Search This Blog

Wednesday, October 06, 2010

What science really looks like versus the ruling Darwinist paradigm

THE NCSE is an organization devoted to censoring information that supports Creationism or Intelligent Design.   It is an insult to the collective intelligence of the American people that tax dollars are devoted to censors like Eugenie Scott and her cohorts....those of her ilk...which sounds more sinister?  That one.  Good science is based on evidence and does not limit the scope of investigation because of religious viewpoint.  One day we will expose the inanity of Darwinism and go back to real science in every area instead of teaching fairy tales.   A new link on my link pages is a site that proves that censorship and prejudice and bullying is alive and well in the 21st Century.   NCSE Exposed!

I am going to praise an organization that is in no way connected to any Creationist or Intelligent Design or Darwinist or any other -ist.  This organization is simply attempting to do science.  I know a number of ID and Creationist websites/organizations that are doing good science without the Darwin censors standing over them and you can look and find many of them on my links section.  I excerpt or reprint articles from several sites, making my readers well aware of them and the information one can obtain from them.  However,  this time I am mentioning a site unconnected to Creation Science or ID.  These people are unusual in that they have no affiliation with any ID or Creation-oriented sites and yet they are willing do do real science!



Within their disciplines, plenty of scientists are involved in operational science where Darwinism is totally irrelevant.  In fact, the only operational science that involves Darwinism is, well, I cannot think of one.  Only historical and fantasy operatives use and need Darwinism.  It is not in any way relevant to actual rubber-meets-road testing or analysis.

The secular organization that is treating origins science like SCIENCE is the...

The Gene Emergence Project ®

of The Origin-of-Life Science Foundation, Inc. ®

 

Allow me to present two of the pages that the site presents to visitors interested in the million dollar prize offered.

lifeorigin.info

Suggested texts

Submitters may find helpful the following background readings from varied perspectives, presented in chronological order:

Schroedinger, E. What is Life? (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1955)

Donald M. MacKay. Information, Mechanism and Meaning (Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press, 1969)

Jacques Monod. Chance and Necessity (New York: Knopf, 1971)

Leslie E. Orgel. The Origins of Life: Molecules and Natural Selection (New York, John Wiley, 1973)

Stanley L. Miller and Leslie E. Orgel. The Origins of Life on Earth (Eaglewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1974)

R. W. Hamming. Coding and Information Theory (Englewood Cliffs, Prentice- Hall, l980)

M. Kimura. The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983)

Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, Roger L. Olsen. The Mystery of Life's Origin (Dallas: Lewis and Stanley, 1984)

A. G. Cairns-Smith. Seven Clues to the Origin of Life (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985).

Freeman Dyson. The Origins of Life (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985) Now second edition, (1999).

Robert Shapiro. Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth (New York: Summit Books, 1986)

John Maynard-Smith. The Problems of Biology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986)

Bernd-Olaf Küppers. Information and the Origin of Life (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1990)

Cyril Ponnamperuma and F. R. Eirich, Editors Prebiological Self-Organization of Matter (A. Deepak Publishing: Hampton, VA, 1990)

Christian De Duve, Blueprint for a Cell:The Nature and Origin of Life (Burlington, NC: Patterson, 1991)

Hubert P. Yockey. Information Theory and Molecular Biology, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).

H. J. Morowitz. Beginnings of Cellular Life: Metabolism Recapitulates Biogenesis (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992)

Cyril Ponnamperuma and Julian Chela-Flores. Chemical Evolution: Origin of Life Proceedings of The Trieste Conference on Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life, 26-30 October, 1992 (Hampton, VA: A Deepak Publishing, 1993)

Walter James ReMine. The Biotic Message (Saint Paul, MN: St. Paul Science, 1993)

Stuart A. Kauffman. The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993)

David W. Deamer and Gail R. Fleischaker. Origins of Life: The Central Concepts (Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 1994).

Periannan Senapathy. Independent Birth of Organisms (Madison: Genome Press, 1994).

Julian Chela-Flores, Mohindra Chadha, Alicia Negron-Mendoza, Tairo Oshima, Editors. Chemical Evolution: Self-organization of the Macromolecules of Life Proceedings of The Trieste Conference on Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life, 25-29 October 1993 (Hampton, VA: A. Deepak Publishing, 1995)

John H. Holland. Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity (Reading, Mass.: Perseus Books, 1995)

Christopher G. Langton. Artificial Life: An Overview (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995)

Stuart Kauffman. At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995).

Christian De Duve, Vital Dust--Life as a Cosmic Imperative (New York: Basic Books, 1995)

Syozo Osawa, Evolution of the Genetic Code (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995)

Lynn Margulis and D. Sagan. 'What is Life' (London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1995)

Rizzoti (ed.): 'Defining Life' (Padua, Italy: University Padua Press, 1996)

Geoffrey Zubay. Origins of Life on the Earth and in the Cosmos (New York: WCB/McGraw Hill, 1996)

Michael J. Behe. Darwin's Black Box, (New York: The Free Press/Simon and Schuster, 1996).

Julian Chela-Flores and Francois Raulin. Chemical Evolution: Physics of the Origins and Evolution of Life, Proceedings of the 4th Trieste Conference on Chemical Evolution, Trieste, Italy, 4-8 September 1995 (Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996)

Manfred Eigen and Ruthild Winkler-Oswatitsch. Steps Toward Life: A Perspective on Evolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996)

Dean Overman. The Case Against Accident and Self-Organization, (New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 1997)

Christoph Adami. Artificial Life (New York: Springer-Telos, 1998)

William A. Dembski. The Design Inference, in Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998).

Noam Lahav. Biogenesis: Theories of Life's Origin (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998)

André Brack. The Molecular Origins of Life: Assembling the Pieces of the Puzzle (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998)

Michael Gross. Life on the Edge (New York: Plenum Press, 1998)

John Maynard Smith. Shaping Life: Genes, Embryos, and Evolution (UK, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1998; U.S., Yale University Press, 1999)

James P. Ferris, Editor. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, Papers presented at the 1996 ISSOL Meeting in Orleans, France. Volume 28, Nos.4-6 October 1998 (Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998)

Martin J. Medhurst and John Angus Campbell, Editors Rhetoric & Public Affairs (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University Press, Vol 1, No 4, Winter 1998 Entire issue)

Fred Hoyle. Mathematics of Evolution (Memphis, Tenn: Acorn Enterprises, 1999)

John Maynard Smith and Eors Szathmary. The Origins of Life: From the Birth of Life to the Origins of Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999)

Gesteland, R. F., Cech, T. R. & J F. Atkins, eds. The RNA World (Plainview, 2ND Edition, (NY: Cold Spring Harbor Lab. Press, 1999)

Werner R. Loewenstein. The Touchstone of Life: Molecular Information, Cell Communication, and the Foundations of Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999)

Hans Kuhn and Horst-Dieter Forsterling. Principles of Physical Chemistry (England: Wiley Press, 1999) pp 880-921; see also p 953

Gyula Palyi, Claudia Zucchi, Luciano Caglioti (Eds.) Advances in BioChirality., (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1999)

Freeman Dyson. The Origins of Life (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Second Edition, (1999)

David J. Buller (Ed.). Function, Selection and Design (State University of New York Press, Albany, N.Y., 1999

David Berlinski. The Advent of the Algorithm: the Idea That Rules the World (New York: Harcourt, Inc., 2000)

Iris Fry. The Emergence of Life on Earth: A Historical and Scientific Overview (N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 2000)

L Kay. Who Wrote the Book of Life? A History of the Genetic Code (Stanford: Stanford Univeristy Press, 2000)

Richard Sole and Brian Goodwin. Signs of Life: How Complexity Pervades Biology (New York: Basic Books Persius, 2000)

Stuart Kauffman. Investigations (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000)

Christopher Wills and Jeffrey Bada. The Spark of Life, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Persius, 2001)

Gyula Palyi, Claudia Zucchi, Luciano Caglioti (Eds.) Fundamentals of Life, (Paris: Elsevier, 2002)

William A. Dembski, No Free Lunch, (New York, Rowman and Littlefield, 2002)

Henry Harris, Things Come to Life: Spontaneous generation Revisited, (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002)

J William Schopt, Ed, Life's Origin: The Beginnings of Biological Evolution, (Ewing, N. J., Univer. of California Press, 2002)

