Search This Blog

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Summary overview: Creation versus Evolution

This is just an overview post, a call to reason and it is truly me wondering if a genuine inquiring mind will join the conversation who has anything of interest to bring to the table. Will anyone have a conjecture about information that does not include intent and design? If not, where does that leave Darwinists?

I do know I have a few commenters who already agree with me on almost every point, like Hawkeye and Highboy and Angel. They occasionally stop in and chime in on my behalf or perhaps on the behalf of creation science. But most readers never say a thing so I am sure many come in here, read my posts, read at least a few comments and move along.

Allow me to help the readers by pointing out some facts I have laid out during my time blogging about the origination and propagation of life. These are statements I have made and supported over the time I have posted that Darwinist commenters cannot falsify. Speciation is not evolution. Extinction is not evolution. Genetic material can be passed between some organisms but it does not increase in information but only remains stable or suffers a decrease.

All scientists have a worldview. Creation scientists allow for the possibility of the supernatural in the form of a Creator God. Naturalistic materialists do not allow for that possibility no matter where the evidence leads. Intelligent Design scientists are agnostic towards God and only consider the evidence that can be investigated and make cases for the most likely scenarios.

No Darwinist commenter has a reasonable explanation for where the Universe came from.

No Darwinist commenter has a reasonable explanation for how life was formed.

THOSE TWO ARE SLAM DUNKS. Honest Darwinists will admit to this and then say they are simply concentrating on how life evolved from the first cell. Now that is rather presumptive of them because they are assuming that all things evolved from one cell. That this is a statistical impossibility does not seem to bother them.

Uniformitarianism has been entirely debunked. The sedimentary rock layers are all catastrophic in nature. Darwinists like to claim that these layers show a steady progression of life from simple to complex. All the cross-bedding and inter-bedding and out of order rock layers and megabreccias and folds and etc. say otherwise. The rock layers were formed almost entirely as a result of the Noahic Flood and the unstable ice age dominated period post-flood. Vast canyons were formed in massive post-flood dike breaks in most cases.

Furthermore, population studies of the human population give us a beginning population of somewhere around 4000 years ago. By some sort of catastrophe (and the Noahic Flood fits the bill) man began populating the world fairly recently.

All dating methods thought up by Darwinists and Naturalists ignore the idea of the Flood and all of them have major flaws and questions. One will find this out if one studies the evidence presented by both sides (all three sides, depending on how you look at it). For every method that presents old ages there is another method that shows a very young earth. Creationists have been very successful finding dating methods that are not likely skewed by a Flood event and those methods give us young ages.

We have found far too many living fossils to believe that the rock layers show slow evolution of animals and plants. Many animals and plants only appear in rock presumed millions of years old and then suddenly we find them alive? This helps falsify the macroevolution hypothesis. The rock record cannot be a record of extinctions over millions of years if lots of animals that supposedly disappeared and evolved into something else are found to still exist, as is the case.

We have found too many footprints and perfectly preserved specimens of various organisms to support any other conclusion than catastrophism. Catastrophic flood activity better explains the rock layers and fossils. It is in fact the only logical explanation. It is amazing that there are so many fossils, because normally anything that dies gets completely recycled and no record gets left behind.

During the last few months I have build a case that the organism is a highly complex system that is designed with hardware and software that is inexplicable by any other reason. Now that we know that the organism is designed to have variety within kind and yet preserve the organism kind, then the tenets of Darwinism are primarily falsified.

Natural selection is the process built in to organisms to help them adapt to surroundings.

Mutations are often deadly but we have found that cells are predisposed to allow mutations to occur.

Rapid speciation is one result of the very adaptable replication abilities of the DNA/RNA Cell system of reproduction.

No new information is ever found to enter into the organism. Some organisms will exchange information. Some information gets lost. Geneticists know this to be true. This is very frustrating to Darwinists because information comes from an intelligent source and we never see it come from anything else. Genetic Algorithms are of no help here, since they are programs written by an intelligent designer.

Careful study of organisms show us that they are designed to vary within kind and preserve the kind. We also see multiple kinds of organisms that all fit into a niche in the "circle of life" so that other kinds of organisms can take the place of an organism that fails and becomes extinct,

Finally, organisms have never been shown to gain information or convert into another kind of animal.

