Search This Blog

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Darwin versus God in Genesis One verse Five

The 24 hour day.

Ah, where the rubber meets the road.
There are some who try to find a "gap" in Genesis earlier on within the phrase "without form and void" depending on your particular translation. The Hebrew phrase does not support the idea of a world created, destroyed and recreated within the three Hebrew words "tohu a bohu" as explained in the Genesis 1:2 post. So then we get to verse five and we come to the second place where long time advocates try to shoehorn in a few thousand and then million and finally billion years. As usual, let us present the verse itself:

"God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day." New King James Version.

How appropriate that, in verse four, God separated the light from darkness. God from the beginning of time to the end of time recognizes light and darkness, right and wrong, good and evil. The Creator God who made all things also has the right and ability to distinguish between what is positive and what is negative, not just what appears to be, but what is. Christians understand that God knows the thoughts and intents of our hearts and is not limited to observance of what we do and say.

Now in verse five God gives names to what man will call the presence and absence of light in the physical realm and begins to set up the blueprint for daily life. In Genesis, at the beginning of time God defines the day and also the week, by which we continue to measure our lives. That He is limiting this to twenty-four hour days is shown clearly by the phrase "evening and the morning were the...day."

So we see that light stands for truth and dark stands for deception but in the material world light is simply the means God uses to enable us to see what is there and incidently to bring heat and energy to us on the planet Earth. The Laws of Thermodynamics technically deal with heat and cold and we understand that light is associated with heat and darkenss with cold. The Universe is running down from hot to cold. God began the process when He said, "Let there be light." I personally think it is very appropriate that God transmits a spiritual meaning to us within the account of the creation of all things.

To this day the Rabbinical Jews measure a day as evening first and then morning. In the time of Christ, the days in Judea were measured from sundown to sundown rather than sunup to sunup as we do in modern society. This is why both the soldiers and the onlookers were concerned about whether Jesus had died and stuck him in his side to be sure. All knew that Jesus could not legally be taken and placed in a tomb during a Sabbath and a High Sabbath day was going to begin at sundown on the day Jesus Christ was crucified. Because the Jews counted a day as God the Creator had created them, it was hardly unusual that Jesus would rise very early in the morning on the Lord's Day, Sunday, because in the manner that the Jews counted a day Sunday had begun many hours earlier and was somewhere in the vicinity of half over by the time Jesus arose.

Earlier I posted information concerning the word for day
found in Genesis, "yom" and gave evidence that it truly means a twenty-four hour day. That is a thorough post, so if you have doubts I recommend you read it again.

1:5 Hebrew OT: Westminster Leningrad Codex
וַיִּקְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים ׀ לָאֹור֙ יֹ֔ום וְלַחֹ֖שֶׁךְ קָ֣רָא לָ֑יְלָה וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר יֹ֥ום אֶחָֽד׃ פ

בראשית 1:5 Hebrew OT: WLC (Consonants Only)
ויקרא אלהים ׀ לאור יום ולחשך קרא לילה ויהי־ערב ויהי־בקר יום אחד׃ פ

בראשית 1:5 Hebrew OT: WLC (Consonants & Vowels)
וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים ׀ לָאֹור יֹום וְלַחֹשֶׁךְ קָרָא לָיְלָה וַיְהִי־עֶרֶב וַיְהִי־בֹקֶר יֹום אֶחָד׃ פ


Not that many, if any of you read Hebrew. You do know that the original Hebrew is written with consonants and no vowels. In that earlier post I went into detail about the usage of the word, "yom" which is the Hebrew for "day" in Genesis chapter one and in many, many places in the Bible. The normal translation for the word is "day" unless the context of the passage requires another translation.

This excerpt points out compelling reasons for the structure of Genesis chapter one to be one that demands yom = day.

Is Genesis poetry / figurative, a theological argument (polemic) and thus not history?

Critique of the Framework Hypothesis

by Dr Don Batten, Dr David Catchpoole, Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati and Dr Carl Wieland

(extracted and adapted from chapter 2 of the Creation Answers Book)

Photo sxc.hu

sky

The ‘framework hypothesis’ is probably the favourite view among respectability-craving seminaries that say they accept biblical authority but not six ordinary days of creation.

It is strange, if the literary framework were the true meaning of the text, that no-one interpreted Genesis this way until Arie Noordtzij in 1924. Actually it’s not so strange, because the leading framework exponents, Meredith Kline and Henri Blocher, admitted that their rationale for this bizarre, novel interpretation was a desperation to fit the Bible into the alleged ‘facts’ of science.

For example, Kline admitted in his major framework article, ‘To rebut the literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation “week” propounded by the young-earth theorists is a central concern of this article.’1

And Blocher said, ‘This hypothesis overcomes a number of problems that plagued the commentators [including] the confrontation with the scientific vision of the most distant past.’ And he further admits that he rejects the plain teaching of Scripture because, ‘The rejection of all the theories accepted by the scientists requires considerable bravado.’2

Clearly, the framework idea did not come from trying to understand Genesis, but from trying to counter the view, held by scholar and layman alike for 2,000 years, that Genesis records real events in real space and time.3

Are the Genesis 1 days real history?

Genesis is, without any doubt whatsoever, most definitely written as historical narrative. Hebrew uses special grammatical forms for recording history, and Genesis 1–11 uses those. It has the same structure as Genesis 12 onwards and most of Exodus, Joshua, Judges, etc., which no one claims is ‘poetry’ or not meant to be taken as history. Genesis is not poetry or allegory.

Genesis is peppered with ‘And … and … and … ’ which characterises historical writing (this is technically called the ‘vav—ו, often rendered as waw—consecutive’).

The Hebrew verb forms of Genesis 1 have a particular feature that fits exactly what the Hebrews used for recording history or a series of past events. That is, only the first verb in a sequence of events is perfect (qatal), while the verbs that continue the narrative are imperfects (vayyiqtols).4 In Genesis 1, the first verb, bara (create), is perfect, while the subsequent verbs are imperfect.5 A proper translation in English recognises this Hebrew form and translates all the verbs as perfect (or past) tense.

psalms 78:9-14

The Psalms are poetic, but nevertheless often refer to real (historical) events

Genesis 1–11 also has several other hallmarks of historical narrative, such as ‘accusative particles’ that mark the objects of verbs. These are not translated into English (e.g. Hebrew ‘et’ in Genesis 1:1). Terms are often carefully defined. Also, parallelisms, a feature of Hebrew poetry (e.g. in many Psalms), are almost absent in Genesis.6

The rare pieces of poetry (e.g. Genesis 1:27 and 2:23) comment on real events anyway, as do many of the Psalms (e.g. Psalm 78). But if Genesis were really poetic, the whole book would look like these rare verses and it doesn’t.

Advocates of the Framework idea argue that because Genesis 2 is (they say) arranged topically rather than chronologically, so is Genesis 1. Therefore, they argue, the days are ‘figurative’ rather than real days. But this is like arguing that because the gospel of Matthew is arranged topically, then the gospel of Luke is not arranged chronologically.

It is also logical (and in line with ancient near eastern literary practice) to have an historical overview (chapter 1) preceding a recap of the details (chapter 2) about certain events already mentioned. Chapter 2 does not have the numbered sequence of days that chapter 1 has, so how can it determine how we view chapter 1?

Hebrew scholars concur that Genesis was written as history. For example, the Oxford Hebrew scholar James Barr wrote:

‘ … probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that
  1. creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience
  2. the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story
  3. Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.’7

Barr, consistent with his neo-orthodox views, did not believe Genesis, but he understood what the Hebrew writer clearly intended to be understood. Some criticize our use of the Barr quote, because he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis. That is precisely why we use his statement: he is a hostile witness. With no need to try to harmonize Genesis with anything, because he does not see it as carrying any authority, Barr is free to state the clear intention of the author. This contrasts with some ‘evangelical’ theologians who try to retain some sense of authority without actually believing it says much, if anything, about history—‘wrestling with the text’, we’ve heard it called.