Tom Fenchel, Origin and Early Evolution of Life (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003)

Marcello Barbieri, The Organic Codes: An Introduction to Semantic Biology (Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 2003)

Tibor Ganti, The Principles of Life (Oxford, UK, Oxford Unversity Press, 2003)

Nancy Forbes, Imitation of Life: How Biology is Inspiring Computing (MIT Press, 2004)

Clive Trotman, The Feathered Onion - Creation of life in the Universe (John Wiley and Sons, 2004)

Fazale Rana & Hugh Ross, Origins of Life (NavPress, Colorodo Springs, CO, 2004)

William Day, How Life Began, Marvin Solit, Foundation for New Directions,

Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2005)

Robert M. Hazen, Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life's Origin (Joseph Henry Press, Washington, D.C.2005)

Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart: The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin's Dilemma (Yale University Press, New Haven, 2005)

Samir Okasha: Evolution and the Levels of Selection (Clarendon Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006)

R Jastrow and M. Rampino: Origins of Life in the Universe (Cambridge Univ Press, New York, 2008)

Donald E. Johnson: Probability's Nature and Nature's Probability: A Call to Scientific Integrity (Booksurge Publishing, Charleston, SC, 2009)

Steven C. Meyer: Signature in the Cell (Harper Collins, New York, NY, 2009

Deamer, D., Stoszak, J.W.: Origins of Life (Cold Spring Harbor Press, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y, 2010 

Have you noticed that there are authors from all camps listed here? Stanley Miller and Stephen C. Meyer in the same book list?  How can this be?  Because this organization is not being driven by worldview, they are genuinely offering a way for scientists to come up with a plausible theory of life coming from non-life and they are not going to accept any just-so stories.  My hat is off to them!   Here is the main question:

Purpose of the Prize

"The Origin-of-Life Prize" ® is being offered to stimulate research into chaos, complexity, information, probability, self-organization, and artificial life/intelligence theories as they relate directly to biochemical and molecular biological reality. The Foundation wishes to encourage the pursuit of natural-process explanations and mechanisms of initial "gene" emergence within nature. The subject of interest is the genesis of primordial functional information itself rather than its physico-chemical matrix of retention and transmission. Bioinformation fits into the category of "prescriptive information" ("instruction," rather than mere probabilistic combinatorics [Abel, 2000]). By what mechanisms do stochastic ensembles acquire instructive/integrative potential? In other words, what are the processes whereby random biopolymeric sequences self-organize into indirect, functional code?

Central questions of interest relate to the definition and nature of "genetic instructions" and "biomessage." Is genetic recipe adequately represented and described by "mutual entropy" (shared, correlative uncertainty between transmitter and receiver)? At what point and by what processes do "biofunction" and "biosystem" enter into the chemical evolution of bioinformation?

What is a reasonable, empirically-accountable definition of "minimal life"?

How does nature's genetic programming achieve such long sequences of highly functional decision-node selections?

Genes are linear, digital, quaternary decision-node strings. Nucleotide selections represent four-way algorithmic switch-settings. These switch-settings are covalently-bound into primary structure. The string's specific sequence precedes secondary and tertiary folding. Folding results from forces such as hydrogen bonding, charge attractions/repulsions, and hydrophobicity. These forces are much weaker than the covalent binding that has already determined sequence. Folding space is primarily constrained by this pre-existing nucleotide sequencing. Ultimately, the algorithmic programming instantiated into the nucleotide-selection sequence determines biofunction.

The problem is that natural selection works only at the phenotypic level, not at the genetic level. Neither physicochemical forces nor environmental selection choose the next nucleotide to be added to the biopolymer. Mutations occur at the genetic level. But environmental selection occurs at the folding (functional) level, after-the-fact of already strongly set sequence, and after-the-fact of already established algorithmic function of the folded biopolymer.

By what mechanism did prebiological nature set its initial algorithmic switch-settings to program the first few (RNA?) genes?

How was RNA folding function anticipated when covalently-bound primary structure was forming?

Suppose a self-replicative oligoribonucleotide analog sequence occurred spontaneously out of sequence space. How did this self-replicative strand simultaneously anticipate folding needs for metabolic utility? Any evolution toward folding fitness would tend to mutate the sequencing away from self-replicative fitness. What was the bridge between both functions? How could random mutations simultaneously contribute to both disparate functions?

How did so many biochemical pathways get integrated into one coherent, unified, and sophisticated metabolic process?


It is also instructive to read their "ABOUT" describing who they are:

About The Gene Emergence Project

The Gene Emergence Project is one of the programs of The Origin-of-Life Science Foundation, Inc., a 501(c)3 science and education foundation with corporate headquarters near NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center just off the Washington, D. C. Beltway in Greenbelt, MD. 113 Hedgewood Drive, 20770-1610 Fax 301-441-8135

The Origin-of-Life Science Foundation should not be confused with "creation science"or "intelligent design" groups. It has no religious affiliations of any kind, nor are we connected in any way with any New Age, Gaia, or "Science and Spirit" groups. The Origin-of-Life Science Foundation, Inc. is a science and education foundation encouraging the pursuit of natural-process explanations and mechanisms within nature. The Foundation's main thrust is to encourage interdisciplinary, multi-institutional research projects by theoretical biophysicists and origin-of-life researchers specifically into the origin of genetic information/instructions/message/recipe in living organisms. By what mechanism did initial genetic code arise in nature? The primary interest of The Gene Emergence Project is to investigate the derivation of functional monomeric sequencing at the rigid covalent-bond level. This must occur prior to any selection for phenotypic fitness.

Fitting with the project's highly interdisciplinary nature, its advisors include biochemists, molecular biologists, biophysicists, information theorists, artificial life and intelligence experts, exo/astrobiologists, mathemeticians, and origin-of-life researchers in many related fields. Please feel free to e-mail or write us opinions, advice, and critiques, particularly of the tentative rules themselves. We are developing as broad and as deep a root system within the scientific community as possible.

The Foundation believes that advisors' personal metaphysical persuasions are none of our business. Science is about "How?" Questions addressing "How?" are about mechanism. As a science foundation, we are interested in models of mechanism consistent with naturally-occuring biochemical phenomena and sound information theory. We welcome as advisors competent scientists from widely respected universities and laboratories around the world whose interest and experience extends to origin-of-life queries.

We believe the judging is at least as critical a question as the audited financials underwriting of the Prize. The decision of whether to award the Origin-of-Life Prize ® must rest not with the Foundation, but with the most internationally respected origin-of-life researchers themselves in accordance with the published rules and requirements. Scientists' votes on any given submission will be independently audited the same as the Foundation's financial position.

The Foundation welcomes tax-deductible donations to be used for the promotion of scientific inquiry into the origin of genetic prescriptive information (instruction).

The Board of Directors consists largely of administrators/fundraisers rather than life-origin bench scientists. Judging of the Prize is to be done by the scientific community itself, not by the Foundation. No one at the Foundation has a vote on any submission.

Board of Directors of The Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc. include

Morris W. Hedge, Chairman; Mathematician/Computer Scientist, recently retired from the Department of Defense, Fort Meade, MD

Reginald C. Orem, Vice Chairman, Retired Educator, College Park, MD

Paul L. Abel, Secretary; Owner, "We Train Computers," Columbia, MD

George Stephens, Ph.D., Teller of Elections, retired Maryland University professor, Adelphi Md.

Dr. David L. Abel, Treasurer; Theoretical Biology; ProtoBioCybernetics and BioSemiotics; Life-origin research specifically into the emergence of initial genes; Director, The Gene Emergence Project, Greenbelt, MD

Chris Esh, Ph.D. Caldwell, Idaho

Sue E. Meeks, CEO, Integrated Financial Analysts, LTD., Potomac, Va. 



I think it is fair to say that this secular scientific organization has thrown down the gauntlet to Darwinists.  Before you can publish any more cladograms and make any more ludicrous claims about how organisms "adapted" by never-revealed magic wandish means, come up with a way that life could have formed on Earth.  I have often been chided for not understanding where the current study of abiogenesis is going and I can put that rumor to rest.  It is here at this site where any researcher worth his salt who has done anything of significance will present his or her information.   You will note that no one has claimed the prize.  Read the requirements and consider just how big a jump it is from mud to molecular machine.   Then think again about the massive jump required to go from bacteria to other forms of life.  I suspect it would be easier for the cow to actually jump over the moon...heck, do backflips over the moon wearing a blindfold!

