Search This Blog

Monday, February 22, 2010

The CSI-entific method, Megabreccias, Interbedding and Rock Taffy!








THE CSI-entific method.

First, the ACTUAL scientific method now ignored by Darwinists:

Isaac Newton:
• Investigate the evidence
• Make a supposition
• Frame it as a testable hypothesis
• Test, test and retest
• Positive results – propose a law
• Other parties test repeatedly
• If all agree, then a law is established

CSI best to worst case scenario (standard procedure police investigative practices)

• Alerted to a crime
• Apprehend subject in act (win!)
• Witnesses (probably a win)
• Witness (good chance)
• Collection of evidence in any case
• Anaylysis of evidence for circumstantial assumptions (maybe)
• Attempt to “prove” those assumptions without witnesses (very difficult)

Evolution (Throw away Abiogenesis and Thermodynamics and begin the fairy tale)

• Aware of a state of existence
• Ignored witnesses (throughout Bible)
• Made suppositions
• Made hypotheses
• Test, test and retest
• No positive results
• Ignore the results and declare evolution to be factual
• Spin the evidence along with media brainwashing and fraud

Anthropic Global Warming (Lie to the world, win a Nobel Prize!)

• Presume mankind is warming the earth
• Change weather stations to get warmer readings
• Manipulate and make up evidence to produce “hockey stick graph”
• Find a buffoon to provide a front man for the product (Al Gore)
• Invest in carbon offset companies to reap fortune at world’s expense
• Try to cover up the fraud when exposed
• Claim that the warming is happening even as the proof rolls in against it
• Spin the evidence along with media brainwashing and fraud

38 comments:

Jon Woolf said...

It's a funny and ingenious presentation, Radar, but I'm afraid "funny and ingenious" doesn't always equal "true."

For one thing, your summary of CSI procedure needs some work. TV series notwithstanding, criminal investigators much prefer direct forensic evidence over eyewitness testimony. Witnesses can lie or make mistakes. Forensic evidence is never wrong.

For another, as with many young-earth creationists you don't seem to understand the geologic concept of Deep Time. Yes, given enough time and the right kind of pressure, even solid rock can bend. What's that, you say? There hasn't been enough time? I'll answer with another item from my website, edited slightly for space and this topic:

------
How much time is "enough?" There's a reason geologic time is also known as "Deep Time." The human mind can't conceive of just how long this planet has been around. We can't even really grasp "thousands of years." To us today, ancient Egypt and the Roman Empire seem equally long ago -- but in reality, by the time Rome was founded, the Kingdom of Egypt had already been around for over 2000 years. Few people living today were alive a mere 100 years ago. No living man witnessed the American Civil War, only 140 years ago. You would have to go back at least four generations (120 years) from the oldest living man to find someone who lived through the Napoleonic Wars. You'd have to go back another forty generations (1200 years) to find anyone who saw a Roman army in battle. That Roman would have to go back twice as far from his time to find an ancestor who might have seen the Great Pyramid being built. And all of that is just the span of recorded human history -- a mere 5000 years.

Well, geologic time is measured in millions of years, not mere thousands. We think of the dinosaurs as one great group, _Tyrannosaurus rex_ and _Apatosaurus_ and _Coelophysis_ in the same breath. Yet the reality is that T. rex lived closer to our time (65 million years ago) than it did to that of _Apatosaurus_ (150 million years ago), and it's as far back again to the time of the first dinosaurs (around 220 million years ago). And even before that, it's another 300 million years to the Cambrian "explosion" of multicelled animal life.

Do you still think there "hasn't been enough time" for rock deformation and folding to occur?

-----

radar said...

Deep time is a nice excuse for unexplained processes that are either not testable or that always test out to be wrong. Evolution is never found to occur and it never will.

TV notwithstanding, I have a contact in both police and FBI circles and in fact the order I listed is correct. Forensic evidence must be read properly and evidence that is only circumstantial and not overwhelming does not impress jurors. Forensic evidence itself may be "never wrong" but what it means is often subject to debate.
In fact what you can say factually is that the evidence is what it is but your interpretation is what you have to sell to the jury.

A suspect caught in the act is best, as I listed first and a suspect fingered by multiple witnesses is far more impressive to jurors. Catching the culprit is one step in a process that must end in conviction. CSI on television is a flashy and glamorous fantasy in which long processes get done in a matter of hours and the offices are more glitzy than that of successful tort law firms.