Hebrew scholar Dr Stephen Boyd has shown, using a statistical comparison of verb type frequencies of historical and poetic Hebrew texts, that Genesis 1 is clearly historical narrative, not ‘poetry’. He concluded, ‘There is only one tenable view of its plain sense: God created everything in six literal days.’

Some other Hebrew scholars who support literal creation days include:

  • Dr Andrew Steinmann, Associate Professor of Theology and Hebrew at Concordia University in Illinois.8
  • Dr Robert McCabe, Professor of Old Testament at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary in Allen Park, MI.9
  • Dr Ting Wang, lecturer in biblical Hebrew at Stanford University.10
The rest of the article includes all the footnotes. Drs. Sarfati and Batten also mention this in their book, 15 Reasons to take Genesis as History:

"The strongest structural parallel of Gen. 1 is Num. 7:10-84. Bother are structured accounts, both contain the Hebrew word for day (yom) with a numeric - indeed both are sequences of days. In Num 7, each of the 12 different tribes brought an offering on the different days."

Yom as day in Genesis one is the first usage, the most common usage, the structurally accurate usage and so there is no hermeneutical reason to translate the word to mean anything other than a twenty-four hour day. Exegetical study of the Bible is the attempt to get the meaning from within the words of scripture. Eisegesis is attempt to input your meaning into the scripture:

"Exegesis is a theological term used to describe an approach to interpreting a passage in the Bible by critical analysis. Proper exegesis includes using the context around the passage, comparing it with other parts of the Bible, and applying an understanding of the language and customs of the time of the writing, in an attempt to understand clearly what the original writer intended to convey. In other words, it is trying to "pull out" of the passage the meaning inherent in it. The opposite of exegesis is eisegesis."

Yom as day in Genesis one, a 24 hour day with an evening and a morning, is the intended meaning as careful exegetical study shows. This is just one problem for Christians who seek to stretch Genesis one out to include millions of years, that the passage is written as an historical narrative and the days are 24-hour days. In order to believe that the earth required more than six days of creation you must reject the Book of Genesis. More on that later.

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.


Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Pointing out some scoundrels



A friend pointed out in an email today
- "P. J. O’Rourke is a talented and cogent author, but he has a vocabulary more suited to teamsters than to truth-seekers. He also has a sense of humor which is sometimes funny, but more often pernicious. On-the-other-hand, he is knowledgeable about science, especially so much of the pseudo-science that is passed off as truth today. His 1994 book, All The Trouble in the World, absolutely riddled the common themes of the extremist activists, those who not only know more than anyone else, but who also have completely accurate views and opinions about how and when the earth is going to be destroyed and furthermore, can identify without fail those who are going to trigger the destruction."

Naturally, their predictions always fail. But often you will have purchased the snake oil and they will have moved on before you realize you have been taken. O'Rourke's book begins with a quote by Mencken...


Whenever A annoys or injures B on the pretense of saving or improving X, A is a scoundrel.

Henry Louis Mencken

Al Gore is a scoundrel. Most of our congressmen are scoundrels. The United Nations is a league of scoundrels.

Allow me to present some scoundrel-revealers:

#1 The Cornwall Alliance


Scientists Duel with Letters on Global Warming

By E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D.

On June 19, the Woods Hole Research Center released an open letter from scientists to the President and members of Congress calling for “strong leadership” to avert “a rapidly developing global climatic catastrophe.” The letter called for passage of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill then pending in the House, now passed and moving to the Senate.

But on July 1 another group of scientists released a letter in direct response, questioning the independence of the Woods Hole group because of ties with presidential science advisor John Holdren, “the same science advisor who has given us predictions of ‘almost certain’ thermonuclear war or eco-catastrophe by the year 2000, and many other forecasts of doom that somehow never seem to arrive on time.”

Signed by physics professors Robert Austin and William Happer of Princeton, Laurence Gould of Harvard, and Harold Levins of the University of California, Santa Barbara, and meteorology professor Richard Lindzen of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and environmental sciences professor and atmospheric physicist Fred Singer, the letter adds:

  • Earth has been cooling for ten years;
  • the present cooling was not predicted by the alarmists’ computer models;
  • legislation supported by the Woods Hole Letter “would cripple the US economy, putting us at a disadvantage compared to our competitors.”

“For such drastic action,” it continued, “it is only prudent to demand genuine proof that it is needed, not guesswork, and not false claims” that the evidence is clear and the debate is over.

The new letter concluded by warning, “Finally, climate alarmism pays well. Many alarmists are profiting from their activism. There are billions of dollars floating around for the taking, and being taken.”

____________________________________________________________________

#2 Watt'supwiththat

And now, the most influential station in the GISS record is …

20 07 2009

Guest post by John Goetz

#17 - Selinsgrove, PA (in 2003)

The GISS temperature record, with its various adjustments, estimations, and re-estimations, has drawn my attention since I first became interested in the methods used to measure a global temperature. In particular, I have wondered how the current global average can even be compared with that of 1987, which was produced using between six and seven times more stations than today. Commenter George E. Smith noted accurately that it is a “simple failure to observe the standard laws of sampled data systems.” GISS presents so many puzzles in this area, it is difficult to know where to begin.

My recent post on the June, 2009 temperature found that the vast majority of temperatures were taken from airports and urban stations. This would cause some concern if the urban heat island (UHI) effect were not accounted for in those stations. GISS does attempt to filter out UHI from urban stations by using “nearby” rural stations – “nearby” meaning anything within 1000 KM. No attempt is made to filter UHI from airports not strictly listed as urban.

If stations from far, far away can be used to filter UHI, then it stands to reason some stations may be used multiple times as filters for multiple urban stations. I thought it would be amusing to list which stations were used the most to adjust for UHI. Fortunately, NASA prints that data in the PApars.statn.use.GHCN.CL.1000.20 log file.

The results were as I expected – amusing. Here are the top ten, ranked in order of the number of urban stations they help adjust:

Usage Station Name Location From To Note
251 BRADFORD/FAA AIRPORT PA / USA 1957 2004 Airport
249 DUBOIS/FAA AIRPORT PA / USA 1962 1994 Airport
249 ALLEGANY STATE PARK PA / USA 1924 2007 Admin Building
246 PHILIPSBURG/MID-STATE AP PA / USA 1948 1986 Airport
243 WELLSBORO 4SSE PA / USA 1880 2007 Various Farms
243 WALES NY / USA 1931 2007 Various Homes
241 MANNINGTON 7WNW WVa / USA 1901 2007 Various Homes
241 PENN YAN 8W NY / USA 1888 1994 Various Homes
237 MILLPORT 2NW OH / USA 1893 2007 Various Farms
235 HEMLOCK NY / USA 1898 2007 Filtration Plant

Unfortunately, having three of the top four stations located at airports was the the sort of thing I expected.

Looking a little further, it turns out all of the top 100 stations are in either the US or Canada, and none of those 100 stations have reported data since 2007. (By the way, #100 is itself used 147 times.) Several of the top-100 stations have been surveyed by surfacestations.org volunteers who have documented siting issues, such as the following:

  • Mohonk Lake, N.Y. (197 times) – much too close to ground, shading issues, nearby building
  • Falls Village, Conn. (193 times) – near building and parking lot
  • Cornwall, Vt. (187 times) – near building
  • Northfield, Vt. (187 times) – near driveway, building
  • Enosburg Falls, Vt. (180 times) – adjacent to driveway, nearby building.
  • Greenwood, Del. (171 times) – sited on concrete platform
  • Logan, Iowa (164 times) – near building, concrete slabs
  • Block Island, R.I. (150 times) – adjacent to parking lot and aircraft parking area.