Now the Darwinists will give you all sorts of canned explanations about macroevolution that cannot be proven and are never observed. But I invite you to look under the hood and when they say macroevolution you will see microevolution instead. Speciation, which is a part of the design of organisms, can happen very rapidly and helps explain why we see some kinds of organisms that have not seemed to change and others that have changed greatly and some that have gone extinct. But you do not see one organism changing into another kind of organism.

No transitional forms. No partly developed eyes, or any other system. All systems are complete and all organisms are whole organisms. All kinds remain within the barriers of their programmed information.

Look, no one in their right mind would happen upon a laptop running Windows Vista and think that it just fell there, that a bunch of junk and rocks and wires rolled downhill and became a laptop. Neither can anyone with any sense believe that the reproductive system described in that previous article in which the cell commands much of the replication process and the DNA RNA strings have more functionality than previously understood should expect such a complex and intricate system to have just happened. Scientists still have not figured out how it all works and the more they learn the more complex it becomes.

So when commenters get shrill and write in all caps and repeat the same old same old over and over again, remember that I invited them to answer a couple of simple questions and they could not answer them. Especially concentrate on what they say about information. They have no idea where the vast amount of information that is input into the cell came from. I know they know that this is a huge insurmountable problem for them so they go into double talk and they will try to take me down rabbit trails away from the issue and on and on and on.

So let me know, will you, if any of them ever come up with a solution to the problem of information? Otherwise, a lot of what they say you can just toss it away. I am going to repeat a comment made that I copied from that article that just made so much sense that it sums the whole problem up for Darwinists:

"Ray N., Australia, 17 March 2010

All this talk about information and coding, it’s interesting people don’t see the bigger picture. As a software engineer, everything I work on consists of 2 separate, yet intertwined systems: hardware and software (the seen and unseen). You can put a hard disk drive under a microscope but you’ll not see the software in it. The only way to know there’s software in it is putting the HD in a PC and turning on the power and watch the behavior of the hardware. And most software (programs) are unique to the existing hardware; you can’t just install Windows 7 in a Mac laptop and assume it’ll just work. You can put the cell under a microscope and look at the DNA, protein, amino acid, etc. but you won’t see the software, and that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Figure 2(a) has nice pretty pictures of how a process works. I see that a lot in design specs for power plants, water treatment plants, etc, but turning them into actual software code is not easy. It’s a multibillion dollar industry these days. I don’t believe in evolution because it’s impossible to have a cell suddenly exist with the right hardware plus the right operating software installed. Often, when scientists try to calculate the probability of life existing all of a sudden only consider the probability of hardware coming together, but nothing about software. We now live in an age where everyday electronic devices consist of hardware and software, with the hardware not working properly if there’s a problem with the software."



Thanks, Ray. There you have it. The cell really is too complex to have a naturalistic explanation. The ruling Darwinist paradigm is not going to last much longer because it is built on bad hypotheses and propped up by the sheer numbers of the propagandized. They may have a nice large vocabulary that is involved with a very involved hypothesis that does not hold up to close scrutiny, so do not be put off by the jargon. Look at the evidence with an Aristotle mind set and Occam's Razor in your pocket. You will see unsubstantiated assumptions propped up with twisted logic and fairy tales. You will be prompted to reconsider everything you were told in all your science classes that had to do with Origins.

Or you will fall into lockstep with the propagandizing ideologues and the propagandized masses that follow blindly along behind. This is a free country (for now anyway) and it will be your choice.

As science continues to advance the corner in which Darwinists are trapped will get continually smaller and finally become a loony zone, where only flat earthers and the wackiest of cults remain. I think I would like to get off the bus before it goes over the cliff, if I were you?

30 comments:

Jon Woolf said...

Radar, I really wonder if you have any idea how pathetic this sort of thing sounds.

You've been given answers to your questions. You just don't want to accept them.

You've been offered chances for substantive dialogue. You just refuse to take them.

