Search This Blog

Sunday, June 27, 2010

Darwinists whisper sweet nothings to me....nothing of substance, that is!

Let's look at a few recent comments from various sources and perhaps you will see a pattern?   They tend to be evidence free accusations and rehashes of Darwinist propaganda.   Shall we begin?

"As for "facilitated variation," "genetic redundancy," and "information," the only thing that your posts on those topics prove is that you don't understand these subjects well enough to discuss them. All you ever do is post huge quotes from other people's work, then run away from all attempts at discussion.

The bottom line is that the evolutionary process works in the real world. We can watch it; we can predict it; we can see its evidence in the rocks and organisms around us. That should tell you that we've got the basics of the theory pretty well right ... and you don't."

Is there an argument in there somewhere?  I have explained both facilitated variation and genetic redundancy in great detail and thus far no coherent arguments have been made in reply.  Notice the highlighted falsehoods?

1) We can watch it.  Nope.  Never has macroevolution been observed.

2) We can predict it.  Nope.  Again, it has never happened so there has been nothing to predict.  And you cannot trust a great percentage of Darwinists anyway, as they have made outright frauds such as the Haeckel Embryos and the Peppered Moths glued to trees and ridiculous  fairytale errors like Pakecitus and Nebraska Man and still you will find falsified Horse Evolution and Man Evolution charts used in schools.
Symposium on Creation
Figure 1. Types of Stratification (cross-section view, one-half actual size). These types of stratification which are very common in sedimentary rocks provide evidence of rapid deposition and can be easily understood in terms of the Flood.

 3) Evidence in the rocks.  Nope.  I have spent years pointing out that the sedimentary rocks are a tale of a world-wide catastrophe and not gradualism.  All basic kinds of organisms appear fully formed in the fossil record and no transitional forms are found.  The so-called Cambrian Explosion is simply the bottom layer of the world-wide flood.  There are inumerable paraconformities and polystrates in the rocks, many kinds of rock types that are not formed under normal conditions (Dolostone and Chert and Graywacke, for instance)

The rock record is a great example of a complete Darwinist canard in which evidences of flood deposits are ignored, a consistent global geological column is fancifully claimed to exist and the dating methods used are laughable at best and deliberately fixed at worst.

4) Organisms around us. Nope.  We see fixity of kinds and variation by speciation just as organisms are designed to display.  Speciation is seen and in fact very rapid speciation, which is a bulwark to the idea that great varieties of vertebrates could have arisen from a few parent kinds released from the Ark.  The bad news for Darwinism is that facilitated variation and genetic redundancy are both barriers to macroevolution and evidence of intentional design.

"According to the theory of evolution, there is no barrier to the extent of change that a large number of small changes can bring about, and nobody has ever been able to falsify this, or to present a barrier that might prevent this."

Nope.  You have not been paying attention.  The mother sets the framework for the child.  Now that we have seen deep within the reproduction process we see that the cell is designed to conserve the kind but allow for variation within kind.  Perhaps you have not understood the science behind the actual working of reproduction as discovered by today's scientists, but not only is the kind preserved but one big falsehood of Darwinism has been exposed and falsified - Junk DNA.  Not only have we found that DNA throughout the length of the code has multiple purposes but that there are redundancies that cannot be explained by an evolutionary process but can only be there by design.   The cell has built in spare parts!  Beyond that, there are switching mechanisms within the cell that are turned on or off by the most common copying errors or mutations that cells experience.

"According to creationists, all genetic information is already contained in the organism and subsequently only "lost" or regulated. Genetic information being regulated overlaps with mainstream science."

Now you are running away from science itself?  Darwinism is 99.9 per cent hat and maybe 0.1 per cent cattle, so I understand that observations are not a strong suit for Darwinists.  But I hate to tell you this but no new information has EVER been observed to enter the genetic pool of any organism by any scientist or boy scout or grandmother or lawyer in the recorded history of mankind.

"It seems like there's a bug somewhere in the "Mendel's Accountant" program. It claims that populations will become less fit over time, but that's not what we see in reality. (E. Coli bacteria reproduce every 15 minutes or so, and it's not terribly difficult to show that they don't become less fit even over thousands or tens-of-thousands of generations.)"

credit

Hmmm.   Have we missed the point much?  That IS the point!  If we allowed random mutation and natural selection to be the drivers for a population like E. Coli then by now it would have gone extinct...if the Darwinist evolution model was true, that is.  The program was written to be true to the assertions of current Neo-Darwinist scientists.   But just as scientists have tried in vain to get bacteria to show any evidence of macroevolution, millions of generations of E. Coli have successfully reproduced because of the design features of the organism that include coding for contingencies and redundancies.

We could write a whole series on E. Coli alone.   Did you know that the organic motors that power the flagellum of E. Coli are designed to repair on the fly? You know any aircraft engine designers who have found a way to replace parts of a turbine while operational?  Yet E. Coli has been found to have a mechanism that makes new parts and inserts them into the motor assembly while it is operating!


  • Self assembly and repair
  • Water-cooled rotary engine
  • Proton motive force drive system
  • Forward and reverse gears
  • Operating speeds of up to 100,000 rpm
  • Direction reversing capability within 1/4 of a turn
  • Hard-wired signal transduction system with short-term memory
  • Clutch to disconnect filament from motor when required 

In point of fact, so many of the designs we humans are quite proud of are taken from nature.  God is a great designer (I am of course now making a metaphysical as well as a scientific assertion) and nano-engineers study organisms to learn how to make miniature machines as a kind of proof.  Consider this list of Design Isomorphs. 



