Search This Blog

Sunday, January 23, 2011

The Promise: Worldviews again, with gusto! Introducing Gregg's weekly posts

As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.
Voltaire 



All quotes by Voltaire are from this site.  I have found much wisdom from odd sources - Ayn Rand, Aldous Huxley, Voltaire, George Orwell...they would all disagree with me on many issues.  Yet even those who do not understand All Truth can recognize a Truth.  Those who present a grievous error should be at least understood.  In order to have a reasonable ability to assimilate new information and ideas one should have a background that includes studying all sides of an argument.  Beware the sound of one hand clapping!   

If  have given yourself entirely to one side in ignorance, not knowing or understanding the arguments from the opponents, you are then foolish.   In fact some of the most self-congratulatory comments Darwinists posted were simply foolishness.   The information posts are concluded after giving Darwinists about a year and a half to answer and I will not spend another post on it.  

Proverbs 26
4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
   or you yourself will be just like him.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
   or he will be wise in his own eyes.

The Promise is to bring convincing evidence to the table for the sake of wobbly Christians who are not sure of their standard of authority.   Many Christians choose to depend upon part of the Bible but to toss other parts out or let them be considered allegorical or figures of speech.  But the Bible is either authoritative or it's not.   There is a ton of evidence that validates the Bible as THE one reliable human history book.   In fact there is plenty of evidence in the lives of millions of believers whose lives have been completely changed by a rebirth as a Christian and an adherence to Biblical teaching.   You look back at the history of science in the last 1500 years and there are more greats of science who would be lined up on the Christian side than on the side of atheism.   If you doubt it, do some research.
Does the lab-coated guy look just a little like Edward G. Robinson to you???


But more about support for the Bible on another post.   If there were five billion atheists and only one Christian, the Christian could still be right and the multitudes of atheists wrong.   Truth is not about how many people believe something, but rather that something is true.   Is there any doubt of this?  Is truth determined by how many people believe it?  Of course not.  

Earlier this week as we discussed, there is the ministerial and magisterial view of scripture and science. 

"Martin Luther correctly distinguished between the magisterial and ministerial use of reason.

The magisterial use of reason occurs when reason stands over Scripture like a magistrate and judges it. Such ‘reasoning’ is bound to be flawed, because it starts with axioms invented by fallible humans and not revealed by the infallible God. But this is the chief characteristic of liberal ‘Christianity’. It is refuted by Scriptural passages such as Isaiah 55:8–9
8 ‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the Lord.
9 ‘As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.’
Note that this does not say ‘My logic is higher than your logic’. If so, then if we believed 2+2=4, God could believe 2+2=5. What it does mean is that God knows every true proposition, while we know only a part. Another passage is Romans 9:19–21
19 One of you will say to me: ‘Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?’
20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’
21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason submits to Scripture. This means that all things necessary for our faith and life are either expressly set down in Scripture or may be deduced by good and necessary consequence from Scripture."

If you are a Christian, you must decide which way you will view scripture.   Is it authoritative in your life or are you going to let fallible men decide what is and is not truth?   In other words, is the Bible true and is it authoritative in your life?   If the Bible is the message from God to man, then it can be depended upon to be true and therefore a source of truth.

It is up to every man to decide to make the Bible his foundational document or to depend upon the ever-changing findings of mankind.   OR...

You can depend on the collected works of Charles Darwin.  

Bible...or Darwin.  The Bible is the basis for the scientists who actually devised the scientific method and used empirical science to found most of the accepted disciplines of modern science.  

Darwinist thinking depends upon untold millions upon millions of chance occurrences, all of which are mathematically impossible, to do the work of creation of existence, information and life.  It also requires one to completely throw away the teachings of the Bible.  Oh, of course, there are many Darwins who have followed in the footsteps of Darwin, making claims and cladograms and faking charts and gluing moths to trees and sometimes lying, sometimes telling the truth.  I would point out, though, that even when they are not lying and telling you what they believe to be the truth doesn't mean that they are right.  

What if there are 19 Darwinist scientists telling truth to ever one that habitually lies?   What if there are 199 to every one?   Even if there are 19,999 Darwinists trying to be honest to every one liar, there is no guarantee that the other 19,999 are not mistaken.  Because the history of the Darwinist hypothesis has been a series of corollaries and exceptions and false starts and reboots.   Darwin had no concept of the nature of organisms.  We do.  A careful consideration of Darwinism requires one to have a tremendous amount of faith in Atheism because God makes more sense.
Chance is a word void of sense; nothing can exist without a cause.
Voltaire

Darwinists would disagree.  Chance is absolutely necessary for Darwinism, it takes the place of God Himself. It is quite telling that Darwinism has no explanation for the creation of the Universe or of life or of information. 


Faith consists in believing when it is beyond the power of reason to believe.
Voltaire

So if you are a Darwinist, you believe in the premise that all things have natural, material causation.   Despite the incoherent concept that has become the utterly messy Big Bang theory there is still no explanation for the singularity at the very beginning of the beginning.   If there was a big bang, who lit the fuse and shaped the charge and so on and so forth? 

1) You believe that the ultimate authority is man.

Or

2)You believe that the ultimate authority is God. 

There is another point of view that is actually putting off the decision of authority entirely and simply studying the Universe without an underlying metaphysical worldview included.   The scientists who decide to put away the question of origins and simply look at what is now.  We call this the Intelligent Design movement.  I often post information from ID sources because they have exposed the fact that organisms are intricately designed machines with hardware, basic operating systems and applications much like computerized mechanisms, except far more sophisticated and still not entirely understood.   The workings of the cell during reproduction are constantly being scrutinized by science and more design and more complexity are revealed as time goes on. Anyone who is doing real science is worth following.

But every ID scientist must at some point consider how the Universe came to be.   It is fine for Michael Behe to freak out the Darwinist world with his books that undermine their belief systems,  but at some point he will have to decide whether he wants to trust in the power of his own mind and the assertions of other scientists or to decide to trust that a God great enough to make this incredible Universe could also ensure that His Message to mankind could be transmitted accurately.

So you have chosen one of the two worldviews, and there are really only two.   You either believe in the Truth of the Bible or some religion or other premise thought up by man.   

Religion?  Yes, Darwinism is a religion.  Atheism is a religion.  I use Darwinism in a general way to include those who believe in the concept of Darwinian Macroevolution rather than a Creator God.  

The true triumph of reason is that it enables us to get along with those who do not possess it.
Voltaire

The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost the power of reason.
Voltaire

The very impossibility in which I find myself to prove that God is not, discovers to me his existence.
Voltaire

The world embarrasses me, and I cannot dream that this watch exists and has no watchmaker.
Voltaire

There are truths which are not for all men, nor for all times.
Voltaire

Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too.
Voltaire 

Voltaire was able to clearly see that there is a clear difference between belief and trust in God and organized religion.   He was greatly impressed by Isaac Newton's scientific insights and also Newton's faith.   As death neared, Voltaire said. ""I die adoring God, loving my friends, not hating my enemies, and detesting superstition."

The 18th Century was an interesting time for Christianity as America provided a home for unrestricted worship.  France was, during Voltaire's life, not so.  But that was then. 

You live now.   

There is the religion of Darwinism/Atheism/Naturalism, invented by men.   Chance, the Evolution Fairy is a superstitious dream, or better said by Louis Pasteur, "a chimera."

1) You believe that the ultimate authority is man.

Or

2)You believe that the ultimate authority is God.  

Which one do you choose? 

John 14:6 - Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 

 I will end by presenting the latest issue of the weekly series by Gregg, the husband of Hallee the Homemaker (the site is linked on my blog links).   Gregg is currently writing a weekly series published every Sunday concerning origins from a Christian perspective.   I will share one post and hope you decide to check the blog out on a regular basis, I am now a big fan.  What a terrific writer he is!   Plus Hallee's design is way cooler than mine. 

Also coming later this week:

  • Evidence for the historical worth of the Bible.
  • A survey of Christianity as a belief system versus man-made religions 
  • A new student's guide to studying Creation Science on the internet

Creation: The Modern View Stepping Backward I

Posted by Gregg on Jan 23, 2011 in Christian Faith, Creation, apologetics, homeschooling |

Gregg & Hallee in Kuwait

A Sunday guest post by my brilliant husband, Gregg.

Every Sunday, my clever husband offers me a “day of rest” by taking over the homemaker duties here. His primary topic, the Biblical Truth of Creation vs. Darwinism, is a subject that has broad reaching scientific, social, and metaphysical implications and is gaining more and more attention in our modern culture.  For believers and non-believers alike, the primary purpose is to present scientific, historical, logical, and/or sociological data in an empirical and defensible fashion, as much as possible written in layman’s terms, and in a format suitable for supplementing any homeschool curriculum whether you choose to believe the Biblical account — or secular guesses — about the origins of human life on earth.

Two Approaches to Darwinism

I was really looking forward to getting into Information Theory and the laws, paradigms, and theorems governing Information. But recent events have opened my eyes to something. Some of my recent detractors have very obviously demonstrated that they are thoroughly ignorant of the actual claims made by modern Darwinists. This struck me as odd until it occurred to me that many people who profess to be practicing Christians have never actually read the Bible, beyond a verse here and there at Summer Camp, and are often shocked when confronted with the religious beliefs to which Christians are supposed to adhere.  These people are known as immature Christians.  It occurred to me that some spiritually immature Darwinists visiting here might be in the same boat.
“I was a young man with uninformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them.”  Charles Darwin writing about the religion of Darwinism
Since I really hate to repeat myself over and over and over, in an effort to head that off for now and in the future, I realize there is a simple need, here, that I can fulfill. I simply need to explain exactly what it is that Darwinists actually believe in order to alleviate a great deal of the bald ignorance recently displayed with respect to the actual claims made by modern Darwinists, and the religious tenets to which Darwinists are supposed to adhere and staunchly defend.

