Search This Blog

Monday, April 18, 2011

Atheism, the irrational faith. Recapitulation, the ludicrous lie.

Answering the ‘new atheists’

Lael Weinberger talks to Doug Wilson, author of Letter from a Christian Citizen

Doug Wilson

Bestseller lists have recently included a sequence of books written by a small cadre of articulate atheist writers. The youngest of these ‘new atheists’ is Sam Harris, a 40-year-old graduate student who exploded onto the scene with two bestsellers in quick succession.

One articulate Christian apologist who has been keeping tabs on the ‘new atheists’—and providing answers—is Doug Wilson (pictured left), a pastor and Fellow in Theology at New St Andrews College. He first saw Harris’s Letter to a Christian Nation sitting on a colleague’s desk when it was fresh off the presses.1 ‘The title caught my attention, and I ordered a copy.’ Harris’s slim, unobtrusive Letter distilled the essence of the atheists’ case into an easy-to-read format which caught the attention of the general public in the US particularly. In a matter of months, Doug Wilson’s rebuttal—just a little longer than Harris’s—was rolling off the presses.

Fear factor

I asked Doug why the atheists are suddenly so active, and getting so much attention.

‘For many years, atheism has been patronizing to Christian theists—they would pat us on the head and say, you can be allowed your silly little superstition. But it’s beginning to dawn on them that they might lose, and they’ve panicked. They’re worried at the resurgence of conservative Christianity in the United States.’

by showing up for the debate, the atheist has already conceded

Doug mentioned the political aspect: ‘They are afraid of the political “Christian right” which they see as a looming theocracy.’ Ignoring, of course, the atheocracy of the media, schools and courts today. But perhaps even more important, Doug points out, ‘Another big factor is the resurgence of Intelligent Design (ID).’ The ID movement has brought new opponents to Darwinism from a totally unexpected source (far outside the stereotyped ‘fundamentalist’ camp), and this has shaken the leading atheist figures.2 Beyond ID, atheists are worried because they really are facing opposition from everywhere:‘The secularists have had control of the accrediting agencies, colleges, and government schools for decades, and yet most Americans still believe in creation. It’s heartening to me that although Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859, and the secularists and evolutionists have had most of the education establishment since then, people still don’t believe it.’

Hume vs Harris

Harris and friends like to portray atheism as the rational worldview—the intelligent, scientific alternative to religion. But as Doug Wilson points out, the atheists, with their naturalistic evolutionary premises, are actually without a foundation for claiming a meaningful worldview.

Doug Wilson

‘It’s very clear reading the writings of the new atheists—Harris, along with Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens—that these men are firm believers in scientism. Science is their final arbiter of truth, their functional deity. The problem is that this involves some very unscientific handwaving. The philosopher David Hume (himself a sceptic) showed, several centuries ago, that there is no real way to get from “is” to “ought”. How do I get from a description of the way things are (the rate of acceleration when something’s falling, or the way an animal reproduces) to the way they ought to be? There is no bridge across that gap. Should a human mother care for her children like a mother deer, or eat them like some spiders do? Science doesn’t give us ethical information. These atheists are whipping science to provide them with a worldview complete with ethical stability, but it can’t perform that task.’

It is a tad ironic that atheists, who enjoy slandering creationists as bad scientists, actually build their worldview by making illegitimate extrapolations from science. They are pretending that, based on a naturalistic scientific view of ‘truth,’ we can arrive at satisfactory morality.

Letter from a Christian Citizen

Letter from a Christian Citizen Douglas Wilson’s stunning response to atheist Sam Harris’s Letter to a Christian Nation is a delight to read and savour, whether or not one has read Harris’s diatribe. Clear and powerful, it gives point-by-point engaging and compelling responses to these common atheistic arguments.

Available from web bookstore

Moral atheists?

Granted, atheists are often moral people. Sam Harris points to this fact and claims that it shows we don’t need religion. He then turns around to criticize the Bible as immoral (for example, making the shallow argument that the Bible condones chattel slavery3). But, as Doug points out, Harris isn’t being upfront (or is ignorant) about the source of his ethics: ‘One of the common features of these atheists is a very high level of moral indignation. But given the premises of their worldview, they have no basis for their indignation. If there is no God, and everything is really just atoms banging around, why should it matter which way the atoms bang? Actually, all of these atheists surreptitiously borrow many of the standards of Christianity in order to assail Christian belief.’

They must assume the existence of moral standards (for instance, ‘truth’ is an inherent good), borrowed from Christianity, before they can attack the Christian faith (if truth wasn’t inherently good, why would it matter to Sam Harris that I believe in a God he doesn’t think exists?). ‘The atheists love to bring up “scary” passages from the Old Testament, and Christians often get bogged down trying to defend those passages to the atheist. But what I like to do, as the first step, is ask the sceptic what his basis is for making the moral judgment.’

Atheism, the irrational faith

Naturalism (the philosophy that underpins evolution, namely that matter and energy are all there is) cannot provide ethics; it simply is not capable of providing meaning. This problem runs deep, undercutting even the basis of rationality itself.4 In the atheist’s naturalistic worldview, thoughts and reasoning are just the results of chemical reactions in the brain. ‘A debate and a couple of soda bottles in the front of a room fizzing are just different types of chemical reactions. The atheist cannot put forward, within his own framework, a justification for why reasoning is trustworthy, or even worthwhile. Of course, as a Christian, I believe we can reason as human beings created in the image of God. But the atheist can’t account for reason if there is no God. On naturalistic principles, there’s no explanation for why a debate is more important than the two soda bottles fizzing. So you could say that, by showing up for the debate, the atheist has already conceded.’5

Defending the faith

By ignoring the atheists, Christians may be missing out on an opportunity.

How well prepared is the church to answer the ‘new atheists?’ ‘It’s a mixed bag,’ Doug said. ‘Christians aren’t in danger from the atheists, which is good, but the flipside is that they’re often not in danger for the wrong reason. I imagine that if you got an average atheist and had him debate an average Christian from the pews, the atheist would fare better, because atheists usually know why they believe what they do. I wish Christians were more on the ball in this area. So what I’m trying to say to Christians is that there really are better ways to answer the atheists than what the church by and large has been using.’

By ignoring the atheists, Christians may be missing out on an opportunity. Doug Wilson is one of the Christians seizing the opportunity: ‘When atheist books are shooting to the top of the New York Times bestseller lists, our culture is listening to the discussion about the existence of God, and to the creation-evolution debate which the atheists always invoke to bolster their case. I wrote my response to Harris because Christians really have a great opportunity to capitalize on this interest, to be ready to give answers (1 Peter 3:15) and present the other side of the debate to our culture.’