It is quite obvious that forensic evidence is subject to analysis and the assumptions of the person or persons who analyzes the evidence. You are spectacularly wrong about the rock layers not because you see anything I do not but because you bring the wrong preconceptions to the game. I wonder if you even understand that you have those assumptions?

radar said...

Woolf's Den and time, boiled down: since we see microevolution in our lifetimes, we can assume macroevolution over long periods of time.

Response: Microevolution is a loss of information. Macroevolution requires additional information. Information is orderly and intentional. What magic wand do you think is going to be waved to add information to a gene pool?

Variation within kind is the mark of a wise Designer, who created kinds of animals with multiple variables to handle various environments and still survive. When a population is cut off from others and gets very specified to its ecosystem, it loses the genetic information that might allow it to survive elsewhere.

This is why the very few actual extinctions we have noted in the last one hundred years have usually been in island populations.

Tell you what, buy a computer with no BIOS or programming. Knock it around, put it in every room of your house, chant mantras or whatever. No program will write itself and appear to make that computer operational. Neither is there a DNA programmer flying around overhead waiting to drop new information into gene pools.

radar said...

For those of you who go to get Woolfed.

Organisms are far more complex than you can apparently imagine. An room full of scientists could not accurately describe all the processes necessary within my body to allow me to write this sentence, since billions of cells and systems are all working within me simply to operate my hands, arms, fingers, nervous system, brain and so on. Billions upon billions.

Darwin had no clue how complex life could be when he reworked his grandpa's old desire to find a non-God answer to existence. He tried several possibilities before settling on natural selection. Sadly most scientists are unwilling to admit that natural selection requires pre-existing information from which to select.

While variation within kind can happen remarkably fast, Woolf offers up no proof of variation from kind to another kind and that is not his fault, there is nothing to offer up. No one else has anything, either.

Besides, we do not have much time given to us. Our Sun like other stars has a life cycle. There is a limited amount of time for the Sun to provide the right amount of light and energy. If we go back hundreds of thousands of years the Sun would make life inhospitable on Earth. If we go forward hundreds of thousands of years then again life becomes less and less likely.

Anthropic principles apply. We can only live in a narrow range of various temperatures/gravities/emissions and etc. Astronomers and Physicists have shown that there is a concept, Fine Tuning, that states that the conditions found on Earth must certainly be quite rare and also fairly temporary. The Moon could not have spent millions of years orbiting us as it does. The Earth did not have millions of years in this proximity to the Sun. Take some time and research these things.

Jon Woolf said...

I'm amused. Not particularly impressed, but definitely amused. Is this really all you have?

Microevolution is a loss of information. Macroevolution requires additional information.

A new ability to digest insecticides is "a loss of information?" A new behavior to feed on blood instead of seeds is "a loss of information?"

As for macro-evolution: the complete loss of eyes, from organisms whose ancestors had them, is an increase in information? (See: cave salamanders, cave crickets) Loss of the entire complex system of physical, mental, and behavioral features that allows flight in birds represents a gain in information? (See: penguins, ratites)

I think not, Radar.

You are spectacularly wrong about the rock layers not because you see anything I do not but because you bring the wrong preconceptions to the game. I wonder if you even understand that you have those assumptions?

And presuppositionalism, yet! Last time I encountered that strain of apologetics, the poor chap on the other end was so unable to deal with the logical and factual flaws that I and others hit him with, that he abandoned the notion entirely.

I only have one assumption: Nature always makes sense, when viewed on its own terms.

If you think something in Nature doesn't make sense, that's your problem, not Nature's. And on Nature's terms, evolution makes sense ... and creationism doesn't.

creeper said...

Radar,

"• If all agree, then a law is established"

Nice try, but, er, nope: that would be a theory, not a law.

And thank you for the concise summary, since that is exactly how the theory of evolution came to be accepted over conflicting other hypotheses (such as YEC, OEC, Lamarckianism etc.).

Notice the "testable hypotheses" that the theory of evolution can and does provide, but which YEC cannot.

Not sure what this CSI nonsense is doing in there, so I'll skip it for now. Perhaps you can explain it to me.

And this is where the nonsense gets piled high...

"Throw away Abiogenesis and Thermodynamics and begin the fairy tale)"

1. The theory of evolution works quite nicely regardless of whether life came about by natural causes or whether "God did it" or whatever. If you're more comfortable believing God created life on Earth, why not? Believe it if it makes you happy.