I determined that the easiest way to explain these beliefs is via a two-pronged approach. In today’s post, I will begin to examine the modern Darwinist beliefs and step all the way back to the first nanosecond in the life of the entire universe.  Once completed, I will examine the birth of Darwinism (which preceded Charles Darwin by a number of years) what Darwin himself actually believed, and how the religion of Darwinism “evolved” into its present state of crisis.

Hopefully, when I have finished outlining the Darwinian bible, I can get back into the Information related material which I find simply fascinating.

The Modern View Stepping Backward: Evil Philosophical Bias?

To state the obvious and at risk of sounding redundant, the modern Darwinist believes in the Darwinian model of Evolution.  The Darwinist doesn’t just think evolution is an interesting ideal  His unshakable belief in the Darwinian evolutionary model amounts to a PHILOSPHY.  The practice of that philosophy is what has been called, since about 1877, Social Darwinism of the variety practiced by such notables as Thomas Huxley, Herbert Spencer, Friedrich Nietzsche, Thomas Malthus, Francis Galton the father of Eugenics, and of course — Adolph Hitler despite all of his modern Darwinian apologists’ objections to that fact.

The Darwinian Philosophical Bias

In the Social Darwinist’s heart and mind, the Darwinist has an unshakable faith that some kind of “evolution” can explain the existence of absolutely everything, and every kind of observed “evolution” is fallaciously and absent any logic or empirical science, equivocated with every kind of unobserved, envisioned, fictional, and theorized “evolution.”  And every action of man and beast is then strained through the very restrictive colander of the Darwinian evolutionary model.  Based on that foundational assumption, logic leaves the building, and Darwinists beg the question from there.

For the Darwinist, absolutely everything that takes place in nature, has ever possibly taken place, or could possibly take place in the future — including feelings, thoughts, dreams, desires, and emotions — everything is somehow dependent upon some kind of “evolution” or other.  The word “evolution” must be tacked on to the end of common phrases and otherwise adequate nomenclature that describes all of nature and all of human activity and the Darwinist labels everything from common everyday happenings to imaginary mathematical models as this-or-that type of “evolution.”

Here’s a mild example of the absence of objectivity and logic to which the Darwinian worldview leads.  A middle school textbook asks students, “Do you think human beings are still evolving?”  Okay.  Let me ask you a question.  Are you still beating your children? In other words, this is a complex question fallacy that immediately begs the question.  Do you see the complete lack of logic and objectivity this question demonstrates?

The Social Darwinist believes in survival of the fittest in the context of natural selection.  Therefore, the male Darwinists understands that he must fight for and win copulations with as many possible suitable mates, and he must do so by any available means.  It is all about survival of the fittest.  Darwinists understand that the female Darwinist looks for traditionally masculine men (“cads”) during the most fertile times of her menstrual cycle, and relatively feminine men (“dads”) during the remainder of her cycle. While infidelity is the baseline for Darwinian males competing to rut with as many females in a lifetime as possible, these assumptions have led Darwinists to the conclusion that infidelity is also the natural state of women, and evolutionarily advantageous on the grounds that infidelity enables her to secure both the best genes from the “cads” and the best caregiver in the “dads” for her offspring.  This Darwinian behavior is called the “sexy son hypothesis” and, no, I am not making ANY of this up.
“In a society where males compete with each other to be chosen as he-men by females, one of the best things a mother can do for her genes is to make a son who will turn out in his turn to be an attractive he-man. If she can ensure that her son is one of the fortunate few males who wins most of the copulations in the society when he grows up, she will have an enormous number of grandchildren.” Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene
If the Darwinist doesn’t think he has a lot going for him by way of “fitness cost,” he is then permitted — based on Darwinian evolutionary principles — to use any environmental or personal advantage at hand, and may simply need to fall back to sexual coercion which Darwinists emphatically state is simply biologically driven and perfectly natural.  You may know that better as “rape.”  In the modern lexicon, this is also often referred to as “date-rape” depending upon the circumstances under which the rape takes place, as if making the violent act of rape sound more cute means it doesn’t really count as real rape.
“The males of most species—including humans—are usually more eager to mate than the females, and this enables females to choose among males who are competing with one another for access to them. But getting chosen is not the only way to gain sexual access to females. In rape, the male circumvents the female’s choice.” University of New Mexico biology professor Randy Thornhill and Colorado anthropologist Craig T. Palmer in their seminal work, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion, which takes the position that rape is a complex sexual act with strong roots in human evolution, emphasis added
Darwinian "Date Rape" Tools
Darwinian Reproductive Aids

Available environmental tools such as wealth, alcohol, and drugs can potentially supply the male Darwinist with a higher “fitness cost” than his competitors.  Drugging his intended mate with Rohypnol, Ketamine, GHB, or some other “date-rape” drug such as very high doses of alcohol — any of which effectively remove his prospective mate’s cognitive ability to judge and discern that he is really just a “big loser” on the evolutionary scale — can assist him to come out on top as the most fit in the survival of the fittest model in the competition to rut.

The notion of rape as a Darwnian evolutionary imperative is accepted in evolutionary psychology and well documented in such works as A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion by Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer, The Evolution Of Desire by David M. Buss, Sex, Power, Conflict: Evolutionary and Feminist Perspectives edited by Neil Malamuth, and is validated in articles like the very recent Slate piece: Darwin’s Rape Whistle: Have women evolved to protect themselves from sexual assault?

As you might suspect, I believe that people who hold to a Christian world view do not rape other human beings, nor do they “date-rape” them or any other “cutsie” nomenclature used as a euphemism to fallaciously equivocate the act of rape.  In short, God says that causing human suffering is wrong — specifically sinful – and rape causes a great deal of human suffering.  Someone who commits rape is, by definition and pretty elementary exclusive logical elimination, not practicing Christian principles.

Faith Hope and Love and the Greatest of these is Love
Faith, Hope, and Love, these three, and the Greatest of these is Love

Likewise, someone — husband or wife — who is sexually unfaithful to his or her spouse is committing what God categorizes as sin as well.  While human beings are certainly sinful, and while Christians are certainly human beings, we can choose not to sin.  We are often tempted, enticed, even encouraged to sin but we are almost never forced, coerced, or entrapped into committing sin.  We almost always have a choice.

I believe I was divinely directed to meet the woman I love and who loves me.  She believes that God brought us together through a really long chain of events that led to us meet each other at a very specific time in our lives and not one second sooner.  The first time we ever held hands was to pray together and ask for a blessing for the first meal we ever shared.  We got to know each other over the course of the coming days and we mutually verified that we were committed to the same life goals.  We married, and we will stay married and completely in love with each other, and committed to each other and our children, for the rest of our natural lives.

These foundational disputes are just a few of the manifestations of the ultimate results that demonstrate the stark differences in the world views we practice in our diverse faiths.
“The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an improved theory, is it then a science or faith?”  Charles Darwin writing about the religion of Darwinism
Darwinists believe in the Darwinian Evolutionary model at the cost of any open minded observation or investigation.  Like Darwin himself, they believe “evolution” is a fact and — also like Darwin himself — they believe this based entirely on faith.  They observe every observation and decide every decision based on a prejudicial philosophical bias, a preconceived notion that any and all evidence will ultimately support the Darwinian Evolutionary model.  It is an a priori adherence to materialism, to naturalism, to Darwinism.  It is a religious belief in only the natural world, that there is nothing outside of nature, nothing outside of the material, even though Darwinism relies upon evolutionary “magic” at it’s foundation and the mechanisms for any change rely upon immaterial elements.

The rigorous enforcement of any kind of investigation, scientific or otherwise, that methodically rules out any but material causes is rightly known as Methodological Naturalism or Methodological Materialism.  It follows that since this principle does not allow for the supernatural, it is a world view that automatically excludes any kind of supernatural being.  Therefore, Darwinists very often adopt a a very secular (read: agnostic) and very humanist (read: atheistic) religious attitude.  The two very often go hand in hand.  Many Darwinist scientist claim allegiance to Christianity but do not adhere to Christian principles in their thoughts.  In reality, they are religiously agnostic.  In short, the philosophical bias of Darwinism is an extremely closed-minded, illogical, conflicted, and limited way of perceiving the universe which practically eliminates any kind of objectivity when problem solving, and precludes an individual ability to think critically.

Carl Sagan Proposed Postage Stamp
Carl Sagan Proposed Postage Stamp

There exist evangelical Darwinists.  These are Darwinists who believe a certain way and want others to embrace and adopt those beliefs.  They proselytize and preach the religious dogma of Darwinism.  A role model for this activity is Richard Dawkins who can only be described as an evangelical atheist and staunch defender of Darwinism.

Practically every book Dawkins writes, like The God Delusion, concerns the God in Whom he allegedly does not believe.  This further demonstrates the mental conflict Darwinists suffer.  Personally, I do not believe in, say, the Tooth Fairy.  But I do not energetically make it my life’s mission to write weekly blog posts explaining why no one should believe in the Tooth Fairy and why anyone who does is simply an ignoramus.  I have to ask if Dawkins really doesn’t believe in God, and believes God is a fiction, why can’t he ever seem to shut up about Him?

The late Carl Sagan was another evangelical, in his case an evangelical secular humanist, who probably most succinctly summed up philosophical bias of Darwinism:
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.” Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, 1997 (Emphasis in the original)
Darwinism is the philosophical bias that has adversely affected science and culture for over 150 years.  Its legacy includes such medical atrocities as the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment that ended prematurely and only after public exposure in 1971.  It adds problems to such medical fairy tales as vestigial organs which are still touted in 2011 as having validity even in allegedly educated circles.
“For the most part, doctors and civil servants simply did their jobs. Some merely followed orders, others worked for the glory of science.” Dr John Heller, Director of the Public Health Service’s Division of Venereal Diseases on the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment
Darwinism is the sexist, racist philosophical bias that is the foundation for such social movements as the near extermination of Tasmanian native tribes by germ warfare and simple slaughter; Nazism, which resulted in the near extermination of an entire subculture of humanity with millions tortured, mutilated in obscene experiments, or outright mass murdered; and Eugenics, which recorded more than 64,000 forced sterilizations in the US alone, the last official state sanctioned forced sterilization taking place in 1981.