Related articles


References and notes

  1. See also the rebuttal by Holding, J.P., Letter to a Maladjusted Misotheist, . Return to text.
  2. For more on ID and how it relates to young earth creationism, see Wieland, C., CMI’s views on the Intelligent Design Movement, , 30 August 2002. Return to text.
  3. See 1) Stark, R., For the Glory of God, Princeton University Press, Princeton, chapter 4, 2003, and the review by Williams, A., The biblical origins of science, Journal of Creation18(2):49–52, 2004, ; 2) Hardaway, B. and Sarfati, J., Countering Christophobia: A review of Christianity on Trial by Vincent Carroll and David Shiflett, Journal of Creation 18(3):28–30, 2004; ; 3) Sarfati, J, Anti-slavery activist William Wilberforce: Christian hero, . Return to text.
  4. For further analysis, see Sarfati, J., Presuppositionalism vs evidentialism, and is the human genome simple? and Correcting a severe misconception about the creation model, . Return to text.
  5. Atheists, to their discredit, have never appreciated the rigorousness of the reductio ad absurdum critique of atheistic naturalism which Doug Wilson summarized here. For a detailed, scholarly presentation, see Plantinga, A., Warrant and Proper Function, Oxford University Press, chapter 12, 1993. Return to text.
~~~~~~~

My Christian friends, you have no excuse for not reading the entire Bible and determining to put the Word of God above the continually-changing findings of secular science.    If you do study the Bible and understand it and if you do a bit of diligent study of a few fields of scientific research you will find that Darwinism is built on lies and suppositions and 18th Century thinking that seems ridiculous if you just take the time to find out what Darwinism actually teaches.    Everywhere there are Darwinists trying to "debunk" findings of YEC and ID scientists like a million Dutch boys sticking thumbs in a million holes in the Darwinist dike.   But well-established laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis and what we know of information theory makes Darwinism just preposterous.    But you cannot understand how to defeat their arguments if you do not understand your own position.

The First Thing for a Christian is to establish a habit of reading, studying and meditation of the Bible.   The Bible is the only reliable record of early human history,  it is the source of morality, it is the description of the Christ and the handbook for living this life and for receiving the gift of eternal life.    The most read and most published book in the world will be a book you can read for twenty years and still learn more and more.   The Bible is the source of wisdom for mankind.   Christians need to keep reading it, keep learning from it, keep seeking to live by it and never quit on it.   If Christians knew their Bible and believed it, Darwinism would have been laughed out of the classroom long ago...

Courtesy of Creation.com, here is one subject that you can clearly understand with a little bit of reading and comprehension.   Did you know there was a site named "Pharyngula" as if the surface similarities between embryos at one stage in any way indicate similarities in form, information, structure or ANYTHING other than appearance?   I wouldn't recommend going there, though, as the author of the blog is customarily rather profane at least when it comes to anything related to YEC or ID.   

Some people get angry and begin to threaten and curse when they cannot defend their positions.  Others will simply stare blankly and seek to change the subject.  All Christians who wish to defend the faith will find themselves being confronted with unexpected attacks based on minimal knowledge of scripture and will find themselves attacked personally.    Don't be surprised and don't let it stop you.   Just keep researching and studying and arming yourselves for the battle.  


Embryonic Recapitulation and Similarities Questions and Answers


What is embryonic recapitulation? Is it valid? Was it used to deceive people? Is it invoked to defend abortion?

The links worked just fine at the original site so I am sending you there...

Well, I will give you ONE of the many links found there:

The human umbilical vesicle (‘yolk sac’) and pronephros—Are they vestigial?

Published: 2 May 2009(GMT+10)
After Larsen
Embryo

This week we feature an enquiry from university student André Z of New Zealand, whose biology lecturer teaches that the “yolk sac” (umbilical vesicle), the pronephros, and other human embryonic structures are vestigial, constituting evidence that humans evolved. André also asks about so-called “endogenous retroviruses” (ERVs). Below is André’s enquiry, followed by a response by Andrew Lamb and Jonathan Sarfati.

Hello, I study 2nd year biology (BSc/BA) at a university in NZ. I have searched your site and not found any (or much) relevant information from a creationist perspective on two common evolutionary arguments in particular.
  1. Embryo development—the human embryo has some structures which serve no purpose in adults and resemble the embryos of ‘simpler’ organisms, which do have a use for these structures. The pronephros ‘kidney’ is effectively the same as in simpler animals, but in humans it degenerates by the 6th week.
  2. The yolk sac is apparently vestigial, having very little purpose in humans—certainly my lecturer is fond of it as evidence for evolution.
  3. Related to the comment on the yolk sac is something my lecturer was rather keen on repeating; that an engineer would not design a system such as found in the embryonic blood circulations. The claim is that the ‘mixing’ of oxygenated/poorly-oxygenated blood in e.g. the embryo’s heart is rather inefficient—I assume the idea is that poorly oxygenated blood shouldn’t really be mixed back in with oxygenated blood after circulation.
  4. Endogenous retroviruses—I have read the two articles on your site on these, and I am no expert on the details, but the extreme similarity in the location of some ERVs in the genetic sequences of different creatures such as chimps and humans, and a pattern of differences in these ERVs (or their surrounding genetic sequences) which fits evolutionary phylogenies, seems to support a common ancestry of different mammalian species. Is there a story in our genes, when we examine specific examples of similarity (rather than broad similarity biochemically which is arguably required to an extent for nutrition purposes and such)?—i.e., I am not convinced of the strength of your arguments concerning molecular similarity and would appreciate any further comments or hints.
Thank you,
André Z
Hi André
Many vestigial arguments like those your lecturer pushes are based on the long-discredited theory of embryonic recapitulation, supported by the forged diagrams of German Darwinist Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919). More recent research shows that even the embryonic similarities that appear in many biology textbooks were actually based on Haeckel’s forgeries.

There are just too many anomalies for the recapitulation idea to work: The “tail” in the human embryo does not mean that we descended from tailed animals. In fact, the human embryo also has a post-anal gut. Does this mean that we descended from an animal with such a thing?

(Radar note:  The apparent tail of the human embryo is just the end of the spinal column, which gets built ahead of some other portions of the child.   The coccyx will eventually be the result and it has a function beyond being some remains of a tail.   The entire idea of a tail on humans is from ignorance.)

Some of the numerous examples of embryonic development which are contrary to the supposed evolutionary sequence are: the mammalian heart forms before the circulatory system, the teeth form before the tongue, and the whale embryo never has a four-legged phase.

Therefore, since embryonic recapitulation is utterly defunct, any argument based on it should not trouble anyone.

Another common evolutionary claim is that the pharyngeal arches of the human are vestigial gill slits, but these pharyngeal arches are neither gills nor slits! Refutations we have published of this claim can be found by entering “gill slits” in the search field near the top right of our website.

[Update: according André,

Gill slits were discussed by my lecturer and the Haeckel-esque simplistic story which has previously been attached to them was debunked by him; it is clear that the pharyngeal arches do not develop into slits in humans (though the possibility that they may sometimes ‘break through’ seemed to be left open).]
Photo stock.xchng
Staging
Potentially helpful resources re human embryology include:

Embryonic development

Another important point with embryology is that the needs of the developing embryo are as important as those of the adult. The “tail” ensures that there is an adequate blood supply to the developing leg buds in the embryo. The development of the kidneys is an example of this (see below). Just as many temporary structures such as scaffolding, ramps, rubbish chutes, portaloos, etc. are needed on a construction site, but are superfluous once the building is completed, so too it is reasonable to expect there to be temporary structures needed by a growing organism, that may no longer be needed by the fully grown adult.

Still another point is that some structures develop only when induced by other structures. An embryology textbook explains:

The needs of the developing embryo are as important as those of the adult.
“Organs are formed by interactions between cells and tissues. Most often, one group of cells causes another set of cells or tissues to change their fate, a process called induction. In each such interaction, one cell type or tissue is the inducer that produces the signal, and one is the responder to that signal. … Examples … include … gut endoderm and surrounding mesenchyme to produce gut-derived organs, including the liver and pancreas, limb mesenchyme with overlying ectoderm to produce limb overgrowth and differentiation; and endoderm of the ureteric bud and mesenchyme from the metanephric blastema to produce nephrons in the kidney [more below]. Inductive interactions can also occur between two epithelial tissues, such as the induction of the lens by epithelium of the optic cup.”1
The book goes on to explain, “Cell-to-cell signaling is essential for induction, for conference of competency to respond, and for cross talk between responding cells.” Then it explains these complex biochemical processes.
Induction explains another favourite evolutionary “proof”: teeth in embryonic baleen whales, supposedly proving that they evolved from toothed whales. But Louis Vialleton (1859–1929), who was Professor of Zoology, Anatomy and Comparative Physiology at Montpelier University, southern France, argued:
“Even though the teeth in the whale do not pierce the gums and function as teeth, they do function and actually play a role in the formation of the jaws to which they furnish a point d’apui on which the bones mold themselves.”2
Douglas Dewar (1875–1957), a prominent British creationist who strongly refuted evolutionary arguments around WW2, supported Vialleton’s argument in several ways:
  • the embryonic teeth are very different in disposition, form and number from the toothed whales
  • why would toothless whales acquire extra teeth, then scrap them and replace them with the new structure of baleen plates;
  • there is a parallel example in humans, where microcephalic individuals with very poor or non-existent teeth development suffer from receded jaws. These poorly developed jaws are due to “a deficiency or actual total failure of development of the dental germs, the effect being that the investing jaws likewise fail to execute their normal growth and evolution.” 3
With these principles out of the way, we’ll now tackle the “yolk sac”, pronephros (plural pronephroi), embryonic heart, and “endogenous retoviruses” in turn.

Embryonic kidney development

Formation of the pronephric kidney lays the foundation for the induction of the mesonephric kidney, and it in turn lays the foundation for the induction of the metanephric kidney.—Larsen’s Human Embryology

The above embryology textbook points out that the pronephros serves an important role as an inducer, as explained above:
“Formation of the pronephric kidney (i.e., pronephros) lays the foundation for the induction of the mesonephric kidney (i.e., mesonephros), and it in turn lays the foundation for the induction of the metanephric kidney (i.e., metanephros). Hence, formation of a pronephric kidney is really the start of a developmental cascade leading to the formation of the definitive kidney.”4
Also, Dewar suggested that the pronephroi have a function in the very early embryo, and its “simple” structure and positioning are appropriate for this function:
“As the embryo must have a kidney to rid himself of waste products at an early stage, one has to be developed while the complicated adult kidney is being formed. Accordingly what is known as the pronephros or head kidney is first formed. This consists of a row of two or three nephridia on each side of the body. These nephridia are tubes, one end of which opens into the body-cavity and the other end into a common duct leading to the exterior. Each nephridium comes into contact with a bunch of tiny blood-vessels known as a glomerulus. From the blood in these the waste products of the embryo are taken up by the nephridia and so passed out of the embryo. As the embryo increases in size new nephridia are formed behind the first ones. These are of more complicated structure and are described as a second kidney, the mesonephros or middle-kidney. As the mesonephridia increase in number the pronephros gradually undergoes atrophy. A kidney of the mesonephros type suffices to carry off the waste products of comparatively simple organisms; in consequence in fishes it persists throughout life as the functional kidney. In some cases the pronephros also persists. The mesonephros is inadequate for the needs of organisms higher [i.e. more complex] than fishes, in consequence a far more complicated kidney—the metanephros or hind-kidney—develops behind the mesonephros. When this final kidney is ready to function, the nephridia of the mesonephros become absorbed, but their duct persists, being used to carry the male genital products. …
“The reason why the early embryonic kidney, instead of being converted into, is replaced by the adult kidney, thus appears to be, not that the embryo is compelled to recapitulate prepiscine and piscine stages, but that embryonic conditions require the kidney to be situated far forward—a position that would be inconvenient in the adult.”5
As yet medical research has not confirmed Dewar’s inferences about the function of the pronephros, but research has shown the pronephros to have the crucial function of inducing development of the kidney, as related earlier in this article. But the next stage, the mesonephros, does have kidney function, which would vindicate Dewar’s argument that it is designed for what it does and where it does it:
“Although there is evidence of urinary function in the mammalian mesonephric kidney, the physiology of the mesonephros has not been extensively investigated. Urine formation in the mesonephros begins with a filtrate of blood from the glomerulus into the glomerular capsule. The filtrate then flows into the tubular portion of the mesonephros, where the selective resorption of ions occurs. The return of resorbed materials to the blood is facilitated by the presence of a dense plexus of capillaries around the mesonephrous tubules.
“The structure of the human mesonephros is very similar to that of adult fishes and aquatic amphibians, and it functions principally to filter and remove body wastes. Because these species and the amniote embryo exist in an aquatic environment, there is little need to conserve water. Therefore the mesonephros does not develop a medullary region or an elaborate system for concentrating urine as the adult kidney does.”6

Yolk sac

Evolutionists sometimes argue that the yolk sac of mammals is vestigial, being small and devoid of yolk, in contrast to birds and reptiles. However, an embryology textbook points out that it is vital to the embryo because of other functions associated with it.7

The so-called ‘yolk sac’ is the source of the human embryo’s first blood cells, and death would result without it! 
As creationist biologist Dr Gary Parker points out, “The so-called ‘yolk sac’ is the source of the human embryo’s first blood cells, and death would result without it!” (Creation: Facts of Life, page 56). Even creation-hostile Wikipedia acknowledges its importance, saying “it functions as the developmental circulatory system of the human embryo, before internal circulation begins” (Yolk sac).

In fact, most embryologists no longer call it “yolk sac” but “umbilical vesicle”. Here is a relevant excerpt from a contemporary textbook:

Significance of the Umbilical Vesicle

Although the umbilical vesicle is nonfunctional as far as yolk storage is concerned (hence the name change), its presence is essential for several reasons:
  • It has a role in the transfer of nutrients to the embryo during the second and third weeks when the uteroplacental circulation is being established.
  • Blood development first occurs in the well-vascularized extraembryonic mesoderm covering the wall of the umbilical vesicle beginning in the third week (see Chapter 4) and continues to form there until hemopoietic activity begins in the liver during the sixth week.
  • During the fourth week, the endoderm of the umbilical vesicle is incorporated into the embryo as the primordial gut (see Fig. 5-1). Its endoderm, derived from epiblast, gives rise to the epithelium of the trachea, bronchi, lungs, and digestive tract.
  • Primordial germ cells appear in the endodermal lining of the wall of the umbilical vesicle in the third week and subsequently migrate to the developing gonads (see Chapter 12). They differentiate into spermatogonia in males and oogonia in females.8
Here is a comment from another textbook:
“The definitive yolk sac remains a major structure associated with the developing embryo through the 4th week and performs important early functions. Extraembryonic mesoderm forming the outer layer of the yolk sac is a major site of hematopoiesis (blood formation; discussed in Ch. 13). Also, as described in Chapter 1, primordial germ cells can first be identified in humans in the wall of the yolk sac.”9

Embryonic heart

The reason why the mammalian embryonic heart is at first a simple tube is, not that mammals evolved from fishes, but that, as the mammalian embryo must have a functioning heart at a very early stage, the simplest possible heart is formed.—Douglas Dewar
The evolutionary lecturer claims design flaws, but I would challenge him to design a better system that develops from a single cell and keeps the creature alive. Once again, the “simple” heart is vital for the embryo at this stage of development. Dewar explains:
“The so-called fish heart and gill-arches have to be formed because the head region of the embryo from a very early stage onwards, requires a copious blood supply. This necessitates the early formation of a heart or pumping organ and a simple system of blood vessels. These have to be formed before there is time to develop the four-chambered heart necessary to the higher animal. …
“The heart develops as follows: Two tiny tubes are formed which run parallel. Those coalesce to form a single tube; the wall of the front part of this thickens and the thickened part becomes separated from the thinner hind part by valves. The heart is now an effective pumping machine composed of two communicating chambers … In fishes this type of arrangement persists throughout life, being suitable for a gill-breathing animal … Animals higher up the scale need a more complicated heart and in them the embryonic heart becomes three-or four-chambered … by the growth of a septum in one or both of the chambers.
“Clearly then, the reason why the mammalian embryonic heart is at first a simple tube is, not that mammals evolved from fishes, but that, as the mammalian embryo must have a functioning heart at a very early stage, the simplest possible heart is formed. As development proceeds the form of the heart changes to meet the increasing demands made upon it.”10

Endogenous retroviruses

The term “endogenous retroviruses” is inherently misleading—see the ‘Endogenous retroviruses‘ section within the article Junk DNA, asteroid impacts, and supernovas.

You said you have read our two articles related to ERVs. We have previously published articles refuting the general “shared mistakes” claim by evolutionists:
ERVs act as promoters, starting transcription at alternative starting points, which enables different RNA transcripts to be formed from the same DNA sequence.
We find the arguments in these two articles compelling. [André informed us he had also read the instructive overview Junk DNA: evolutionary discards or God’s tools? Which likewise discusses ERVs]

Extreme similarity (homology) of component parts is to be expected if things have the same Designer—see Are look-alikes related? Indeed, in most cultures that have existed around the world, such similarities would bring great honour to a designer, demonstrating his complete mastery over what he had made—see Not to Be Used Again : Homologous Structures and the Presumption of Originality as a Critical Value.
Our most recent article on ERVs, and specifically on this topic, is:
Shaun Doyle, Large scale function of endogenous retroviruses Journal of Creation 22(3):16, 2008.
This points out:
Moreover, researchers have recently identified an important function for a large proportion of the human genome that has been labelled as ERVs. They act as promoters, starting transcription at alternative starting points, which enables different RNA transcripts to be formed from the same DNA sequence. … We’re not just talking about a small scale phenomenon. These ERVs aid transcription in over one fifth of the human genome!
Since the so-called ERVs clearly have a vital function, this is consistent with a design explanation.
Best wishes in your course.

Andrew Lamb and Jonathan Sarfati
CMI–Au

Further reading

Recommended Resources




References

  1. Sadler, T.W., Langman’s Medical Embryology, 10th Ed., pp. 7–8, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006; bold in original. Return to text.
  2. Vialleton, L. L’origine des Êtres Vivants [The origin of living beings] 1930, Librarie Plon, Paris. Return to text.
  3. Dewar, Douglas, The Transformist Illusion, Sophia Perennis et Universalis, pp. 171–172, 1957/1995. Return to text.
  4. Schoenwolf, G.C, et al., Larsen’s Human Embryology, Fourth Edition, p. 483, Churchill Livingstone Elsevier, 2009. Return to text.
  5. Dewar, ref. 3, p. 198. Return to text.
  6. Carlson, B.M., Human Embryology and Developmental Biology, 3rd edition, p. 35, Mosby, Philadelphia, 2004. Return to text.
  7. Carlson, Ref. 6, p. 131. Return to text.
  8. Moore, K.L. and Persaud, T.V.N., The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 8th edition, p. 134, Saunders Elsevier 2008. Return to text.
  9. Schoenwolf, Ref. 4, p. 58. Return to text.
  10. Dewar, ref. 3, pp. 194–195. Return to text.

177 comments:

Lista said...

Man, Radar!!
Not Only are you a Daily Blogger, but you are a Long Winded Daily Blogger. How in the World am I Supposed to Read all of This? This is the Sort of Post that Requires Several Days to Fully Digest.

Can't you Summarize at Least a Little? How About this? Do a Blog of Summaries, with Links to Longer Pages.

Forgive me. You are Obviously Free to do what you wish, but Remember this. If those who Agree with you have Trouble Reading it all, then what sort of Attention do you Think you are going to Get from those who Oppose you?

I'm On your Side, though. There's got to be a Way to Reach them. There's just got to be, but you Know What? These Intellectual Times are Very Very Stubborn.

Anonymous said...

I can't tell if Lista is a parody or not. Maybe something wrong with her computer?

"These Intellectual Times are Very Very Stubborn."

Classic. Whether parody or not, I hope she keeps commenting.

Chaos Engineer said...

I thought the Wilson essay was especially sad. I think he sincerely wants to understand atheists, but he's unwilling to actually listen to them.

So he has to rely on wild speculation, resulting in racist nonsense like:

They must assume the existence of moral standards (for instance, ‘truth’ is an inherent good), borrowed from Christianity, before they can attack the Christian faith

As if the ancient cultures of the Pagans and Animists and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists didn't value truth, until Christians came along and taught them all that it was a good idea!

That said, I don't think he's really a bad person. I just think that he's trapped in a mindset that encourages and rewards ignorance.

If he'd actually talked to some atheists, then I think he would have given this answer to the question of why atheism is getting so much attention:

Not all that long ago, it was possible for a person to live his whole life without stepping outside his community. Wicked leaders would use this in order to hold on to power, by spreading the lie, "Other cultures are evil and there's nothing at all we can learn from them. So there's certainly no reason to ever change the status quo."

That works in a feudal or neo-feudal system, but it breaks down in today's fast-paced global economy. (Let me know if I need to explain why.)

So we're seeing a move from xenophobic world-views (Radical Islam, Conservative Christianity, Fascism) to more open worldviews (Universalism, Atheism, Moderate Christianity and Islam.)

That's not to say that xenophobic worldviews are dying out...there are a lot of isolated communities where they're still able to thrive. But they are under a considerable amount of pressure, and wicked leaders are finding that they really have to 'double-down on the crazy' in order to keep control.

Now, the central tenet of "New Atheism" is probably, "Don't make wild claims unless you're able to provide some kind of evidence." This naturally attracts people who are looking for an alternative to "Just believe what you're told to believe! Who are you to doubt the timeless wisdom of the Koran/Bible/Great Leader? Asking questions is treason!" (Of course atheism isn't the only alternative to xenophobia, but it's got a unique resonance with particular types of people.)

Anyway, if you ever see Doug Wilson, can you pass that on to him? He might listen to you...

Lista said...

Oh my Gosh! That was a Typo that I didn't Catch when a Reread my Comment before Posting. I Meant to say that "these Intellectual Types". Meaning People who are Intellectual, or more Specifically Atheists who are Intellectual.

What I am Actually is an Intellectual Christian who also Happens to be a Slow Reader. I Process Information Slowly, because I Like to Think Things Through. I Find the Internet Blogging World to be so Fast Pace that it Actually Distracts from Careful Thinking and Encourages those who Like to Change the Subject and Move on To Another Topic, before any Subject has Been Thoroughly Thought Through, to Go Right Ahead and Put Speed before Careful Thinking.

Maybe I am Only Thinking of myself when I Ask People, could you Please Slow Down, yet I have a Rather Strong Suspicion that I am not the Only One and Based on the Number of Hits in my Own Hit Counter that Report Zero Minutes and Zero Seconds, I've Basically Concluded that when it comes to the Number of Hits on a Blog, sometimes Quantity does not Equal Quality.

Maybe I'm Out of Line and I'm Sorry.

Thanks for the Complement, Anonymous. I will Keep Commenting, but Only on a Few of the Posts, cause there is Absolutely no Way that I am Going to be Able to Keep Up with all that Radar Posts.

Lista said...

I Hope that my Last Comment Prints, though I do not See it yet.

