Search This Blog

Saturday, July 25, 2009

Insult to intelligence? Fundamentalist Atheism



Melanie Phillips of the Guardian wrote Creating an insult to intelligence -

"Listening to the Today programme this morning, I was irritated once again by yet another misrepresentation of Intelligent Design as a form of Creationism. In an item on the growing popularity of Intelligent Design, John Humphrys interviewed Professor Ken Miller of Brown University in the US who spoke on the subject last evening at the Faraday Institute, Cambridge. Humphrys suggested that Intelligent Design might be considered a kind of middle ground between Darwinism and Creationism. Miller agreed but went further, saying that Intelligent Design was

nothing more than an attempt to repackage good old-fashioned Creationism and make it more palatable.

But this is totally untrue. Miller referred to a landmark US court case in 2005, Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District, which did indeed uphold the argument that Intelligent Design was a form of Creationism in its ruling that teaching Intelligent Design violated the constitutional ban against teaching religion in public schools. But the court was simply wrong, doubtless because it had heard muddled testimony from the likes of Prof Miller.

Whatever the ramifications of the specific school textbooks under scrutiny in the Kitzmiller/Dover case, the fact is that Intelligent Design not only does not come out of Creationism but stands against it. This is because Creationism comes out of religion while Intelligent Design comes out of science. Creationism, whose proponents are Bible literalists, is a specific doctrine which holds that the earth was literally created in six days. Intelligent Design, whose proponents are mainly scientists, holds that the complexity of science suggests that there must have been a governing intelligence behind the origin of matter, which could not have developed spontaneously from nothing.

The confusion arises partly out of ignorance, with people lazily confusing belief in a Creator with Creationism. But belief in a Creator is common to all people of monotheistic faith – with many scientists amongst them -- the vast majority of whom would regard Creationism as totally ludicrous. In coming to the conclusion that a governing intelligence must have been responsible for the ultimate origin of matter, Intelligent Design proponents are essentially saying there must have been a creator. The difference between them and people of religious faith is that ID proponents do not necessarily believe in a personalised Creator, or God.

As a result, both Creationists and many others of religious faith disdain Intelligent Design, just as ID proponents think Creationism is totally off the wall. Yet the two continue to be conflated. And ignorance is only partly responsible for the confusion, since militant evangelical atheists deliberately conflate Intelligent Design with Creationism in order to smear and discredit ID and its adherents.

On Today, Humphrys perfectly reasonably pressed Miller further. If ID was merely a disguised form of Creationism, he asked, why were so many intelligent people prepared to accept ID but not Creationism? Miller replied:

Intelligent people can sometimes be wrong.

Indeed; and it is Prof Miller who is wrong. Creationism and Intelligent Design are two completely different ways of looking at the world; and you don’t have to subscribe to either to realise the untruth that is being propagated -- and the wrong that is being done to people’s reputations -- by the pretence that they are connected."

You will also want to read her column, The Secular Inquisition. Here is an excerpt:

"Since ID holds that some vague kind of intelligent force must have been behind the creation of the universe, there’s surely very little difference (and considerable overlap) between ID proponents and the vast majority of mainstream religious believers – amongst whom are numbered many scientists who have no difficulty reconciling their scientific knowledge about the universe, and the evolution of life within that universe, with belief in an ultimate Creator who kick-started the whole process.

So what’s the big hullabaloo about? ID proponents are said by the Charles Johnsons of this world to deny evolution. But this is not so. Creationists deny evolution. But ID proponents say over and over again they are not Creationists and accept many aspects of evolution, in particular that organisms develop and change over time.

What they don’t accept is that random, blind-chance evolution accounts for the origin of all species and the origin of life, the universe and everything. ID proponents say the idea that science can account for everything – the doctrine known variously as materialism or scientism – flies in the face of reason and evidence and seeks to commandeer the space previously reserved for the unknowable, or religion, which can sit very comfortably alongside science, as it does for so many.

Those who have imbibed evangelical atheistic materialism with their mothers’ milk, however, find it impossible to get their heads round this. Shouting from the rooftops that ID is not science but camouflaged religion, they react so viscerally precisely because ID does come out of science and talks its language. After all, if people are evil and bonkers for believing in an intelligent creator, why aren't religious believers in a Biblical intelligent Creator also evil and bonkers?

The answer is that it is the science that is seen to be evil and bonkers. While materialist fundamentalists can deal with religious believers by scoffing they are in a separate domain altogether from the real ie scientific world, the suggestion that science might itself arrive at the conclusion that there are limits to what it can understand is a heresy that directly threatens the materialist fundamentalist closed thought-system -- and therefore must be stamped out.

Refusing to accept that science and religion can be complementary -- and indeed feed each other --because religious faith is out to lunch, they cannot grasp that ID is a metaphysical idea that comes out of but stands separate from science, in that science leads here to an idea with which by definition it must abruptly part company. Instead they insist that the two must be fused – and when that proves impossible, they cry victory."

The Guardian is hardly an arm of Intelligent Design proponents and Melanie Phillips and I disagree in many ways. I find it is interesting that the secular Phillips can cast an unbiased eye at Neo-Darwinists and Naturalistic Materialists in their various forms and recognize them for what they are...fundamentalists who defend their religion against all evidence to the contrary and seek to stifle any and all dissension.

Melanie does not know much about Creationism nor does she recognize the difference between an observation, a supposition and a fact in some areas. For instance, the age of the Universe. It is not a fact that the Universe is 15 billion years old. Secular scientists keep changing the age they believe the Universe to be but this is unobservable. We can measure the speed of light and INFER the age of the Universe. But we were not there to see the beginning and there could be other information that would radically change the conclusions.

For instance, I could grow up in a family with a mother, a father and a sister and be certain that my parents are my biological parents. All the observable evidences point to this. But then, when I am eighteen years old, my mother reveals that my father is actually my step-father and married my mother when my real father abandoned her and me rather than marry, went off to war and was killed. I would discover that my "dad" married my mom when I was less than two years old and they did not want me to feel like I did not belong to both of them but now that I was "of age" they determined that I should know my complete heritage and so on.

That is not really my personal scenario, but such things happen and have happened in real life. In this scenario, the young man is sure of the facts of his birth but those were inferred, not known. Later on, the person that observed and participated in the birth reveals the truth.

Melanie Phillips is quite ignorant of creation science but she is able to see that the religious orthodoxy that is naturalistic materialistic atheism/Neo-Darwinism is a propaganda machine that seeks to stifle discussion and hide uncomfortable evidence in order to protect their cherished fundamental belief system.

Like children, Darwinists and atheists infer their "birth" by chance events. God reveals the truth in the book of Genesis. However, these fundamentalists that cannot tolerate the concept of God hide their eyes and ears and do their best to ignore the Bible as observation even though the description of the beginning of all things in the book of Genesis is far more logical than the fairy tales atheists believe.