Creation: Nazi/Darwin Connection
Nazi Extermination of Jews Driven by Darwinian Principles

While a philosophy intrinsically cannot be characterized as evil, a philosophical bias certainly can be.  Certainly the collected interpretations, conclusions, and rationalizations which are deftly wielded as the default whenever justification or rationalization is wanted for performing evil acts upon mankind — the so-called “Aboriginal” tribes who obviously “evolved separately” from the “original” and presumably favored races, and were therefore dangerous “sub-humans” closer to apes than man, a common pestilence like rats or other vermin – the so-called “final solution” to what the Nazis called the “Jewish Problem” because, as can be clearly seen, the Jews were sub-human filthy apes as stated directly in the Nazi propaganda of the day — or the understanding as recently as the 197o’s that black men in Alabama intentionally not treated for syphilis for over 40 years were not “patients” needing medical care but rather “subjects” in a health study of cases who were very close to actual humans, and therefore absent any rights afforded to “patients” — certainly that philosophical bias can and ought to be characterized as evil.  History has shown that Social Darwinism often leads to unbelievable acts of evil on a grand scale, after all.

To judge it evil, one must have a moralistic frame of reference, and it is that morality that is absent in a relativistic worldview since morality is handed down by God.  What I deem evil based on absolute truth a relativist  sees is evil for me. What I deem good is good for me, but those are morally relative terms.  A Social Darwinist might interpret acts that I deem as evil as biologically necessary, or perfectly natural and therefore somehow understandable in his framework and “right” and even required if you take things to extremes in the creation of a Malthusian worker class, or Hitler’s master race, or Nietzsche’s superman, or Galton’s purified genetic ancestors.  A Social Darwinist, creating his own morality based on relative truth, would probably find my morality weak in the context of the survival of the fittest model.

Meanwhile, my personal history proves that removing the philosophical bias of Darwinism freed not only my mind to seek and learn and know and embrace real physical and metaphysical truth, but also freed my heart from the evil chains with which that bias bound it.  I no longer find murder acceptable or necessary.  I no longer believe that criminals who commit heinous crimes should be tortured.  I no longer believe that life is cheap.  I no longer believe that sex is an often pleasant biological function somewhere between a yawn and a belch.  I am no longer limited in my quest for knowledge, being able to freely explore philosophies without bias even if they contradict my own such as the political essays of Ayn Rand or the philosophies of Bertrand Russell.  I can consider their perspectives in a very open minded and free way that I could not before within the constraints of Darwinism.

Micro-evolution! Why is this called “evolution” in the first place?


No macro-evolutionary transitional forms actually exist

Within the framework of the foundational philosophy, there are 6 tenets of Darwinism.  The first and only tenet that is observed and confirmed by operational science is labeled “micro-evolution.” Darwinists believe that a series of biological imperatives driven by as yet unknown or unidentified “evolutionary forces” whatever that means — and it could have something to do with Dawkins’ utterly fictitious yet fully envisioned selfish-gene — will cause he and his mate to rut and possibly even reproduce; that the product of any successful reproduction is simply the result of something called “micro-evolution” which term presumably lends a great deal of Scientific sounding Authority and perhaps even some Weight to Darwinism as a whole, you see, because,  in strict accordance with the Darwinian philosophical bias, absolutely everything is dependent upon some kind of “evolution” or another.

Normal people, those who are not influenced by an all-encompassing unargued philosophical bias call this phenomenon “parents having children.”  But there is a little more to it, and the real gems are found in the field of “Evolutionary Psychology.”

So, the Darwinist believes that any unsuccessful reproduction effort can be discarded, preferably before coming to full term.  The criteria for success is often a bit subjective, of course.  Maybe the Darwinist wanted blond hair or blue eyes as was Hitler’s vision, but at the end of the day we aren’t talking about an actual human life anyway, we are merely talking about a potential “clever ape” since we are all, according to Darwinism, merely products of random chance and rearranged pond scum imbued with instinct.

Upon successful reproduction, the female Darwinist very often has no more use for the male Darwinist and does her level best to alienate him and separate him from his offspring, especially if he is a cad since she, at that point, needs a dad.  The male Darwinist believes it is fitting to dispose of his mate and abandon any offspring to the female’s care while he goes about rutting with many more different mates.  Unfortunately for him, the court system in our culture often hangs on to a significant portion of his wallet for any offspring.  Come to think of it, this is probably another argument for pre-birth termination, in the mind of the male Darwinist.

I believe that my wife and I can cleave to one another and become “one” as in one flesh and one spirit.  I believe that we can be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. I believe that we do not engage in “micro-evolution” but rather we have something called “children” who are often referred to as “blessings from God” and that they have absolutely NO more information in their genetic code than exactly half of my chromosomes and half of my wife’s chromosomes. NO additional complex biological information at all has been added to the human genome in this act of reproduction that has absolutely nothing to do with “evolution” or “micro-evolution” whatsoever.  It is just parenting children.  That’s all.



I believe that if there are complications during pregnancy and our child is born, say 12 weeks early, that we can anoint him with oil, lay hands on him, pray over him, and love him as only parents can love their child and that we would never, ever under any circumstances consider abortion as an option, because I believe that word is just a Scientific and Authoritative sounding synonym, rooted in a Darwinist world view, for simple murder.  I believe that loving God, my spouse, and my children in that order for as long as I draw breath will result in better, smarter, happier, healthier human beings.

On Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of the Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
Title Page

The Darwinist believes that when his parents begin to become a “drain on society” that they no longer serve a purpose and should therefore probably be euthenized. There is Darwinian precedent because, after all, if the surviving Darwinist inherits, this would probably give him an improved “fitness cost” in the whole survival of the fittest scheme of things.  Certainly, it would prove to be an evolutionary advantage.

Not surprisingly, I believe that all life is precious.  I believe that my parents  – or yours for that matter — are owed honor, even in their declining years, and would never consider murdering my parents, or yours, whether such murder was sanctioned by fallible man or not.

Historically, a Darwinist is the ultimate racist and sexist.  Simply put, he believes that inequalities can be drawn along racial lines and that males are categorically superior to females.  The complete title of Darwin’s racist book is On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

For over 150 years, Darwinists have resorted to things like measuring skulls, brains, charting heredity, and analyzing skin tones — all with the primary goal of declaring that those of western and northern European descent have higher IQs than other whites and ANY people of color have much lower IQs.
“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.”  Charles Darwin writing on the lower races and the so-called “Aboriginal” tribes in Australia and Tasmania
Meanwhile, a plank of evolution is that bigger, stronger, hunter, fighter male is much more “evolved” than weaker, smaller, domestic, nurturing female who Darwin, at various times and in various ways in his writings, compared directly to stupid dogs, brainless sows, and mindless cows.  Worse (from his point of view) he compared women to the “lower races.”
“It is generally admitted that with woman the powers of intuition, of rapid perception and perhaps of imitation, are more strongly marked than in man: but some, at least, of these faculties are characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of civilization.” Charles Darwin expressing his egalitarian views of the fairer sex in The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, 1896

In His Image Created He Them

In contrast, I personally believe that while Adam was God’s perfect creation, Eve was His masterpiece. Both men and women were created in the very image of God, meaning it takes both sexes to mirror His image.  Being created in the image of God, a sincere woman represents everything a man wants and needs in a helper, comforter, and lifelong companion and a loving man represents everything a woman could desire for her spiritual, emotional, and physical well-being.

In scripture, we are informed that women repeatedly rescue Moses from death from the time he is a helpless infant.  A woman was chosen to usher Jesus Christ, God’s only begotten Son, into our plane of existence when God could have easily manifested His Son some other way without involving anyone.  The first witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection were women, showing that God intended women to be seen as trustworthy.  1 Corinthians 7:4 Reads, “Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does,” which gives women complete authority over a man’s body within the boundaries of holy matrimony (Note to Christian wives: remind your husband of that authority the next time he doesn’t want to go to the doctor!).

Furthermore, I believe that God created man, male and female created He them, in His image created He them.  I don’t believe that the color of a person’s skin has anything to say about what Martin Luther King, Jr. called “the content of his character. ” In other words, I believe our bodies are mere temples for our immortal souls.  I believe in ONE race, the HUMAN race, that we are ALL the sons and daughters of Adam, that God has made of ONE blood all nations of men.

The Truth


Darwinists might sneer at my so-called parochial ignorance and laugh at my naivety in not wanting to murder the unborn, the infirm, the ill, and the aged.  They might feel that I have an overdeveloped sense of nobility in that I do not support the forced sterilization of anyone, regardless of their race, alleged IQ, or crimes.  They might laugh behind their hands at the notion that I feel it is my duty here on earth to HELP those who may not have the same advantages with which I have been blessed, instead of trying my level best to bring them additional suffering in order to bring myself an additional advantage.

That’s fine with me.

While Darwinists may deceive themselves into believing that their philosophy leaves them enlightened and unfettered, I know that my philosophy is one of true enlightenment and freedom.  The Darwinian evolutionary model espouses a philosophy of excess, injustice, cowardace, flight, selfishness, impatience, unkindness, and personal agrandizement.  The Christian faith model is based on prudence, justice, restraint (chastity, temperance), courage, perseverance (fortitude, diligence), charity, patience (being slow to anger), kindness, and humility.

The philosophical bias of the Darwinian evolutionary model depends upon eschewing faith, an existence without hope of eternity, and self-gratification or self-love.  This is counter to the Christian ethos of faith in the word of God, hope for eternal life, and loving others.  Faith, Hope, and Love — these three — and the greatest of these is Love.