For you Christians out there that are so quick to adopt Theistic evolution, you really should think that one over.  Why would God use a cruel process of millions of years of death and struggle to produce a creation He said He made "good" in six days?  Better that Christians open their eyes to the fairy-tale nature of Darwinist claims before agreeing with any one of them.  Would God make a simple one-celled organism, set it loose and see if it evolved into anything worthwhile?  Is that logical?  Do men build a house by tossing a two-by-four onto an empty lot?  There is nothing about Darwinism that is consistent with the God of the Bible and there is nothing about Darwinism that is consistent with operational science and there certainly is nothing about Darwinism that fits into the scientific method, for every time it has been tested it has failed the test.  It only lives on as blind faith propagated by those who will seek for any refuge that does not include God, no matter how pathetic or unreasonable.

The minimal requirement of this organization would not quite get us all the way to life, as they are not integrating fully the meta-information required into the question, so that the kind of life that would be proposed by a successful applicant would be quite a bit short of the mark of the life that is found on our planet today.  I thought it would be good for readers to understand the immensity of the task for primordial ooze to make itself into a living being of the simplest kind.  Statistically speaking it cannot happen.  But this particular site will give you a chance at trying...Including all of you Darwinist scientists named Steve!


Silly Darwinist!  Natural selection is for already-formed organisms!   It is a part of the design for the promotion and preservation of the kinds of organisms designed by God from the beginning.  Natural selection works with pre-existing information within the genome to select the features that are most likely to survive in a particular environment.  This is why we have Polar Bears and Sun Bears.  This is why we have speciation, because it is the result of a vast amount of information being coded into the cell in DNA.  Speciation did not create organisms, it is a quality of the organism or a process associated with organisms.  Darwinists have been labeling speciation as "evolution" for years but it is time to call them out on their lies.  

150 plus years of opportunities to prove Darwinism.  150 plus years to find an organism that is gaining and adding information to its DNA string by means of mutation.  150 plus years of fruit flies and bacteria and billions of dollars and billions of hours spent fruitlessly.  Small pun.  Darwinism is built on suppositions made long before we understood much about organisms or the catastrophic nature of the sedimentary rocks or the actions of techtonic plates or the conditions necessary to form an ice age or the driving force behind the concept of Darwinism.  The world did not understand that Darwinism was religious rather than scientific in nature.  It is slowly beginning to realize that it has in fact been had. 

72 comments:

Anonymous said...

Before you can publish any more cladograms and make any more ludicrous claims about how organisms "adapted" by never-revealed magic wandish means, come up with a way that life could have formed on Earth.

This might be the most foolish thing I've ever seen posted on this blog.

lava

WomanHonorThyself said...

wow Radar...u must publish a book my friend!

Jon Woolf said...

"Dr. David L. Abel, Treasurer; Theoretical Biology; ProtoBioCybernetics and BioSemiotics; Life-origin research specifically into the emergence of initial genes; Director, The Gene Emergence Project, Greenbelt, MD"

The director of this "project" is a creationist and IDer, and associated with numerous other crackpot claims, yet you expect us to believe this "Origin of Life Prize" is a fair and honest challenge?

I don't think so, Radar.

radar said...

Dear Woolf and lava,

Real science would not involve making sure every member of a group was a Darwinist, real science would not use a worldview filter to weed out all the non-Darwinists.

Since it should be pretty clear to everyone that the concept of life inventing itself is foolish, therefore macroevolution is also foolish. The idea that organisms decide to adapt themselves arms or fins or wings or special eyesight is also foolish. So, yes, cladograms are also foolish. Therefore, if I use Darwinist terms or discuss Darwinist teaching I am repeating foolishness.

So, lava, you are right, talking about Darwinism is foolish. I should concentrate as much as possible on real science and leave Darwinism to those who read horoscopes, believe in psychics and are afraid to step on cracks.

Anonymous said...

lava: "This might be the most foolish thing I've ever seen posted on this blog. "

I don't know about that, there's some stiff competition hot on its heels:

"Since it should be pretty clear to everyone that the concept of life inventing itself is foolish, therefore macroevolution is also foolish. The idea that organisms decide to adapt themselves arms or fins or wings or special eyesight is also foolish. So, yes, cladograms are also foolish. Therefore, if I use Darwinist terms or discuss Darwinist teaching I am repeating foolishness."

The sheer density of false premises and erroneous logical conclusions is impressive - a good satirist would have a hard time duplicating it. Note that not a single one of the three logical conclusions drawn in this short paragraph actually derives from the preceding arguments, and Radar seems determined to understand evolution even less than he did previously by recently buying into this weird notion that the theory of evolution supposedly claims that organisms "decide" to change, grow limbs etc.

And this from a guy who wishes to preach to others on science...

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"Real science would not involve making sure every member of a group was a Darwinist, real science would not use a worldview filter to weed out all the non-Darwinists."

The proof as always is in the pudding. If non-Darwinists can come up with falsifiable tests to verify their hypotheses, they might get somewhere. Well, actually they wouldn't because they can't come up with such tests (and see them confirmed), but that's what they'd have to do.

All this supposed censorship is irrelevant if you have tested predictions that confirm your own hypothesis and falsify opposing ones on your side.

But in the absence of that, I guess you have to whine about censorship and hope that the uninformed fall for your little tapdance.

How about it, Radar, can you think of any such falsifiable predictions? Something that would be confirmed if YEC were true and "Darwinism" were false?

Name one, just one. Or maybe even two.

If YEC were true, as you insist, YECs would be able to come up with dozens of them.

And yet...

-- creeper

radar said...

creeper,

Yes, lets try to get fruit flies to evolve for at least 800 generations or so and if they do, Creationism is falsified but if they do not, Darwinism is falsified.

Guess who won that one?

YEC would predict that bacteria will not add new information to the genome even after a thousand generations.

Guess who won that one?

How about all the tests to see if life could come from non-life? If life could do so, Creationism would be falsified.

Francesco Redi 1668
Louis Pasteur 1864
John Tyndall 1877

All three falsified spontaneous generation and so they falsified Darwinism and provided proof that only God can create life.

I challenged all commenters to provide one example of:

1) life from non-life
2) Information as a material substance
3) Any coherent explanation for the formation of a "first living organism."

You have all failed abysmally.

radar said...

Furthermore, my Darwinist friends have never provided a shred of evidence that any kind of evolution is ever observed. Your hypothesis was based upon ancient Greek superstition mixed with inaccurate observations concerning the bills of finches plus a atheopathic man who was mad at God because of personal issues and mad at the church because of his father's hypocrisy and urged to find proof of evolution by his grandfather.

The bills of Galapagos finches can change rapidly because in part of a switching mechanism built into the cell to allow for rapid adjustments to the environment. The immense complexity of organisms was unknown to Darwin and frankly I doubt that Charles Darwin would now adhere to his own hypothesis. The findings of so many fossils now without transitional forms has caused Darwinists to change the definition of a transitional form but Darwin would know better. The findings of remains such as blood and sinew and feathers amongst fossils supposedly multiple millions of years in age would tell Darwin that the Flood did indeed happen.

I hope that he would be ashamed of the damage done in his name as social Darwinism has led to the mass slaughter of "inferior" or "inconvenient" peoples. One estimate is 189 million innocents killed by Darwinist tyrants in the 20th century. Wow.

Anonymous said...

Oh stop crying Radar. It's pathetic.

IAMB said...

YEC would predict that bacteria will not add new information to the genome even after a thousand generations.

Guess who won that one?


Riiiight. Because two weeks should totally be enough for bacteria to turn into "something other than bacteria" (at least that's the way you seem to think it works).

I seem to remember that you still haven't posited a quantifiable definition of genetic information, so gain or loss is still a useless point of contention. I know I'm not the first person to mention it...

P.S. How's that genetic analysis for baraminology coming along? I trust you've run a few dozen alignments since it's been a week or two since I pointed out that it's free and easy...

Jon Woolf said...