Recently I challenged all my commenters to posit a scenario of creation by a Creator God that would make more sense than the one described in Genesis and not one of them uttered a peep. I wonder why? I suspect it is because the first four verses of Genesis indicate a scenario that makes perfect sense if an omnipotent God wants to create a Universe. What He did and in what order is logical because God is brilliant and he does all things well. No big surprise. The resounding silence indicates their agreement with me on this point.



I am writing now one last time before touching on Genesis 1:5, because that verse is a bone of contention among Christians and non-Christians alike and it needs its own thorough post. I am also reminding everyone that the Bible is evidence. I am further reminding everyone that many of you have prejudiced points of view that make you blind to other ideas and people other than Christians have been able to observe and comment on this phenomenon.

May I challenge the thinkers among you to consider Lawrence Selden's post -

Phillip Johnson on the Natural Bias In Science Regarding Human Evolution

Excerpt:

"Museum reconstructions based on the scanty fossil evidence have had a powerful impact on the public imagination, and the fossils themselves have had a similar effect upon the anthropologists. The psychological atmosphere that surrounds the viewing of hominid fossils is uncannily reminiscent of the veneration of relics at a medieval shrine. That is just how Roger Lewin described the scene at the 1984 Ancestors exhibition at the American Museum of Natural History, an unprecedented showing of original fossils relating to human evolution from all over the world.

The "priceless and fragile relics" were carried by anxious curators in first-class airplane seats and brought to the Museum in a VIP motorcade of limousines with police escort. Inside the Museum, the relics were placed behind bullet-proof glass to be admired by a select preview audience of anthropologists, who spoke in hushed voices because "It was like discussing theology in a cathedral." A sociologist observing this ritual of the anthropologist tribe remarked, "Sounds like ancestor worship to me."

Lewin considers it understandable that anthropologists observing the bones of their ancestors should be more emotionally involved with their subject than other kinds of scientists. "There is a difference. There is something inexpressibly moving about cradling in one's hands a cranium drawn from one's own ancestry." Lewin is absolutely correct, and I can't think of anything more likely to detract from the objectivity of one's judgement. Descriptions of fossils from people who yearn to cradle their ancestors in their hands ought to be scrutinized as carefully as a letter of recommendation from a job applicant's mother. In his book Human Evolution, Lewin reports numerous examples of the subjectivity that is characteristic of human origins research, leading him to conclude that the field is invisibly but constantly influenced by humanity's shifting self-image. In plain English, that means that we see what we expect to see unless we are extremely rigorous in checking our prejudice. (pp.82-83)"

You who read this blog, no matter what your belief system, are doing yourself a great disservice if you will not audit your belief system. What do you accept as base suppositions? Have you considered them and compared them to other belief systems? Have you honestly considered any viewpoints other than your own?

I came to my set of beliefs through a long process of study and questioning and studying matters of science and religion and philosophy. It certainly was not ingrained in my by my parents. My schools indoctrinated me but not so much that it was a permanent condition. I read too much Orwell and Rand to accept dogma without question. I still don't. My belief system is ready to adjust to what I perceive as the truth. Even after coming to accept the Christian faith, I have adjusted many of my beliefs about God and the Bible as I have learned and read and studied. My philosophies of ten years ago are outdated in many ways now.

Now I can watch the Discovery or History or Animal Planet channels with their constant propaganda and filter out the religious doctrine from the fact. Some of you may be in the habit of swallowing all this garbage whole. I got news for ya brother, eating garbage ain't good for yer health!

There are so many good sites to from which to glean new information on the Internet that a discriminating mind can locate serious and reliable news sources and science sources and learn thereby. Do not be afraid of those with whom you disagree, learn what they believe and consider it in the light of what you believe.

I am not a scientist per se but rather a commentator. I am an expert on world views with a background in both secular and Christian teachings. I have studied various religions. How many of you have read Robert Pirsig and Carlos Castaneda and the Boo-Hoo Bible and the Koran and the Bible and Karl Marx and...well, you get the idea. It made sense to me to learn and study what other people believe while I was seeking the "truth" as I could find it. I now understand that the "truth" is too big to wrap my brain around but I can do my best to understand all of it that I can.

The primary purpose of this blog is to make people think. My plan is that if you will think about the evidence and consider the facts available you may be at least willing to consider coming to the point of view I now share. I owe it to you to do my best to give you a chance to hear from the other side. The scientific high priests of atheism have control of the major media and the school systems. In that respect we might as well be behind the Iron Curtain with all of our information being disseminated by the Communist Party after being vetted for political correctness. My blog is the equivalent of Radio Free Europe, one of the smaller broadcasting stations but definitely part of the network.



I make no money posting this blog. I ask for no donations and have not added advertising. I am reaching out to you readers seeking no gain for myself. My relationship with my God does not demand that I post a blog and I get no "points" that will help me get to heaven and in fact do not believe that anything I do will change my final destination, it is all on Jesus Christ to save me. I am not like the Jehovah's Witness who comes to your door in order to work his way to a supposed place in a Kingdom to come, no, not at all. Perhaps you do not understand this, but I really post this blog for your sake. I want you to know all the truth you can know and I want you to be able to clearly see the choices available to you. I want you to understand that belief in Jesus Christ is available to you. I wish for you to see that the Bible makes sense and reflects what is observed in the world today. I desire to help preserve my country and not see it torn down and remade into a socialist state. I hope to open eyes to the constant drumbeat of atheistic propaganda that underlies the Darwinist songs of the high priesthood of Naturalistic Materialistic Humanism.


33 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Recently I challenged all my commenters to posit a scenario of creation by a Creator God that would make more sense than the one described in Genesis and not one of them uttered a peep. I wonder why? I suspect it is because the first four verses of Genesis indicate a scenario that makes perfect sense if an omnipotent God wants to create a Universe. What He did and in what order is logical because God is brilliant and he does all things well. No big surprise. The resounding silence indicates their agreement with me on this point."

This is the very same Radar in a recent blog comment: "there is a real world and other jobs to do that come before blogging sometimes."

And that's aside from the other explanation that it hardly encourages debate when you routinely run away from arguments that you can't answer, then claim to have answered them (and won) a few weeks or months later.

But let's take your little bit of "logic", namely that a lack of response indicates agreement, and see where that leads. According to this, you, Kimbal Ross Binder, have already agreed to the following:


1. There is in fact no study of ice cores that shows that many, perhaps hundreds of layers can be formed in one year.

2. Natural selection is not mere chance.

3. There is no Law of Abiogenesis.

4. Since the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent and is not in conflict with (a) reproduction, (b) heredity with variations, (c) selection, the principe of evolution by natural selection is not a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

5. Scientists actually have a definition for what life consists of.

6. It is possible for entropy to decrease locally. This is what makes it possible, among other things, for human beings to be born.

