Search This Blog

Monday, July 05, 2010

5 Questions Every Intelligent Atheist MUST Answer and a few answers for them

It seems as if I give atheistic naturalistic materialistic Darwinists a hard time on this blog.  The reason I do so is that I have hopes that some of them will change their minds and come to their senses.  The other prime reason for discussing Darwinism on this blog is to help Christians understand that science is actually on their side, even if there are thousands of scientists who are placing their metaphysical preferences above the evidence.




"Some lame defenders of evolutionism claim that one needs a degree in biology to refute the origins of life by chance.
    All evolutionists need to do is demonstrate how life can naturally come from non-life. But only experimental observations please. Leave your imaginations and dreams at the door."

Patrick D. McGuire,
From an amazon.com review of 'Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution' by Lee M. Spetner


"The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine."
Vera Kistiakowsky,
MIT physicist. Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 52.




Lee Strobel does what Darwinists cannot do, explain the source of information!



Strobel points out why scientists are turning away from Darwinism.   Below, a summary of why the fossil record does NOT support Darwinism.  Simply stated, organisms appear in the fossil record fully formed and other than some speciation (to varying degrees) have apparently remained in stasis ever since.   A few kinds appear to have gone extinct but there is a kind of organism that fits into pretty much every crook and cranny of the Earth.  This implies design as well.



Finally, to conclude:

DNA: The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution

As scientists explore a new universe—the universe inside the cell—they are making startling discoveries of information systems more complex than anything ever devised by humanity's best minds. How did they get there, and what does it mean for the theory of evolution?

by Mario Seiglie

Two great achievements occurred in 1953, more than half a century ago.
The first was the successful ascent of Mt. Everest, the highest mountain in the world. Sir Edmund Hillary and his guide, Tenzing Norgay, reached the summit that year, an accomplishment that's still considered the ultimate feat for mountain climbers. Since then, more than a thousand mountaineers have made it to the top, and each year hundreds more attempt it.

Yet the second great achievement of 1953 has had a greater impact on the world. Each year, many thousands join the ranks of those participating in this accomplishment, hoping to ascend to fame and fortune.
It was in 1953 that James Watson and Francis Crick achieved what appeared impossible—discovering the genetic structure deep inside the nucleus of our cells. We call this genetic material DNA, an abbreviation for deoxyribonucleic acid.

The discovery of the double-helix structure of the DNA molecule opened the floodgates for scientists to examine the code embedded within it. Now, more than half a century after the initial discovery, the DNA code has been deciphered—although many of its elements are still not well understood.

What has been found has profound implications regarding Darwinian evolution, the theory taught in schools all over the world that all living beings have evolved by natural processes through mutation and natural selection.

Amazing revelations about DNA

As scientists began to decode the human DNA molecule, they found something quite unexpected—an exquisite 'language' composed of some 3 billion genetic letters. "One of the most extraordinary discoveries of the twentieth century," says Dr. Stephen Meyer, director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Wash., "was that DNA actually stores information—the detailed instructions for assembling proteins—in the form of a four-character digital code" (quoted by Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator, 2004, p. 224).


It is hard to fathom, but the amount of information in human DNA is roughly equivalent to 12 sets of The Encyclopaedia Britannica—an incredible 384 volumes" worth of detailed information that would fill 48 feet of library shelves!

Yet in their actual size—which is only two millionths of a millimeter thick—a teaspoon of DNA, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, could contain all the information needed to build the proteins for all the species of organisms that have ever lived on the earth, and "there would still be enough room left for all the information in every book ever written" (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1996, p. 334).

Who or what could miniaturize such information and place this enormous number of 'letters' in their proper sequence as a genetic instruction manual? Could evolution have gradually come up with a system like this?

DNA contains a genetic language

Let's first consider some of the characteristics of this genetic 'language.' For it to be rightly called a language, it must contain the following elements: an alphabet or coding system, correct spelling, grammar (a proper arrangement of the words), meaning (semantics) and an intended purpose.

Scientists have found the genetic code has all of these key elements. "The coding regions of DNA," explains Dr. Stephen Meyer, "have exactly the same relevant properties as a computer code or language" (quoted by Strobel, p. 237, emphasis in original).

The only other codes found to be true languages are all of human origin. Although we do find that dogs bark when they perceive danger, bees dance to point other bees to a source and whales emit sounds, to name a few examples of other species" communication, none of these have the composition of a language. They are only considered low-level communication signals.

The only types of communication considered high-level are human languages, artificial languages such as computer and Morse codes and the genetic code. No other communication system has been found to contain the basic characteristics of a language.

Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, commented that "DNA is like a software program, only much more complex than anything we've ever devised."

Can you imagine something more intricate than the most complex program running on a supercomputer being devised by accident through evolution—no matter how much time, how many mutations and how much natural selection are taken into account?

