Search This Blog

Monday, May 10, 2010

Hawkeye catches an Atheist Humbug and dissects it!

Hawkeye and Highboy do a great deal of commenting on my blog but usually when I blog using comments I present those who disagree with me. Today I am posting what Hawkeye said in response to the Atheism Humbug post. His post is actually from the comments thread verbatim, and he begins with a question posed by creeper:

"When did science - including as practiced by the Christian scientists of centuries past in that list you parade around once in a while - ever "include the supernatural element"? Ever?"

Enter Hawkeye in Technicolor:

I think you miss the point. It's not so much that scientists, including Christian scientists, used a "supernatural element" in their experiments -- as if they could summon angels or demons to participate in their human venture. Rather, it is that the scientists who performed those experiments believed in a supernatural God and were seeking to understand the supernatural laws which govern His creation.

For example, Sir Isaac Newton viewed gravity as a "supernatural" force that was simply inconceivable. He said: "Tis inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should (without the mediation of something else which is not material) operate upon & affect other matter without mutual contact."

Though he is better known for his love of science, the Bible was Sir Isaac Newton's greatest passion. He devoted more time to the study of Scripture than to science, and he said, "I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily." He spent a great deal of time trying to discover hidden messages within the Bible. He looked for clues to world around him in the Word of God.

Newton saw God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation. He warned against using the law of gravity to view the universe as a mere machine, like a great clock. He said: "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done. This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being... This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called "Lord God" παντοκρατωρ [pantokratōr], or "Universal Ruler"... The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect."

In this regard, Newton is not unlike many other early scientists who were seeking to understand how God has ordered His universe. The Bible portrays God as the one who brings order to the universe. In the beginning there was nothing but chaos. "The earth was without form and [there was nothing but a] void." There was no light, because "darkness was upon the face of the deep [space]." So what does God do? God creates light and separates light from darkness. He creates the earth. He separates water from dry land. He creates plants and animals "according to their own kinds". Finally He creates humans.

According to the Bible, God makes the sun to rise and set each day. He brings the seasons every year. He makes the snow to fall, and plants to grow. Genesis 8:22 says: "While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease." He provides a sun for the day and a moon for the night. He puts the stars in their place. God brings order to the universe.

It is only because God brings order and regularity to the universe, that science could be born. Science depends on the fact that there are regularities in the world. Without regularities, there would ultimately be nothing to study. Scientists depend not only on the regularities with which they are already familiar, but they also postulate that still more regularities will be found in areas that they have yet to investigate.

When these regularities are discovered, measured, quantified and determined to be reproducible in the laboratory, they are defined as "laws". Thus, we have Newton's laws, Boyle's law, Dalton's law, Mendel's laws, Kirchhoff's laws, etc. What you and many others refer to as "natural laws", are in fact the "scientific laws" that early scientists believed were established by God to bring order His universe.

The fact that you call them "natural laws" suggests that you have taken them away from God and turned them over to nature. You have taken them from the Creator and turned them over to the creation. That is what the author means when he says: "Naturalists take title to the deed of science without making proper payment."

Why did the early scientists believe that God established all these laws? Quite frankly, it is because these laws reveal the fingerprint of God Himself. They bear His attributes. Allow me to explain...

Scientists think of laws as universal in time and space. That is to say, that if it is really a "law" that is correctly formulated and qualified, then it holds true for "all places" and "all times". In other words, it is "omnipresent" and "eternal". The classic terms of omnipresence (in all places) and eternity (at all times) are traditionally attributed to God.

Other divine attributes belong to scientific laws. If a law holds for all times, we must presume that it will be the same law throughout all time. The law does not change with time. Therefore it is unchangeable or "immutable". In Malachi 3:6 God says: "For I the LORD do not change."

Next, scientific laws are basically ideas. We do not literally see a law, but only the effects of the law on the material world. The law is essentially immaterial and invisible, but is known through its effects. Likewise, God is essentially immaterial and invisible, but is known through His acts in the world.

Finally, real scientific laws (as opposed to scientists’ approximations of them) are also absolutely, infallibly true. Truthfulness is another attribute of God.

The Bible tells us that the hand of God can be found by an examination of His handiwork: "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made" (Romans 1:19-20a).

The Bible also tells us that some people absolutely refuse to accept the truth and "worship" the creation rather than the Creator: "they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools... because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator" (Romans 1:21b-22,25)

So be it. Worship nature rather than God if you so choose. But here's something else to think about from Sir Isaac Newton: "Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors." It is senseless indeed.

Atheism certainly has advanced Darwinism as doctrinal and fundamental to the spread of their religion. Darwinism advanced on the basis of misconceptions such as uniformitarianism and the expectation of transitional fossils that have not been found. All fossils are fully formed with fully operational features...those fossils that are in any way complete. Most people do not realize that the majority of vertebrate fossils are incomplete and that paleontologists make educated guesses about the missing portions.

Another misconception foisted upon the public is the fossil record itself. There are very few fossils of "higher" organisms in the fossil record. Here is a chart from Creation Digest in 2002 that shows how few vertebrate fossils have actually been found in comparison to the total fossils found:


Recently that percentage must have grown a tiny bit because of hard work by paleontologists in the USA and China. Unfortunately for Darwinists a few recent fossils have turned out to be, at least in part, to be remains rather than fossils. Since we now know fossilization can take place within a few years in the right conditions, the finding of actual remains puts the lie to millions of years of evolution. Of course that has to stand in line with a LOT of reasons Darwinism is a bunch of blarney. Mike Toler's comprehensive guide is a good place to start if you wish to acquaint yourself with the basic facts concerning origins.

If Hawkeye and Highboy and Angel and I were to all sit down for a chat we might disagree on some small points but not the big ones. Darwinism is certainly a humbug and the idea that atheism is NOT a religion is also humbuggery. Aha, I have coined a new word!!!

56 comments:

radar said...

What cracks me up is the atheists who try to assert that atheism is not a religion! What did you think it was, a mouthwash?! Hehehehe

WomanHonorThyself said...

humbuggery. Aha, I have coined a new word!!! ..indeed u did my friend!..brilliant and articulate as always!

Jon Woolf said...

Highboy's entire comment is an example of a fallacy that you yourself have warned against: he thinks his own preconceptions are somehow relevant to the facts he's talking about. Yes, early Western scientists were mostly Christians and believed they were discovering God's laws for the living world. So what? Newton also believed it was possible to transmute lead into gold. Does the fact that you think he was right about the divine origin of "natural law" mean that he must have somehow been right about alchemy?