Yes, lets try to get fruit flies to evolve for at least 800 generations or so and if they do, Creationism is falsified but if they do not, Darwinism is falsified.

Guess who won that one?


The evolutionists did, because the flies did display evolutionary change.

YEC would predict that bacteria will not add new information to the genome even after a thousand generations.

Guess who won that one?


The evolutionists did, because such bacterial cultures have clearly acquired new genes that give them new abilities.

The bills of Galapagos finches can change rapidly because in part of a switching mechanism built into the cell to allow for rapid adjustments to the environment.

This claim makes no sense. A major body feature can change because of switching mechanisms in individual cells? Radar, you sound like you think individual finches change their bill size depending on the environment. They don't.

radar said...

Yes, imagine being concerned about 189 million people being slaughtered! Crying, indeed! You are an idiot!

IAMB you have it backwards. I do not have to quantify information because it is not material in form or substance. We can only quantify containers. Even then we can only qualify what it there by results. The problem for you is that YOU cannot quantify it because it is not material in form and that blows your worldview to bits.

Woolf, you display a fair amount of ignorance about finch bills. There are switches within the cell that activate several changes at once to alter the size of the bills of finches. I posted about this in the genetic redundancy series.

Citrate bacteria AGAIN?! How many times is that canard going to be brought up. They lost functionality and now they are different. Just like removing the back of a chair and now it is a stool! Hurrah! Removing functionality within the organism is devolution, not evolution.

These bacteria can normally differentiate between aerobic and anaerobic conditions and choose to utilize citrate when it is optimal. Losing the mechanism to differentiate means that the bacteria will choose citrate even when that is not preferable to the survival of the individual. Therefore I suggest that the scientists give their "evolved" pet bacteria a shot at surviving in the wild to see how long it takes for them to go extinct, for they are at a disadvantage.

radar said...

Finally, I do not intend to run any analysis as a baraminologist because I am not a baraminologist. In fact I have to take a course in the new Blackberry software and another one for a firewall this weekend, Saturday, presumably while you are watching college football. I have to work for a living. Science is a hobby I squeeze in during my spare time.

However, baraminology is perking along in the hands of actual scientists, so I will report on progress now and then. The problem is that technical journals arrive as publications and are not usually converted to digital availability until a few months after publication, so I rarely post the newest information. Usually I am six to nine months behind publication by the time I share something here.

radar said...

Last, before I leave this comment thread I remember the hilarity of commenters in general when I mentioned the idea of bacteria jumping domains being part of Darwinist teaching. In investigation of Darwinist publications it turns out that many Darwinist do indeed believe that bacteria did have to jump domains in the logical mud to man mythology they teach. Eukaryotes and prokaryotes are supposed to have a common ancestor.

So while it may all be nonsense, it would do you well to be sure you are caught up on the latest teachings of such nonsense so your can proclaim the nonsense with authority? How's that abiogenesis problem going so far?

Jon Woolf said...

No, Radar, the citrate-eating bacteria did not lose functionality. They gained it. The inability to metabolize citrate is considered one of the distinguishing features of the species Escherichia coli; thus, when one strain of Lenski's bacteria developed that ability, one could make a good case that those bacteria weren't E. coli anymore. They'd become something else.

After observing the citrate-eaters in his bacterial cultures, Lenski went back and tested past cultures. He found that the ability to metabolize citrate must have appeared as a result of at least two separate and distinct mutations.

This is precisely the sort of thing that you creationists insist can't happen, no way, nohow, not ever, not even once in the entire lifespan of the Universe. But it did happen. What does that tell the objective observer about creationist claims about evolution, eh?

radar said...

It tells me that you are either lying or you have not researched the citrate bacteria. Mutations took away functionality from the bacteria so that they metastasize citrate even when it is not advantageous to the organism.

This is about as compelling as the fruit flies that mutated doubled wings. Yes, they had more wings, but the structure to support the extra wings was not there, the flies couldn't fly correctly and they were not viable in the wild at all.

Mutations that take away a part of the organism or restrict the functionality of a system are not evolution, they are a handicap. This is why the people who are working with these bacteria have not made a huge issue of the mutations because they know that an investigation into the bacteria will tell us that devolution took place. That is not something Darwinists want to publish.

Jon Woolf said...

It tells me that you are either lying or you have not researched the citrate bacteria. Mutations took away functionality from the bacteria so that they metastasize citrate even when it is not advantageous to the organism.

[snork]

1) "metastasize" is the wrong word. You wanted "metabolize."

2) in Lenski's cultures. the ability to metabolize citrate was an advantage, because it gave the mutant bacteria access to two sources of food, not just one. As a result, they were able to grow and reproduce faster.

Anonymous said...

"This is about as compelling as the fruit flies that mutated doubled wings. Yes, they had more wings, but the structure to support the extra wings was not there, the flies couldn't fly correctly and they were not viable in the wild at all."

Ah, so a mutation added information. Interesting.

Anonymous said...

"This is why the people who are working with these bacteria have not made a huge issue of the mutations because they know that an investigation into the bacteria will tell us that devolution took place. That is not something Darwinists want to publish."

Yeah, they hide their research by publishing it. Good one, Radar.

Seriously, try googling "mutations in bacteria" before making such bizarre claims. Nothing's being hidden.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"Yes, imagine being concerned about 189 million people being slaughtered! Crying, indeed! You are an idiot!"

That's right, the Nazis who banned Charles Darwin's books were Darwinists. Riiiight.

Anonymous said...

"wow Radar...u must publish a book my friend!"

This buffoon doesn't even get that 90% of Radar's blog is copypasta.

Anonymous said...

"I do not have to quantify information because it is not material in form or substance. We can only quantify containers. Even then we can only qualify what it there by results. The problem for you is that YOU cannot quantify it because it is not material in form and that blows your worldview to bits."

So few words, so many mistakes...

"I do not have to quantify information" - you do if you want to make claims about information loss or gain, which you frequently do.

"because it is not material in form or substance" - that's right, it's an abstract concept. Same for mathematics. I don't understand your reasoning in this at all. Have you misunderstood "natural materialism" to the extent that you wish to describe everything that isn't made of molecules as "supernatural"?

"We can only quantify containers" - I think you've been given this clue before: you're approaching this too much from an IT perspective, which is understandable given your occupation. But you haven't dug deep enough on this issue.

"Even then we can only qualify what it there by results." How?

"The problem for you is that YOU cannot quantify it because it is not material in form and that blows your worldview to bits"

1. Not a problem for IAMB nor any other commenter here. We're not the ones making spurious claims about information loss or gain - that would be YOU. So your inability to quantify information is a problem for YOU, not for us. We just need to point out that your claim has no foundation.

2. Information being an abstract concept is not a problem for the worldview of any of the commenters here. "Blow it to bits" - wishful thinking on your part, Radar.

-- creeper

radar said...

You are right, I had metastasize on my brain because that is what happens when destructive mutations occur and the bacteria in question are beginning to break down due to mutation. Citrate bacteria have already been exposed as a mutation-based flaw that makes the organism less likely to live in the wild. I'll have to do another post on this to put an end to this nonsense, hopefully.

radar said...

All you anonymous bozos who just say anything...

No, Lenski's bacteria are not being promoted like the amazing lemur found in storage for Darwin Day. The reason being that it doesn't support evolution and Lenski and company know they will get exposed if they try to push it as such.

No, a copying error that simply causes the same information to duplicate wings is not new information, it is a mistake along the lines of a scratch on a vinyl record.

Apparently it is time to start smacking down some of these anonymous commenters as trolls who have nothing to say other than make accusations and make false statements. I will give you some bacteria information to chew on in a post. Naturally, when your claims are refuted you will slink away and come back two years later with the same old stuff.

radar said...

creeper, you and Jon Woolf and IAMB know quite well that if a portion of the genome is not passed on because of extremes that select out some of the genetic information held within the gene that this is information loss. We cannot measure the information, only the containers. We cannot see the quality of the information other than by the resultant organism. The mystery is that the DNA string somehow contains all the information and meta-information needed for reproduction and all processes involved in living and very specific behavioral patterns as well.

Information is your problem, not mine. Where does it come from? You have NEVER been able to answer that and you know why, because it must come from an intelligent source and that is against your religion.