Here's a Quick Response to Chaos Engineer. I've never Liked the Word "Xenophobic" because it Implies a Motive of Fear and yet there is no Way for any of us to Know for sure the Motives of Others. Just Because Someone has a World View that Defines Truth in a Very Limited Way that many Others do not Like, does not Mean that their Motive for Doing so is Fear.

Also, just in Case that Other Comment didn't Go Through, my Original Statement that "Intellectual Times are Very Very Stubborn." should have Read "Intellectual Types are Very Very Stubborn.", meaning People who are Intellectual, or more Specifically Atheists that are Intellectual.

I'll be Back Later to Check and see if the Rest of my Previous Comment Gets Posted.

radar said...

Now and then I have to see if any recent comments were listed as spam because they were long or had a url blogger doesn't like. I think it is funny blogger thinks talkorigins is spam and I agree.

Lista, I am long-winded but one could also say thorough. My apologies, actually my wife is behind trying to read everything I put out there. I am gratified that you have decided to check in on me and comment.

The problem is this - I have many college aged readers who are taking college-level classes or even postgraduate level classes and I want to give them something to chew on.

But you are right, I am going to make shorter posts as a rule going forward. Maybe the kneejerk Darwinist responses would become more coherent if I kept it short for them?

radar said...

Chaos, Doug Wilson knows atheism quite well. He did a long tour with Christopher Hitchens and there was a book and a movie made of their continuing debate which I reviewed earlier on this blog. Wilson is a very smart man and the debates were lively and informative.

"Is Christianity Good For The World?" was the title of both the DVD and the premise of the debates.

By the way, Hitchens has a brother who has become a Christian and both speaks and writes attempting to undo the damage his brother does. Christopher Hitchens is a very smart man but he is quite foolish in that he cannot see some obvious clues that God does exist because he will not.

You err in thinking that any culture came before worship of God because you do not believe that Genesis is history. I do, and I am sure that all other religions are perversions of the original or various twists of ancestor worship. I have also blogged on this before.

Lista said...

Forgive me, Radar. When Ever I see Large Posts and Articles, my Initial Response is to Complain. First I Complain and then I Read. The First of the Articles in this Post is Very Good. I will be Back.

BTW, In Spite of my Slow Reading Speed, I did Graduate from College, though that was quite awhile ago.

joe said...

"Oh my Gosh! That was a Typo that I didn't Catch when a Reread my Comment before Posting. I Meant to say that "these Intellectual Types"."

You should stick with "Times", it's funnier. I could see it on a T-shirt or a coffee mug. Definitely something there.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Maybe the kneejerk Darwinist responses would become more coherent if I kept it short for them?"

More to the point, sticking to a topic per post - or even a set of related topics per post could result in a more useful discussion.

Witness the sprawling mess above. It starts out reasonably enough with a Christian addressing a few things about new atheists. So that's something one could discuss.

But it's then followed by another lengthy article about embryonic recapitulation, Haeckel (!), and ERVs. So now the post is a confused one, a mishhmash of different ideas. Not ultimately contradictory, but simply wildly unrelated.

Radar, maybe you think that presenting a bit of this, that and the other thing is more persuasive, but let me suggest to you that it has the opposite effect: that it makes it seem that you don't have confidence in the individual points and so you feel the need to go for quantity over quality.

You like to think you have the upper hand on all these topics, yet whenever you’ve gone into detail on any of them, you’ve either had to abort the discussion (e.g. genetic algorithms, information) or even abort your own train of thought on your various “series” (e.g. dating methods, Genesis). That indicates to your readers that there is no actual depth to your position.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Maybe the kneejerk Darwinist responses would become more coherent if I kept it short for them?"

More to the point, sticking to a topic per post - or even a set of related topics per post could result in a more useful discussion.

Witness the sprawling mess above. It starts out reasonably enough with a Christian addressing a few things about new atheists. So that's something one could discuss.

But it's then followed by another lengthy article about embryonic recapitulation, Haeckel (!), and ERVs. So now the post is a confused one, a mishhmash of different ideas. Not ultimately contradictory, but simply wildly unrelated.

-- creeper

creeper said...

Radar, maybe you think that presenting a bit of this, that and the other thing is more persuasive, but let me suggest to you that it has the opposite effect: that it makes it seem that you don't have confidence in the individual points and so you feel the need to go for quantity over quality.

You like to think you have the upper hand on all these topics, yet whenever you’ve gone into detail on any of them, you’ve either had to abort the discussion (e.g. genetic algorithms, information) or even abort your own train of thought on your various “series” (e.g. dating methods, Genesis). That indicates to your readers that there is no actual depth to your position.

-- creeper

radar said...

creeper, your opinion of my articles is appreciated. If I do it and you do not like it, it was probably a good idea.

My "problem" is that there are so many good resources and so much great information to transmit and I want to point people to resources in order to hasten the downfall of Darwinism and get science back to business again. Friends with Crohn's disease and various cancers and degenerative diseases frustrate me. I suspect that if science put all efforts wasted on Darwinist drek would work towards advancing real science we would be saving lives instead of reputations of nincompoops like Richard Dawkins.

Lista said...

Well Radar,
It Looks like you have gotten some Activity on this Comment Thread. I'm just going to Post something that I Wrote Earlier as I was Reading the Post, but didn't have the Chance to Post Until Now. After that, I'll Try and Respond a Little to the Comments.

Sometimes it is Necessary for me to Ramble a Little as I Read. I Put Stuff in my Own Words in Order to Try and Process the Information.

The Point that "Science doesn’t give us ethical information." is Interesting and also, Science does not Account for the Reliability of Reason, nor for why Debate is any more important than two soda bottles fizzing.

I can hear the Answer now, though. What about Philosophy? That's not Necessarily Religious. Is it? The Basic Philosophical Basis for Morality is that if it Hurts someone, then it is Immoral.

Your Urging in Relation to the Reading of Scriptures is Very Good, Radar. As Christians we all Need to Hear that.

The More Technical Part of your Post, Radar, is Excellent and Interesting. Comparing these so called "Vestigial" Parts on the Embryo to Scaffolding and Ramps was most Interesting and the Argument Makes Perfect Sense to anyone who is not Biased Against it.

It Makes me Shake My Head when I Realize How Totally Obvious it is that Simple Structures, such as Kidneys and Hearts, that can be Formed Quickly are Needed First before the more Complex Structures have had the Time to Form. Why? Because the Complex Structures Take too Long to Form and are not Needed at the Beginning. That's Why. It's so Simple, and the Idea that someone would Use this in Support of Evolution comes Across as rather Ridiculous to me.

Actually, Calling anything that we do not yet Understand the Function of Vestigial is a Foolish Argument as well.

The Idea that we would Expect to Find Similarities between Various Creations that have the Same Creator is an Argument I've heard before. Make a Comparison between the Motors in Boats, Cars and Airplanes and this Point becomes Obvious.

Wow! Radar. Excellent Post!!! I Learned a lot and I Thank You.

Lista said...

Chaos Engineer,
As I Look at your Comment again, I Realize that you are Making all Kinds of Assumptions about someone who you do not Know and this Becomes all that much more Apparent when Radar Gives Additional Information about him.

Those who Think that Christianity is a Religion that is Newer than the Others, forget that Christianity Came from Judaism and the Origin of both of these Religions Dates all the Way Back to Genesis, just as Radar Said.

You Use Accusatory Words such as Racist, Ignorance and Xenophobia. The Last of These, I have already Addressed. Racism is another Assumption of Motive, yet you do not Know the Motives of Others. Ignorance is a Subjective Word Based on a Failure to Live Up to what the Speaker Believes to be Truth.

I wouldn't say that Islam is an Open World View, even in it's more Moderate Forms.

Creeper,
I don't Agree that Radars Topics are Unrelated. The Topic is Atheists. First he Talks about New Atheists and then about the Flaws in Evolution which is an Atheist Issue.

Personally, I see a Great Deal of Quality in what he has Posted, even though there is also a Considerable Quantity there.

radar said...

Lista is my new friend! I wonder if some of my commenters come to comment on your blog?

I do seek to be logical and naturally the subject of philosophy is intrinsic to all scientific discussions, as science cannot exist without a worldview from which to begin. All forensic and historical science comes with a worldview...except perhaps ID, which intentionally refuses to discuss the nature of the Designer other than to point out that design in nature is blatantly obvious.

Ignorant Darwinists say that ID is YEC wearing a disguise. But YEC says that ID is science making a case for a Creator they do not wish to identify or research. Darwinism, however, is worldview desperately trying to cloak itself in scientism despite the unsound and stunningly ludicrous underpinnings thereof. There is no evidence for macroevolution.

creeper said...

"creeper, your opinion of my articles is appreciated. If I do it and you do not like it, it was probably a good idea."

Not only is this a logic fail unto itself, but you've evaded the actual point, namely that every time you've tried to focus on a particular subject, you failed and had to cut and run.

That's why you keep having to throw spaghetti at the wall to see if anything sticks, and it doesn't.

"My "problem" is that there are so many good resources"

Since all of these "good resources" you've brought up have all been shown to spread untruths, may one inquire what you would consider a "bad resource"?

"and so much great information to transmit and I want to point people to resources in order to hasten the downfall of Darwinism"

You can achieve the same by focusing on one subject at a time. Hey, if you don't want to see the point, fine. I'm just saying it makes you look muddled, that's all.

"and get science back to business again."

Science has been in excellent business since the scientific revolution, and better still since Darwin's time. What business would you like science to "get back to"? How do you think science could be improved?

creeper said...

"science cannot exist without a worldview from which to begin"

Yes, but the basic worldview required for science does not need to split between religious and non-religious etc. The only worldview required for science is an acceptance that our senses reflect an objective external reality - which as it happens is a worldview most of us can agree on.

Beyond that, in science there's absolutely no reason to engage in a "my religious text is better than yours" kind of squabble. On the contrary, the absence of such nonsense is what makes science strong.

That's why scientific work can be performed by people of different religions and of no religion working side by side.

If you have clear, demonstrable evidence for what you consider the physical aspects of your faith, by all means present them and have them subjected to scrutiny.

"All forensic and historical science comes with a worldview..."

True, but not the false dichotomy of a worldview that you present above.

"except perhaps ID"

Hm, if I combine this with your claim above that "science cannot exist without a worldview", I'd have to conclude that ID is not science.

"which intentionally refuses to discuss the nature of the Designer"

But that doesn't mean it doesn't come with a worldview. It simply means that IDers (at least in some cases) pretend to refuse to acknowledge a specific religious affiliation. Rather a different thing.

The only intention at play here is to disguise the creationist motivations of ID - and that's not really working out so well...

"other than to point out that design in nature is blatantly obvious"

You're confusing your own claims as a YECer. If ID were science, it wouldn't "point out that design in nature is blatantly obvious". ID's claims are pretty specific. Look up "specified complexity". Not the same thing as "obvious design" at all.

"Ignorant Darwinists say that ID is YEC wearing a disguise."

No, ID is creationism in disguise. A young Earth is irrelevant to the study of Intelligent Design as such. Keep in mind that YEC is a subset of creationism, not synonymous with it.

"But YEC says that ID is science making a case for a Creator they do not wish to identify or research."

That science only goes so far. Irreducible complexity - in theory - would be compelling evidence for a creator. But in practice it has not yet been found.

"Darwinism, however, is worldview desperately trying to cloak itself in scientism despite the unsound and stunningly ludicrous underpinnings thereof."

No "cloaking in scientism" required. Science itself is "cloaked in scientism" if you want to look at it that way. And that's not because of some nefarious purpose, it's because the scientific method works.

And these "ludicrous underpinnings"... do you have anything more in mind than these bizarre "can't explain where energy came from" kind of questions?

"There is no evidence for macroevolution."

For macroevolution having occurred? Umm, the fossil record, nested hierarchies, ERVs... Don't recall you ever rebutting them.

Lista said...

Hi Radar,
I Look Forward to Writing a Longer Response to you about Philosophy, World Views, as well as ID & YEC. Thanks for Recommending my Blog to your Readers.

Lista said...

Creeper,
Are you Claiming that all the Scientific Stuff in the Above Article about the Fetus is "Untruth"? Did you take the Time to Read it?

If you Want to Focus on Only One Subject, Creeper, then Pick One and Discuss it.

"The only worldview required for science is an acceptance that our senses reflect an objective external reality - which as it happens is a worldview most of us can agree on."

I would Agree with that, yet the Minute "Random Chance" is Mentioned, this is a Religious Statement because it is a Statement about God; that is the Non-Existence of God. The Belief that there is no God is a Belief about God and is Therefore a Religious Belief.

For Science to be Truly Objective, the Scientist has to be Willing to Go where ever the the Evidence Leads and if the Existence of a Creator is an Unacceptable Conclusion or Hypothesis, then the Scientist is not Allowing the Evidence to Lead to Where Ever it Leads and it is Therefore a Bias and since it has to Do with God, that is Whether or not God Exists, it is a Religious Bias.

I'm sure I'll have more to say, but that's Enough for now, since the Second of your Comments is a Long One.

Lista said...

I'm Surprised that my Comment is Still the Last one Here. I have more to Write to Creeper, yet Perhaps I Should Submit my Response to Radar First.

Hi Radar,
I Responded in a Philosophical way to the First Part of your Post because I Felt Like what you were saying was more Philosophical, than Scientific, or Actually more Religious, yet to an Atheist, Religion is not an Option, so they Turn to Philosophy for that which is not Explained by Science.

The Fact that there are Things that are not Explained by Science, though, is a Slap in the Face to Those who Worship Science as the Answer to all Questions, yet it Obviously is not.

Intelligent Design Comes from the Word View that God Created the Universe, I don't Like to Think of it that way, though, because in Science, the Word "Hypothesis" is Used, rather than the Phrase "World View".

The Problem with Evolutionists is that they Think they have Proved their Hypothesis and they have not. Their Hypothesis is that Life Resulted from "Random Chance", without the Assistance of a Creator. This is Based on the World View that there is no God.

The World View of a Scientist is also a Bias and all Scientists are Biased. For an Evolutionist to Claim that Intelligent Design Scientists are Biased and Evolutionists are not is Hypocritical, Absurd and even Arrogant. They are Lying to themselves when they think that.

The Reason Why, Radar, ID Scientists Refuse to Discuss the Nature of the Designer is because they are Constantly being Accused of being Based on Religion, rather than Science. For the Sake of Credibility, it is Necessary for them to Deny any Association with any of the Religions. They do not Even want to be Called Creationists because their Focus is on Science, not Faith.

Though this Truly is their Focus, Evolutionists Continually Deny this Focus and Call their Movement Religious, rather than Scientific, and the Reason why is because they Feel Threatened and wish to Attack their Credibility as Scientists. What they do not Realize, though, is that Atheism is also a Religious Idea. Since Atheism is the Believe that there is no God, it is a Belief about God and therefore a Religious Belief.

Lista said...

I've even heard it Said that Atheism is the One and Only Protected Religion. We are not Allowed to Teach any Form of Theism in School, but Teaching Atheism is Ok and that is Essentially what is being Done, when they Insist of Teaching Evolution by "Random Chance" and Acting as if this is Established Fact, rather than Theory.

Oddly, I'm not as Familiar with YEC. I had to Google it in Order to Realize that it Stands for "Young Earth Creationism".

Ok. Now that we are on the Same Page, there is no Way that we would ever be Allowed to Teach YEC in School and that Explains Why ID does NOT want to be Associated with them. Intelligent Design Scientists are Only Interested in what can be Proved and NOT that which is Based on Faith because Faith in a Creator can NOT be Taught in School.

Since YEC and ID are in Agreement about the Existence of a Creator, though, they really should not be Fighting each other.

"There is no evidence for macroevolution."

Exactly, and without this, the Rest of their Theory is Irrelevant to the Over all Hypothesis of Evolution from One Species into another and the World Coming into Existence by "Random Chance".

The Bottom Line is that Science can not Prove the Non-Existence of God any More than it can Prove His Existence.

As to what should be Taught in School, Some Feel that Intelligent Design, not YEC, But just ID, should be Taught along Side of Evolution. Others Feel that Evolution should just be Taught in a More Honest Way, by Admitting to the Students that it is just a Theory and has not been Proved and by Being Honest about the Weaknesses in the Theory. Though, the Second of these is More than Reasonable, Evolutionists will not Give in to it and Continue to Insist that they have Proved as Fact what has not been Proved at all.

Lista said...

Hey Radar,
I'm Missing One of my Comments again. Please Check the Spam Folder.

I Hope that someone Comments soon because I Still have more to Say. Apparently, Radar is not the Only One who is Long Winded. lol.

radar said...

I have spent entire posts discrediting the naturalistic materialistic scientism that perverts science. I have thoroughly dismissed subjects like ERVs with a post or two and some Darwinist coming in here with nothing but an opinion will not thwart the science. I am dedicated to presenting articles that fully address such subjects.

With no evidence, the creepers and Woolfs cannot debunk anything.

radar said...

"For Science to be Truly Objective, the Scientist has to be Willing to Go where ever the the Evidence Leads and if the Existence of a Creator is an Unacceptable Conclusion or Hypothesis, then the Scientist is not Allowing the Evidence to Lead to Where Ever it Leads and it is Therefore a Bias and since it has to Do with God, that is Whether or not God Exists, it is a Religious Bias."

Lista, that is right on the mark. How is it you can understand that when so many commenters who are self-syled brains cannot grasp it?

Lista said...

Radar,
"With no evidence, the creepers and Woolfs cannot debunk anything."

I Know that, yet they continue to Believe what they Believe and do not Realize that they are Looking at the Evidence in a Biased Way.

"Lista, that is right on the mark." (In Response to what you Quoted) "How is it you can understand that when so many commenters who are self-syled brains cannot grasp it?"

Thanks, Radar. You're the Greatest! I guess I just have an Eye for Hypocrisy and I know of No Greater Hypocrisy than what is Displayed when Evolutionists Present their Arguments.

Lista said...

Here's a Really Quick Response to the Creeper. I do have More, but I need to Get Off the Computer Soon.

The Above Resource, Relating to Embryonic Development, Creeper, is so Excellent, that I Wonder what you would Consider a Good Resource. Oh yeh. One that you Agree with; Chuckle. I should have Known.

You Can't Debunk it, though, can you?

radar said...

The summary is this, to me. Anyone happening upon a Porsche 911 sitting on the side of the road would be certain that it was designed and built by someone or many someones. The nameplate would give away the manufacturer.

Far more complex and sophisticated stands the cell. It has the DNA signature of its maker.

Only someone brainwashed to not believe in automobile manufacturers could possibly maintain that the Porsche just happened to poof into existence. Only someone brainwashed not to believe in God could believe the cell could poof into existence.

Both ideas are complete absurdities. Yet Darwinists are willing to give the auto designers their due and blind themselves to the greatest Designer of all.

There are multiple scientific disciplines devoted to trying to copy God's designs for humanity to use. We are still struggling to be half as efficient and brilliant in design. Nanoengineering and Biomimetics and Biomimicry are man trying to copy God. Duh.

Anonymous said...

I have spent entire posts discrediting the naturalistic materialistic scientism that perverts science

No, Radar, you've spent numerous posts trying to discredit science. And failing.

And as always, I have to laugh at the pompous posturing of the claim that "there's no evidence for naturalistic science." There's plenty of evidence for conventional science. That's why it's conventional science. In this argument, the side that has no evidence is creationism. Literally, all you have is a few scraps of paper that someone else told you is divine writ. That's all, there ain't no mo'.

Lista, if you're genuinely interested in truth, and not just in radaresque windmill-tilting, I suggest you go back through this blog's archives, and read some of the counterpoints to Radar's blatherings.

Lista said...

Very Good, Radar.

Anonymous,
Radar is not Trying to Discredit Evolution any more than Evolutionists are Trying to Discredit Intelligent Design, yet no One has been Able to Debunk the Above Post. No One has Even Tried.

"the side that has no evidence is creationism."

If you Believe that, than you have not Read the Above Article Carefully Enough. The Part of it that was about Embryonic Development was not Based on Scripture, but on Science.

"Lista, if you're genuinely interested in truth, and not just in radaresque windmill-tilting, I suggest you go back through this blog's archives, and read some of the counterpoints to Radar's blatherings."

I wasn't Born Yesterday, Anonymous. I've heard lots of the Arguments from Both Sides.

I Wonder what Happened to the Creeper. We haven't Heard from him in awhile. I Wrote a rather Long Response to him that I've been a little Slow in Submitting. In a Minute, I'll Submit About Half of it...

Lista said...

This is in Response to the Last of Creeper's Comments which was Submitted at 6:52 PM.

"in science, there's absolutely no reason to engage in a 'my religious text is better than yours' kind of squabble."

You are Right, Creeper, and that is the Reason Why I Like the Word "Hypothesis", rather than the Phrase "World View", for "Hypothesis" is a Scientific Term.

The Main Difference between YEC and ID is the Commitment of ID to Remain Scientific. An Intelligent Design Scientist is not Ever Going to say "Because the Bible Says so". It is Because of their Commitment to Science, not Religion, that they will not, as Radar said, "discuss the nature of the Designer other than to point out that design in nature is blatantly obvious."

"If you have clear, demonstrable evidence for what you consider the physical aspects of your faith, by all means present them and have them subjected to scrutiny..

The Goal of Intelligent Design is not to show Physical Evidence of Faith, but Only of Design.

The World View of ID is Simply that there is Some Sort of Intelligent Designer, yet as I just Said, it is Better and more Scientific to View this as a "Hypothesis", rather than a "World View". The Problem with Evolutionists is that Often they Deny that they have a "Hypothesis" that could also be Viewed as a "World View".

I Agree with you, Creeper, that Intelligent Design does have a Hypothesis/World View.

"IDers (at least in some cases) pretend to refuse to acknowledge a specific religious affiliation."

Just because Individual Scientists do Acknowledge Specific Religions in their Personal Lives, Creeper, this does not mean that they Allow it to Effect the way they do their Science.

Lista said...

Ok. Maybe I'll Submit the Last of my Response to the Creeper. Once Again, this is in Response to the Last of his Comments, Submitted at 6:52 PM.

"The only intention at play here is to disguise the creationist motivations of ID."

Because of the Fact that there is no way to Know anyone's Motives, what you have Said here, Creeper, is Really nothing more than Speculation. Since you do not in any way Know this to be a Fact, this Statement is Highly Unscientific.

"You're confusing your own claims as a YECer. If ID were science, it wouldn't 'point out that design in nature is blatantly obvious'."

That is a Matter of Opinion and is Based on your Biased Way of Viewing the Evidence. The Phrase "Specified Complexity" is not Actually as Convincing as the Phrase "Irreversible Complexity" and the Second of these is the One that is Evidence that Random Chance Could not have Resulted in such Complexity.

"That science only goes so far. Irreducible complexity - in theory - would be compelling evidence for a creator. But in practice it has not yet been found."

Evolution is Only Theory as well. In Order for two THEORIES to be Taught side by side in School, One Does not have to be Proven Superior to the Other, Only Equal.

"Darwinism, however, is a worldview desperately trying to cloak itself in scientism despite the unsound and stunningly ludicrous underpinnings thereof."

Perhaps what Radar means is that Evolution Often Denies that it has a World View that Biases it's Research. Trying to Cloak Subjectivity in Objectivity is a Common Problem within Science and for Evolution to Claim that it has Avoided this Problem is not only just as Biased as ID, but is also an Incredible Arrogance.

I'll have to Let Radar Respond to the Nested Hierarchies, since this has not been Presented to me. Perhaps he already has and will Just have to Give a Link to that Earlier Page.

Anonymous said...