Darwinism advanced on the basis of misconceptions such as uniformitarianism

Uniformitarianism isn't a misconception. It's accurate. Not your foolish and wilfully-ignorant distortions of it, but the real thing that geologists actually use every day. Unless you reject the evidence of your own senses and of every applicable line of science, and insist that Earth is young while drowning out all counter-arguments with your humbug song played back at mind-numbing volume.

and the expectation of transitional fossils that have not been found. All fossils are fully formed with fully operational features...those fossils that are in any way complete.

Of course they're fully formed, with fully operational features. What ever made you think they'd be anything else?

Most people do not realize that the majority of vertebrate fossils are incomplete and that paleontologists make educated guesses about the missing portions.

Usually very good guesses. In any case, this is significant ... why?

There are very few fossils of "higher" organisms in the fossil record.

Which does your case no good, since another thing that very few people know is that there are even more good examples of evolution among the invertebrates than among the vertebrates.

Hawkeye® said...

Radar,
Thanks for the kudos. However, I am sorry to disappoint you. It seems that "humbuggery" was already a word. See here...

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/humbuggery

Hawkeye® said...

Jon Woolf,

Highboy's entire comment is an example of a fallacy that you yourself have warned against: he thinks his own preconceptions are somehow relevant to the facts he's talking about.

Did you mean "Hawkeye's entire comment..."? If you are going to disparage someone, it would at least be appropriate to disparage the correct person or refer to them by their correct moniker, thank you.

As for "preconceptions", I will admit that I have a world view, as do ALL people. My world view presupposes the existence of God and the spiritual realm. So did Sir Isaac Newton's. That did not prevent him from doing good science. Nor does it prevent modern scientists from doing good work.

Apparently your world view presupposes the non-existence of God and the spiritual realm. I pity the shallowness of your existence. Half of your universe is "without form and void".

As for turning lead into gold, it has already been achieved. See here...

http://chemistry.about.com/cs/generalchemistry/a/aa050601a.htm

"Uniformitarianism isn't a misconception. It's accurate."

Not according to Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould. See here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

"your foolish and wilfully-ignorant distortions"

Now, now, now... let's not be childish about this.

"All fossils are fully formed with fully operational features... Of course they're fully formed, with fully operational features. What ever made you think they'd be anything else?"

People like YOU made me think they'd be anything else. The very concept of "uniformitarianism", which you so eagerly describe as "accurate", forces one to assume that all change from one species into another is gradual and "uniform". Therefore, the only conclusion we can draw is that there must be thousands of intermediate forms between say fish and amphibians, or reptiles and birds.

To go from reptiles to birds gradually and "uniformly" there must have been reptiles with pre-emergent wing bones, slightly emergent wing stubs, pronounced wing stubs, ultimately on to fully-formed wings. Those gradual steps would imply features that were not fully formed or operational.

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Either you have uniform gradual change or you don't. Going from reptiles to birds in one step may be "punctuated equilibrium", but it isn't "uniformitarianism" by a long shot. Admit it.

(continued...)

Hawkeye® said...

(...continued)

"paleontologists make educated guesses about the missing portions. Usually very good guesses."

Not always. And "guesses" are always theoretical assumptions. Guesses are not evidence. Therefore, paleontologists are forced to use "guesses" or theoretical assumptions to support the "Theory" of Evolution. Do you realize how unscientific that sounds? Theoretical assumptions used to support a theoretical assumption?

"there are even more good examples of evolution among the invertebrates than among the vertebrates."

That's not what I hear:

"Resemblance between animal taxa may be due to convergence rather than to recent common ancestry... we wait further understanding of constraints in genetic evolution and of the possibilities of convergence... the phylogeny of Cnidaria and Platyhelminthes cannot be traced with certainty... Traditional grouping of phyla breaks down on re-examination of supposedly key characters, such as segmentation, body cavities, germ layers and symmetry, each of which must have had multiple origins: nor are developmental stages (especially not larvae) a reliable guide to relationships. Demarcation of phyla may be difficult, as with arthropods, and location of phyla is even more difficult, due to their early and rapid radiation."

"The Origin and Evolution of Animals (Metazoa)

* We do not yet know from what group(s?) of eukaryotes the animals evolved.
* It occurred in Precambrian times.
* Before the Cambrian was far along, most of the animal phyla had appeared.
* So each of the phyla described in this section has had a long, independent history.
* The rapid (geologically speaking!) diversification of the animals has made it difficult to establish the genealogical relationships between them - even using molecular data.
* Our best guesses are shown in the figure (cladogram) on the right."

Hmmmm. "Early rapid radiation" and "rapid diversification". Sounds to me like what they're saying is that they almost all appeared at the same time and were different. How 'bout that? "Convergence" rather than "divergence". Sounds like an excuse rather than an explanation. "Phylogeny cannot be traced with certainty". And why is that? "Traditional grouping of phyla breaks down." Oh, too bad. Time to start over I guess. "We do not yet know". And "we wait further understanding"?

Gee. I thought you guys had this stuff down cold.

creeper said...

Em, how did Hawkeye's comment in any way answer this question:

"When did science - including as practiced by the Christian scientists of centuries past in that list you parade around once in a while - ever "include the supernatural element"? Ever?"

Hawkeye points out that the some of the characteristics of scientific laws (e.g. immutable, constant) coincide with some of the characteristics of a divine being. How does that add up to science including a supernatural element? Because we use Boyle's Law, for example, somehow God is suddenly part of the equation? Just because he is also conceived of as immutable and constant?

It's a nice piece of rhetoric, Hawkeye, but the logic just doesn't add up.

As for uniformitarianism, Radar, Hawkeye, please consult a dictionary. You're both victims of the "foolish and wilfully-ignorant distortions" that Jon mentions.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Another misconception foisted upon the public is the fossil record itself. There are very few fossils of "higher" organisms in the fossil record. Here is a chart from Creation Digest in 2002 that shows how few vertebrate fossils have actually been found in comparison to the total fossils found:"

1. How does the proportion tell us in any way how many fossils of "higher" organisms were found, and whether this is an adequate amount from which we can draw various conclusions?

This simple comparison of the proportions is meaningless to the argument you're trying to make.

2. Marine vertebrates are most likely to fossilize, since when they die they can easily be buried by shifting sands. So it's not surprising that there are many, many of these fossils to be found.