You all run away from the abiogenesis site I showed you because it details the vast amount of information and design involved in the most primitive of organisms. Also, that site is not an officially NCSE-approved member of the church of Darwinism so they do not worry about worldviews, simply and totally focused on evidence. It probably scares you to death to think of a world where science is not run by the Darwinist Priests but is free to follow evidence where it leads. It is already happening, more ID and Creationist sites pop up all over the place and you cannot stop it from happening. Truth has this wonderful way of coming to the fore whether the elitists like it or not.

Anonymous said...

"No, Lenski's bacteria are not being promoted like the amazing lemur found in storage for Darwin Day. The reason being that it doesn't support evolution and Lenski and company know they will get exposed if they try to push it as such."

Such vague slandering insinuations... Do you have any evidence for this speculation whatsoever? Anything at all?

Because it's not like Lenski's experiments are being hidden.

So let's have it - any evidence that they're trying to cover something up?

What would Lenski even want to cover up? The experiment demonstrated what it set out to demonstrate. See, scientists don't operate with all these ridiculous strawman arguments (like the increasingly infantile "but they're still bacteria" refrain) that you can't get out of your head.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"No, a copying error that simply causes the same information to duplicate wings is not new information, it is a mistake along the lines of a scratch on a vinyl record. "

So you would argue that this -

[set of instructions]

contains the same information as this -

[set of instructions]
[repeat the set of instructions]

Do I understand this right? Is that really what you're saying? The second one doesn't have any more information in it?

You really can't tell the difference?

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"We cannot see the quality of the information other than by the resultant organism."

Wasn't it you that argued that junk DNA contains nothing but useful information?

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"Information is your problem, not mine."

Not a problem at all for mainstream science - sorry to disappoint you there, Radar.

"Where does it come from? You have NEVER been able to answer that"

You withdrew from the discussion. scohen in particular was pursuing this, but you didn't grasp the fundamentals of what he was talking about, being too mired in your denial mode.

Where does information come from? We've been over this multiple times, so please don't spread some lie that we didn't cover this. In the context of evolution, it is genetic mutations that are filtered out as useful through the process of natural selection. You've got a whole bunch of mutations, some with no effect, some with adverse effects, some with beneficial effects. Only the beneficial (and some of the neutral) mutations survive. The beneficial mutations add up to information about an efficient organism.

Your response to this has been that the information is already all there and parts of it are only removed, but you've never provided any scientific research to back this up. As usual, you start with "the Bible (and some other made up stuff*) must be right" and then try to fudge other things to fit in with that, e.g. "fossils must have been sorted by weight" - despite a complete lack of evidence. And then you have the gall to come out with posts entitled "What science really looks like versus the ruling Darwinist paradigm".

* stuff like "God invented time and the natural laws".

"and you know why, because it must come from an intelligent source and that is against your religion."

It's far from demonstrated that it "must come from an intelligent source". That's something that you've never been able to demonstrate.

I also think you overestimate our (or at least my) religiosity on these issues. I didn't start out thinking there is no God or there must be no God or the idea of God is distasteful to me. I simply found no evidence for the idea, in numerous fields and areas. And then I concluded that God didn't exist. And everything makes a lot more sense that way.

The fact that you can't come up with remotely feasible answers to questions like the fossiliferous LIPs or the sorting of fossils in rock strata (your evasions posing as answers have been embarrassingly limp so far) makes it clear to me that while you are fervent in your religion, you have not yet arrived at a set of conclusions that line up with the real world.

And the fact that you have to resort to an increasing number of strawman arguments to attack opposing viewpoints also makes it clear that you can't defeat those opposing viewpoints by virtue of logic and evidence, but merely on religious grounds ("I believe, therefore it must be true").

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"You all run away from the abiogenesis site I showed you because it details the vast amount of information and design involved in the most primitive of organisms."

1. Nobody "ran away" from the site.

2. So it details vast amounts of information - if you think that that is proof of anything, or perhaps an argument against abiogenesis, then you're merely indulging in an argument from incredulity. And as you might have noticed by now, those are utterly unimpressive and logically meaningless.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"In investigation of Darwinist publications it turns out that many Darwinist do indeed believe that bacteria did have to jump domains in the logical mud to man mythology they teach."

Which domains did bacteria have to jump? I think you brought up something like this before, something about bacteria jumping domain 14 times or something like that?

"Eukaryotes and prokaryotes are supposed to have a common ancestor."

Far as I understand it, prokaryotes are the ancestors of eukaryotes, since prokaryotes are single-celled organisms and eukaryotes are multi-cellular organisms.

"How's that abiogenesis problem going so far?"

Pretty good actually. I find Dr. Szostak's research pretty interesting.

-- creeper

Jon Woolf said...

Information is your problem, not mine. Where does it come from?

You tell me what it is and how to measure it. Then I'll tell you where it comes from.

There was a story on the AP wire today about a flower that has the largest genome ever measured. The human genome is about 5 million bases long. The previous recordholder, the marbled lungfish, has 130 million bases. But a simple perennial flower called Paris japonica has a genome larger than both of them put together: 150 million bases long.

How much information is in Paris japonica's genome, Radar? More or less than in the human genome? How do you know?

IAMB said...

Woolf... the writer of that article royally screwed up. The human genome is a little over 3 billion bases long - not 3 million. 3 million puts you right about the middle of the prokaryotic genome range.

highboy said...

"This buffoon doesn't even get that 90% of Radar's blog is copypasta."

yes she does, and this along with the other short and retarded posts you've made on this thread only serve to humiliate you, not radar. Try actually making a point instead of just insulting those you disagree with, especially angel who never did anything to you, or even uttered a word to you. Calling her a "buffoon" is equal to your maturity level.

"Oh, stop crying radar. Its pathetic."

So there's someone with a gun to your head forcing you to read and post here continuously? Odd. Because otherwise, what you're doing here is pathetic.

radar said...

Jon Woolf keeps avoiding the question of how information exists. There is not a need for me to enumerate information in order to prove that it exists. It was quite simple to prove that it has no mass, is not a measurable force and it is not material in form or substance. That makes it supernatural.

Intelligence is the only source of information. Intelligence requires information. Therefore both information and intellect are supernatural.

Life is also not measurable. You cannot define it as a force or assign mass to it. It also has a supernatural aspect to it.

Life, intellect and information cannot be produced by the natural world. So there would never be a simple organism for Darwinism to kick into operation anyway. But the other point is that we have discovered that we are devolving, not evolving. Rather than seeing any new systems appear in organisms, we see them collecting more errors within the gene pool of organisms. Mutations actually bring about change, but in the wrong direction.

I will present posts that show that bacteria are not evolving and also that life in general is devolving, that is, going in the opposite direction from Darwinism. It is high time the world woke up, tossed Darwinism aside and began working on the premise that we were designed and lets do what we can to restore ourselves to the orginal and fight disease with a real view of science in mind. Quit spending money looking for little green men and primordial soup critters and invest it in real science!

Jon Woolf said...

Radar, you're gibbering. Take a few days off and use it to catch up on your sleep and your reading. Start with those books I recommended in a comment a week or two ago. You may not accept evolutionary theory afterward, but you'll at least have some idea what it's talking about. That's something you'll never get from the liars and dark-side servants you've been listening to.

Anonymous said...

IAMB and Jon,

it seems the writer has screwed up consistently though - he or she put millions instead of billions throughout the article, so that the basic point of the article is valid. The Paris japonica does have a genome that is much longer than the human genome.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

I see Highboy has reverted to ranting at commenters instead of responding to the problems posed to him.

-- creeper

Hawkeye® said...

Radar,
Keep up the good work buddy.

(:D) Best regards...

Anonymous said...

"This buffoon doesn't even get that 90% of Radar's blog is copypasta."

"yes she does"

You know this how?

Anonymous said...

"Jon Woolf keeps avoiding the question of how information exists."

Rather, you keep avoiding the discussion and the answers, one of which was given in this comment thread, and plenty have been given before.

"There is not a need for me to enumerate information in order to prove that it exists."

There IS a need for you to quantify information if you want to make any claims at all as to whether it's lost or gained. If you say that it can only be measured through its container (in this case the length of DNA), then your claim is invalid. If you say that it can only be measured by its results, then your claims about devolution are invalid.