But you should know that that belief doesn't put a dent in the theory of evolution at all, since the TOE doesn't rely on abiogenesis by natural means.

2. Thermodynamics - I assume you're taking a swipe at the 2nd LOT. Years back we had a fun discussion about this, where you essentially held the position that your own birth was a violation of the 2nd LOT, and somehow you never could wrap your head around what this law actually says and how it is related to evolution.

I've brought this up before, but I'll try it again in the hopes that you would slowly (or better yet, quickly) start to "get it"

a. Does reproduction violate the 2nd LOT? After all, we see this happening around us all the time - every living being is the result of reproduction. So either reproduction doesn't violate the 2nd LOT, or the 2nd LOT isn't worth the paper it's written on.

b. Does heredity with variations violate the 2nd LOT? Same here, we see heredity with variations all the time...

c. Does selection (natural or sexual) violate the 2nd LOT? One variation is better at surviving or more likely to reproduce than another, and hence will reproduce in greater numbers - violation of the 2nd LOT? And if so, why?

Given your track record of not getting things even when they're explained to you in simplest terms (remember the prison population discussion, when we couldn't ram the logical fallacy of division into your skull?) I don't hold high hopes that you'll make much progress with this, but try it sometime, just for a laugh - try to answer these questions as best you can.

"Ignored witnesses (throughout Bible)"

For good reason: not only are eyewitnesses unreliable, which isn't helped by, in some cases, their accounts being written down not by the witnesses themselves and decades after the fact...

... but if you want to call the writings of the Bible witness testimony, then please explain how we ought to differentiate between the Bible and numerous other ancient religious and mythological writings? What criteria shall we use? Who was the witness that actually witnessed creation and then sat down and wrote about it? There wasn't one. Given these circumstances, every creation myth ever is fair game. Let's include them all and take them at face value. Because that would be ever so scientific! Think of how much better off science would be!!!1!

"• Made hypotheses
• Test, test and retest
• No positive results
• Ignore the results and declare evolution to be factual
• Spin the evidence along with media brainwashing and fraud"


Outright lies, Radar. Don't the 10 Commandments mean anything to you?

-- creeper

creeper said...

About those pics:

Not sure what you're trying to prove here, but are you suggesting that geological forces aren't strong enough to move and deform rock? Could you point us to scientific research that backs up this view?

And what, in your opinion, has caused those different layers in the first place if they were deposited in the churn of a rapid, global flood?

The last picture is interesting. It seems to me that this is the result of a flood or rapid deposition of some kind. Even more impressive when you look at the little fella standing in front of it for scale.

Now how do you think this formation came about? A flood moving rocks and mud around very quickly and in a big jumble, and then settling down just like that, right?

The part I don't get is this: why doesn't the whole friggin' planet look like that?

There is a vast difference between this last picture and the rest of them, which all feature clearly defined layers, indicating longer periods of sedimentation. You seem enamored with the fact that they're not straight as an arrow, but that sometimes they bend. This is easily explained by geological forces, if you care to read up on it sometimes.

It is not, however, easily explained in the context of a global flood, since that makes the whole proposition of layers of sediment extremely unlikely (if not impossible) from the get go.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Deep time is a nice excuse for unexplained processes that are either not testable or that always test out to be wrong. Evolution is never found to occur and it never will."

If that's the only comeback you have on this, then you've essentially conceded the argument. Thanks for, uh, playing, except you didn't really bother to play, did you?

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Tell you what, buy a computer with no BIOS or programming. Knock it around, put it in every room of your house, chant mantras or whatever. No program will write itself and appear to make that computer operational. Neither is there a DNA programmer flying around overhead waiting to drop new information into gene pools."

Hardly an apt analogy, since the computer doesn't reproduce with variations.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Sadly most scientists are unwilling to admit that natural selection requires pre-existing information from which to select."

Why on Earth do you think they'd be unwilling to admit that?

"While variation within kind can happen remarkably fast, Woolf offers up no proof of variation from kind to another kind and that is not his fault, there is nothing to offer up. No one else has anything, either."

Define "kind" as you understand it in this context. Some have suggested that it is analogous to "species" (including Bible citations that reference the ability to mate). If that is the case, then yes, this has been observed, and examples have been presented to you on multiple occasions.