The current state of a rural station, however, is an insufficient criterion for deciding to use it to adjust the history of one or more other urban stations. The rural station’s history must be considered as well, with equipment record and location changes being two of the most important considerations.

Take for example good ‘ole Crawfordsville, which came in at #23, having been used 219 times. As discussed here, Crawfordsville’s station lives happily on a farm, and does seem to enjoy life in the country. However, up until 16 years ago the station lived in the middle of Crawfordsville, spending over 100 years at Wabash College and at the town’s power plant.

Mohonk Lake, N.Y. (197 times) – much too close to ground, shading issues, nearby building
Falls Village, Conn. (193 times) – near building and parking lot
Cornwall, Vt. (187 times) – near building
Northfield, Vt. (187 times) – near driveway, building
Enosburg Falls, Vt. (180 times) – adjacent to driveway, nearby building.
Greenwood, Del. (171 times) – sited on concrete platform
Logan, Iowa (164 times) – near building, concrete slabs
Block Island, R.I. (150 times) – adjacent to parking lot and aircraft parking area.




#3 Dr. Roy Spencer

Who recently wrote this article...

Here is an excerpt:

Cap and Trade and the Illusion of the New Green Economy

July 1st, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

I don’t think Al Gore in his wildest dreams could have imagined how successful the “climate crisis” movement would become. It is probably safe to assume that this success is not so much the result of Gore’s charisma as it is humanity’s spiritual need to be involved in something transcendent – like saving the Earth.

After all, who wouldn’t want to Save the Earth? I certainly would. If I really believed that manmade global warming was a serious threat to life on Earth, I would be actively campaigning to ‘fix’ the problem.

But there are two practical problems with the theory of anthropogenic global warming: (1) global warming is (or at least was) likely to be a mostly natural process; and (2) even if global warming is manmade, it will be immensely difficult to avoid further warming without new energy technologies that do not currently exist.

On the first point, since the scientific evidence against global warming being anthropogenic is what most of the rest of this website is about, I won’t repeat it here. But on the second point…what if the alarmists are correct? What if humanity’s burning of fossil fuels really is causing global warming? What is the best path to follow to fix the problem?

Cap-and-Trade

The most popular solution today is carbon cap-and-trade legislation. The European Union has hands-on experience with cap-and-trade over the last couple of years, and it isn’t pretty. Over there it is called their Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). Here in the U.S., the House of Representatives last Friday narrowly passed the Waxman-Markey bill. The Senate plans on taking up the bill as early as the fall of 2009.

Under cap-and-trade, the government institutes “caps” on how much carbon dioxide can be emitted, and then allows companies to “trade” carbon credits so that the market rewards those companies that find ways to produce less CO2. If a company ends up having more credits than they need, they can then sell those credits to other companies.

While it’s advertised as a “market-based” approach to pollution reduction, it really isn’t since the market did not freely choose cap-and-trade…it was imposed upon the market by the government. The ‘free market’ aspect of it just helps to reduce the economic damage done as a result of the government regulations.

The Free Market Makes Waxman-Markey Unnecessary

There are several serious problems with cap-and-trade. In the big picture, as Europe has found out, it will damage the economy. This is simply because there are as yet no large-scale, practical, and cost-competitive replacements for fossil fuels. As a result, if you punish fossil fuel use with either taxes or by capping how much energy is allowed to be used, you punish the economy.

Now, if you are under the illusion that cap-and-trade will result in the development of high-tech replacements for fossil fuels, you do not understand basic economics. No matter how badly you might want it, you can not legislate a time-travel machine into existence. Space-based solar power might sound really cool, but the cost of it would be astronomical (no pun intended), and it could only provide the tiniest fraction of our energy needs. Wind power goes away when the wind stops, and is only practical in windy parts of the country. Land-based solar power goes away when the sun sets, and is only practical in the sunny Southwest U.S. While I personally favor nuclear power, it takes forever to license and build a nuclear power plant, and it would take 1,000 1-gigawatt nuclear power plants to meet electricity demand in the United States.

And no one wants any of these facilities near where they live.

Fortunately, cap-and-trade legislation is not necessary anyway because incentives already exist – right now — for anyone to come up with alternative technologies for energy generation and energy efficiency. Taxpayers and consumers already pay for billions of dollars in both government research (through taxes) and private research (through the cost of goods and services) to develop new energy technologies.

There is more, click on the link and read it all if you would.

And as said so well by a man who would know, as the first head of state to publicly challenge the methods and assumptions and findings of the 2007 UN Climate Change Conference:

My central argument was – in a condensed form – formulated in the subtitle of my recently published book devoted to this topic which asks: “What is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?” My answer is clear and resolute: “it is our freedom.” I may also add “and our prosperity.”

-
Václav Klaus, Notes for the speech at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, New York, March 4, 2008
~~~~~~~

I do not know if the Liberal Progressive movement is Machievellian or stupid or just plain evil, but Cap and Trade will push our teetering economy over the edge into a great depression from which will emerge many, many more poor people, who as a group usually vote for...wait for it...Liberal Progressives!

And, no, I am not a scoundrel. I may be annoying to you, but no law or force compels you to read my blog, you come here willingly. So if you find me annoying, you are actually annoying yourself and that makes you the scoundrel! Grins!

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Following up Genesis 1:4 - Is God Fallible?

I believe the question underlying the comments and my answers to come is as follows:

IS GOD FALLIBLE?

Dialogue and commentary as follow-up to the previous post. My comments in italics. lava in red. chaos-engineer in blue. My posting that follows will be in normal script.

~~~~~~~

My primary point at this juncture is to reiterate God's wisdom. He did not intend to have a Universe percolate for a few billion years before He made the Earth. He didn't need to have multiple millions of years of evolution with all the pain and grief and death involved. God is just. God made a just creation.

Perhaps my favorite part...Radar, did we read the same OT? OT God was a pretty cruel guy- which includes wiping off the face of the earth every human except noah and his family. I guess he just screwed up the first time, huh?

I think the question you need to ask first is why did God do that? The answer is in the Bible and it does not involve God being either cruel or mistaken. As I will remind you all later on, someone else was to blame.

(I) maintain that God is not a liar because He states plainly that:

1. He made the light before He made any sources of light.
2. He investigated that light and proclaimed it good.


OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, he investigated it! ?????? God needs to investigate something he made?

Let's let chaos_engineer bring his viewpoint into the discussion by answering my question back to lava as follows:

Why would you be surprised that a creator would review a portion of what was created?


Well, I'm surprised because I'd always kind of pictured God as the sort of designer who would "get it right the first time". So there'd be no need for a "review" or "approval" phase.

If you read the language of the scripture, God declares what was accomplished as good. That He would declare His approval of a completed work is hardly surprising. Not only is it the period at the end of the creative sentence, it was also a declaration to the reader. God is telling us that this portion of His creation was good...all good...nothing wrong or missing. It seems pretty obvious by definition that God would not be reviewing to satisfy Himself that it was correct but rather to instruct and assure the reader. Another aspect to this may well be that God was admiring His handiwork, a normal reaction to completion of a creative act.

Beyond that, if God is modeling the creative process He would certainly want to include a review, since fallible man had darned well better review his own designs and carefully at that.

In other words, I'd assumed that the phrase "God saw that it was good" was meant to be poetic. In order to be literally accurate, it should have been something like, "God had known that it would be good".

