Search This Blog

Friday, June 18, 2010

Darwinists have no arguments, just catchphrases

Why my commenters think that unsubstantiated statements of regurgitated Darwinist doctrine rise to the level of an answer?  Snork all you like but one of these days you will have to answer the questions.  One of you said, "...this post is also from the mind that defines "Information" as the weightless and massless, intelligent transmission of intelligence. I mean, how awesome is that?"  I think it is awesome indeed, you are closer to the truth now.   What do you think it is?  Information requires a medium to be transmitted, but it does not comprise the medium itself.  Think on that for awhile.

What do I know about archeopteryx?   That reputable Darwinists do not even use it as a transitional form because it is not linear (in their view) to the "evolution" of birds.  It is an outlier like the Platypus that is quite unlike any relatives known to exist.

Never have I shown polystrate trees going through many layers of rocks?


Or fossils sorted by water flows?




 Or sudden burial evidences?




Here is a good one:  "The theory of evolution is a description of what happened, not a prescription of the way things ought to be."  Says who?   Darwinists have completely failed to show that macroevolution ever happened.  If you consider it to be testable, then it has been falsified as millions of generations of bacteria and thousands of generations of fruit flies can attest.  In fact, non YEC people such as Midgley will tell you that Darwinism as an explanation for life has gone past the expiration date.  Every time a Darwinist show us a bacteria that eats something new, scientists demonstrate that this is a result of a loss of information.

Suppose I want to play stickball but have no stick.  I can break off or unscrew or saw off the head of a broom and, voila, I have a stickball bat!  But I will have lost the sweep functionality of what was once a broom.  If citrase bacteria (a loss of functionality allows the bacteria to take in a less preferred source of energy in aerobic conditions, making it less likely to be viable in the wild) is the best you have, you have nothing.

While commenters chide me for not understanding Darwin, I chide them for not understanding the science behind Darwin and origins and genetic activities in general.  Those who have gladly swallowed the propaganda dispensed by NCSE-friendly sources are simply brainwashed to the point they cannot have an intelligent discussion on the subject.  Facilitated Variation and Genetic Redundancy.  Do a search on my site for those and read the articles and tell me if they are simplistic or are they thorough?  Have a shot at irreducible complexity, for that matter.

Speciation is not Darwinism.  Darwin observed speciation and like others before him surmised that there was a "survival of the fittest" story there.  But he was quite primitive in his understanding.   He would be like a small child who rides with a parent and observes the following behavior:  Open car door, put key in ignition, turn, and pull on a lever.  What makes the car go?  Is it the key or the lever?  Both of them have a part in the process of turning on and operating a vehicle.
Now a pre-teen comes to know that there is a motor and a transmission.  He understands that both gasoline and oil go into the automobile and sometimes other things like transmission fluid and antifreeze and brake fluid.  He may even be taught by his father how to check levels on fluids and what fluids go in what containers or openings.  Here he has come up to about the level of knowledge Darwin had about the cell.

We now know that a cell is far more complex than an automobile and better designed in the bargain.  While carmakers lay out their initial blueprints for an automobile years in advance and then work with suppliers to haggle over price versus engineering advantages versus labor contracts versus delivery date deadlines, God just made a good basic model of a few baramin (kinds) that could adjust to ecosystems and fill every niche available. 

I was in the auto business and saw the methods that caused designers to neglect to put an entry port in the trunk so that the gas-tank mounted pump could be accessed from above.  They saved pennies in production while owners a few years down the road pay hundreds of dollars for a mechanic to lower the tank to get access and probably having to deal with the exhaust system in the process.   But the biological machines made by God keep on going strong despite having to deal with accidents and disasters and mutations and the laws of thermodynamics.   Just as an automaker stamps identifying numbers on various parts and puts an identifier label on the driver's side door, God has left his signature in DNA.   Obvious to those who are willing to see.
It remains true today that the watch found while walking in the woods was designed and manufactured, it did not just pop into existence.  

Anyway, speciation is a design element built into the cell to allow for adjustments to environments and predation and so on.  It is cell-driven, a series of choices made by the cell produce creatures and the ones that survive bring their genetic information back into production, so to speak.  Darwin saw speciation and correctly surmised that it was a result of natural selection.  What he did not and could not know was that the choices made by the cell are already present within the cell.  Like a man browsing through a library for something to read, he chooses from the books available and does not kick a chair and expect new books to result.

One of the ridiculous claims by commenters is that I do not understand Darwinism.  Notice that they say that without answering the questions posed to them.  I understand Darwinism quite well and it simply fails the test.  Mutation plus natural selection does not give rise to new information and cannot create new creatures.  We have gone down into the cell to see how it works and it is obvious that the mother sets the template for the child and accepts pre-existing information from the father to go along with the information in the mother and the result is a child that inherits characteristics of both.  

Never, not once, has a Darwinist observed one kind of creature become another.  Never have they induced fruit flies or bacteria into adding new information over millions and thousands of generations, respectively. 

Where does information come from? - (they have never answered this)

How did life arise from non-life? (no real clues either)

What about dating methods?  I have shown that there are dating methods that yield young ages, old ages and ages that vary greatly from the same layers of rock.  One cannot trust tree rings or ice layers beyond historical markers identifiable from, say, a volcanic event and they do not take a world-wide flood into account.  Darwinists ALWAYS want to take you to an unobservable past where they can weave stories about what happened without having proof.   But they take you to a place where it is difficult to disprove what they say as well.  So recently I have concentrated on the things we can observe about the cell now, observable and testable things.   These have proven favorable to the concept a Creator having designed all living things.
 

Darwinists blithely say that all paraconformities have been explained but when I have posted on paraconformities they have failed the test.  There are too many paraconformities to explain away all over the world.  Don't listen to them and don't listen to me, do your own research.

Stay away from talk origins and Dr Dino.  Go to reputable sites on both sides of the questions and check out what the ID'ers say as well.   

YEC - Young Earth Creationists.  Creation.com is an example of these kinds of sites, run by scientists who are YEC and who present evidence for their viewpoints.

Darwinists - They own the airwaves and the academies so you do not have to go look for them.  They are like Savoir-Faire and unlike Klondike Kat you probably will not take an entire episode of your life to track them down.

OEC - Those who somehow can mix the oil of Darwin with the water of God and get a tasty drink.  My buddy Highboy is one, for instance.  Who says we all have to agree on everything?