DNA language not the same as DNA molecule

Recent studies in information theory have come up with some astounding conclusions—namely, that information cannot be considered in the same category as matter and energy. It's true that matter or energy can carry information, but they are not the same as information itself. 

For instance, a book such as Homer's Iliad contains information, but is the physical book itself information? No, the materials of the book—the paper, ink and glue contain the contents, but they are only a means of transporting it.

If the information in the book was spoken aloud, written in chalk or electronically reproduced in a computer, the information does not suffer qualitatively from the means of transporting it. "In fact the content of the message," says professor Phillip Johnson, "is independent of the physical makeup of the medium" (Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, 1997, p. 71).

The same principle is found in the genetic code. The DNA molecule carries the genetic language, but the language itself is independent of its carrier. The same genetic information can be written in a book, stored in a compact disk or sent over the Internet, and yet the quality or content of the message has not changed by changing the means of conveying it.

As George Williams puts it: "The gene is a package of information, not an object. The pattern of base pairs in a DNA molecule specifies the gene. But the DNA molecule is the medium, it's not the message" (quoted by Johnson, p. 70).

Information from an intelligent source

In addition, this type of high-level information has been found to originate only from an intelligent source.
As Lee Strobel explains: "The data at the core of life is not disorganized, it's not simply orderly like salt crystals, but it's complex and specific information that can accomplish a bewildering task—the building of biological machines that far outstrip human technological capabilities" (p. 244).

For instance, the precision of this genetic language is such that the average mistake that is not caught turns out to be one error per 10 billion letters. If a mistake occurs in one of the most significant parts of the code, which is in the genes, it can cause a disease such as sickle-cell anemia. Yet even the best and most intelligent typist in the world couldn't come close to making only one mistake per 10 billion letters—far from it.
So to believe that the genetic code gradually evolved in Darwinian style would break all the known rules of how matter, energy and the laws of nature work. In fact, there has not been found in nature any example of one information system inside the cell gradually evolving into another functional information program.

Michael Behe, a biochemist and professor at Pennsylvania's Lehigh University, explains that genetic information is primarily an instruction manual and gives some examples.

He writes: "Consider a step-by-step list of [genetic] instructions. A mutation is a change in one of the lines of instructions. So instead of saying, "Take a 1/4-inch nut," a mutation might say, "Take a 3/8-inch nut." Or instead of "Place the round peg in the round hole," we might get "Place the round peg in the square hole" . . . What a mutation cannot do is change all the instructions in one step—say, [providing instructions] to build a fax machine instead of a radio" (Darwin's Black Box, 1996, p. 41).

We therefore have in the genetic code an immensely complex instruction manual that has been majestically designed by a more intelligent source than human beings.

Even one of the discoverers of the genetic code, the agnostic and recently deceased Francis Crick, after decades of work on deciphering it, admitted that "an honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going" (Life Itself, 1981, p. 88, emphasis added).

Evolution fails to provide answers

It is good to remember that, in spite of all the efforts of all the scientific laboratories around the world working over many decades, they have not been able to produce so much as a single human hair. How much more difficult is it to produce an entire body consisting of some 100 trillion cells!

Up to now, Darwinian evolutionists could try to counter their detractors with some possible explanations for the complexity of life. But now they have to face the information dilemma: How can meaningful, precise information be created by accident—by mutation and natural selection? None of these contain the mechanism of intelligence, a requirement for creating complex information such as that found in the genetic code.

Darwinian evolution is still taught in most schools as though it were fact. But it is increasingly being found wanting by a growing number of scientists. "As recently as twenty-five years ago," says former atheist Patrick Glynn, "a reasonable person weighing the purely scientific evidence on the issue would likely have come down on the side of skepticism [regarding a Creator]. That is no longer the case." He adds: "Today the concrete data point strongly in the direction of the God hypothesis. It is the simplest and most obvious solution . . ." (God: The Evidence, 1997, pp. 54-55, 53).

Quality of genetic information the same

Evolution tells us that through chance mutations and natural selection, living things evolve. Yet to evolve means to gradually change certain aspects of some living thing until it becomes another type of creature, and this can only be done by changing the genetic information.

So what do we find about the genetic code? The same basic quality of information exists in a humble bacteria or a plant as in a person. A bacterium has a shorter genetic code, but qualitatively it gives instructions as precisely and exquisitely as that of a human being. We find the same prerequisites of a language—alphabet, grammar and semantics—in simple bacteria and algae as in man.

Each cell with genetic information, from bacteria to man, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, consists of "artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction . . . [and a] capacity not equalled in any of our most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours" (Denton, p. 329).

So how could the genetic information of bacteria gradually evolve into information for another type of being, when only one or a few minor mistakes in the millions of letters in that bacterium's DNA can kill it?
Again, evolutionists are uncharacteristically silent on the subject. They don't even have a working hypothesis about it. Lee Strobel writes: "The six feet of DNA coiled inside every one of our body's one hundred trillion cells contains a four-letter chemical alphabet that spells out precise assembly instructions for all the proteins from which our bodies are made . . . No hypothesis has come close to explaining how information got into biological matter by naturalistic means" (Strobel, p. 282).