Why so? I see no reason why both statements would not be true. You are going to have to make a case that your statement is logically superior. God is not required to define His powers at every turn. God would have known it was good beforehand. God knew it was good afterwards. God saw that it was good at the time. Seeing as how this is a literal and historical account the tense that is most appropriate and the observation that is most sensible is the one used in Genesis. There is no hint of poetic or prophetic language here.

Was I wrong? Is it possible that God tried to create light a couple of different times before He was satisfied that it was working the way He wanted it to? And the failed attempts just didn't get mentioned in the Bible?

Are you serious? Do you visualize God as a bigger and more powerful and smarter Thomas Edison?

If so, I've got to lower my opinion of God. If He'd put more effort into the "Conceive" and "Plan" phases, then maybe there wouldn't have been so many problems found in the "Review" phase and we could have had fewer world-wide floods and such.

Wow. I asked a question in the Viking post that not one commenter has even attempted to answer about how you would have created the Universe and done a better job with the light problem and no one has come up with an answer. That is probably because there is no better way for God to have done it. You are making the assumption that God was wrong about whether creation was good. We are not done with the first chapter of Genesis but I will give you a hint - God isn't the one who screwed things up here. There is the small matter of Adam and Eve and original sin and I am not referring to either sex or apples. In advance of coming events I am going to say that God made a perfect creation and placed within creation an innocent mankind. Not perfect nor imperfect but innocent. Innocent mankind was allowed to have freedom of choice, so that he and she would not be robots but could make decisions for themselves. This allowed for the possibility of error, not on the part of God, but on the part of mankind. But suppose you tell me how he could give man free will and free choice if man was not given any choices?

(That said, I do think that God's done an above-average job. Yes, there's a lot of room for improvement. But at least there aren't any of those embarrassing episodes where frost giants steal stuff from Him and He has to dress up like a woman to trick them into giving it back. That's more than I can say for some gods.)

My first reaction is to say that the attempt at humor marginalizes the dialogue and reveals that you do not have much if any respect for the possibility of a Creator God. It is almost like your comments were just a run up to a punchline.

Not that chaos or lava necessarily fit the profile, but there are plenty of people who believe they are far too intelligent to believe in a Creator God. They often have nothing but contempt for God and anyone who would believe in Him. The common denominator I have observed about every single one of them is that they all have a belief system and a world view and they consistently present scenarios for the creation of the Universe that are far less logical and coherent than "In the beginning God created..."

Richard Dawkins seems to be that kind of guy, and therefore it was hilarious when Ben Stein got him talking about origins and eventually got Dawkins to admit that he had no problem with the idea that all life on earth was designed as long as some alien race from somewhere else in the Universe had done the designing! Ridiculous! Dawkins admitted foolishly that his issue was not that there is a designer label on life, but rather that the name on the tag is GOD! If it said E.T. the Extraterrestrial then Dawkins would be fine with it.

If you can, assert that you do NOT have a belief system and you do NOT bring presuppositions with you to the table when considering origins. That would be an interesting statement. I am confident I can refute quite easily any of you who think you do not involve suppositions or beliefs in daily life or the study of science.

Any engineers among you who can come up with a better way to create the vast and observable Universe and an Earth populated with mankind and various other flora and fauna in a six day period of time than the method used by God are invited to share that with us.

Of course, in this blog we have not finished even the first chapter so on to the next verse after this post.

Friday, July 10, 2009

Darwin versus Genesis One verse Four - Viking addition



Am I a Bible Literalist? Yes, where it is written as history and wisdom. But parts of the Bible are prophetic and use poetic language. Ordinary Bible students have no trouble figuring out which is which and often God makes a point of cluing us in to what is poetic language and what is simply narrative or teaching. I do not mind discussing the Bible with anyone who seriously wants to discuss a portion of scripture. If you don't know the scripture very well kindly respect the fact that it is a big (66 books) bite of information and you do not have a shot at knowing very well if you have spent a half hour flipping through it!


Recently, as I told a commenter:



Supernatural evidence is evidence of supernatural activity. If there is no natural cause or coherent natural explanation and there is a supernatural explanation we have come to Occam's Razor.

Here are five examples of supernatural evidence:

Information

Life

Design

Existence

A Bible that explains how and where and by Who the first four happened to be.

Now five examples of falsifiable creationist suppositions shown to be true:

Magnetic field rate of decay shows Earth must be less than 20,000 years and likely around six thousand asserted Dr. Russell Humphreys in 1984.

(Confirmed by Voyager II measurements of Neptune and Uranus fields that echo those of Earth)

RATE conference asserted that too much Helium would be found in rocks for an old earth.

(Fenton Hill, NM drill site into crystal agreed with the theory)

Polonium radiohalos will be found in sedimentary rocks since they were formed by the massive Noahic Flood.

(Confirmed by Dr. Andrew Snelling's study of Smoky Mountain sandstone.)

John Baumgartner proposed the subduction theory of tectonic plate movements during the Flood, which would result in the cold surface of the crust being completely subducted.

(Recent technological advances have allowed scientists to "see" the edge of the Earth's mantle and detect the presence of relatively cold former crust as predicted by an event less than 4500 years ago.)

Noahic Flood turmoil would have caused Earth's magnetic field to reverse, probably several times.

(Steen's Mountain 1988 basaltic flows were first confirmation of this anomaly.)



There are so many examples of science falsifying Darwinist theory I cannot keep up with them all. The orthodox paradigm is going to fall hard when it finally falls. Now back to our movie:

Genesis 1:4

וַיַּ֧רְא אֱלֹהִ֛ים אֶת־הָא֖וֹר כִּי־ט֑וֹב וַיַּבְדֵּ֣ל אֱלֹהִ֔ים בֵּ֥ין הָא֖וֹר וּבֵ֥ין הַחֹֽשֶׁךְ׃

courtesy of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia


God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness.

You recall that in verse three, God created the light without any sources for the light. Let's look at what we have so far:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness.


So God has taken credit for creating the Universe, which naturalistic materialistic atheists have no explanation for beyond nothing became something by some chance. Ah, atheistic science. No answers, lots of fairy tales. God has created elements, obviously, since there are waters. But He creates light after the very first creative act. Now he says it is good.

So light is created before the source of the light and God says the light is good. Much hue and cry has been raised by atheists and Christians alike about the vast distances between Earth and the stars and how many stars are so many millions of light years away, thus making a six day creation event some six thousand years or so ago impossible. Then again, nothing is impossible with God.

There have been all sorts of theories introduced about how God may have created the Earth recently while allowing for the problem of the apparent age of light. Hmm, did God create Adam and Eve with apparent age? If not, who nursed them and raised them and taught them their alphabet? Did God make baby animals, helplessly squirming or did He make them full grown at the start? I mean, chicken and the egg, right? The idea that God created light with an appearance of age makes sense.

For instance, the creation of Earth could have been at the event horizon of a white hole, thus 6 days on earth could pass and 6 billion years would happen elsewhere. But allow me to ask you a 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?

Now, if God makes a very small Universe with nothing much more than a solar system, that does not capture the imagination and bring on the profound wonder that the awesome expanse of the Universe does to the heart and mind of mankind. He cannot have all sorts of stars near the Earth, as the heat and radiation thereof would be deadly. He wants a big, huge, impressive Universe to help man to understand that He is an impressive God.

God makes the light first and says it is good. I have come to believe that God made the light, with events like stars exploding revealed by the light, and then stretched it out to link up with the various stars and other heavenly formations afterwards. Thus man would have the stars to navigate by, to light the evening sky, to give him a sense of perspective, to give him a sense of wonder. Thus man could see in detail how stars are formed and destroyed and be able to discover much more about the nature of all material things. He would even be able to hypothesize how he might begin traveling from the Earth outwards into space.