However, since your understanding of biology is so shockingly poor, you seem profoundly unable to understand these examples, since what you were actually looking for last time an example of speciation was presented to you, you insisted on being presented with an example of an organism jumping a domain instead... which according to the modern understanding of biology is simply impossible.

"Our Sun like other stars has a life cycle. There is a limited amount of time for the Sun to provide the right amount of light and energy. If we go back hundreds of thousands of years the Sun would make life inhospitable on Earth. [...] The Moon could not have spent millions of years orbiting us as it does. The Earth did not have millions of years in this proximity to the Sun. Take some time and research these things."

Could you point us to the scientific research that indicates the Sun has a life cycle of only a few hundred thousand years etc.? I know, you'll tell us to "do our own homework", and we'll gladly accept that as your concession in this case as well.

-- creeper

Jon Woolf said...

Creeper,

My own guess about the last photo is that it's volcanic in origin. At least in this photo, it strongly resembles the walls of Crater Lake, which of course is the caldera of an ancient volcano. In some places the crater walls show clear layering; in others there's no structure discernible at all.

The top photo, I note in passing, was again taken from another website without attribution, in violation of the terms clearly stated on that page.

Jon Woolf said...

Radar,

While variation within kind can happen remarkably fast, Woolf offers up no proof of variation from kind to another kind and that is not his fault, there is nothing to offer up.

I don't?

[scratching head]

Gee, I coulda sworn I referred to several such examples on the page I linked above, and there are many more to be found in my library. The elephant family, the horse family, ceratopsid dinosaurs, avetheropod dinosaurs, several families of birds, cetaceans, basal mammals, basal tetrapods... the list goes on and on.

creeper said...

Well spotted, Jon.

Copyright © 2008 Ian West and Tonya West. All rights reserved. This is a purely academic website and images and text may not be copied for publication or for use on other webpages or for any commercial activity. A reasonable number of images and some text may be used for non-commercial academic purposes, including field trip handouts, lectures, student projects, dissertations etc, providing source is acknowledged. No permission can be given for reproduction of any images of the Lulworth Cove area in books or in other websites, for special reasons.

I'm not exactly sure what Radar is driving at with these pictures anyway, since he clearly doesn't have (a) an explanation why deformed/folded rock layers are inexplicable according to conventional geological understanding, and (b) an explanation from a global flood perspective that does explain them, other than that they would be "soft".

Geological forces raise mountain ranges and move entire continents, but apparently they are too weak to twist some layers of rock. Go figure. Must be desperate times in YEC land.

-- creeper

creeper said...

Jon,

"I don't?

[scratching head]"


It's fun, isn't it? An endless barrage of demonstrable lies. And when he can't reply, he runs off to the next post.

A few months later he'll claim he won the argument or that he did answer this and that - just wait.

Why he would think this is persuasive is another question...

-- creeper

Jon Woolf said...

Well, lies or misinformation. I try to be charitable, and assume (at least to start with) that the average creationist is ignorant, not stupid or malicious. Of those three conditions, ignorance is the least embarrassing. or at least it should be. It can, after all, be cured. Thus, IMO most creationists are guilty of nothing worse than trusting the wrong sources.

Creation scientists like Gish and Morris, on the other hand... to them, I show no mercy.

As for that photo, I stumbled across that page when I went looking for further information about the photo as radar posted it. I wanted to see what kind of rocks we were seeing there. I expected to find it was strongly folded metamorphics, and probably quite old. I was surprised to see it classified as lightly folded sedimentary strata, of only Jurassic age.

radar said...

Well it did not take our Mr. Woolf long to offer up my fate: Either stupid or ignorant. You have my thanks for setting me straight.

Creeper has broken his arms long ago patting himself on the back for supposedly answering questions and pointing out supposed lies on my part. So you guys will get along fine.

Yes, Jon, a so-called "new ability" is a simplistic view of how organisms work. Darwin had an excuse, he did not really understand the cell and he certainly had no knowledge of DNA. There are all sorts of variants within the normal gene pool and, depending upon conditions, the variants that best fit the conditions are more likely to survive. Natural selection. Problem is, where do the choices come from? The DNA contains information. Information does not grow on trees. It is purposeful, a tool for design. Every creature has built in redundancies and all types of animals have multiple genetic "choices" in order to adjust to changing environments.