ID - Intelligent Design people are those who subtract the metaphysical from the equation and try to go strictly on scientific evidences and observable evidence.   Start at the Discovery Institute and go from there.
~


What Darwin Got Wrong by Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli Palmarini



 

Darwin is under fire again, but Mary Midgley feels that his ideas have been misrepresented
  1. What Darwin Got Wrong
  2. by Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli Palmarini
  3. 178pp,
  4.  
  5. Profile,
  6.  
  7. £20
  1. Buy What Darwin Got Wrong at the Guardian bookshop
Charles Darwin complained quite crossly in his autobiography that, despite many denials, people still kept saying he thought natural selection was the sole cause of evolutionary development. "Great is the force of misrepresentation," he grumbled. Had he known that, a century later, his alleged followers would be promoting that very doctrine as central to his teaching, and extending it into the wilder reaches of psychology and physics, he might have got even crosser. Darwin's objection was surely not just that he could see other possible causes. He saw that the doctrine itself did not make sense. No filter, however powerful, can be the only cause of what flows out of it. Questions about what comes into that filter have to be just as important. The proposed solution bears no proportion to the size of the problem.
Since his time, biologists have discovered a huge amount that is really interesting and important about internal factors in organisms that affect reproduction. This powerful little book uses that material to challenge sharply the whole neo-Darwinist orthodoxy – the assumption that, essentially, all evolution is due to mutation and selection. Its authors do not, of course, deny that this kind of classical natural selection happens. But they argue strongly that there is now no reason to privilege it over a crowd of other possible causes. Not only are most mutations known to be destructive but the material of inheritance itself has turned out to be far more complex, and to provide a much wider repertoire of untapped possibilities, than used to be thought. To an impressive extent, organisms provide the materials for changes in their own future. As the authors put it, "Before any phenotype can be, so to speak, 'offered' to selection by the environment, a host of internal constraints have to be satisfied." Epigenetic effects, resulting from different expressions of the same genes, can make a huge difference. And genes themselves are now known not to be independent, bean-like items connected to particular transmitted traits, but aspects of a most intricate process, sensitive to all sorts of internal factors, so that in many ways the same genes can result in a different creature. Recent work in "evodevo" – evolutionary developmental biology – shows how paths of development can themselves change and can change the resulting organism. And again, forces such as "molecular drive", which  rearrange the genes, can also have that effect.
Besides this – perhaps even more interestingly – the laws of physics and chemistry themselves take a hand in the developmental process. Matter itself behaves in characteristic ways which are distinctly non-random. Many natural patterns, such as the arrangement of buds on a stem, accord with the series of Fibonacci numbers, and Fibonacci spirals are also observed in spiral nebulae. There are, moreover, no flying pigs, on account of the way in which bones arrange themselves. I am pleased to see that Fodor and Piattelli Palmarini introduce these facts in a chapter headed "The Return of the Laws of Form" and connect them with the names of D'Arcy Thompson, Conrad Waddington and Ilya Prigogine. Though they don't actually mention Goethe, that reference still rightly picks up an important, genuinely scientific strand of investigation which was for some time oddly eclipsed by neo-Darwinist fascination with the drama of randomness and the illusory seductions of simplicity.
This book is, of course, fighting stuff, sure to be contested by those at whom it is aimed. On the face of things, however, it strikes an outsider as an overdue and valuable onslaught on neo-Darwinist simplicities. (The one thing I would complain of is the title, which is perhaps too personal. This isn't just a point about Darwin; it's a point about the nature of life.) As the authors note, the traditional story has been defended by extending it – by widening the notion of natural selection to include some of these internal processes. But they think – surely rightly – that this device merely adds epicycles which kill the doctrine by diluting it. The long process of repeated trials and errors which has always been claimed as a central feature of natural selection cannot be incorporated in this way.
If we now ask what will take its place, their answer is that this question does not arise. There is not – and does not have to be – any single, central mechanism of evolution. There are many such mechanisms, which all need to be investigated on their own terms. If one finds this kind of position reasonable, the interesting next question is, what has made it so hard to accept? What has kept this kind of dogmatic "Darwinism" – largely independent of its founder – afloat for so long, given that much of the material given here is by no means new?
The explanation for this might be the seductive myth that underlies it. That myth had its roots in Victorian social Darwinism but today it flows largely from two books – Jacques Monod's Chance and Necessity (1971) and Richard Dawkins's The Selfish Gene (1976). Both these books, of course, contain lots of good and necessary biological facts. But what made them bestsellers was chiefly the sensational underlying picture of human life supplied by their rhetoric and especially their metaphors. This drama showed heroic, isolated individuals contending, like space warriors, alone against an alien and meaningless cosmos. It established the books as a kind of bible of individualism, most congenial to the Reaganite and Thatcherite ethos of the 80s. Monod first showed humans in Existentialist style as aliens – "gypsies" in a foreign world – and, by expanding the role of chance in evolution, concluded that our life was essentially a "casino". Dawkins added personal drama by describing a population of genes which – quite unlike the real ones inside us – operate as totally independent agents and can do as they please. It is no great surprise that these images caught on, nor that they can now persist whether or not the doctrines linked to them turn out to be scientific.
Mary Midgley's Beast and Man: The Roots of Human Nature is published by Routledge.

~
Here is another whopper:  "Added information and complexity through evolution/selection has been demonstrated, so design is hardly a foregone conclusion"  Yagottabekiddin'!    Never has one tiny bit of new information ever been shown to enter an organism.  Time for actual science.

1)  The information in the cell codes for replication, repair, functionality and somehow transfers traits and behaviors as well.
2) Never has new information been shown to enter in, nor has a viable source for this information been identified.

3) Mutations are usually harmful but most of the time they do have an effect on an organism they simply turn a preexisting switch on or off.  The cell is full of redundant information that helps conserve and stabilize the population.
Here you go....the link from which the Guardian article was obtained.



Post details: Scientific Consensus is sleep inducing

06/09/10

Permalinkby 10:05:00 am, Categories: Literature - Articles, 879 words   English (UK)