There is a good book available entitled, well, What Darwin Didn't Know.  Among the things discussed (this is just a tiny hint of the content):


Darwin might have thought twice about publishing his theories if he'd had access to today's medical and microbiological discoveries. Drawing on years of research, Dr. Simmons demonstrates that the almost infinite complexity of the human anatomy simply could not have developed by chance. For example:

  • the body runs on "battery power"...from the hundreds of mitochondria in each cell
  • the two sexes-evolutionary theory cannot explain why they exist
  • every cell is its own pharmacist, chemist, and metallurgist
  • The brain resembles a continent swept by electrical hurricanes and chemical tidal waves that somehow make sense out of reality
  • A fertilized egg makes a journey as complex as the path of a golf ball that rolls 30 miles and lands precisely in the 18th hole of a course it's never seen.
  • The immune system contains multiple defenses that confine trillions of microorganisms to your skin.
Let's keep going, there is plenty to choose from,  like this multi-parter:

"1. Why is it a "nail in the Darwinist coffin" that information is not material in nature or form? How does this in any way contradict the theory of evolution? Do you really think that when we talk about gain or loss of information, we're talking about gain or loss of MATTER? Seriously? "

Okay.  You are the one who thinks science is contained to the material world.  I have demonstrated to you that information is not material in form.   How do YOU explain THAT?   We are all waiting...
  
"2. Why do you think life is not material in nature or form? It is a bunch of interconnected chemical/physical/biological processes. All of which are material processes. Again, it's not a matter of WEIGHT being lost or added, it's the processes. Once the interconnected organisms fail in some way, the system breaks down, and that's the end of that organism's life."

You are not defining life, you are observing whether an organism is alive or dead.  A child can do that.  "In some way" is the best that Darwinists do with the questions of where life came from and what does life consist of - in other words you have NO materialistic way to define life itself.  You have not been able to quantify it, you simply observe that it either is there or not there.   Not terribly sophisticated.

"3. "Some people like to think that nothing made itself into a Universe that is fine-tuned for life on Earth and situated so that the Universe itself can be observed and understood by the inhabitants of Earth."

Re. the "nothing made itself into a Universe" part: NONSENSE. You've been called on this over and over, but for some reason you're incapable of taking in any of the comments on your own blog. Who are these "some people"?"



You, for instance.  Unless you are now dropping your apparent support of the Big Bang.  So are you admitting that God created the Universe now?  If you are still a Banger then go ahead and define the singularity at the start of the Big Bang.  What did it consist of and how could it become a controlled explosion of time and matter?   Why is it that no Big Bang theory even comes close to describing the known Universe?  Oh, let's go back a step.  If there was nothing before there was everything you think that nothing made everything. 

"Re. the "situated so that the Universe itself can be observed and understood by the inhabitants of Earth" part: say what?! If the inhabitants of Earth are capable of observing, then no matter where they are, they can "observe the Universe"... or rather some infinitesimally tiny portion of it.

But what on Earth makes you think that we can understand the Universe? Do YOU think you can understand the Universe?"

The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery is a brilliant tome written by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards and also is available as a DVD.   In this book he emphasizes how the Universe and the Solar System and the Earth are all fine-tuned for life and especially for man because we are ideally located to observe the Universe and try to understand how it works. 

Guillermo lost his shot at tenure at Iowa State University because he dared to suggest that perhaps the Universe is designed!

Typical ruling paradigm behavior.  Galileo was threatened by the leaders of the church-state of his day for being in agreement with Copernicus who was in agreement with Archimedes that the idea of an Earth-Centric Solar System was incorrect.    We should give Tycho Brahe and several others some credit for finally getting the Western World and the leaders thereof to adjust their belief systems.   This is in part because Western Culture embraced an Aristotlean view of science and math, perhaps, but largely due to worldview.  Michael Behe sought to change the paradigm and found himself having ludicrous discussions with other scientists about whether or not a more reducible mousetrap could be devised (!) rather than discussing the science itself they sought to tear down the analogy.  

Now to try to sum up a large part of the nonsense and drivel in the comments threads that can barely be comprehended without a long history with the commenters.  For instance, I answered Woolf about whether data transmission needed both a sender and a receiver and yet he asked it again.  Woolf asked me for a polystrate example and I devoted a post to it and he still pretends I did not answer.  Asking the same questions over and over does not make you look smart.  Using the search feature on this blog yields several posts on polystrates and examples thereof.  You can find posts on dating methods and ice layers and paraconformities and in fact I doubt there is any question that a commenter has asked concerning Darwinism I have not devoted a post to at one point.

"Or will you just cut and paste more endless articles from lying websites like AiG and CMI?"

I will put Jonathan Sarfati and Ken Ham up against any Darwinist you can name.   So far as I know Richard Dawkins has still refused to debate  Jonathan Sarfati (although Sarfati ripped Dawkin's latest book to shreds with his own book in response) or any other Creationist of substance since he lost the Boteach-Dawkins debate.   If you are determined to access a lying site, I would recommend talkorigins.  Here is an example of their lies.  Talk origins does not care if what they post is true.  I contacted them and pointed out the absolutely farcical nature of DiPeso's so-called investigation versus real investigations by scientists and also by novelist Earl Stanley Gardner.  Here is a small part of the information shared with talk origins:

"Eventually, an eminent scholar arrived on the scene in Acambaro who would expose the contentions of Julsrud's opponents with a series of arguments and facts that would prove to be indisputable. In the summer of 1955 Charles Hapgood, the Professor of History and Anthropology at Keene State College of the University of New Hampshire, spent several months in Acambaro and conducted a very detailed investigation of the collection. Charles Hapgood had already distinguished himself as the author of a number of books including "Earth's Shifting Crust" (1958), "Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings" (1966), and "The Path of the Pole" (1970).