God is the only logical explanation for the presence of this designed information. There is absolutely no random process that can take credit for this. Do you really not understand this? I am not going to get all Occam's Razor on you since William did not actually invent it and it is too simplistic to play as a trump card but still it applies nicely here.

You have NOTHING. You have NO MEANS by which DNA was designed and where the information came from because you unscientifically exclude the one possible answer from the list of possibilities. Your religion (atheist/agnostic/naturalistic) is ruining your ability to be a good scientist.

Anonymous said...

Jon, take this from someone who's been visiting this blog for quite some time: in his own special way, Radar just admitted defeat.

radar said...

Soft rock bends, hard rocks break. Allow rocks time to cool dry and harden and they will not fold like taffy. Is that clear enough?

No transitional forms have yet been noted. Everything I have seen you guys propose (that was not faked) has been a normal functional organism with functional body parts. Archeoraptor, Nebraska Man, "Ida" and etc. Darwinists are continually finding transitional forms or extinct animals that simply are not transitional and sometimes not even real.

Why is it that we find "living fossils" like the Coelecanth and the Wollemi Pine today and yet they are not in the fossil record in every layer? If the fossil layers mark the beginning and ending of a kind of creature, what of the Lazarus Rat? Explorers in Indonesia and New Guinea have found supposedly extinct animals (flies, turtles, ish, etc) that were found in lower levels of the rock layers and then no longer seen. Does it ever occur to you that the rock layers represent flood sorting and dispersal by type and that it is simply not some kind of timeline for evolution?

Anonymous said...

You gotta hand it to Radar: he'll never disappoint his readers. For those who doubted that Radar just admitted defeat, he comes back and gives us the icing on the cake.
Radar, you truly are the gift that keeps on giving!

radar said...

"Jon, take this from someone who's been visiting this blog for quite some time: in his own special way, Radar just admitted defeat."

Nope, I just pointed out that your foundation premise is completely wrong. If that is defeat then the Indianapolis Colts are celebrating and Saints fans are looking for their old head bags.

Jon Woolf, no offense, you cannot explain where information comes from. Your entire evolutionary apparatus is built on the idea that nothing causes everything. Now for a reasonably intelligent adult that should not be cause for celebration. DNA is beyond you to explain. Heck, photosynthesis is beyond you to explain. But to explain how information comes from random noise? How can you accept such nonsense?

Anyone who is in school and reading this blog please learn from this dialogue. Every argument needs a foundation upon which to build. I have challenged these commenters to explain their basis, their foundation, the means by which time and matter and space and life and ordered design and information has come to be. What is there answer? Just add lots of time and stir and everything can happen. Wow.

Anonymous said...

"Radar, you truly are the gift that keeps on giving!"

Look! It really DOES keep on giving!

radar said...

Naturally not one of you has an explanation for information or design. You know that God is the only logical answer and you will not admit that to yourselves or anyone else. You will have to admit one day that I did tell you the truth and went out of my way to make sure you could understand the logic behind it. God made the Universe. He designed life. Engineers study his designs to incorporate them into modern machinery to this very day. God really doesn't much care whether you make fun of me. But you really should carefully consider your rejection of God, since He has left evidence for you to collect and understand. He does expect you to believe He is.

http://biblicalgeology.net/General/geologic-column.html

For a thoughtful consideration of the so-called geological column by an expert in the field and his staff. Tas Walker and Michael Oard.

Anonymous said...

"But you really should carefully consider your rejection of God, since He has left evidence for you to collect and understand."

LOL there it is, guys: Pascal's Wager. Corner Radar, and eventually he wil always come up with the scare tactic.
Like clockwork...

Jon Woolf said...

Well it did not take our Mr. Woolf long to offer up my fate: Either stupid or ignorant.

You misunderstand me, radar. I mean no offense when I call you ignorant on certain subjects. There are many subjects on which you're ignorant. There are many subjects on which I'm ignorant. It's simply the human condition. No one knows everything about everything. Being ignorant just isn't anything to be ashamed of.

Problem is, where do the choices come from? The DNA contains information. Information does not grow on trees.

Um, well ... actually, yes it does. Metaphorically speaking. This is difficult to explain, but you're a computer security expert, so I think you have the right mental tools to grok it.

Information depends on context. Consider the string of symbols "11001001". Is that:

* a binary number, equivalent to 201 (decimal)?

* a hexadecimal number, equal to 285,216,769 (decimal)?