Werner Gitt, professor of information systems, puts it succinctly: "The basic flaw of all evolutionary views is the origin of the information in living beings. It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself [through matter] . . . The information theorems predict that this will never be possible. A purely material origin of life is thus [ruled out]" (Gitt, p. 124).

The clincher

Besides all the evidence we have covered for the intelligent design of DNA information, there is still one amazing fact remaining—the ideal number of genetic letters in the DNA code for storage and translation.
Moreover, the copying mechanism of DNA, to meet maximum effectiveness, requires the number of letters in each word to be an even number. Of all possible mathematical combinations, the ideal number for storage and transcription has been calculated to be four letters.

This is exactly what has been found in the genes of every living thing on earth—a four-letter digital code. As Werner Gitt states: "The coding system used for living beings is optimal from an engineering standpoint. This fact strengthens the argument that it was a case of purposeful design rather that a [lucky] chance" (Gitt, p. 95).

More witnesses

Back in Darwin's day, when his book On the Origin of Species was published in 1859, life appeared much simpler. Viewed through the primitive microscopes of the day, the cell appeared to be but a simple blob of jelly or uncomplicated protoplasm. Now, almost 150 years later, that view has changed dramatically as science has discovered a virtual universe inside the cell.

"It was once expected," writes Professor Behe, "that the basis of life would be exceedingly simple. That expectation has been smashed. Vision, motion, and other biological functions have proven to be no less sophisticated than television cameras and automobiles. Science has made enormous progress in understanding how the chemistry of life works, but the elegance and complexity of biological systems at the molecular level have paralyzed science's attempt to explain their origins" (Behe, p. x).

Dr. Meyer considers the recent discoveries about DNA as the Achilles" heel of evolutionary theory. He observes: "Evolutionists are still trying to apply Darwin's nineteenth-century thinking to a twenty-first century reality, and it's not working ... I think the information revolution taking place in biology is sounding the death knell for Darwinism and chemical evolutionary theories" (quoted by Strobel, p. 243).

Dr. Meyer's conclusion? "I believe that the testimony of science supports theism. While there will always be points of tension or unresolved conflict, the major developments in science in the past five decades have been running in a strongly theistic direction" (ibid., p. 77).

Dean Kenyon, a biology professor who repudiated his earlier book on Darwinian evolution—mostly due to the discoveries of the information found in DNA—states: "This new realm of molecular genetics (is) where we see the most compelling evidence of design on the Earth" (ibid., p. 221).

Just recently, one of the world's most famous atheists, Professor Antony Flew, admitted he couldn't explain how DNA was created and developed through evolution. He now accepts the need for an intelligent source to have been involved in the making of the DNA code.

"What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinary diverse elements together," he said (quoted by Richard Ostling, "Leading Atheist Now Believes in God," Associated Press report, Dec. 9, 2004).

"Fearfully and wonderfully made"

Although written thousands of years ago, King David's words about our marvelous human bodies still ring true. He wrote: "For You formed my inward parts, You covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made . . . My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought. . ." (Psalm 139:13-15, emphasis added).

Where does all this leave evolution? Michael Denton, an agnostic scientist, concludes: "Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century" (Denton, p. 358).

All of this has enormous implications for our society and culture. Professor Johnson makes this clear when he states: "Every history of the twentieth century lists three thinkers as preeminent in influence: Darwin, Marx and Freud. All three were regarded as 'scientific' (and hence far more reliable than anything 'religious') in their heyday.

"Yet Marx and Freud have fallen, and even their dwindling bands of followers no longer claim that their insights were based on any methodology remotely comparable to that of experimental science. I am convinced that Darwin is next on the block. His fall will be by far the mightiest of the three" (Johnson, p. 113).

Evolution has had its run for almost 150 years in the schools and universities and in the press. But now, with the discovery of what the DNA code is all about, the complexity of the cell, and the fact that information is something vastly different from matter and energy, evolution can no longer dodge the ultimate outcome. The evidence certainly points to a resounding checkmate for evolution! GN


 

Related Resources

Creation or Evolution: Does It Really Matter What You Believe?
Why has evolution become so widely accepted? Why has the Bible come to be viewed with such hostility? What has changed?

Coming to a School Near You: Darwinism in the Classroom
If you believe the biblical account of creation and the origin of man, what strategies can you as parents and students use when confronted with the theory of evolution?

Drawings Faked to Support Evolution?
Ever since Darwin wrote his famous book on evolution, The Origin of Species, evolutionists have pointed to exam- ples they claim support the theory of evolution. But how good is that evidence?

Creation or Evolution: Did God Create Man?
This issue of The Good News begins a series on creation and evolution. Did God form the heavens and earth, or is the world and everything in it the result of mindless, random evolutionary forces?