Hapgood excavated a number of sites that were on previously undisturbed ground and found many pieces of ceramic figurines of the "Julsrud" type. To eliminate any possibility of fraud that Tinajero or anyone else had manufactured the ceramics, Hapgood decided to excavate beneath a house that had been built in 1930, long before any artifacts were found on El Toro Hill. They found a house directly over the site owned by the chief of police, asked permission to dig beneath the floor of his house. Permission was granted, and they dug a six-foot deep pit beneath the hard concrete floor of the living room, unearthing dozens of the controversial objects. Since the house had been built twenty five years before Julsrud arrived in Mexico, it exonerated Julsrud, eliminated the hoax theory and negated Dipeso's as well as Noquera's reports at all the important points.

In 1968 Charles Hapgood returned to Acambaro accompanied by Earle Stanley Gardner of Perry Mason fame. Mr. Gardner was not only trained in criminology but was also an investigator of archaeological problems. He was supremely impressed with the vastness and the variety of the collection. It was quite clear that Mr. Gardner considered the fake theory completely false, outrageous and deceptive!

The radiocarbon 14 method of dating was still in its infancy, but Hapgood acquired specimens for C14 testing.6 Gardner and Andrew Young (inventor of the Bell Helicopter) financed the testing.

Hapgood submitted the samples to the Laboratory of Isotopes Inc. in New Jersey. The results were as follows:
Sample No. 1
(I-3842) 3590 + - 100 (C.1640 BC)
Sample No. 2
(I-4015) 6480 + - 170 (C. 4530 BC)
Sample No. 3
(I-4031)3060 + - 120 (C. 1110 BC)

The radiocarbon dates of up to 4,500 B.C for Carbon on the ceramics would make the collection the oldest in the Western Hemisphere.

In 1972, Arthur Young submitted two of the figurines to Dr. Froelich Rainey, the director of the Pennsylvania Museum for Thermoluminescent Dating. The Masca lab had obtained thermoluminescent dates of up to 2,700 B.C. In a letter dated September 13, 1972, addressed to Mr. Young, Dr Rainey said:
"...Now after we have had years of experimentation both here and at the lab at Oxford, we have no doubt about the dependability of the thermoluminescent method. We may have errors of up to 5-10% in absolute dating, but we are no longer concerned about unexpected bugs that might put the whole system in doubt. I should also point out, that we were so concerned about the extraordinarily ancient dates of these figures, that Mark Han in our lab made an average of 18 runs on each one of the four samples. Hence, there is a very substantial bit of research in these particular pieces... All in all the lab stands on these dates for the Julsrud material, whatever that means in terms of archeological dating in Mexico, or in terms of 'fakes verse's authentic' pieces.""

It has now been YEARS since I first pointed out to talk origins that their information on Acambaro figurines were based on the testimony of a liar.  For instance:

"
In 1952 Charles C. Dipeso of the Amerind Foundation felt the popular accounts circulating in the newspapers and magazines (such as Fate 3) prevailed upon him to begin an examination of the strange collection. Samples were sent and laboratory tests of them proved nothing." Dipeso thought the tests would dismiss the collection as a hoax because they would demonstrate them to be of modern manufacture.

The figurines could not be falsified merely because of the life forms representing Mesozoic reptiles. Dipeso in June of 1952 arrived in Acambaro to examine the collection owned by Juisrud. Taking no more than four hours he claimed to have viewed 32,000 items in the mansion. In fact, he asserted his examination was very precise and thorough to the extent that he detected the figurines depressions forming eyes, mouth, scales to be sharp and new. No dirt was packed in any of the crevices. 4

Dipeso must have been the bionic archaeologist, handling objects at speeds that exceed those of superman's. To have achieved this Herculean feat he would have to inspect 133 artifacts per minute steadily. In reality, it would take several days to unpack the massive jumble of intact, broken, and repaired pieces from the boxes. Once the boxed pieces were disentangled and set up with those already on display in the mansion, it would take many more days to even give a cursory examination.

Charles Dipeso said that further investigation revealed that a family living in the Acambaro area made the figurines during "the winter months while their fields lie idle." Dipeso believed his family of hoaxers got their ideas from the local cinema, comic books, newspapers or books from the local library.

It appears that even Dipeso did not truly believe the Julsrud collection was a fake. Before he returned to America to write the articles denouncing the collection, Julsrud stated,. "Mr. Dipeso declared to me that he had been completely convinced of the genuineness of my discovery. He wanted to buy for his museum a certain amount of pieces of Tarascan origin." Julsrud would not sell any of the artifacts but sent Dipeso to another man who dealt in antiquities. That dealer told Dipeso that Julsrud's ceramics came from a man and his three children who lived thirty minutes outside of town near the irrigation plant of Solis. Juisrud said, "Why then didn't Dipeso go there and find out the truth? The obligation of a serious scientist is to investigate himself and not give credence to the first man who tells him something."

In the first place, it was against the archaeological code of ethics and illegal for Dipeso to be acquiring Indian artifacts to take out of the country. Secondly, the black market antiquity dealer who sold Dipeso the artifacts had obvious motivation to make sure that Dipeso didn't buy from Julsrud, so we have no difficulty understanding why the dealer made up the story of the hoaxer family.

Francisco Aguitar Sanchaz, Superintendent of the National Irrigation Plant of Solis said, "That on the basis of four years intimate knowledge of the inhabitants of the entire area and of archaeological activity there, he could positively deny that there was any such ceramic production in the vicinity." The Municipal President of Acambaro, Juan Terrazaz Carranza, issued on July 23, 1952, an official statement No.1109 refuting Dipeso's allegation.