All of these higher and more noble characteristics are reflections of the nature of our Creator.  And that Creator is the one who created everything by the power of His will. And that Designer is the one who killed me and resurrected me without any of the sins of my past, an absolutely new creation. And that almighty God, by the power of His word, took on human form and became a living sacrifice in atonement for my once very wicked ways. And that amazing Healer rose from the grave and sent a helper to live in the temple of my body. And that Redeemer can do the very same thing for you if you don’t know Him. He can do it RIGHT NOW because absolutely NOTHING is beyond His power.

I commit to you that I will publish every single comment that meets this blog’s commenting criteria. You may want to review that criteria before adding your opinion here.

God Bless you and yours.
Gregg

~~~~~~~~~
Is Gregg a better writer than me because he only does it once a week or because he is better?   Anyway, now you know about the blog and his weekly output and no excuses if you miss one going forward!

96 comments:

Jon Woolf said...

Radar, why did you delete the post before this one, your "last word on the information issue"?

radar said...

Because it was the last word on the information issue and is now the first link on my links page. I gave Darwinists about a year and a half to give me an answer and now I have concluded the issue to my satisfaction and am not going back to it.

radar said...

http://sportsradar.blogspot.com/2011/01/information-question-settled-once-and.html

I wasn't using that blog anymore and it makes a handy place to park it.

j said...

And the fact its comment-thread contains a link that totally destroys your position had nothing to do with it.

I'd reexamine my motives if I were you, Radar. The dark side takes many forms, and some of them are quite subtle...

Anonymous said...

Nice case of censorship there, Radar.

Anonymous whatsit said...

Wow, aside from that being the most cowardly things I've ever seen Radar do, it's about as clear a concession as you can get.

Let it be noted that Radar on conclusively losing the information argument once and for all deleted all comments on the post, including at least one that completely falsified his central argument.

To summarize two of the comments that Radar deleted when taking this post off his main blog:

1. Jon Woolf posted this link, which falsifies Radar's unfounded claim (and unwarranted mockery) that mutation plus natural selection can not result in an increase in information.

2. "Information cannot be quantified perfectly because it is not material in form."

Easily falsified, since it is not necessary for something to be material in form to be quantifiable. Time is not material in form, and yet we can quantify it.

Every time Radar brings up the issue of information, we should remind readers who may be unaware of Radar's action that this is what he did, along with the deleted comments that he simply couldn't face.

Anonymous said...

I guess this means this is now one of those blogs where you have to save the posts and comments right after posting because the blog owner's short on ethics. Oh well.

Gregg said...

Jon Woolf posted this link, which...

Wow -- you guys REALLY don't apply logic before putting out your refutations.

The first sentence of the article in that link is "Researchers report that they are the first to show in molecular detail how one gene evolved two competing functions that eventually split up – via gene duplication – to pursue their separate destinies."

Really? They have "shown" that? Says who? Have those genes stopped beating their children yet?

In other words, there are easily two and really more like three identifiable fallacies in that single first sentence. The first is that it is a compound statement. The second is that it immediately and pretty thoroughly begs the question.

Is the assumption of evolution is true? If SO, then researchers have shown...

The gene evolved? Really? Show me how "researchers" empirically, via a process of either observed or operational science, eliminated the possibility that the gene (presumably a genome if I am reading the article correctly) was not specifically DESIGNED to perform just those dual functions they discovered? Oh, wait. There was no such observed or operational science involved. Only the assumption that evolution is true (begging the question) and therefore evolution is the answer to EVERYTHING. Which leads us rather neatly to the third logical fallacy in this article, that of CIRCULAR REASONING.

Sorry guys. Burn your little straw men in effigy all you like but this is FAR, and baby I mean LIGHT YEARS, from a victory for your side of the argument. Perhaps you should learn about LOGIC and apply some before throwing out obscenely weak arguments as your alleged coup de grace.

God Bless you all,
Gregg

Jon Woolf said...

Sheesh, Gregg, that's an even weaker comeback than Radar usually manages.

Sorry, but beachbum 'logic' does not an effective counter-argument make. You'll have to try a lot harder.

Gregg said...

The naturalistic world-view has not actually been demonstrated by the empirical evidence. It has been assumed from the beginning, as a premise, biasing the final interpretation of the evidence. There is no compelling reason to believe naturalism. It is not based on the empirical evidence. It has presumed its conclusion in its premise.

In your reply to my refutation(s), you do not bother to explain how my logic is not sound. If my logic is not sound, then kindly argue either the premise(s) or the conclusion(s). Otherwise, your reply is definitively salacious and inordinately weak and can only be seen as a ham handed attempt at a refutation that amounts to little more than the fallacy of a question begging epithet.

God Bless,
Gregg

Gregg said...

It occurred to me that there is possibly some ignorance to go with the bias. Allow me to shed light on what I am talking about.

The fallacy of a question begging epithet is a loaded phrase such as "bleeding heart liberal" or "stodgy conservative" or "beachbum logic" and it isn't an argument. It's just childish name calling. It is neither sound, valid, nor a refutation of the point under examination.

Circular reasoning is similar to begging the question but it differs in that the premise proves the conclusion which proves the premise. Begging the question merely assumes the conclusion.

If you wish to engage with me, please educate yourself. I respond to intelligence of every type. If you cannot do that, at least try harder not to annoy me with childishness, ignorance, and a complete dearth of logic. Those things are impossible for me to respect.

Thanks again and God Bless,
Gregg

Anonymous said...

Gregg said:

"If you cannot do that, at least try harder not to annoy me with childishness, ignorance, and a complete dearth of logic."

Easy solution to that, Gregg: just don't come here anymore. It's also quite ironic that you're so eager to use such patronizing and belittling language here, while in the commenting criteria of your own blog you insist that people keep it respectful and fun, and do not use abusive or offensive language...

Anonymous said...

"In your reply to my refutation(s), you do not bother to explain how my logic is not sound."

True, he didn't, as you didn't bother to explain the shortcomings of the article you attempt to critique.

How is your logic not sound, you ask. Okay:

1. A compound statement is not a logical fallacy, as you claimed.

2. You can't argue that the single sentence you've chosen to restrict your response to is actually begging the question, since in order to make that argument you'd have to take everything that follows into account as well, which from your response it appears you have not done. You haven't excluded the possibility that in said work the assertion in the introductory paragraph of an article is subsequently actually demonstrated.

3. Before you make any assertions like "There was no such observed or operational science involved. Only the assumption that evolution is true", you would be wise to actually examine the paper itself. I suspect the link that Jon provided may err on the side of caution in describing the scientific work, while the research paper itself would be what you would actually have to examine.

I appreciate your observations re. observed or operational science. Does it come with a concession that creationism is not based on observed or operational science, but in invoking a religious text is based on an attempt at special pleading (which happens to be a logical fallacy) instead.

If you disagree, what exactly is the observed or operational science on which YEC is based?

Anonymous said...

In addition, I agree with the anonymous commenter two posts above this one re. Gregg's tone. When I first saw Gregg's blog (or rather his guest postings on his wife's blog), I found Gregg to be somewhat less arrogant and deranged-sounding than Radar in his writings, even if he struggles with the same argumentations that all YECs will eventually run up against. But at least Gregg aimed for a civil tone. Sadly, it appears that Gregg prefers to leave his manners at home when visiting other blogs.

Not to take away from the colossal embarrassment of Radar having to delete comments on one of his own posts after losing the argument. Wow.

What was that about pride again, Radar?

Anonymous said...

"The naturalistic world-view has not actually been demonstrated by the empirical evidence. It has been assumed from the beginning, as a premise, biasing the final interpretation of the evidence. There is no compelling reason to believe naturalism. It is not based on the empirical evidence. It has presumed its conclusion in its premise."

If there's one thing the naturalistic worldview (by which I'm assuming you mean metaphysical naturalism) is based on, it's empirical evidence. That's the whole point.

Re. "It has been assumed from the beginning, as a premise, biasing the final interpretation of the evidence." and "It has presumed its conclusion in its premise.": it seems you're blurring the distinction between metaphysical and methodological naturalism here. Methodological naturalism was not invented so that metaphysical naturalism could exist, as Radar will be happy to confirm.

Anonymous said...

"Darwinist thinking depends upon untold millions upon millions of chance occurrences, all of which are mathematically impossible"

... wow. Radar isn't even trying to have stuff make sense any more.

radar said...

You can repost that link but it not only doesn't destroy my position it does not even speak to it. It does not give us a source of information. In fact scientists have admitted that mutation and natural selection cannot act on molecules to be a cause for the alleged first simple organism. That link is worthless.

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. Statistically speaking, the existence of one single-celled organism by natural occurences even if it was possible is beyond the possible. Multiply that by the billions upon billions of differing cells and organisms and the word preposterous is not strong enough. Impossible it is.

Methodological Naturalism is a religious position artificially imposed on science by religious people - Darwinists. It was not used by the scientists of the past and it fails because it excludes all possibilities from the start, thus failing in the end. You would be crying bloody murder if scientists were told to find only supernatural answers to problems.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"In fact scientists have admitted that mutation and natural selection cannot act on molecules to be a cause for the alleged first simple organism. "

Link?

"Statistically speaking, the existence of one single-celled organism by natural occurences even if it was possible is beyond the possible."

If you discount the possibility of evolution from simpler forms, then you might have a point... though your claim regarding statistical odds is unsupported.

However, since that possibility exists, you don't have a point.

"Methodological Naturalism is a religious position artificially imposed on science by religious people - Darwinists."

Didn't you only recently claim that methodological naturalism, i.e. the scientific method, was brought to science by religious people, namely Christians?

Anonymous whatsit said...

"It was not used by the scientists of the past"

Until about the 1600s, the beginning of the scientific revolution.

"and it fails because it excludes all possibilities from the start, thus failing in the end."

How do you figure the scientific method "excludes all possibilities"? Did you mean to say "does not include all possibilities"?

The scientific method is reliable precisely because it examines the observable. If you want it to include your articles of faith, then how are we to distinguish between yours and that of other religions? What you're proposing would make science completely useless.

