a play?

As we discussed earlier, the event of you, Kimbal Ross Binder, being born, is a phenomenally unlikely one.

Here's one I prepared earlier:

"What are the odds of you being born? I’ll presume, for argument’s sake, that you exist, even if you do represent a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics as you understand it. What are the odds, among these billions of people, that your parents would meet, start to like each other, meet repeatedly, fall in love, procreate? Considering they could have met and mated with so many other people, the odds of even this happening are pretty slim. The odds of them meeting somebody are much better, but the odds of your parents meeting each other are very small. And yet it happened.

Even now that your parents have met and are reproducing in this scenario, what are the odds that you would emerge? Given the respective chromosome combinations, the odds against the one combination that became you would emerge are still astronomical.

And yet it appears you exist."

From here: http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2006/03/natural-selection.html

-- creeper

radar said...

Fine, creeper, I will probably address some of your questions AGAIN despite the boring aspects of your ad hominem attacks. I have a post plan and you are not on the top shelf, but as you know mutations occur at the lowest possible point in replication at the DNA duplication stage but selection is more a matter of gene level activity. When populations get segregated then allele fixation can occur and genetic information irretrievably lost...although one type of plant has been discovered that can go back at least two generations and use RNA data to replicate a grandfather DNA.

In any event, all who wish to take a basic course in genetics will learn that, either by breeding or by ecological conditions some traits can be lost and the genetic information specific to those traits gone from the DNA of the organism.

Loss of information can lead to speciation. No more than one mutation that seems to add data via copy error of various kinds has ever been demonstrated in any kind of organism and, thus, a progression from simple life to complex life forms is preposterous in the extreme.

Yes, we can do the math and use Punnet Squares and talk about sex-linked and dominant and recessive traits. We could discuss basic Mendelian inheritance patterns and the dirty dozen common non-Mendelian patterns and blah blah blah. But this blog is not a science class and students who wish to understand these things in detail may do what I did and presumably you did and pay tuition to take the courses. This blog is an overview blog. You don't need to explain the workings of a four-cycle engine to a customer, you just need to point out to him that his new Mustang cannot drive underwater from San Francisco to Honolulu. In fact, it won't make it across the bay underwater, it needs to take a bridge.

Evolution tries to explain that Mustangs can drive underwater to China and I point out that they cannot even make it to Sausolito. Unless they take the bridge.

What is the bridge? The DNA designed by the Creator, of course!

Anonymous said...

"Fine, creeper, I will probably address some of your questions AGAIN despite the boring aspects of your ad hominem attacks."

1. As always, a simple link to where you answered them the first time would suffice. You often claim to have answered something, perhaps hoping that nobody will actually go back and check and that the subject will just get dropped. Which reminds me:

"Re. ice cores. Why should this subject be dropped when you had such a lovely question still unanswered? This one:

"Blah blah blah. Study of ice cores shows that many, perhaps hundreds of layers can be formed in one year."

"Please provide a link to this study, provided it didn't take place in your backyard. And if you don't have such a study, please just tell us instead of wasting everyone's time again.""

Still drawing a blank?


2. An ad hominem is not when you feel insulted by your extreme ignorance on certain subjects being pointed out, but when one seeks to dismiss a logical argument by virtue of its source, i.e. by saying this argument is invalid because X said it. If someone picks apart your argument in detail and in addition concludes that you must not be terribly knowledgeable about some subjects (say, bacteria; say, the actual theory of evolution), then that is not an ad hominem.

"I have a post plan and you are not on the top shelf,"

You don't have to write new posts, just answer comments on old ones. But imagine my surprise that you want to dodge these questions again. I mean, I am just gobsmacked I tell you.

" but as you know mutations occur at the lowest possible point in replication at the DNA duplication stage but selection is more a matter of gene level activity. When populations get segregated then allele fixation can occur and genetic information irretrievably lost...although one type of plant has been discovered that can go back at least two generations and use RNA data to replicate a grandfather DNA.

In any event, all who wish to take a basic course in genetics will learn that, either by breeding or by ecological conditions some traits can be lost and the genetic information specific to those traits gone from the DNA of the organism.

Loss of information can lead to speciation. No more than one mutation that seems to add data via copy error of various kinds has ever been demonstrated in any kind of organism and, thus, a progression from simple life to complex life forms is preposterous in the extreme."

