Search This Blog

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Why Darwinism is the biggest lie you've heard

Common Darwin cartoon credited here
I am going to be posting some technical posts in the coming days. But first let me set the scene with a few review points. I believe Darwinism is the biggest lie ever told. It is an absolute whopper. If you think about what they want you to believe, everything came from nothing from a series of lucky accidents that taken together are so far past impossible it cannot truly be calculated. Therefore Darwinism is a hindrance to science because so much time and effort is put into trying to prove the unprovable.
A few disclosures:



  • I do not agree with everything that Creation.com or Answers In Genesis or Rocky Mountain Fellowship or Discovery Institute or Institute for Creation Research says.

  • Two major points of disagreement are the matter of the appearance of light and whether there were Paluxy tracks of both men and dinosaurs. I do not think creating light first with events illustrated within them is deceptive, I think it is educational. I do think enough evidence exists to show that there were once obvious human footprints among the dinosaur prints. That argument is not particularly important in the big scheme.

  • I do not use undependable sites like Dr. Dino and will pay no attention to your undependable sites such as talkorigins. This is not debatable. You mention talkorigins and I just pass your comments by. No intentionally incorrect origins sites allowed.

  • I am a Christian and I consider the Bible to be evidence.

  • Everybody has a worldview. If someone tells you that they don't they are either ignorant or they simply don't want to admit it.

  • Scientism (or naturalistic materialism) is a worldview and is not foundational for science.

Darwinism is my shortcut for the naturalistic materialistic atheistic macroevolutionary worldview, which is the ruling paradigm and is a matter of opinion and not fact. If Darwinists are uncomfortable with that and wish to dissassociate themselves in some way that is fine but putting neo in front of Darwinism is simply wearying and unnecessary. Readers get the general idea.


YEC stands for Young Earth Creationist or Creationism.


ID stands for Intelligent Design.


Facilitated Variation will be explained in detail in the next post from a different source but I have been posting Dr. Alex Williams' articles with commentary to explain it in recent days. I consider it the final nail in the Darwinist coffin. But you will see that for yourself shortly.


For many centuries, even millenia, man has believed that God created all things. The Bible asserts that God created all things. Most cultures not associated with Christianity has some form of deity creating the world in some way.


Darwinists say it just exploded out of nothing. None of them can agree on how and they all admit that the Universe does not fit what would be expected from the Big Bang, even after having made up all sorts of unseen elements of the Universe that have not been observed.


The Bible asserts that God created life and the last form of life created within a six day period was man.


Darwinists say that by some incredible stroke of luck a bunch of stuff banged into other stuff just right and formed a living creature of some kind. From that point things just kept banging into each other until they got so sophisticated that millions of different varieties of living things with coding systems more complex that cray computers are not only found on Earth but also are born with in many cases remarkably complex behavioral patterns that must interact with completely different creatures. Engineers study creatures both large and small to learn from their design features still today.


The Bible says that all creatures were created "kinds" (baramin) and that kinds would produce more of the same kind. We continue to see this today.


Darwinists say that all things evolved from one or two or ten simple organisms. Evolution from one kind of animal or plant to another has never been observed.


Natural selection is a description of the design features of the cell's genetic material, which comes preloaded with a variety of choices in order to help assure the survival of the kind.


Darwinists think natural selection is some kind of force, like gravity. Mixed with magic. Mixed with intentionality. They really like natural selection.


Mutations are mistakes that usually kill or harm a creature. On occasion a mutation will have benefit in an unusual set of circumstances.


Mutations are considered by Darwinists to have some of the same magic and intentionality of natural selection. When an organism needs wings or a longer snout, it just mutates the needed thing.


The rock layers of the Earth are sedimentary and associated in almost every case with water. There is also a bit of volcanic activity demonstrated but water is the key. The very large and clearly delineated layers most often seen in canyons are typical of flood layers but on a far larger scale than modern man has ever seen. The Bible explains them with a worldwide flood.


Darwinists still try to shoehorn millions of years into the layers even though uniformitarianism has been completely abandoned.


Creatures have (some, not all) irreducibly complex systems that cannot be explained by Darwinists although they do go to great and tortured lengths to try to explain them.