Ah, but you don't want to include those other religions, do you? You just want yours to be the king of the pack on your say-so.

And how do you figure science has failed? The scientific revolution has been inordinately successful by any standard I can think of.

"You would be crying bloody murder if scientists were told to find only supernatural answers to problems."

I would laugh until I cried. You really think the two are equivalent? You think that supernatural answers can be found in science? You think the supernatural can be examined by science? You think science doesn't work otherwise?

radar said...

Derision is not an argument.

I did not "claim" but rather asserted with documentation that the scientific method (without the methodological naturalism imposed) was birthed by Roger Bacon and later Sir Francis Bacon popularized it.

Captain Stubing said...

Interesting. And what exactly do you imagine the scientific method minus methodological naturalism to be?

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Derision is not an argument."

Neither is "Derision is not an argument" in response to arguments.

Anonymous said...

Wow, this is an interesting twist. Looks like Radar finally read the comment thread after one of his posts. LOL. IMO you should probably delete the Haiti post too because that one is even more embarrassing for you and your wife. See for yourselves, dear readers (LOL), before it's gone as well,

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2011/01/failure-of-evolutionthe-unmasking-of.html

You're just not going to be able to easily sweep this one under the rug, Radar. Remember how you ALWAYS talked about how you don't delete comments unless they contain swears or spam? What happened to your "rule" here? You also have to know this is going to devastate any credibility you had/have with potential "allies" on your side of the argument. Don't you think that they will see this as a big white flag from you on the matter of information? You couldn't handle opposing arguments, so you removed them and don't allow commenting at all where you re-posted the thing. You've obviously admitted failure here. Anyway, this move is going to haunt you for a while, as those of us who's comments you deleted along with that post aren't going to forget about it any time soon.

Oh, and let's not forget how much Radar's self described "problematic pride" played into this move, as Radar essentially completely lost it in the comments section of the deleted post. He embarrassed himself by claiming all of us "Darwinists" had nothing but derision and then started calling everybody "stupid fools". Nice one Radar. Again, no wonder you tried to erase it. Interestingly, it seems my comment from last evening pointing out his hypocrisy and reminding him of that whole self admitted "pride issue" he has going on, appears to have been the last straw for dear ol' Radar.

No matter how you spin this Radar, you epically lost an argument and looked really bad doing so. I'm sure you remember repeatedly calling Jon a fool, all the while claiming that the only thing the commenters brought to the table was "derision"? It really is no wonder you deleted it. You were extremely embarrassed, and you felt you needed to do something about it. So you did, regardless of any ethical standards that may or may not have been standing in your way.

In the end, you really should just shut down commnenting on Radaractive all together. You have shown that you will delete comments, entire threads of them in fact, so what's to stop you from deleting individual comments and why would anyone believe you if you told us you "would never do that"?

Pathetic display here today, Radar, just pathetic.

- Canucklehead.

Jon Woolf said...

Sheesh, Gregg, is that really the best you can do? It's pure beachbum argument: you lounge there on the beach, beer in hand, demanding that we provide greater and greater levels of 'proof.' And then each time someone tries to meet your demands, you belch in their face and sneer "sorry, not good enough, now try again while I git me anudder beer!'

Radar is at least occasionally interesting in his illogic, but you don't even manage that. You're just a text equivalent of a Chick tract or a Wyatt video. Except that you're not even that funny.

radar said...

Joe Calannino's post on that subject:
http://colannino-nonrandomthoughts.blogspot.com/2006/01/reconciling-randomness-and-determinism.html

I have identified the origination of the scientific method as it was developed by Theists who because of their Theistic belief system trusted that the Universe could be tested and comprehended. This makes sense.

Typical Darwinists make wide, sweeping statements with no support, respond to challenges with hilarity and then dodge the fundamental questions.

The "scientific revolution" was brought about by Theists who formed Universities and made scientific enquiry more widely available to mankind. Newton stood "on the shoulders of giants"
and he was talking about people like Bacon and Grossteste. Christians pressed for the literacy of the common man, proposed the scientific method and drove science nicely into the 19th Century, at which time the Darwins and Lyells began to sully the nest with Aristotle-like axiomatic assumptions and turned science into a prop for the ruling metaphysical paradigm.

What does NOT make sense is people who attribute random causation for logical and designed events and things. Random causes should produce random processes that cannot be expected to behave in the same predictable ways.

radar said...

Gregg, once they begin calling you names it means you are on the right track! If you can get derision and personal attacks in the same comment thread you have probably hit the mark.

Anonymous said...

Radar, for all your complaining, you're still the one that removed an article with all its comments when you realised you were losing the argument.

Actions speak louder than words; and your actions speak volumes.

Anonymous said...

Strange...Canucklehead has commented on this article and I haven't seen highboy yet.

Guess he'll be here any minute...

radar said...

No, I gave the Darwinists over a year, in fact almost two years to at least try to answer the question and when they failed, I posted the failure for all to see. That way instead of doing a post on the subject every two weeks for the rest of my blog existence I can point people to that one. You lost the argument badly as you could never do better than "natural selection plus mutation." Horrible attempt. You have no answer, get over it.

radar said...

Remember all your comments on all of those linked posts are still there plus those linked posts are up so you can input dumb links and lame arguments on all of those posts as well. You still have freedom of speech. But remember you are in my house. That one room is now closed.

radar said...

Your link is in this comments thread. It isn't relevant, but it is here. Everyone can go there if they like.

For those who are able to reason logically, if somebody can cut an apple in half that does not explain where apples come from. No one doubts speciation, no one doubts that lost information or copied information can have an impact on organisms. None of that even begins to explain where the information comes from in the first place.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"I have identified the origination of the scientific method as it was developed by Theists who because of their Theistic belief system trusted that the Universe could be tested and comprehended. This makes sense."

And you're aware that in doing so, regardless of their religious motivations, they employed methodological naturalism in their work, right? Your earlier claim that methodological naturalism was artificially imposed on science by "Darwinists" later on makes no sense.

"Typical Darwinists make wide, sweeping statements with no support, respond to challenges with hilarity and then dodge the fundamental questions."

Strangely enough, that same description applies to a large number of your writings. Are you a typical Darwinist? You've even stooped to censorship now, which you used to claim was something Darwinists do.

Captain Stubing said...

"The "scientific revolution" was brought about by Theists who formed Universities and made scientific enquiry more widely available to mankind. Newton stood "on the shoulders of giants"
and he was talking about people like Bacon and Grossteste. Christians pressed for the literacy of the common man, proposed the scientific method and drove science nicely into the 19th Century, at which time the Darwins and Lyells began to sully the nest with Aristotle-like axiomatic assumptions and turned science into a prop for the ruling metaphysical paradigm."

Darwin and Lyell did not introduce any assumptions other than the empirical method. They didn't even assume that God doesn't exist. The only problem here is that their findings don't agree with your literal interpretation of a part of the Bible.

Captain Stubing said...

"Your link is in this comments thread. It isn't relevant, but it is here. Everyone can go there if they like."

Then why did you see the need to censor the comments?

"You have shown that you will delete comments, entire threads of them in fact, so what's to stop you from deleting individual comments and why would anyone believe you if you told us you "would never do that"?"

I think the Blogger interface won't let him, at least not without leaving a "This post deleted by the administrator" kind of message behind. The only way he could get rid of the comments was to delete the entire post and then re-post it minus the comments elsewhere, on a separate blog where no comments are allowed.

Captain Stubing said...

"Gregg, once they begin calling you names it means you are on the right track!"

Then the evil Darwinists you keep ranting about must be very much on the right track.

But seriously, it's not like Gregg walked in here with a rational and sober demeanor.

Anonymous said...

"That one room is now closed."

Looking at what Radar did here yesterday, I can't think of a more perfect metaphor for the mind of a creationist.

He's basically saying: "I can't deal with your information input, so I will shut you out and declare victory 'to my own satisfaction'." It is of course a complete and utter admission of failure to deal with opposing arguments.

Anonymous said...

Radar said:

"You lost the argument badly as you could never do better than "natural selection plus mutation." Horrible attempt. You have no answer, get over it."

Using double standards. Endorsing websites that spread lies. And now removing articles and deleting comments.
Stop talking as if you have any credibility left, Radar. You're a grown man; take responsibility for your actions and stop crying.

You can talk all you want, but by removing that article you admit defeat. Live with it.

Anonymous whatsit said...

Question for Highboy and Hawkeye:

Riddle me this: if someone you considered a "Darwinist" published a blog post in which he claimed to have the final word on a certain subject and was presented with opposing arguments, and he then deleted the entire post (along with opposing comments) and then re-posted the post (minus comments) elsewhere, in a blog where no comments are allowed, would you take that as anything other than a resounding admission of failure?

Would you consider this hypothetical "Darwinist" to have lost all credibility - if you thought said "Darwinist" had any credibility to begin with?

radar said...

This blog has freedom of speech, no matter what. The so-called important link that was lost when I moved the post is in this very comments thread and it is not any big deal as it doesn't speak to the input of information into the world. But it is here if anyone wants to see it.

I moved one post to a position of a link where it stands as the culmination of many months of back and forth between me and commenters. You will find it on top of my links post. I said it would be the last word on the information question and so...

Anonymous said...

"This blog has freedom of speech, no matter what. The so-called important link that was lost when I moved the post is in this very comments thread and it is not any big deal as it doesn't speak to the input of information into the world. But it is here if anyone wants to see it."

The day before yesterday, you categorically abandoned any claim to state that "this blog has freedom of speech, no matter what". You deleted not just a link, but a number of comments by different comments because they contradicted your point, and you cut off commenting on the post by moving it to a different (apparently unused) blog so that nobody else can comment on it.

Any excuses you attempt to proffer now are just that: excuses. Not even particularly convincing ones.

I second the question posed two comments above this one, and actually would like to extend it to Kimbal's wife Debbie and any of his friends or relatives who happen to read this blog.