Evolution: Fact or Fiction?
Are scientists quietly discarding Darwin's venerable theory of the origin of the species? The Good News continues its examination of creation and evolution. How solid is the evidence supporting natural selection and evolution? Can they be proven?

Creation and Evolution: The Bible Explanation
In this third and final installment, we examine the findings of modern science in the light of God's Word.

A Course on Evolution and Faith
What happens when a young person who believes in God studies evolution? Read this first-hand account to discover what happened to one college freshman.

Death of Darwinism
Did you realize that virtually every idea of evolution has been proved wrong by true, scientific discoveries? Learn more!

How Did Life Begin?
Science has long sought answers to several important questions: What is life? Where did it come from? How did it begin? You won't the answers by peering into a microscope, telescope or test tube.

Serious Problems With Dating Methods
Why do geologists so frequently fail to understand that the biblical Flood was the force that created some geologic formations? One important answer lies in the way they date these formations.

Creation and Evolution: An Interview With Philip Johnson
Law professor Phillip Johnson has examined the evidence for and against evolution in three books, including Darwin on Trial. He discusses the theory's underlying flaws and the impact on society of accepting evolution.

41 comments:

Jon Woolf said...

All nonsense, Radar, because you still can't distinguish between what you know and what you assume.

Also because some of your "facts" are false. Case in point:

"Moreover, the copying mechanism of DNA, to meet maximum effectiveness, requires the number of letters in each word to be an even number."

Well then, you've got a problem, because the number of letters in a DNA word is three. There are a total of four letters in the DNA code: A, C, G, T, standing for adenine, guanine, and thymine respectively. But a single DNA word (known to biologists as a "codon" or "trinucleotide") includes only three of these letters.

As for this:

"Simply stated, organisms appear in the fossil record fully formed and other than some speciation (to varying degrees) have apparently remained in stasis ever since."

It's easy to reach the conclusion you want when you assume that conclusion to start with.

Question: What would it take to convince you that macro-evolution (in whatever way you choose to define it) is possible?

Anonymous said...

I see that Radar once again is trying to bury his fail under a torrent of articles.

The more things change...

Jon, I really hope that you're posting here for your own amusement...

Jon Woolf said...

Pretty much, yeah. That, and the remote hope that someday one of his creationist readers might actually be aroused to think about these subjects for themselves, rather than simply regurgitating what liars and fools like Gish and Gitt tell them. Radar himself is unlikely to even see the editing mistake I made in the above comment.

Were I Radar, I might wonder if perhaps SF author Alan Dean Foster knew this guy Werner Gitt, and that's why "gitt" is used as a synonym for "idiot" in The Man Who Used the Universe...

WomanHonorThyself said...

hey Radar! Hope you're having an amazing Holiday weekend!!

radar said...

The word gift in English is "poison" in German. The word Russians use for Germans, Nyemetz (different in cyrillic) is also the word they use for "idiot". Gitt, if spelled "git", would be an English slang for a dope or a jerk and would be imbecil in Spanish. Imbecile in French, if I remember correctly.

What is the word for a Woolf in sheep's clothing? Don't know that one.

Did it escape your attention that DNA strings are in pairs and that 3 + 3 equals 6? Did it escape your attention that the CATG alphabet is a four letter language as opposed to the elementary binary language of computers?
Dr. Gitt is neither a jerk nor an idiot, he has a doctorate in information and he knows what he is talking about. But nice try.

Still can't figure out an answer to where information came from I see. Are you frantically searching though Google trying to find an answer? Or do you concede that information is not material and not explicable by materialism? Which is it, come on, step up to the plate and answer.

radar said...

...and do not even bother to go to Shannon's Law, it only measures quantity of information, or in other words, it is about container rather than content.

radar said...

"Question: What would it take to convince you that macro-evolution (in whatever way you choose to define it) is possible?"

Backwards. I started there. But the rock layers are almost entirely a result of water activity. Organisms found in rocks are fully formed organisms with no transitionals. We find representatives of the major kinds of animals alive today in the fossil records. The fossils makes more sense from a three-dimensional perspective, in other words, they were trapped by the flood based on habitat and ability to flee.

Also, since the mother forms the child, I now know that macroevolution is not even possible. This is why we cannot make a dinosaur even if we extract dinosaur DNA (which is not supposed to be able to last for millions of years, so flesh and blood and DNA being preserved is a Darwinist problem) because there are no mother cells available. No mother, no child.

There are hard coded barriers built into life. You laughed at me about bacteria "jumping domain" but then how do you explain all the varieties of life from one ancestral mythological organism you cannot explain anyway?

My knowledge of the nature of reproduction has proven to me that macroevolution is impossible. One day you will know this. I was not smart enough to discover this, but I was smart enough to understand when K and G did...

Jon Woolf said...

But the rock layers are almost entirely a result of water activity.