Over and over, the pattern has been the same, even in the few weeks since I found this blog: You make some grand sweeping declarations. Commenters try to explain where you're mistaken. You answer with a parade of factual errors and logical fallacies, and then conclude by declaring victory and moving on. Not once have I seen you engage in detailed discussion of any topic. Not on the Grand Canyon, which is what first prompted me to comment here. Not on transitional forms. Not on the no-young-isotopes phenomenon, or on Cincinnatian rocks, or on the details of genetics, or on observed examples of increase in genetic information, or on any of the other topics you've galloped over.

Why won't you discuss any of these subjects in any detail?

Hawkeye® said...

Radar,
Good summary.

Anonymous said...

See these;
Scientific Predictions of the Christian Positions on Origins
Human Genomics: Vestiges of Eden or Skeletons in the Closet?

creeper said...

Oh boy, what a mess of Gish gallop. It's hard to count the number of factual errors and errors in logic here, and it's a disheartening prospect to pull it all apart when Radar is currently well off the reservation. Take for example a simple matter of objective truth that should not be an issue at all. Go on, take a look.

I think we can all agree (incl. Highboy, Hawkeye etc.) that Radar's claim is quite simply factually wrong in this case. This is not a matter of partisanship or worldview or what have you. There is a simple fact in evidence (two identical paragraphs), and Radar blithely claims the exact opposite, up is down, black is white. He gives no support for his claim whatsoever, and refuses to explain his reasoning.

The reason I'm bringing this up (and I can give other such examples that lie outside the usual "Darwinism" debate) is because it tells us something about Radar's character. He simply can not admit to being in the wrong, no matter what, and will stick to the most foolish positions, no matter how clearly they are shown to be wrong. He will evade and lie and prevaricate and hope any opposing views will eventually just go away.

It's an important example, because if this is how Radar treats a clear factual item, you can imagine how someone with such a character flaw will react when faced with an issue in which he actually has something at stake, such as his faith.

Which in turn tells you something about how much trust you can place in his pronouncements, especially when he proclaims that he has "won" an argument. Especially in the information discussion we've been having lately, Radar has ignored and evaded all discussion, then claimed he had not been provided with any. A clear lie, but that doesn't seem to matter to Radar.

Will such a person be able to respond to factual arguments and reasonable questions? Of course not.

Radar, could you explain your motivation for not correcting such a simple mistake? Or for refusing to even admit that someone you endorse is a liar?

I could guess that it's some peculiar mix of pride and shame, but maybe you have another explanation.

-- creeper

radar said...

creeper, not one of you has answered the information question. Remind me again what your answer is?

When you use a term like Gish Gallop it tells me that you are a propagandist who is trying to be a commenting version of Eugenie Scott. Gish Gallop is not a common term except among Darwin apologists.

There are nonconformities in the Grand Canyon, Woolf and interbedding, neither of which should happen according to your world view and you never had an answer for it.

There are no transitional forms. Every single fossil we have found was that of a fully formed kind of animal.

There are certainly young isotopes and all you have to do is study polonium radiohalo information or look at the escape of helium atoms from zircons in granite for examples thereof.

I know the Cincy rocks well, having crawled around all over and through large parts of that area.

Every bit of you "genetic" blather is Dawkinsish and outdated. Science has moved on from there to see under the hood of DNA RNA in action and it is apparent that the cell is in control and the female provides the blueprint for the organism. So that kills off mutation and natural selection as a way for animals to become something else.

radar said...

So once you admit you have no answer for information then I will discuss another aspect with you. Admit that you have no answer for the input of information and I will gladly discuss whether there is any proof that an organism is gaining information in the world today.

radar said...

Woolf, you have to remember that I have posted on this subject for years and gone into detail on several aspects of origins science and microbiology and geological formations.

I did admit I was wrong about lava copying me (He did not begin at the top and it threw me off) and I did admit I was wrong when I published a paper that had no attribution to the original author and could not be proven (two years ago or so).

I did admit I was wrong to consider multiple universes in regards to statistical odds of evolution and threw that out as unobservable and unsupportable.

I did admit I did not understand Hartnett's equation and had an engineer comment on it. The engineer said it was a notational error so I said it was a notational error. creeper never accepted this but that is his problem. I do not think Hartnett is correct anyway but for some reason creeper thinks that it is okay to link to talkorigins (who have all sorts of fallacies published and refuse to correct them) and yet call me a liar when I simply post what is published elsewhere? Hypocrisy!

radar said...