I maintain that God is not a liar because He states plainly that:

1. He made the light before He made any sources of light.
2. He investigated that light and proclaimed it good.

At the end of the verse God separates the light from the darkness. This is symbolic as all men will also be separated as either belonging to light or darkness. The next verse will reveal that He also had another practical purpose in separating light and darkness but we are not there yet. So we will save that subject until later.

My primary point at this juncture is to reiterate God's wisdom. He did not intend to have a Universe percolate for a few billion years before He made the Earth. He didn't need to have multiple millions of years of evolution with all the pain and grief and death involved. God is just. God made a just creation. He made a Universe with an appearance of age, yes, but anyone who sticks their nose in the Bible can plainly see that He made the light first and figure it out!

If God had made all those stars and galaxies and formations and nebulas six thousand odd years ago and started their light, we would still be waiting to see them. The vast majority of anything outside our solar system would be mysterious and unseen to us. Why would that be wise?

But instead God made the light first, made it good so that it illustrated the way the Universe works so that an observant man could study and learn and apply that knowledge to benefit mankind and fulfill the need to create and discover.

God used the Bible to explain to mankind where the Universe came from and life and mankind and the Earth and why there was the problem of sin and how to deal with it. The Bible explains the billions of tons of sedimentary rock and the countless fossils, the wealth of oil and natural gas found underground and under pressure to this day, how information has entered the world and to those who accept the obvious DNA is not a surprise at all.

Applied scientists study the way God created and seek to copy His designs to incorporate them into machines and systems. Man has always learned by copying things seen in creation. God made us to be bright and inquisitive and gave us the aptitude to study and succeed. He also gave us free will.

Christian, as this series moves along I will demonstrate why a person who trusts Christ as His Savior must also understand that the Genesis account of creation must come along with that belief. I will show that Jesus quoted from or mentioned many of the Old Testament books including Genesis and gave credit to the five books of the Law as being given by God.

Darwinist, you may persist in your beliefs, but know this; God has a rational explanation for your existence and without God, you do not have one. Even proponents of the Big Bang admit that it must have been a controlled explosion for the Universe to have resulted from it, and who controls it? Duh. There is no need for billions of years for the Universe nor for millions of years for life. That is just the means by which Darwinists continue to convince the gullible, for the unexplained and unobserved events they depend upon can never be observed and thus cannot be completely disproven.

I cannot prove that there is not one particular cow on the face of the planet that can moo Tchaikovsky's seven symphonies note for note. I can show that such a suggestion is preposterous by the study of known cows and I can be sure you will not find one. But your evolutionary hypotheses are based on less evidence than we could find for a Tchaikovsky-bellowing cow. Therefore you can merrily go along with your hypotheses, which cannot be tested (and when they are they fail) or observed, happy in the knowledge that there are millions of uniformed, ignorant or indoctrinated people who believe what you say.

A commenter asked me about the Vikings and whether they could not prove the existence of Odin and Thor because of lightning and thunder. Their mythology told them that Thor makes the thunder and therefore thunder must prove Thor.



Vikings are descended from Japheth, the son of Noah. Ancient Viking lineage documentation shows that the Vikings trace their line back to him and their "gods" like Odin and Thor are simply the names of ancestors who they incorporated into myth as they Chinese-telephoned the creation story into a comic book theme. Plenty of tribes and races around the planet have evidence of tracing themselves back to Ham, Shem or Japheth or even to Adam. But only the Jews kept a careful written account. Moses culled and preserved it by the grace of God so that we would have the creation account in Genesis to this day.

The fathers of the Vikings knew about God and Adam and the Flood and the Tower of Babel but walked away from that knowledge and perverted it, much as the Greeks and the Egyptians and the Chinese and so on. So the Vikings should have known that thunder was a natural occurrence and that God does not live in clouds, He is supernatural and the Creator of all things. And so should you!

Wednesday, July 08, 2009

Darwinists and Creationists need to get it in gear!


COMIC LINK

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
Philip K. Dick

One more thing before the next Genesis post -

It is alarming to me that so many commenters do not even have a fundamental grasp of reasoning. Our schools are not teaching young men and women how to think. Let me use a simple analogy.

The Automatic Transmission: Most cars made in the last quarter century have come equipped with an automatic transmission and most drivers habitually use only three gear settings. Those settings are Park, Drive and Reverse. For the sake of this analogy, we will assume that these three settings are the only three available.

The normal vehicle will not start in either Drive or Reverse, it must start in Park. So it is with our intellect. We start with the ability to think and that thought begins undirected and uninformed. We apparently begin learning things while within the womb and hopefully keep learning until we die. So as thinking beings we begin in Park.

Now our car has a drive shaft or shafts that transfer power from the engine by way of our transmission to the wheels that will then turn and move our vehicle. The same engine and the same drive shaft and the same wheels will take us either forward or backwards.

Whether we move forwards or backwards depends upon whether we choose Drive or Reverse. Same steering wheel will turn the vehicle, same accelerator pedal will accelerate and the same brake pedal will operate the brakes for stopping. Whether you move forward or backward depends on what gear you shift into at the beginning.

So it is with world views. You have a set of presuppositions and they act like the gear that takes the information available to you and moves with it intellectually. If you allow for the possibility of God or in fact believe in God, you are free to allow for both natural and supernatural evidence and explanations for what you perceive of the Universe. If you allow for natural evidence and explanations only, then you cannot allow for the supernatural.

These distinctions, these "gears" are choices you make before you even consider evidence. If you cannot allow yourself to even consider the idea of God, you are stuck in Reverse (it is my analogy so I put you guys in that one) and no evidence no matter how powerful will allow you to move forward.

The naturalistic materialistic view of the world is not the only or normal viewpoint. It is not a given, even if it has become the orthodox paradigm. Your world view is one that you take on by choice and it is not the only valid way to perceive the world, it just happens to be your way.

So please, if you have shifted into Reverse don't try to pretend there is no Drive. If you are in Drive you should not pretend that there is no Reverse. Have the intellectual honesty to admit and understand that world views are like noses, everybody has one and they are not necessarily the same. The good news is that we all have the ability to shift gears and switch from one gear to another. Those of you who cannot understand this need to stop, put it in Park and be honest with yourself. Choose to incorporate God into your world view or choose to exclude Him but be real and admit it to yourself and others. It is not a given, it is a choice.

It would be truly refreshing to meet more Darwinists that at least comprehend this very basic understanding of the reasoning process. Admit you have a world view, it is okay, we all do. Maybe we need a World View Anonymous:

"Hi, my name is Fred and I am a naturalistic materialist." "Hi, Fred!

"I have been a naturalistic materialist since sixth grade. The last time I considered the possibility of God was seventeen years ago."

Anyway, try to at least grasp this point and then I will go one with the planned postings. Try? I know you can do it. Now I present some brain candy for all of your trouble...

Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."
"Few things are harder to put up with than a good example."
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour, catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."
Mark Twain (1835-1910)


"A mathematician is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat which isn't there."
Charles R. Darwin

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."
Albert Einstein





We are all trying to be more specific in step number two. Whether God or Chance fits into that spot best is fundamental to all other discussion here.

Thursday, July 02, 2009

In regards to the Canards, Natural Selection is nothing and men are like trees(?)

Fake-o-raptor pictured above...


Dear Readers - I know most of you who come here and read some or all of this blog rarely if ever comment. There are a few who comment and maybe you readers read some of those comments. Some may read them all. In any event, this post is directed to you more so than most commenters, for I know most of them are determined in their minds that no evidence in the world will ever convince them that God is and that Darwin was wrong. Many scientists who believe in Darwinism have deliberately faked and misrepresented evidence to promote their pet theory, which is in fact in many cases their religion. This is not a matter of history, but rather as the recent IDA farce represents, faked and misrepresented evidence is modus operandi for Darwinists. So that is in part why I am going to return to the Genesis series after this post, for rather than argue with Darwinists I am just going to continue to present truth to those who are willing to at least consider something other than the paradigm of the orthodox materialistic naturalistic atheistic mob.