7. You don't have a link to back up your claim that you falsified the closed/open system argument.

8. The existence of catastrophes does not stand in conflict with modern understanding of uniformitarianism, and the fact that there is evidence of catastrophes in the geological record is not a falsification of uniformitarianism.


This is by no means a comprehensive list, just a quick listing off the debate in one or two of your posts.

We thank you for conceding all these points. After all, you have not responded to these for much longer than various commenters (including myself) have failed to comment on your most recent blog posts.

To be honest with you, the five canard post and the one that followed it were so chock-full of errors and fallacies that it's hard to know where to begin sometimes. I've started various responses to individual points but have not posted them yet. The point you single out here (is there a scenario of creation by a Creator God that would make more sense than the one described in Genesis?) has a very obvious reply, which I'll write up for you shortly.


Some other unfinished business:

1. You accused me of "false accusations and complete fabrications". I asked you to tell me what they are or to retract your claim. (See here.)

Since you've been unable to tell us what those alleged false accusations and complete fabrications are, I take it that it was you who engaged in false accusations, but that you lack the simple grace to retract your claim. Which is no surprise to anyone who has followed this blog for some time.

2. Despite your prior announcements, you have of course to date completely failed to address your ludicrous claim that the theory of evolution predicts that bacteria will turn into something other than bacteria in a limited lab experiment. This comes as no surprise to those of us who knew that you had painted yourself into a little corner here from the moment you posted this nonsense. No doubt we will now proceed to the next phase of your sad strategy: to claim that you've already answered this.

-- creeper

radar said...

1. There is in fact no study of ice cores that shows that many, perhaps hundreds of layers can be formed in one year.

I answered this in a post and showed you the link the last time you brought it up again. This is an example of your being deceptive. The last time you brought this up I made the whole thing clear and you must be the only one who refuses to see it. Here's a hint, one of the posts illustrated those WWII planes buried in hundreds of layers of ice, just for one example.

2. Natural selection is not mere chance.

Nor is it a power. It is an observation of variation within kind. But you require rediculous chance upon chance to post that naural selection would add genetic material when all we ever see happen is either recombination of loss.

3. There is no Law of Abiogenesis.
Tell that to Dr. Pasteur and the scientific community that accepted it as a law almost two centuries ago.

4. Since the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent and is not in conflict with (a) reproduction, (b) heredity with variations, (c) selection, the principe of evolution by natural selection is not a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Wrong. Reproduction and heridity are programmed into the organism. Information has been added to the system to offset the natural tendency to follow the second law. Evolution has no such mechanism.

5. Scientists actually have a definition for what life consists of.

Have they specifically defined it apart from the organism and identified it specifically? No.

6. It is possible for entropy to decrease locally. This is what makes it possible, among other things, for human beings to be born.

Meaningless statement. 2nd law says all things go from energy to entropy unless more energy or information is added to redirect and change the processes. It isn't like entropy suddenly stretches thin or gets tired or there is a disturbance in the force. Human beings are designed intricately to be able to live and produce young and obtain energy from their surroundings. Put a human being out in a field and take away his ability to use these processes and he will demonstrate the 2nd law quickly. We call it a corpse.

7. You don't have a link to back up your claim that you falsified the closed/open system argument.

I already did it. All you do is wait awhile and make this claim yet again. I have specifically answered this at least twice, maybe three times. The very guy who came up with the initial observations himself said that the 2nd law is not violated on the Earth despite whether it is considered a close or open system. The laws themselves came from observation of systems on Earth! This is why I have said you are not being honest. You just wait for awhile until the archive is down the list and then demand a link again. You go back and find it if you like but you and I both know it is there and I am sick of wasting time on your false accusations.

radar said...

8. The existence of catastrophes does not stand in conflict with modern understanding of uniformitarianism, and the fact that there is evidence of catastrophes in the geological record is not a falsification of uniformitarianism.

Wow. All these billions of tons of sedimentary rock and all hese fossils that had to have been formed almost instantly and you still believe in uniformitarianism?

This is by no means a comprehensive list, just a quick listing off the debate in one or two of your posts.

We thank you for conceding all these points. After all, you have not responded to these for much longer than various commenters (including myself) have failed to comment on your most recent blog posts.

To be honest with you, the five canard post and the one that followed it were so chock-full of errors and fallacies that it's hard to know where to begin sometimes. I've started various responses to individual points but have not posted them yet. The point you single out here (is there a scenario of creation by a Creator God that would make more sense than the one described in Genesis?) has a very obvious reply, which I'll write up for you shortly.


Some other unfinished business:

1. You accused me of "false accusations and complete fabrications". I asked you to tell me what they are or to retract your claim. (See here.)

Since you've been unable to tell us what those alleged false accusations and complete fabrications are, I take it that it was you who engaged in false accusations, but that you lack the simple grace to retract your claim. Which is no surprise to anyone who has followed this blog for some time.

This comment thread from you shows me that you are deliberately deceptive and will always be so I cannot take anything you say seriously. Unlike you, I do not hide my identity. Unlike you, I do not keep repeating the same lies and fallacies over and over. I have, in the past, even devoted posts to answering these questions and still you claim they have not been answered. That is on you. Also, since you hide your identity it takes away most of your credibility since you are hiding behind a false name. You do not have the courage of your convictions!

2. Despite your prior announcements, you have of course to date completely failed to address your ludicrous claim that the theory of evolution predicts that bacteria will turn into something other than bacteria in a limited lab experiment. This comes as no surprise to those of us who knew that you had painted yourself into a little corner here from the moment you posted this nonsense. No doubt we will now proceed to the next phase of your sad strategy: to claim that you've already answered this.

I am sure anyone who regularly reads this blog has seen me answer you and I would think they would begin to get as tired as I am of you obfuscations. I assume it is simply to throw me off course but it will not work.

You expect life to come from nothing and turn into the millions of kinds of living things in the world today, but a long-term lab experiment designed to cause bacteria to evolve is not supposed to have displayed evolution and I am foolish to expect it? I do not expect bacteria to evolve becase nothing ever evolves and never has and never will. Let's be clear, you can play with bacteria for the rest of your life and they will still be bacteria. You can bombard fruit flies with radiation and change their diets and yadda yadda and you still will have fruit flies. I don't expect bacteria to evolve, but many Darwinists have been hoping that they will and are disappointed that they do not.

Anonymous said...

I am sure anyone who regularly reads this blog has seen me answer you and I would think they would begin to get as tired as I am of you obfuscations.

False.


lava

Anonymous said...

Just a couple things Radar, so little time you know.

OK so this part where you said "Miller agreed but went further, saying that Intelligent Design was

nothing more than an attempt to repackage good old-fashioned Creationism and make it more palatable.