But the rarity of, say, land mammals being fossilized should be a matter of great concern for YECs. As Radar has often pointed out, for land mammals to be fossilized, it is almost always due to rapid burial. And rapid burial is compatible with an old Earth and the theory of evolution - by itself it does not indicate a young Earth and/or a global flood.

After all, local floods and similar small catastrophes (e.g. Pompeii) do happen. So we'd expect to see fossils as quite a rarity, and that expectation is reflected in the fossil record.

Now, if the flood narrative were true, we'd expect to see something quite different. After all, just about all living things on the entire planet at the time (minus 2 or 7 of each species) were subjected to rapid burial. Just about all. Think about that for a moment.

So we'd expect to find a huge number of fossils in every layer. All jumbled up. Or perhaps sorted according to some pattern or mechanism that can be explained by a flood.

But we don't. There's no sign of that.

Doesn't that give any of you "go where the evidence leads and it leads to the Bible" folks pause for thought?

Instead what we find is consistent with the absence of a global flood, and instead the occasional small local flood or similar event.

And while we're on that subject: of course we'd expect to find the fossils all jumbled up, not neatly organized according to the way they evolved through the ages. YEC can't even come close to explaining that.

It's headline news when dinosaur tracks are found going up hill, but the fact that you will always only find dinosaur tracks, not, say, the occasional elephant or hippo or rhino or cow or sheep or goat..

Hydrologic sorting: one of the many Waterloos of YEC.

-- creeper

Jon Woolf said...

Did you mean "Hawkeye's entire comment..."?

Oops. Yes, I did. My apologies for the error.

Apparently your world view presupposes the non-existence of God and the spiritual realm.

Are you confusing me with creeper, perhaps? I make no such presupposition.

As for turning lead into gold, it has already been achieved.

Not by chemical means, which is what Newton was trying to do.

Me: "Uniformitarianism isn't a misconception. It's accurate."

You: Not according to Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould. See here...

[chuckle.wav] Your turn to acknowledge a mistake, Hawkeye. Radar and I were talking about uniformitarianism as a principle of geology. Punctuated equilibrium is a concept of evolutionary biology. Two very different fields.

The very concept of "uniformitarianism", which you so eagerly describe as "accurate", forces one to assume that all change from one species into another is gradual and "uniform". Therefore, the only conclusion we can draw is that there must be thousands of intermediate forms between say fish and amphibians, or reptiles and birds.

As above, "uniformitarianism" is a geologic concept and doesn't apply to biology. Gradualism -- the idea that evolutionary change is always gradual and occurs at a steady rate, generation by generation -- is obsolete. It was introduced in the late 1800s and early 1900s by some men who didn't read Darwin as closely as they should have, and were hampered by flawed models of inheritance. Darwin himself knew better than to expect such a thing, and said so in the Origin.

To go from reptiles to birds gradually and "uniformly" there must have been reptiles with pre-emergent wing bones, slightly emergent wing stubs, pronounced wing stubs, ultimately on to fully-formed wings. Those gradual steps would imply features that were not fully formed or operational.

If wings had developed that way, then yes they would. But wings didn't develop that way. Birds' wings developed from already-existing limbs: dinosaurs' arms. This is beautifully illustrated in a number of fossils, such as Sinosauropteryx,
Oviraptor, Unenlagia, Protarcheopteryx, Caudipteryx, and Archaeopteryx. These animals developed downy feathers first, then long forearm and tail feathers, then longer arm and tail feathers that could act as inefficient airfoils, and finally the advanced modern-type flight feathers that make the arm into a functional wing. In each of these animals, the forelimb takes another step toward becoming a wing. But each step is still functional as an arm -- even in Archaeopteryx. Only after birds were accomplished flyers did their forelimb lose its last overt armlike features and become only a wing, pretty much useless for anything else besides display. But under the feathers, a bird's wing still looks a lot like a dinosaur's arm. Bone for bone. By dissecting and studying chick embryos at different stages of development, we can even watch as the chicken's forelimb starts to develop as an arm and then gets modified into a wing.

Jon Woolf said...

Continued...

Therefore, paleontologists are forced to use "guesses" or theoretical assumptions to support the "Theory" of Evolution. Do you realize how unscientific that sounds?

Of course. But then, I know something you don't. I know that palaeontology is full of egos and arguments and catfights and even the occasional bar-brawl. A palaeontologist who doesn't stick to the facts will soon find himself out of a reputation, out of money, and out of work. The Empirical always strikes back; abandon her at your peril.

Me: "there are even more good examples of evolution among the invertebrates than among the vertebrates."

You: That's not what I hear:

First, where did that quoted passage come from?

Second, there's a lot of room for evolutionary sequences below the kingdom level (the origin of Metazoa is a kingdom-level change). I was thinking of examples I've seen of evolution within the ammonites, trilobites, chelicerates, brachiopods, and insects. One of the best examples is the primitive ants that carry clear traces of their descent from wasps.

creeper said...

"Apparently your world view presupposes the non-existence of God and the spiritual realm. I pity the shallowness of your existence. Half of your universe is "without form and void"."

That's the tricky thing with worldviews. As the saying goes, "in music and in love we are astonished at what is chosen by others". Same with religions/worldviews. I don't consider secular humanism shallow or pitiful.

I can appreciate that you might feel that religion adds a deeper dimension to your life. To me, you're simply plugging what you perceive as emptiness with one of many ancient mythologies. Sure, it brings a certain satisfaction with it. But from a different perspective (e.g. mine), it looks shallow and empty in its own way. Unless you already pre-suppose the existence of God, presenting an ancient religious text as a supposed "law-giver" or arbiter of morality even though its teachings have been re-defined and shaped by humans with little ill-effect and many benefits over the centuries isn't all that impressive.

The changing nature of God in the Bible and many other of its textual peculiarities just make a lot more sense when one interprets it as reflecting the views and positions of its authors in their respective contexts: a small tribe holding its own against rival tribes (mass murder and slavery are cool!), a young religion trying to find a foothold in the Roman Empire, etc.

Not just that, but the cognitive dissonance (of which Radar is a proud specimen) is painful and yet fascinating to watch from the outside. I shudder to think what it must be like from the inside.

Pretending that science actually supports YEC while ignoring all the evidence against it, and thinking that a few potshots around the edges are sufficient "evidence": witness Radar's failed attempts to make good on his over-blown claims re. dating methods, his perpetual embarrassed silence on explaining the sorting of fossils in the fossil record and an almost chronic inability to go for a single post without a drastic distortion, strawman argument or other major logical fallacy.