Lista, don't take this the wrong way, but is English your first language?

I've considered the alternative - that you're a time traveler from some past century - but didn't buy it.

I'm just asking because when I read your comments here, I feel like I'm reading an exhibit from the Smithsonian.

Lista said...

I'm not sure what you mean, Anonymous, yet one thought that came to my Mind was the Generation Gap. Sometimes I Find that Young Adults, not just Teenagers, but also the College Aged Adults, sometimes Use Different Language than was Used back in my Day.

For Example, Even as I've been Working with Pregnant Teens, it Took me the Longest Time to Stop Saying Venereal Disease and Start Saying STDs. I had to Change my Language, though, because these Teenagers do not Know the Phrase Venereal Disease anymore. That is what my Generation Called STDs, but if you Use that Phrase among the Youth, they have no Clue at all what you are saying.

Anonymous said...

Nah, I'm not going to point it out to you. It's more amusing to read you this way. I'm not kidding, it literally puts a smile on my face.

Lista said...

Oh. Now I'm Guessing that you Mean the Capital Letters. It's just a Habit I Picked up awhile ago and I'm not sure why. I've Run Across a Few Women who Absolutely Hate it, but I have not Run Across a Man yet that has Complained. That in itself is rather Odd, huh? I'm Glad it Makes you Smile.

Jon Woolf said...

No offense intended, but it makes me smile too ... in a pitying kind of way. I almost did say something, but then figured you were no more likely to listen to that any more than you're likely to listen to a critique of 'the above Post'.

But just in case you are willing to listen: it looks foolish and childish, and makes it much harder to take anything you write seriously.

As for "yet no One has been Able to Debunk the Above Post. No One has Even Tried." -- which part are you talking about? The part on embryology? It's garbage, because Radar (and his alleged correspondent, for which we have only his word that said person even exists) are "debunking" claims that scientists don't make anymore. Serious embryologists no longer claim (if indeed they ever did) that vestigial organs and features like the yolk sac and the coccyx have no function whatsoever in the modern human. What embryologists say is that the specific ways in which these features develop display traces of their evolutionary history.

Jon Woolf said...

Or one of my favorite examples: aortic arches. I tried this on Radar a few months back, but he never even understood the argument, let alone manage to counter it.

All vertebrate embryos develop six pairs of aortic arches early in their development. After that:

* All true fish (sharks, skates, rays, and bony fishes) lose the first pair of arches
* Almost all bony fishes lose the first and second pairs.
* A certain genus of lungfish (order Sarcopterygii) turns the left 6th arch into the lung artery.
* Amphibians lose the first two pairs of arches, turn the 3rd pair into the carotid arteries, and turn the 6th arch into the lung artery.
* Reptiles lose the first two pairs of arches, turn the 3rd pair into the carotid arteries, lose all dorsal connections between arches except for the connection between the 3rd and 4th pairs, lose the 5th pair, and turn the 6th arch into the pulmonary (lung) artery.
* Birds lose the first two pairs of arches, turn the 3rd pair into the carotid arteries, lose all dorsal connections between arches, lose the left 4th arch, lose the 5th pair, and turn the 6th arch into the pulmonary (lung) artery.
* Mammals lose the first two pairs of arches, turn the 3rd pair into the carotid arteries, lose all dorsal connections between arches, lose the right 4th arch, lose the 5th pair, and turn the 6th arch into the pulmonary (lung) artery.

Those who know their taxonomy will recognize that if you draw a tree of relationships using this arch-itecture [g] as your criterion, you get something that looks like this:

Fishes (all)
---Fishes (bony)
------Lungfishes
---------Tetrapods
------------Reptiles
---------------Mammals
---------------Birds

In other words, the arch-itecture of each major group of chordates simply modifies that of the next more primitive group. The pattern is so obvious, in fact, that each of the last three bullets in my list was created by block-copying the bullet above it, then editing it. There's nothing to suggest that different initial designs were used, or that the design was intentionally modified to improve it, at any point. There's nothing to suggest that the arrangement for mammals is superior to the one for birds, or vice versa. And the tree you get conforms in every respect to the tree of vertebrate relationships drawn from other evidence.

Note that this isn't fossil evidence. It isn't deduced. It isn't guesswork. It isn't derived from genetic analysis. It's actual observations of developing embryos.

Jon Woolf said...

Well hell, I see the blogspot 'comment too long' gremlin is on duty again ...

[sigh]

All right, let's try to reconstruct that...

For example: on the subject of teeth in baleen whales. Louis Vialleton is quoted as writing that:

“Even though the teeth in the whale do not pierce the gums and function as teeth, they do function and actually play a role in the formation of the jaws to which they furnish a point d’apui on which the bones mold themselves.”

Creationists then somehow interpret the fact that the tooth buds have other functions besides 'grow into teeth' as a slam against the hypothesis that these tooth buds are remnants of an earlier stage of whale evolution, when the ancestors of baleen whales had full-size, fully functional teeth.

What the creationists don't get, however, is that under evolutionary theory, an organism is a coherent whole in both time and space, and the evolutionary process acts on this whole four-dimensional organism at once. If an organ loses one function, then evolution will tend to reduce that organ to the absolute minimum size and complexity it can have and still perform its other functions. Only when the organ has no functions at all does it become 'vestigial' and eventually vanish completely. Organs such as a baleen whale's tooth buds still have a function: help control development of other tissues in the embryo. So, they develop and last exactly as long as needed to perform that function, and then vanish.

Jon Woolf said...

(part 2)

The best evidence for evolution in this realm comes from two types of features:

1) an organ or behavior which has no current function in an advanced organism, yet can be seen to be functional in related, more basal organisms.

2) an individual which manifests a more basal version of a certain feature, rather than the advanced version which all its fellows have.

An example of the first is eggshells in marsupials. All marsupial babies are born alive, of course. No eggs for them. Yet studies have shown that the developing marsupial embryo forms a thin, non-functional eggshell while in the womb, then absorbs that shell before birth. Why? Evolution can explain this easily: the vestigial shell is a relic of the time long ago when ancestral marsupials weren't live bearers, but egg-layers. Creationism has no explanation at all.

An example of the second is limbs in whales. Consider this dolphin, for example, caught near Japan a few years ago. Dolphins and whales don't have hind limbs. They barely even have a pelvis. But this one dolphin, out of thousands caught or studied in the wild, has visible hind limbs. Why would a dolphin develop hind limbs? Evolutionary theory has a simple explanation: a mutation switched on the 'develop hindlimbs' genetic programming in this individual animal. Creationism has none. Creationists can't even explain why a dolphin, a whale, would have the genetic programming required to make hind limbs.

Jon Woolf said...

(part 3)

Other examples abound. Some species of whiptail lizards, genus Cnemidophorus, reproduce sexually. Others are parthenogenetic -- all individuals are females, and they reproduce by cloning. The parthenogenetic ones are entirely self-sufficient when it comes to reproduction -- but they still engage in mating behavior, and it still makes a difference in their reproduction. Evolutionary theory can explain this. Creationism can't.

Then there are snakes. They've been limbless slitherers since they first appeared. A snake with legs is a contradiction in terms. Yet the groups of snakes that appear first in the fossil record, the boas and pythons, have visible traces of a pelvis and hind limbs. Snakes that evolved later, such as the elapids, have none. Why?

Jon Woolf said...

(part 4)

Or one of my favorite examples: aortic arches. I tried this on Radar a few months back, but he never even understood the argument, let alone manage to counter it.

All vertebrate embryos develop six pairs of aortic arches early in their development. After that:

* All true fish (sharks, skates, rays, and bony fishes) lose the first pair of arches
* Almost all bony fishes lose the first and second pairs.
* A certain genus of lungfish (order Sarcopterygii) turns the left 6th arch into the lung artery.
* Amphibians lose the first two pairs of arches, turn the 3rd pair into the carotid arteries, and turn the 6th arch into the lung artery.
* Reptiles lose the first two pairs of arches, turn the 3rd pair into the carotid arteries, lose all dorsal connections between arches except for the connection between the 3rd and 4th pairs, lose the 5th pair, and turn the 6th arch into the pulmonary (lung) artery.
* Birds lose the first two pairs of arches, turn the 3rd pair into the carotid arteries, lose all dorsal connections between arches, lose the left 4th arch, lose the 5th pair, and turn the 6th arch into the pulmonary (lung) artery.
* Mammals lose the first two pairs of arches, turn the 3rd pair into the carotid arteries, lose all dorsal connections between arches, lose the right 4th arch, lose the 5th pair, and turn the 6th arch into the pulmonary (lung) artery.

Jon Woolf said...

(part 5)


Those who know their taxonomy will recognize that if you draw a tree of relationships using this arch-itecture [g] as your criterion, you get something that looks like this:

Fishes (all)
---Fishes (bony)
------Lungfishes
---------Tetrapods
------------Reptiles
---------------Mammals
---------------Birds

In other words, the arch-itecture of each major group of chordates simply modifies that of the next more primitive group. The pattern is so obvious, in fact, that each of the last three bullets in my list was created by block-copying the bullet above it, then editing it. There's nothing to suggest that different initial designs were used, or that the design was intentionally modified to improve it, at any point. There's nothing to suggest that the arrangement for mammals is superior to the one for birds, or vice versa. And the tree you get conforms in every respect to the tree of vertebrate relationships drawn from other evidence.

Note that this isn't fossil evidence. It isn't deduced. It isn't guesswork. It isn't derived from genetic analysis. It's actual observations of developing embryos.

creeper said...

Lista, you have walked in on a discussion that has been going on, on this particular blog, for about five years.

Some of the responses I'll give you here are rehashes of things that have been said here and elsewhere before. If you're impatient to read upcoming comments from me or anyone else, I'd suggest you read back through some of the past posts and comments here.

"I don't Agree that Radars Topics are Unrelated. The Topic is Atheists. First he Talks about New Atheists and then about the Flaws in Evolution which is an Atheist Issue."

A rather tenuous connection, if that. The first part is about "new atheists" and goes into some philosophical arguments, the second about details of biology. And FWIW, "Flaws in Evolution" are not an "Atheist Issue". The theory of evolution is not incompatible with the existence of God, and if there are flaws in the theory of evolution, that is not evidence for the existence of God. Nor is the fact that the theory of evolution is a well-supported scientific theory evidence against the existence of God. This misunderstanding alone is what motivates many religious fundamentalists (including Radar right here) to attempt to find fault with the theory of evolution.

-- creeper (1)

creeper said...

"Are you Claiming that all the Scientific Stuff in the Above Article about the Fetus is "Untruth"? Did you take the Time to Read it?"

If you read what I said above with regard to untruths, it's not hard to see what I meant or claimed.

"If you Want to Focus on Only One Subject, Creeper, then Pick One and Discuss it."

Again, read through the history of this blog and you'll see that various commenters (including myself) have done exactly that, at great length. And we will most likely continue to do so.

"I would Agree with that, yet the Minute "Random Chance" is Mentioned, this is a Religious Statement because it is a Statement about God; that is the Non-Existence of God."

You're suggesting that random chance and the existence of God are mutually exclusive. Since you believe God exists, are you saying there is no such thing as random chance?

-- creeper (2)

creeper said...

For Science to be Truly Objective, the Scientist has to be Willing to Go where ever the the Evidence Leads and if the Existence of a Creator is an Unacceptable Conclusion or Hypothesis, then the Scientist is not Allowing the Evidence to Lead to Where Ever it Leads and it is Therefore a Bias and since it has to Do with God, that is Whether or not God Exists, it is a Religious Bias."

This, too, has been discussed ad nauseam. I'll give you the basic argument:

The scientific method is designed to be as objective and constructive as possible. One makes an observation, proposes a hypothesis, poses testable claims/predictions to test the hypothesis ("if hypothesis is true, we expect to see X happen; if hypothesis is false, we expect to see Y happen"), then tests those claims. If the claims pass the test, then the hypothesis is confirmed, at least to the extent of the testable claim. If the hypothesis is not confirmed, one may take what one has learned from the process to revise the hypothesis. Or just dump it altogether.

It's a pretty effective method, and since other scientists can look at the hypothesis and test its claims for themselves, it ensures accuracy and allows for progress and for others to build on existing scientific knowledge.

You should know that science (including the theory of evolution) makes no claim whatsoever about God either way. It doesn't say God doesn't exist, nor does it confirm that God does exist.

Now, when we say, in a scientific context, that "the evidence leads" somewhere, that would mean something like "we've posed this hypothesis and tested it, and it tells us that option X is correct while option Y is not". But that is never the case once God comes into play, because we invariably run into a situation in which we can not pose such a testable claim and then test it.

You see, it's not that it's unacceptable for reasons of religious bias, as you claim, but that it's unworkable because of how the process itself works. It's simply not possible to have the evidence lead to God or any other supernatural entity, because as far as science goes, all you have at that point is a dead end.

-- creeper (3)

creeper said...

For Science to be Truly Objective, the Scientist has to be Willing to Go where ever the the Evidence Leads and if the Existence of a Creator is an Unacceptable Conclusion or Hypothesis, then the Scientist is not Allowing the Evidence to Lead to Where Ever it Leads and it is Therefore a Bias and since it has to Do with God, that is Whether or not God Exists, it is a Religious Bias."

This, too, has been discussed ad nauseam. I'll give you the basic argument:

The scientific method is designed to be as objective and constructive as possible. One makes an observation, proposes a hypothesis, poses testable claims/predictions to test the hypothesis ("if hypothesis is true, we expect to see X happen; if hypothesis is false, we expect to see Y happen"), then tests those claims. If the claims pass the test, then the hypothesis is confirmed, at least to the extent of the testable claim. If the hypothesis is not confirmed, one may take what one has learned from the process to revise the hypothesis. Or just dump it altogether.

(contd.)

creeper (3)

creeper said...

It's a pretty effective method, and since other scientists can look at the hypothesis and test its claims for themselves, it ensures accuracy and allows for progress and for others to build on existing scientific knowledge.

You should know that science (including the theory of evolution) makes no claim whatsoever about God either way. It doesn't say God doesn't exist, nor does it confirm that God does exist.

Now, when we say, in a scientific context, that "the evidence leads" somewhere, that would mean something like "we've posed this hypothesis and tested it, and it tells us that option X is correct while option Y is not". But that is never the case once God comes into play, because we invariably run into a situation in which we can not pose such a testable claim and then test it.

You see, it's not that it's unacceptable for reasons of religious bias, as you claim, but that it's unworkable because of how the process itself works. It's simply not possible to have the evidence lead to God or any other supernatural entity, because as far as science goes, all you have at that point is a dead end.

-- creeper (4)

creeper said...

"the side that has no evidence is creationism."

"If you Believe that, than you have not Read the Above Article Carefully Enough. The Part of it that was about Embryonic Development was not Based on Scripture, but on Science."

And in case you didn't notice, it provided no evidence for creationism.

"I Wonder what Happened to the Creeper. We haven't Heard from him in awhile. I Wrote a rather Long Response to him that I've been a little Slow in Submitting. In a Minute, I'll Submit About Half of it..."

Sheesh, this isn't Twitter.

creeper: "in science, there's absolutely no reason to engage in a 'my religious text is better than yours' kind of squabble."

Lista: "You are Right, Creeper, and that is the Reason Why I Like the Word "Hypothesis", rather than the Phrase "World View", for "Hypothesis" is a Scientific Term."

They're two different words with two entirely different meanings. We can use each appropriately. "Hypothesis" as a scientific term is far from synonymous with "worldview".

-- creeper (5)

radar said...

Lista, you will find that Jon Woolf has a pretty high opinion of himself, so when he "pities" you do not take it the wrong way. It is simply the way he is. You'll notice he then spits out a lot of Darwinist propaganda. Whales who have some form of pelvis and even what appears to be vestigal remains of legs? These are used in sexual reproduction.

As for snake fossils being found with legs? Well, loss of information is devolution, which creationism predicts.

Creeper, your five point post about science misses lots of marks, but the most important is failure to understand the significance of the ID hypothesis. YEC predicts that all creatures will have common design features because they have a common Designer. YEC predicts that we would expect to find hearty, well-designed life forms, which we do.

Finding intelligence and information within cells, finding meta-information and finding redundancy all point to a Creator. Discovering that life was created is no dead end at all, it is simply a milepost on the highway of scientific discovery.

Once science finally admits that life was designed, then science will begin to seek out ways to return life forms to their originally created state to obtain optimal life forms. We will understand that mutations are deleterious. We will more than ever copy God's designs to make use of them in every way possible.

Hypothesis: God created all things. Basis? The Bible said so. Findings? All life has amazing intricacy and contains a design signature, which is DNA. Conclusion? God designed all things just as He said, so let's accept it and move on.

Hypothesis: All things just happened. Basis? A desire to dispense with God. Findings? All life has amazing intricacy and contains a design signature, which is DNA. Conclusion? It appears that God designed everything, so let's work as hard as we can to censor this information so that the public and especially students do not find out!

Anonymous said...

@Radar:

1 - derision still is not an argument

2 - attacking straw men doesn't count as an argument either

Lista said...

I Guess I'll Start, by Simply Giving a Response to Jon Woolf and this is a Two Part, or Two Comment, Response to him, Copied from something I Typed into my Word Processor Yesterday.

Hi Jon Woolf,
You know what? If my capitals bother you, then perhaps, for now, I'll quit.

You say that there was no offense intended, yet right afterwards typed out a whole list of insults, first towards me personally; "in a pitying kind of way", "no more likely to listen", "looks foolish and childish", "makes it harder to take anything you write seriously"; and then towards the above post; "It's garbage."

I guess you must realize that insults are not the same as an argument.

"'debunking' claims that scientists don't make anymore."

Could that be because they realize that it has been adequately debunked?

"What embryologists say is that the specific ways in which these features develop display traces of their evolutionary history."

The fact that these things also have functions to the current organism suggests that the above Hypothesis may not be correct. All that the above article does is suggests a different Hypothesis and in order for such to be taught in school, superiority of that Hypothesis does not have to be proved, only equality. To me, the equality of the two Hypotheses is obvious.

It is not clear what is "displayed" by "the specific ways in which these features develop." All it really "displays" is similarity between one species and another and what that similarity means is a matter of speculation, not proven science.

"Only when the organ has no functions at all does it become 'vestigial' and eventually vanish completely."

Ah, but just because science does not currently understand the function, this does not mean that it has no function. Also, you can elaborate on a THEORY all that you want and that still doesn't cause it to cease from being just a THEORY.

Lista said...

More for Woolf
"1) an organ or behavior which has no current function in an advanced organism, yet can be seen to be functional in related, more basal organisms."

That is, no function known by current science and a similarity is observed, yet again, what that similarity means is subject to speculation. Your entire THEORY, Jon Woolf, is based on speculation.

Point #2 is also subject to speculation.

Since Intelligent Design Theory is the newer of the the two Theories, it makes sense that there are going to be things that they can not explain, yet there are still things that evolutionists can not explain as well.

"Yet the groups of snakes that appear first in the fossil record, the boas and pythons, have visible traces of a pelvis and hind limbs. Snakes that evolved later, such as the elapids, have none. Why?"

I may not have a Scientific explanation for this, yet there is a parallel in the Scriptures. In Genesis, God Curses the Snake to go "upon thy belly".

"And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life." (Genesis 3:14, KJV)

Ok, maybe that's not science, but I always think it is interesting whenever science parallels the scriptures.

I don't know why it should be so surprising that Embryos seem to evolve a little from simple to complex. I think that the above article explains rather well how some things that are not needed by a fully grown Complex Organism, are needed by the Embryos of that Organism.

I am not one, Jon Woolf, to deny that there is some Evidence of Evolution, but Evidence is not Proof and Intelligent Design has Evidence as well.

Remember, Equality, not Superiority, is all that is required in order to build a case for teaching two theories side by side. You have Evidence. We have Evidence. We can't prove it. You can't prove it. This sounds pretty equal to me.

Lista said...

I'm not going to Take the Time Right now to Say Everything that I will be Eventually Saying to the Creeper, but I do want to say some of it.

I don't know what gave you the Impression that I was Impatient, Creeper. Since there are no dates attached to the Comments, it is not always Clear how much Time has Passed since any given Person Last Commented, now that I've Stared at and Analyzed the Times of the Submissions, I Realize that it may have Only been 28 Hours & 53 Minutes between your Comment and My Response. That's Roughly 29 Hours.

If that seems Impatient, then I Apologize. In Truth, though, I am more Anxious, than Impatient. I am Anxious that Large Numbers of Comments will be Submitted before I have the Chance to Respond to Comments that are a Day or Two Old. Perhaps the Last of your Comments has Taken some of the Pressure off and for this I Thank You.

In Relation to the Subject of Talking to Atheists, there are Two Approaches that One Can Take. One is Philosophical and the Other is through Science. Radar has Addressed both of these in his Post.

The Reason why Evolution is an Atheist Issue is because of the Phrase "Random Chance" and the Reason Why is because this Phrase Implies the Absence of the Involvement of a Creator, for what is Created is not Random.

Hi Radar,
Well, if I Take Jon Woolf's Remarks about Pitying me in the Right Way or in the Wrong Way, this is not really what is Relevant. To Pity is to Look Down On. It is an Insult and an Insult is not an Argument. The Issue is not whether or not I was Hurt by it. I'm Actually Pretty Tough, so I am not bothered by him, yet as I just Said, that is not the Point. The Point is that an Insult is not an Argument.

I Liked your Last Two Paragraphs. That about Sums it Up.

Jon Woolf said...

Radar: Whales who have some form of pelvis and even what appears to be vestigal remains of legs? These are used in sexual reproduction.

Nope, try again. In whales, the remnants of the pelvis may be used as part of mating. But all the whales-with-legs fossils are archaeocetes, all now long extinct. No modern cetacean has ever had any use for hind legs. Hind legs are a hindrance for them, because it disrupts their streamlining. Yet once or twice a century, a whale or dolphin is found with hind limbs. Why? Evolution has a ready answer. Creationism doesn't.

As for snake fossils being found with legs?

Not snake fossils. Living snakes. Boas and pythons have visible traces of hind limbs. Elapids don't.

Lista: You say that there was no offense intended, yet right afterwards typed out a whole list of insults,

I think you misunderstood me. I was trying to offer some constructive criticism about your writing style, not to insult you. I didn't say you are foolish and childish, I said your odd writing style looks foolish and childish. If that's not the impression you want to make, you should change your style. Insults are what Radar said about me just above: statements which he knows are false, directed against me as a person, made with the sole intent of making me look bad.

I am not one, Jon Woolf, to deny that there is some Evidence of Evolution,

This puts you well ahead of Radar, who has insisted repeatedly that there is no evidence for evolution.

[to be continued]

Jon Woolf said...

Remember, Equality, not Superiority, is all that is required in order to build a case for teaching two theories side by side. You have Evidence. We have Evidence. We can't prove it. You can't prove it. This sounds pretty equal to me.

Yes, two theories that are equally able to explain the known evidence can be taught side by side, and that's good science. The critical point here is the "equally able to explain the known evidence" part. When you have two competing scientific theories, A and B, then there are several possible categories of evidence. Points that both theories can explain are useless for deciding between them. You need to find points where they disagree, points that only one of the two theories can explain.