'This Presidency under my direction ordered that an investigation be carried out in this matter, and has arrived at the conclusion that in this municipal area there does not exist any persons who makes these kinds of objects."
There are many other problems associated with Dipeso's spurious allegations. He fails to mention that the ceramic artifacts of varying clay composition and styles had been individually and not mold-made. There were not only ceramic pieces but also stone pieces.

The ceramic collection has unsurpassed variety and beauty that has won the admiration of professional artists. No peasant family could possibly make thousands and thousands of non-duplicated sculptures with such skill and artistic finesse."

~
CMI and AIG are long-time institutions like ICR, comprised of scientists, writers and researchers and academics who are busy doing what scientists and researchers should do, observe and test and study and publish findings.  As far as I can tell, talk origins is a site devoted to publishing any old thing that they can fool people with in the Jesuit tradition of results are more important than methods, or, the ends justify the means.   I heartily disagree!

39 comments:

radar said...

One more thing. I do not believe I can completely understand the Universe. I do not think any finite human mind can possibly comprehend the magnificence of the Universe nor can we view ALL of it. We are located in a place that allows us to see almost all of it within our human limitations. We have the intellect to observe and take action based on observations so that we have been able to leave our planet and go to the Moon, for instance. We are placed in a perfect spot to observe and understand the Universe within the limitations of our humanity.

It should have gone without saying that I did not mean that I understood everything about the Universe. Like Cincinnatus, I would use that knowledge to help me straighten things out in Washington and then go back home! I would be grateful if SOMEBODY in Washington at least understood USA 101 instead of passing laws they have neither read nor understood.

Jon Woolf said...

Galloping again, I see.

Jabber all you want, Radar, but those who know these subjects know the truth, and you don't.

You won't discuss details of genetics.

You won't discuss details of taxonomy.

You won't discuss details of fossil anatomy.

You won't discuss details of natural selection.

You won't discuss details of radiometric dating.

You won't discuss details of stratigraphy.

In fact, as far as I can tell you won't discuss details of any scientific field that has any direct bearing on either the theory of evolution or conventional geology.

When I first started reading your blog a few months back, you would at least try to answer comments about these subjects. but lately you haven't even been doing that. You just post a huge heap of copypasta, add a few sweeping generalizations of your own, and then completely ignore all the comments that try to show you where you're wrong.

Here is just one example, plucked from this post: "All basic kinds of organisms appear fully formed in the fossil record and no transitional forms are found."

Why is Archaeopteryx not a valid transitional between dinosaur and bird? Please be specific in your critique.

radar said...

I could say, Jon Woolf, that you have avoided so many questions that to answer you is wasted time but I will carry on.

"Archy" is, like the Duckbilled Platypus, simply an unusual animal but like we would say that DBP is a mammal, we would classify Archy as a bird. Archy had perching feet like a bird and unlike dinosaurs. Archy had a wishbone and fully formed birdlike wings and also feathers. He also had a brain size compatible with birds and not dinosaurs, his physical makeup implies bird-like lungs and the fixed thigh bone necessary for air sacs and one-directional airflow and finally he/she had the kind of ear structure typical of birds.

Furthermore, according to the dating of Darwinists, the ancestors of Archy have been found in younger rocks, so if I did subscribe to Darwinism I would have a hard time trying to use Archy as a transitional form when any transition would have to be from bird to dinosaur rather than the other way around. The evidence says that Archy was an unusual bird, nothing more.

As Henry Morris once said, some fish have teeth and some don't, some birds have teeth and some don't, some people have teeth and some don't.

radar said...

Radiometric dating? How is it that new Mt. St. Helens dome rocks came up with dates for millions of years old? When such dating methods miss the mark by astronomical distances then why should I pay any attention to the method?

Stratigraphy? I have posted a lot on that subject.

Fossil anatomy? Like what?

Natural selection? I have written thousands of words on the subject.

Taxonomy? I have posted previously on baraminology, which is the creationist version of taxonomy. Taxonomy is descriptive in nature and you and I come from different starting points. You assume all life started from some simple organism and I assume that God created complete kinds.

radar said...

Now how about you answer me? How is it you Darwinists put up with a guy like Gingerich who comes up with elaborate hoaxes like the Pakicetus?

You trumpet a new find to the moon and then when it turns out to be a hoax or a mistake the entire Darwinist world gets quiet.

Poor Mary Schweitzer finds a T Rex that includes REMAINS and not just fossil material and she gets criticized harshly....and then the impossible becomes possible.

Gee, I guess remnants of flesh CAN exist for millions of years. (let's find some way to falsify this, guys, we cannot have people thinking dinosaurs were recent).

Then DNA is found preserved in amber and, gee, I guess DNA CAN exist for millions of years.

How about the Delk print. It has been prodded and tested and examined and proved to be a dinosaur and man print in the same mud-that-became-rock. Why wouldn't honest scientists admit that one such fossil record completely turns Darwin inside out?

I will publish a reminder from Ian Juby's blog that Darwinists will not budge no matter what evidence is uncovered. Evolution happens to fast to see in the fossil record but too slow to observe by man. Yeah, right.

Jon Woolf said...

Gallop, gallop, gallop, gallop -- "Darwin is a Fink!"

Radar: "The evidence says that Archy was an unusual bird, nothing more."

Nope. Archaeopteryx lithographica is a dinosaur. There is exactly one feature of its anatomy that is not also known from dinosaurs: flight feathers. Everything else that you named is known from at least one, and typically more than one, species of dinosaur. If none of the known specimens of Archaeopteryx had been preserved with feathers, they would all be classified as troodontid dinosaurs.