Is the comfort of this particular interpretation of the Christian narrative really worth that kind of self-deception? Perhaps, but not to me.

I have somewhat more appreciation for Highboy's take on this, even if I don't agree with him on many things.

To look at it another way: if you don't presuppose either the existence or the non-existence of God, which way would the evidence sway you? I think the fact that almost all, if not all YECs are believing Christians (perhaps Muslims too, I don't know enough about that) should give you a clue.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Unfortunately for Darwinists a few recent fossils have turned out to be, at least in part, to be remains rather than fossils."

Don't be coy now, elaborate.

-- creeper

highboy said...

"I have somewhat more appreciation for Highboy's take on this, even if I don't agree with him on many things."

What's my take? You guys are scrapping it up on a number of topics here.

Jon Woolf said...

Creeper: I think the fact that almost all, if not all YECs are believing Christians (perhaps Muslims too, I don't know enough about that) should give you a clue.

Yes, there are Muslim creationists. One of the most notorious is known as Harun Yahya. He seems to have quite a bit of money and he's very persistent, although his arguments are even worse than Radar's as far as their science goes.

Among the fundamentalist Muslim sects, the question simply doesn't come up. The Koran is the Word of Allah, and to question the Word of Allah is blasphemy. Evolution isn't the only thing that Muslim fundamentalists throw out, either. I've heard that Islam is hostile to some basic mathematical concepts too, such as randomness.

creeper said...

"What's my take? You guys are scrapping it up on a number of topics here."

You seem more willing to engage in an open discussion, both with myself and scohen. It's appreciated, even if we ultimately agree to disagree.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"What's my take? You guys are scrapping it up on a number of topics here."

And with regard to the discussions here: far as I can tell you're agnostic on the old Earth/young Earth question.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Yes, there are Muslim creationists. One of the most notorious is known as Harun Yahya. He seems to have quite a bit of money and he's very persistent, although his arguments are even worse than Radar's as far as their science goes."

I knew there was something like that, though I didn't know the specifics.

It's poignant though: people don't choose YEC based on scientific evidence; it's always accompanied by a complete a priori belief in or conversion to fundamentalist Christianity/Islam/(Judaism too I suppose).

Whereas if the young Earth/global flood narrative were true, there wouldn't even be anything to discuss - all the dating methods would indicate a young Earth, there'd be vast numbers of fossils of dinosaurs, cows, dogs, etc. all jumbled up, we'd see no stars further than 6K light years away, etc.

YECs have been known to dismiss such inconvenient facts as the result of untold thousands (perhaps even millions) engaging in an evil conspiracy so they can dismiss God and lead immoral lives. Even though majorities of major religions are on board with the theory of evolution. So does some global conspiracy in the face of inconvenient facts sound plausible? Hmm...

Hawkeye, what's your take on this?

-- creeper

Jon Woolf said...

Creeper: it's always accompanied by a complete a priori belief in or conversion to fundamentalist Christianity/Islam/(Judaism too I suppose).

Now that's a rather interesting topic. Jewish creationists are quite rare. There are a few of them, but not many and the ones I know of aren't particularly aggressive about it.

radar said...

Guys, if you cannot admit to yourself that you have a worldview/religion and it drives your thinking in the areas of science and philosophy and ethics nd etc? Then you are only fooling yourselves. Look at the Discovery Institute, a group of scientists who are intentionally agnostic about God or notGod but simply study the evidence. They all have worldviews, there are Deists and Muslims and Christians and even an Atheist or two who are simply studying what we can glean from observable evidence. They certainly come down on the C portion of YEC because organisms are so obviously designed you have to be ideologically blinded not to see it. So DI has discerned design but they do not follow up on the question of Who or What. But chance cannot be an answer. The tired old mutations plus natural selection simply doesn't work. I wish for once a serious Darwinist would admit that dog won't hunt and at least try to come up with a reasonable alternative.

Jon Woolf said...

Look at the Discovery Institute, a group of scientists who are intentionally agnostic about God or notGod but simply study the evidence.

Ha to that.

So DI has discerned design but they do not follow up on the question of Who or What.

And to that. The Discovery Institute is old-fashioned creationism trying to hide behind the fig leaf of "intelligent design." All their arguments are straight from the Creationist Jokebook; all their activities are directed toward the fulfillment of Philip Johnson's Wedge Strategy for replacing modern science and secular culture with a Christianity-based theocracy.

But chance cannot be an answer. The tired old mutations plus natural selection simply doesn't work.

Evolution isn't just random chance. Genetic variation is semi-random -- that is, random within limits. Selection is emphatically not random.

radar said...

Woolf speaketh truth! Natural selection is not random, it is a design feature. You are beginning to see the light. Well, probably not. But natural selection is an observed design feature of organisms. Organisms have a rich genetic pool of options from which to "choose" and the fittest for the environment are more likely to pass on. In a friendly environment with little predation or extremes of climate, etc. we see a wide variety of animals that sooner or later share genetic material and begin to find a similar size and coloration typical of populations that are not being selected out.

I am having a bit of fun with live fish breeding. We have an optimum tank for platys and swords with no predators and only plecos for bottom-feeding. We have and active live shrimp community and small snails. My wife harvests extra snails and shrimp and gives them to the big tank where the huge fish live. The black and spotted and orange and pineapple features are beginning to all mix together. We have one fish with black and white with a big orange splash on his head. Interesting.

No, Discovery Institute is not a creationist organization.

radar said...

Goodness gracious the propaganda!

Uniformitarianism or gradualism, both are wrong. The rock records show a massive flood event. The few land animals found indicate two things: Domesticated animals would have been destroyed since God brought destruction upon the civilization then in existence. Other animals with the ability to do so would flee the flooding as best they could so they would wind up as carrion rather than experience buryin'. You like that?

In fact we can suppose that many buried and fossilized vertebrates were caught in mudslides and collapses of dikes and floods in the post-flood world and were also frozen solid in various ice age scenarios that would have existed for awhile after the flood. With the widespread huge rock layers, water marks, elastic and flip/flop criss/crossed layers, megebraccias, paraconformities and many other features that blow holes in gradualism you are tooting a tin horn against a full symphony of evidence. Sadly, once you get to studying actual organisms the tin horn is silenced entirely.

radar said...