Scientific Consensus is sleep inducing

Today, there seem to be many vested interests in scientific consensus. Universities and science associations often make use of the concept when explaining the importance of science in society and in making pronouncements on issues of public significance. Consensus is relevant to funding agencies, who focus their awards on science that appears to be building on an existing knowledge base. It is a factor in peer review, for it is much harder to get unorthodox ideas past the journal review processes. It influences the media: who is regarded as an 'expert' and who should not get exposure because of their unorthodox ideas. How refreshing, then, to find the Royal Institute of Philosophy offering some cautionary words in an editorial:
"One of the most striking aspects of Karl Popper's philosophy of science is his insistence that scientific consensus is sleep inducing, intellectually speaking. He did not actually put it quite like that. What he pointed out was that the most successful scientific theory ever devised turned out to be false, even though it had been treated as scientifically practically unquestionable for nigh on two centuries. Popper was thinking of Newton's theory, whose refutation (as Popper saw it) in 1917 was a key moment in his own intellectual life."
Karl Popper
Popper "called for a clear demarcation between good science, in which theories are constantly challenged, and what he called "pseudo sciences" which couldn't be tested. His debunking of such ideologies led some to describe him as the "murderer of Freud and Marx". [Some of us think the name of Darwin should be added to this list]." (Source here)
Even more welcome are the two examples selected of modern-day scientific consensus: "critics of the theory of evolution and of the reality of climate change". Although the public has been assured time after time that the "science is settled" on these issues, the guardians of these consensus positions will not be pleased by these cautionary words, nor by the judgment offered that the critiques "are not all or entirely without weight".
"Popper's lesson is little heeded to-day. Critics of the theory of evolution and of the reality of climate change are not so much argued with as vilified, excluded and marginalised in polite scientific and even political circles. It is what one might expect from a very powerful institution, like the medieval Church, but not perhaps from one ostensibly committed to critical rationality and the pursuit of falsification. The criticisms which are made of the theory of evolution and of climate change, as these things are currently and consensually understood, are not all or entirely without weight."
It appears to me that the philosophers are not making a judgment on the science, but on the quality of the debate. There are real issues to discuss - the philosophers can recognise that. Furthermore, they are not impressed by the way the defenders of scientific consensus are treating the critiques: ad hominem arguments, straw man arguments, much handwaving, smokescreens and even a refusal to engage with the real issues. Even saying there should be a proper debate can be dangerous:
"We hope that saying that will not bring a heap of opprobrium on our heads. But even if the criticisms were off the wall, those who take Popper seriously may still occasionally catch a whiff of the falsifying rat behind the painted and perfumed consensus."
A recent example of the lack of real debate can be found in the reception ofWhat Darwin Got Wrong by Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini. Here is Douglas Futuyma in Science (7 May 2010) in a review entitled: "Two critics without a clue".
"Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini show little familiarity with the vast literature on genetic variation, experimental analyses of natural selection, or other topics on which they philosophically expound. They are blithely agnostic about the causes of evolution and apparently uninterested in fostering any program of research. Because they are prominent in their own fields, some readers may suppose that they are authorities on evolution who have written a profound and important book. They aren't, and it isn't."
Another example is the ID prediction of functionality for Junk DNA, and the establishment Darwinists defence of Junk. An interesting report on some recent exchanges is by Jonathan Wells. This concludes:
"If one overlooks the nastiness, it is clear that there are some interesting issues in this debate. Conceptually, what does it mean to say that a segment of DNA has function? Empirically, what does the evidence show? One might think that professors Matheson, Hunt and Moran would address the conceptual issue calmly, rationally, and collegially. But they don't; instead, they stoop to misrepresentation and ridicule. And one might think that they would address the empirical issue by citing published scientific evidence. But they don't; instead, they simply proclaim themselves the only authorities on the subject."
What we are seeing is a warped science. Instead of championing empiricism and testing of hypotheses, the consensus scientists end up appealing to authority and treating the evidence lightly. They are making the same mistake as the Medieval Church.
Scientific Consensus
Editorial
Philosophy, April 2010, 85(2), 181 | doi: 10.1017/S0031819110000161
[Much of the text of this editorial is cited above]

 ~


Yep.  A strange twist of fate.
   
We who are YEC/ID proponenents based on the science and the observable evidence find ourselves in the position of being Martin Luther tacking our theses on the door of the Church of Darwin.  Despite the fact that Darwinists show no source for information and no cause for the breath of life and no proof that macroevolution ever happens or has happened the Priests of Darwin have declared what the Orthodox view will be the only view and prepare their tortures and trials for those who will not repent and recant!



Post details: K'necting The Dots: Modeling Functional Integration In Biological Systems

06/11/10

Permalinkby 12:47:59 pm, Categories: Commentary - Announcements, 927 words   English (US)

K'necting The Dots: Modeling Functional Integration In Biological Systems

By Robert Deyes
ARN Correspondent


In 2001 Stephen Meyer, Paul Nelson and Paul Chien wrote a lengthy discourse that explored the scientific challenges that the Cambrian Explosion of life poses to the Darwinian account of animal origins (1). Central to their arguments was the idea that biological processes in the organismic context are so tightly integrated that changes in one process invariably require compensatory changes elsewhere (1). Their illustration of this basic premise seemed intuitive enough:


"If an engineer modifies the length of the piston rods in an internal combustion engine, but does not modify the crankshaft accordingly, the engine won't start. Similarly, processes of development are so tightly integrated temporally and spatially that one change early in development will require a host of other coordinated changes in separate but functionally interrelated developmental processes downstream" (1)
Drawing from examples cited in the biological literature and comments made by opinion leaders, notably geneticist John McDonald and zoologist Soren Lovtrup, the verdict they arrived at was that "those genes which govern major changes, the very stuff of macroevolution, apparently do not vary, or vary only to the detriment of the organism" (1).


In an effort to model the tight integration of biological processes my sons and I teamed up to assemble a functional multi-component machine better known as the K'Nex Drop-N-Swing. Not only did we successfully demonstrate how the operability of the 'Drop-N-Swing' mechanism was dependent upon the components having precisely the spatial dimensions that they display but we also showed how adjustments to any one of these required concordant adjustments elsewhere in the machine.
The layout of the Drop-N-Swing resembles the sky drop and swing carousel rides one finds in modern amusement parks (seehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udr-RxcnUFU). 


On one side a centrally-located motor drives a series of four sequential gears each of which has just enough gear teeth to crank a chain-linked chair lift up a two foot-tall tower. Because a defined portion of the circumference of the largest gear lacks teeth and can therefore not crank up any weight, the chair drops down immediately upon reaching the top of the tower. This 'rise and fall' cycle is made possible through 86 chain links that form a closed chain circuit around two sprockets located at the bottom and top of the tower. The bottom sprocket is connected to the gear system that consequently turns the chain and causes it to lift up the chair.


As my sons toyed around with the Drop-N-Swing they found that they were unable to decrease the chain length and tower height without cutting down on the number of gear teeth. That is, if they were to maintain the rise and fall capabilities of the chair lift, concordant adjustments were needed at more than one location (otherwise the chair would get irreversibly stuck on the top sprocket). Even the tower height could not be facilely altered since the repeating unit of the tower struts did not correspond to an integral number of chain links.


Newsworthy cases in biology testify to the underlying charge brought by Meyer et al that major evo-morphing of structure and anatomy could not have been brought about through random piecemeal changes to already-extant body plans. Famously Nobel Prize winning biologist Ed Lewis elucidated crucial details about the genetics of embryonic patterning in fruit flies (2-4). Focusing on a group of genes known collectively amongst drosophila geneticists as the Bithorax Complex, Lewis built on the pioneering work of his predecessors who had identified homeotic (developmental patterning) mutants in the Bithorax gene that produced insects with an extra pair of wings (2-4). These appeared appended to the front portion of sophisticated flight balance-mediating organs called halteres situated on either side of the flies (2-4). The Bithorax mutant broke thorassic segment identities (ie one segment was replaced by another). But most importantly the mutant larva died early in development (2).


Meyer et al note how this additional wing pair "innovation" was viably unsustainable for the largely self evident reason that "the developmental mutation was not accompanied by the many other coordinated developmental changes that would have been necessary to ensure the production of the appropriate muscles at the appropriate place on the fly's body" (1). Renowned Cambridge developmental biologist Peter Lawrence made his position clear in a review of the overall findings of homeotic mutation research:


"Homeotic mutations are encouraging because they raise the clarifying prospect of a class of controlling genes responsible for large chunks of the body pattern. They also impress because the mutations produce massive anatomical transformations; it was even thought such mutations could allow the sudden generation of new animal groups during evolution - an idea that looks increasingly implausible (individuals produced by such mutations are very unfit!)." (4)


One cannot help but acknowledge the futility of a story that claims that evolution could have brought about beneficial large scale changes to body plan architecture. The evidence speaks for itself. And simple attempts at modeling do nothing less than support the science.