Except for the ones that are a result of wind activity, intrusive igneous activity, seismic activity, tectonic activity, organic activity, volcanic activity, mass wasting, and/or metamorphic activity...

Organisms found in rocks are fully formed organisms with no transitionals.

"As H. E. Wood has remarked, the argument from absence of transitional types boils down to the striking fact that such types are always lacking unless they have been found." -- George Gaylord Simpson, THE MEANING OF EVOLUTION, p. 233

Only the creationist strawman version of evolution claims that transitionals would not be fully formed, functional organisms.

There was no flood, so attempts to reconcile the fossil record with a global flood are unnecessary and misleading.

Also, since the mother forms the child,...

It doesn't. I also disproved this, long ago, by pointing out that if your version was correct then it would be impossible for mother and offspring to have different blood types. Of course, we know that mother and child can have different blood types. In fact, they can sometimes be so different that the mother's immune system attacks and kills the fetus. Don't believe me? Read up on a vile little disorder called erythroblastosis fetalis. Real smart Designer you got there, oh yeah... [snicker.wav]

Jon Woolf said...

Oops, missed this:

Did it escape your attention that DNA strings are in pairs and that 3 + 3 equals 6?

No. Did it escape your attention that this is irrelevant to what you said? The number of letters in one DNA word is 3, which is not an even number. The fact that there are two DNA strands doesn't change that ... unless you intend to argue that both strands are transcribed and translated in the process of manufacturing a protein. Of course, only a gitt would try that, since it's contra to all known genetics...

Anonymous said...

"Still can't figure out an answer to where information came from I see."

No, that question was answered a number of times on your blog now, which as far as I can tell you've not acknowledged. And no doubt you'll continue to stick your fingers in your ears.

Information is added by mutation plus natural selection. Regarding origins, have a look at the work of Dr. Jack Szostak. Also, some videos that present the state of understanding in an easily digested way: One and two.

"Or do you concede that information is not material and not explicable by materialism?"

Two logic fails for the price of one. Information not having mass does not mean that it is not related and bound to the material, i.e. it is not supernatural in nature. And methodological naturalism would not stand in the way of perceiving or explaining non-material things, e.g. an abstract concept like democracy.

"Which is it, come on, step up to the plate and answer."

It's a false dichotomy. There's your answer.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"The fossils makes more sense from a three-dimensional perspective, in other words, they were trapped by the flood based on habitat and ability to flee."

And is that claim borne out by the actual positioning of fossils in the fossil record?

OF COURSE NOT.

Try again.

-- creeper

Silverfiddle said...

I'm still waiting for the fossils that show the creatures in transition.

I'm also waiting for the fossils of all those failed creatures that the earth must be littered with if Darwinism is true.

I'm also still waiting for the explanation of primum movens and how something was made out of nothing...

Darwin explained adaptation, nothing more.

Silverfiddle said...

You're a brave man Radar. Nothing brings out the pseudo-scientists like evolution, atheism, and global warming.

"When people cease to believe in God, they don't believe in nothing; they believe in anything."
- G. K. Chesterton

Anonymous said...

"I'm still waiting for the fossils that show the creatures in transition.

I'm also waiting for the fossils of all those failed creatures that the earth must be littered with if Darwinism is true.

I'm also still waiting for the explanation of primum movens and how something was made out of nothing..."


You can "wait" or you can crack a book. The theory of evolution does not posit half-formed creatures; on the contrary. This is a strawman argument cooked up by creationists, and it only makes you look ill-informed.

As for "how something was made out of nothing", on what do you base the assumption that something was made out of nothing?

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

So, Silverfiddle, you are essentially waiting for a Crocoduck fossil? Hmmm... Instead of "waiting", I suggest maybe you do some "reading" (perhaps "The Greatest Show on Earth" by R. Dawkins would be a good place to start). Personally, I find reading to be a much more productive use of ones time than just "waiting around", I mean, heck if you're going to waste your time, you might as well pray about it or something. LOL. And as an added bonus reading the above noted book might also help you look a little more intelligent when talking about, or commenting on, transitional forms.

Your own words indicate that you don't understand evolution. Although, if you read enough comments on this blog by creeper and/or Jon, you hopefully won't have that problem for long.

- Canucklehead.

radar said...

Woolf is a hopelessly brainwashed ideologue who cannot argue a point. He cannot argue or answer concerning information so he calls it a "false dichotomy." When you stand before your Creator that will not be an acceptable answer. Nor is it one here. You have officially lost the debate on information so snicker away confident in your ignorance.

Jonathan Sarfati wrote an answer to Dawkin's book and exposed his regurgitated arguments with "The Greatest Hoax On Earth." Really, Dawkins doesn't make a good front man for you Darwinists as he is not able to explain what he believes confidently and youtube has exposed his lack of understanding rather hilariously, I think.