So are any of you from NCSE or talkorigins? It would be nice if you would identify yourself if so. Because some of the language you use is typical of the talkorigins/phyrangula types.

Jon Woolf said...

There are nonconformities in the Grand Canyon, Woolf and interbedding, neither of which should happen according to your world view and you never had an answer for it.

Nonsense. The geology of Grand Canyon has been gone over with a fine-toothed comb by geologists much better than you or I, and the anomalies you claim to have found have all been explained in terms of conventional geology.

There are no transitional forms. Every single fossil we have found was that of a fully formed kind of animal.

You clearly don't understand what a transitional form is.

There are certainly young isotopes

You don't even know what I meant by "the no-young-isotopes problem," do you?

and all you have to do is study polonium radiohalo information

I have. Gentry was wrong.

I know the Cincy rocks well,

Obviously not.

I have posted on this subject for years and gone into detail on several aspects of origins science and microbiology and geological formations.


I've looked back through your archives. I don't see anything new. It's all wearily familiar -- not just from the years that I personally have been following C/E, but from more than a century ago. Reading your stuff is just like reading Creation: The Fossils Say No! (1978) or The Genesis Flood (1961), or The Evolution Hoax Exposed (1941), or The Case Against Evolution (1929), or The New Geology (1923). The same old claims, the same old fallacies, the same old deceptions, the same old misconceptions and misunderstandings.

Every bit of you "genetic" blather is Dawkinsish and outdated. Science has moved on from there to see under the hood of DNA RNA in action and it is apparent that the cell is in control and the female provides the blueprint for the organism.

Now you're just gibbering, Radar. Take a deep breath, stay off the sauce for a few days, and spend some time studying genetics -- real genetics. Then come back and we can try this again.

creeper said...

"So are any of you from NCSE or talkorigins? It would be nice if you would identify yourself if so. Because some of the language you use is typical of the talkorigins/phyrangula types."

I'm not, if it makes any difference to you. I'm an interested amateur like yourself.

But regarding the "language we use", when faced with YEC arguments, the counter-arguments will out of necessity take on the same shape, since the flaws in YEC arguments are evident to all kinds of people. As Jon said when he first arrived here, he would have come at arguments I've made from a different angle.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"creeper never accepted this [the Hartnett thing] but that is his problem."

Sorry, you have me confused with someone else here. Hartnett wasn't really my shtick. And believe me, I have no reason to deny this.

Your inability to grasp the fallacy of division with regard to the prison population, your prevarication about having some study that showed that "many, perhaps hundreds of ice core layers can be formed in one year" (which - surprise! - you were unable to back up), your hilariously uninformed claim that the fact that bacteria were still bacteria in a lab experiment falsified the theory of evolution - those are some of the ones I've been hounding you about.

But Hartnett? I don't think I ever even bothered commenting on that one. Sure, it showed you were just blindly copying and pasting stuff without understanding it, but there's no shortage of examples of that.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

I did admit I did not understand Hartnett's equation and had an engineer comment on it. The engineer said it was a notational error so I said it was a notational error. creeper never accepted this but that is his problem.

You could easily solve that by having your engineer explain right here on your blog how exactly this is a notational error.

I bet that will never happen...

radar said...

"I did admit I did not understand Hartnett's equation and had an engineer comment on it. The engineer said it was a notational error so I said it was a notational error. creeper never accepted this but that is his problem.

You could easily solve that by having your engineer explain right here on your blog how exactly this is a notational error.

I bet that will never happen..."

Well actually I had two guys check on it. One is busy being an honor student at Rose Poly and the other is now a Captain in the military in a group that hunts IED's in and around Baghdad. So they are both kind of busy right now. So what? I don't think Hartnett is right anyway and I don't care it was simply a post that was saying there are several different hypotheses people are considering.

Go ahead and have one of your guys explain the singularity at the beginning of the so-called big bang. Bet that will never happen either.

radar said...

creeper you keep posting that after I agreed with you they made a mistake. But that is not the same as me telling a lie. You are in fact being deceitful by continually claiming that.

I did not prevaricate about ice cores but devoted entire posts to the issue. I also went into detail into how I came up with a rough estimate of the Christians in prison because I have yet to see a real number or poll that tells us what that percentage is.