But this is totally untrue."
Um, sorry man, this one actually was proven in a real court of law Radar. With a real judge and everything. Do yourself a favor and read the transcripts. The evidence was clear. Intelligent Design IS a repackaging of Creationism, plain and simple. It's a fact. You can even look it up.

Oh and I too wholeheartedly disagree with this line (among countless others, of course), "I am sure anyone who regularly reads this blog has seen me answer you and I would think they would begin to get as tired as I am of you obfuscations." Sorry, another rejection here, I'm afraid.

You run away Radar. You always run away from the hard questions. And you know it.

- Canucklehead

radar said...

You who are anonymous, disruptive and deceptive, constantly bringing up the same old false accusations fall into the category of "troll."

Creeper's accusations are false, having been answered more than once but he brings them up time and again hoping I will spend time dealing with him again rather than focusing on the things he cannot answer and knows he cannot. He hides behind an anonymous tag for he does not have the courage of his convictions. He is a troll. By wisdom I should follow the internet motto Do Not Feed The Trolls.

I was disappointed to see lave agree with him. I knew canucklehead was a troll but I have always given chaos engineer and lava credit for being honest. Lava, you surprise me.

But the next post is Genesis 1:5, creeper, whether you like it or not.

Anonymous said...

Since I have not, to the best of my knowledge, made any false accusations, I don't feel included in your definition of troll.

I will address your points one by one, don't you worry, and I will show clearly that I am not being deceptive.

As for this charge of being anonymous, I go by my handle, which is creeper. Unless the name on your driving license is "Radar", you also very consistently go by an anonymous handle. And so does every other commenter on this blog - with the lone exception of "Anonymous", of course.

Yes, some of us commenters figured out your real name some time ago, but that was not because of your openness. Nowhere on the three blogger blogs you have did I find you identifying yourself by your given name.

But using an anonymous handle is hardly a sign that I don't stand by my convictions. I don't run away from arguments, I don't engage in sockpuppetry, and I admit freely when I make mistakes. The fact that I use a handle like every other commenter on this blog is hardly remarkable.

If I have mistakenly claimed that you have not answered something when you in fact did answer it, it's the same deal as always: provide a simple link, and I will gladly and without hesitation apologize for my error. But I am confident that that is not the case in the instances in which I've made that claim, and your lack of such links even in your responses here is duly noted.

It's also not surprising to any of us that you are incapable of addressing your erroneous claim that the theory of evolution predicts that bacteria will turn into something other than bacteria in a limited lab experiment. The very definition of bacteria and their position in the classification system seems to elude you entirely, despite being politely encouraged to read up on the subject. Despite you announcing that you would address the issue, it's clear now that you didn't even do the most basic research. I will comment on this in more detail under the appropriate post.

I am not trying to prevent you from focussing on anything, let alone on anything I supposedly cannot answer. Please tell me what that might be. As you know, I and other commenters have no problem with accepting that there are some things we don't know, and we don't feel the need to plug the one-size-fits-all zero-explanatory-power "God did it" into such gaps in our scientific knowledge. But what is it that you think I cannot answer and would feel the need to distract you or anyone else from?

What I am trying to do is challenge your claims when I feel that you are being mistaken or intellectually dishonest. Regular readers of your blog have been able to observe for some time now that you evade questions you can't answer, then some time later claim that you already answered the question. When asked to provide a link of where you did this, you evade further and repeat your claim in a more exasperated tone (including in your comments right here). That doesn't speak well for the strength of your arguments - the bacteria claim being the latest and by far most extreme example.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

1. creeper: "There is in fact no study of ice cores that shows that many, perhaps hundreds of layers can be formed in one year."

radar: "I answered this in a post and showed you the link the last time you brought it up again."

Here is a link to the last time I brought this up. There is no link here to such a study. There is a mention of the article about the planes, but since I knew that that wasn't a study that shows that perhaps hundreds of layers can be formed in one year, I didn't think that that's what you were referring to.

"This is an example of your being deceptive."

Since there is no link to a study that showed that perhaps hundreds of layers can be formed in one year (no link to anything, actually), I spoke the simple truth... and so it is clearly not an example of me being deceptive.

"The last time you brought this up I made the whole thing clear and you must be the only one who refuses to see it. Here's a hint, one of the posts illustrated those WWII planes buried in hundreds of layers of ice, just for one example."

Ah, the WWII planes buried in "hundreds of layers of ice". Is this the "study" you're referring to? In that case I'm sorry to have to point out to you that you are completely and utterly mistaken.

To refresh your memory as well as that of other readers, here is the blog post itself. (Note, incidentally, that this is "Part One", but that after heavy criticism in the comments, Radar for some reason never came up with a "Part Two".)

Now, Radar, please read this article again very carefully. Then show us where it says that the planes were buried under "hundreds of layers of ice". They were buried under a lot of ice, that much is true. And the author of the piece was somewhat incredulous that it was possible for ice to accumulate in an arbitrary location in Greenland at approx. 3 feet per year, since apparently he or she was led to expect something differently due to what can only be extremely limited knowledge of ice core dating. Apparently the author expects ice to settle at exactly the same rate all over the planet, and so he is either confused or trying to confuse the reader.

Now, if what they had found was not just 250 feet of ice, but 250 feet of ice that featured hundreds and hundreds of ice core layers (by which I mean the layers that scientists use for dating purposes), that would be a different story. But, crucially, that is not the case here.

If this is what you were thinking of when you said that "study ice cores shows that many, perhaps hundreds of layers can be formed in one year", then you made a mistake. This "study" does not show that in the slightest. And that poses a massive problem for the YEC claim that the Earth is a mere 6,000 years old.

But if this is not the study you had in mind, then we look forward to the link to said study. So far you have demonstrably not provided it.

For reference, here are the various blog posts, in chronological order, in which Radar's claim is mentioned.

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2009/01/peer-review-review-or-creationists-back.html

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2009/01/peer-review-review-part-two.html

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2009/02/orthodoxy-stifles-saith-radar.html

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2009/02/werner-gitt-on-days-of-creation.html

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2009/05/interview-with-chance-evolution-fairy.html

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2009/05/segue-into-next-phase-of-darwin-versus.html

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"2. Natural selection is not mere chance."

"Nor is it a power. It is an observation of variation within kind. But you require rediculous chance upon chance to post that naural selection would add genetic material when all we ever see happen is either recombination of loss."


Nobody claimed it is a "power". It is a process, a combination of factors. Chance comes into it, but natural selection is not the same as "chance".

As for this claim that all variation represents loss, you've taken a stab at explaining this in an earlier post. I'll get to this one as soon as I have more time.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"3. There is no Law of Abiogenesis."

"Tell that to Dr. Pasteur and the scientific community that accepted it as a law almost two centuries ago."