"It was quite simple to prove that it has no mass, is not a measurable force and it is not material in form or substance. That makes it supernatural."

No, that makes it abstract. If you wish to claim that everything that is abstract (logic, emotion, mathematics, democracy, the Enlightenment, loneliness, religion) is by definition supernatural, then you're simply depriving the word supernatural of its meaning.

It's bizarre how you're so eager to discard so much of human knowledge. You're coming at these subjects like a naive teenager who first stumbles across words like "materialism", "humanism", "the supernatural" etc. and doesn't quite know how to handle them.

"Intelligence is the only source of information. Intelligence requires information."

It seems these two premises have landed you in a logical conundrum. Your initial premise ("Intelligence is the only source of information") is flawed, since you have not tested and confirmed this claim. Information is structured data. Raw data can be had all around us. So how can such raw data be structured? Well, one possibility is through genetic mutation and natural selection. Genetic mutation provides raw data (good, bad and neutral) and natural selection filters it so that only the good (and some of the neutral) remains. What's left is structured data: information.

"Therefore both information and intellect are supernatural."

Not only were your premises flawed, but your conclusion doesn't even follow from them in any logical way. Oh well.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"Life is also not measurable. You cannot define it as a force or assign mass to it. It also has a supernatural aspect to it."

Life in this context is a combination of mutually dependent chemical processes. Once some of them fail, the system breaks down and life in the organism ceases. There is nothing supernatural about it.

"Life, intellect and information cannot be produced by the natural world."

Not only is this an unfounded assertion (like most of your claims), but information can certainly be produced by the natural world, as demonstrated in speciation experiments. As for life being produced by the natural world, what is needed to get it started is reproduction with variation, no matter how simple (and it would have to be very simple at the beginning). That's the essential process to get life started. Is there any evidence that this can happen in nature, without a conscious intelligence directing the process? Yes, as previously mentioned in the comments.

"So there would never be a simple organism for Darwinism to kick into operation anyway."

Your premise was once again flawed, and therefore so is your conclusion.

"But the other point is that we have discovered that we are devolving, not evolving."

Again, an unfounded assertion. Now complicated even more by your claim that not only can we not quantify information, but we can only deduce it from its effects. That would mean that if we see more effects (e.g. bacteria with added abilities), more information must have been added.

"Rather than seeing any new systems appear in organisms, we see them collecting more errors within the gene pool of organisms. Mutations actually bring about change, but in the wrong direction."

Evidence?

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"I will present posts that show that bacteria are not evolving"

Not without using some strawman whoppers you won't.

"and also that life in general is devolving, that is, going in the opposite direction from Darwinism."

I wonder what kind of pretzel logic you'll use this time.

"It is high time the world woke up, tossed Darwinism aside and began working on the premise that we were designed"

You've been asked umpteen times about how that would improve scientific work and have never come up with an answer.

"and lets do what we can to restore ourselves to the original"

Ah, you have some kind of genetic engineering in mind? Tell us, Radar, how would you reconstruct this "original" superman?

"and fight disease with a real view of science in mind."

That's pretty much what's happening now - where specifically do you think it's going wrong and how specifically do you think it can be improved?

"Quit spending money looking for little green men and primordial soup critters and invest it in real science!"

It's not exactly an either/or proposition, Radar. How much money do you think is being spent on, say, SETI or abiogenesis?

-- creeper

radar said...

Check this out -

"How's that abiogenesis problem going so far?"

Pretty good actually. I find Dr. Szostak's research pretty interesting."

Wow. Completely brainwashed.

Anonymous said...

Stunning comeback, Radar. Is that the best you can do?

"Do remember that to disparage is not to argue and to continually repeat old saws in finitum ad nauseum will not make them true." (American Vet, a.k.a. Radar)

There are quite a few points, comments, questions etc. raised in the above comments, and that's all you've got? And in the very next post you lie about nobody responding to you on these subjects?

Keep on running, Radar. You're looking increasingly desperate.

-- creeper

highboy said...

"I see Highboy has reverted to ranting at commenters instead of responding to the problems posed to him."

There was no problem posed to me. The remark sent my way whatsoever was the question of whether or not I know Angel knows radar copies and pastes a lot. The answer: I know her. You don't.

I also see creeper likes to point out every time someone like myself "rants" at other posters and NEVER calls out the anonymous cowards like canuck and the above ignorant clown despite the fact that the vast majority of their posts are nothing more than sarcasm and insults. But I guess that's the privilege of having no objectivity whatsoever.

Anonymous said...

"There was no problem posed to me."

1. The multiple sets of commandments. Yes, this isn't as easy as you would like it, and you abandoned the discussion when this was pointed out in great detail.

2. The contradictions in the sequence of events in the two Genesis accounts. Yes, the accounts come at the narrative from different perspectives, but they still contain contradictions. You abandoned the discussion when this was pointed out in detail.

"The remark sent my way whatsoever was the question of whether or not I know Angel knows radar copies and pastes a lot. The answer: I know her. You don't."

And she said this to you?

"I also see creeper likes to point out every time someone like myself "rants" at other posters and NEVER calls out the anonymous cowards like canuck"

I take it you mean Canucklehead. He's no more an anonymous coward than you or Radar or me or Hawkeye or Angel or IAMB or lava or Mazement or Chaos Engineer, all of whom use handles to identify ourselves. The only one who uses their real name on this blog is Jon Woolf. (And scohen comes pretty close.)

"and the above ignorant clown despite the fact that the vast majority of their posts are nothing more than sarcasm and insults."

Vast majority? Doubt it. It's not my intention to call out every last bit of snark on this blog, but unlike you, they had not just abandoned several discussions, which is what I called you out for.

"But I guess that's the privilege of having no objectivity whatsoever."

It's a pity that you are distinguished by a simple, objective difference, which I just mentioned. And which is where your snarky accusation falls apart.

-- creeper

highboy said...

"The multiple sets of commandments. Yes, this isn't as easy as you would like it, and you abandoned the discussion when this was pointed out in great detail."

Flat utter lie. I pointed out "in great detail" the explanation for the differences.

"The contradictions in the sequence of events in the two Genesis accounts. Yes, the accounts come at the narrative from different perspectives, but they still contain contradictions. You abandoned the discussion when this was pointed out in detail."

Another flat utter lie. They don't contain contradictions. Only one version is a sequential account, as I already pointed this out.

"And she said this to you?"

Is it that hard to believe? Or is this your weak attempt at justifying one of your peers calling someone a buffoon?

"I take it you mean Canucklehead."

and the nameless anonymous poster that I was just responding to earlier in the thread.

"Vast majority? Doubt it. It's not my intention to call out every last bit of snark on this blog, but unlike you, they had not just abandoned several discussions, which is what I called you out for."

Doubt all you want, they've contributed nothing to this blog, and your repeated claims that I "abandoned the discussion" is just flat out false. What a surprise.

Anonymous said...

creeper: "The multiple sets of commandments. Yes, this isn't as easy as you would like it, and you abandoned the discussion when this was pointed out in great detail."

highboy: "Flat utter lie. I pointed out "in great detail" the explanation for the differences."

Not a lie but a demonstrable fact. Here is the discussion in question. Not only did you not provide an explanation for the differences, but once I gave a detailed breakdown of what Moses and God said and did when, clearly demonstrating that God identifies a different set of instructions as the ten commandments than the ones we commonly think of, you clearly abandoned the discussion, as anyone can see by going to this link where, as of this writing, the last six comments are by me, with no response from you.

creeper: "The contradictions in the sequence of events in the two Genesis accounts. Yes, the accounts come at the narrative from different perspectives, but they still contain contradictions. You abandoned the discussion when this was pointed out in detail."

highboy: "Another flat utter lie. They don't contain contradictions. Only one version is a sequential account, as I already pointed this out."


You might want to say something like "That's not true" instead of barging in the door with accusations of lying. If I continue to make false statements about something that has been demonstrated not to be true, with no attempt to address the counterpoints, then you can accuse me of lying.

In this case, again, it's not a lie (or a falsehood), but a demonstrable fact. Here are the discussions in question: this one and this one. You've done nothing here but restate the problem, that one is in a different order and must therefore not be in sequential order. But that completely ignores the fact that they do contain information about a sequence (one by naming the days in order, the other by mentioning certain relations between events, things happening because of other things coming before them etc.), and those do contain contradictions.