Finally, if you read the last post about cell control of reproduction the scientists themselves say that bacteria must have evolved into something else in the past or at least that seems to be what they say. They then immediately say they are at a loss as to how that could possibly have happened. I am afraid, creeper, that you are living in a past full of misconceptions.

radar said...

I predict that the new studies on the remarkable complexity of the hardware and software of the organism will reveal even more complexity and more and more proof that organisms are very obviously designed.

Darwinists are like earth-centric clerics of the past. You cling to your beliefs in the face of growing evidence to the contrary. Priests in Galileo's day refused to look into a telescope. Darwinist priests of today refuse to look into a microscope or more accurately and electron microscope.

As I have said before, if you happen upon a computer that you can power up and that has programs written in so that you have a browser and can access the internet, would it ever occur to you that said computer evolved from a pile of rocks and mud? Yet the human body is infinitely more complex than the most advanced computer in the world and Darwinists want you to believe it just happened by a long string of happy accidents. Go ahead and put on your ruby slippers and click your heels together and see if you immediately go to Kansas. Darwinism is as scientific as ruby slipperism.

scohen said...

"One is busy being an honor student at Rose Poly"

And he's too busy to take five minutes to post on a blog?

I would really love to ask him how you can make an error to set up an integral to come out with exactly the same answer as a normal multiplication problem.

highboy said...

"Darwinism is as scientific as ruby slipperism."

I demand to know if you are in any way ridiculing the wearing and clicking of glassy ruby slippers.

creeper said...

"creeper you keep posting that after I agreed with you they made a mistake. But that is not the same as me telling a lie. You are in fact being deceitful by continually claiming that."

Are you talking about the factual error of claiming that Lava had copied something other than your own post? In that case I haven't made such a claim since you made your retraction. Maybe you can't tell because there are no date stamps on the comments on this blog, only the time of day. (Is there any way to fix that, btw? Might be helpful.)

Or are you talking about this?

For one, you haven't answered the question I posed to you at that link. The Family Research Center pose some pretty outrageous lies (and it's not a matter of typing an m instead of a b, if you look at the actual comments on that post)... and yet you endorse them. Why is that?

So what am I being deceitful about? I pointed out your ridiculous repetition of untruths re. Lava's copied paragraph, even after I explained it to you at an extremely simple level, and I'm pointing out that you're continuing to endorse and refusing to take a position on blatant lies spread by a website that you link to and endorse.

What's the supposed deceit you're talking about?

-- creeper

creeper said...

"I did not prevaricate about ice cores but devoted entire posts to the issue."

The two are not incompatible, so complaining that you "devoted entire posts to the issue" does not show that you didn't prevaricate about ice cores.

And even though you devoted entire posts to the issue, you were never able to back up your claim that study showed that many, perhaps hundreds of ice core layers could be formed in a single year, which incidentally would need to be the case to be able to conclude a young Earth. The fact that what we see in nature is very, very different is a huge problem for the YEC hypothesis.

"I also went into detail into how I came up with a rough estimate of the Christians in prison because I have yet to see a real number or poll that tells us what that percentage is."

Which, as has been explained to you ad nauseam, was not the argument, and I am astonished that someone who boasts to have tested at genius level has the nerve to repeat this response again.

I'll just repeat your mistake again, and perhaps - as with your mistake re. Lava's quote - eventually you'll actually read it:

""First, I completely and totally covered the prison population question question and spent a great deal of time on it, in no way skulking away.”

Far from it, Radar, as you are well aware, or at least should be. You asserted that 11% of the prison population were Christians and claimed that your numbers showed this, but subsequently could only show numbers that showed such data for the general population, not the prison population. It’s clearly a nonsensical stance that is factually wrong: having data that show that something applies to x% of a group does not allow you to conclude that the same thing applies to x% of an arbitrary subset of that group. For example, if you know that 10% of the population of Timbuktu wear fake moustaches, you can simply not conclude from that that 10% of a village somewhere in Timbuktu wear fake moustaches. It is possible that anywhere from zero to 100% of the inhabitants of that village wear fake moustaches.