There is known evidence that Intelligent Design simply can't explain, such as the structure of human chromosome #2 which came up in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. There is no known evidence that evolutionary theory can't explain.

Anonymous said...

"You know what? If my capitals bother you, then perhaps, for now, I'll quit."

Awww... I liked those! They had something endearingly naive and at the same time a kind of pompous air about them, as if you imagined yourself writing the Constitution on a lengthy scroll, full of self-importance.

Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

Anonymous said...

"'debunking' claims that scientists don't make anymore."

"Could that be because they realize that it has been adequately debunked?"

Yes, that's exactly why. A scientist made a claim. Other scientists debunked it. That's how science makes progress.

Makes sense to the rest of the world, but somehow creationists can't get used to this idea.

Anonymous said...

It's always amusing to see creationists insist on some kind of absolute proof in science when it comes to the opposing theories, but when it comes to good old YEC, "because the Bible said so" is good enough. And when pressed on this, somehow the fact that some parts of the Old and New Testament coincide with reality is supposed to be proof that the creation myth in Genesis is supposed to be a science textbook.

Lista said...

Here is the Rest of what I have to Say to the Creeper, Starting with a Quote.

"If you read what I said above with regard to untruths, it's not hard to see what I meant or claimed." (1:16 PM)

Well, I don't Know what you are Referring to here, but when I made the Statement that you Quoted, I was Responding to an Earlier One made by you in Relation to the Resources in Radar's Posts...

"Since all of these 'good resources' you've brought up have all been shown to spread untruths, may one inquire what you would consider a 'bad resource'?" (6:23 PM)

In Response to this, I Said...

"The Above Resource, Relating to Embryonic Development, Creeper, is so Excellent, that I Wonder what you would Consider a Good Resource." (1:26 PM)

You Know, Creeper, I really don't have Time to Read Massive Amounts of Dialogue in Radar's Archives. If there is something Specific that you want me to Read, than Leave me a Link to it, otherwise, you're going have to Say it Out Right.

"Since you believe God exists, are you saying there is no such thing as random chance?"

That's a Complicated Question, for some would say that "There are no Accidents." or "Everything Happens for a Reason." What one Believes about Destiny or for that Matter "Predestination" is a Considerable Change in Subject and it doesn't Matter anyway.

Even if a Person can Believe in God and also is some Form of Occasional Random Chance, you are Still Suggesting that if God Exists, He was not Involved in the Creation and that is not what most Theists believe.

Just as the Religious Idea that God does not Exist should not be Taught in School, so also, the Religious Idea that God was not Involved in the Creation should also not be Taught in School.

Lista said...

More for the Creeper;
I Guess I'll Restate Something, now in another Way.

"For Science to be Truly Objective, the Scientist has to be Willing to Go where ever the the Evidence Leads and if..." the Involvement of God in Creation "is an Unacceptable Conclusion or Hypothesis, then the Scientist is not Allowing the Evidence to Lead to Where Ever it Leads."

The Above Statement says nothing against the Scientific Method. It is about the Hypothesis and also the Conclusion that are made from what is Observed. That is Conclusions, such as Similarities Prove Macro-Evolution and that Macro-Evolution Occurred as the Result of Random Chance. This has not Been Proved. Biased Atheists have Jumped to these Conclusions.

The Phrase "Random Chance" is Offensive and can not be Proved in Relation to Macro-Evolution.

"And in case you didn't notice, it" (That is the Above Article) "provided no evidence for creationism."

What it Provided, Creeper, was Evidence that what Evolutionist at One Time Thought was Vestigial, is not and Thus, much of what they Still Think is Vestigial also may not be. What it Provided was Evidence that Evolutionists can not Prove Macro-Evolution and therefore, they should not be Teaching it as if it is an Established Fact.

I Realize, Creeper, that "Hypothesis" and "Worldview" are two Separate Words. I was in no way Implying that they were Synonyms. "Worldview", though, Involves Bias and therefore has no Place in Science and this Includes the Worldview of the Atheist.

Lista said...

Ok, now let's see what else is here.

Wolf,
"But all the whales-with-legs fossils are archaeocetes, all now long extinct."

There is no Way to Prove that this is the Same Species as the Whale.

"Boas and pythons have visible traces of hind limbs."

The Above Article shows how what Appears at First to be Vestigial, may not be.

What Ever Insult that Radar made towards you, I have somehow missed it.

There is no Proof of Macro-Evolution. It is not Necessary for us to say that you have no Evidence. The Fact hat you have no Proof is Enough in Order to Establish that you should not be Pushing what you can not Prove in School.

"You need to find points where they disagree, points that only one of the two theories can explain."

I'm not Following you. Why is this Important? If there are Two Ways to Explain the Available Evidence, then shouldn't Both be Offered?

"There is no known evidence that evolutionary theory can't explain."

There is no such Thing as a Scientific Theory that can Explain Everything. Evolution can not do so either. To claim Otherwise is Extremely Arrogant.

Lista said...

Anonymous,
As to the Caps. It's Sort of Like Stuttering. It takes a lot of effort to stop. If someone wants to use the presence of stuttering as an excuse to disregard what the stutterer says, so be it, yet a true seeker of truth will see what is true regardless of who is delivering the message, rather they stutter or not.

I wonder if I should ask you this, though. Why is "Naive" Endearing? Is it because it boasts the ego of the observer? Isn't there a certain Arrogance in the enjoyment of the perceived weaknesses of others? Perhaps this explains why it is generally not the men who correct me and point out to me the perception that is produced by my capitals.

"A scientist made a claim. Other scientists debunked it. That's how science makes progress."

Yes, but this also shows evidence that other things that scientists still perceive as Vestigial may not be.

This makes sense to Creationists, yet Evolutionists "can't get used to this Idea"

If a controversial idea is to be taught to children in school, it should be either proved or presented honestly as a THEORY and not as established fact.

I am not a representative of YEC, but of Intelligent Design Theory. Even Radar, though, is not going to suggest that Genesis is a Science Text Book. I am quite certain that he has never said that. Show me the quote if I am wrong.

creeper said...

"Well, I don't Know what you are Referring to here, but when I made the Statement that you Quoted, I was Responding to an Earlier One made by you in Relation to the Resources in Radar's Posts..."

That's right, so you're aware of it. Now look at what I said there and then look at how you responded to it.

I was talking about resources Radar has recommended - specifically creationist websites. It takes usually less than a minute to find out that they spread untruths. An easy one to search for is the claim that the rate at which the moon recedes from the Earth is proof of a young Earth. This claim is mathematically wrong, and yet just about every creationist website spreads this claim - including one of Radar's heroes, Mr. Sarfati.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"You Know, Creeper, I really don't have Time to Read Massive Amounts of Dialogue in Radar's Archives."

I, likewise, really don't have time to rehash those same massive amounts of dialogue for you. Reasonable enough?

If you want to catch up, there's a search function on Radar's blog. If you don't, may I suggest to you that it's not very polite to join in on a conversation without making any effort to acquaint yourself with the lay of the land. You wouldn't do something like that in person, would you?

-- creeper

creeper said...

"As to the Caps. It's Sort of Like Stuttering. It takes a lot of effort to stop. If someone wants to use the presence of stuttering as an excuse to disregard what the stutterer says, so be it, yet a true seeker of truth will see what is true regardless of who is delivering the message, rather they stutter or not."

I for one don't find it endearing. It's amusing for a paragraph or two, and then it just gets plain annoying.

It's easy to forgive typos, but you obviously know how to spell and you obviously know how to write correctly, so why inflict this on us?

The comparison to stuttering is not particularly apt. I know people who have struggled with stuttering all their lives, and it's far more of an issue than hitting that Shift key the way you do.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"It is about the Hypothesis and also the Conclusion that are made from what is Observed. That is Conclusions, such as Similarities Prove Macro-Evolution and that Macro-Evolution Occurred as the Result of Random Chance. This has not Been Proved. Biased Atheists have Jumped to these Conclusions.

The Phrase "Random Chance" is Offensive and can not be Proved in Relation to Macro-Evolution."


How on Earth is the phrase "random chance" offensive in any way whatsoever?

As for the rest of what you're saying here, please read, for starters, Darwin's "Origin of Species", and have a look at a current mainstream explanation of the modern theory of evolution. Do you really think it says "similarities prove macro-evolution"? Do you really think it says "macro-evolution occurred as the result of random chance"? You're clearly miles behind on the discussion here.

I don't blame you as such. I suspect you've simply fallen victim to the distortions and propaganda of YEC websites. Seriously, try to broaden your horizons a little. If you look around and compare, you may learn something.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"What it Provided, Creeper, was Evidence that what Evolutionist at One Time Thought was Vestigial, is not and Thus, much of what they Still Think is Vestigial also may not be. What it Provided was Evidence that Evolutionists can not Prove Macro-Evolution"

Um... exactly how do you think it provided such "evidence"?

"and therefore, they should not be Teaching it as if it is an Established Fact."

1. The theory of evolution is taught as the theory of evolution. So no problem there. And it also happens to be the current scientific consensus.

2. And as I pointed out, it provided no evidence for creationism.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"I Realize, Creeper, that "Hypothesis" and "Worldview" are two Separate Words."

Well, good. So you won't be using one word for the other then?

""Worldview", though, Involves Bias and therefore has no Place in Science and this Includes the Worldview of the Atheist."

Which is exactly why the scientific method is used, which allows scientists of all kinds of different worldviews to still find common ground and work together constructively.

You'll notice that this means that everyone has to leave their religious texts at home.

And it also means that we can't include the supernatural just because your worldview/bias says it should be included. Seem fair to you?

-- creeper

creeper said...

"I'm not Following you. Why is this Important? If there are Two Ways to Explain the Available Evidence, then shouldn't Both be Offered?"

As Jon Woolf made quite clear, this would mean that one theory can't explain the available evidence. And that's why it shouldn't be offered.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"If a controversial idea is to be taught to children in school, it should be either proved or presented honestly as a THEORY and not as established fact."

1. The theory of evolution ceased to be a controversial idea a long time ago, at least among scientists. The only people contradicting it these days do so on religious grounds, not scientific ones.

2. Scientific theories aren't "proved" but "confirmed" - and the theory of evolution (which is labeled as a scientific theory in textbooks AFAIK) has been amply confirmed in multiple ways.

-- creeper

creeper said...

Now, on to Radar:

"Creeper, your five point post about science"

Well, it was really just a comment in five sections because Blogger chops off anything longer than that. It wasn't really meant to be five separate points.

"misses lots of marks,"

Such as?

"but the most important is failure to understand the significance of the ID hypothesis."

How so?

And what do you think the ID hypothesis is?

-- creeper

creeper said...

"YEC predicts that all creatures will have common design features because they have a common Designer. YEC predicts that we would expect to find hearty, well-designed life forms, which we do."

So how would you construct a testable, falsifiable statement that differentiates between YEC and, say, an old Earth and evolution? Something like: "If YEC is true and evolution/old Earth is false, we would expect to see X, and if it's the other way around, we would expect to see Y."

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Finding intelligence and information within cells,"

We've now found actual intelligence in cells? Not just mechanisms?

"finding meta-information and finding redundancy all point to a Creator."

Since they are also explained by advanced evolution, you'd have to concede that this is at best inconclusive.

"Discovering that life was created is no dead end at all, it is simply a milepost on the highway of scientific discovery."

It's a dead end scientifically speaking. If you can't test for it, you can't come to that conclusion. Nor can you move on from there "on the highway of scientific discovery". You've been asked more than once on your blog about instances in which a supernatural explanation had been in any way useful in any scientific discovery. You came up blank.

For good reason. The answer is a null set.

This despite the fact that creationists have been mucking around with science a lot longer than "Darwinists" (whatever those are this week). It's the darndest things, those creationists just kept using methodological naturalism. Odd.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Once science finally admits that life was designed,"

Science doesn't have to admit, it has to conclude. And if a claim can't be tested, a conclusion can't be reached. It's because of this that you have to try to skip the science bit and try to personalize this.

"then science will begin to seek out ways to return life forms to their originally created state to obtain optimal life forms."

How would science do that?

"We will understand that mutations are deleterious."

Already understood. But not all mutations are deleterious, and as long as some are beneficial, that's enough for evolution to work.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"We will more than ever copy God's designs to make use of them in every way possible."

How can we find out what God's original design is if all we have around us are vastly devolved organisms, including ourselves?

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Hypothesis: God created all things. Basis? The Bible said so. Findings? All life has amazing intricacy and contains a design signature, which is DNA. Conclusion? God designed all things just as He said, so let's accept it and move on."

This is, strangely enough, almost a lazy strawman for your own side... weird. But it makes it pretty clear that you can't come up with a way to test your claim. It's that dead end again.

"Hypothesis: All things just happened. Basis? A desire to dispense with God. Findings? All life has amazing intricacy and contains a design signature, which is DNA. Conclusion? It appears that God designed everything, so let's work as hard as we can to censor this information so that the public and especially students do not find out!"

And this is clearly just a lazy strawman that you've given yourself to knock down. Do you really think anyone presented a hypothesis that "all things just happened"? Somehow it entirely skips, for starters, the theory of evolution.

-- creeper

Jon Woolf said...

Lista: "I'm not Following you. Why is this Important? If there are Two Ways to Explain the Available Evidence, then shouldn't Both be Offered?"

If there are two equally valid ways to explain all the known evidence, then yes, both should be taught. But that's not the case in the life sciences. Evolutionary theory can explain all the known evidence. Creationism can't -- at least, not without resorting to the supernatural, but then that's magic, not science.

Jon Woolf said...

Lista: "'But all the whales-with-legs fossils are archaeocetes, all now long extinct.'

"There is no Way to Prove that this is the Same Species as the Whale."

Which species of whale are you referring to? There are about ninety of them.

Anyway, I think you missed my point. The dolphin in the story I linked to had legs. There are other such cases on record, including a humpback whale that was caught by a whaling ship around 1900. Most whales and dolphins have only a degenerate pelvis. Sometimes there are small splints of bone that appear to be remnants of the thighbones. But a full leg structure -- no normal whale or dolphin has that. Yet, every now and then we catch one that does.

Modern whales have no use for external legs, as shown by the fact that virtually all of them get along very well without legs. If, like Radar, you think that Genesis is an accurate account and all 'kinds' of animal were created exactly as they are now, then there is simply no rational way to explain a whale with legs. Why would a whale that was created entirely as a marine animal even have the genes required to make legs?

radar said...

First, unintentionally silly comment of the month =

"Jon Woolf said...

Lista: "I'm not Following you. Why is this Important? If there are Two Ways to Explain the Available Evidence, then shouldn't Both be Offered?"

If there are two equally valid ways to explain all the known evidence, then yes, both should be taught. But that's not the case in the life sciences. Evolutionary theory can explain all the known evidence. Creationism can't -- at least, not without resorting to the supernatural, but then that's magic, not science."

So "God created" is not science but "poof" is???!!!

Darwinism is in fact an appeal to magic. Since we can see that things are designed we can therefore either assume a Designer or call upon magic. Darwinism chooses magic.

Also, methodological INVESTIGATION was developed by the Bacons and other early great scientists. Methodological Naturalism is the imposition of religion upon science.

Darwinism doesn't really explain anything, it is like one of those Russian Matryoshka dolls. You look inside a Darwinist premise and find instead of evidence another presumption and on and on until you come to...nothing at all.

Jon Woolf said...

Lista: "Even Radar, though, is not going to suggest that Genesis is a Science Text Book. I am quite certain that he has never said that. Show me the quote if I am wrong."

Um, well, I hate to disillusion you, but yes, Radar does indeed suggest that. He defends the position called "Young Earth Creationism:" a literal six day creation less than ten thousand years ago, in which all animals and plants were created as separate "kinds." This was followed by a literal world-wide flood about fifteen hundred years later which produced the entire geologic record, fossils and continents and everything, and a single Ark that preserved all forms of land animals.

This post provides one example of him reading Genesis literally:

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2009/10/genesis-16-8-second-day.html

There are numerous others scattered all through his archives.

Jon Woolf said...

"So "God created" is not science but "poof" is???!!!"

Where did you get the idea that evolutionary theory uses 'poof' as an explanation of anything? Oh, that's right, from the creationist authors who routinely lie to you.

"Since we can see that things are designed"

We can also see that the Sun moves around the Earth.

Sometimes, what we see ain't what really is.

creeper said...

"Also, methodological INVESTIGATION was developed by the Bacons and other early great scientists. Methodological Naturalism is the imposition of religion upon science."

Still can't get the difference between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism straight. Uncanny. How do you do it?

And how exactly would you differentiate between methodological investigation and methodological naturalism? Something tells me you're simply going to keep confusing methodological and metaphysical naturalism.

-- creeper

Lista said...

Creeper,
Here is what you said again...

"Since all of these 'good resources' you've brought up have all been shown to spread untruths, may one inquire what you would consider a 'bad resource'?" (6:23 PM)

This Sentence does not Include the Words Recommended and Websites. All you said was "you've brought up". You have Assumed that you have spoken more clearly than you have.

Radar is going to have to Defend his Own Young Earth Stuff. I'm not as Familiar with that as with the Intelligent Design Stuff.

I'm sorry that I annoy you, Creeper. Thanks, though, for the complement about my spelling. That actually used to be an issue for me as well and I take great pains in proof reading stuff because of it.

The phrase, "Random Chance", implies that God was not involved in the Creation. Creation is not Random and Chance is not Creation.

"I suspect you've simply fallen victim to the distortions and propaganda of YEC websites."

I am not even familiar with YEC. This is my first contact with it. Intelligent Design Theory is what I am familiar with and it is not the same.

'"What it Provided, Creeper, was Evidence that what Evolutionist at One Time Thought was Vestigial, is not and Thus, much of what they Still Think is Vestigial also may not be. What it Provided was Evidence that Evolutionists can not Prove Macro-Evolution"

That is a statement of logic and if you don't understand logic, then I do not know what to tell you. That which appears to be Vestigial, Creeper, does not in any way prove Macro-Evolution.

Lista said...

"You'll notice that this means that everyone has to leave their religious texts at home."

Intelligent Design scientists do not base their science on the Bible. All they are interested in is evidence of Intelligent Design. Period. There is nothing beyond that in their science. It's not the same as YEC. I'm really not kidding when I say that.

"And it also means that we can't include the supernatural just because your worldview/bias says it should be included. Seem fair to you?"

Yes, Absolutely.

Yet, whenever there are two ways to explain any specific piece of evidence, both explanations should be offered, yet the explanation of evolution is the only one that is given. This is not science. This is Bias.

"1. The theory of evolution ceased to be a controversial idea a long time ago, at least among scientists. The only people contradicting it these days do so on religious grounds, not scientific ones."

That statement is highly untrue.

As long as there are two ways to interpret any specific evidence and only one interpretation is offered, this is bias, not science.

"Since they are also explained by advanced evolution, you'd have to concede that this is at best inconclusive."

Yes, but so is Evolution, for as long as there are two ways to interpret any specific evidence and only one interpretation is offered, this is bias, not science.

radar said...

No, I show evidence that magma temperatures reflect that major tectonic subductions took place so recently that portions of the magma have not yet completely heated up the subducted rock. That is evidence and it points to recent rapid subduction.

radar said...

Nor did I stoop to censorship, but rather gave one blog post a place of honor memorializing Darwinists complete failure to answer the question. I allowed you all to comment elsewhere about it.

Lista said...

One last thing for the Creeper.

"Do you really think anyone presented a hypothesis that 'all things just happened'?"

That's what "Random Chance" means.

Woolf,
"If there are two equally valid ways to explain ALL the known evidence, then yes, both should be taught."

No one can explain ALL the known evidence, Woolf. Evolution can NOT explain how non-life became life. That statement is nothing more than a reflection of Arrogance and has no basis in the truth.

I am referring to these so called "Whales-with-Legs Fossils". If it is an entirely different species, then there is no way to prove that there is any connection at all to any of the whales.

As to Genesis, as a Christian, I believe in the accuracy of the Scriptures, but I think that the Intelligent Design Approach has a better chance of gaining acceptance as a Theory taught in school. Sometimes when we want it all politically, we hurt our chances of receiving something less.

On a personal level, we should desire all that God can give us, yet on a political level, sometimes all we can do is plant a few seeds on a much smaller scale. Pushing our ideas Politically is not an effective form of Evangelism. To really understand Christianity, one must go beyond science and enter into Faith, yet that is not what Science is about.

Intelligent Design is more Focused on what could be taught in school and that is the presence of evidence of Intelligent Design and nothing more. Let Evangelists do the rest on a more personal level, relating to Faith and not just Science.

I can explain Radar's "Poof". Evolution can NOT explain how non-life became life. This is an idea based on Faith and Magic.

Lista said...

There is one other thing relating to the Creeper, that I'm still thinking about a little.

"I suggest to you that it's not very polite to join in on a conversation without making any effort to acquaint yourself with the lay of the land. You wouldn't do something like that in person, would you?"

In person, there is no way to find out what was said prior to one's entering the room other than just plain asking. In this situation, for the group to ignore the new comer and not allow her to talk would be impolite.

This is Radar's Blog, though, not yours, and if anyone should be making any rules of conduct, it should be him and not you.

Radar,
Have you ever done a Post on Mount Saint Helens? I saw a video once on the subject and it was so fascinating.

radar said...

Lista, putting "mt st helens" into the search bar on my blog presents seven blogs in which I discuss Mt St Helens. I like the Feb 18 2009 and Feb 20, 2010 as posts that mention that particular event at length.

radar said...

Lista and other readers - to see clearly that Darwinism depends upon "poof", go to the first link on my blogroll.

http://sportsradar.blogspot.com/

!_The Ultimate Information Post

I converted my no-longer-active sports blog into one summary post of the discussion of information and include important posts and discussions with Darwinists. Then I ticked them all off by stopping any comments. The reason? You will see that they had YEARS to answer and never could, so I decided to memorialize it.

There are links to several blogposts that have comment threads with all sorts of Darwinist non-explanations.

Darwinism has NO explanation for information. That post stands to proclaim this fact.

I am still waiting for Darwinists to admit the Law of Biogenesis and the Laws of Thermodynamics remain intact...