No more than one mutation - well that is right, one of those has been demonstrated in our lifetime and, given how young a field of study this is and the extreme rarity of such an event, that certainly is significant.

The progression from simple life to complex life forms is one of the least controversial aspects of the theory of evolution, by the way. There is a vast consensus among mainstream scientists (I know, it's all a big conspiracy in the interest of leading sinful lives...) and even Intelligent Design advocates (still a conspiracy?) that life evolved from simple to complex forms. The controversy, such as it is (since both IDers and YECs steadfastly refuse to go near the "how" question, apparently being permanently stuck on the "who"), is over how that happened.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"Yes, we can do the math and use Punnet Squares and talk about sex-linked and dominant and recessive traits. We could discuss basic Mendelian inheritance patterns and the dirty dozen common non-Mendelian patterns and blah blah blah. "

I see you've caught up on some reading in the meantime, but your name-dropping is not impressive when at the same time you make such stunningly ignorant claims as "the theory of evolution predicts that bacteria turn into something other than bacteria in a lab experiment".

I notice that as a result of your reading, you've apparently already shifted your position. Yes, loss of information can lead to speciation, but previously you were simply equating the two, as if all micro- and macroevolution represented information loss, and that is a claim that you have yet to back up, starting by responding to Taxandrian's question and defining information in a quantifiable way.

And I'm sure in the course of your reading you've now also noticed that speciation is macroevolution, not microevolution.

"But this blog is not a science class"

That's an understatement.

"and students who wish to understand these things in detail may do what I did and presumably you did and pay tuition to take the courses. This blog is an overview blog. You don't need to explain the workings of a four-cycle engine to a customer, you just need to point out to him that his new Mustang cannot drive underwater from San Francisco to Honolulu. In fact, it won't make it across the bay underwater, it needs to take a bridge.

Evolution tries to explain that Mustangs can drive underwater to China and I point out that they cannot even make it to Sausolito. Unless they take the bridge."

I can see what the long distance represents, obviously (and long distances can obviously be crossed over time), but what does the water represent in this scenario?

"What is the bridge? The DNA designed by the Creator, of course!"

Needless to say, "designed by the Creator" is speculation, and there is no "of course!" about it. How would you test for that?

And since it seems you're arguing for front-loaded DNA the whole way, how would you test for that? Because that would be a real coup for Creationists.

Any experiments going on in this direction? I'm guessing no, but of course I'm willing to be surprised.

-- creeper

chaos_engineer said...

I certainly do not believe most people who believe in evolution have decided to partake in a diabolical plot against God. They have simply chosen to believe what they think is the most likely scenario.But I wonder how they decided it was the most likely scenario?

I mean, suppose there's clear and convincing evidence that the world is six thousand years old. That wouldn't force anyone to believe that Christianity is true, since a six-thousand year age is also compatible with Judaism and Islam, and it's not incompatible with Deism and Gnosticism and most Pagan traditions. If you're a hard-core atheist you can just say that humans from some other planet must have colonized Earth and then lost their advanced technology in some disaster.

So how did scientists from all different fields come to the conclusion that the Earth is really 4.5 billion years old? Is there some physical evidence that they've overlooked?

But do you believe it? Do you believe there is no good in the world? Do you believe we make up our own rules and gods and heroes and villains because there is no real purpose or plan to life, but it is merely a cosmic accident?Yes. I don't have solid proof, of course. But when I look out the window, I see a universe that's fundamentally indifferent to human suffering.

If people are happy or fulfilled, then I think it's because they've made a collective decision to find a way to be happy and fulfilled, instead of just sitting back and letting the universe boss them around.

Anonymous said...

highboy,

"But its interesting how people try to somehow relate their thought process and behaviors to an omniscient, omnipotent, eternal being, as if even the most avid believer was capable of grasping such a thing."

And yet most organized religions focus on the mythology of one or more personified supernatural entities, no? A cosmic father figure and stuff like that. It is suspiciously similar to some kind of projection of human emotions and behaviors.

If there were indeed an omniscient, omnipotent, eternal being who created the universe and so on - why would such an entity give two hoots about us?

And by the way, relating one's own thought processes and behaviors to an omniscient, omnipotent, eternal being isn't so much of a problem for atheists, at least in my experience.

-- creeper