These facts were pointed out to you. See http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2007/07/creeper-versus-radar-movie.html, about 3 comments from the end. Note that this is the last comment on the subject, to which you did not respond – and so you did actually skulk away without being able to back up your claim.


It doesn't matter if you can prove what percentage of the overall population does X, you can not as a result claim that a subset of that population does X, and that's exactly what you (erroneously) did.

Do you understand it now?

Do you?

Seriously.

How many times are you going to make me copy or rephrase this very simple point?

You even went out of your way to lecture us on logical fallacies, including this one (the fallacy of division) and here you are, absolutely blind to that very fallacy.

Will you please actually read it this time and indicate that you're able to comprehend it?

Please?

"Finally, if you read the last post about cell control of reproduction the scientists themselves say that bacteria must have evolved into something else in the past or at least that seems to be what they say. They then immediately say they are at a loss as to how that could possibly have happened."

That's not what my comment above was referring to when I mentioned "your hilariously uninformed claim that the fact that bacteria were still bacteria in a lab experiment falsified the theory of evolution". Surely you recall that discussion, no?

"I am afraid, creeper, that you are living in a past full of misconceptions."

Not if these three misfired responses of yours are any indication.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"It doesn't matter if you can prove what percentage of the overall population does X, you can not as a result claim that a subset of that population does X, and that's exactly what you (erroneously) did."

My wording in this case was wrong, it should read:

"It doesn't matter if you can prove what percentage of the overall population does X, you can not as a result claim that the same percentage of a subset of that population does X, and that's exactly what you (erroneously) did."

creeper said...

"I predict that the new studies on the remarkable complexity of the hardware and software of the organism will reveal even more complexity and more and more proof that organisms are very obviously designed."

I think I see part of the problem now. You equate complexity with proof against evolution. True, there is an argument based on irreducible complexity that is made by ID proponents, and while it's an interesting proposition, that's only the first step; they would now have to come up with examples that are in theory completely irreducible. So far they've struck out on that front.

But you've now simplified this argument to the point of indefensible uselessness. Any indication of more complexity than we were previously aware of to you is a strike against evolution (in some cases you even seem to think of it as a slam-dunk), even though you have no justification for that conclusion at all.

"Darwinists are like earth-centric clerics of the past."

An interesting blinkered view. It would make sense if YECs had facts on their side (instead of a strong of half-fast attempts to shoot holes into the modern synthesis, geology, astronomy etc. etc.) and mainstream scientists did not. But since the opposite is true, your analogy falls flat on its face.

"You cling to your beliefs in the face of growing evidence to the contrary. Priests in Galileo's day refused to look into a telescope. Darwinist priests of today refuse to look into a microscope or more accurately an electron microscope."

First of all, what is a "Darwinist priest"? Projecting much? Second, are you seriously trying to claim that modern scientists avoid the use of scientific equipment and the best scientific data they can get their hands on?

Radar, even by your standards you're sounding completely and utterly deranged here...

"As I have said before, if you happen upon a computer that you can power up and that has programs written in so that you have a browser and can access the internet, would it ever occur to you that said computer evolved from a pile of rocks and mud?"

No, because we know who designed it and because computers are not subject to a process of natural evolution (reproduction with variation and natural selection).

"Yet the human body is infinitely more complex than the most advanced computer in the world and Darwinists want you to believe it just happened by a long string of happy accidents."

By a process of natural selection, rather. And since you still don't appear to understand the accumulation of useful genetic information through that process, your ridicule here only makes you look uninformed and obtuse.

"Go ahead and put on your ruby slippers and click your heels together and see if you immediately go to Kansas. Darwinism is as scientific as ruby slipperism."

You're the one advocating magic as the answer to the whole thing, so your mockery is ill-placed.

-- creeper

highboy said...

I'm getting really offended at all of this mockery of the clicking of ruby slippers.

Anonymous said...

radar said:

Go ahead and have one of your guys explain the singularity at the beginning of the so-called big bang. Bet that will never happen either.

Radar, nice try to divert the issue, but just be honest and admit that you can't get anyone to prove that Hartnett's mathematics was blatantly wrong and you simply fell for it.

Concession accepted.

Anonymous said...

Of course I mean to say:

You can't get anyone to prove that Harnett's maths was CORRECT!

oops!

highboy said...