By means of greater and richer sources of information at my disposal, there is no doubt that I know more about both science and theology than one Charles Darwin. That is no big deal, there are thousands and perhaps millions of people on the planet who could truly make the same claim. Darwin was increasingly hostile towards religion, did not study the Bible closely and did not have access to very sophisticated scientific equipment, nor did he have the discoveries of the last 150 years at his fingertips. I and many like me do.

John Denney said: "The separation of the scientific and the religious means, in the end, the separation of the religious and the true and this means that religion dies among true men."


Of course, one can separate religion from truth and one can separate science from truth. In this century, we have seen in so many cases that true men must abandon the scientific paradigm for the sake of truth and thereby find themselves face to face with God. There is religion that has little or nothing to do with God but for sure there is science that has little or nothing to do with truth as well, and thus we have Darwinism, a religion posing as science.

Don Patten noted in the book 15 Reasons to take Genesis as History:

"An 'evangelical' theological college in Sydney (Australia) teaches students that Genesis is merely a polemic; that it teaches us that God created things and this is a theological statement, not a scientific one. However, 'science' (i.e. the majority view of the current establishment) claims that the Universe made itself when nothing exploded in the big bang and that every form of life made itself by purely natural sources from elements created in the big bang; God is not involved or necessary. Either science is making theological claims or the Bible is making scientific claims. It is not possible to solve the problem by word games that artificially segregate knowledge. Such nonsense in the colleges should appal the churches that depend on them for pastoral training."


The League of Ordinary Gentlemen Blog included this observation:

"... For example, if someone is worried about The Bible (or Quran or whatever) having too much influence as a text of revelation, then that person can approach the text in the same way–as having been granted a deep legitimacy by a community of readers–as say playwrights read Shakespeare as a kind of canon. Again it requires some learning but just basic humanistic capacity really.

Otherwise how can we have a religion-science debate when half of that equation is not properly understood?

I mean if I participated in a religion-science debate and made some argument based on Lamarckian evolution theory I would be (rightly) ejected from the room because that’s debunked and I would have shown myself up to be an idiot on this subject. Why then is it okay to make equivalently (or in fact much worse) mistakes in terms of theological understanding and get away with it?

Once a person enters the domain of theological/religious argumentation–as a humanistic discipline–then they no longer get to play the science card as trump. "

Funny thing, reading through the comments section of my last post. There are plenty of the same old arguments that I previously addressed. Some people believe if you repeat the same fiction over and over it may not be true but it will be believed. So my commenters continually rehash previously falsified assertions.

Darwinists make fake claims and fake evidence often, as we know from experience.



I have done the due diligence to understand the basics of Darwinism, although I now disagree with the concept. I have studied hopeful monsters, punctuated equilibrium, phylogenitic trees and bushes, natural selection in conjunction with mutation, the whole big mess. In fact, I was once a believer in it, and that is one reason why I know it pretty well and also why the absurdity of the concept is so obvious to me now.

One commenter admitted his prejudices up front, at least, although he himself is blind to his own handicap:

"Naturalistic materialism is of course the default setting for scientific work, regardless of whether it's carried out by an atheist or a member of any religion you care to name."

Gee, I bet Copernicus and Newton and Lord Kelvin and most of the great scientists of the last millenium would be surprised to learn that they just didn't understand science and made the awful mistake of believing that, since the Universe was created by a logical being, it would have consistent and logical laws of operation that could be discovered and used by mankind to understand and utilize nature better.

No God, no basis for even being certain that there is a real creation. Could we not be a dream within a dream? Those who do not believe that a logical God created a logical Universe, by what line of thinking do they come to the idea that natural laws exist and can be discovered? In point of fact, scientists who believed in God dominated science in the last one thousand years and it is they who came up with the scientific method and made the foundational discoveries of science that today's scientists take as givens.

~

I love the parts where commenters try to explain away the Second Law of Thermodynamics, all the while knowing that the closed versus open argument has been falsified and that undirected energy does not reverse the workings of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Only directed energy can fight the direction of entropic forces. More than once it has been pointed out to commenters that there are no known violations of the 2LOT on Earth whether or not you wish to call it a closed or an open system. Go ahead and let the sun shine on that pile of bricks and wood, it won't build a house for you, it will just help the bricks and wood deteriorate.

Another funny one is about bacteria. There have been all these experiments with bacteria, which can have very short generational cycles (in minutes rather than years) and many of them have been attempts to induce macroevolution. Yet commenters laugh at the absurdity of bacteria evolving! Ho ho ho, what a ridiculous idea (I agree). But Darwinists wish bacteria would evolve so they could be held up as proof. Too bad for them, I guess.

Okay, here's one about the whale-that-wasn't, Pakicetus:

"But it turned out that the modified earbones evolved much earlier than the other whale-like features, and Pakicetus wasn't very fish-like; it looked something like a dog with hooves. It apparently spent a lot of time in the water, and the ears had started adapting for improved underwater hearing.

If you scroll further down the page, you can see more recent fossils of animals that became progressively more whale-like. Over time, the legs shorten and eventually disappear, the tail becomes more adapted for swimming, and the nostrils move backward along the snout.

Anyway, that's pretty much how science works."


So where does the "science" come in? What works? It sounds like a nighty-night story to me. What is this magic word, adapted? How, when, why, by what mechanisms? Guess what? Darwinists do not have those answers. Adapted is this magic word, like, the creature decided that it's kids ought to have longer snouts and over thousands and maybe millions of years of "IthinkIcanIthinkIcan" the creature moves the snout? Is that adaption? Or does the environment mystically move in rythmic harmony with natural beings, molding them by the moons and the tides and the stars and Neptune's harpoon?

I presented a logical set of answers to questions of origins. I presented an agent, an event, and a result. Darwinists only have the result. Their fairy tales concerning how the events occurred without cause comprise the majority of what Darwinism is, just a series of stories with no real evidence and no logical beginning point. But logic is apparently not a big part of being a Darwinist.

One comment includes this passage:

""1) The Universe has a natural cause. This is a fallacy according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that nothing is being either created or destroyed."

The 1st LOT states that energy can only be transformed, not created or destroyed.

Indicating that this law was in place at the beginning of the Universe means that you're fully on board with uniformitarianism (your mockery of it in the previous paragraph aside).

I think it's fair to ask why the Universe has to have had a beginning. If there was a Big Bang, was there anything before it? Was it a serial expansion and contraction, featuring transformations of energy into matter and vice versa?

And sorry, just calling something God doesn't get you a get-out-of-jail-free card. If you insist on uniformitarianism and want to invoke the 1st LOT, then God would be violating the 1st LOT by creating something out of nothing, so no go. Come up with something better."

Uniformitarianism in geology is a teaching that all natural forces and systems have been uniform throughout the history of Earth and also that the rock layers found on Earth were laid down over long ages. I say that the sedimentary rock layers were a result of catastrophic events, primarily the Noahic Flood and the aftermath scenarios after the Flood. So you are simply mistaken on that one and badly at that.

God invented all the Laws of Nature. He created all things including the Laws of Thermodynamics. He is not bound by them, he is the master of them. There is no natural instance known of any violations of the LOT but God is supernatural. Perhaps you forgot that part of it?

God created the Universe. Actor, action, result. Christians have a logical viewpoint.

Darwinists say that nothing somehow resulted in the Universe. The structured, ordered Universe. THAT is what they call science!!! Nothing made everything by no means that can be discerned.