In fact Darwinists have to go quickly into just-so stories when pinned down to explain any of this and if you made them try to explain how a nothing turned into a horse they would need years to go through the explanation in detail. Most reasonable people would walk away after about twenty minutes. This is why Darwinists just use magic words for unproven processes and simply keep repeating the lies, have academia repeat the lies, have the media repeat the lies over and over and over. And over and over and over and over. But no matter how many times some Oprah Winfrey tells us that a creature decided to learn to fly or develop improved sight and so on and so forth the means by which this would happen is not explained. When you look into what they say you wind up with the equivalent of a Russian Matryuska doll with the same thing under the same thing under the same thing. Something somehow happened we don't know what it was just as long as it wasn't God!


No Darwinist can even begin to explain how the Brush Turkey knows how to make just the right nest that provides just the right temperature for the eggs by moving a twig or scratching some dirt in that great big pile it makes. Daddy Brush Turkeys do not teach the young how to do this and yet every generation of Brush Turkey does the same thing time after time.


No Darwinist can explain how a Bombadier Beetle is able to fire explosive shots at enemies without blowing itself up or burning itself. Or sending itself off into the distance like a rocket. There could be no transitional forms, they would not live.


No Darwinist can explain the remarkable pressure sensitive valve and vein and artery system of the neck of a Giraffe. Nor can they understand the sophisiticated brain padding and eye mechanism of the Woodpecker and their very sophisticated tongues. Or how some spiders can make ten different kinds of webbing and understand just how to use and engineer them. How do migratory animals know where to go when they have never been there before? On and on and on.


No Darwinist can explain why all animals found in rock records are fully formed. The very commonly found trilobite is not primitive at all, it has one of the most sophisticated eyes of all the animal kingdom. Some animals are still unchanged now basically from the animals found in fossils and same with plants. So many "Lazarus" organisms have been found that were once thought to be part of an evolutionary chain that it is no longer big news.


No Darwinist can explain how dinosaur flesh is found in basically mummified form rather than fossilized. This one point alone should falsify the millions of years myth but of course Darwinists do not like to admit this.


Darwinists like to try to criticize the design of organisms as bad design, thus meaning God would not have made such "mistakes." But let's face it, any organism that lasts through the whole flood thing and all the various ecological changes and not just one or one million but billions of billions of them? Organisms so complex we still do not have them completely figured out? Yeah, Darwinists are SO NOT in position to say God screwed up. Pretty well all the vestigal organs and parts have been shown not to be vestigal and the "junk DNA" turns out to be critical to reproduction.


Darwinists are dedicated to the idea that Anything But God must be found and defended. They are unwilling to consider the concept and hate and fear and loathe the concept especially now when it is more obvious than ever that God is the only logical answer...

Sorry about Baraminology it will be coming within a couple of days but some new readers have suggested that I kind of set the stage first...

22 comments:

radar said...

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/delk-track.htm

IAMB said...

Wow dude... I've been skimming through the last while here and you seem to be getting more and more shrill and increasingly paranoid with every post. I used to enjoy having a nice spirited argument with you as often as possible, but you've been basically repeating yourself with increasing volume for a couple years now no matter how many times you've been corrected on even the most trivial points. It's getting old.

Take a year or two off... it'll do you some good (hey, worked for me).

That's all I have to say.

Anonymous said...

An alternative title for this rehash post would be "Worst of Radar". Seriously, is there any item here that hasn't been previously addressed, refuted, debunked?

Jon Woolf said...

"Shrill" is a good word for it, IAMB. This post is just a 1500-word-long Gish gallop.

Radar, as long as you're unwilling to actually discuss the issues, I don't see any reason for anybody to take you seriously, whether they agree with you or not. Folks might recall that when I first started commenting here, it was in response to a post about the Grand Canyon in which you used two of my photos, taken from my article on how the Grand Canyon disproves YEC. You still haven't attempted any detailed response to that article. Indeed, you haven't attempted any response at all. Why not?

Here's another item you need to address, and haven't (probably because you can't): Large Igneous Provinces (LIPs), huge areas covered by hundreds of thousands of cubic kilometers' worth of basalt lava flows. A well-known LIP is the area in India called the Deccan Traps, which straddles the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary and the mass extinction that wiped out the dinosaurs. Many LIPs, including the Deccan Traps, contain fossiliferous sedimentary layers, with plants and animals and paleosols, between layers of flood basalts. Do you know how long it takes to turn freshly-erupted lava into a fertile habitat for a complete ecosystem's worth of flora and fauna? Hint: it's a lot more than six thousand years. And in the Deccan Traps, it happened more than once.