How is it that new Mt. St. Helens dome rocks came up with dates for millions of years old?

Two reasons:

1) the lab that Austin used to date his Mt St Helens rocks had old equipment that couldn't measure very small amounts of argon. This means it couldn't handle very young samples. Its advertising said so. In simple terms, Austin conned you. He sent samples he knew the lab couldn't accurately test, then claimed the results were accurate. In real science, such an act would be labeled "fraud" and the defrauder would be cashiered.

2) some or all of Austin's samples may have actually been that old. You have a mental image of volcanoes that comes entirely from pop TV and movies, in which "lava flows" are always glowing red liquid when they emerge into the air, and cool and harden over weeks, months, or years. In real life, it's not nearly so clear-cut. Many lava flows contain inclusions -- bits of rock that were ripped away from the edges of the underground magma chamber or the vertical vents and tubes through which the lava reached the surface. These inclusions never melt in the lava, so their internal radiometric clocks are never reset. When tested, they produce a number that corresponds to when they originally solidified, not to when they reached the surface.

The samples that Austin tested from the Mt St Helens lava dome were 'dirty' rock, full of inclusions. Again, in real science, if somebody claimed to have gotten reliable dates from such samples, his results would be ignored and he'd be accused of gross incompetence or intentional fraud.

Jon Woolf said...

Radar: "Stratigraphy? I have posted a lot on that subject."

A lot of copypasta and sweeping generalizations, but nothing on the details of strata that don't agree with your worldview, like the Deccan Traps or the Cincinnatian Stage.

Radar: "Fossil anatomy? Like what?"

Diarthrognathus.

Radar: "Natural selection? I have written thousands of words on the subject."

No, you've written thousands of words about a strawman distortion of natural selection. You haven't written anything on the real thing. At least, not that I've seen.

"Taxonomy? I have posted previously on baraminology, which is the creationist version of taxonomy."

A distorted version, assembled under the guiding star of creationism, and built atop a single critical assumption which has been empirically falsified.

"How is it you Darwinists put up with a guy like Gingerich who comes up with elaborate hoaxes like the Pakicetus?"

Pakicetus is a hoax? Do tell.

Jon Woolf said...

"Poor Mary Schweitzer finds a T Rex that includes REMAINS and not just fossil material ..."

No, she didn't. The T-rex fossil in question contained bits that resembled organic materials and structures. It was and is not clear whether any actual tissues were preserved, or whether it was a case of extraordinarily finely detailed fossilization. Schweitzer and colleagues also recovered trace amounts of heme, a fragment of a chemical structure that appears in hemoglobin.

Of course, the creationist liars whom you make the mistake of trusting immediately trumpeted this report to the far corners of the globe, knowing that their followers (that's you) would never, ever stop to wonder: if Earth is indeed less than 10,000 years old, then why, out of the hundreds of thousands of fossils that have been excavated and studied in detail, only this one Tyrannosaurus rex skeleton has yielded organic compounds -- and then only from one leg bone?

Which is more reasonable: that this one fossil is the outlier, or that all those other hundreds of thousands of fossils are?

You, of course, will choose the second alternative. But then, we all already know you're a creationist, not a scientist.

radar said...

Readers, decide for yourself but I say Woolf is wrong and that Archaeopteryx was a one-off, a kind of bird with teeth. So do your own research. Now that we have more remains to study the consensus seems to be that Archy was a bird.

There is a segment of Darwinists who believed that Archy was not a true bird because he grew too slowly according to the reading of Archy bones. They would tell you that Archy was not a transitional form. But with perching feet and considering the kind of feathers and wing structure and skeletal structure bird seems to be the answer.

Imagine, again, what you would do with DBP if all you had was fossil remains. Was it a transition between birds and mammals? Between rodents and marsupials? In my experience almost no one other than Woolf uses Archy as a transitional form anymore in the scientific community. Then again, Gingerich thought Ida was a pre-human rather than a lemur and that Pakicetus was a whale ancestor instead of a pure land animal.

Also, radiometric dating of rocks from volcanic activity have often been spectacularly wrong. We can date rocks from a volcano if we have a date of eruption so that way we can have an index by which to compare the actual date to the radiometric date. It is not just Mt. St. Helens rocks that have come up millions of years off.

Jon Woolf said...

Radar: "Evolution happens to fast to see in the fossil record but too slow to observe by man. Yeah, right."

Nope, wrong. I know of a number of studies that are watching evolution in action. The most famous one, about which I was just re-reading as a matter of fact, is Peter and Rosemary Grant's ongoing (for the last thirty years!) study of the finches of the Galapagos Islands. There are many other examples. Of course, you'll probably dismiss all of them with a sneer as "just variation within a kind" ... but if "variation within a kind" can cover the fourteen species in four genera of Darwin's finches .. well, that kinda puts the smackdown on the "kind" including a barrier to evolution above the species level, now doesn't it?

radar said...

Flying dinosaurs were not in the same form as birds nor were they similar to bats. These three kinds of flying creatures have very different features. Archy was not a flying dinosaur, IMO Archy was a toothed bird.

Jon Woolf said...

Radar: "Now that we have more remains to study the consensus seems to be that Archy was a bird."

What's a bird?

See, Radar, this is exactly what I mean when I say you won't discuss the details of taxonomy ... and I now add that comments like the above suggest you don't even understand those details. Which is probably why you won't discuss them. When you include all the fossils that we currently have, there isn't any reliable way to distinguish birds from nonbirds anymore! I quote from the textbook VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY AND EVOLUTION by Dr. Robert Carroll, pp.338-9, published in 1988:

"Were it not for these feathers, Archaeopteryx would not have been recognized as a bird, as is demonstrated by the fact that one nearly complete skeleton in which the feathers were not recognized was initially identified as a dinosaur. In fact, there are no features of the bony skeleton of Archaeopteryx that are uniquely avian. All have been described in genera that are classified among the dinosaurs.