Anonymous said...

"different comments" should read "different commenters". My bad.

highboy said...

This whole thread is a masterpiece of confusion, so I'll just respond to what leaped out at me:

First, very cool that one of the anonymous posters is now "anonymouswhatits". LOL. Awesome.

"if someone you considered a "Darwinist" published a blog post in which he claimed to have the final word on a certain subject and was presented with opposing arguments, and he then deleted the entire post (along with opposing comments) and then re-posted the post (minus comments) elsewhere, in a blog where no comments are allowed, would you take that as anything other than a resounding admission of failure?

Would you consider this hypothetical "Darwinist" to have lost all credibility - if you thought said "Darwinist" had any credibility to begin with?"

In that scenario the Darwinist would indeed lose credibility. However, it doesn't really relate to what is going on here since radar still has the link for all to see. Further, I see no more credibility in any of the dissenting posts that have bombarded this blog continuously.

One last thing: the naturalistic worldview (metaphysical) is simply not even close to being based on empirical evidence. Its impossible to have physical empirical evidence that this natural order is all there is and all there has ever been. Its simply an assumption, and not even a good one.

radar said...

Since natuaral selection is a product of design and not Darwinism, the GA is simply a designed system that mimics a designed system. Natural selection was first proposed by a Theist and not Darwin. It was suggested to be a mechanism of conservation of kind and that is indeed what it is. Sorry, GA is not an example of evolution in action.

Anonymous whatsit said...

Glad you like the moniker.

"In that scenario the Darwinist would indeed lose credibility."

Okay, so there's that. Now let's see the evasions why this shouldn't apply to Radar:

"However, it doesn't really relate to what is going on here since radar still has the link for all to see."

Okay, so if the hypothetical "Darwinist" in this scenario had the link to the new post at the blog where no comments are allowed and with the opposing comments stripped, that would make that "Darwinist" okay in your book?

Did I understand that right?

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Further, I see no more credibility in any of the dissenting posts that have bombarded this blog continuously."

Seeing as you're not naming specifics, I think we can put this down as standard boilerplate for the time being. Let us know if you have any specifics in mind.

"One last thing: the naturalistic worldview (metaphysical) is simply not even close to being based on empirical evidence. Its impossible to have physical empirical evidence that this natural order is all there is and all there has ever been. Its simply an assumption, and not even a good one."

What physical empirical evidence can you point us to that this natural order isn't all there is?

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Since natuaral selection is a product of design and not Darwinism, the GA is simply a designed system that mimics a designed system. Natural selection was first proposed by a Theist and not Darwin. It was suggested to be a mechanism of conservation of kind and that is indeed what it is. Sorry, GA is not an example of evolution in action."

The bolded part above is your premise. The premise is unsupported, and so the rest of your statement is baseless.

Can you demonstrate that natural selection is a product of design?

(Odd that this would come from the same guy who so very recently treated us to a copypasta job on logic and logical fallacies. This is such a fundamental logic fail right here.)

scohen said...

"GA is not an example of evolution in action."

Such hubris. That wasn't what was said. The claim was:

"I am not aware of any type of operational science (computer science, transportation, medicine, agriculture, engineering, etc.), which has benefited from evolutionary theory""

Computer science clearly benefited from evolutionary theory; thus the claim is false.

Why can't you just admit that?

creeper said...

"No, I gave the Darwinists over a year, in fact almost two years to at least try to answer the question and when they failed, I posted the failure for all to see"

Ha. Now that's something. Would you like a list of questions you've been unable to answer since, say, about 2006? It would take some time to compile of course, but it would be rather damning and it should easily put Young-Earth Creationism to rest.

But as far as what you're saying here goes, you are unfortunately being incredibly disingenuous here. See, you didn't "post the failure for all to see". You posted your side minus any rebuttals for all to see. Rather a different and self-serving thing to do, don't you think? It's not the failure of so-called "Darwinists" that's on display. Even a kid knows that what you did is not just a dishonest thing to do, but that it shows clear as day that you didn't win the argument. (Actually, there's a thought: ask your kids to explain it to you.)

Aside from a concession on the question of information, this should also lay to rest any pending concerns on what is left of your ethics, Radar.

creeper said...

"Natural selection was first proposed by a Theist and not Darwin"

Rather unremarkable, since natural selection is compatible with both theism and non-theism - as your own statement right here should have made clear to you.

Anonymous said...

"Why can't you just admit that?"

Pride, of course.

Amazing to see an example in action of how debilitating that can be.

highboy said...

"Okay, so if the hypothetical "Darwinist" in this scenario had the link to the new post at the blog where no comments are allowed and with the opposing comments stripped, that would make that "Darwinist" okay in your book?"

Sure. You're still able to commment yes? You're still able to view the link yes? Radar hasn't shut down this very thread where you're discussing it has he? So the issue is......?

"Seeing as you're not naming specifics, I think we can put this down as standard boilerplate for the time being. Let us know if you have any specifics in mind."

1. A bragodocious appeal to authority claim made by Jon to have supposedly bounced his theories off of some of the smartest human minds in history with the adamant refusal to list, site, or even reference one of those names for verification.
2. The dozens of claims made about the Bible that weren't substantiated in any way.

Or is it because my specifics aren't in regards to the science debates reason to ignore them?

"What physical empirical evidence can you point us to that this natural order isn't all there is?"

None, because if there were natural physical evidence than it would be apart of the natural order. So now if you're done deflecting, you can tell me what empirical evidence there is to support the naturalist position that there is nothing apart from the natural order. Because if you can't, than the entire world view is once again based on an assumption as was already stated.

radar said...

scohen, I am willing to be wrong. Are GA generated by a program written by a programmer or did they randomly pop into existence by natural selection plus mutation operating on, say, a piece of linux code?

Or is it a program written by a programmer with intentionality that generates information using the principles of natural selection?

radar said...

I have to give scohen credit for actually asking a cohesive question and then asking a reasonable one after my response. Those of you who are unaware? This is my blog and it is the land of the free and the home of the brave and you are allowed to spout all sorts of nonsense and assassinate my character to your heart's content. You can put links in this thread and countless other information threads.

I could moderate comments and toss aside those I do not like but as you all know only profanity gets you tossed. After all these years making posts I decided that one, just one, would leave me with the last word. That is what I did. It really is interesting how that annoys some of you. Do you get brownie points in some unknown game for making the last comment on a blogpost?

radar said...

Nice, Creeper. All the posts linked to that article are still online and have valid comment threads. And I specifically called all of you commenters out to give me your best answers for information and for over a year let you say whatever you wanted in all of those posts. The first link on my links pages is a testimony to your failures in all their glory.

Go ahead, if you have a better answer put it in this thread right now?

Anonymous said...

After all these years making posts I decided that one, just one, would leave me with the last word. That is what I did.

Thank you Radar for admitting that you you were only capable of getting the last word this way.

Do you get brownie points in some unknown game for making the last comment on a blogpost?

You tell us since you're apparently so desperate to get the last word that you had to remove all comments from an article and re-post it on a private blog. Did it make you feel good?

It really is interesting how that annoys some of you.

Annoying? Not really. Amusing? Absolutely!

The first link on my links pages is a testimony to your failures in all their glory.

Funny; I consider it to be a testimony of your failure in all its glory.

Anonymous said...

hb asked,

"You're still able to commment yes?"

Um no, comments are restricted to "team members" on the blog where Radar reposted the article.

You censored the comments Radar. Deleting them entirely, in fact. Looking forward to the next post where you complain about censorship by "darwinists".

- Canucklehead.

Anonymous said...

"I could moderate comments and toss aside those I do not like but as you all know only profanity gets you tossed."

That's what you were able to say until two days ago. Now you can't. Nor can you complain about "Darwinist censorship" or this or that "Darwinist" not willing to debate ever again without your hypocrisy being pointed out to you.

(As you well know, there was no profanity in the comments you deleted.)

creeper said...

"Go ahead, if you have a better answer put it in this thread right now?"

You haven't discussed the one that's there with anything other than lies and strawman arguments so far. We can lead the horse to water, but...

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Sure. You're still able to commment yes? You're still able to view the link yes? Radar hasn't shut down this very thread where you're discussing it has he? So the issue is......?"

Is there a reason you skipped over the "with the opposing comments stripped" part? You're aware that Radar actually deleted a number of comments?

To return to the hypothetical example, are you saying you'd be fine if a "Darwinist" did all of this?

I'll let Jon Woolf address his own comments, but re. the Bible contradictions, they were supported with links (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html ) not too long ago. It wasn't dozens of claims, but over 400. I take it some of these are open to interpretation and linguistics (e.g. "father" may mean "great-grandfather"), but a good number are clear contradictions (e.g. 300 is not 800).

Anonymous whatsit said...

"What physical empirical evidence can you point us to that this natural order isn't all there is?"

"None, because if there were natural physical evidence than it would be apart of the natural order."

Thank you.

"So now if you're done deflecting,"

No deflection occurred or was necessary.

"you can tell me what empirical evidence there is to support the naturalist position that there is nothing apart from the natural order."

The absolute lack of empirical evidence for anything apart from the natural order.

"Because if you can't, than the entire world view is once again based on an assumption as was already stated."

One can speculate (or "have faith)" that there are other things, but it would be speculation.

Anonymous said...

"After all these years making posts I decided that one, just one, would leave me with the last word. That is what I did."

Here's a way to have the last word: have superior arguments on your side. Really not that hard. All you have to do is be open-minded enough to change your mind. Nobody's married to losing arguments.

So now, since you didn't have the arguments on your side, you had to delete opposing arguments and cut off commenting on the post. That's the only way you can "win" an argument now?

You've been way off in your posts on information this year, moving well outside information theory and into some bizarre areas that I suspect even creationists wouldn't necessarily endorse (e.g. "information isn't made of molecules, so it must be supernatural" - I'm paraphrasing).