This is the sort of evidence that first convinced geologists that YECism didn't work. Nothing to do with evolution.

I could go on and on. There are countless examples of little bits of evidence here and there that can't be rationally explained under Flood geology, yet make perfect sense under conventional geology. Like the small matter of dating crude-oil reservoirs.

Your misunderstandings and misstatements about evolutionary theory would take a book to correct them; trying to do it in a Blogspot comment, or even a series of them, seems an exercise in futility.

creeper said...

Wow. Radar's just running in circles now, repeating the same misinformation over and over again, even though the faults and errors have been pointed out to him ad nauseam.

A pretty pointless post really.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

So is it safe to say the dating methods series has come to an end (like other series)?

And now when any dating methods are brought up in comments Radar can just say "do you own homework, {insert dating method here} has been discussed and refuted"?

lava

Anonymous said...

No, it is just that when I look at dating methods I see that two ways of looking at the evidence split on the flood. The flood makes a huge difference in your interpretation of the evidence. And since I had quesions about Facilitated Variation and Baramin I thought it would be fun to do that first.

creeper said...

"No, it is just that when I look at dating methods I see that two ways of looking at the evidence split on the flood. The flood makes a huge difference in your interpretation of the evidence. And since I had quesions about Facilitated Variation and Baramin I thought it would be fun to do that first."

(From the context I'm guessing that was Radar.)

Radar,

you seem to think that there are two equally valid ways of looking at the exact same evidence and coming to different and mutually contradictory conclusions, but that is far from the case.

I think you'll agree that YEC is beholden to a foregone conclusion, that the results must indicate a world less than 10K years old and a global flood approx. 4K years ago. If the evidence should indicate otherwise, one can't "go there". It stands to reason that this is not "going where the evidence leads", as you've proclaimed on occasion. You can have it any color you want, as long as that color is black, as Henry Ford once said - and you can go where the evidence leads, as long as it leads to your particular literal interpretation of a religious text.

All you've presented in favor of the YEC position are a few potshots at a detail here, a detail there, which have already been looked at and explained. A single dating method, which was taken to task for its numerous assumptions and poor lab work. It's a weak position indeed if you have to invoke a poorly justified ad hominem to avoid addressing counter arguments to your claims.

What you are unable to address are the consistency with which evidence from different areas of science all indicate the same ages. Have a look at Radiometric Dating from a Christian Perspective. There is simply no explanation for this evidence that allows for an Earth younger than 10K years. The same goes for ice cores.

You can try to create doubt around the edges by claiming that, say, it's not always certain that an ice core layer actually represents a year, or that a radiometric reading may be wrong (even if it's confirmed by different kinds of radiometric readings).

Perhaps that may fool some of your more gullible readers. Who knows, perhaps you were fooled by such arguments as well and are just innocently passing them along. But have you seriously not noticed that this doesn't get you anywhere close to a position in which "the evidence indicates" a world younger than 10K years?

To get to the point where ice core layers are so compressed that it becomes difficult to discern annual differences, you have to first pass several hundreds of thousands of very clear annual ice core layers. There is simply no YEC explanation for that.

And don't kid yourself, you haven't addressed this problem in any way on your blog. I'll save you the predictable response: go search "ice cores" and "ice core layers" on the blog. What you'll find are plenty of evasions, a link to an article about a lot of snow (but not ice core layers) being deposited in one particular location in Greenland and a link to an article that attempts to generate doubt about ice core layers, but fails to come to a conclusion that gets a result anywhere even south of 100,000 years.

The consistency of radiometric dating, likewise. Please read the material at the link above. Pointing out an anomaly here or there doesn't address the overwhelming number of results using radiometric dating on different elements, nor does any ad hoc explanation that somehow the flood event caused rapid decay. Even if a mechanism could be presented that would make that possible (and of course it hasn't), we would still be looking at different data than the data that we are looking at. The YEC hypothesis simply doesn't present a scenario that is compatible with observable data.

-- creeper

Jon Woolf said...

Creeper: "Have a look at 'Radiometric Dating from a Christian Perspective.'"

Hey, that's a nice article. I'm going to add it to my list of online resources. Thanks for the link.

Jon Woolf said...