* itself a decimal number, eleven million one thousand and one?

* or the title of a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode?

Well?

Right, you don't know. Because all I gave you was the string of numbers, without a context. It could mean any of those things -- or maybe something else entirely. It all depends on the context.

Well, so does the information content of DNA. Take a string of DNA, any string. It codees for a protein, or maybe more than one. If you start reading it _here_, it contains one string of information. Start reading one character over, though, and it will contain a different string. Change one letter in the DNA string, and the meaning of the entire string changes. Drop or add one or more letters, and the meaning changes. The change might be insignificant -- for example, TAA and TAG are both "stop" codons in the DNA code, so changing one to the other doesn't affect the protein that gene creates. Transcription still stops when it hits that codon. But change the leading T in TAA to a C, and it's not a stop codon at all anymore. It's one of several codons for glutamine. So the cell machinery will insert a glutamine at that point and keep transcribing. What you get is a whole new DNA sequence, coding for a whole new protein. It might be a useless protein ... or it might not. Either way, it represents a change in the cell's information content.

So, the answer to your question "where does the information come from?" is "mutations." They provide the raw material for selection to operate on.

Jon Woolf said...

Allow rocks time to cool dry and harden and they will not fold like taffy. Is that clear enough?

Absolutely. Trouble is, it's also wrong.

No transitional forms have yet been noted. Everything I have seen you guys propose (that was not faked) has been a normal functional organism with functional body parts.

Well, of course it is. You don't really think it wouldn't be, do you? Every organism that ever lived was a normal functional organism with normal functional parts, as defined in its own genes. Evolutionary theory has never said otherwise. What evolutionary theory says is that in many cases, perhaps most cases, each individual organism is "normal and functional" in a slightly different way from its parent(s). This is one area in which the animations we're all familiar with are terribly misleading. The genetic changes that evolution depends on never happen within an individual organism within its own lifetime. No animal that hatched as a lizard ever grew wings to become a bird; no animal that started life as a fish ended its life as a salamander. The individual changes are small, and they happen between generations, between parent and child. The lizard's descendants gradually, step by tiny step over Deep Time, became something we call a dinosaur. And some of those dinosaurs' descendants, step by tiny step, generation by generation, became something that we call a bird.

Why is it that we find "living fossils" like the Coelecanth and the Wollemi Pine today and yet they are not in the fossil record in every layer?

Because they lived somewhere that they weren't fossilized. The fossil record isn't just incomplete. It's selectively incomplete. Certain types of organisms and certain types of habitats just don't get preserved.

If the fossil layers mark the beginning and ending of a kind of creature, what of the Lazarus Rat?

I don't recognize the term "Lazarus rat," but a Lazarus taxon is a taxon that disappears from the fossil record for a long time, then reappears, both for reasons unknown. Lazarus taxa (such as the coelacanth and Wollemi pine) are precisely why palaeontologists never assume that an organism's first appearance as a fossil marks its actual origin, nor that its last appearance really marks its actual extinction. They say "pending further information, this is when this taxon appeared, and this is when it died out."

Does it ever occur to you that the rock layers represent flood sorting and dispersal by type and that it is simply not some kind of timeline for evolution?

Oh, it's been considered. It's also been rejected, because a flood would not be so selective in its sorting. Ichthyosaurs are never found with dolphins, despite having similar shapes and lifestyles. Brontosaurs are never found with elephants. Lions are never found with velociraptors, or even with creodonts. Angiosperms are never found lower than the Early Cretaceous -- not even the ones that today grow in the same habitats as ferns and pines. Never, not even once, throughout the entire geologic column.

Must have been a very smart flood.

creeper said...

"Creeper has broken his arms long ago patting himself on the back for supposedly answering questions and pointing out supposed lies on my part."

Wow, projecting much? Sure, I've pointed out many lies on your part, but "supposedly answering questions"? Unlike you, I'm happy to provide links to answers that I've given.

Your modus operandi, as witnessed by many people who have followed this over the years, is to evade evade evade, then change the subject, then a few months later claim that you did answer the question back then, but you "don't want to do our homework for us"?

Sound familiar?

-- creeper

Jon Woolf said...