Further Reading
1. Stephen C. Meyer, Paul A. Nelson, and Paul Chien (2001) The Cambrian Explosion: Biology's Big Bang, Seehttp://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/Cambrian.pdf, p.36, This article also appears in the peer-reviewed volume Darwinism, Design, and Public Education published with Michigan State University Press
2. Vidyanand Nanjundiah (1996) The 1995 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, Resonance,http://www.ias.ac.in/resonance/Mar1996/pdf/Mar1996ResearchNews.pdf
3. Stephen Jay Gould (2002) The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press Cambridge, Massachusetts, p.1096
4. Peter Lawrence (1992), The Making of a Fly: The Genetics Of Animal Design, Blackwell Scientific Publications, London, p.211
Permalink


This last portion is a long post so I will only begin the last article as a small portion of a very interesting assertion...

Life’s irreducible structure—Part 1: autopoiesis

The commonly cited case for intelligent design appeals to: (a) the irreducible complexity of (b) some aspects of life. But complex arguments invite complex refutations (valid or otherwise), and the claim that only some aspects of life are irreducibly complex implies that others are not, and so the average person remains unconvinced. Here I use another principle—autopoiesis (self-making)—to show that all aspects of life lie beyond the reach of naturalistic explanations. Autopoiesis provides a compelling case for intelligent design in three stages: (i) autopoiesis is universal in all living things, which makes it a pre-requisite for life, not an end product of natural selection; (ii) the inversely-causal, information-driven, structured hierarchy of autopoiesis is not reducible to the laws of physics and chemistry; and (iii) there is an unbridgeable abyss between the dirty, mass-action chemistry of the natural environmental and the perfectly-pure, single-molecule precision of biochemistry. Naturalistic objections to these propositions are considered in Part II of this article.  continue reading...

43 comments:

Jon Woolf said...

Y'know, I think that's the first time I've ever seen a single post take up the entire front page of a Blogspot blog -- and still keep going. Too bad it's all "sound and fury, signifying nothing" besides the author's lack of knowledge and complete inability to learn from experience.

One topic, Radar. Just one. Can't you stay on one topic for even the space of a single post? And can't you say anything in your own words, instead of ripping off copyrighted material from other websites and quoting it in toto here?

What do I know about archeopteryx?

Nothing -- not even how to spell it right. Archaeopteryx is a proper name, and the genus half of a full Linnaean binomial. It should be always capitalized, always spelled with "ae", and always in italics.

That reputable Darwinists do not even use it as a transitional form because it is not linear (in their view) to the "evolution" of birds.

Says who? The only people I've ever seen make this claim are creationists. Websites and textbooks that talk about what scientists actually say and think always identify Archaeopteryx as a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds. Because that's exactly what it is, as even a cursory examination of its anatomy and taxonomy demonstrate.

Anonymous said...

And all this from the mind that brought us this:

"Do remember that to disparage is not to argue and to continually repeat old saws in finitum ad nauseum will not make them true."

Why not heed your own words, Radar? And why not read the comments on your blog with more care and actually respond to them, instead of pretending they said something else and responding to that (which is of course using a strawman argument)?

"Why my commenters think that unsubstantiated statements of regurgitated Darwinist doctrine rise to the level of an answer? Snork all you like but one of these days you will have to answer the questions."

Which questions do you think are unanswered?

And since you mention "unsubstantiated" while cheerfully fleeing from one post to the next, running away from uncomfortable questions, here are some unsubstantiated claims from your previous post that Jon asked you to back up:

Radar: "No, many paraconformities have not been explained and cannot be explained"

Jon: "Examples?"

[...]

Radar: "A polystrate that measured some 80 feet was found in England in the 1800's thrust through layers of coal that was estimated to encompass was supposed to be millions of years."

Jon: "Details please. Exact location, exact local geology, exact description of the "polystrate" fossil."


How about it, Radar? Specific examples, details. And do remember that to disparage is not to argue, and continually repeating old saws ad infinitum ad nauseam will not make them true.

"Never have I shown polystrate trees going through many layers of rocks?"

Who do you think disputed that? If you disagree, link please. Again, you didn't read the response.

The question posed to you was to show that those layers of rocks actually corresponded to millions of years. No luck there, I take it.

A tree going through "many layers of rocks" simply shows that the tree was subjected to rapid burial/sedimentation. Which is NOT by itself evidence of a GLOBAL flood.

"Or fossils sorted by water flows?"

How exactly are they sorted? And how come we see no hippos, elephants, rhinos, horses etc. in such a pile... ever?

"Or sudden burial evidences?"

Again, who disputed that you had shown this? Link please.

Evidence of sudden burial is unremarkable, and again, not proof of a GLOBAL flood, though it is compatible with it. But sudden burial is also compatible with an old Earth/non-global flood scenario. Is that really so hard to understand?

There's a persistent problem with the way YECs approach this in that they only have the end in mind, and then look for evidence that supports it. In doing so, they are blind to the fact that evidence that may be compatible with it is not automatically proof of it. A fossil showing rapid burial is evidence that the fossil was buried rapidly, no more. A polystrate fossil tree in layers of rock of roughly the same age from bottom to top is simply evidence that the tree was buried rapidly, no more. Could have happened in a global flood, could have happened in a local flood. Impossible to tell from these individual finds.

On a sidenote: in a global flood scenario in which practically the entire population of all animals was wiped out wouldn't we be seeing a heck of a lot more animals subjected to sudden burial in the fossil record?

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

""The theory of evolution is a description of what happened, not a prescription of the way things ought to be." Says who?"

Says the theory of evolution. Care to show us where it says this is how things ought to be?

"Darwinists have completely failed to show that macroevolution ever happened."

Scientist have amply shown that macroevolution has occurred over a long period of time. The progression of organisms in the fossil record is clear testament to that, which is a fact that you, with all your claims of going by the evidence, are avoiding like the plague. The clear sorting of fossils in the fossil record disproves any young Earth/global flood scenario.

You’ve skirted around this issue and muttered something about probable specific gravity, or ability to flee or what-have-you, but never, ever any explanation that actually agrees with the sequence of fossils found. On the other hand, the theory of evolution (and of course an old Earth) explains it perfectly.

That macroevolution occurred is not in any question; how it occurred is what the theory of evolution deals with.

"If you consider it to be testable, then it has been falsified as millions of generations of bacteria and thousands of generations of fruit flies can attest."

This is plain wrong on a number of counts, all of which have been pointed out to you.

1. The bacteria experiment you refer to did demonstrate speciation, which, if you care to look it up, is evolution at the species level or above, which by definition is macroevolution.

2. Even if it hadn't, that would not mean that macroevolution had been falsified, i.e. that macroevolution never occurred. Simple logic fail there, Radar.

"Every time a Darwinist show us a bacteria that eats something new, scientists demonstrate that this is a result of a loss of information."

If you really want to have that discussion, you'd have to clearly define what you mean by "loss of information" or "gain of information" in this case. Something you never grasped when you were focusing on this subject a few months ago.

"Speciation is not Darwinism."

Correct. Speciation is macroevolution, by definition; both mean evolution at the species level. Darwinism is mostly used as a malleable propaganda term by creationists; sometimes it means the theory of evolution, sometimes it means something like atheism. It's pretty meaningless, unfortunately.

"Just as an automaker stamps identifying numbers on various parts and puts an identifier label on the driver's side door, God has left his signature in DNA. Obvious to those who are willing to see."

So where is that signature? In your analogy, the automaker stamps identifying numbers on parts. There is nothing like this in DNA. DNA is full of function, which by itself is explainable by evolution. Is the signature in the "junk DNA" perhaps?