Frankly, most of my recent posts on origins have been straight science - microbiology 101 for the readers. We have dealt with Facilitated Variation and Genetic Redundancy and there is much, much more to come. We can completely falsify Darwinism by strapping on our microscopes of various types and studying creation itself. More to come and they have yet to deal with the first two, in case readers have not noticed?

Anonymous said...

Come on Radar, now you're just behaving like a three year old.

Jon, your post are so educational. Speaking for the scientific layman with not a lot of time on his/her hands, I'm glad you stumbled upon this blog (although I guess I ultimately owe Radar a thank you for that one). Thank you Jon, for continuing to return and refute the "stuff" Radar posts so repeatedly on this blog. In the end, I believe you (and creeper etc.) are helping the greater good by presenting hard facts with verifiable evidence to Radar's ridiculous, overly complicated, completely disingenuous arguments against anything that even appears to go against his "holy" bible. I realize you don't do this for me, but thanks anyway.

Oh and speaking of having no free time on one's hands, I'm sure you all would like to know that my lovely wife delivered healthy and hearty, full term twins this week. A boy and a girl. We feel very fortunate. That said, any guesses on my little boy's middle name? Hint: it rhymes with schmarwin.

Sorry, I just had to share my awesome news. If it makes you feel any better, understand that you are not alone, as at this point I'm also "sharing" with every cashier, salesperson, or complete stranger I happen upon.

Canucklehead.

Oh, and I almost forgot. Really Radar, you're doing "atheism is a religion" thing ,again? As usual I didn't read the post, only the comments by-the-way. But seriously, as has been written many times before, saying atheism is a religion is like saying "bald" is a hair colour, or perhaps that "not collecting stamps" is a hobby.

Jon Woolf said...

Please make up your mind, Radar. One minute you say "mutation + selection doesn't work," the next you say "variation and selection are a design feature." Which is it?

But natural selection is an observed design feature of organisms.

Natural selection is an example of emergent order in nature that's driven by the laws of statistics -- like rivers flowing downhill, or weather fronts moving west-to-east across North America.

In a friendly environment with little predation or extremes of climate, etc. we see a wide variety of animals that sooner or later share genetic material and begin to find a similar size and coloration typical of populations that are not being selected out.

No such thing. Selection is always at work, in any environment where anything besides blind luck produces differential survival rates. The Galapagos finches are an excellent example. No (or few) predators, few weather extremes. The primary selective factor there is food availability. Birds that are less successful at getting food are killed out by starvation.

In some environments, selection stabilizes the population. In others it drives the population toward change in some way. But it's always there.

The rock records show a massive flood event.

Why don't we ever find dolphins and ichthyosaurs together, Radar?

How did dogwoods and sycamores outrun brontosaurs to higher ground, Radar?

creeper said...

"The rock records show a massive flood event."

Not only do they not show a massive flood event, they're not even remotely compatible with such an event. Radiometric dating of layers to vastly different ages, the sorting of fossils in an evolutionary pattern - these completely disprove any global flood scenario.

"The few land animals found indicate two things: Domesticated animals would have been destroyed since God brought destruction upon the civilization then in existence."

Not sure where you're going with this. In the narrative, God brought that destruction in the form of the flood. So they weren't destroyed in a way that they could then not be fossilized. If that's what you were trying to get at, sorry, this one's a dud.

"Other animals with the ability to do so would flee the flooding as best they could so they would wind up as carrion rather than experience buryin'."

How does any of this explain the sorting of fossils in the rock layers? Are they sorted according to their ability to flee? No.

Another dud.

"You like that?"

No, it's nonsense.

"In fact we can suppose that many buried and fossilized vertebrates were caught in mudslides and collapses of dikes and floods in the post-flood world and were also frozen solid in various ice age scenarios that would have existed for awhile after the flood."

Indeed we can... but where are all the animals buried rapidly and fossilized as a result of the flood? Don't tell me you've given up on them. Keep in mind that just about all life on Earth was subjected to the flood and rapid burial - that is, as long as you're claiming that rock layers were formed as a result of the flood.

"With the widespread huge rock layers, water marks, elastic and flip/flop criss/crossed layers, megebraccias, paraconformities and many other features that blow holes in gradualism you are tooting a tin horn against a full symphony of evidence."

You have yet to provide a single example that hasn't been fully explained by conventional geology. The ones you've presented so far have all been addressed.

Come on, it can't be that hard.

"Sadly, once you get to studying actual organisms the tin horn is silenced entirely."

Er, no, that's where the evidence speaks loud and clear.

Seriously, if YECs want to go with this notion of front-loaded DNA, then all they have to do is formulate a testable, falsifiable hypothesis and apply it to the available DNA data.

There's no sign of that, and in any case, it would be impossible to construct such a hypothesis that would explain, for example, endogenous retroviruses.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"How did dogwoods and sycamores outrun brontosaurs to higher ground, Radar?"

LOL! Classic.

-- creeper

Hawkeye® said...

creeper,

Em, how did Hawkeye's comment in any way answer this question: "When did science - including as practiced by the Christian scientists of centuries past in that list you parade around once in a while - ever "include the supernatural element"? Ever?"

My answer: "I think you miss the point. It's not so much that scientists, including Christian scientists, used a "supernatural element" in their experiments -- as if they could summon angels or demons to participate in their human venture. Rather, it is that the scientists who performed those experiments believed in a supernatural God and were seeking to understand the supernatural laws which govern His creation."

Allow me to now elaborate even further. Please read what the author of the article ACTUALLY said: "Science has always belonged to all levels and kinds of inquiries that include the supernatural element."

Did you get that? Let's break that sentence down to its elemental components: Science has belonged to (ie, been a part of) inquiries. And it was those "inquiries that include the supernatural element." The author did NOT say that science included a supernatural element. He said that science was a part of the inquiries which included a supernatural element. Hence, you completely missed the point of what the author was trying to say.

The author was saying that people made "inquiries" and those inquiries included various components including both a supernatural element and science as well. The supernatural element would perhaps be prayer and the study of God's Word. I supported that view in my comment by stating that Sir Isaac Newton studied the Bible looking for secret messages and clues to the world around us.

Hawkeye points out that the some of the characteristics of scientific laws (e.g. immutable, constant) coincide with some of the characteristics of a divine being. How does that add up to science including a supernatural element?

It doesn't. And again, that's because you missed the point... for a second time. (You seem to have a problem in that area.) If you read what I wrote, you'd see that I said: "Why did the early scientists believe that God established all these laws? Quite frankly, it is because these laws reveal the fingerprint of God Himself. They bear His attributes."