Oh, one other thing, radar. This:

But you really should carefully consider your rejection of God, since He has left evidence for you to collect and understand.

is an argument that you should use with extreme care. And not for any reason of logic. It's pure practicality. You see, there's an esoteric little point about radioactive isotopes that's known as "the no young isotopes phenomenon." Ken Miller describes this in Chapter 3 of his book FINDING DARWIN'S GOD. Reduced to simplest terms, it goes like this:

There are 35 atomic isotopes which are known to be radioactive and are known to have half-lives of 1 million years or more. Of those 35:

* 24 isotopes have half-lives longer than 80 million years. All of these isotopes are found in nature, in varying amounts.

* Another 5 isotopes have half-lives under 80 million years, but are steadily created by some ongoing natural process. All of these 5 isotopes are found in nature.

* The remaining 6 isotopes have half-lives under 80 million years and are not created by any ongoing process. _None_ of those 6 occur naturally anywhere on Earth. Not one. Not a trace. Not even with the best detectors that modern science can devise.

We know those 6 isotopes can exist in nature -- we've found their spectroscopic signatures in the radiation from distant stars, which create them by fusion. But they aren't found here on Earth. Why not? The obvious answer is that they were here once, but essentially all of them have decayed beyond detection in the time since Earth formed. It takes at least 10 half-lives for any radioactive isotope to decay beyond our ability to find it. Do the math: this indicates that Earth is at least 800 million years old.

There are only two possible explanations for the "no young isotopes" phenomenon: 1) Earth is old, or 2) Earth was created in a way that made it look old when it isn't. Or to put that in short blunt words: either Earth is old or God is a liar. A harsh conclusion, I know, but there is no third answer.

creeper said...

"There are only two possible explanations for the "no young isotopes" phenomenon: 1) Earth is old, or 2) Earth was created in a way that made it look old when it isn't. Or to put that in short blunt words: either Earth is old or God is a liar. A harsh conclusion, I know, but there is no third answer."

That same reasoning also applies to the fact that we can perceive stars (and events) that are more than 6,000 light years away. Either the Universe is older than 6,000 years, or God is a liar.

My money's on the former option in both cases. You should be careful what you say about God, Radar, he might not take kindly to being called a liar, know what I'm saying? :-)

-- creeper

creeper said...

Radar:"No transitional forms have yet been noted. Everything I have seen you guys propose (that was not faked) has been a normal functional organism with functional body parts."

Jon: "Well, of course it is. You don't really think it wouldn't be, do you?"

Jon, the problem is that that's exactly what Radar (and a bunch of other YECs) are thinking transitional forms should be: something that doesn't function. Half a wing, half an eye, that kind of thing.

So while there is no shortage of transitional forms in the fossil record (one might even say it consists of little else), Radar and his ilk just look at every species held up as a transitional form between X and Y (we've had some fun here recently discussing Tiktaalik, for example) and say that it is not a transitional form because it is a functioning organism.

It boggles the mind, I tell ya.

-- creeper

Jon Woolf said...

Creeper: Jon, the problem is that that's exactly what Radar (and a bunch of other YECs) are thinking transitional forms should be: something that doesn't function.

Maybe I should have asked it as "you don't really think evolutionary theory says it would be anything else, do you?" I used to do this (discuss/debate/argue with creationists) a lot. That's where much of the material on my website came from. And over and over again, I got the impression that the average run-of-the-mill creationist really got his understanding of evolutionary theory from pop-science TV programs on Discovery Channel and PBS. Those shows really do present an oversimplified, overdramatized version of evolution. The worst offender I can think of offhand is some old hand-drawn animations that showed a fish growing legs and walking out onto dry land, and a running dinosaur transforming fluidly into a flying bird. If that was all I knew of evolution, I'd probably think it was magic too.

I also remember stories of creationists who, when presented with what evolutionary theory really says and examples to prove it, changed their tune. Not many. Not often. But it's been known to happen.

You've obviously been commenting here a lot longer than me, so you know radar better than I do. Maybe you're right and he's immune to rational argument. Still, I'd like to try for myself.

creeper said...

Jon, I'm really enjoying your posts, and I suspect I'm not the only one. Great stuff!

See what you make of Radar. I'm curious to see if he'll be open for an actual discussion at some point.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Me too Jon. Keep it up. We've all tried in our different ways to crack the creationist nut that is Radar (pun intended). That said, I get a lot of really great knowledge, especially in terms of combating creationist misinformation, by reading posts like yours, and of course creeper's.