For it to be a recognizable signature, it would have to be specifically complex and not explainable by evolution.

It seems that what you're saying is that the great automaker in the sky lets the function speak of itself without leaving an explicit signature, which would of course make this a very poor analogy indeed.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"What about dating methods?"

Ah yes, your "series" on dating methods that you ran away from after failing to live up to your earlier boast.

Not too terribly long ago you made this claim:

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

Which of course raised the following questions:

1. What are the methods (plural) that indicate a very young Earth?

2. Why are all the results indicated by all dating methods that do indicate an old Earth interpreted falsely, and how should they have been interpreted and why?


Your abortive “series” on dating methods consists of these two posts: One and Two. They failed to answer the questions, of course. And then you ran for the hills.

How about it, Radar?

"I have shown that there are dating methods that yield young ages, old ages and ages that vary greatly from the same layers of rock."

Where did you show that, and did it have something to do with the refuted method of using inappropriate dating methods for the rock in question? Simply catching up with this useful primer of radiometric dating from a Christian perspective should set you straight on this issue.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"One cannot trust tree rings or ice layers beyond historical markers identifiable from, say, a volcanic event"

Why not? This is some rather self-serving logic. If I'm looking at ice core layers being formed every year, leaving identifiable seasonal variations that can be measured consistently, I would conclude that this may be a regular occurrence.

That would be a hypothesis then. To verify it, I would look for confirmation as I go back - markers from volcanic events, for example. And again, these confirm that ice core layers (based on seasonal variation) are reliably deposited every year.

So when I'm looking at, say, a stack of 3,000 ice core layers, I can conclude from that that they represent 3,000 years, give or take a tiny margin of error. I can also draw climate information from them (take note, Radar, this affects one of your other hobby horses).

But when the number of ice core layers indicates an age beyond, say, the time of the alleged global flood indicated in the Bible, YECs suddenly have a problem with the evidence. Suddenly it's unreliable. Suddenly the rules must have changed somehow. When we see consistent results of ice core layers being deposited every year, that’s fine. When we suddenly see 100,000 such ice core layers, it’s obviously unreliable. Something else must have caused all those layers instead of annual seasons; something (it’s never specified what, this is all pure speculation, magic, whatever) suddenly caused hundreds or even thousands of such layers being deposited annually. Suddenly these layers that we can observe are caused by seasonal variation are deposited with the same regularity supposedly every couple of days or so. Again, with no explanation of what might have caused this. And with no traces of anything that would have caused such a change.

Instead, what we’re seeing is great consistency of the seasonal patterns going back well over ten thousand years. What YECs would have us believe is that the flood somehow magically deposited something that looks amazingly identical to those same seasonal variations in every way. The same way they'd have us believe that the flood perfectly sorted fossils in the fossil record so that they just happen to be exactly as the theory of evolution would predict, with no plausible alternate explanation to account for this.

Instead, we hear the following refrain from the YECs:

"and they do not take a world-wide flood into account."

How should a "world-wide flood be taken into account"? You mean it should be presumed to be true, and then the evidence explained around that presumption? That's not science, Radar. You look at the evidence and draw conclusions based on that. You don’t start with the conclusion and then try to make inconvenient facts fit around that.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"Darwinists ALWAYS want to take you to an unobservable past where they can weave stories about what happened without having proof. But they take you to a place where it is difficult to disprove what they say as well."

There's no agenda here to "want" to take us to an unobservable past. The fact is that there is a past, I think we can at least agree on that. And we have some evidence about that past. The past is not quite "unobservable", but it's observable with great difficulty. Rock layers, fossils, ice core layers, tree rings, all these leave observable evidence behind that give us clues about the past.

"So recently I have concentrated on the things we can observe about the cell now, observable and testable things."

Yeah, because you couldn't back up your claim about dating methods (see above). Of course you're trying to save face, and that's understandable and you have my sympathies.

YEC is simply unsupportable. Maybe you’ve realized it, maybe you haven’t. Maybe a part of you somewhere knows it, but you’re too embarrassed to go there. You're almost an IDer now.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Jon Woolf said:

One topic, Radar. Just one. Can't you stay on one topic for even the space of a single post?

Better get used to it because that's Radar's typical evasion manoeuvre: when he gets stuck on a topic he buries it under a torrent of article hoping it to go away.
Expect Radar to claim victory and has dealt sufficiently with the topic in a few weeks or so...

Anonymous said...

"Stay away from talk origins and Dr Dino. Go to reputable sites on both sides of the questions and check out what the ID'ers say as well."

If you keep insisting on trashing talk origins (for a lie you have yet to demonstrate, btw), then we might as well add Answers in Genesis and creation.com. Both are on record as spreading lies.

-- creeper

Jon Woolf said...

Go to reputable sites on both sides of the questions and check out what the ID'ers say as well.

There are reputable creationist sites? There are pro-evolution sites that creationists consider "reputable?"

This I gotta see. How about some examples, Radar?

highboy said...

Though I have nothing to say on this subject, I'll say it with authority.

IAMB said...

Heh.

Make sure you pronounce it as "authoritah" in your best Cartman voice.

Anonymous said...

Surprise Surprise, Radar is on the run again.

Pretty funny that in the comments section of a post entitled "Darwinists have no arguments", Radar can't even address a single issue raised by said "Darwinists". Project much Radar?

- Canucklehead.

highboy said...

"Pretty funny that in the comments section of a post entitled "Darwinists have no arguments", Radar can't even address a single issue raised by said "Darwinists". Project much Radar?"

Got your pom poms out canuck?

Anonymous said...

Wow, I've got my own "nuthugger". Neat. That said, I would think/hope that you would have better things to do than sit around and wait for me to comment on this blog, Tim. My suggestion would be that you get to work on pulling those kids of yours out of the abject poverty you've told us all about, but that's just me I guess.

- Canucklehead.

By-the-way, you should probably stop fantasizing about me in a cheerleading outfit, first off because I'm not sure it suits me all that well, and second, because its kinda' gay, and I thought that you guys really weren't cool with that stuff.

highboy said...

"Wow, I've got my own "nuthugger". Neat. That said, I would think/hope that you would have better things to do than sit around and wait for me to comment on this blog, Tim."

says the adolescent teenager playing on his mother's computer who does nothing but cheer lead from the sidelines every time one of his heroes makes a post. Projecting much with the "nuthugger" comment? My suggestion would be get educated yourself on the subject matter so people can take you more seriously. And stop pretending like I have to imagine you in a cheerleaders outfit. You and I both know you wore one to you and your husband's wedding. Get a coherent thought of your own instead of "yeah, what he said" every time some educated makes a point. You're not smart enough to have a battle of wits with radar or anyone else, you have to be armed first.

Anonymous said...

Yep, I'm the childish one. Little defensive hey Tim? Which one got you so steamed, was it me pointing out that you admittedly don't work hard enough to provide for your children, or was it the fact that I called you on your embarrassingly elaborate male cheerleader fantasies?

Oh and I've told you many times that I'm older than you Tim. Surprised you are having trouble remembering that, what with your self described amazing reading comprehension skills.

And really, you answer my accusation of "projection" with, "Nooooo youuuu're projecting"? Whose the teenager again, mr. comeback.