And again, anyone can go to these links and see that you walked away from the discussion. So there is no lie here; not even a falsehood.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

creeper: "And she said this to you?"

highboy: "Is it that hard to believe? Or is this your weak attempt at justifying one of your peers calling someone a buffoon?"


Don't feel like answering the question? Did she say this to you or didn't she?

creeper: "I take it you mean Canucklehead."

highboy: "and the nameless anonymous poster that I was just responding to earlier in the thread."


Check the context above. I was referring to your mention of "canuck", not ignoring the mention of the other commenter.

Regardless, you called Canucklehead an anonymous coward when the fact is that he is no more an anonymous coward than almost all of the commenters on this blog on either side of the debate.

-- creeper

highboy said...

"Not a lie but a demonstrable fact"

Not so much: "the first account was a sequential account of events, the second was quite obviously a detailed narrative of what happened, not when."

"Now the Lord said to Moses, cut out for yourself two stone tablets like the former ones, and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the former tablets which you shattered." Period. End of story. The rest of chapter 34 are commandments wholly different and not written on the tablet with the 10 commandments, which is why its not written that it was."

That was what I said in the links YOU provided more than once in that discussion. Its not restating the problem, because it isn't a problem. Its pretty clear the second account has nothing to do with "when" but "what" in regards to Genesis, and the account in Deuteronomy you referenced to show a "different" 10 commandments, the account speaks for itself and proves you wrong, as I brought up in the thread. What is also clear is that I didn't abandon the discussion, you simply didn't like my answers. What is also demonstrable is that those last comments you posted had nothing to do with what you're talking about here, and were all addressed more than once throughout the discussion. Just because I didn't keep restating my arguments another 64 times after the thread was long gone doesn't mean I abandoned a discussion because a "problem" was presented to me. Its also curious how you just brought this up now after I ripped into anonymouswhoits because I didn't like him calling angel a buffoon. Interesting.

What was most telling about the discussion you linked to was your insinuation that the Bible was full if inconsistencies and challenged me to explain them. When they were explained, you and jon's only real argument was to state that if it were truly infallible the "contradictions" wouldn't need explaining.

Anonymous said...

""Now the Lord said to Moses, cut out for yourself two stone tablets like the former ones, and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the former tablets which you shattered." Period. End of story. The rest of chapter 34 are commandments wholly different and not written on the tablet with the 10 commandments, which is why its not written that it was.", That was what I said in the links YOU provided more than once in that discussion."

That's right, and it ignores the subsequent point that "which is why it's not written that it was" is wrong, because God only identifies one set of commandments as the ten commandments, namely the ones in Exodus 34. You had no response to that.

"Its not restating the problem, because it isn't a problem. Its pretty clear the second account has nothing to do with "when" but "what" in regards to Genesis,"

Now you're skipping to the Genesis issue in mid-sentence, so I have no idea how you expect this argument to hold together.

"and the account in Deuteronomy you referenced to show a "different" 10 commandments, the account speaks for itself and proves you wrong, as I brought up in the thread."

The "different" 10 commandments are in Exodus 34, not Deuteronomy - those are the same as Exodus 20.

"What is also clear is that I didn't abandon the discussion, you simply didn't like my answers."

Since I presented arguments to which you did not reply, I was not provided with any answers to dislike.

In both cases I presented detailed arguments to which you had not previously replied and to which you have not replied since. After a few weeks or months it's fair to conclude that you abandoned the discussion.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"Its also curious how you just brought this up now after I ripped into anonymouswhoits because I didn't like him calling angel a buffoon. Interesting. ,"

What's so terribly interesting about that? There were open discussions that you deigned not to reply too, and here you are yet again joining in the comments only to complain about other commenters. Seemed like an opportune time to call you out for abandoning those discussions.

"What was most telling about the discussion you linked to was your insinuation that the Bible was full if inconsistencies and challenged me to explain them."

I hope it was more than an insinuation.

And pray tell, what exactly do you think is "telling" about this? My position here is hardly a hidden agenda.

"When they were explained, you and jon's only real argument was to state that if it were truly infallible the "contradictions" wouldn't need explaining."

I guess you didn't read the comments at all then. In both cases that was not my "only real argument".

In the case of the commandments, I presented a detailed breakdown of the sequence of events, demonstrating what God refers to as the 10 commandments - and it's not the ones commonly taken to be the 10 commandments. In the case of the Genesis accounts, I pointed out the contradictions in sequence between the two accounts.

-- creeper

highboy said...

"That's right, and it ignores the subsequent point that "which is why it's not written that it was" is wrong, because God only identifies one set of commandments as the ten commandments, namely the ones in Exodus 34. You had no response to that."

The contradiction you pointed to was simply that God said He would inscribe something and then dictated to Moses what to write. I guess word salad like that is a "contradiction" if you're really really trying hard, but most people with common sense can see it for what it was. Terrell Owens is considered the author of his own book, but he had someone else do the actual writing for example.

"Now you're skipping to the Genesis issue in mid-sentence, so I have no idea how you expect this argument to hold together."

So now you've moved from criticizing the argument to now just criticizing how I type it out. Brilliant. Be that as it may, while you keep stating that I'm simply restating the problem, as I said, its not a problem, because the second creation account is simply a more detailed account into what happened during the creation stage.

"I hope it was more than an insinuation."

You're right. It was more like a totally unsubstantiated claim.

"I guess you didn't read the comments at all then. In both cases that was not my "only real argument"."

It was the only one that had a chance, and not much of one at that.

"In the case of the commandments, I presented a detailed breakdown of the sequence of events, demonstrating what God refers to as the 10 commandments - and it's not the ones commonly taken to be the 10 commandments. In the case of the Genesis accounts, I pointed out the contradictions in sequence between the two accounts."

Both of which were answered, once again, very clearly. God explicitly stated that what would go on the second set of tablets would be the same as the first, and they were. The Genesis accounts only differ in that one gives more emphasis on detail. Its a common part of Hebrew literature to put extra emphasis on what the author thinks is most important.

Anonymous said...

"The contradiction you pointed to was simply that God said He would inscribe something and then dictated to Moses what to write."

That was one of them. The more important contradiction I pointed to was that God identified a different set of instructions as the ten commandments than the one we commonly think of.

"I guess word salad like that is a "contradiction" if you're really really trying hard, but most people with common sense can see it for what it was. Terrell Owens is considered the author of his own book, but he had someone else do the actual writing for example."

Doesn't take a lot of trying. We're not talking about "being the author" not being synonymous with "doing the typing", we're talking about:

The LORD said to Moses, "Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke.

"Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." 28 Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments."

"I will write on them" vs. "[You] write down these words". You really have to try hard not to think of that as a contradiction.

creeper: "Now you're skipping to the Genesis issue in mid-sentence, so I have no idea how you expect this argument to hold together."

highboy: "So now you've moved from criticizing the argument to now just criticizing how I type it out. Brilliant."


No, I'm not criticizing how you type it out. At least I didn't think I was. Maybe you were just expressing yourself clumsily, including a different argument in the flow of another.

Again, these are the two arguments that are unaddressed:

Argument 1: In Exodus, God identifies a different set of instructions as the ten commandments than the ones we commonly think of. The argument is presented in detail in this and the subsequent comment.

Argument 2: Genesis features two creation accounts that feature contradictions, as explained here. This is not addressed by the explanation that one provides more detail - they are actually contradictory in sequence.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"Be that as it may, while you keep stating that I'm simply restating the problem, as I said, its not a problem, because the second creation account is simply a more detailed account into what happened during the creation stage."

It is a problem because the second account being more detailed doesn't address the issue that the two accounts contain different sequences of events, which has not been explained by your responses so far. Perhaps you do have an explanation, but so far it seems you're even refusing to read the argument as it stands and responding to something else.

creeper: "I hope it was more than an insinuation."

highboy: "You're right. It was more like a totally unsubstantiated claim."


Since you haven't gotten around to addressing the substantiations themselves, you're getting ahead of yourself here.

creeper: "I guess you didn't read the comments at all then. In both cases that was not my "only real argument"."

highboy: "It was the only one that had a chance, and not much of one at that."