radar said...

Creeper sez - ""Also, methodological INVESTIGATION was developed by the Bacons and other early great scientists. Methodological Naturalism is the imposition of religion upon science."

Still can't get the difference between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism straight. Uncanny. How do you do it?

And how exactly would you differentiate between methodological investigation and methodological naturalism? Something tells me you're simply going to keep confusing methodological and metaphysical naturalism."

Methodological Investigation as established by Roger Bacon and spiffed up by Francis Bacon is a method of making a hypothesis, testing the hypothesis until one has a workable theory. The theory is tested and retested and, if always producing the same results, becomes a law.

Methodological Naturalism begins by imposing a worldview on the process, so it is arbitrary and unscientific.

Evolution is not a theory in that it has failed every test. It has indeed been tested in bacteria for so many generations and it is not observed. What is observed is conservation of kind, which is a key part of the creation hypothesis.

All parts of the creation hypothesis have been tested and shown to be valid. So it does rise to the level of theory.

Why can't we call it a law? Because we cannot observe the first life being created. Historical/forensic science can only come on the scene after the fact and interpret the evidence. There was no security camera filming the beginning of the Universe or the formation of life, so we have to use forensic investigation. Real science doesn't decide in advance in a murder case to rule out a set of suspects like Darwinists do with origins. It considers all "suspects" and concludes with best evidence as likely. Best evidence comes down clearly on the side of a created Universe by a Designer.

Jon Woolf said...

Lista: "Evolution can NOT explain how non-life became life."

It doesn't have to. Evolutionary theory is a theory about biology -- already-living things. It doesn't cover biogenesis, the origin of life.

Radar: "It has indeed been tested in bacteria for so many generations and it is not observed."

Except when it is: nylon-eating bacteria, citrate-eating bacteria, vegetarian lizards ...

"All parts of the creation hypothesis have been tested and shown to be valid."

Uh-huh.

What's the YEC explanation for the no-young-isotopes phenomenon, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for fossiliferous strata in Large Igneous Provinces, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for age-specific trace molecules in crude oil, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for fossils in marble and slate, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for broken, weathered, and scavenged fossils, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for ecological ghosts, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for index features such as the K-T clay layer, Radar?

Why aren't dolphins and ichthyosaurs ever found together, Radar?

Why aren't rhamphorhynchoids and neornithines ever found together, Radar?

How did dogwoods and sycamores outrun brontosaurs and allosaurs to higher ground, Radar?

How do we get fossil formations that preserve multiple layers of dinosaur and bird nests, obviously nesting colonies from several different years, in the middle of the geologic column?

How did we get magmatic intrusions -- that is, underground lava flows that took time to occur and more time to cool and solidify -- in between layers of fossil-bearing sedimentary rock?

Most important of all, why do YECs find it necessary to lie about the evidence, Radar?

As always, no answer was the sad reply...

Young-earth creationism is a lie, perpetrated by evil men as a means of controlling innocent, well-meaning folks like you.

IAMB said...

Popping in for a moment here...

I'm certain you've been corrected on this before, but just in case:

The theory is tested and retested and, if always producing the same results, becomes a law.

This is absolutely wrong. Please stop using it.

Lista said...

Woolf
"Young-earth creationism is a lie, perpetrated by evil men as a means of controlling innocent, well-meaning folks like you."

Now that I am Remembering the Video that I Watched Relating to Mount Saint Helens, I am Quite Certain that you are the One who is Lying. I wonder too if I should remind you that an insult is not the same as an argument.

And as I Remember what the Creeper said...

"I suspect you've simply fallen victim to the distortions and propaganda of YEC websites."

Well, quite aside from the fact that this is the first YEC website that I've visited that I am aware of, when I think of that video that I watched relating to Mount Saint Helens, I remember being impressed with it and in relation to that, Creeper's above statement implies that I do not know how to distinguish between what is distortions and what makes perfect sense and I assure you that my mind if quite functional and that I do know the difference.

Jon Woolf said...

Lista: "Now that I am Remembering the Video that I Watched Relating to Mount Saint Helens, I am Quite Certain that you are the One who is Lying."

Really? Now you've got me curious. What video is this? Who made it? Where did you see it?

Lista said...

I Believe that we got it from the Christian Research Institute. We Watched it here in our own living room. We owned the video until we loaned it out to someone who lost it and we never got it back.

The video was excellent. You can call it Lies if you want to, but I've seen it and do not agree with you.

What is actually revealed is the Arrogance of those who continue to believe in Traditional Science and in there very Stubborn refusal to admit it when the possibility that they might be wrong is revealed.

Jon Woolf said...

Lista: "I Believe that we got it from the Christian Research Institute."

Ah. That explains a lot.

I realize this is going to sound like bragging, but I don't know any way to say it that doesn't sound like bragging, so I guess I'll have to just say it straight out and hope you'll understand.

Lista, I've been doing this (arguing with creationists) for more than fifteen years. In that time I've amassed a collection of more than five hundred books on topics ranging from wildlife behavior to geophysics. I have a number of creationist books as well, dating as far back as the 1920s. I've conversed directly with many scientists -- physicists, chemists, petro-geologists, regular geologists, archaeologists, anthropologists, palaeontologists, and wildlife biologists, among others. I've done a few field studies of my own -- not just casual looking around, mind you, I mean actual formal fieldwork, under the supervision of trained geologists and biologists. And in all that time, I've never seen any literature from any creationist organization that didn't distort the facts in some way.

So when I say "never trust a creationist," I speak from experience. It isn't brainwashing as Radar likes to say, and it isn't bigotry as other commenters here have sometimes suggested. It's just the cold, hard voice of experience. Never trust a creationist. Be particularly distrustful of anything that creationists have had a chance to edit, because it's dead easy for them to twist the facts during that editing, and they're very good at it. So I don't even have to see the video you're talking about to know that it's been edited in a way that distorts the facts. No matter how convincing it was, don't trust it. Find other references. Get the rest of the story, the facts that the video didn't tell you (and you can be sure there are such facts).

Never trust a creationist. Never.

radar said...

Lista, many commenters are rather full of themselves, you will get used to it. IAMB, for instance, "correcting" me with misinformation. Woolf backing off of Biogenesis and dumping out a bagful of unrelated side issues as if it were revelatory.

Then Woolf tells you never to trust a creationist? Oh, man...Darwinists are proven liars and you only need to read up on the history of the Haeckel Embryo Charts to see how they will deliberately perpetuate fraud for many decades if they can get away with it. Or the Peppered Moth myth, which was faked from the start. Darwinism keeps presenting lies and I will keep posting informative articles from minds that are not brainwashed by Darwinists.

One of the smartest men on the planet is Jonathan Sarfati, who I have often quoted and who is also a brilliant chessmaster and a gentleman as well. He is a creationist. I am actually going to give him Woolf's pet list of stuff to comment on. I suspect it will be a bit like Kevin backing down scohen concerning the Hartnett equation. I suspect it will be like another one of Phil Gingerich's made-up fossils. Later on this summer I will look into some of Woolf's questions.

Meanwhile IAMB needs to spiff up his history of science and investigate what the orginal scientific method was before the ruling paradigm altered it. I presented the actual scientific method used before Darwinists took over science.

radar said...

Lista, the Mt St Helens video and the entire story of how the catastrophe helped us understand more about the Noahic Flood is a sore point for Darwinists because it happened recently and the evidence is right before our eyes so they cannot make up fairy tales about it. In fact, if you look up Ian Juby's link on my bloglinks you can find that this scientist did testing on flows like the kind caused by huge floods and found the kind of layers formed were similar to the kind we called sedimentary rocks and also the formations formed by the MSH eruption scenario. Juby has also demonstrated the validity of the Delk dinosaur and human track on his site. It was one track visitors from the midwest didn't get to and hammer to smithereens with crowbars.

In fact, doing a search of my blog on differing subjects will lead you to experts like Tas Walker and Don Patten and Jon Sarfati and John Woodmrappe and Johnathan Williams and Ken Ham and other creationists that atheists tend to hate. But they cannot win the battle on evidence. So they do not dare try.

scohen said...

"Kevin backing down scohen concerning the Hartnett equation."

Radar, Kevin did no such thing and confirmed what I said. It's only your selective reading of his response and you personally standing in the way of direct discussion with him that makes you think that he didn't.

creeper said...

Lista,

"I'm sorry that I annoy you, Creeper."

You don't annoy me, Lista.

"Thanks, though, for the complement about my spelling."

In this context it's "compliment", not "complement"... sorry, couldn't resist! :-)

"The phrase, "Random Chance", implies that God was not involved in the Creation. Creation is not Random and Chance is not Creation."

And the theory of evolution is not random. You're implying a simple dichotomy (creation vs. random chance) that isn't there. It's a strawman argument.

-- creeper

creeper said...

Lista,

'"What it Provided, Creeper, was Evidence that what Evolutionist at One Time Thought was Vestigial, is not and Thus, much of what they Still Think is Vestigial also may not be. What it Provided was Evidence that Evolutionists can not Prove Macro-Evolution"

"That is a statement of logic and if you don't understand logic, then I do not know what to tell you."


I'd appreciate it if you would present a logical argument instead of derision.

"That which appears to be Vestigial, Creeper, does not in any way prove Macro-Evolution."

If we find vestigial parts of anatomy, then they do confirm evolution over time and common descent. (ERVs are in a similar territory.) A vestigial organ having taken on other functions later on doesn't mean it can't be a vestigial organ.

-- creeper

creeper said...

Lista,

creeper: "You'll notice that this means that everyone has to leave their religious texts at home."

Lista: "Intelligent Design scientists do not base their science on the Bible. All they are interested in is evidence of Intelligent Design. Period. There is nothing beyond that in their science. It's not the same as YEC. I'm really not kidding when I say that."

Fine, but that evidence has not yet been found. So far, every proposed theoretical instance of irreducible complexity has been countered by theoretical explanations of how that complexity is reducible.

-- creeper

creeper said...

Lista,

creeper: "1. The theory of evolution ceased to be a controversial idea a long time ago, at least among scientists. The only people contradicting it these days do so on religious grounds, not scientific ones."

Lista: "That statement is highly untrue."

I suspect you're looking at this through ID goggles, contrasting IDers with YECers...

... but ID deals with the origin of life, not the evolution of life. Is there controversy among secular scientists regarding the theory of evolution? Is there any scientific evidence against the theory of evolution?

-- creeper

creeper said...

Lista,

"as long as there are two ways to interpret any specific evidence and only one interpretation is offered, this is bias, not science"

So you keep saying. So what is an alternative way to explain, for example, radiometric data? Or ice core layers? Or the sorting of fossils in the fossil record? Jon Woolf has posted a list of questions that he brings up once in a while, none of which can be explained by YEC.

I know you keep saying that you're into ID, not YEC, but the main conversation on this blog tends to be about YEC. ID is a separate subject, as it doesn't concern itself with the age of the Earth etc. (And as I understand it, IDers tend to accept not just an old Earth, but most of the theory of evolution as well.)

-- creeper

creeper said...

Lista,

"In person, there is no way to find out what was said prior to one's entering the room other than just plain asking. In this situation, for the group to ignore the new comer and not allow her to talk would be impolite."

It's a different situation, but in that case, the etiquette would be to listen to the conversation for a little while to understand the topic, the positions etc. It wouldn't be considered impolite to give a newcomer a chance to listen in and catch up.

You wouldn't enter a room where a conversation was going on and simply start talking. On a blog, you have the option of reading through past conversations, a luxury that you wouldn't have with a live conversation.

"This is Radar's Blog, though, not yours, and if anyone should be making any rules of conduct, it should be him and not you."

It's got nothing to do with Radar's rules, and I'm not trying to impose any rules myself; this is just general etiquette / netiquette.

-- creeper

creeper said...

Radar sez: "I converted my no-longer-active sports blog into one summary post of the discussion of information and include important posts and discussions with Darwinists. Then I ticked them all off by stopping any comments. The reason? You will see that they had YEARS to answer and never could, so I decided to memorialize it."

Lista, Radar is presenting a rather white-washed version of what happened here. This is the only instance of actual censorship on Radar's blog, and it's understandable that he's not proud of it. Radar found himself unable to "win" a particular argument and was repeatedly not responding to the answers presented to him. Then he deleted a complete post along with the ongoing conversation on it and reposted that complete post minus the comments on another (unrelated) blog ("sportsradar") with the comments turned off. Later on he justified his action by saying something about he for once wanted to have the final word on something.

"Darwinism has NO explanation for information. That post stands to proclaim this fact."

Genetic mutation plus natural selection can generate information. This can be modeled in genetic algorithms (GAs). That's the answer you keep running away from, and why you had to censor the discussion. I don't know why, since your worldview can survive just fine even if you accept this.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"I am still waiting for Darwinists to admit the Law of Biogenesis and the Laws of Thermodynamics remain intact..."

The laws of thermodynamics remain intact, and evolution is not in violation of any of them. Still waiting for you to admit that.

As for the law of biogenesis, in the sense of the theoretical impossibility of abiogenesis it has never been tested, and at the time that law was proposed, molecular biology could not yet be studied. Current research indicates certain possibilities for reproduction with variation to get started naturally.

-- creeper

creeper said...

But let me try it this way, a metaphor to look at this understanding of the law of biogenesis:

Picture a village set on a river. The inhabitants of the village have always lived in this village, and have never traveled elsewhere. There are barriers in place that prevent them from moving up the river or down the river.

They see the river and observe that the water always runs downhill. They have never seen water move uphill. And so they propose a law, the law of water-always-moving-downhill. And they test the theory, and yep, every time they test it, water always runs downhill. Water can never go uphill.

They start to wonder about the implications of this. If the law of water-always-moving-downhill is true, then how can a river get started? It seems unreasonable that the landscape would just continue going uphill forever, doesn't it? And so they propose that somewhere upstream from them sits the water deity, which simply creates the water. It must be the same water deity that creates clouds. They are happy because they now have an Answer.

But is it the right Answer? Because what they eventually find out is that water does indeed go uphill, and it does it without the water deity. It does it naturally, but in a way they never anticipated, in a way they can't even see or really comprehend: evaporation.

And so it is with biogenesis. We can see how life begets life, and whenever life is begotten, it's from other life. It certainly makes intuitive sense to us in the same way that water going downhill makes sense to us. And so we conclude that that's the only way it is possible. Because we're stuck in that village on that particular part of the river (the river in this case representing time). We can't move up the river/back in time to check out the source.

And that source is something that may be beyond simple understanding. Evaporation is not immediately intuitive in a similar way to molecular biology.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Methodological Investigation as established by Roger Bacon and spiffed up by Francis Bacon is a method of making a hypothesis, testing the hypothesis until one has a workable theory. The theory is tested and retested and, if always producing the same results, becomes a law."

What you're talking about is a simple application of methodological naturalism.

Can you explain how this is not methodological naturalism?

"Methodological Naturalism begins by imposing a worldview on the process, so it is arbitrary and unscientific."

Again, it sounds like you're thinking of metaphysical naturalism, not methodological naturalism.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Evolution is not a theory in that it has failed every test."

Can you name a test that it has failed? One that isn't based on a misrepresentation or a logical fallacy?

"It has indeed been tested in bacteria for so many generations and it is not observed."

If this was meant to be an example of the theory of evolution "failing a test", it is not. The experiment was to test for speciation, and it successfully demonstrated that.

You've proposed a strawman ("only if bacteria become something other than bacteria will evolution be confirmed"), and it's quite a ridiculous strawman, since if that experiment had shown bacteria turning into something other than bacteria (which would be an enormous leap when you think about what bacteria actually are), then not only would the theory of evolution be toast, but all of modern biology would have to be scrapped.

Instead, the experiment demonstrated speciation (incidentally an instance of macroevolution, by definition), perfectly in line with the theory of evolution.

"What is observed is conservation of kind, which is a key part of the creation hypothesis."

Could you formulate the "creation hypothesis" for us, or link to a place where the "creation hypothesis" is formulated? You see, once there is an actual hypothesis, it can be tested and either confirmed or refuted.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"The theory is tested and retested and, if always producing the same results, becomes a law."

"This is absolutely wrong. Please stop using it."


IAMB is right: Radar's statement is wrong. Perhaps he meant it to read "The hypothesis is tested and retested and, if always producing the same results, becomes a theory".

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Lista, many commenters are rather full of themselves, you will get used to it."

Unlike humble Radar, who in the past has boasted about "working with top scientists"...

"IAMB, for instance, "correcting" me with misinformation."

The "misinformation" happened to be correct and you were wrong.

"Woolf backing off of Biogenesis"

When did he do that?

"and dumping out a bagful of unrelated side issues as if it were revelatory."

They are not "unrelated side issues", they are all things YEC can't explain. That is why, when you put old Earth/evolution up against YEC, they are not equal explanations - YEC can't explain a long list of things we can observe. (And some of the things that people like Radar thinks it does explain, it has no scientific explanations, only mythological ones.)

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Then Woolf tells you never to trust a creationist?"

I've never found a creationist website (including all the ones that Radar has recommended so far) that didn't contain lies. So, Radar, are we to conclude from this that all creationists are liars or not?

After all, that's exactly the logic that you're attempting here:

"Oh, man...Darwinists are proven liars and you only need to read up on the history of the Haeckel Embryo Charts to see how they will deliberately perpetuate fraud for many decades if they can get away with it. Or the Peppered Moth myth, which was faked from the start. Darwinism keeps presenting lies and I will keep posting informative articles from minds that are not brainwashed by Darwinists."

... except of course that all these "lies" were refuted by other scientists, and the current theory of evolution does not contain any lies, nor is it based on any.

Incidentally, I don't see creationists self-correcting. For example this fella:

"One of the smartest men on the planet is Jonathan Sarfati, who I have often quoted and who is also a brilliant chessmaster and a gentleman as well. He is a creationist."

And guess what? Despite being a brilliant chessmaster and a gentleman... he also can't be trusted. He is not above posting a demonstrable untruth - see the lie about "the rate at which the moon recedes from the Earth indicates that an old Earth is impossible". Maybe you should ask him about that when you meet him, Radar. If you're not too starstruck at the time.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"I am actually going to give him Woolf's pet list of stuff to comment on."

Awesome. Looking forward to that one.

"I suspect it will be a bit like Kevin backing down scohen concerning the Hartnett equation."

That should read "Kevin backing up scohen concerning the Hartnett equation". You either didn't understand or are now distorting that discussion. A simple conversation between Kevin and scohen could have resolved the matter, but that was an open discussion that you simply couldn't stomach.

"I suspect it will be like another one of Phil Gingerich's made-up fossils."

Interesting allegation. Evidence?

"Later on this summer I will look into some of Woolf's questions."

They should all be easy for you - if YEC were true.

"Meanwhile IAMB needs to spiff up his history of science and investigate what the orginal scientific method was before the ruling paradigm altered it."

It's still the same method. It wasn't altered. It's just not giving you the results you want.

"I presented the actual scientific method used before Darwinists took over science."

"Darwinists" used the same methods to confirm their hypotheses into theories (not laws, as you'd have it).

YECs have been losing this battle for centuries and now just keep whining about how the ref is unfair...

-- creeper

Lista said...

It doesn't matter what your credentials are, Woolf. Evidence is Evidence and I've been around long enough myself to realize that scientists are biased and even those who have impressive creditably are biased, so please forgive me when I tell you that I am not Impressed.

That Mount Saint Helens Video Impressed me, but you do not and I will Trust who I Want to, Thank You.

Creeper,
Evolution, without a Creator, can not be anything but Random. Once again, I can't Help it if you do not Understand the Logic of my Statement about that which is perceived as Vestigial.

"A vestigial organ having taken on other functions later on doesn't mean it can't be a vestigial organ."

There is no way for you to Prove that these Functions were taken on "Later On". That's just conjecture.

"So far, every proposed theoretical instance of irreducible complexity has been countered by theoretical explanations of how that complexity is reducible."

So? Intelligent Design Scientists have done that with most of your Theories as well.

"I suspect you're looking at this through ID goggles, contrasting IDers with YECers..."

Actually, Creeper, I had forgotten about the Mount Saint Helens Video and about the Fact that there is Actual Evidence for the Young Earth Idea as well.

Lista said...

"Is there any scientific evidence against the theory of evolution?"

She just chuckles at that one. It would appear that you have not been Reading Radar's Blog and if you have and still Think that there is no Evidence, then I don't know what to say except that you are an Idiot.

"So what is an alternative way to explain, for example..…Jon Woolf has posted a list of questions that he brings up once in a while, none of which can be explained by YEC."

There will always be that which can not be Explained and Evolution does not Explain Everything either. My Comment...

"as long as there are two ways to interpret any specific evidence and only one interpretation is offered, this is bias, not science"

was Directed at that which does have two ways of Interpreting and all you have done, is Side Stepped the actual Point being Made.

"And as I understand it, IDers tend to accept not just an old Earth, but most of the theory of evolution as well."

Their Focus is on what they can provide evidence for Scientifically. Just because they have chosen to not focus on certain things, does not mean that they have accepted any of it as Fact, rather than Theory. Micro-Evolution has been Pretty much Established, but Macro-Evolution has not.

Lista said...

As I Understand it, Creeper, there is nothing Wrong with Reading a Post and then giving one's Opinion on that Post. In this Case, the Initial Comment is Directed at the Blog Author and no one Else.

I'm sorry if you feel I have been Impolite. I do not Agree that I have, but you are entitled to your Opinion.

As to Censorship, I sometimes refuse to Post Comments based on the Sheer Number of them Posted in a Row. I would be Censoring you, if this was my Blog, because Responding to 15 Comment in a Row is Quite Tiring and while we are on the Subject, if you do it again, I'm not going to try and Respond to it all.

I thought I should tell you that in advance, so that you do not Think that I Read the Comments First and chose not to Respond because I had nothing to say. No, I Decided in advance that I'm not going to do this again, because I'm getting tired and there is no other Reason.