And they would of course agree with me. I explained this mistake to you very clearly in my earlier comment, so I'll just paste it here:

There is no Law of Abiogenesis. Perhaps you're thinking of the Law of Biogenesis, which stated that modern life forms (such as mice in stacks of hay, moulds on bread, maggots in rotting food) do not arise spontaneously, as had been thought in previous centuries. Needless to say, it's true as far as it goes, but extremely limited in scope, and it is not in conflict with abiogenesis, the study of the origin of life.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"4. Since the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent and is not in conflict with (a) reproduction, (b) heredity with variations, (c) selection, the principe of evolution by natural selection is not a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics."

"Wrong. Reproduction and heridity are programmed into the organism. Information has been added to the system to offset the natural tendency to follow the second law. Evolution has no such mechanism. "


Evolution does have such a mechanism, as specified above.

1. Reproduction does not violate the 2nd LOT.

2. Heredity with variations does not violate the 2nd LOT.

3. Selection does not violate the 2nd LOT.

Together, these elements form the process of natural selection.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"5. Scientists actually have a definition for what life consists of."

"Have they specifically defined it apart from the organism and identified it specifically? No."


What do you mean by "defined it apart from the organism"?

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"6. It is possible for entropy to decrease locally. This is what makes it possible, among other things, for human beings to be born."

"Meaningless statement. 2nd law says all things go from energy to entropy unless more energy or information is added to redirect and change the processes. It isn't like entropy suddenly stretches thin or gets tired or there is a disturbance in the force. Human beings are designed intricately to be able to live and produce young and obtain energy from their surroundings. Put a human being out in a field and take away his ability to use these processes and he will demonstrate the 2nd law quickly. We call it a corpse."


I assume the removal of "his ability to use these processes" would entail the removal of vital organs, so big surprise there.

But you've already accepted that entropy can decrease locally if energy is added, and since we're living on a planet where energy is continuously added from the sun, I'm not sure exactly what your objection might be to the occasional local decrease of entropy.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"7. You don't have a link to back up your claim that you falsified the closed/open system argument."

"I already did it. All you do is wait awhile and make this claim yet again. I have specifically answered this at least twice, maybe three times. The very guy who came up with the initial observations himself said that the 2nd law is not violated on the Earth despite whether it is considered a close or open system. The laws themselves came from observation of systems on Earth! This is why I have said you are not being honest. You just wait for awhile until the archive is down the list and then demand a link again. You go back and find it if you like but you and I both know it is there and I am sick of wasting time on your false accusations."


Your failure to provide this link is duly noted.

I will gladly admit to having mistakenly accused you and apologize with no reservations whatsoever if you provide such a link.

Which you don't appear to have.

And there's nothing wrong with that, Radar. It's not like it's easy to falsify the open/closed system argument...

Until you cough up the link, though, you have no call accusing me of false accusations in this instance.

-- creeper.

Anonymous said...

"8. The existence of catastrophes does not stand in conflict with modern understanding of uniformitarianism, and the fact that there is evidence of catastrophes in the geological record is not a falsification of uniformitarianism."

"Wow. All these billions of tons of sedimentary rock and all hese fossils that had to have been formed almost instantly and you still believe in uniformitarianism?"


What do you mean, had to have been formed almost instantly? They were formed over millions and billions of years.

Let's be clear about the meaning of uniformitarianism: "The theory that all geologic phenomena may be explained as the result of existing forces having operated uniformly from the origin of the earth to the present time."

You seem to think it's some kind of conflict between catastrophes and sedimentation, and that sedimentation lost out and all rocks and fossils were brought about solely by catastrophes. Is that about right?

We can clearly observe the results of both catastrophes and sedimentation in rocks though, so what exactly is your beef?

And there's another small hitch for YEC: it has no convincing explanation for fossils appearing consistently in the same layers, something we would not expect to see if all fossils had been placed in one big jumble at the time of Noah's Flood. Tiktaalik in particular is a particular thorn in YEC's side in that regard.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"This comment thread from you shows me that you are deliberately deceptive and will always be so I cannot take anything you say seriously."

I have not been deliberately deceptive about anything in this comment thread whatsoever. See the above responses.

"You expect life to come from nothing and turn into the millions of kinds of living things in the world today, but a long-term lab experiment designed to cause bacteria to evolve is not supposed to have displayed evolution and I am foolish to expect it? I do not expect bacteria to evolve becase nothing ever evolves and never has and never will. Let's be clear, you can play with bacteria for the rest of your life and they will still be bacteria. You can bombard fruit flies with radiation and change their diets and yadda yadda and you still will have fruit flies. I don't expect bacteria to evolve, but many Darwinists have been hoping that they will and are disappointed that they do not."

There is so much wrong with this, it's hard to know where to begin. I'll address this in more detail in the earlier post where you announced you would handle this subject, but failed to. But I'll quickly list some of the errors here:

1. We don't expect life to come from nothing.

2. The long-term lab experiment was extremely short compared to the timespan it took for bacteria to evolve the first time around. Yes, decades seem like a long time to us, but it took billions of years for bacteria to evolve into "something other than bacteria". Please read up on this. What are bacteria? What is "something other than bacteria"? What does it mean to evolve from a single-celled organism to a multi-celled organism, compared to, say, a primate ancestor involving into a human being? Which is the bigger leap?

3. The experiments were "designed to cause bacteria to evolve", yes, but not to evolve into "something other than bacteria".

4. AFAIK, fruit flies and bacteria have been shown in experiments to branch off into different species. Which is what the theory of evolution would predict. Yes, they were still fruit flies and bacteria, but that is where your lacking knowledge of the classification system (invented by a Christian, imagine that!) does you no favors. Seriously, read up on this stuff sometime so that you can argue this subject with some intelligence. It won't hurt, I promise.

The theory of evolution definitely would not predict that bacteria would turn into something other than bacteria. If anything, that would falsify the theory of evolution. And it would mean that humans (who rely on bacteria in their metabolism) wouldn't be able to survive - a point made by scohen that you've never managed to address.


You may recall the shock expressed by some commenters at the level of ignorance you displayed with this claim. I don't understand why you insist on reducing your credibility so much over such a very simple issue. Even your Christian readers can read up on this and see the colossal error you're making.

So how about it, why not read up on the issue a little?

1. Ask yourself: what are bacteria, and what is "something other than bacteria"? Are bacteria a species, a genus, or something else?

2. What were the predictions made at the outset of the experiment in question? Are these predictions compatible with the mainstream understanding of biology and the theory of evolution? What was the outcome of the experiment?

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Earlier I wrote:

"(Note, incidentally, that this is "Part One", but that after heavy criticism in the comments, Radar for some reason never came up with a "Part Two".)"

But that's not really correct. It should read "... after a meandering off-topic discussion, Radar for some reason never came up with a "Part Two"."

-- creeper

radar said...