Glad you're enjoying my comments by-the-way.

- Canucklehead.

highboy said...

What's not to enjoy canuck? You keep claiming I'm not feeding my kids as if repeating the same moronic falsehood is somehow scoring you internet street cred points for smack talk while you live in one of the most debt-riddled icebergs in the world. I realise making stuff up out of thin air is quite common with internet trolls but usually they aren't this blatant about it. Yes, I do remember you saying you're older than me. I simply don't believe you. You're either lying and are an adolescent teenager blogging from his mother's basement or you actually are older than me and your educational system failed you. Neither would surprise me however.

So what about the topic canuck? Got anything intelligent to say or are you content with pom pom sunset flips?

Anonymous said...

"So what about the topic canuck? Got anything intelligent to say or are you content with pom pom sunset flips?"

Oh come on Highboy, you're the one who turned this into an open thread. Have a look at your first contribution:

"Though I have nothing to say on this subject, I'll say it with authority."

Yeah it was a joke, and not even a bad one, but now you're in no position to give Canucklehead a hard time about dealing with "the subject". (Whatever that may be, given that Radar's all over the map once again.)

And guess what, Canucklehead actually made a good point, related to the post at hand:

"in the comments section of a post entitled "Darwinists have no arguments", Radar can't even address a single issue raised by said "Darwinists""

Not that that's anything new, but of course the headline is so deliciously ironic in this case.

-- creeper

highboy said...

"Yeah it was a joke, and not even a bad one"

None of my jokes are bad.

"but now you're in no position to give Canucklehead a hard time about dealing with "the subject". (Whatever that may be, given that Radar's all over the map once again.)"

Sure I am, because there hasn't been one single solitary post where canuck has contributed anything to any subject other than to mock radar. That's it. No science, no facts, no sources, no arguments, just ridicule, and the occasional "go get em' creeper" cheers from the sidelines.

"in the comments section of a post entitled "Darwinists have no arguments", Radar can't even address a single issue raised by said "Darwinists""

while that may or may not be true, cancuk hasn't addressed one single issue raised by anyone...at all. The only time he even gave a half assed attempt at actual debate and discourse was when the effects of his countries national healthcare was questioned, where he dismissed evidence as being outdated, and when current studies were proposed, they were dismissed as right wing propaganda, neither of which he was able to substantiate with anything more than sarcasm. Its pathetic and I'll continue to point it out.

Anonymous said...

Thanks creeper. Apparently, and not surprisingly, the irony was lost on highboy. That said, beware, as he does seem to have a withering "cheerleader" comment at the ready at all times.

Oh Tim, you just cant help but embarrass yourself on this blog, can you? Do you not remember that it was you that proudly proclaimed that your kids live below the poverty line? And that you apparently don't have enough "American Ingenuity" to make things any better for them? I mean, for a guy that's all about "working harder", I'm really not sure what your problem is (although I suspect it has everything to do with the small size of your brain and/or penis). So, I repeat, you were the one that unabashedly pointed out your lack of success Tim, not me. Actually, I think it might have been in the same thread in which you admitted the fact that neither you or your family ever used the very Canadian health care system that you so embarrassingly claim to be an expert on. So, pardon me for repeating your words back to you HB (don't get me wrong though, I'm going to keep doing it).

And again, it might be time to brush up on those insult skills of yours buddy. As it's just the height of lameness to "slam" a guy for repeating lines, when all you seem to be able to come up with is that I'm a teenager living in my mom's basement (more of that homoerotic fantasy again, I suppose). So listen up Tim, I'm not gay, so stop hitting on me, alright? Not that there's anything wrong with it, of course, I just don't swing that way.

- Canucklehead.

Oh and Tim, as shocking as it may sound, I could not care less what you think about my comments. Like you, I am not a scientist and I'm even too busy to think about becoming an amateur one. As a result, I will continue to encourage creeper, Jon and others to refute the utter falsehoods and lies that are regularly posted on this blog. I will also continue to point out when I feel that Radar is being particularly, and outrageously, hypocritical and/or ridiculous. Oh and for the record, nobody cares what you think or say either buddy. In the end, you are simply being a huge coward when it comes to topics like evolution and YEC. You don't agree with Radar on this stuff (and your fence-sitting comments on the topic belie that fact), you just won't outwardly say it because he's on "your side" when it comes to your pet issues. I realize you desperately want defend your "internet friend" when he says really dumb stuff and people call him on it, I just think it would help him a lot more if you talked to him about it instead of regularly popping into the comments section as some kind of weird virtual bodyguard.

Anonymous said...

"None of my jokes are bad."

I'll take your word for it.

"[...] there hasn't been one single solitary post where canuck has contributed anything to any subject other than to mock radar."

... except in this post he did make a good point about the subject and you didn't. Surely not that hard to see.

But since you gave Canucklehead a hard time about living in "one of the most debt-riddled icebergs in the world", I'd love to introduce you to this amazing website.

-- creeper

highboy said...

"Do you not remember that it was you that proudly proclaimed that your kids live below the poverty line? And that you apparently don't have enough "American Ingenuity" to make things any better for them?"

*buzzer* wrong, my dishonest uneducated adolescent friend. Never said any such thing. Please post the thread and the direct quote. What i said, was that my family lives VERY comfortably. The GOVERNMENT says I'm poor. Get it yet? Or do you need some phonics?

"Actually, I think it might have been in the same thread in which you admitted the fact that neither you or your family ever used the very Canadian health care system that you so embarrassingly claim to be an expert on"

Nope. Never said that either. Actually stated quite clearly we HAD to use the same system that has over 800,000 people waiting to be admitted as of 2009. Keep trying little fella.

"Like you, I am not a scientist and I'm even too busy to think about becoming an amateur one."

Creeper and Jon aren't scientists either, not even amateur scientists. Yet they hold their own quite well. While you on the other hand can't form a coherent thought other than "attaboy creeper".

"I will continue to encourage creeper, Jon and others to refute the utter falsehoods and lies that are regularly posted on this blog."

What lies? What falsehoods? Point them out specifically, and then give specific evidence that proves these are lies and falsehoods. You.

"In the end, you are simply being a huge coward when it comes to topics like evolution and YEC."

You're right. I'm too afraid to let my keyboard write checks that my brain can't cash. When I know I'm not educated enough about something to form an opinion, I'm too cowardly to embarrass myself by pretending that I am. I realise you don't suffer the weakness of having self respect, and I envy you for that.

Hey creeper, thanks for the link. It helped me find this: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/fp/money/Canadians+spend+their+debt+heap+report+says/3015558/story.html

"Helped by rock-bottom interest rates, consumers have been borrowing at unprecedented levels and now owe a record $1.41-trillion, putting Canada in the number one spot among OECD nations in terms of consumer debt to financial assets, says a study by the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada.

That equates to $41,740 for every individual man, woman and child, or about 2.5 times the level of debt in 1989.

Particularly remarkable is that much of this borrowing took place over the past two years when the country was still in the grip of one of the worst economic downturns in 50 years, the report said."

Anonymous said...

Glad you enjoyed the website, Highboy. I guess I misunderstood your previous comment - I thought you were talking about national debt. In that regard, those canuckleheads are doing quite well.