Woolf, you had better do some research on blood types and why it is that the blood type of the child identifies the father and yet the formation of an embroyo requires the form of the mother. A child contains information from the DNA of both the father and mother so a child certainly can and will have a different blood type than the mother. Science has known this for around 90 years so catch up!

Typical bonehead response number one = "you don't understand evolution." Give it up. It is not a lack of understanding but actually a fullness of understanding that has driven me away from evolution and Darwin.

Let me be clear - Darwinism is the most boneheaded unscientific mishmash of fairy tales being taught to children this side of the world. Only belief in pagan idols and zombies is less realistic. You have no proof, no observations and the concept adds nothing to science. Science studies and learns without considering Darwin at all, in fact, unless it is to its detriment. Darwinism has hindered medicine by furthering the concept of vestigal organs and bad design features. Darwinism is ignored by engineers and physicists. In fact the only thing Darwinism does is provide grant money for Darwinists to waste their time trying to find the biological equivalent of the Philosopher's Stone. Guess what? We can turn lead into gold but the cost isn't worth it. But proving Darwin? Never gonna happen.

radar said...

Woolf is a hopelessly brainwashed ideologue who cannot argue a point. He cannot argue or answer concerning information so he calls it a "false dichotomy." When you stand before your Creator that will not be an acceptable answer. Nor is it one here. You have officially lost the debate on information so snicker away confident in your ignorance.

Jonathan Sarfati wrote an answer to Dawkin's book and exposed his regurgitated arguments with "The Greatest Hoax On Earth." Really, Dawkins doesn't make a good front man for you Darwinists as he is not able to explain what he believes confidently and youtube has exposed his lack of understanding rather hilariously, I think.

Woolf, you had better do some research on blood types and why it is that the blood type of the child identifies the father and yet the formation of an embroyo requires the form of the mother. A child contains information from the DNA of both the father and mother so a child certainly can and will have a different blood type than the mother. Science has known this for around 90 years so catch up!

Typical bonehead response number one = "you don't understand evolution." Give it up. It is not a lack of understanding but actually a fullness of understanding that has driven me away from evolution and Darwin.

Let me be clear - Darwinism is the most boneheaded unscientific mishmash of fairy tales being taught to children this side of the world. Only belief in pagan idols and zombies is less realistic. You have no proof, no observations and the concept adds nothing to science. Science studies and learns without considering Darwin at all, in fact, unless it is to its detriment. Darwinism has hindered medicine by furthering the concept of vestigal organs and bad design features. Darwinism is ignored by engineers and physicists. In fact the only thing Darwinism does is provide grant money for Darwinists to waste their time trying to find the biological equivalent of the Philosopher's Stone. Guess what? We can turn lead into gold but the cost isn't worth it. But proving Darwin? Never gonna happen.

radar said...

"Information is added by mutation plus natural selection."

"Santa leaves presents Christmas morning.'

Both statements are equally lacking in any form of proof whatsoever and equally as scientific. I am sorry, I have tried to be nice but repeating these talking points by rote will not make them happen. Mutation is not an information source and neither is natural selection. Wow...

Silverfiddle said...

Hey creepo: How did we come into existence? How did the universe begin? Who lit the fuse?

Thank God we did not have such credulous scientists in earlier times. We'd still be in the dark ages.

Try a little skepticism, people. It's a cornerstone of scientific inquiry. But you'd know that if you were actually scientists.

Jon Woolf said...

Not bad, Radar. You've got the attitude down, more or less. Next thing to work on is some facts to back it up.

"Woolf is a hopelessly brainwashed ideologue who cannot argue a point."

That's certainly one possible interpretation.

Here's another: I spent years (literally) learning about evolutionary theory and the science that underlies it. I know far more about it than you. But I'm not interested in flaunting that knowledge. What I am interested in is getting you to break your self-imposed cocoon and consider the possibility that evolutionary theory has more going for it than your creationist sources say it does. So, I give few straight answers and ask a lot of leading questions.

"Science studies and learns without considering Darwin at all, in fact, unless it is to its detriment. Darwinism has hindered medicine by furthering the concept of vestigal organs and bad design features. Darwinism is ignored by engineers and physicists."

Be sensible, Radar. Why would physicists and engineers pay any attention to a theory of biology?

Doctors do in fact use evolutionary theory in a variety of ways. "Darwinian medicine" is a useful and fruitful field of research.

"When you stand before your Creator that will not be an acceptable answer."

Pascal's Wager fails on both logical and theological grounds. I'm surprised you would try such a tired argument.

"Woolf, you had better do some research on blood types"

One of us should, but it's not me.

"A child contains information from the DNA of both the father and mother so a child certainly can and will have a different blood type than the mother."

And a lot of other things. Male pattern baldness. Sex-linked color-blindness. Fragile-X syndrome. Hair color. Eye color. Possibly sickle-cell trait, or any of numerous other genetic flaws. And on, and on, and on. The father contributes half the genetic material. The mother's role consists of contributing the other half and then hosting the embryo's development ... and that's all. At least from a genetic standpoint.