I will not address all of this, since this is a simple case of dumping vast amounts of information and demanding vast amounts of information. Trial lawyers use this tactic to evade and delay trials, which is why large corporations can cause cases against them to drag on for years. No way I play your game.

I have published plenty of articles with my full name on the internet and tagged them with my nickname as well so do not pat yourself on the back for "finding" my name since it was never hidden. I have been identified on the internet since at least 2002 if not before.

Creeper you, on the other hand, remain anonymous and ashamed to reveal yourself. One adult to another, I am not interested in wasting my time talking to you anymore and will go on with both my posting schedule and life accordingly. If it makes you happy to feel as if you have won some form of victory kindly enjoy it while you live. You will be unable to say I did not try very hard to open your eyes to truth despite the difficulties involved.

You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.

Chaos Engineer said...

"Recently I challenged all my commenters to posit a scenario of creation by a Creator God that would make more sense than the one described in Genesis and not one of them uttered a peep. I wonder why? I suspect it is because the first four verses of Genesis indicate a scenario that makes perfect sense if an omnipotent God wants to create a Universe.

Sorry, I've been distracted...

When I left off last time, I was working towards the idea that the earliest parts of the Bible read like they're describing the sort of fallible, anthropomorphic God that we see in polytheistic religions. I'm thinking partly of the Creation story, but also of the Flood and the Tower of Babel. It's almost like people decided that they wanted to worship a monotheistic and transcendental God, but they didn't want to give up all their old stories either.

I think it's easier to come up with a coherent creation story if you throw out all your preconceptions and start from scratch. I just got through reading the new Terry Pratchett novel, "Thud!" It opens with a creation story, as told by the race of Dwarves:

The first thing Tak did, he wrote himself.
The second thing Tak did, he wrote the Laws.
The third thing Tak did, he wrote the World.
The fourth thing Tak did, he wrote a cave.
The fifth thing Tak did, he wrote a geode, an egg of stone.
And in the twilight of the mouth of the cave, the geode hatched, and the Brothers were born.
The first Brother walked towards the light, and stood under the open sky. Thus he became too tall. He was the first Man. He found no Laws, and he was enlightened.
The second Brother walked towards the darkness, and stood under a roof of stone. Thus he achieved the correct height. He was the first Dwarf. He found the Laws Tak had written, and he was endarkened."


(The dwarves live underground where there's not much light. So they associate bright light with blindness. An "enlightened" person sees poorly underground, while an "endarkened" person sees clearly.)

Some nice things about the story: It doesn't put Tak on a timetable and imply that he only had enough power to create one thing per day.

I also like the sequence "Tak, Law, World, Intelligent Life", with Intelligent Life requiring two distinct creative acts (cave and geode) because it's the most important. Contrast this with the Genesis story. Why devote three different days to creating life, with intelligent life being just a small part of the creation of land-dwelling animals on the sixth day?

I'm not convinced that Pratchett's story is entirely true, but I do think it holds together pretty well.

Does anyone else have a favorite creation story?

Anonymous said...

I will not address all of this, since this is a simple case of dumping vast amounts of information and demanding vast amounts of information."

I'm not surprised you're choosing not to address this. You've been clearly shown to be in the wrong on several points (see above for some examples), and your past behavior has shown that you lack the grace to admit mistakes even when they're glaringly obvious and there for all to see.

"Trial lawyers use this tactic to evade and delay trials, which is why large corporations can cause cases against them to drag on for years. No way I play your game."

My game? There is no evasion or delay on my part at all. What do you think I'm evading or delaying?

On the other hand, just as an example, some time ago you said you would refute the evidence of ice core layers against a young Earth, and since then your tactics have demonstrably only consisted of evasion and delay. You posted an article based on a complete strawman that had nothing to do with ice core layers (either mistakenly or with the intent to deceive others - I suspect the former, but you seem unwilling to admit that), you made outlandish claims ("study shows that many, perhaps hundreds of layers can be deposited in one year") and then evaded and delayed (for months) when asked for that study. When you finally indicated that the article about airplanes was what you meant and the error in that was pointed out to you (it has nothing to do with ice core layers)...

... you run away.

This is weak, Radar. Very weak.

And then you want to accuse others of evasion and delay? A case of projection, perhaps?

In any case, the bottom line on this subject is that, despite your many evasions and delays, you utterly failed to refute the evidence of ice core layers that speaks against a young Earth.

"I have published plenty of articles with my full name on the internet and tagged them with my nickname as well so do not pat yourself on the back for "finding" my name since it was never hidden. I have been identified on the internet since at least 2002 if not before.

Creeper you, on the other hand, remain anonymous and ashamed to reveal yourself."


I don't know why the issue of having a handle on the Internet has suddenly become such a hangup for you. Anonymity does not equal shame, as other commenters here will gladly confirm. I have different interests and use different handles for each; nothing remarkable about that. I don't take inappropriate advantage of my anonymity, and I am certainly not ashamed of the arguments I make on your blog.

"One adult to another, I am not interested in wasting my time talking to you anymore and will go on with both my posting schedule and life accordingly. If it makes you happy to feel as if you have won some form of victory kindly enjoy it while you live. You will be unable to say I did not try very hard to open your eyes to truth despite the difficulties involved."

Shorter Radar: "As one adult to another, I'm taking my ball and going home."

I'm not sure how you think you can lead people to the "truth" by presenting demonstrable untruths. Are you absolutely sure that that's the only way?

"You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink."

Boy, you can say that again, but prepare to be doused with buckets of water occasionally.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Chaos Engineer,

Nice creation myth, admirably in its succinct vagueness, which I guess is true of all the better ones.

Must read more Terry Pratchett...

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

I was disappointed to see lave agree with him. I knew canucklehead was a troll but I have always given chaos engineer and lava credit for being honest. Lava, you surprise me.

Have you read most of my comments?

Creeper challenges you in specific ways, many times. Now, there is an occasional answer. However, creeper's comments are generally never answered directly and fully, or at all. Radar, you move on, bring up more points...and then you get a string of comments like what creeper left. These comments are perfectly rational, valid points which you dismiss as being just a barrage of information. Ignore them, that's fine. I personally don't think you can actually answer them. And, if you had answered them directly, a simple link would suffice.

And attacking him for being "anonymous"? Really?

lava

Anonymous said...

The mighty Tiktaalik??? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/09/the_rise_and_fall_of_tiktaalik.html

Anonymous said...

It seems to me this Melanie Philips is defining her terms a little differently than we are used to. She makes no distinction between YEC and OEC ("Creationism, whose proponents are Bible literalists, is a specific doctrine which holds that the earth was literally created in six days."), which to me puts in question how she analyzes the spectrum of beliefs from there on.

By excluding OEC from the equation, it makes it easier to posit YEC and ID as a dichotomy - a false one, of course.