"If all elements of the skeleton were considered of equivalent value in classification, Archaeopteryx would certainly be considered a feathered dinosaur. Most paleontologists consider Archaeopteryx to be a bird because of a single, albeit complex, character -- feathers -- that are uniquely shared with modern birds."

Since Carroll wrote those words, a series of dinosaur fossils have been found which included feathers. Which leaves nothing that can be used to say with absolute certitude that a given animal is a bird and not a dinosaur. Birds are not just descendants of dinosaurs -- by the current rules of taxonomy, birds are living dinosaurs.

Hawkeye® said...

Jon Woolf,
Your "gallop" comments are nothing more than an ad hominem attack. Why don't you grow up and act like the intelligent human being you believe yourself to be.

Hawkeye® said...

Radar,
Keep up the good work. Your detractors are very passionate, which suggests that you are getting to them. I agree with your assessment of Archeopteryx.

WomanHonorThyself said...

Happy Monday :)..as always love the debate!

Anonymous said...

Hawkeye,
Can you please tell us how "Jon's "gallop" comments are nothing more than an ad hominem attack". Do you know what ad hominem means? Because normally an Ad Hominem occurs when a position is attacked based on a characteristic or belief of the person holding said position. Here is an example from wikkipedia for you,

"You can't believe Jack when he says the proposed policy would help the economy. He doesn't even have a job."

Does that sound or look anything like what Jon was saying? Not so much. Obviously, he's merely pointing out something that Radar regularly does.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Gish_gallop

And then to top it off, in what amounts to a childish post by you, you tell Jon to "grow up". Man, you fundies say the darndest things sometimes (reference - http://www.fstdt.net/)

- Canucklehead.

Jon Woolf said...

Hmm, just noticed this: "Imagine, again, what you would do with DBP if all you had was fossil remains. Was it a transition between birds and mammals? Between rodents and marsupials?"

If we had only fossils of the platypus (or the echidna, for that matter), it would be classified as a primitive mammal, or possibly a very derived therapsid. It would certainly not be classified as anything close to birds, nor close to any type of placental mammal.

As noted previously, Radar, you don't understand how taxonomy works. You certainly don't understand it well enough to try to trap me on the topic. Either go spend a couple of months studying taxonomy and systematics, or try another subject.

Chaos Engineer said...

I guess this bit was a response to my comment in the last thread, about the "Mendel's Accountant" program.

Hmmm. Have we missed the point much? That IS the point! If we allowed random mutation and natural selection to be the drivers for a population like E. Coli then by now it would have gone extinct...if the Darwinist evolution model was true, that is. The program was written to be true to the assertions of current Neo-Darwinist scientists.

Now you're just being silly.

Scientists don't think that bad mutations normally accumulate faster than they're removed by selection. If the "Mendel's Accountant" program says this happens, then either the parameter for the mutation rate is set too high, or the natural selection factor is set too low.

Also it sounds like you're saying that modern-day reproduction of E. Coli bacteria is driven by something other than mutation and natural selection.

Can you clarify that? Are you really saying that there's some supernatural force involved, independent of the normal chemical processes? I'm not talking about the creation of the bacteria here; I'm talking about ordinary day-to-day reproduction of the kind we can watch in a lab.

Anonymous said...

So you quote (I think you're quoting someone down near the bottom of your post) some radiocarbon dating methods for the Acarbaro figurines. The dates go back to 6500 years ago.

What's the deal? Is C14 dating good, in your eyes, up until the time when you think god created everything? Otherwise, why are you quoting this method of dating you deemed unreliable in previous posts?

lava

radar said...

So many comments...

"Nope, wrong. I know of a number of studies that are watching evolution in action. The most famous one, about which I was just re-reading as a matter of fact, is Peter and Rosemary Grant's ongoing (for the last thirty years!) study of the finches of the Galapagos Islands. There are many other examples. Of course, you'll probably dismiss all of them with a sneer as "just variation within a kind" ... but if "variation within a kind" can cover the fourteen species in four genera of Darwin's finches .. well, that kinda puts the smackdown on the "kind" including a barrier to evolution above the species level, now doesn't it?"

You have not been paying attention. The finch beaks are proof of ID because they are in part ruled by switches built in to the organism that allow for beaks to vary much faster than Darwinist would expect. I specifically wrote on this.

I will do another post on Baraminology but it has not been falsified.

Yes, Pakicetus was falsified as a whale ancestor. Keep up!

C-14 is a dating method that is only good within a few thousand years, as I have asserted with evidence many many times. Even then, there are variables in all dating methods that can make dating back behind historical markers tricky.

So that is yet another post. Dating methods again and Baraminology again. Yeah, why not?

radar said...

"Scientists don't think that bad mutations normally accumulate faster than they're removed by selection. If the "Mendel's Accountant" program says this happens, then either the parameter for the mutation rate is set too high, or the natural selection factor is set too low.

Also it sounds like you're saying that modern-day reproduction of E. Coli bacteria is driven by something other than mutation and natural selection.

Can you clarify that? Are you really saying that there's some supernatural force involved, independent of the normal chemical processes? I'm not talking about the creation of the bacteria here; I'm talking about ordinary day-to-day reproduction of the kind we can watch in a lab."

Yes, you are missing the several posts about FV and GR. Built-in switches, redundant genes and cellular controls work to conserve the kind and shrug off most mutations so that the predicted mutational degradation is far less than expected.