I then went on to support my statement showing how scientific laws bear the attributes of God namely: omnipresent, eternal, immutable, invisible, immaterial, and absolute truth.

You should really pay more attention to what you read.

Hawkeye® said...

Jon Woolf,

Are you confusing me with creeper, perhaps? I make no such presupposition.

Yes, perhaps I am. My apologies.

(As for turning lead into gold, it has already been achieved.) Not by chemical means, which is what Newton was trying to do.

Radiation was unknown to Newton, but he might have tried to use it had he been aware of it.

Your turn to acknowledge a mistake, Hawkeye. Radar and I were talking about uniformitarianism as a principle of geology. Punctuated equilibrium is a concept of evolutionary biology. Two very different fields.

I acknowledge the mistake. I make no claims to being a geologist, biologist, or paleontologist.

First, where did that quoted passage come from?

The first quote came from here...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9116163

The second quote came from here...

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/I/Invertebrates.html#The_Origin_and_Evolution_of_Animals_%28Metazoa%29

Hawkeye® said...

creeper,

I don't consider secular humanism shallow or pitiful.

Perhaps not, but answer this question if you would: What is the basis for morality in secular humanism?

Hawkeye® said...

creeper,

Unless you already pre-suppose the existence of God, presenting an ancient religious text as a supposed "law-giver" or arbiter of morality even though its teachings have been re-defined and shaped by humans with little ill-effect and many benefits over the centuries isn't all that impressive.


First, I'm sorry that you are not impressed. You can tell that to God when you meet Him. I'm sure that He won't be too impressed with you either.

Second, I'm glad that you feel our "ancient religious text" has had "little ill-effect and many benefits over the centuries". Too bad I can't say the same for Darwinism.

Hawkeye® said...

creeper,

The changing nature of God in the Bible and many other of its textual peculiarities just make a lot more sense when one interprets it...


So how many times have you read the Bible? How many years have you studied it in order to make a valid and qualified interpretation?

Hawkeye® said...

creeper,

a small tribe holding its own against rival tribes (mass murder and slavery are cool!)


Since you are such a Bible expert, please quote the passages you refer to when you accuse "a small tribe" (presumably the Jews) of mass murder and slavery.

a young religion trying to find a foothold in the Roman Empire

Which means what exactly? Because Christianity was a young religion, its adherents went to their death testifying to the death and resurrection of Jesus because they wanted to gain "a foothold in the Roman Empire"? Is that why you think Christian martyrs went to their death? So they could gain a foothold in the Roman Empire?

Anonymous said...

"How did dogwoods and sycamores outrun brontosaurs to higher ground, Radar?"

Gee. I wonder if wood FLOATS?

radar

PS- We see the same kind of stripped tree trunks upright in formations after Mt Helens that cause tree trunks in the fossil record to appear to have stood for 400 million years. Hmmm.

Happy dadhood, Canuckle!

Woolf, it is called SPECIATION. YEC have never argued against it.

radar

Hawkeye® said...

creeper,

To look at it another way: if you don't presuppose either the existence or the non-existence of God, which way would the evidence sway you?


Interesting question, but my first thought would be that your question is illogical in the sense that there are no alternatives. Either God exists or He doesn't exist. Therefore, there are no alternatives.

On second thought, there might be some alternatives: 1) polytheism - that several or many gods exist, 2) pantheism - that God IS the world and nature itself, or 3) deism - that God created the world and then had no further interest in it.

In pantheism, there is still a presupposition of God, but not as Radar or I would believe. In pantheism the essence of the world and nature is in fact God. Therefore, any "evidence" we discuss would point to God, because everything is composed of God. If you find something, nay ANYTHING in nature, it is proof of God.

Deism also presupposes a God, but not the God of the Bible who is active in the world and human affairs. In deism, God created the world and then had no further interest in it. Therefore, any "evidence" we discuss would point to God because He started the whole thing going in the first place. If evolution exists, then God must have "created" evolution, therefore evolution is proof of God.

The only remaining option (in my opinion) is polytheism - a belief in many gods. Polytheists are neither atheists (as you are) nor are they monotheists (as I am).

What do polytheists believe about the validity of evolution? I don't know. What do polytheists believe about the existence of a spiritual realm? I would contend that they probably acknowledge it.

I guess we would need to do further research to see if polytheists believe in evolution.

creeper said...

Congratulations to Canucklehead and Mrs. Canucklehead!

-- creeper

creeper said...

Me: "Em, how did Hawkeye's comment in any way answer this question: "When did science - including as practiced by the Christian scientists of centuries past in that list you parade around once in a while - ever "include the supernatural element"? Ever?"

"

Hawkeye: "My answer: "I think you miss the point. It's not so much that scientists, including Christian scientists, used a "supernatural element" in their experiments -- as if they could summon angels or demons to participate in their human venture. Rather, it is that the scientists who performed those experiments believed in a supernatural God and were seeking to understand the supernatural laws which govern His creation.""


Thank you for acknowledging that you didn’t answer the question, and indeed finding the suggestion preposterous.



”Allow me to now elaborate even further. Please read what the author of the article ACTUALLY said: "Science has always belonged to all levels and kinds of inquiries that include the supernatural element."”

You do know that the author is Radar, right?

And you do know that you're misquoting him here, right? You put a period at the end, but here's what Radar ACTUALLY said:

"Science has always belonged to all levels and kinds of inquiries that include the supernatural element and that in the last couple of centuries a majority of ideologues say otherwise is immaterial."



”Did you get that? Let's break that sentence down to its elemental components: Science has belonged to (ie, been a part of) inquiries. And it was those "inquiries that include the supernatural element." The author did NOT say that science included a supernatural element. He said that science was a part of the inquiries which included a supernatural element."

X include element Y.

A has always belonged to the group X.

It comes down to the interpretation of "include". If every X includes an element Y, then A, which has always belonged to the group X, also includes Y.

But if you take "include" to mean X has as a member element Y, then you could parse it as you did here. It's illogical, however, since you are placing a "supernatural element" as being an equal member among "levels and kinds of inquiries". Is a "supernatural element" a "level and kind of inquiry"? Not likely. Can a "level and kind of inquiry" contain a "supernatural element"? Yep.

-- continued

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Hence, you completely missed the point of what the author was trying to say.”

Your way of parsing that sentence isn’t the only one. Another way is “Science has always been one of the kinds of inquiries that include the supernatural element”, i.e. “Science has always been a kind of inquiry that includes the supernatural element”. There are inquiries that include the supernatural element. Science has always belonged to them.