All of this, by the way, is high school biology. I have no idea where you got this nonsensical idea that "the child always takes the kind/form of the mother," but it isn't borne out by the facts.

Silverfiddle said...

See, Jon, this is where you're wrong. Engineers don't give a crap about darwinism (I don't know about physicists, they probably do, since they love weird stuff). Engineers don't give a crap about it because it is useless in building something.

Darwinian biology is a very soft science, just above sociology and psychology.

Chaos Engineer said...

Hi Silverfiddle! It's good to see
a new face here!

Hey creepo: How did we come into existence?

We were born? We evolved from hominids? I'm not sure I understand the question.

How did the universe begin?

No one knows for sure.

One popular theory is that the Universe was created by some kind of weird transcendent extradimensional energy being which is obsessed with the most trivial details of human behavior.
(According to one version of this theory, the Energy Being's latest obsession is gay marriage among humans, which it's opposed to for reasons that I'm apparently not smart enough to understand.)

There are also some theories. They aren't as popular, though.

Who lit the fuse?

There probably wasn't a fuse.

Jon Woolf said...

Me: "Why would physicists and engineers pay any attention to a theory of biology?"

Silverfiddle: "See, Jon, this is where you're wrong. Engineers don't give a crap about darwinism..."

Hmmm....

Apparently I need to revise the clarity of the rhetoric in my rhetorical questions.

highboy said...

"One popular theory is that the Universe was created by some kind of weird transcendent extradimensional energy being which is obsessed with the most trivial details of human behavior."

Its about as rational as thinking that the universe was just formed out of nothing for not apparent reason with no cause whatsoever.

Anonymous said...

Good stuff Chaos. I LOL'd.

- Canucklehead.

Oh and I can't resist. hb, are you saying that you think BOTH scenarios described in your comment are comparably irrational? Or was that some kind of weird typo/Freudian slip?

Anonymous said...

"Woolf is a hopelessly brainwashed ideologue who cannot argue a point."

Now that's a case of projection if ever I saw one. When did you ever manage to argue a point? 90% of your blog is pasted material from elsewhere, and in your own interspersed comments in between you make it clear that you don't even understand the issues or the theory of evolution that you argue against.

"He cannot argue or answer concerning information so he calls it a "false dichotomy.""

The "false dichotomy" response was mine, not Jon's, and yes, it was in response to what was, in fact, a false dichotomy.

"Science has known this for around 90 years so catch up!"

If you look at Jon's comments, you'll see he did not indicate ignorance of these facts. Catch up.

"Typical bonehead response number one = "you don't understand evolution." Give it up."

When somebody asks questions or makes claims that indicate that they're subject to misinformation about the theory of evolution (e.g. "I'm still waiting for the fossils that show the creatures in transition"), it's only fair to point that out to them. Nothing boneheaded about that.

"You have no proof, no observations and the concept adds nothing to science."

By proof you probably mean evidence, and wrong, wrong, wrong. Nothing but wishful thinking on your part.

"Darwinism is ignored by engineers and physicists."

(and Silverfiddle's "Engineers don't give a crap about it because it is useless in building something.")

If by "Darwinism" you mean the theory of evolution, then wrong again. It's not that long ago that scohen brought up the subject of genetic algorithms, which are used by engineers and which are based on the theory of evolution.

"Mutation is not an information source and neither is natural selection."

I take it you missed the "plus" between the two. Traits "proposed" by mutation are selected through natural selection. The resulting preserved beneficial traits constitute added information.

"Let me be clear - Darwinism is the most boneheaded unscientific mishmash of fairy tales being taught to children this side of the world. Only belief in pagan idols and zombies is less realistic."

Are you ready yet to retract your earlier piece of wisdom? You know, this one:

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

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"Its about as rational as thinking that the universe was just formed out of nothing for not apparent reason with no cause whatsoever."

What is the theory that says the universe was formed out of nothing?

Oh, and what Canucklehead said. Nice of you to admit the irrationality of the God hypothesis.

-- creeper

highboy said...

"Good stuff Chaos. I LOL'd.

- Canucklehead."

Another classic argument from canuck. LOL. Now on to more thoughtful people....

"What is the theory that says the universe was formed out of nothing?

Oh, and what Canucklehead said. Nice of you to admit the irrationality of the God hypothesis."

...except I didn't even come close to saying it was irrational, simply taking Chaos' flair for misrepresenting opposing view points in some sarcastic and stupid attempt to make it look irrational. That should also answer your first question.

highboy said...

"Good stuff Chaos. I LOL'd.

- Canucklehead."

Another classic argument from canuck. LOL. Now on to more thoughtful people....

"What is the theory that says the universe was formed out of nothing?

Oh, and what Canucklehead said. Nice of you to admit the irrationality of the God hypothesis."