Philips also says: "Creationism holds that the universe was literally created in six days or -- through ’young earth’ Creationism -- that it was created in a few thousand years; either way, it flies in the face of the fact that the universe is billions of years old."

Now unless I'm sorely mistaken, YEC holds both that the universe was created in literally six days and that it was created in a few thousand years. I'm not aware of any variation that proclaims one but not the other - right, Radar?

On the whole, Philips seems to be barking up the wrong tree. Being unaware of OEC, her analysis is flawed. ID is a variation of OEC, and not (yet) a science*, merely a more scientific-sounding presentation of OEC. Like OEC and YEC, no coherent scientific research is conducted, but rather settles for taking potshots at the theory of evolution.

* The reason I say ID is a variation of creationism is that its proponents are without exception motivated by their religious beliefs, just like creationists.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"It is not a fact that the Universe is 15 billion years old."

Philips did not say that it was 15 billion years old, she said that it was billions of years old. And that is the scientific consensus, whether you like it or not. Having so very recently failed to refute the evidence of ice core layers (and if you ever wish to continue that discussion, I heartily encourage you to read up on the subject - you've made it clear that the gaps in your knowledge here are as extreme as they are in biology and the theory of evolution), you have little ground left on which to maintain that the Earth is 6,000 years old.

Another aspect indicating an old Earth is radiometric dating, which I know you are quick to dismiss, but I want to draw your attention to "Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective", which explains the subject very well and conveniently is not presented to you by an atheist. It also addresses some of the common misunderstandings regarding radiometric dating (incl. polonium halos), which you should certainly take a look at, since you've fallen afoul of some of these.

"I came to my set of beliefs through a long process of study and questioning and studying matters of science and religion and philosophy."

Radar, you've made it crystal clear that there are tremendous gaps in your knowledge of some very basic science, so if you wish to keep making this claim (and have it be truthful), you should certainly refresh some of your knowledge.

"Recently I challenged all my commenters to posit a scenario of creation by a Creator God that would make more sense than the one described in Genesis and not one of them uttered a peep. I wonder why? I suspect it is because the first four verses of Genesis indicate a scenario that makes perfect sense if an omnipotent God wants to create a Universe. What He did and in what order is logical because God is brilliant and he does all things well. No big surprise. The resounding silence indicates their agreement with me on this point."

Seeing as I've now posted a scenario there that is more direct and elegant, does that mean that the statement "what he did and in what order is logical because God is brilliant and he does all things well" is no longer operative? Does your resounding silence indicate your agreement with me on this point?

"You who read this blog, no matter what your belief system, are doing yourself a great disservice if you will not audit your belief system. What do you accept as base suppositions? Have you considered them and compared them to other belief systems? Have you honestly considered any viewpoints other than your own?"

Why do you jump to the conclusion that we have not considered other viewpoints, just because we have not come to the same conclusion as you? The evidence is there for all of us to see, and we can draw our conclusions from that. I look at my belief system and find that I don't need to practice cognitive dissonance to maintain it. When I am presented with facts that contradict what I know so far, then I learn from that. Unlike you, I have nothing at stake that keeps me from changing my mind.

When I look at your belief system as you present it on this blog, I'm not left with a healthy impression. I see you come up with pretzel logic to somehow get the ideas of a young Earth and scientific evidence all under one roof (with scientific evidence the first casualty in case of any conflict), and you're incapable of progressing since you have the conclusion locked in - it is vital, because the narrative that is so important to the religion that has helped you so much to move on in your life is, in your mind, unassailable - and therefore you have a predestined opinion of any evidence that contradicts that narrative, preventing you from objectively assessing it.

-- creeper

radar said...

lava,

I did not "attack" him for being anonymous, but rather for his hypocrisy. He makes a big deal of looking up my name, which is found elsewhere on the internet and so if we were in court and engaged in a case, that means that he brought the subject up and therefore opened it up for discussion, If my identity is so important, what about his? Unlike creeper, I do not hide my identity. Since he has made an issue of it, then he is therefore hiding. For all I know he uses more than one nickname to post comments. I do not try to look up the commenters by backtracking their IP addresses. It is inconsiderate and invasive to do so IMO.

In any event, you are free to converse with the guy but I see no point in trying to do so because he is not interested in an honest back and forth exchange of ideas. He just trots out the same old list of accusations with different coats of paint and it has gotten old. The pattern is now clear. Boring.

radar said...

Oh, and Canucklehead, if you read the post and the link the court decision itself was mentioned and shown to be flawed. We didn't ignore it, we pointed it out. Orthodox atheists are in charge of the mainstream scientific commmunity and they have crafted their message and dominated the media and academia. Think about it, you are celebrating a court decision that denies teachers the ability to present evidence in science classes! You think that is a good thing? We used to call that censorship. It is certainly idiotic. It will not matter. You can hide your eyes and try not to see it, but it is still there. The evidence points to design, inescapably, and neo-darwinists cannot logically deal with it so they try to simply hide it, hush it up, paint it over...

Anonymous said...

"I did not "attack" him for being anonymous, but rather for his hypocrisy. He makes a big deal of looking up my name, which is found elsewhere on the internet and so if we were in court and engaged in a case, that means that he brought the subject up and therefore opened it up for discussion, If my identity is so important, what about his? Unlike creeper, I do not hide my identity. Since he has made an issue of it, then he is therefore hiding."

??

I brought this up? Any reader of this blog can look at the comments above and see the sequence of events: I clearly mentioned looking up your name in response to you.

1. Radar: " Unlike you, I do not hide my identity. Unlike you, I do not keep repeating the same lies and fallacies over and over. [...] Also, since you hide your identity it takes away most of your credibility since you are hiding behind a false name. You do not have the courage of your convictions!"

"You who are anonymous, disruptive and deceptive, constantly bringing up the same old false accusations fall into the category of "troll.""

"He hides behind an anonymous tag for he does not have the courage of his convictions. He is a troll."

2. Creeper: "As for this charge of being anonymous, I go by my handle, which is creeper. Unless the name on your driving license is "Radar", you also very consistently go by an anonymous handle. [...]

Yes, some of us commenters figured out your real name some time ago, but that was not because of your openness. Nowhere on the three blogger blogs you have did I find you identifying yourself by your given name.

But using an anonymous handle is hardly a sign that I don't stand by my convictions. I don't run away from arguments, I don't engage in sockpuppetry, and I admit freely when I make mistakes. The fact that I use a handle like every other commenter on this blog is hardly remarkable."




"For all I know he uses more than one nickname to post comments. I do not try to look up the commenters by backtracking their IP addresses. It is inconsiderate and invasive to do so IMO."

I already said I don't engage in sockpuppetry (which is what this is called). You can take my word for it or you can check the IP addresses, to which you have full access.

Why would I bother posting under more than one name anyway?