Which certainly IS saying that science included a supernatural element.

The author, being Radar, seems pretty clear about what he's trying to say, especially when you take into account his past proclamations on the subject.

And that's not even taking into account that you misquoted him. Take into account the rest of the sentence that follows: "and that in the last couple of centuries a majority of ideologues say otherwise is immaterial" - is Radar really saying that there is science and there is a supernatural element, and they are unrelated other than that they are both "levels and kinds of inquiries", and that the supernatural - being completely separate from science - is being said to be immaterial by a majority of ideologues?

Or is he saying that the supernatural element used to be a part of science, but is now dismissed as immaterial by ideologues?

Both interpretations have some validity, but the latter is certainly much more in line with Radar's other proclamations, so I think it's the more likely one of the two.

”The author was saying that people made "inquiries" and those inquiries included various components including both a supernatural element and science as well.”

Well, seeing as the author happens to Radar himself, we can just ask him. Radar, did you mean to say that science does or does not include supernatural elements?

-- creeper

creeper said...

”The supernatural element would perhaps be prayer and the study of God's Word. I supported that view in my comment by stating that Sir Isaac Newton studied the Bible looking for secret messages and clues to the world around us.”

Interesting area for discussion. So was that part of Newton's scientific method? Did he actually find any secret messages and clues? Was the Bible a useful tool, perhaps, in discovering Newton's laws of motion? Or might the identification of the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter as 3 have made him realize that the Bible isn't such a hot science textbook after all?

Do you think it's possible that Newton - of course by no means an ontological naturalist - confined himself to methodological naturalism in the way he made his discoveries?

I'm happy to believe that he was inspired by examining God's creation, but the motivation isn't really all that relevant to the ways in which they make their discoveries. When it comes to that, it doesn't matter whether they're atheists or Jews or Muslims or Christians or what-have-you. People enter the field of science for all kinds of reasons.

Me: "

Hawkeye points out that the some of the characteristics of scientific laws (e.g. immutable, constant) coincide with some of the characteristics of a divine being. How does that add up to science including a supernatural element?

"

Hawkeye: "It doesn't."

Thank you.

"And again, that's because you missed the point... for a second time. (You seem to have a problem in that area.)"

It doesn't look to me like I missed it the first time, but thank you for your concern.

"If you read what I wrote, you'd see that I said: "Why did the early scientists believe that God established all these laws? Quite frankly, it is because these laws reveal the fingerprint of God Himself. They bear His attributes."

"

It's an interesting proposition. I take it this is based on actual documents left behind by these early scientists?

"I then went on to support my statement showing how scientific laws bear the attributes of God namely: omnipresent, eternal, immutable, invisible, immaterial, and absolute truth.

"

One thing I don't get, though: if these laws "reveal the fingerprint of God Himself", then what the dickens possesses Radar to keep claiming that uniformitarianism (I shouldn't have to say it but what I mean by that is the currently understood, geological uniformitarianism) is wrong, is a lie, etc.?

On the one hand we have all these scientists of old who supposedly only got into science because they were able to presume that God's creation would be orderly and consistent, and on the other hand, once those presumptions of order and consistency fail to yield the desired results, it must all be a pack of lies...

"You should really pay more attention to what you read."

Always a risky thing to say. You better not misread anything in the near future, eh?

-- creeper

Jon Woolf said...

Gee. I wonder if wood FLOATS?

So we have trees such as Calamites -- made of wood, which floats -- appearing only far below any dinosaurs in the geologic column. And we have modern deciduous trees -- also made of wood -- appearing only above dinosaurs in the geologic column. While other trees, such as cycads and conifers, appear below dinosaurs, with dinosaurs, and above dinosaurs.

Yup. Makes perfect sense as results of a flood.

We see the same kind of stripped tree trunks upright in formations after Mt Helens that cause tree trunks in the fossil record to appear to have stood for 400 million years.

No, we don't. The trees that were blown into Spirit Lake by the St. Helens blast, and subsequently became lodged in upright positions, are clearly the result of a volcanic event. Fossil forests such as the lycopods of Joggins Cliffs were fossilized in situ, with root systems intact -- making them clearly not the result of a volcanic event.

Woolf, it is called SPECIATION. YEC have never argued against it.

You know, Radar, it's really kind of amusing (or depressing, depending on my mood) to find that not only do I know my side of this argument much better than you do, I also know your side much better than you do. For more than a century after the publication of On the Origin of Species, creationists of all kinds said a baramin was more or less equivalent to a species, and that speciation was impossible. Here's one example from the Institute for Creation Research. You may or may not agree with Morris the Elder, but please don't try to tell me he didn't say what I know he said.

creeper said...

"Perhaps not, but answer this question if you would: What is the basis for morality in secular humanism?"

How best to live together as human beings and allow ourselves and each other to lead good, happy functional lives.

If you're looking for an answer along the lines of who dictated the rules, it's not there. But that would be you imposing your own pre-conceived notions on a different approach to which they just don't apply.

But if you want to argue that Christians have an absolute moral law, then I have to question why the perception of morality even among Christians can change over the centuries. Why is slavery now perceived to be immoral?

I think we've had this discussion before. I suspect soon we'll be on to Divine Command Theory.

-- creeper

creeper said...

”First, I'm sorry that you are not impressed. You can tell that to God when you meet Him. I'm sure that He won't be too impressed with you either.”

Funny how you can so effortlessly turn this God of yours into such a spiteful little person.



”Second, I'm glad that you feel our "ancient religious text" has had "little ill-effect and many benefits over the centuries". “

You should really pay more attention to what you read, Mister lecturing-others-about-reading-comprehension. Read my comment again. I certainly did not say that the "ancient religious text" that is the Bible has had "little ill-effect and many benefits over the centuries". I said that the way it has been re-defined and shaped by humans has had "little ill-effect and many benefits over the centuries". Big difference.

”Too bad I can't say the same for Darwinism.”

That it has had "little ill-effect and many benefits over the centuries"? Well, I don’t know about Darwinism since I don’t know what you mean by that word. It seems to shift meaning from one comment or post to the next around here.

You can certainly say it about the theory of evolution, which has had little ill-effect and many benefits since Darwin and Wallace came up with it. That doesn’t add up to centuries (plural) just yet though.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"So how many times have you read the Bible? How many years have you studied it in order to make a valid and qualified interpretation?"