This same commenter suggested that God could not have created all life because He is life and could not have created all information because He requires information. Stunning. Since God created all existence, which includes life and information, then He is greater than these temporal material concepts and in fact invented them. A rudimentary study of philosophy and theology would dissuade you from ever using these arguments again. IF you want anyone to take you seriously you have to stay logical, yes? Amazing.

How about this? A commenter complains about my claim that God created all animal life on Earth and says this:

"But if you want to insist on it, then please demonstrate how God did it, if not by evolution. The who that you're proposing here is not enough, and frankly makes as much sense as any other hypothetical being.

How did God do it? By what mechanism? If God is going to dabble outside of the supernatural and in the natural world, then his/her/its work becomes subject to scientific investigation."

It is easier for me to explain life than it is for you. God actually put a designer tag on every living creature. We call it DNA. It identifies the designer (you find it in all life forms) and also serves as a blueprint for the production and reproduction of that life form.

When Noah's Ark came to rest and released the animals within, there would have been various kinds of animals, also called baramin. We can see that dogs and wolves and coyotes all come from common ancestry. These animals all came from the dog-kind or baramin that was released from the Ark.

God is a great designer. He built all sorts of redundancies and solutions for contingencies within every living creature. As they scattered and settled into various climates and circumstances, the rich gene pool within these creatures produced wide varieties of animals and the ones best able to survive carried on their sets of genes. This is called variation within kind. What happens is that the information within the creature within the genome itself is reduced as some variations of animal become prominent and some extinct. Thus, we have African Elephants and Indian Elephants with us today but no Mammoths or Mastedons. But some animal gene pools have not had to make much adjustment to conditions, such as the Coelecanth, and look like the same creatures found trapped in the sedimentary rock layers. There have been dozens of recent discoveries of "living fossils" but all those animals are simply kinds that have not varied within kind to any appreciable degree.

Natural Selection is not a force, it has no intelligence, it doesn't plan or design anything nor does it have a will. Indeed, Natural Selection is not a being nor is it a system, it is merely a description of microevolution, or variation in kind, happening. It offers no explanation for how this variation occurs. You see, within a mutt there may be the genetic information needed to produce both a Poodle and a Beagle, but the mutt is a mix of all sorts of genes and, when mutts have puppies, all sorts of features that are unlike the mother may appear. That is because a dog that is a mixture of several breeds (the mutt) has more available genetic material available and the pups may have lots of differing characteristics. Breed a Poodle with a Poodle and you will have Poodle puppies who will all be very similar. Why? They have been bred down to eliminate other genetic material and leave only those traits desired by the breeder!

I presented a post a couple of years ago based on documentation of very rapid speciation that happened in the wild. This was a post called Speciation: Class is now in session

Here is a small excerpt: Researchers in Trinidad relocated guppies (Poecilia reticulata) from a waterfall pool teeming with predators to previously guppy-free pools above the falls where there was only one known possible predator (of small guppies only, therefore large guppies would be safe).1 The descendants of the transplanted guppies adjusted to their new circumstances by growing bigger, maturing later, and having fewer and bigger offspring.

The speed of these changes bewildered evolutionists, because their standard millions-of-years view is that the guppies would require long periods of time to adapt. One evolutionist said, ‘The guppies adapted to their new environment in a mere four years–a rate of change some 10,000 to 10 million times faster than the average rates determined from the fossil record.

I would also like to call your attention to Variation and Natural Selection versus Evolution
which is a treatise by Dr. Sarfati that explains in great detail the differences between microevolution or variation in kind, which does occur in nature, and macroevolution or Darwinism, which never happens. When you see a commenter accuse me of not understanding the subject, call his attention to these two posts and ask him if he understands it?

The animal and plant world we see today descended from those animals taken on the Ark plus those organisms God deemed could survive the Flood in sufficient quantities without aid. Therefore aquatic life was not taken on the Ark, nor most and maybe all forms of insects and plant life and microbial life forms and so on. A very specific word meaning a vertebrate who moves upon the ground is used in Genesis to describe what animals were taken upon the Ark.

Studies of variation within kind show that animals can change in appearance and attributes very quickly because these features are already in the genetic pool for the animal. Speciation is another way of saying information LOSS rather than gain. You do not go from microbe to man by losing information, it would require vast gains of information. But all natural selection does is cull out genetic information that doesn't work as well for the environment from the gene pool of the organism within that particular environment.

Kinds of animals can only reproduce with their own kind. If a certain portion of a kind is segregated from the rest for long enough and the amount of information within their respective genes shrinks enough, two descendents of the same kind may no longer be able to mate or at least have offspring that are fertile. E.G. the Liger and the Jackass. (puns and jokes to yourselves, please). Any zoologist is aware of this.

Basic mendelian genetics involves the manipulation of the gene pool of an organism. I think there are about 12 major exceptions to Mendelian Laws of Inheritance that we have discovered as we make sheep with better wool, chickens with bigger eggs, cattle with more meat and cows that yield more milk. In fact, we do not make them, we simply cull out less favorable genetic information until that which is left is favorable. But anyone can see that this is speciation, this is loss of information and it is running directly backwards from the direction Darwinism needs to go.

Speciation is NOT evolution in action. Here is where the Darwinist rubber meets the road. It took a monk (Mendel) to put pen to paper and explain basic genetic inheritance. A Christian named Linnaeus tried to group animals into kinds by families and so on and was the father of the classification system used to classify animals and plants by type to this day. But scientists cannot even agree entirely upon the concept of what a species is, and while Linnaeus intended to classify an animal and plant kingdom he saw as being creation, there is definitely no family tree in respect to Darwinism, because the way Darwinists attempt to find links of inheritance winds up turning one tree of a simple life form becoming life today into a forest of unlinked ancestors.

Here is where a commenter does not tell the truth. Macroevolution is the process by which one kind of animal becomes another. He is amazed that I would even begin to think that bacteria could become anything other than bacteria, which of course would be the definition of evolution. He asks in shock if I think bacteria could "jump domain"?! As if! No, I do not believe bacteria will become anything other than bacteria. But the commenter professes to believe in macroevolution, which means that simple life became more complex and began jumping domains left and right. How many domain jumps are there between a protozoan and a horse?

Microevolution, or speciation, is the process that describes variation within a kind of organism. As Randall Niles capably explains,

Nobody disputes micro-evolution. It is universally agreed that wolves, coyotes, dingoes, jackals, foxes, and the hundreds of different domestic dog breeds probably all came from an original pair of “dogs.” This is variation/adaptation within a kind of creature, NOT upward evolution from simplicity into complexity as supposed by Darwinian Evolutionary Theory. The variations are always in a downward trend and are constrained by the genetic code (the dogs do not grow wings and learn to fly). No new genetic information is added — genetic information is always lost. The original pair of “dogs” would have had all of the potential characteristics of all of their various progeny, while the descendants themselves have lost that same potential.

Here’s a basic illustration:

Say the mother “dog” had AaBb genes and the father “dog” also had AaBb genes.

The possible egg gene combinations = AB, Ab, aB, ab

The possible sperm gene combinations = AB, Ab, aB, ab

The possible gene combinations overall:

] AB Ab aB ab

—]—————————————————–

AB ] ABAB AbAB aBAB abAB

]

Ab ] ABAb AbAb aBAb abAb

]

aB ] ABaB AbaB aBaB abaB

]

ab ] ABab Abab aBab abab

The possible offspring:

ABAB

AbAB

aBAB

abAB

ABAb

AbAb

aBAb

abAb

ABaB

AbaB

aBaB

abaB

ABab

Abab

aBab

abab

Therefore, if two “abab”s become isolated and mate, their offspring will not exhibit the traits represented by A and B (because they simply won’t have those genes). Likewise, if two “ABAB”s become isolated, they will lose the potential for a and b.