You and I can get two guys to assert something and then begin a sentence with "Scientists say" or "Scientists believe" but I am more interested in the evidence.

So let's look at Baraminology so we can clear that up and then gladden creeper's heart by yet another post on dating methods that includes tree rings.

radar said...

"Hmm, just noticed this: "Imagine, again, what you would do with DBP if all you had was fossil remains. Was it a transition between birds and mammals? Between rodents and marsupials?"

If we had only fossils of the platypus (or the echidna, for that matter), it would be classified as a primitive mammal, or possibly a very derived therapsid. It would certainly not be classified as anything close to birds, nor close to any type of placental mammal.

As noted previously, Radar, you don't understand how taxonomy works. You certainly don't understand it well enough to try to trap me on the topic. Either go spend a couple of months studying taxonomy and systematics, or try another subject."

Jon Woolf, I am beginning to think that ad hominem is the best weapon in your holster. You didn't really say anything there. I am saying that DBP and Archy are both wild card animals that are not transitional but you do not even get the idea or you do not wish to answer to the idea. But get over yourself, will ya?

Anonymous said...

"I am beginning to think that ad hominem is the best weapon in your holster."



Is ad hominem really that difficult a concept to grasp?

Not that hard to look up either. Try it sometime.

Jon Woolf said...

I am saying that DBP and Archy are both wild card animals that are not transitional...

And I'm saying that you're wrong. Come on, is that really such a hard concept to grasp?

As for "ad hominem" -- truth is not a personal attack. Everything you've said in the time that I've been reading your blog indicates that you're still relying on the taxonomy you learned in high school, as distorted by creationists who have a vested interest in lying to you. I'd wager that you couldn't even tell me what a clade is, or what plesiomorphies and apomorphies are, or how they're used to classify an organism. As long as you don't know those things, you don't know modern taxonomy.

And don't think I didn't notice that you leaped right past my comment regarding the classification of Archaeopteryx.

highboy said...

If nothing else radar, you gave your anonymous know nothing trolls another reason to post.

Hawkeye® said...

Canucklehead,
Hawkeye, Can you please tell us how "Jon's "gallop" comments are nothing more than an ad hominem attack". Do you know what ad hominem means?"

'Ad Hominem' from the Latin literally means "to the man". You gave one type of example, but there are others. In a discussion, virtually any statement which redirects the listeners away from the subject at hand and mocks the opponent can be considered 'ad hominem'. In other words, Jon Woolf was suggesting that Radar cannot be trusted because he "gallops", rather than simply discussing the topic at hand.

[See] http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Gish_gallop

Interesting. I had never heard of the "Gish gallop" before. And the source you provided implies that it is a label which has been developed specifically by evolutionists to address creationists. How quaint. Now you simply put a derisive name in a wiki and then you can feel good about yourselves when hurling ad hominem attacks. If we have problems with the argument, let's simply resort to "name calling" shall we?

Hawkeye® said...

Jon Woolf,
"As for "ad hominem" -- truth is not a personal attack."

That's a common statement among people who attack others: "I was just telling the truth."

highboy said...

"Interesting. I had never heard of the "Gish gallop" before. And the source you provided implies that it is a label which has been developed specifically by evolutionists to address creationists. How quaint. Now you simply put a derisive name in a wiki and then you can feel good about yourselves when hurling ad hominem attacks. If we have problems with the argument, let's simply resort to "name calling" shall we?"

Well that's just classic canucklehead hawkeye. He'll spend post after post mocking and insulting without making any arguments and then when someone does it back he'll tell you how sad and immature you are. He's only here to hump jon and creeper's leg.

Anonymous said...

Well highboy, what would you do without Canucklehead? You're clearly obsessed with him.

highboy said...

"Well highboy, what would you do without Canucklehead? You're clearly obsessed with him."

Probably the same as I've always done for years now since I started blogging here genius. What I said of him goes for you as well, just in case you felt left out. But your accusation that I'm "obsessed" with him is a pretty bold and hypocritical assertion since you haven't stopped trolling radar's blog since you first discovered it.

Anonymous said...

It's jealousy not an obsession. At least I hope it isn't an obsession.

And, in fact, in my earlier comment I pointed out that Hawkeye didn't seem to have a clue what an ad hominem attack was (and apparently neither does Radar). To which he responded with yet another post demonstrating his inability to understand the concept. Awesome.

Now hurry up and write me that angry reply Tim, you slavery loving hypocrite. God (allegedly) loves me, and you should too, remember, "web evangelist"?

- Canucklehead.

Oh and maybe you could remind us all what you bring to the table hb? That is, aside from your extremely weak attempts at humor, and that major in biblical semantics from bible college, of course. Because if I'm "humping legs", what, exactly, would you describe your activities on this blog to be? White Knighting for all of Christendom? Evangelical leg humper? Comment police? You've got to have better things to do with your time, no?

highboy said...

"To which he responded with yet another post demonstrating his inability to understand the concept. Awesome."

You haven't yet demonstrated YOU understand the concept. Start there.

"Now hurry up and write me that angry reply Tim, you slavery loving hypocrite. God (allegedly) loves me, and you should too, remember, "web evangelist"?"

You're not good enough at this to make me angry. "Slavery-loving"? LOL. You'll have to do better little boy.

"God (allegedly) loves me, and you should too, remember, "web evangelist"?"

Doesn't mean either of us has to like you or believe any of your ridiculous nonsense.

"Oh and maybe you could remind us all what you bring to the table hb? That is, aside from your extremely weak attempts at humor, and that major in biblical semantics from bible college, of course."