...except I didn't even come close to saying it was irrational, simply taking Chaos' flair for misrepresenting opposing view points in some sarcastic and stupid attempt to make it look irrational. That should also answer your first question.

Anonymous said...

"...except I didn't even come close to saying it was irrational"

So you consider both rational then?

-- creeper

highboy said...

"So you consider both rational then?"

As shocking as it may seem I'm of the feeling that rational thinkers have ascribed to both, at least the true version of the original arguments made. Its perfectly rational to rely completely on your 5 senses and assume that nothing exists outside the natural order. Its also perfectly rational to realize that the natural order has not always been there, that the natural order is finite, and that a first cause is more likely. What is interesting is that the Big Bang actually assumes the universe is finite, which would only lend credence to a First Cause. As for the "God Hypothesis", I fail to see how its not rational to

a.) look at the universe and ascribe it to an intelligent being that knew what he/she/it was doing, especially coupled with the above understanding that something or someone is responsible for First Cause, that the universe didn't just create itself, that life didn't just happen.
b.) take the next step in examining all proposed answers: God, Allah, Buddah, etc.
c.) look at the Bible, study its history, look at how each and every book was translated, compare it with corroborative evidence, archaeological evidence (if any) and determine that the written history is accurate, the eye witness accounts of Christ are accurate, and conclude that God exists.

Jon Woolf said...

...look at how each and every book was translated...

Inaccurately.

... and determine that the written history is accurate,

It isn't.

...the eye witness accounts of Christ are accurate...

No such animals.

...and conclude that God exists.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

highboy said...

"Inaccurately."

Prove it.

"It isn't."

Prove it.

"No such animals."

...other than the accounts used to write the Gospels.

"Assumes facts not in evidence."

kind of like the opposing viewpoint.

Jon Woolf said...

All existing English translations of the Bible must be inaccurate because it's impossible to accurately translate any piece of writing between two languages from different language-families. The original Old Testament was in ancient Hebrew, a very different language from modern English.

The history of the world as given in the Old Testament must be wrong because it mentions events that never happened. As an example, there is no mention in any other historical record of Egypt losing something like a third of its workforce -- partly from the fleeing Hebrew ex-slaves, and partly from the slaughter of its army at the Red Sea.

None of the supposed eyewitness accounts of Jesus can be verified from outside sources. They're about as trustworthy as the Tales of the Thousand Nights and a Night.

highboy said...

I'm sorry john, you must be confused: I asked for proof of your positive assertions, not just a list of assumptions to what you think may or may not have happened. There is a big difference.

"All existing English translations of the Bible must be inaccurate because it's impossible to accurately translate any piece of writing between two languages from different language-families."

That's pure b.s, since none of the variants that would result would resemble anything would be completely contradictory in terms of recording historical events or properly relaying commands. To even suggest such a thing is flat out nonsense.

"The history of the world as given in the Old Testament must be wrong because it mentions events that never happened. As an example, there is no mention in any other historical record of Egypt losing something like a third of its workforce"

So because there is no mention on any recovered documents, that means it couldn't have happened? Are you serious? Especially since the assertion you make here isn't even close to consensus among the historian community.

"None of the supposed eyewitness accounts of Jesus can be verified from outside sources."

Other than Josephus, Tacitus, Plimy...

Anonymous said...

"None of the supposed eyewitness accounts of Jesus can be verified from outside sources."

"Other than Josephus, Tacitus, Plimy..."

1. Who's Plimy?

2. Which of the supposed eyewitness accounts of Jesus do you think they verify?

Anonymous said...

"Assumes facts not in evidence."

"kind of like the opposing viewpoint."

Er, no. The scientific method proceeds from what is observable. It does not add unknown elements, such as hypothetical supernatural beings that "obviously" must exist.

highboy said...

"1. Who's Plimy?

2. Which of the supposed eyewitness accounts of Jesus do you think they verify?"

Pliny, and the above names provide support for the Gospel story.

"Er, no. The scientific method proceeds from what is observable. It does not add unknown elements, such as hypothetical supernatural beings that "obviously" must exist."

"Science" isn't the opposing viewpoint so the entire statement was pretty much irrelevant. But point of fact, science does indeed assume facts not in evidence, such as the big bang theory, which assumes (as Creation does) that the universe is finite and a number of other underlying assumptions.

Anonymous said...

"the above names provide support for the Gospel story."

Only in that Jesus most likely existed, that he had followers, and that he was crucified.

The rest is not supported by any other sources.

Anonymous said...

""Science" isn't the opposing viewpoint so the entire statement was pretty much irrelevant."

Fine. What opposing viewpoint did you have in mind?

Rory Roybal said...

Atheist evolutionists clearly see evidence for intelligent design of the universe and life — they just don't they believe what they see. Check out Intelligent Design vs. Evolution — The Miracle of Intelligent Design and Miracles of God, Evolution or False Prophets?