If you're sick of discussing information, fine. But I do hope you take the time to educate yourself on the subject. Also take a close look at Gitt's writings, preferably next to your recent post on logic and logical fallacies. Ask yourself why Gitt would lie about the work of NASA scientists. Seems like an odd thing to do, but have a look specifically at where he does it.

And most of all, keep this in mind: if you realize that you're wrong about information as you've presented it so far, it's NOT a win for "Darwinists". You get to keep being a Christian and a creationist! How cool is that?

creeper said...

"Are GA generated by a program written by a programmer or did they randomly pop into existence by natural selection plus mutation operating on, say, a piece of linux code?"

Radar, you're in danger of confusing the algorithm and the data. I'm sure scohen can explain this far better than I, but I'll give it a shot.

For starters, the claim is not that the program itself is the result of mutation and natural selection. The program merely mimics nature in that it simulates the repeated processes of mutation and natural selection.

Where information is generated that wasn't there before is in the data that the algorithm operates on. It starts with, say, an antenna design, and then incrementally tries different designs, testing them for fitness. There is no conscious designer at this stage who says to himself "I think it would work better if I changed this part" - neither the humans who designed the program nor the program itself do this. And there is no previously designed set of antennas that the algorithm compares. The mutations are random and are then tested for "fitness", and the "winning" ones proceed to the next round, and so on.

An antenna design resulting from this process was (1) not designed by the programmer and (2) not designed by the program.

-- creeper

highboy said...

"Is there a reason you skipped over the "with the opposing comments stripped" part? You're aware that Radar actually deleted a number of comments?"

No I didn't skip it, just was able to acknowledge that right here right now, you're able to make all the opposing comments concerning the link you want, so the idea that he's just censoring those opposing comments is just false.

"To return to the hypothetical example, are you saying you'd be fine if a "Darwinist" did all of this?"

What radar is doing? Or the hypothetical? Because I'm fine with a Darwinist doing what radar is doing.

"but re. the Bible contradictions, they were supported with links (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html ) not too long ago. It wasn't dozens of claims, but over 400. I take it some of these are open to interpretation and linguistics (e.g. "father" may mean "great-grandfather"), but a good number are clear contradictions (e.g. 300 is not 800)."

There is certainly a link, the same link I've answered a bajillion times probably for about the past 6-7 years where there are 400 "contradictions" are easily explained. As a matter of fact, I went to great length explaining them somewhere on this blog months and months ago and the only answer I got was that "if it were truly infallible, you wouldn't need to explain it".

"The absolute lack of empirical evidence for anything apart from the natural order."

A lack of evidence isn't empirical evidence. You have just basically claimed that science can prove a negative, which is odd, because usually scientists when asked to prove there is no God say "science can't prove a negative".

"One can speculate (or "have faith)" that there are other things, but it would be speculation."

Of course its faith, difference being the theist can admit it, while the atheist can't. The idea that the natural order is all there is still a speculation.

scohen said...

Creeper,
That's an excellent description of genetic algorithms and how they work.

Good to see you around again.

Jon Woolf said...

I'll let Jon Woolf address his own comments,

Not much to say, except that highboy is (as usual) thinking much too small. I like to play games with words. So many of my comments (like the one he's snarking about) are intentionally multi-layered, with meanings beyond the obvious. In this case, one need not meet great philosophers in order to study with them. And great philosophy isn't found only in the obvious places.

Other than that ... well, frankly Radar hasn't been saying much that was worth responding to. And his action over the weekend really kinda knocked my interest down several notches. Whatever he says his conscious reasons were, he needs to check his subconscious, because what he did was definitely of the dark side, and lying to yourself about your motives is one of the ways for the dark side to get a hold on you.

highboy said...

"Not much to say, except that highboy is (as usual) thinking much too small. I like to play games with words. So many of my comments (like the one he's snarking about) are intentionally multi-layered, with meanings beyond the obvious. In this case, one need not meet great philosophers in order to study with them. And great philosophy isn't found only in the obvious places."

So in other words you were bullshitting and are now bullshitting your way back out. That was the most pathetic explanation I've ever heard. So when you also say you've bickered with MIT grads about physics, you meant that you were merely silently disagreeing with them as you read along?

Jon Woolf said...

"So when you also say you've bickered with MIT grads about physics,"

I don't think I've ever said that. I have no idea whether the physicists I've discussed physics with are MIT grads.

But I can say I've discussed physics with PhD physicists, and be telling the exact literal truth. I can also say I've tested my ideas on philosophy against some masters of that field, and be telling the truth .. though it may not be a truth you can understand.

Which is, after all, the goal of philosophy: to expand the mind and open it to new levels of meaning. Isn't it?

highboy said...

Wow.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"You have just basically claimed that science can prove a negative, which is odd, because usually scientists when asked to prove there is no God say "science can't prove a negative". "

I don't mean this in a snarky way, but please read up on basic logic. I did not claim what you pretend I claimed. There is a difference between "supporting" something (which is what you asked for) and "proving" something. The former is about logical compatibility, the latter about inevitability.

Metaphysical naturalism is compatible with empirical evidence in that there is no empirical evidence that suggests otherwise.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Of course its faith, difference being the theist can admit it, while the atheist can't."

Probably because it's easy to blur the lines between different meanings of the word "faith", which some theists are so eager to do. Of course theists are going to "admit" to faith because in the religious sense ("belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion") that's a requirement, a badge of honor, an ideal. This meaning doesn't apply to atheists and so an atheist would be right "not to admit this".

In the narrow sense of "belief that is not based on proof", however, I think you'll have a very hard time digging up an atheist who claims that there is proof that the supernatural doesn't exist.

In that sense, metaphysical naturalism is simply the application of Occam's Razor to the evidence at hand. It says: this is what the empirical evidence shows, and so this is what we know exists, no more. The organized religions of the world tack on mythologies for which there is no evidence and thus add layers of explanation that are speculative and which, according to Occam's Razor, we should discard.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"There is certainly a link, the same link I've answered a bajillion times probably for about the past 6-7 years where there are 400 "contradictions" are easily explained. As a matter of fact, I went to great length explaining them somewhere on this blog months and months ago and the only answer I got was that "if it were truly infallible, you wouldn't need to explain it"."

You explained 456 Bible contradictions? "Easily"? "A bajillion times"? Do tell.

I went to the first item on the list: "How many men did the chief of David's captains kill?"

Seems like a pretty clear contradiction there. One part of scripture says 300, another 800.

The page has a link to Christian responses. I click on that, and what do I find in the Christian response?

"It has been admitted on previous occasions that copyist errors and textual corruptions can and do at times occur."

Now please tell me where I can find your "easy" explanation of this contradiction.

radar said...

Occam's Razor? If you apply that the entire Darwinist macroevolution thingy would have been cast aside long ago.

As to 300 versus 800, you are describing descriptions from two different books using two differing names, and one of which describes a spear as a weapon while one does not.

2 Samuel 23:8: “These are the names of the mighty men whom David had: Josheb- basshebeth a Tahchemonite, chief of the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite, against eight hundred slain at one time.”

1 Chronicles 11:11: “And this is the number of the mighty men whom David had: Jashobeam, the son of a Hachmonite, the chief of the thirty; he lifted up his spear against three hundred and slew them at one time.”

Now this is probably the same guy, like one person calling you Richard and the other calling you Rick. Is is also possible that he used a spear to kill 300 men and a bow and arrow (or other means) to kill 500 more.

It is correct to say that Hank Aaron hit 755 homers. It is also correct to say he hit 733 homers (in the NL) and 22 homers (AL) or to say he hit 335 (Atlanta) and 420 (in Milwaukee). You could say he hit 385 in home stadiums and 370 on the road.

Anonymous said...

"As to 300 versus 800, you are describing descriptions from two different books using two differing names,"

That's right, though they appear to be referring to the same person. They are describing David's warriors, and the construction of the paragraphs is similar. I take it you're not disputing that they're the same person, right?

"and one of which describes a spear as a weapon while one does not."

Interestingly enough, you selected one of the translations of 2 Samuel 23:8 that doesn't mention a spear, while a number of them do. So what is the original wording of these two passages? Is "spear" part of an idiom meaning to fight or kill?

Anonymous said...

Actually, having read up on this some more (and not from non-believers' sources either), it turns out that the Samuel passage also features "spear" in the description.

"The words he lifted up his spear, hu orer eth chanitho, are turned into two proper names wholly inadmissible here: hu Adino haetsni, he was Adino the Eznite; it being nearly as absurd to say that Jashobeam the Hachmonite was the same as Adino the Eznite, as that David the Bethlehemite was the same with Elijah the Tishbite"

See http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/ata20050306.htm

I'm afraid your "nothing to see here" attempt to gloss over this falls a little short. It seems pretty clear that several transcription errors occurred here (names and numbers).

creeper said...

"Occam's Razor? If you apply that the entire Darwinist macroevolution thingy would have been cast aside long ago."

An easy boast that you can of course not back up. Looks to me like one of those "authoritative statements with no factual evidence" that you warned your readers about.

Recall that Occam's Razor compares two theories with equal explanatory power. The theory of creation (I use the word "theory" here in the non-scientific sense because no falsifiable verifiable predictions have yet been proffered for the Biblical account) has no explanatory power, and its adherents are limited to fiddling with evidence so that it somehow looks like it's compatible with a foregone conclusion, as long as you squint and don't look too closely.

-- creeper

radar said...

I will leave it to another post to go over the many transcripts we have that bolster the Bible. So far those who have commented do not know the Bible very well so you do not know naming conventions. You do not realize one guy can have two names or more depending upon the writer and what group he is associated with. It appears the more you read the passage the more confused you become.

Also, if I eat an orange and a peach, one might truly say I ate an orange while another might truly say I ate a peach. Both would be true.

As to creeper's comment, I have made over 900 posts and at least 60 per cent of them address evidence for creation so I am not making an authoritative statement with no backup.

Anonymous said...