Oh no, the grey man living in the snow doesn't think I'm funny. Whatever shall I do?

Anonymous said...

It's just too easy.

Re-read my first comment hb. Jon described something that Radar does all the time on this blog and he's by no means the first to call him on it. And then he went on to address a bunch of points Radar had attempted to make in his gallop. How exactly is describing something that Radar actually does, a tactic we've all seen him utilize, amount to ad hominem and/or "name calling"?

Oh and re read this and tell me who's being childish,
Hawkeye said, "Why don't you grow up and act like the intelligent human being you believe yourself to be."

Oh and to be fair, I should have written, "biblical slavery loving hypocrite". LOL.

- Canucklehead.

highboy said...

"It's just too easy."

You are definitely easy.

"Oh and re read this and tell me who's being childish,
Hawkeye said, "Why don't you grow up and act like the intelligent human being you believe yourself to be."

Given the history of the clap trap you post, its a perfectly sensible thing to write. All the while you've mocked radar and hawkeye both for their scientific views yet you have not one single time demonstrated you're in any way educated on any topic that was posted. Try making an argument of your own before mocking someone else's and letting others do it for you because you don't have the education or maturity to do it yourself. It would make you look much smarter.

"Oh and to be fair, I should have written, "biblical slavery loving hypocrite". LOL."

I love how you keep harping on this as if it in any way hurts my feelings or is in any way relevant to anything being discussed. Its just verifiable evidence that you're a teenage adolescent playing on his mother's computer, giving himself a laugh at being an annoying troll. Problem is, you're not annoying, you're simply amusing.

Anonymous said...

Highboy, you truly are a funny guy. You really like trolls, don't you?

Anonymous said...

So, I'm "easy" now am I? What does that even mean, you weirdo?

I made an argument in the post above yours. And also in my first comment. If you can't figure it out, that's on you hb.

Hawkeye can be as childish to me as he wants. I could not care less. And I don't think, by any means, that I set the tone of this blog (I'm flattered that you think I do though). If anything, Radar's ignorant and insulting style is where that kind of stuff ultimately comes from. The point was that in a comment where Hawkeye tells someone to "grow up" (unnecessarily, I might add), he embarrassingly choose to do so in a very childish manner. Kinda like you berating people on their "reading comprehension" when most of the time you are the one demonstrating extremely poor skills in that regard. Like above where you talk about how I don't make any points, while ignoring the actual points made in the comments you are referring to. Sigh, www.fstdt.net...

I particularly love how you say that my comments don't bother you yet you respond every time I post absolutely anything on this blog. You can pretend all you want that I don't get to you Tim but your previous emotional comments to me and others reveal the truth. Remember when you denied the idea that I could have a family? And acted like I made up the fact that I have twins?

Oh and this may come as a shock to you Tim, but I actually don't feel the need to justify to you what I know or don't know. I realize it's hard for you, but I will continue to post here regardless of what you think or feel about my comments, about me or even about my country.

And really, going to the "mother's basement" insult again are we? Can't you come up with anything better? What's next, a slam regarding "snow" in Canada, in summer? Oh wait you already did that too. Were you trying to be funny Tim?

- Canucklehead.

highboy said...

"So, I'm "easy" now am I? What does that even mean, you weirdo?"

It means you're easy, just like it says. Your incompetence, dishonesty, and pathetic attempts to display some false superior intelligence over those obviously more capable than you means you're easy.

"And I don't think, by any means, that I set the tone of this blog (I'm flattered that you think I do though). If anything, Radar's ignorant and insulting style is where that kind of stuff ultimately comes from."

Point to one post where radar insulted you. Not posted something you disagree with, but insulted you. You won't, and you can't, just like you couldn't do even a smidgen of research just on this blog to back up the false accusations you made about my previous statements concerning my income. Interestingly enough, none of your heroes came to your aid and openly contradicted you, for which you've now given up the topic altogether where once you couldn't stop bringing it up. YOU have yet to make an argument concerning this ongoing science debate on this blog. You can keep saying you have over and over again and that I just don't understand it yet interestingly enough, all the other dissenters on this blog have been able to converse with me over and over again. Why? Because they are actually making points, discussing facts, making arguments. You've done none of the above.

"I particularly love how you say that my comments don't bother you yet you respond every time I post absolutely anything on this blog. You can pretend all you want that I don't get to you Tim but your previous emotional comments to me and others reveal the truth. Remember when you denied the idea that I could have a family? And acted like I made up the fact that I have twins?"

I'm not acting, I'm flat out saying it. You can talk yourself into the idea that you get to me but its quite obvious its just the opposite. I respond to everything you post? You respond to everything radar posts. So what's your point? Once again, you don't have one.

"Oh and this may come as a shock to you Tim, but I actually don't feel the need to justify to you what I know or don't know."

Well sure, because you can't justify it. You don't know anything as it pertains to anything being discussed. Its not a matter of some self-confidence you have in your knowledge its a simple matter of you not being able to argue one damn point.

"I realize it's hard for you, but I will continue to post here regardless of what you think or feel about my comments, about me or even about my country."

I wouldn't have it any other way.

"And really, going to the "mother's basement" insult again are we? Can't you come up with anything better? What's next, a slam regarding "snow" in Canada, in summer? Oh wait you already did that too. Were you trying to be funny Tim?"

This from the guy whose best insults are to simply call me a hypocrite over and over again. Little boy, you're in over your head.

Anonymous said...

Highboy, the funny thing about you is that you ALWAYS bite! Keep up the good work; this is comedy gold!

Anonymous said...

"That's a common statement among people who attack others: "I was just telling the truth." "

You are aware that there is a difference between "ad hominem" and "attacking others", right?