As for personal/consumer debt... I'm a little puzzled by the bit the author(s) (and you, I suppose) chose to highlight. Why would it be surprising that people incur more credit card debt in an economic downturn? Wouldn't that be akin to a natural consequence?

Oh and it's kinda hard to point fingers at "one of the most debt-riddled icebergs in the world" using the standard of personal/consumer debt when the US is just a stone's throw away in those statistics and apparently another one of those "debt-riddled icebergs".

Nifty site though, eh?

Oh and I'd classify Jon as at least an amateur scientist.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Canucklehead: "In the end, you are simply being a huge coward when it comes to topics like evolution and YEC."

Highboy: "You're right. I'm too afraid to let my keyboard write checks that my brain can't cash. When I know I'm not educated enough about something to form an opinion, I'm too cowardly to embarrass myself by pretending that I am. I realise you don't suffer the weakness of having self respect, and I envy you for that."


Highboy, on the one hand I like that you have the wherewithal to at least be agnostic on this subject. I wouldn't call you a coward for that. Nope, it actually seems sensible to me.

You're right to point out (via a sarcastic detour, but the point is made) that letting your keyboard write checks that your brain can't cash wouldn't be much in the way of bravery. Unfortunately, that is the standard MO for the proprietor of this blog. He constantly makes claims that he can't back up, and not just on the subject of YEC.

On the other hand... it seems like you're just checking out on this subject altogether instead of engaging with the arguments. It's your prerogative, I suppose, but, just to pick a subject, why not read Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective? Shouldn't take more than an hour or two, and it's written in very Christian-friendly terms, far as I can tell.

-- creeper

highboy said...

"In that regard, those canuckleheads are doing quite well."

Yes they are, and I'd give my left nut to have Harper instead of Obama as a national leader. Yes, I just said that.

"Oh and it's kinda hard to point fingers at "one of the most debt-riddled icebergs in the world" using the standard of personal/consumer debt when the US is just a stone's throw away in those statistics and apparently another one of those "debt-riddled icebergs"."

Right, which is kind of the point considering the snide false remarks made about economic responsibility, especially when the economic "discussion" is based on remarks I made that any intelligent person knows full well wasn't an admission of incompetence, but rather made the point that while the government standard may imply I'm poor, its factually incorrect, because I'm not even close to poor. But its one of the few comments he has in his arsenal.

"Nifty site though eh?"

As you can see I've used it before.

highboy said...

"It's your prerogative, I suppose, but, just to pick a subject, why not read Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective? "

We've gone over this. Reading the material isn't the problem. For every reference you can give me supporting OEC, I can find 6 to counter whatever argument its making. And vice versa. It all comes down to credibility since I have no way of doing the scientific testing myself to test either conclusions made. I'm not ready to say that elitist YEC science types have more credibility because I have nothing to reference that credibility, but I'm also not willing to give opposing scientists the nod based on a more prestigious piece of paper they may have.

Anonymous said...

I suppose if you just frame it as a matter of "credibility" and you have two sides saying this or that is not reliable, it can be quite confusing. You may shrug and dismiss it as "he said/she said". But you can dig to the bottom of any one of these arguments, and sometimes you don't have to dig all that deep.

For example, not so long ago Jon took apart the YEC claim that the rate at which the moon recedes from the Earth disproves an OE scenario. Check out the math and the numbers yourself.

Both Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries (creation.com) perpetuate this claim.

As for the Radiometric Dating link, it is a useful primer, and if you haven't read it yet, I'd recommend it to you. Seeing as it was written by a Christian it should sidestep the usual complaint about "worldview" by Radar. Same for the writings of Glenn Morton on the subject of geology. He's a Christian, former YEC, who in light of the facts he encountered in his study of geology abandoned the YE hypothesis, but not his Christianity.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Lie all you want HB. You said that your children live blow the poverty line and you were proud of it. I think it's a weird thing to be proud of. And when I asked if you were planning on repaying Canada for the medical services you used while living here. You flat out told me that you never used the system even once. Lie all you want HB, you said what you said, now live with it.

Radar's falsehoods and lies have been pointed out already HB. Many, many times in fact. And some of them by creeper and Jon in the very comments section above. You can read them for yourself. That said, feel free to act like a complete idiot all you want relative to this topic, it totally suits you.

Oh yeah and effing LOL at your assertion that you are "too cowardly to embarrass myself", because dude you do that ALL THE FREAKING TIME. Ha. What makes you a coward in this regard is that you either refuse to look at the evidence presented by Jon and creeper, or you look at it and refuse to comment because it would upset your buddy Radar.

- Canucklehead.

highboy said...

Canuck: if I'm lying so blatantly, point it out. If you're too stupid or too lazy, get one of your heroes to do it for you. Point to the post where I claimed my children were poor and I was proud of it. You can't, because it doesn't exist. You made it up. You're a joke, which is why no one is engaging with you but me, a guy who likes laughing at you.

creeper: some of the previous post you've mention Morton and its aroused my interest, so we'll see what happens.

Anonymous said...

Canucklehead said:

"What makes you a coward in this regard is that you either refuse to look at the evidence presented by Jon and creeper, or you look at it and refuse to comment because it would upset your buddy Radar."

If I was running a blog I wouldn't consider someone who comes and starts flamewars on it my friend. It looks more as if Highboy is trying to run Radar's blog into the ground...

Oh, and Highboy: why do you seem to be so obsessed about the fact that people should be concerned about 'being taken seriously'? After all, weren't you the one that called someone a 'troll' and then didn't know what 'flame-bait' was?

Anonymous said...

"It looks more as if Highboy is trying to run Radar's blog into the ground"

Hard to top Radar's efforts in that regard. But whatever, it's only a blog.

Canucklehead, from what I recall Tim didn't say he was proud of living or raising children below the poverty line. AFAIR he said he lived below the official poverty line (30K a year?) and was living quite well, relatively speaking. But I don't think pride was part of his claim.

Shouldn't be that hard to google "poverty line" on this blog.

-- creeper

highboy said...

creeper, in regard to the link you gave me, so far I found the ice core piece rather interesting. He seems to be arguing against however, a global or great flood, which is odd for a Christian, but so far much of the science he discusses is compatible with the Gap Theory.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, I just don't have time to continue with this "discussion" fellas, let alone google anything at the moment (I know you're all probably super bummed). Seriously, twins are literally a shit load of work.

HB, you just seem like such a hate filled prick. You give such a reaction when provoked that it's hard not to enjoy jerking your chain every once in a while. I hope for your family's sake that you're a way smaller douche-canoe in person than you are on the internet.

- Canucklehead

highboy said...

Sounds like poor wittle canuck's mad his hero contradicted him. Now he's taking his ball and going home.

Twins? Yeah, nice excuse. Like anyone would ever breed with you.

Anonymous said...

Channeling a twelve-year-old there, Highboy?

Meanwhile, Radar remains silent on simple questions about his claims above.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

highboy said:

"Twins? Yeah, nice excuse. Like anyone would ever breed with you."

Quoted for future reference. HB, if ever in the future you feel like lecturing someone on morality or whatnot, expect a reference to this.

Radar, some nice friends you've got...

highboy said...