And precisely 0 of those posts contain actual, verifiable, "evidence for creation", and you know it. You pick at "darwinist" strawmen, nothing more, on this blog, other than the odd post lecturing other christians or floating another conspiracy theory (see your posts on global climate change). Just like all other YECs, you provide no testable theories, just attempted "pot shots" at evolution. Lets see you produce a single post, from those "900" you mention, that contains actual, peer reviewed "evidence for creation". I mean, come on Radar, beyond some pictures showing evidence of rapid burial you can't even come up with a single example of a polystrate fossil. And that's one of your favorite topics.

- Canucklehead.

radar said...

Then there is canucklehead who blithely lies on a continual basis about just about everything. I have posted polystrates of all kinds, including that of a whale, reeds, trees of all kinds...and I am perfectly happy with the content of my posts.

You live in the world of Bathybius and Haeckel and Peppered Moths and fairy dust and uncaused and unexplained designs. You are living in a fairy tale world.

radar said...

And as usual the comments are not really about the post.

highboy said...

"And as usual the comments are not really about the post."

That's why I'm not sure you bother. We had a discussion about errors and contradictions in the Bible before, we even cited history and math experts in some cases and it simply didn't matter. People will believe what they want to believe about the Bible, despite the fact that 90% of their objections regarding its accuracy is based on assumptions and speculations, not actual contradictions or errors.

Skeptics' website is a prime example of trying to shock with quantity instead of quality. We're supposed to get bedazzled by this large number (400) of "contradictions" but when they are closely examined its not even that hard to refute. Its the same with the argument that there are so many variations within the ancient Greek texts, some 200,000, and we're suppose to be bedazzled by that. Problem is, ancient Greek is an inflected language, not a sequential one, the order of words in sentences doesn't change the meaning, but every time they saw a different order dissenters counted it as a variation. Lots of Biblical scholars and experts in ancient Greek would laugh at such a notion.

Anonymous said...

hb, Muslim "scholars" will say the same crap about contradictions in the Koran, Jewish "scholars" will say the same crap about contradictions in the Torah, Mormons about the Book of Mormon etc., etc., etc., You don't believe any of those guys (other than the Jews to some extent, I suppose). I mean, you all can't be right, can you? What, exactly, makes your x-tian apologetics any better than those of other religions? The sooner you realize it's all crap, the easier life will get for both of you. Let go of the fairy tale boys. Contrary to your belief sysem, it is definitely possible to be good without god.

Oh and Radar, you mean this whale?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.html

Oops, not quite the "proof" we were looking for. I mean you YECs didn't even get the angle correct, not to mention the fact that it was laying parallel to the surrounding strata, not perpendicular to it as you seem to be purporting. If I'm lying, show me one single verifiable example of a polystrate fossil, that actually spans millions of years of strata according to conventional geology. I dare you. Just one.

Oh and relative to your comment that you are "perfectly happy with the contents of your posts". We know man, it's those darn comments that seem to be giving you all kinds of trouble, these days. So much trouble, in fact, that you deleted them entirely in order to censor any opposing arguments on "information". Something you said you would never do. Tell me again, who's the liar here?

- Canucklehead.

highboy said...

"What, exactly, makes your x-tian apologetics any better than those of other religions? "

Probably the fact that we have more factual evidence to support ours, particularly the Bible. Other religions can claim what they want but evidence on the side of the Bible, pathetic attempts to prove otherwise not withstanding.

"Let go of the fairy tale boys. Contrary to your belief sysem, it is definitely possible to be good without god."

...which of course isn't what our belief system teaches, and a remark proving once again your complete and total ignorance on the subject, which is of course why you have nothing significant or substantial to say on the matter.

Anonymous said...

"You do not realize one guy can have two names or more depending upon the writer and what group he is associated with. It appears the more you read the passage the more confused you become."

It appears the less you read the comments and the more you vaguely presume what they say and talk about that instead, the more confused you appear in public.

So I don't realize that one guy can have two names etc., huh? And you say this in response to this comment:

"That's right, though they appear to be referring to the same person. They are describing David's warriors, and the construction of the paragraphs is similar. I take it you're not disputing that they're the same person, right?"

Newsflash: we're already agreed that it's the same person.

And both appear to mention killing with a spear, see above comments. No seriously, read the comments you're replying to.

And one says that 300 were killed, and the other says that 800 were killed. Christian apologetics sites have no problem admitting a transcription error here.

But not you.

So now you're saying that if one says 300 and one says 800, they can both be right, because if they slew 800, they would also have slain 300, because those 300 could be included in those 800. After all, it doesn't say that this person slew no more than 300.

Is that what you're getting to with your talk about the orange and the peach?

Anonymous said...

"Probably the fact that we have more factual evidence to support ours, particularly the Bible. "

What's the factual evidence against Buddhism again?

Anonymous said...

"As to creeper's comment, I have made over 900 posts and at least 60 per cent of them address evidence for creation so I am not making an authoritative statement with no backup."

Name one that has evidence FOR creation. Maybe even two if you feel up to it.

Not nitpicking at evolution, not arguments from incredulity (which covers most of this past year's posts), not strawman arguments like your bacteria claims.

Evidence FOR creation. Falsifiable, verifiable statements and the evidence that supports them. I can't think of any creationist website that has ever managed that.

Will you be the first?

Anonymous said...

"I have posted polystrates of all kinds"

You left out one kind of polystrate fossil, the most important kind: the kind that actually falsifies what it is you're trying to falsify by posting pictures of polystrate fossils in the first place.

A fossil sits perpendicular through a bunch of sedimentary layers? Completely pointless for you to post this until you've established what those layers represent. If they don't represent a significant difference in age from the top layer to the bottom layer (which would be a problem for modern geology), then all you've got is an instance of rapid burial.

Newsflash: rapid burial is not in any way inconsistent with modern geology and an old Earth. Evidence of rapid burial globally and nothing else anywhere - yes, that would be a problem for modern geology, and it would be powerful evidence for Noah's flood and a young Earth.

But it's exactly that which we're NOT seeing, and that alone completely falsifies a young Earth and Noah's flood.

Anonymous said...

"We're supposed to get bedazzled by this large number (400) of "contradictions" but when they are closely examined its not even that hard to refute."

Seeing as you're currently both stumped by number one on the list, maybe you shouldn't pop the champagne corks just yet.

Captain Stubing said...

"So now you're saying that if one says 300 and one says 800, they can both be right, because if they slew 800, they would also have slain 300, because those 300 could be included in those 800. After all, it doesn't say that this person slew no more than 300.

Is that what you're getting to with your talk about the orange and the peach?"

Ya know, I'm aching to hear Radar's answer to this, because I don't think he's figured out the consequences of his train of thought.

Captain Stubing said...

Radar, would you be willing to provide proof of those whales in polystrata, or will you concede that talkorigins is right on this one?

Anonymous whatsit said...

"And as usual the comments are not really about the post."

Radar's right. Thanks to dozens of pages of copypasta on this blog everyday, we may have overlooked how particularly offensive Radar's latest fundie buddy actually is.

So apparently there are these people called "Darwinists", and apparently they are -

- the ultimate racist,

- the ultimate sexist,

- are into date-raping while plying women with alcohol,

- etc.

I take considerable comfort from this description, since Gregg has made it clear that these strawman "Darwinists" that at least Radar and Gregg are ranting about are actually not secular humanists at all, and I would describe the vast majority of atheists I've encountered as secular humanists.

There's a downside to posing strawman arguments, and Gregg's bizarre screed provides a great example of that: once you push it too far, people see through the lies and demonization, and the ridiculous enemy you paint on the wall is no longer credible. Only some in the choir may fall for Gregg's delusions.

How appropriate that in his post Gregg used an actual bit of Nazi propaganda demonizing Jews - perhaps he didn't realize that Nazis were not atheists and were not in favor of Darwin's theories at all.

highboy said...

"What's the factual evidence against Buddhism again?"

Buddhism doesn't claim to have factual evidence to support their belief about its history. I also didn't say there was evidence against any religion, but rather evidence supporting it.

"Seeing as you're currently both stumped by number one on the list, maybe you shouldn't pop the champagne corks just yet."

I actually didn't see where anyone was stumped, but that' typical with anonymous posters who stick their fingers in their ears and go "la la la its a contradiction la la la".

Anonymous said...

"I actually didn't see where anyone was stumped, but that' typical with anonymous posters who stick their fingers in their ears and go "la la la its a contradiction la la la"."

Ah, derision instead of arguments. How's that working out for you?

Fact of the matter is that the very first contradiction on the list - which is acknowledged to be a transcription error by Christian apologists - has not been explained by either you or Radar. Radar focused on a side issue that was not under contention (the names being different) and did some vague hand-waving about how anything could mean anything.

Not exactly a winning (let alone coherent) rebuttal so far.

highboy said...

"Ah, derision instead of arguments. How's that working out for you?"

You must be joking, I've backed up every claim I've ever made about the Bible.

Be that as it may, I still owe you an apology, because I hadn't been paying attention much to your and radar's exchange concerning the first contradiction, so my bad. I'll weigh in now:

If you do a simple google, the first hit tells the complete answer right there: http://www.thebereans.net/contra-r06.shtml The Skeptics site actually shows startling honesty itself by more or less pointing to a similar answer from the Oxford Bible website, honesty and openness that is actually very rare on that site.

creeper said...

"Probably the fact that we have more factual evidence to support ours, particularly the Bible."

The Bible being factual evidence of what exactly?

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"The Skeptics site actually shows startling honesty itself by more or less pointing to a similar answer from the Oxford Bible website, honesty and openness that is actually very rare on that site."

How much of the Skeptic's site have you read? Far as I know he leads you to opposing arguments on every page of his list of contradictions.

This discussion is now continued in the comments at this post: http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-intelligent-design-is-threat-to.html

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Ah, derision instead of arguments. How's that working out for you?"

"You must be joking, I've backed up every claim I've ever made about the Bible."

Non sequitur. Just because you've backed up claims elsewhere doesn't mean you didn't use derision instead of arguments here.

But since you're in the habit of backing up every claim you've ever made about the Bible, could you answer creeper's question above?