I have a hunch that the Macroevolution discussion relating to Bacteria has to do with the Definition of Species. I've Run Across this before, but do not Remember the Details.

I'm not sure what is meant by the "Current Theory of Evolution". Are you Admitting that the Original Version of Darwinism has been Proved to be False?

"They should all be easy for you - if YEC were true."

What an Arrogant Statement!! As if Science Knows everything and everything is Easy. Basically what I have seen over and over again in Evolutionists is Arrogance. They Interpret everything according to their own bias and will not admit to doing so.

creeper said...

"Evolution, without a Creator, can not be anything but Random."

You're merely perpetuating the false dichotomy. I encourage you to read up on the theory of evolution itself. It does not say that evolution is purely random. That's where natural selection comes in. Evolution contains elements that are random, but that is not the sum total of it.

"There is no way for you to Prove that these Functions were taken on "Later On". That's just conjecture."

Would you like to continue this conversation at a more in-depth level? I'll be glad to, but for now, I'll simply respond that just because something currently has a function doesn't mean it can't be a vestigial organ.

creeper "So far, every proposed theoretical instance of irreducible complexity has been countered by theoretical explanations of how that complexity is reducible."

Lista: "So?"

So IDers have not yet made the vital case that they need to make for their hypothesis to hold. With irreducible complexity, they've proposed a hypothetical threshold to disprove evolution - something that is impossible to break down into component parts - and then failed to find a single instance of it.

Lista: "Intelligent Design Scientists have done that with most of your Theories as well."

"Most of my Theories"... interesting. What exactly are "my theories"? And how have they "been countered by theoretical explanations of how that complexity is reducible"?

-- creeper

creeper said...

creeper: "I suspect you're looking at this through ID goggles, contrasting IDers with YECers..."

Lista: "Actually, Creeper, I had forgotten about the Mount Saint Helens Video and about the Fact that there is Actual Evidence for the Young Earth Idea as well."

I haven't seen the Mount St. Helens Video. What's the evidence for the Young Earth Idea?

creeper: "Is there any scientific evidence against the theory of evolution?"

Lista: "She just chuckles at that one."

Your lack of a response to the question is duly noted.

Lista: "It would appear that you have not been Reading Radar's Blog and if you have and still Think that there is no Evidence, then I don't know what to say except that you are an Idiot."

Um, I'm one of about three or four (maybe more) regular commenters here who have been here for about five years, maybe about a year after the blog started. I've read pretty much all of Radar's blog as well as all the discussions (in which I was heavily involved at times). You can read through it all yourself. Radar has been railing against "Darwinism" for all that time, but has failed to come up with any scientific evidence against the theory of evolution, mostly because (1) he thoroughly misunderstands what the theory of evolution and a modern understanding of biology actually say, (2) he uses logical fallacies, and (3) he sidesteps the theory of evolution itself a lot of the time, aiming at a nebulous thing called "Darwinism" instead.

The question stands: "Is there any scientific evidence against the theory of evolution?" You dodged it with a sarcastic comment. Radar routinely uses logical fallacies or runs off to other subjects (e.g. "where did time/energy/information/the universe come from?"). None of which amounts to scientific evidence against the theory of evolution. I suspect the reason Radar is so focused on the origin of life is because there is no such evidence against the theory of evolution itself.

Re. "I don't know what to say except that you are an idiot"... classy. How about keeping the tone a little more civil?

-- creeper

creeper said...

creeper: "Jon Woolf has posted a list of questions that he brings up once in a while, none of which can be explained by YEC."

Lista: "There will always be that which can not be Explained and Evolution does not Explain Everything either."

Except in this case, the list consists entirely of things that modern science does explain (geology, theory of evolution etc.). So your response here is kind of a non-response. Which is fine, because you probably weren't looking at the list when you responded. But you should know that the answer isn't that simple.

"My Comment...

"as long as there are two ways to interpret any specific evidence and only one interpretation is offered, this is bias, not science"

was Directed at that which does have two ways of Interpreting and all you have done, is Side Stepped the actual Point being Made."


An interesting retreat. Okay, so what exactly is "that which does have two ways of interpreting"? Name the scientific data or observation and the two valid ways in which it is interpreted.

creeper: "And as I understand it, IDers tend to accept not just an old Earth, but most of the theory of evolution as well.""

Lista: "Their Focus is on what they can provide evidence for Scientifically."

Isn't their focus rather on what they can't provide evidence for scientifically? They're attempting to prove the hand of a designer by proving the absence of a natural explanation. Right?

"Just because they have chosen to not focus on certain things, does not mean that they have accepted any of it as Fact, rather than Theory."

Who said anything about "fact"? I was just observing that IDers tend to accept an old Earth and most of the theory of evolution. Where they slot in ID is the origin of life. You seem to know a good deal about ID. Can you tell me if IDers propose any alternative theories to, say, natural selection? I didn't think they did.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Micro-Evolution has been Pretty much Established, but Macro-Evolution has not."

Among other things, the fossil record and the geographic distribution of living species pretty clearly establish macroevolution / common descent.

"As to Censorship, I sometimes refuse to Post Comments based on the Sheer Number of them Posted in a Row. I would be Censoring you, if this was my Blog, because Responding to 15 Comment in a Row is Quite Tiring and while we are on the Subject, if you do it again, I'm not going to try and Respond to it all."

The reason I posted 15 or however many comments in a row is because Blogger for some reason lately only permits blog comments up to a certain (rather short) length. I was merely attempting to respond to your and Radar's comments. And there were a lot of those, if you'll check back through the thread. It's not like I'm the only one being verbose around here.

Still, interesting that you say you would be censoring me for that. So if this were your blog, you would cut off the conversation if you had just posted a lot of comments and somebody was trying to respond to them? Really?

Incidentally, in that instance of censorship here on Radar's blog, he didn't do it because people were posting 15 comments in a row. He did it because, as he said himself later on, for once he wanted to have the final word on a subject.

"I thought I should tell you that in advance, so that you do not Think that I Read the Comments First and chose not to Respond because I had nothing to say. No, I Decided in advance that I'm not going to do this again, because I'm getting tired and there is no other Reason."

Since I'm merely responding to your comments and I have now made it clear to you that I was forced to chop up my responses to you and Radar into so many smaller posts, if you choose not to respond, I will indeed assume that you have nothing to say - especially in response to some of the pertinent questions here. I have done nothing but respond to your and Radar's comments, and now you claim that you are tired. Well, it's been a little tiring responding to your comments as well, but I enjoy the discussion.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"I have a hunch that the Macroevolution discussion relating to Bacteria has to do with the Definition of Species. I've Run Across this before, but do not Remember the Details."

That does come into it. More specifically, Radar may have assumed that "bacteria" is at the species level, when bacteria are actually at a much higher level in Linnean taxonomy. He's also confused on a point of logic, claiming that because bacteria remained bacteria in an experiment of limited duration, this was evidence that bacteria could never evolve. Simple logic fail. And he failed to appreciate that the experiment in question did demonstrate speciation.

"I'm not sure what is meant by the "Current Theory of Evolution"."

Google "modern synthesis".

"Are you Admitting that the Original Version of Darwinism has been Proved to be False?"

No need to "admit" any such thing. First of all, when you say "Darwinism" here, are you using it as a synonym for the theory of evolution? If so, then no, the original version of that theory has not been "Proved to be False", though it has been expanded on over time as more discoveries were made, e.g. DNA.

creeper: "They should all be easy for you - if YEC were true."

Lista: "What an Arrogant Statement!!"

This from the author of "She just chuckles at that one."... hmm. I'm sorry you think it's an Arrogant Statement. It's simply true. If YEC is indeed true, then creation scientists would have no problem explaining this. Not just that, but Radar himself thinks they are easy. In a recent comment, he called them "unrelated minor-league questions that don't impress [him] enough to spend a lot of time on". So you can see that he admits they should be easy to answer.

And yet he has never been able to answer them, and now wants to hand them off to Sarfati.

"Basically what I have seen over and over again in Evolutionists is Arrogance."

You'll note that both you ("She just chuckles at that one.") and Radar ("Maybe the kneejerk Darwinist responses would become more coherent if I kept it short for them?") have demonstrated arrogance in this conversation thread right here.

And judging from the fact you've accused me of arrogance for observing that coming up with explanations for clear falsifications of YEC should be easy if YEC were true - something Radar himself even believes, but then claims it's somehow beneath him - is a sign of arrogance, it seems you're not exactly applying the same standards to both sides.

"They Interpret everything according to their own bias and will not admit to doing so."

You've talked a fair amount about bias in this thread. But in order to establish such bias, first you have to demonstrate that there are actually two valid explanations for something. You see, it's not bias if there is a logical reason to prefer one explanation over another.

That's why I asked you that question: what exactly is "that which does have two ways of interpreting"? Name the scientific data or observation and the two valid ways in which it is interpreted.

-- creeper

Jon Woolf said...

Lista: "That Mount Saint Helens Video Impressed me, but you do not and I will Trust who I Want to, Thank You."

[shrug] Your choice. Though I think you're a bit foolish to trust anyone without looking at the facts for yourself -- not edited videos, but the original evidence, the fossils and rocks exactly as they're found Out There.

However, I do have a question. Well, two questions. One is 'how do you answer the points I posted earlier?' Vestigial eggshells in marsupials, parthenogenetic lizards, aortic arches in vertebrates.

The second question is rather more pointed, but again I don't know any gentle way to ask it. Do you even understand those examples and their significance? Because if you don't, then you really aren't qualified to discuss evolutionary theory. With anyone.

Jon Woolf said...

Oh, one other thing: Creeper, I liked your metaphor of the village and the river. Very nicely done. Do you mind if I stash it away and possibly borrow it in the future?

creeper said...

Sure, no problem Jon.

-- creeper

Lista said...

It's been a Good Number of Days since I've been by here, so there is no Telling who is Still Listening, yet here I am again.

Creeper
"It does not say that evolution is purely random. That's where natural selection comes in."

Natural Selection is Chosen from what begins as Random Tries and that which does not Work is Discarded. This Still does not Involve a Creator. A Creator does not have the Need to Select from Random Tries. A Creator would just Start with what Works and By Pass that which doesn't. The Theory of Natural Selection Assumes that there is no Creator and that Assumption is Bias, not Science.

Natural Selection has been Shown to Occur within Species, but Never from One Species to Another.

I Said: "There is no way for you to Prove that these Functions were taken on 'Later On'. That's just conjecture."

You Said: "just because something currently has a function doesn't mean it can't be a vestigial organ."

Here is the Summary of these two Quotes. To Assume that it is not Vestigial is Conjecture and to Assume that it is is Conjecture. My Original Statement, though, still Stands.

"So IDers have not yet made the vital case that they need to make for their hypothesis to hold."

Neither has Evolution in Relation to Natural Selection Creating a New Species. Neither can be Proved. Both are just Theories.

"and then failed to find a single instance of it."

There are things within the Body that are Similar to Motors. I Forget the Name, yet there is Definite Irreducible Complexity there.

"'Most of my Theories'... interesting. What exactly are 'my theories'?"

I Meant the Theories within Evolution and if you want me to be Specific, I mean that which Relates to Macro-Evolution.

Lista said...

I'm not Talking about Irreducible Complexity any more. I'm just Talking about Every Form of Evidence Presented for Macro-Evolution has been Shot Down by Creationists. That is, the Flaws in the Theories have been Shown.

"I haven't seen the Mount St. Helens Video."

Radar has done Posts on the Subject and I'm sure that his Information is the Same.

"Your lack of a response to the question is duly noted."

Radar has Written Tirelessly on the Subject and if you will not Listen to him, then you are not Going to Listen to me. The Biggest Evidence Against the Theory of Macro-Evolution is nothing more than the Absence of Evidence Supporting it.

Evolutionists can not Prove their Theory anymore than Creationists can Prove theirs, yet this is the Hypocrisy, because for Two Theories to be Taught Side by Side, One does not have to Disprove the other, nor does One have to be Superior to the Other. If Neither can be Proved and both are just Theories, then Both should be Taught.

"but has failed to come up with any scientific evidence against the theory of evolution."

I am Absolutely Positive that you and your Three of Four Friends are Biased in what you do and do not Consider Evidence. I've been Involved in these Discussions before and the Bias is Very Obvious.

"he sidesteps the theory of evolution itself a lot of the time, aiming at a nebulous thing called 'Darwinism' instead."

So then Darwinism has been Proven Wrong and has been Replaced with Something Else. That's Interesting. Did Creationists Prove the Original Darwinism to be Wrong?

"None of which amounts to scientific evidence against the theory of evolution."

Once Again, Evolutionists can not Prove their Theory anymore than Creationists can Prove theirs, yet this is the Hypocrisy, because for Two Theories to be Taught Side by Side, ONE DOES NOT HAVE TO DISPROVE THE OTHER, nor does One have to be Superior to the Other. If Neither can be Proved and both are just Theories, then Both should be Taught.

Lista said...

"Except in this case, the list consists entirely of things that modern science does explain."

Creationism Explains the Origin of Life and Evolution does not.

"Name the scientific data or observation and the two valid ways in which it is interpreted."

Ok. The Above Post is a very Good Example. Similarities are Found in the Fetus to that of Simpler Organisms. One Interpretation is that these are Vestigial and the Other is that they are not. Neither can be Proved, but Both are Valid Explanations.

"Isn't their" (the Intelligent Design Scientists) "focus rather on what they can't provide evidence for scientifically?"

Just because you have Rejected the Irreducible Complexity Evidenced does not Mean that I have. I Know that I Know that I Know that you are Biased. All Evolutionists are and they will not See Evidence that is Right in Front of their Face because they do not Want to see it.

"They're attempting to prove the hand of a designer by proving the absence of a natural explanation. Right?"

In Order for Two THEORIES to be Taught Side by Side, it is not Necessary to PROVE anything.

"I was just observing that IDers tend to accept an old Earth and most of the theory of evolution."

I do not Know that to be True. Their Focus is on what they Feel Should be Taught in School and what Ever Other Opinions they may have are Simply Pushed Aside.

"Can you tell me if IDers propose any alternative theories to, say, natural selection?"

Natural Selection has been Shown to Exist within Species, but never Between Species. This is Because Each Species was Intelligently Designed Separate from the Rest. All this is is an Alternative Explanation of the Evidence, or Actually Lack thereof of Natural Selection Between Species.

Lista said...

"Among other things, the fossil record and the geographic distribution of living species pretty clearly establish macroevolution / common descent."

Not so. The Similarity Idea has another Explanation, which is a Common Creator and the Fossil Record has Many Holes.

As to Censorship. I have Comment Moderation On because I am Slow. I Consider Blogging a Hobby, not a Job. I don't Personally Usually Submit more than a Couple Comments at a Time on my Blog and am always Hoping that my Commenters will do the Same.

"if you choose not to respond, I will indeed assume that you have nothing to say"

Well, Ok, Assume what you want to, but it doesn't make it so and it Only Proves to me that you are Biased in your Judgments about both Evidence and People. Perhaps I should Add that I've been Feeling Under the Weather and have been Away from the Computer, yet if you still want to Assume that I have Nothing to say, go Right Ahead.

"Well, it's been a little tiring responding to your comments as well, but I enjoy the discussion."

Ooh. I Must have Something Say then.

"I have a hunch that the Macroevolution discussion relating to Bacteria has to do with the Definition of Species."

Actually what it has to do with is a Change in the Definition of the Word "Species". For Example, there are Many Variations of Dogs and Many Variations of Cats, yet this is all One Species. Bacteria is the Same Way. I Read a Web Page that Explained this. I'll Find it again if I have to.

"Darwinism" Relates to the Original Theory of Evolution that was Presented by Charles Darwin. My Question is was the Original Theory, as Presented by Darwin, been Proven Incorrect?

"What an Arrogant Statement!!"

The Arrogance is in Assuming that anything that is True is Easy to both Explain and Prove. This is Arrogant because Evolutionists can not Explain everything either. The Arrogance is in Expecting Creationists to do More than Evolutionists can do. This is Both an Arrogance and a Hypocrisy.

Lista said...

"but Radar himself thinks they are easy."

Perhaps he does not Realize the Arrogance of the Evolutionists whenever they Expect Proof of any Kind. Evolution is Only a THEORY. It has not been Proved and to Expect more from an Opponent than Evolutionist can do themselves is Both Arrogant and Hypocritical. This is not an Accusation against you Personally, Creeper. I am Simply Stating a Fact.

As to Arrogance, though, Evolutionist Think that their Theory is Superior to that of ID. ID just wants to be Accepted as Equal, so which Position do you Think is more Arrogant.

"it's not bias if there is a logical reason to prefer one explanation over another."

The Only Logical Reason that I can see is the Aversion to the Idea of God.

"Name the scientific data or observation and the two valid ways in which it is interpreted."

The Subject of this Post is a Perfectly Good Example, for any Similarity that is Found Between Species can be Explained either as Vestigial, or Evidence of a Common Creator. Neither Explanation is Scientifically Superior to the Other. They are Both Valid Explanations. Not Only That, but even that which Once was Thought to be Vestigial because the Actual Functions were not Known, were Later Discovered to have Functions, so this shows that even though the Function is not yet Know, this does not in any way Prove that there is no Function.

As it Turns Out, the Examples that Jon Woolf gave are in the Same Category as what I just said in the Above Paragraph.

As Long as Scientists are Debating this Subject, I am not Going to Consider the Subject Settled.

Creeper,
"Picture a village set on a river. The inhabitants of the village have always lived in this village, and have never traveled elsewhere. There are barriers in place that prevent them from moving up the river or down the river."

All This Illustrates is that there is a lot that we do not Understand and that Evolutionists can not Prove and do not Understand where Life Comes From.

"and it does it without the water deity."

Can you Prove Water can Evaporate in the Absence of a Deity? No, of Course not. The Absence of God can not be Proved any More than His Presence and that is Simply a Fact.

Lista said...

Woolf,
Fossils and Rocks?! Are you Kidding?! I'd Like to Hear you Explain Away how a 100 Foot Deep Canyon was Formed in Less then one Day. Here is a Quote from http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4305news5-17-2000.asp

"The events associated with the volcano’s explosion accomplished in seconds, hours, or just a few days, geologic work that normally would be interpreted as having taken hundreds or even millions of years."

I'd just Like to Hear you Try and Explain that One, Woolf. I don't Think that it Takes a Scientific Genius to Understand the Above Statement. I am more than Qualified to Understand everything that was said on this Linked Page.

Here's another Quote... Emphasis Added by me.

"Now I remember being taught in school that when you saw a canyon with a river running through it, you ASSUMED that the river took a long time to erode the canyon."

Don't you see? That is just the Problem. Scientists ASSUME much more Often then they Know.

Well, here is the Answer to Creeper's Question about an Alternate Explanation for Something. The Mount Saint Helens Eruption Offers a Very Valid Alternate Explanation of how Canyons are Formed, just as was Stated in the Linked Article...

"Increasingly, most geologists—evolutionist or creationist—who have been to the Grand Canyon will now acknowledge that the Canyon was carved by a lot of water over a little period of time, not over millions of years."

Sorry, Radar, I did a Web Search for something Shorter than what you Usually Write. Apparently, your Audience likes all the Little Details, yet some Things are just Plain Obvious, even with a Briefer Explanation. The Video, though, went into much more Detail.

IAMB said...

Lista, I must admit to being very curious here:

For Example, there are Many Variations of Dogs and Many Variations of Cats, yet this is all One Species. Bacteria is the Same Way. I Read a Web Page that Explained this. I'll Find it again if I have to.

I'll wait for some clarificaton (or a link) before I comment on this. As it is, I'm not sure where you're going regarding bacteria and I'd like to know.

Lista said...

IAMB,
Well, One of the Frustrating Things about the Web is that it is not always Possible to Find the Exact Page that was at One Time Read, yet here is One that Says Pretty Much the Same Thing.

Fixity of Species, A Lesson in Changing Definitions

creeper said...

"It's been a Good Number of Days since I've been by here, so there is no Telling who is Still Listening, yet here I am again."

Well hello! Hope you don't mind, but since you posted a Lot of Words, I'm going to have to respond with a large number of bite-sized chunks. My apologies if this is Tiring.

creeper: "It does not say that evolution is purely random. That's where natural selection comes in."

Lista: "Natural Selection is Chosen from what begins as Random Tries and that which does not Work is Discarded."

Which is exactly when it stops being random. Understand?

"This Still does not Involve a Creator."

The theory of evolution doesn't necessitate a creator. So?

(BTW, keep in mind that while the theory doesn't necessitate a creator, it is compatible with one. The theory of evolution deals with the evolution of life, not the origin of life. It's possible that God created life and it then evolved. It's even possible that God created through evolution. Weird, huh?)

-- creeper

creeper said...

"A Creator does not have the Need to Select from Random Tries."

1. How is this relevant?

2. We're now into complete and utter speculation here:

The existence of a creator - speculation.

The circumstances under which such a creator would operate - speculation.

What a creator would need or not need to do - speculation.

Seeing as you've read about ID, perhaps you're familiar with this uncertainty about the identity or characteristics of the creator. If you accept that, then why would you think you can state that a creator does not need to select from random tries? Perhaps he does, perhaps he doesn't. You're not in a position to know either way.

(And BTW, I'm just using "he" for the sake of simplicity - it could be he/she/it or something else altogether.)

But let's go one step further. Let's say you believe in God, and you believe that this mysterious creator that the ID folks keep talking about is actually the God that you believe in. In that case you'll also accept that God works in ways that are not comprehensible to you.

Right?

Well in that case... isn't it possible that God has reasons for doing things that you don't understand? That you may even disagree with? Maybe God would find it beneficial, for whatever reason, to select from random tries.

You're discarding this option... but because of reasons that are in themselves biased.

"A Creator would just Start with what Works and By Pass that which doesn't."

And more speculation. We have no idea what such a creator would do. It has even been proposed that such a creator might use the process we now know as evolution to create. It's a nifty thought, seeing as it combines the theory of evolution (which has far more support than YEC propagandists would have you believe) with the existence of God. IIRC, the Vatican has come around to this way of thinking.

Two problems with this approach though: it disagrees with one (of several) interpretations of the Christian Bible, and it clashes with human chauvinism.

They may be problems for you, but if that's the case, it's hard for you to complain about bias in other people.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"The Theory of Natural Selection Assumes that there is no Creator and that Assumption is Bias, not Science."

Sorry, Lista, but this is completely wrong, on a number of levels.

1. The theory of natural selection does not assume that there is no creator.

2. Such an assumption would not be a bias, since all science proceeds from the observable, not from the assumption that there is a creator. Even the Christians who were there at the beginning of the scientific revolution didn't work towards the conclusion of God, but instead used it as the basis for the assumption of an orderly universe. (BTW, that same assumption is supported by the consistent observation of various patterns in the world around us.)