"Radar, nice try to divert the issue, but just be honest and admit that you can't get anyone to prove that Hartnett's mathematics was blatantly wrong and you simply fell for it.

Concession accepted."

I love anonymous cowards who troll websites claiming victory everywhere they go as if saying it will somehow alter reality.

creeper said...

"Go ahead and have one of your guys explain the singularity at the beginning of the so-called big bang. Bet that will never happen either."

I don't see much room for boasting here, Radar. We look at the world around us and draw certain conclusions. You look at it and say: it must have been God. Scientists look at it and deduce that there must have been a Big Bang (or whatever) in the distant past, a time when everything we know was contained in a singularity.

Where did this hypothetical singularity came from? Nobody knows.

Where did your hypothetical god come from? Nobody knows.

So just because you have a simplified, personified divine being in your mind who waved a magic wand and said let it be so, don't kid yourself that you have the answers. (And what's worse, you've now lost the curiosity...)

-- creeper

radar said...

When any Darwinist begins to harp on how badly organisms are designed my head hurts. Did you guys not get the memo? "Junk" DNA is not junk. The appendix has a purpose. You mock a Creator God who was smart enough to design creatures who have enough versatility to live everywhere from miles below the ocean's surface to miles overhead, from subzero temperatures to superheated volcanic vents.

Furthermore, while you break your arms congratulating yourselves for your superior knowledge you are showing the rest of us that you did not understand the new knowledge of how reproduction is managed by the cell and what that means for Darwinists. The cell decides whether a mutation can be passed on, in other words, and also the cell decides what kind of animal it is before it forms. The female part of the organism is the foundation for the organism and so the researchers who have discovered this are astonished because they are Darwinists and have no idea how this boundary could be crossed.

Human Ape said...

Genetic material can be passed between some organisms but it does not increase in information but only remains stable or suffers a decrease.

This little scientific fact conflicts with your idea that there can never be any increase in information.

Gene duplication.

The duplication of a gene results in an additional copy that is free from selective pressure. This allows the new copy of the gene to mutate without deleterious consequence to the organism. This freedom from consequences allows for the mutation of novel genes that could potentially increase the fitness of the organism or code for a new function. An example of this is the apparent mutation of a duplicated digestive gene in a family of ice fish into an antifreeze gene.

http://darwin-killed-god.blogspot.com/

Human Ape said...

There are no transitional forms. Every single fossil we have found was that of a fully formed kind of animal.

Well, yeah, that's right. Every fossil ever found was most definitely from a fully formed kind of animal.

So what? Did you expect a fossil of an animal that was only half formed?

When paleontologists describe a fossil as being transitional between two different species, they are usually talking about an animal that is now extinct, and had features of the species that preceded it on the tree of life, and it had features of the species that followed it on the tree of life. A good example of these countless fossils include Tiktaalik roseae and I encourage you to read about this fossil and also to understand why Shubin and his team were able to accurately predict exactly where these priceless fossils would be found.

You could also google "whale fossils" and you will find out that the fossil record that describes the transition from land animals to whales is complete. No missing links at all.

Then of course there's all the powerful evidence from molecular biology that makes the fossils unnecessary (but still very useful) to call evolution a basic scientific fact.

Your denial of the basic facts of evolutionary biology is a lost cause. Important new discoveries are being made every single day as molecular biologists continue to determine evolutionary relationships with extreme accuracy when they compare DNA sequences of different living species.

Why not join us here in the 21st century instead of being permanently stuck in the boring Dark Ages?

http://darwin-killed-god.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

highboy said:

I love anonymous cowards who troll websites claiming victory everywhere they go as if saying it will somehow alter reality.

ROFL, there we have highboy again, playing the 'troll' card.
Sorry highboy, it doesn't change the fact that Radar made a claim he cannot back up. He stated he has some engineer friends who could prove that Hartnett's maths was correct yet he cannot even have them prove it right here.

But hey, highboy, if you want to support a liar....knock yourself out!

That's right, Radar: I called you a liar. Now you can either threaten to internet-punch me on the nose, or you can prove me wrong by having your engineer post his evidence right here. If you can prove this way your engineer even exists, I'll apologize right away.

Bet you can't do it.