Lost genetic information = lost potential traits.

This is a basic illustration, but this is what we see happen with every kind of creature, including dogs, cats, horses, and yes, monkeys. They can give birth to new species over time, but this is the result of isolating a gene pool — this is not “upward evolution.” The original parents have all of the potential traits expressed in all of their various offspring. This is all science has ever observed. Upward evolution beyond mom and dad’s original pool of genetic traits is pure conjecture.

Again, there is no known process by which genetic information can be added. Thus, “lemur-monkeys” stay “lemur-monkeys” or isolate further into segmented species of “lemurish” or “monkeyish” creatures (just like my dog example above). Genetic code is always lost through generations of isolated breeding.


Think of the original organisms as created by God as a man on vacation in Michigan at a lakeside resort for a six month stay. He would bring suitcases with clothing to handle all aspects of a stay in Michigan from July to January. This is like the original animal kinds created by God. On a hot and sunny July day, the man puts on swim trunks under his shorts, slips into flip-flops, puts on a t-shirt and grabs a towel and a beach blanket so he can take a swim and then lay out on the beach. Probably he brings a clean shirt and maybe some undies to put on after he is done swimming to replace his swim trunks and probably a cooler with some drinks and a lunch and probably he brings some sunscreen. If the temperature dropped suddenly 90 degrees the man would be coming out of the water and be in danger of hypothermia and death. He would be putting on every piece of clothing he could get, wrapping himself in his beach blanket and at the very least very uncomfortable.

Going out during a January blizzard at about ten degrees with high winds, he would put on undies and then probably long underwear and pants and a second shirt or sweatshirt, a hooded parka, double socks, double gloves and heavy high snowboots. Maybe he would bring a thermos with hot coffee and some beef jerky and maybe one of those chemically-charged hand warmers. If the temperature raised suddenly 90 degrees he would be stripping off clothing like mad and end up looking like a real weird character standing around in his underwear surrounded by a pile of inappropriate clothing.

In both cases, if the man is close to his room he just takes his uncomfortable self back to his room and gets the appropriate clothing. If he is very far away from shelter he may die of either exposure to great heat or great cold.

In a large gene pool of organisms, the information within the genetic code of the organisms has already coded in traits that can adapt to hot and cold and dry and wet and so on. If the organisms get isolated from others and continually find themselves in similar conditions then only the genetic information that works best in that specific situation will be passed on. Should the environment change radically those creatures will not have the information within the genes to adapt to the changes and they will die out. When a kind of animal dies out we call it extinction, however, often so-called extinct species are simply one of the variations within a kind of animal that was selected by circumstances at one time and then no longer became viable.

Did you know that Grizzly Bears and Black Bears and Brown Bears and Polar Bears can all mate and produce young? They are all bears but speciation has separated out certain portions of the gene pool as these populations separated and took over different environments and territories.

Fin Whales and Blue Whales and Minke Whales can all mate. Dogs and wolves can mate. Lions and Tigers can mate. Naturally you understand that Poodles and Bloodhounds can mate. But you also need to understand that both Bloodhounds and Poodles were bred for specific traits, which required a loss of genetic information in the breeding of these animals to be Bloodhounds and Poodles.


Much of Darwinism today consists of finding a few fragments of bone, finding a very good and creative artist to make a nice illustration based largely on whimsy and then working hard on marketing your new find as a breakthrough of some sort. Pakicetus was just one of a long line of fakes and Ida falls in line in that way of thinking.

Another commenter mentioned the "the phylogenetic tree" in their comment. There is no such thing. The last look I took at the lines of evolution proposed by the lastest evolutionist thinking is a row of shrubs! Evolutionists no longer claim a single line of inheritance and feature development branching off and out, the evidence chased them away from that long ago. Now they are claiming multiple little shrubs, apart from each other, and hoping no new information comes in to make them break their shrubs into single-stemmed plants.

A sad thing, this last commenter: "The jump from bacteria to single celled eukaryotes is indeed greater than the difference between a human and a tree. After all, both humans and trees are in the same domain, while bacteria are not. This isn't even close to controversial unless you want to tear down the entire classification system as well."

Oh, really? The entire classification system? The system first proposed by a Christian, Linnaeus? Darwinists have made changes and contorted the system in order to make the latest evidence fit their theories rather than allow for the obvious that Linnaeus sought for in the first place. The fact that some Darwinist has decided that a human is in any sense closely related to a tree should make you readers rethink everything you have ever heard a Darwinist assert, ever.

Whereas you will find DNA, that designer label that says "God" on every creature including man and tree, you will not find that man has a domain name stamped on his spinal column somewhere. The classification system was a means to try to understand the kind of animals and plants God had created. In no way does the classification system control or have any effect on the biosphere of Earth.

Furthermore, if this Darwinist cannot imagine a bacteria evolving, how does he conceive of a man evolving from a single-celled simple creature?

Those of you who willfully deny that there is a Creator God might wish to read Romans 1:18 all the way to 1:32. For those of you who want to see information that has not been filtered, censored and approved by the Paradigm Police (like Eugenie Scott, for instance) might wish to visit these websites for more information:

The Access Research Network

Creation Ministries International

Institute for Creation Research

The Discovery Institute

Answers in Genesis

True Origins Archive


Apologetics Press


Creation Research Society


Creation Superlibrary

Revolution Against Evolution

I suppose that is kind of a top ten, although there are a few more that I could easily put up there that have excellent content.

There are brilliant scientists numbering in the thousands around the world who doubt or disbelieve Darwinism and a larger number that simply have no reason to incorporate the idea into their research. In fact, unless your research is an effort to prove Darwinism your research is not likely to need it. You would be hard-pressed to find any operational science that has any use for it. Even those studying DNA find that Darwinian theory has no application to gene mapping and in fact trying to make gene sequencing fit in with Darwinian theory has more likely slowed the process.



I have a 55-gallon fish tank. Within the tank's population are four fish that are over ten years old. Two of them are a kind of Plecostomus, a native of South America and two of them are African upside-down catfish, Synodontus I believe they are named. My wife and I feed them, we procured the tank, provided the water and filters and plants and got the natural system of waste conversion going so that the tank provides an ecosystem appropriate for freshwater tropical fish. The fish are bound by the walls of the tank and the hood so that they cannot leave. They do not have the intellect to comprehend the world outside of their tank even if they could willingly escape. If by some means they left that world they would die. Although they are confined to the walls of their tank, I am not. I have been over half the globe away from those fish at one time and have flown 50,000 feet above their location. I have dived to at least 1,000 feet below their present location in terms of relationship to sea level. I am greater and have far more powers and abilities than the fish.

God is far greater in comparison to me than I am to my fish. The fish and I are bound by temporal and material means and confined to four dimensions. The fish can see me through the tank to some extent, but I am unable to see God with my eyes. He is above and beyond the natural world. But He is also great enough to be able to communicate with me far better than I communicate with my fish. Sure, my plecos have learned that if I come right up to the tank, I am probably going to feed them so they turn upside down and tread water with their mouths right at the surface, kind of like Manatees, wishing to get all the fish food they can eat immediately.

But God has given us the Bible. The Bible is, as I said, not a science book but it is a history book. As a reliable historical account, every observation it makes concerning the sciences is true. The Bible revealed that light was made before the sources of light, that the Universe was made in six days, that there was no death before Adam and Eve sinned, that the Earth is spherical in shape, that the Sun is suspended in space and that a world wide flood remade the entire planet. You don't want to believe that? Fine, go back to nothing made everything by no means. Don't forget to glue those peppered moths back on the trees!