"I see no point in trying to do so because he is not interested in an honest back and forth exchange of ideas. He just trots out the same old list of accusations with different coats of paint and it has gotten old. The pattern is now clear. Boring."

My comments above and throughout your blog should make it clear to any and all readers that I am indeed interested in an honest back and forth exchange of ideas, but that you're not willing to hold up your side.

I've left a number of logical and factual questions for you to respond to. It's clear that you're embarrassed and irritated at having lost the ice core argument and lack the psychological maturity and personal grace to handle such a situation. Having shackled your personal faith to whether certain things are scientifically true or false, you've painted yourself into an uncomfortable and unenviable corner.

Trying to blame your no longer wanting to respond to me on my supposed "dishonesty" is pretty dang weak. Any reader can see that you're abandoning very clear, factual arguments and questions (both in the comments above and in previous posts). There is nothing remotely dishonest about these questions.

How hard is it to admit that you got confused about the Law of Biogenesis and thought there was a Law of Abiogenesis? People make mistakes, it's not the end of the world.

How hard is it to admit that you misread the article about the airplanes in ice? Or that you already agree that entropy can decrease locally if energy is added (which you stated above)? Etc. Etc.

It sucks to lose an argument, but how childish is it to blame the messenger?

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"Recently I challenged all my commenters to posit a scenario of creation by a Creator God that would make more sense than the one described in Genesis and not one of them uttered a peep."

Oh and I've posted a response to this too, with a scenario that makes more sense and is more direct and elegant than the one you described in your previous blog posts. Actually, if you had an open mind about this, it could kinda make you wonder if God really did have the ability to put the natural laws into place as he wished, as opposed to being subject to them.

-- creeper

radar said...

Alright. The Bible includes Proverbs 26:4-6. One more time with creeper.

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/search?q=ice+cores

Anyone who doubts that I have answered creeper on various issues need only do this one search and read the articles that come up and the comments. The long list of my answers to his questions from this one search puts the lie to creeper's false claims. Two entire posts at least were devoted to fully answering creeper's charges. Here is proof that I have not run away from questions but rather creeper just recycles stuff in order to avoid admitting that is is the untenable position. And that is just from one search! I have obviously spent too much time dealing with an insincere troll.

Additionally, I had posted this link in response to a question in another thread on this blog:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i3/greenland.asp

And also, I challenged people to give us an alternate six day creation method which creeper failed to do. Go ahead, follow his link, see my question and read his response. I rest my case.

Anonymous said...

Don't you think I did exactly those searches on your blog before I made my claims? Look up toward the beginning of these comments, I even listed these posts so that people could check this out themselves. Where do you think I got those links if not via a search?

And guess what, they confirm that you never did come up with a study that shows that "many, perhaps hundreds of layers can be formed in one year". You have been unable to back up this claim and thus utterly failed to refute ice core layers as evidence of an old Earth.

Anyone reading this, don't take my word for it, go through the search link Radar put up in the previous comment and see for yourself.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Interesting link, Radar. Unfortunately it devolves into complete vagueness when it should be getting to the beef of the matter:

"Adding to the problems of making accurate measurements is the fact that cold or warm weather patterns can run in cycles, anywhere from a week to even a season. These cold or warm spells are typical today at any one place in the mid and high latitudes. These spells would also cause oscillations over periods of a month or longer (Shuman et al., 1995). So, there are any number of possible explanations for oscillations in the variables at smaller scales than the annual cycle. These are what the uniformitarian scientists are measuring as supposed annual cycles the deeper they go in the ice core."

The author here asserts as fact that "this is what the uniformitarian scientists are measuring as supposed annual cycles" with no support whatsoever. You see, Radar, this is where a scientists would say "could it be that what the uniformitarian scientists are measuring as supposed annual cycles are actually something else?" and start forming predictions to test such a hypothesis. No sign of that here. Are you aware of any creationist research to investigate this?

And guess what, scientists are already taking into account that not every perceived layer may represent an annual layer.

"The uniformitarian scientists do not believe these subannual cycles exist because of their assumed great compression of the ice sheet based on their old-Earth time scale. This is how they manage to ‘squeak out’ 110,000 years."

This is where the author starts to mislead the reader outright. As the author pointed out himself, scientists are aware of subannual events that may give both false positives and false negatives... but nothing that comes close to "squeaking out" 110,000 years out of an ice core record that would, according to YEC, only indicate 6,000 years - a 185% error rate. (And this article was even written before ice cores dating back 800,000 years were found.)

Once again, I invite you to read the excellent paper on dating from a Christian perspective.

Is there an actual, comprehensive YEC interpretation of the ice core record? All we ever get from YEC creationists is this vague kind of "could have been a storm", "the global flood did it", instead of looking at the evidence and clearly identifying what is what in the YEC model, and confirming this with other methods? If the facts were on the side of YEC, this shouldn't be a problem at all.

But as it stands, Radar, you have failed to refute the evidence of ice cores as evidence of an old Earth. And this is not a "Darwinist/naturalistic materialistic bla bla" vs. Christian issue. There is no shortage of Christians (especially scientists/geologists etc.) who will completely disagree with you.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

In the context of God creating light, you first asked for a scenario of creation by a Creator God that would make more sense than the one described in Genesis. I provided one.

Next you claimed that you asked for one that took place in six days - being a little snarky about it too, even though this wasn't part of the original challenge.

So I provided that too:

Instead of giving light a limited speed, constructing a false history of the universe codified in light and other perceivable rays and creating all the light and other perceivable rays to fake this history to an observer on Earth, and only then creating the stars (which at that point would be completely unnecessary) - seriously, this is the kind of pretzel logic that you are trying to sell to make a literal interpretation of Genesis tie in to some cherry-picked scientific evidence -

- anyway, instead of all that, I proposed a much simpler solution (which you can also read at the link at which Radar claims I didn't come up with an alternative):

1. Create the universe in all its splendor. Along with that, the physical laws, including this one: make the speed of light instantaneous.

2. Create mankind.

3. Let man be amazed by the splendor of the universe.


What's your beef this time? That I didn't fill out a complete six-day creation myth for you? This was in the context of God creating light, and the YEC conundrum of there being stars further than 6,000 light years away whose light we can perceive, indicating that those stars are more than 6,000 years old.

Incidentally, this was your question:

"If you were God, how would you do it? How would you make this massive, wondrous, exciting and dangerous Universe and then populate it with your people? Just think on it for a minute. How WOULD you do it? Would you, who invented and has dominion over all natural laws, confine yourself to those laws after you begin putting the Universe together? Or would you just do the elegant and direct thing, the most simple thing as you do your creative work?"

And the problem you have here is that what you're proposing is exactly what you are saying God wouldn't do: in your scenario you have God confined by natural laws instead of doing the "elegant and direct thing, the most simple thing".

You're unnecessarily painting yourself into corners by trying to be God's mindreader - why?

-- creeper