One more thing: the link that Radar posted in the first comment referred to a page about a relatively new "man and dinosaur footprints together" claim. A counter-article is here. The lack of solid provenance alone is enough to make this track less-than-credible. And again there's the question "is this all you've got?" There are thousands of known dinosaur tracks from hundreds of good trackway sites, all around the world. Yet whenever new claims of "dinosaur and human tracks together" surface, they always seem to come from the Paluxy River site. Why?

radar said...

Paluxy is an unusual place, with a river that becomes a raging torrent during heavy rains that thus erodes soft sedimentary layers and continues to therefore uncover new sets of tracks.

Eyewitness accounts and several pictures that present strong evidence of people and dinosaurs both having made tracks at about the same time are interesting and compelling but not fundamental to the scientific case against Darwinism.

As it happens commenters have failed spectacularly to do anything to refute Facilitated Variation and now I just posed on Genetic Redundancies so behold, a new wall to bonk your heads on!

radar said...

Woolf can go on and on but so can a three year old. Not that Woolf is not far smarter and more sophisticated but unfortunately I believe that you have to selectively view the Grand Canyon and blindfold yourself to many features in order to believe what Woolf asserts about the canyon.

http://www.icr.org/article/transcontinental-sedimentation-flood

and

http://www.icr.org/article/radioisotope-dating-grand-canyon-rocks-another-dev

just for starters.

radar said...

There are always apologists who believe they need to find ways to shoehorn God into the Darwinist flavor of the decade. The primitive and simplistic "Christian" perspective on dating methods is nothing but the starting point at best for thinking seriously about dating methods.

Those of us who consider the Bible to be part of the evidence have been remarkably consistent about the age of the Earth and the Universe while naturalistic materialistic Darwinist science has kept changing their minds. The age of the Earth has now been inflated far beyond the practical as various disciplines fail to keep up with each other.

The Sun is not constant, it is subject to the laws of thermodynamics like everything else that is created. You cannot back time up very far before the Sun would become hostile to life on Earth, for instance.

radar said...

I have not studied the delk print since I am mainly concentrating on work and politics at the moment. It may well be a "doctored" print, which would be regrettable. Paluxy is a very radioactive subject because there has been hucksterism mixed in with genuine scientific study mixed in with vandalism. There have been a few prints which have been studied with mixed results.

Now, acambaro is not in dispute by reputable people so I still have my dinosaurs and people together with thousands of carvings and statues and pictures and office accounts so footprints are a cherry on top and not the main course.

radar said...

IAMB, how can you call Facilitated Variation a repetition?

Woolf, did you miss the dike break theory of Grand Canyon formation? The Grand Canyon was formed primarily by first the flood and later a dike break that drained a massive glacial-melt lake in the ice age immediately after the flood itself.

You have cross-bedding and megebraccias and at least one 150 million year paraconformity to explain as well as the miracle of a river flowing 700 feet UPHILL to even begin the story of a long-age canyon. I don't buy it.

Jon Woolf said...

Woolf, did you miss the dike break theory of Grand Canyon formation?

Radar, this would be a lot more fun if you made it more difficult.

I know all about the "dike break" theory of Grand Canyon formation. I have Stone Head Steve Austin's book about it sitting in the bookcase behind me. It doesn't work. My article explains at length why it doesn't work. The fact that you try to use it against me shows only that you haven't actually read my article, despite the fact that you swiped two of my photos from it.

acambaro is not in dispute by reputable people

Of course, by your definition anyone who does dispute the Acambaro figurines is not "reputable."

The Acambaro figurines have no reliable provenance. As evidence of anything, they are worthless.

Anonymous said...

Those of us who consider the Bible to be part of the evidence have been remarkably consistent about the age of the Earth and the Universe while naturalistic materialistic Darwinist science has kept changing their minds. The age of the Earth has now been inflated far beyond the practical as various disciplines fail to keep up with each other.

The nonsense in this paragraph is just mindblowing.


lava

Anonymous said...

You beat me to it Lava. Another true gem, that one.

- Canucklehead.

creeper said...

"Now, acambaro is not in dispute by reputable people so I still have my dinosaurs and people together with thousands of carvings and statues and pictures and office accounts so footprints are a cherry on top and not the main course."

Let's say for the sake of argument that the Acambaro figurines are not a hoax, and are indeed over 1,000 years old (even though there is significant controversy about that).

What you have then are a whole bunch of figurines, some of which you can say resemble dinosaurs, while others don't. Here's a museum website where some of them are currently on display. Go down to where it says "dinosaurios". Now, would you look at that and say yep, those are definitely dinosaurs, no question?