"Quoted for future reference. HB, if ever in the future you feel like lecturing someone on morality or whatnot, expect a reference to this."

that'd be relevant if I ever lectured anyone on what is moral or what isn't, but since I didn't, your remark has about as much substance as silly puddy, much like the rest of your posts. But by all means, please remember I said that for future reference. The idea of an anonymous coward blogging from whoknowswhere keeping my comments on file for future smack offs will keep me awake at night.

Anonymous said...

"that'd be relevant if I ever lectured anyone on what is moral or what isn't, but since I didn't, your remark has about as much substance as silly puddy"

There is a bit of a point here though, Highboy. You're a committed Christian, but do you consider this kind of behavior to be particularly Christian?

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

highboy said:

"that'd be relevant if I ever lectured anyone on what is moral or what isn't..."

I never said you did. That's why I used the word 'if'.

"The idea of an anonymous coward blogging from whoknowswhere..."

Yes, we all know how courageous it is to call someone a coward from behind a computer...
Highboy, the thing is: on the internet, EVERYONE is anonymous. Yes, even you are. You might have a nickname, and a name behind that, but because there is no way for me to check these in the real world, these are just as meaningless as an anonymous reply. Suppose I registered here with some nickname, and signed my posts with some name I made up, say 'John Williams'. Hell, I could even make up a fake profile with some pictures I grabbed from the internet. Does that make me less anonymous all of a sudden?
No, what it boils down to is how you deal with this internet anonimity. Are you strong enough to still hold yourself on the internet like you would do in real life: show everyone a minimum of respect? Or do you allow this anonimity to let out your darkest side: to treat people with disrespect without having to fear the repercussions you would get in real life.
I think it's clear enough from your posts in which category you fall (unless, of course, you also in real life treat everyone who disagrees with you with disrespect, but I sincerely doubt that.)
But talking about courage: it takes courage to apologize for a mistake and take responsability for it. Do you think you're courageous enough to apologize to Canucklehead for attacking his family? You decide.

"...keeping my comments on file for future smack offs will keep me awake at night."

I sincerely hope it won't, because that would be REALLY sad.
That said, though: if you don't care about that, why the obsession about what people should be doing in order to be taken seriously here?

highboy said...

"Are you strong enough to still hold yourself on the internet like you would do in real life: show everyone a minimum of respect?"

Are you kidding me? This is how utterly ridiculous trolls like you are. You have done nothing, repeat, NOTHING, but mock people on this website. You've contributed absolutely nothing productive, even came to the brink of a full blown admission to being a troll with your implication that I was baiting you. You've done nothing but mock, ridicule, and withdraw at every turn. Then a guy like comes along and pays you the attention you've obviously been desperate for and you write a convoluted post about showing people respect and courage. Here's the moral of the story: if you don't want negative attention, don't draw it to yourself. If you want someone to show you respect, try doing the same.

"Do you think you're courageous enough to apologize to Canucklehead for attacking his family? "

Are you ready to apologize for falsely accusing me of attacking Canuck's family? Implying no one would breed with him isn't an insult to his family, its an observation that someone like him couldn't possibly have one. He and you are a lot alike: you've done nothing but insult and shoot your mouth off via keyboard at people, insulting their intelligence, questioning their integrity, and never once contributing anything in the way of substance like the other dissenters. So if my responses to you and your ilk bothers you, maybe take a look at what you've posted first.

Anonymous said...

highboy said:

"So if my responses to you and your ilk bothers you,..."

Rest assured: it doesn't.
All I wanted to do was give you some advice. If you don't want to take it, fine by me; that's your choice.
Here's some other advice I'd like to give you, see for yourself if you take it:
I'm not really bothered how people think about me on the internet. So, if you expect some emotional reaction to that last comment you might as well save yourself the effort in the future. But if you enjoy writing things like that, by all means, knock yourself out!

Take care!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous: "Do you think you're courageous enough to apologize to Canucklehead for attacking his family?"

Highboy: "Are you ready to apologize for falsely accusing me of attacking Canuck's family? Implying no one would breed with him isn't an insult to his family, its an observation that someone like him couldn't possibly have one."


Highboy, now you're just being obtuse. It has nothing to do with an "observation". It was an unfounded and unnecessary insult, and yes, an attack on Canucklehead and his family. Of course he can have a family, given the fact that he actually has one. Claiming that Canucklehead's not capable of reproduction (apropos of nothing whatsoever) is not just a low blow, but also an insult to his partner.

I may have said this before, but you're not exactly the best ambassador for your faith. "Hate-filled", as someone said in an earlier comment.

Why not take a chill pill and read the Sermon on the Mount again?

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

In the end, I think I'm starting to just feel sorry for our petty and immature little hb. As much as I would love to continue to stoop to his level here, the guy clearly has very few real friends in his life, and maybe even none at all. Not to mention the fact that he is obviously dealing with some serious anger issues (I really hope your seeing a professional about that Tim, as rage like you have displayed many times on this blog can literally ruin your life - my guess is that it stems from your passionate faith when juxtaposed with the actual cards life has dealt you - I see this in quite a few fundamentalist christians actually - so that might be a good starting point for you and your therapist, Tim). And to top it all off, for a 30-something apparently making very little money in annual income, and with a young family to support, he sure spends a lot of time cruising the comments section of this blog (and others, I'm sure) for posts by myself and "anonymous", and of course any and every reference to contradictions in, or criticiams of, the bible. You must be frustrated by your own work ethic, or lack thereof, hb, especially when you regularly espouse "working harder" as an obvious solution to the problems of the poor. Do you actually work yourself Tim, and if so, how would your employer feel about all the time you spend spewing your rage all over the internet? Perhaps hanging up the keyboard for a while might help you improve your lot in life, that of your family, and ultimately your happiness?

For me though the best part is that, hilariously, I think hb expects us agnostics/atheists/nonbelievers etc. to take his arguments seriously because he majored in biblical apologetics at bible college (pro-tip hb, your religious "education", AKA "indoctrination", actually makes you LESS credible when it comes to taking about the bible, you know, because, like Radar, you start with a conclusion - in your case, that the bible is perfect unadulterated awesomeness - and work your way back cherry picking "facts" that best fit the desired outcome). Oh and you also seem to expect to actually get somewhere by spitting venom throughout your posts. I agree with creeper (surprise, surprise) in that, I simply can't imagine how embarrassed other christians are by your abrasive and rude online demeanor. But you know this already don't you hb? As evidenced by the post on your own blog,
http://thewebevangelist.wordpress.com/2010/03/30/god-loves-people-i-should-too/
Having trouble practicing what you preach are we, mr. web evangelist?

All that said, what can you expect from a guy that defends, tooth and nail, the idea that children being born into slavery is A-freaking-OK. After all, their parents did sign a "contract". LOL.

- Canucklehead.

Oh and I can assure you young Timmy that my family really does exist. And your obvious jealousy over the fact that I appear to be, not only much more successfull than you on an economic level, but now also much more successful than you on a genetic level, is unbecoming and really quite ugly. And further to that, unlike with my assertions that the god of christian bible is a myth, I can actually produce physical evidence of the existence of my offspring. I mean if you still need real proof, just throw me your mailing address and I'll send you a diaper or two filled with loads of "genetic information" as poop, er, I mean, proof.