Since you haven't yet been able to address the arguments that you claim didn't have a chance, again you're getting ahead of yourself here.

"Both of which were answered, once again, very clearly. God explicitly stated that what would go on the second set of tablets would be the same as the first, and they were."

Which is in contradiction to him calling a different set of instructions the ten commandments. Actually, AFAIK the only time reference is made to the ten commandments in Exodus is in reference to this other set of instructions.

"The Genesis accounts only differ in that one gives more emphasis on detail."

No, they also differ in sequence, as detailed previously.

"Its a common part of Hebrew literature to put extra emphasis on what the author thinks is most important."

Is it a common part of Hebrew literature to introduce contradictions? The first has a set sequence (in days), the second has a certain sequence through a series of causes and effects, and the two contradict each other. This contradiction is not addressed by "putting extra emphasis on what the author thinks is most important" - which of course means you haven't addressed this argument, you're simply replying to something else.

-- creeper

highboy said...

"The more important contradiction I pointed to was that God identified a different set of instructions as the ten commandments than the one we commonly think of."

So how does that make what is written in the Bible a contradiction? You've said over and over again, (rightly) that what common people think of as the 10 commandments was never identified as the 10 commandments, so how is it the Bible that has the contradiction? Even so, There are two sets of statements, both called the Ten Commandments. This is not necessarily a contradiction. There is for example more than one person named "David" in the world. If there is any ambiguity you only need to make it clear which "David" you are referring to. It is the same with the Ten Commandments. There are two sets of Ten Commandments. The first set of statements, called the Ten Commandments, are the covenant between the Lord and the people of Israel. The second set of statements, which happen to also be called the Ten Commandments, are the ones spoken by the Lord directly to the people from the mountain top. This is why Jewish scholars who have lived and breathed the Torah for years don't simply ascribe their lives to one set of commandments, or even just the commandments themselves, but rather the entire Law.

"You really have to try hard not to think of that as a contradiction."

I already demonstrated how this isn't the case.

"Genesis features two creation accounts that feature contradictions, as explained here. This is not addressed by the explanation that one provides more detail - they are actually contradictory in sequence."

and for the umpteenth time, its because the second account has nothing to do with sequence whatsoever. Its not trying to put a sequential order on what happened, and yes, that is a part of ancient Hebrew literature.

"Is it a common part of Hebrew literature to introduce contradictions?"

"This type of procedure was not unknown in the literary methodology of antiquity. Gleason Archer observed that the “technique of recapitulation was widely practiced in ancient Semitic literature. The author would first introduce his account with a short statement summarizing the whole transaction, and then he would follow it up with a more detailed and circumstantial account when dealing with matters of special importance” (1964, p. 118). These respective sections have a different literary motif. Genesis 1 is chronological, revealing the sequential events of the creation week, whereas Genesis 2 is topical, with special concern for man and his environment. [This procedure is not unknown elsewhere in biblical literature. Matthew’s account of the ministry of Christ is more topical, while Mark’s record is more chronological.]

Second, there is clear evidence that Genesis 2 was never an independent creation account. There are simply too many crucial elements missing for that to have been the case. For instance, there is no mention in Genesis 2 of the creation of the Earth, and there is no reference to the oceans or fish. There is no allusion to the Sun, Moon, and stars, etc. Archer has pointed out that there is not an origins record in the entire literature collection of the ancient Near East that omits discussing the creation of the Sun, Moon, seas, etc. (1982, p. 69). Obviously, Genesis 2 is a sequel to chapter 1. The latter presupposes the former and is built upon it. "

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2194

Anonymous said...

Yo highboy, if that is your real name, call me whatever you choose. Personally, I'm pretty comfortable just not being a hate filled hypocritical prick, like yourself.

Keep enjoying that clearly awesome life of yours, Mr. Angry.

- Canucklehead.

highboy said...

"I'm pretty comfortable just not being a hate filled hypocritical prick, like yourself."

except that description fits you perfectly, though I'd add "liar" as well. Cheers.

Anonymous said...

I'd like to point out that you're the one that can't seem to keep my name out of your comments hb. Not the other way around.

Oh and since we're adding descriptors here I'd like to ad "half wit", or the synonymous "aspiring theologian", to yours. Cheers to you too buddy.

Oh and don't forget, your gods say you shouldn't be so mean. I think you're actually suppose to love me, as opposed to hate, so you may actually be a little mixed up on that point. Kinda' like with your apparent inability to comprehend the concept of morals outside of religion.

- Canucklehead.

highboy said...

"Kinda' like with your apparent inability to comprehend the concept of morals outside of religion."

way to display a total lack of ability to understand a discussion little fella.

Anonymous said...

Uh-oh. Looks like you're getting confused again hb. Sorry son, but you're the one that admits to not understanding the concepts involved in the humanist side of the morals discussion. Unless, of course, one involves a stick wielding sky daddy. Confusion seems to be a major theme in your life, hey? I realize you fancy yourself to be quite the intellectual when it comes to these topics. For the record though, you end up coming across as being more than a bit thick.

- Canucklehead.

radar said...

Well I came back and saw that another truckload of bull manure has been deposited.

No, Lenski is not hiding but Darwinists are not trumpeting his findings because they know it is merely speciation and there is no point. that IS the point, that nylon-eating and citrate-eating bacteria do not support Darwinism and in fact raise more questions because they point to processes more complex than researchers have been able to pin down.

No, you did not get anywhere with the information argument and I gave up on you when you could not come up with an answer. You want to try to find a way to make information a materialistic thing when it is not. Thus, you are lost before you begin.

Source of life is supernatural.
Source of information is supernatural.
Source of the entire material Universe is supernatural.

Where does information within the cell come from? Don't try to answer with a question. If you brilliant minds are so amazing you will give me a straight answer or admit that you do not know. Either/or.

Meanwhile, your continual drivel of name-calling rather than addressing the issues is getting wearying. Are you all turning into trolls?

highboy said...

"Source of life is supernatural."

Indeed our physical reality, no matter how much it is sliced down, will always have a physical quantity with no explanation for itself within itself.

"Source of information is supernatural."

Indeed, no matter how you want to quantify the definition of "information", the very idea of information has to involve some sort of intelligence.

Jon Woolf said...

Source of life is supernatural.

Prove it.

Source of information is supernatural.

Prove it.

You can't, of course. You don't know. All you have is opinion, and ill-informed opinion at that.

Where does information within the cell come from?

Genetic variations.

highboy said...

"Prove it."

Very simple. The beginning of life happened outside the natural order, because there was no natural order. That which happens outside the natural order is....supernatural.

Jon Woolf said...

You have a very limited view of "nature," highboy.

highboy said...

"You have a very limited view of "nature," highboy."

science is the study of what is observable within the natural order.

Jay Whitney said...

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/02/02/more-bad-science-in-the-litera/

This says it all...

radar said...

Pharyngula is ironically named. The folly of naming your blog after a stage in development that Haeckel falsely asserted pointed to common descent? The braggadocio of an author who is afraid to debate Jonathan Sarfati in a public forum and would probably have a hard time keeping a civil tongue in his head while doing so anyway? P.Z. Myers is a poster boy for bad science. The idea that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is as nonsensical as the idea that life comes from non-life. It is a hoax, and anyone who bases their life on a hoax is living a life of folly.

Let's have P.Z. Myers debate Jonathan Sarfati on national television. I would be delighted to cough up pay-per-view to see that one...like the second Leonard-Duran fight, Myers would be crying out "no mas" before it was over with. :-)

highboy said...

WOW, Radar went "no mas" on em! Oh, that's messed up...

radar said...

Jon Woolf said...
Source of life is supernatural.

Prove it.

(Louis Pasteur did this back in the 19th Century, Woolf. Catch up!)

Source of information is supernatural.

Prove it.

(I have shown that it does not happen naturally and has no natural form or substance. http://sportsradar.blogspot.com/)

You can't, of course. You don't know. All you have is opinion, and ill-informed opinion at that.

Where does information within the cell come from?

Genetic variations.

(Adam Sandleresque! You need the information first in order to have variations in the information. The pre-existing information is selected during reproduction first in most organisms and then the total genomic information available depends upon which individuals survive to reproduce. This process is downhill from the start)