Read the whole thing maybe once. Studied some sections in more detail when circumstances warranted it. Also had the opportunity to have some open and detailed discussions with pretty high-level clergy, which gave me a renewed appreciation for and different perspective on the text.

-- creeper

creeper said...

Since you are such a Bible expert, please quote the passages you refer to when you accuse "a small tribe" (presumably the Jews) of mass murder and slavery.

I’m hardly an expert, but one passage that would spring to mind is Deuteronomy 20:9-17:

"And it shall be, when the officers have made an end of speaking unto the people that they shall make captains of the armies to lead the people.
When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.
And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.
And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:
And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations.
But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:"


Good enough?

-- creeper

creeper said...

Me: To look at it another way: if you don't presuppose either the existence or the non-existence of God, which way would the evidence sway you?

"

Hawkeye: "Interesting question, but my first thought would be that your question is illogical in the sense that there are no alternatives. Either God exists or He doesn't exist. Therefore, there are no alternatives.
"


It's not about choosing between presuppositions.

A simple alternative is to have no presuppositions. An agnostic, for example.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

How twisted the arguments get! The idea that everything has been going at the same rate and pace is wrong. Period. Laws of Thermodynamics, remember? The speed of light may not be constant. The rate of flows of sediments into the oceans, the ice layers and tree rings do not take the flood into account. Rock layers cannot be read like millions upon millions of years. They are from Cambrian on up a record of the flood and post-flood periods almost exclusively, with a little catastrophic event here or there in the last 400 years. Darwinists have NOT dealt with the rock records problems at all. And if something evolved FROM the trilobite it went downhill not uphill. The trilobite is (was) a magnificent little organism.

radar

Anonymous said...

Me: To look at it another way: if you don't presuppose either the existence or the non-existence of God, which way would the evidence sway you?

"

Hawkeye: "Interesting question, but my first thought would be that your question is illogical in the sense that there are no alternatives. Either God exists or He doesn't exist. Therefore, there are no alternatives.
"

It's not about choosing between presuppositions.

A simple alternative is to have no presuppositions. An agnostic, for example.

-- creeper

Hence, the Discovery Institute! They are of many worldviews but are scientifically agnostic. Radar

Anonymous said...

OH, the part where God had decided to have the people who sacrificed babies to idols and had harlots for temple pristesses wiped out?

If the USA is not careful we will be as bad as the Jebusites. We do not worship Dagon, we worship ourselves. Plus we have now sacrificed fifty million babies since 1973. Hmmmm. Yeah, that atheism and Darwinism has really benefitted society!

creeper said...

"What cracks me up is the atheists who try to assert that atheism is not a religion! What did you think it was, a mouthwash?! Hehehehe"

The lack of a belief in God, obviously.

What cracks me up is that you, Radar, who prays I'm presuming on a daily basis and runs away from facts if they happen to contradict your faith and not just goes to church but is active in it, go to great lengths to explain that you are not religious, while claiming that atheists - who don't give a hoot about religion and religious rituals – are actually secretly religious. It's bizarre.

Something really bad must have happened to you at some point to make you have such negative associations with the concept of religion. Otherwise, well, given your faith and your level of involvement, why not embrace religion? Seems kinda logical.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Hence, the Discovery Institute! They are of many worldviews but are scientifically agnostic. Radar"

Pardon the little paste hiccup. I was writing the comments up in Word instead of in the tiny Blogger window and accidentally pasted this in as well. Not sure why it didn't include my handle at the top either.

-- creeper

creeper said...

BTW, excellent comment, Jon. I was trying to find a way to get it across to Radar that there is no known mechanism by which wood floats selectively...

-- creeper

creeper said...

Only Radar can condemn abortion blamed on "atheism and Darwinism" in one breath and in the next condone mass murder as long as God says it's okay.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"OH, the part where God had decided to have the people who sacrificed babies to idols and had harlots for temple pristesses wiped out?"

No, the part where everyone was supposed to surrender and pay tribute or else be murdered and/or become slaves.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"How twisted the arguments get! The idea that everything has been going at the same rate and pace is wrong. Period."

Your evidence being what exactly?

"Laws of Thermodynamics, remember?"

How do you figure they play into this?

"The speed of light may not be constant."

What would change the speed of light as a universal constant?

"The rate of flows of sediments into the oceans, the ice layers and tree rings do not take the flood into account."

Ice core layers and tree rings show no sign of a global flood. If the data "don't take something into account", there's likely a reason for that.

They are data. You can't get them to change their mind or show something that you would prefer to see. You can argue that it's not always easy to tell one layer from the next, but to get to those layers where it's difficult to tell the distinctions between layers, you have to pass hundreds of thousands of ice core layers. There is simply no way for the YEC hypothesis to explain the data.

"Rock layers cannot be read like millions upon millions of years."

Please provide an alternate, consistent explanation for the data obtained by radiometric dating then. Otherwise just admit that you disagree because you don't like the result, nothing else.

"They are from Cambrian on up a record of the flood and post-flood periods almost exclusively, with a little catastrophic event here or there in the last 400 years."

Then why don't we see the fossils all jumbled up? How can we account for radiometric dating data between different layers?

Sorry, Radar, the evidence for a young Earth just isn't there, no matter how much you'd like it to be.

"Darwinists have NOT dealt with the rock records problems at all."

Darwinists being what exactly? Radar, you're going to have to explain this at some point. Do you mean atheists? Do you mean anybody who accepts the theory of evolution?

But what "rock records problems" do you have in mind? We've addressed quite a few on your blog already, and you (and all of YEC) are still short of any kind of explanation of any kind for the biggest rock record problem of all: the sorting of fossils into layers. One of several gaping holes in the YEC scenario.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Pardon the little paste hiccup. I was writing the comments up in Word instead of in the tiny Blogger window and accidentally pasted this in as well. Not sure why it didn't include my handle at the top either."

Never mind. I just realized this was Radar's comment, somewhat hastily dashed off, and he had copied my comment in full, so I thought it was mine with some gobbledygook at the end.

Turns out the gobbledygook was a comment from Radar.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Hence, the Discovery Institute! They are of many worldviews but are scientifically agnostic. Radar"

The Discovery Institute is "scientifically agnostic"? Excuse me? Now you're being utterly disingenuous or grossly misinformed.

The Discovery Institute, in case you forgot, authored the infamous Wedge Document. You know, the one that talks about the Wedge Strategy. Google it sometime.

Would you seriously call them impartial on this subject? Seriously?

-- creeper