Or would it be reasonable to interpret them as flights of fancy, possibly loosely based on something the people did see? Look at the lizard-like creatures with only two limbs. Was that a creature that inhabited Mexico in centuries past? Not as far as we know. Imagination is certainly a factor here.

And if they can come up with something like that, it's not exactly a stretch to say that it's possible that the more "dinosaur-looking" ones are a flight of fancy based on lizards and crocodiles.

I mean, you don't consider Greek mythology as proof that a three-headed dog or a fire-breathing chimera once roamed the Earth, do you?

You're welcome to believe what you wish, of course, but calling it "evidence" is something else.

-- creeper

IAMB said...

Radar, my comments about repetition have nothing to do with facilitated variation. They have to do with the fact that nearly every one of your posts is some flavor of:

1) Macroevolutionistic Darwinistic Stupidistic...(you seem to add yet another "istic" every time someone asks you to explain your understanding of evolution yet you never actually actually, you know, explain what it is you've been asked).

2) OMGZ!!! DARWINISM IZ DED!!eleventyone!!!

3) Uniformitarianism has been abandoned (my other half just happens to be a geologist and I can assure you that no, in fact, it hasn't).

4) TalkOrigins lies intentionally!!! (because, from what we - your readers - can tell, you think they're wrong about the Acambaro figurines... to whit you've never posted any evidence that you've even contacted the right person on T.O. who could make needed corrections or that you even know which person to contact... and I know for a fact you've never brought it up to the usenet group. As far as can find on your blog, the only "evidence" you have that T.O. is wrong is the word of yet another guy with a mail-order PhD in Bible study)

5) Global warming has been disproved and the people pushing it are criminal frauds!!! (I noticed that you've dutifully ignored the fact that Mann, Jones and the CRU have been cleared in not one, but two separate investigations to date... you planning on apologizing any time soon? Didn't think so...)

6) No new information!!! (despite never having given a quantifiable definition of information in a biological sense... don't worry, no other creationist or IDer has been able to either)

7) Dating methods are wrong!!! (don't worry, until the RATE group addresses the heat problem caused by their model, I'm going to continue laughing at them... they promised a response something like eight or nine years ago and have been strangely silent since)

As for the "paranoid" comment, you've recently started insinuating that people defending T.O. are somehow being paid to clutter up creationist blogs. Two things:

1) T.O. is the offspring of a usenet group and is volunteer only.

2) Even if they did pay people to go out onto the internet and harass people like yourself, your blog doesn't have enough traffic/influence to even register. Don't kid yourself. No one cares.

highboy said...

Glad to see canucklehead was able to chime in such a thoughtful argument for evolution.

Anonymous said...

Highboy says,
"Bark, bark, bark, barkbarkbark, bark, bark"

Oops, sorry about that comment to lava above. You see, I didn't realize you were working your shift for the comments police this week, highboy. My bad. By-the-way, would you mind telling me what those "rules" were again for commenting here, I seem to have misplaced my copy?

Miss me did you Tim? Shockingly, I don't feel the need to either justify or explain myself to you. Why don't you head on back to that pathetic little blog of your own and pick a fight with someone over there? I promise you'd never run into me again.

@IAMB, yep, I'd say that captures it. I mean, apparently I got here after you left, and what you wrote above pretty much sums up what ol' Radar has been up to for the last number of years. Although, in your list, you may have missed that fairly regular Radaractive post where Radar uses some weird topic, say he's upset that creeper has called him on being a complete liar for the umpteenth time or maybe that his dog has died (too soon?), in order to let us, his readers, in on the fact that he is actually, in reality, amazingly smart. I mean, he will tell you (and anybody who might listen) that with all the seminars and such that he's attended, and sometimes taught, over the years, he is practically a PHD in most of this stuff. And who in their right mind could argue with that? Oh right, everyone here. OK, well maybe not everyone...

Which, of course, brings me back to good, kind hearted, ol' highboy. Willing to take anyone on in any kind of semantic biblical argument you choose. As always, putting that wonderful Canadian education of his to work. I mean, don't you dare talk about contradictions in the bible, I honestly think hb inches a little closer to an aneurysm any time anyone on this blog does that.

On second thought,
http://www.youtube.com/user/NonStampCollector#p/u/0/RB3g6mXLEKk

- Canucklehead.