And its always interesting to see what Radar will do when presented with irrefutable logic. Not surprisingly though, he'll usually either skirt the main issue with those Gish Gallops of his, fall back to the "origin of life" issue, as he did above, or he'll just frantically bury said comments section with a bunch of posts on completely unrelated topics in order to hide his embarrassment.

Interestingly, when google-ing what Radar's cut-and-paste response might be to your "no new isotopes" quandary. I found this interesting page that draws some similar conclusions after going into great detail on the science surrounding an old earth theory. Only from a christian perspective. Here's the link if you guys are interested.

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/is_yec_heresy_jm.htm

Some of my favorite parts from the conclusion include,

"The final determination that must be made is that the record of nature, being God's record, is trustworthy as God has chosen not to lie to us. To say that He would lie would impart a most profound deviousness to God, which would be heresy. Therefore the only possible conclusion we can reach is that the Earth is old - very old."

and

""Young-Earth Creationism" has been found to be based on a most outrageous heretical theology and must be rejected by persons of faith."

Christianity, or any religion for that matter, might not be my cup of tea but this is the type of Christian attitude that I have no trouble with.

- Canucklehead.

P.S. – I just can’t let this comment by Radar slide by without commenting on it. Radar says
“Anyone who is in school and reading this blog please learn from this dialogue. Every argument needs a foundation upon which to build. I have challenged these commenters to explain their basis, their foundation, the means by which time and matter and space and life and ordered design and information has come to be. What is there answer? Just add lots of time and stir and everything can happen. Wow.”
LOL LOL LOL. Sorry to burst your bubble here Radar but absolutely anyone who reads the exchanges between you and creeper or you and Jon, will come to the obvious conclusion that either the arguments for YEC are incredibly weak when compared to those provided by peer reviewed science, or that you are just simply awful at presenting them (fortunately we “commenters” know that the answer is actually both). I mean, you are provided with specific questions based on scientific evidence and you respond with your own personal (unsupported) musings on the topic. Or even worse, you'll attempt to change the subject to “where did life come from? They don’t have a definitive answer. So it must be god”. Terrible, terrible logic any way you slice it.

Jon Woolf said...

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/is_yec_heresy_jm.htm

Oh yeah, John Stear's site. Lots of good stuff there. That particular piece isn't by him, but it's good nonetheless.

Radar should count his blessings, that all he's got to deal with is folks like us. He might one day run afoul of somebody like these guys.

creeper said...

Jon,

one fun Radar quote I'd like to highlight for you is this one:

"I come from the position that the Bible is correct and science needs to adjust to IT."

I'm sure you won't find it surprising, but it's always amusing to see YECers come out and just admit that not only do they have a bias, but the bias trumps objectively observed reality AT ALL COSTS.

Note that this is the same mind that, with no apparent irony, came up with "I understand information." and "Will you people ever try to actually use scientific methods when investigating science?".

The mind of Radar is complex and wondrous indeed - of course it contradicts itself: it contains multitudes.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Woolf,

I agree with Creeper and Canucklehead- great information in your comments. I've tried reasoning with Radar, but cannot do it anymore because of a complete lack of time and after watching/participating in Radar's elusiveness and failure to address anything brought up by commenters have realized I am not going to get anywhere. It is nice to have another intelligent voice here (and, as always, kudos to you too creeper- I have always loved reading your comments).


lava

creeper said...

"after watching/participating in Radar's elusiveness and failure to address anything brought up by commenters have realized I am not going to get anywhere"

Indeed... although I think of Radar's constant evasion as one big concession in progress as well as a demonstration of inordinate misplaced pride rather than the impression of an equal (or even winning) argument that Radar is so desperate to convey to fellow Christians.

-- creeper

Leticia said...

Wow! A lot of information to digest.

I no expert on this subject and very limited knowledge of CSI protocol, but it seems you did a lot of work on studying it.

Btw, I had my first encounter with a snapping turtle at a lake. It was a baby. I was only married a month and never had swam or been on a boat before, so I saw this cute wittle baby turtle and my husband and in-laws told me to leave it alone.

I looked at them and thought they were being a little too overprotective, and grabbed for it and guess what? That mean little sucker BIT ME!! I screamed bloody murder and the stinker wouldn't let my finger go.

They are mean as babies and get even more aggressive as they age. YUCK! Mean.

Anonymous said...

So these jerks want to bombard with their nonsense ridicule and mutual gratification. Radar is wrong because they said so, screw the evidence. Idiots.