"Natural Selection has been Shown to Occur within Species, but Never from One Species to Another."

If you read up on speciation, you will find that this is absolutely not the case. Speciation has been observed.

-- creeper

creeper said...

creeper: "So IDers have not yet made the vital case that they need to make for their hypothesis to hold."

Lista: "Neither has Evolution in Relation to Natural Selection Creating a New Species."

False. Please read up on this before continuing to comment on it. Try to go outside of creationist sources if possible. You can talk about "bias" all you want, but if you don't even know what you're arguing against, you can't construct a proper argument.

"Neither can be Proved. Both are just Theories."

Please read up on what "theory" mans in a scientific context before you embarrass yourself further.

-- creeper

creeper said...

creeper: "and then failed to find a single instance of it." (it being irreducible complexity)

Lista: "There are things within the Body that are Similar to Motors. I Forget the Name, yet there is Definite Irreducible Complexity there."

I suspect you're thinking of the flagellum. And no, there is no "Definite Irreducible Complexity there".

creeper: "'Most of my Theories'... interesting. What exactly are 'my theories'?"

Lista: "I Meant the Theories within Evolution and if you want me to be Specific, I mean that which Relates to Macro-Evolution."

Well, pretty much the entire theory of evolution relates to macroevolution in some way.

I'm afraid this clarification doesn't get us much further... how have the "Theories within Evoluton that Relate to Macro-Evolution" "been countered by theoretical explanations of how that complexity is reducible"? How have they been countered by much of anything, now that you mention it?

"I'm not Talking about Irreducible Complexity any more. I'm just Talking about Every Form of Evidence Presented for Macro-Evolution has been Shot Down by Creationists. That is, the Flaws in the Theories have been Shown."

Not true. And from your comments here it appears you're not terribly well-informed. I'm not saying that to be offensive, but if the flagellum is just something you vaguely heard about and can't quite recall, then you're a little behind.

Not that this blog is a particularly scientific environment, but I asked earlier if there was any scientific evidence against the theory of evolution. You came back with an arrogant comment ("She just chuckles at that one"), and Radar hasn't responded.

Part of the confusion may be that creationists always lump all arguments opposing them into one big pot. They think that by arguing against, say, abiogenesis by natural causes, they're scoring points against the theory of evolution. It's completely unscientific and nonsensical.

Try to let go of the psychology and look at the evidence itself... regardless of the outcome you want to achieve.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Radar has Written Tirelessly on the Subject and if you will not Listen to him, then you are not Going to Listen to me."

If you'll read back through this blog, you'll see that Radar has copied and pasted tirelessly on the subject while various commenters (including myself) have pointed out the flaws in the material. And if you read carefully, you'll see that he refuses to listen to opposing arguments, and quite often runs away from arguments. You can see that he's not listening.

Me, I'm here, listening. I've asked questions. So has Jon. Radar derides those questions routinely, as you might have noticed.

I asked for the scientific evidence against the theory of evolution. If you have it, I'm more than willing to listen. Granted, I'm looking at evidence that you're not terribly well-informed in this debate, but if you have any such evidence, I will gladly look at it. I took the time to respond to you, didn't I?

"The Biggest Evidence Against the Theory of Macro-Evolution is nothing more than the Absence of Evidence Supporting it."

Sorry, Lista, but this only betrays the lack of reading you've done on the subject from either an unbiased source or, for lack of a better term, the devil's advocate. If you really think that any sources that aren't predisposed to your outcome (i.e. either ID or creationist websites etc.) are completely biased and dishonest, then read them anyway and point out their flaws.

The fact that you think there is a "Theory of Macro-Evolution" already makes your lack of reading (or extremely biased reading) on the subject quite clear.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Evolutionists can not Prove their Theory anymore than Creationists can Prove theirs,"

1. In science, hypotheses and theories are not proven, but confirmed. Proof takes places in mathematics, not science.

2. The theory of evolution, along with other theories that contradict YEC, are well supported. This means that they are not proved, but confirmed by evidence. Testable, falsifiable claims regarding their veracity are made and then tested. The theory of evolution has gone through this and passed. YEC has not. It's stuck in a loop of special pleading.

"yet this is the Hypocrisy, because for Two Theories to be Taught Side by Side, One does not have to Disprove the other, nor does One have to be Superior to the Other."

For starters, both would have to be able to explain the evidence. That's not the case here. The theory of evolution / old Earth offers a plausible and cohesive explanation of the available data. So does current understanding of radiometric data, ice core layers etc.

YEC has nothing to offer. It's not a matter of the theory of evolution/OE being superior, it's that there are no actual alternatives. Bias doesn't even need to come into it.

It's like having a boxing match and one guy's in the ring and the other guy doesn't show up and the ref calls the match for the guy that showed up - and somebody shouts that the ref is biased...

"If Neither can be Proved and both are just Theories, then Both should be Taught."

The fact that you call them "both [...] just Theories" shows that you have some reading to do on what a scientific theory actually is. Please do so. Seriously.

-- creeper

creeper said...

Lista: "I am Absolutely Positive that you and your Three of Four Friends are Biased in what you do and do not Consider Evidence. I've been Involved in these Discussions before and the Bias is Very Obvious."

You can talk about "bias" until the cows come home, but eventually you're going to have to make an actual argument. I made the qualification quite clear: "scientific evidence". Hardly an unreasonable "bias".

creeper: "[Radar] sidesteps the theory of evolution itself a lot of the time, aiming at a nebulous thing called 'Darwinism' instead."

Lista: "So then Darwinism has been Proven Wrong and has been Replaced with Something Else. That's Interesting. Did Creationists Prove the Original Darwinism to be Wrong?"

{facepalm} How on Earth did you get that from what I wrote above?

First of all, "Darwinism" is not a scientific theory, and particularly on this blog this term changes meaning all the time.

Second, the theory of evolution has not been proven wrong, and it has not been replaced with something else. It has been expanded on. Is this really news to you?

And no, creationists did not prove the original theory of evolution to be wrong. Not for lack of trying though.

-- creeper

creeper said...

creeper: "Except in this case, the list consists entirely of things that modern science does explain."

Lista: "Creationism Explains the Origin of Life and Evolution does not."

1. So you just completely ignore the fact that that list consists of a number of things that YEC can't explain, but modern science can? You're just going straight for a diversion? Can we take this as a concession?

2. Why should evolution explain the origin of life? It explains the evolution of life, not the origin of it. It does what it says on the tin. Please stop obfuscating.

3. It's not exactly true that creationism explains the origin of life in the same way that, in this case, you demand evolution to do. The problem is that creationism doesn't explain the origin of life scientifically. It only explains it mythologically... and in the case of YEC, it explains it mythologically (God created everything 6,000 years ago) in a way that can be disproven scientifically, so this explanation really doesn't amount to anything at all.

-- creeper

Lista said...

Creeper,
I Wonder if this Conversation is ever going to End.

"Which is exactly when it stops being random. Understand?"

"The theory of evolution doesn't necessitate a creator. So?"

Yes, but Random is Part of the Process. Understand? And a Creator and Random do not Mix, so the Two Theories are not Compatible.

Even if God was Involved Only in the Origin of Life and nothing Else, this is not what most Theists Believe, so Evolution is not Compatible with the Beliefs of most Theists, yet the Most Important Point is that Natural Selection from Random Chance Between Species can not be Proved and that is a Scientific Problem, not a Religious One.

"A Creator does not have the Need to Select from Random Tries."

This is Relevant because if Created, Randomness is Highly Unlikely. Natural Selection between Species is Nothing but Speculation, too.

Well, I Guess that there is no Surprise to the Fact that the Creation Hypothesis is Driven by the Bible, yet there is Nothing that is Stated in Genesis that has been Scientifically Disproved.

The Main Difference Between ID and Creationism is that Creationists are Allowed to Say what I said in the Above Paragraph. In doing so, they are Accused of Being a Religion, yet Naturalism is a Religion too, so even in Relation to that, we are Still Equal and the THEORY of Evolution or Darwinism is not in an way Superior to the THEORY of Creation, for the THEORY of Evolution is Based on Naturalism, which is also a Religion.

As Odd as it Seems, I am being Reminded that there is just as Much Evidence for Young Earth as for Intelligent Design. The Only Reason that ID did not Go as far as YEC is because they thought that they Might be Able to Persuade the Acceptance of their more Limited Hypothesis in School, yet in Reality, there is just as Much Evidence for Young Earth as for Intelligent Design.

Lista said...

I've been Taught to Separate myself from Creationism because ID does not want to be Associated with any One Religion and Creationism does Follow the Christian Bible, yet the Truth is that Creationism has Scientific Evidence too.

I've been Talking about Theism instead of Christianity for the Same Reason, yet YEC has Scientific Evidence too.

"They may be problems for you, but if that's the case, it's hard for you to complain about bias in other people."

I have never Claimed to not be Biased. There is no such Thing as a Person who isn't and so Obviously, this also Includes Evolutionists and so it is Hypocritical for them to Talk about the Bias of Creationism.

"If you read up on speciation, you will find that this is absolutely not the case. Speciation has been observed."

You Need to Read the Link I Left for IAMB (Lista, 3:48 PM, Above). Until you do, I do not want to Hear another Word about Speciation.

"Please read up on what 'theory' means in a scientific context before you embarrass yourself further."

Slight Chuckle. I'm not Embarrassed. I just Think that Evolutionists are Biased in what they Consider Evidence and therefore, what they Consider a Theory, rather than a Hypothesis.

Sure there is a lot of Reading that I Need to Do, yet I have Limited Time to Spend on this Subject and what I have Read Leads to the Conclusion that both ID and YEC have Impressive Evidence to Support their Point of View.

"if the flagellum is just something you vaguely heard about and can't quite recall, then you're a little behind."

I am not Good at Remembering Technical Names, such as Flagellum, yet I do Remember the Concept and I Even Remember Enough to Know that Flagellum is not the Entire Name that I was Taught. I Guess it was Bacterial Flagellum. Perhaps the Added Adjective is not Important. I'm just Jogging my Own Memory. Thanks for Giving me the Means to Look it Up Again.

Lista said...

I'm not Sure why Radar hasn't Responded, but to Answer your Question about whether or not there is "any scientific evidence against the theory of evolution.", Again you Need to Review the Link that I Left Above, or Actually the Other One Relating to Mount Saint Helens. Ok, here they both are is Again...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4305news5-17-2000.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/03/16/fixity-of-species

Ok. I Made the Phrase "Theory of Macro-Evolution" up, yet Macro-Evolution is Part of the Evolution/Darwinism Theory.

From my Reading, ID and YEC is also Well Supported, yet the Bias of Naturalism Prevents the Evidence from being Seen in an Honest Way.

"YEC has nothing to offer."

That is so Untrue. I Don't Know how you can Read about Mount Saint Helens and Still Say that.

If Darwinism has not been Proven Wrong and been Replaced with Something Else, then why would you Care rather or not Radar is Talking about Darwinism or some Other Theory of Evolution? Darwinism is the Foundation of Evolution Theory, so if Creationism can show Evidence Against this, then they have Tared Away at the Very Foundation.

"So you just completely ignore the fact that that list consists of a number of things that YEC can't explain, but modern science can? You're just going straight for a diversion?"

My Statement that "Creationism Explains the Origin of Life and Evolution does not." was not a Diversion, Creeper, but an Illustration of how that which Creationism is Accused of is also True of Evolution and to Expect more from One's Opponent than can be Produced by Oneself is a Form of Hypocrisy.

It's not True, though, that YEC can't explain these Things. Just because Radar hasn't, you can't jump to conclusions and Claim that YEC can't either.

Lista said...

One Last Thought...

As to Bias, the Reason why the Bias of Evolutionists is Important is because that is what is Preventing ID and YEC from Receiving Scientific Acceptance. The Bias of Creationism is not as Relevant since Evolutionism is Already Established, and therefore, they are the Ones with the Power.

It is the Fact the Evolution is Already Established as the Status Quo that Gives Evolutionism the Power. Actual Facts has nothing to do with it and this is why their Bias has Bite to it and therefore, Needs to be set Aside.

radar said...

Lista,

Most of the questions creeper, Woolf and Canucklehead bring up have been answered and in some cases several times, but they keep asking hoping that a reader new to the blog will think I cannot answer. This is one reason why I made a permanent information post that memorializes long comment threads, gives all the answers and completely covers all of their questions about information.

They hate it and call it "censorship" because I allow no additional comments on the main post. This is because they can still comment on every linked post included in that article AND when people go there they see the information question covered thoroughly from top to bottom. I won't allow any more silly questions to clutter up the bottom of that post.

I mean, really, is a footprint information? It is evidence that can be studied BY intelligence and it can be converted to data BY intelligence but a footprint is not a message per se. Nor is the wind, although we can measure velocity and direction and produce data.

I am an information specialist. We can measure containers of information (bytes in computer jargon) but the quantity and quality of the information itself cannot be measured BECAUSE it is not material in form or substance. Simple to understand. Darwinists know this and therefore try to mislead and confuse people. My information post is comprehensive.

http://sportsradar.blogspot.com/

Jon Woolf said...

Lista: "I'd Like to Hear you Explain Away how a 100 Foot Deep Canyon was Formed in Less then one Day.

"I'd just Like to Hear you Try and Explain that One, Woolf. I don't Think that it Takes a Scientific Genius to Understand the Above Statement."

Understand it, no.

Understand why it's wrong ... well, still no, but it does take a little more information to do that. Specifically, it requires knowing that the 'canyon' AiG is talking about was eroded through soft, loose volcanic ash, not through hard rock. No geologist would be stupid enough to claim that digging a 'canyon' through ash would take millions of years.

Lista said...

Radar,
Don't Worry. I'm not Buying all that these Guys are saying about you.

Woolf,
I Don't Recall Reading that it was Formed by Hard Rock, so you are Correcting something that I do not Remember Reading and it doesn't Matter Anyway.

The Point is that if a 100 Foot Deep Canyon can be Formed in less than a Day by any means at all, then this makes it Likely that the Grand Canyon also was Formed in far less Time then Millions of Years. This is, therefore, Evidence that the Traditional Thinking of Geologists in how Canyons are Formed is not Correct and that the Earth may Indeed be Younger than we had at One Time Thought.

Jon Woolf said...

"The Point is that if a 100 Foot Deep Canyon can be Formed in less than a Day by any means at all, then this makes it Likely that the Grand Canyon also was Formed in far less Time then Millions of Years. "

[sigh]

Go get your garden hose and hook it up. Try to use it to dig a hole in the backyard dirt. Not too hard, is it? That's what happened with the 'canyon' near Mt St Helens.

Now go try the same thing on the asphalt street or concrete sidewalk. Not so easy, is it? That's more like what happened with the Grand Canyon. Except that the rock of the Inner Gorge is even harder than concrete.

Anonymous said...

"I am an information specialist. We can measure containers of information (bytes in computer jargon) but the quantity and quality of the information itself cannot be measured BECAUSE it is not material in form or substance. Simple to understand. Darwinists know this and therefore try to mislead and confuse people. My information post is comprehensive."

Calling yourself an "information specialist" is a heck of an exaggeration. You work with IT equipment, and that's why your understanding of information is limited to computer terms.

Even IDers can set you straight on this, but information theory is completely alien territory to you and apparently always will be.

Lista said...

Woolf,
In Relation to the Speciation Argument Relating to Bacteria, you Need to Read the Link I Left relating to that because the Definition of Species has Changed and that is so Classic. If one can not make the Facts Match one's Point of View, then Change the Definitions of Words until they do. Here is the link again...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/03/16/fixity-of-species

Radar Mentioned in http://sportsradar.blogspot.com/ that the Word Species may be Changed again due to DNA, rather than External Observations, yet Apparently the Definition was Changed Once already and what we need to do is Go Back to the Original Definition.

The Point is, though, any Definition that does not Match the Biblical "Kind" is not Relevant in Relation to Genesis.

Back to Woolf,
"The 'canyon' AiG is talking about was eroded through soft, loose volcanic ash, not through hard rock."

If the Geology of the "Little Grand Canyon", Near Mount Saint Helens, was anything like the Area that we Live in, the Ash, or Soft Dirt, Only Goes so Deep and Beneath that is Very Hard Lava Cap. I Wonder how Far Down the Information that the Geologists had goes. Do they Really have Information Relating to 100 Feet and if so, in what area was this Information Gathered?

Assuming that it was Mostly Volcanic Ash, though, the Actual Geology of the Part of the Grand Canyon, in Utah, that is now Missing, can not be Known.

Anyone who Knows anything about Erosion Knows that what Erodes Away First is all the Soft Material and what Remains is that which is Harder. In a Young Canyon, like the One Near Mount Saint Helens, what remains is Softer because the Rain and Snow has not had the Time to Finish the Job so that Only Hard Rock Remains.

Ok, so I've Just Admitted that Natural Erosion may have Finished the Job, yet if a Catastrophe Started the Process, the Time Period of the Rest of the Erosion would be Considerably Shortened. The Fact Still Remains, though, that "The events associated with the volcano’s explosion accomplished in seconds, hours, or just a few days, geologic work that normally would be interpreted as having taken hundreds or even millions of years."

This is a Significant Piece of Evidence. So Creeper's Claim that "YEC has nothing to offer." is Simply not True.

Lista said...

You Know Woolf,
Once I've Given this some Thought, I have Realized that your Comment about Rock Being Harder to Erode through than Ash was Actually Quite Deceptive and the Reason Why is because in Light of the Information I just Added, this is Irrelevant. Let's Review this Again.

"Anyone who Knows anything about Erosion Knows that what Erodes Away First is all the Soft Material and what Remains is that which is Harder."

Based on this Reality, the Hard Rock that Remains at the Grand Canyon, in Utah, is in no Way Representative of that which was Washed Away. What you have Done, Woolf, is Insulted my Intelligence, for in order for me to Buy what you just said, I would have to Know Absolutely Nothing about Erosion.

This Brings me Back to the Subject of Bias, as I have been Discussing with the Creeper. To not View that which was Learned from Mount Saint Helens as Evidence is nothing more than Bias and to Call what is Offered by Evolutionism Evidence and what is Offered by YEC not Evidence can not be Called anything but Biased Arrogance.

Creeper's Claim that "YEC has nothing to offer." is not Only Grossly Untrue, but also Evidence of his Bias and the Bias is Significant Enough to be Considered an Insult and such an Insult is Significant Enough that I do not Feel it is Inappropriate to call it Arrogance.

Jon Woolf said...

Lista: "If the Geology of the "Little Grand Canyon", Near Mount Saint Helens, was anything like the Area that we Live in, the Ash, or Soft Dirt, Only Goes so Deep and Beneath that is Very Hard Lava Cap."

Yes on the first part, no on the second. In the area of the 'Little Grand Canyon,' the ash and pyroclastics are something like 400 feet deep. The canyon penetrates less than half of that. Below that ash lies the old soil layer, and below that lies bedrock. The bedrock below the valley is itself the remains of older eruptions, so it's also largely consolidated pyroclastics, not "lava cap."

Lista: "the Actual Geology of the Part of the Grand Canyon, in Utah, that is now Missing, can not be Known."

Well actually, yes it can. Downstream of the Grand Canyon lies a large depression in the crust known as the Salton Trough. The sedimentary rock that fills this depression is called the Imperial Formation. The sediments of the Imperial Formation are clearly derived from the excavation of the Grand Canyon -- so clearly that we can identify specific sediments within the Imperial as coming from specific layers of the Colorado Plateau rocks.

Lista: "Based on this Reality, the Hard Rock that Remains at the Grand Canyon, in Utah, is in no Way Representative of that which was Washed Away."

[blink]

You can't have meant that the way it sounds. You can't really mean that you think the Grand Canyon (which is in northern Arizona, not Utah) simply dug out soft rock, and left the surrounding harder rock intact. Nobody smart enough to operate a computer could think that.

So what, exactly, did you mean?

Lista said...

Woolf,
"Downstream of the Grand Canyon lies a large depression in the crust known as the Salton Trough."

Obviously anything that was Soft Like Ash would have Washed away and what Remains, even in this "Large Depression" is going to be the Heavier Stuff. This is Common Knowledge, not just in Relation to Erosion, but Also in Relation to Gold Panning.

Obviously there is going to be some Erosion of the Canyon Walls. That's been Taking Place for Quite Some Time. That's what you see in the "Salton Trough" and as to the Colorado Plateau Rocks, any Soft Stuff from Colorado has been Washed Down Stream and there is no Way for you to Prove Otherwise.

Sorry, my Mistake about Utah, though you can Get to the North Rim from Utah. It's not that Far South of the Border. Most of Lake Powell, Up Stream from the Grand Canyon, is in Utah and Utah is Full of Various Different Canyons; Zion, Bryce, Cedar Breaks and Lake Powell is a Canyon Filled with Water.

Erosion, Woolf, is the Process of Removing the Soft and Leaving the Hard. That is how Rock Formations are Formed. Go to Any National Park that has Rock Formations of any Sort at all and that is what they will Tell you, because that which is Hard does not Erode Away as Quickly.

Apparently, those who Work at National Parks and who Write the Information in their Visitors Centers must be too Dumb to Operate Computers.

Anonymous said...

"Erosion, Woolf, is the Process of Removing the Soft and Leaving the Hard. That is how Rock Formations are Formed."

Er, no. That may happen with erosion, but it's not all erosion is, and it's not how all rock formations are formed. No doubt Jon Woolf will fill you in - but why not do some research yourself?

"Apparently, those who Work at National Parks and who Write the Information in their Visitors Centers must be too Dumb to Operate Computers."

So do these smart people who Work at National Parks and who Write the Information in their Visitors Centers claim that the Grand Canyon was simply a deposit of soft Earth that was washed away in a short time? Seriously?

creeper said...

"I Wonder if this Conversation is ever going to End."

Well, you're looping back to the beginning in some ways, so as far as that goes, parts of this conversation are both infinite and concluded.

"Yes, but Random is Part of the Process. Understand? And a Creator and Random do not Mix, so the Two Theories are not Compatible."

1. Which two theories? Be specific.

2. Are you suggesting that any universe that includes a creator can also not feature any randomness anywhere? That the creator by necessity must control everything? Please elaborate. It seems you're arguing for absolute fatalism.

3. It is possible for the creator to have created life and for evolution to have taken place by natural means anyway. Keep in mind that the God that you posit is not comprehensible to you and that according to your beliefs the nature around us is all created by God, so even things we think of as "natural" would in your worldview be part of God/God's creation.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Even if God was Involved Only in the Origin of Life and nothing Else, this is not what most Theists Believe, so Evolution is not Compatible with the Beliefs of most Theists,"

That's certainly debatable. According to polls, majorities of Jews, Catholics, Orthodox Christians and Mainline Protestants accept the theory of evolution as the best explanation for the origins of human life on Earth, with Muslims not far behind, at 45%. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

"yet the Most Important Point is that Natural Selection from Random Chance Between Species can not be Proved and that is a Scientific Problem, not a Religious One."

I'm curious what you mean by "Natural Selection from Random Chance Between Species". Speciation, i.e. the origin of new species, has been demonstrated scientifically. You should also look up "allopatric speciation".

"A Creator does not have the Need to Select from Random Tries." - "This is Relevant because if Created, Randomness is Highly Unlikely."

It's complete speculation regarding what a creator would have the need to do or, aside from that, would choose to do. We can't draw any conclusions from such conjecture, and as far as it goes, it certainly has nothing to do with science.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Natural Selection between Species is Nothing but Speculation, too."

What exactly do you mean by "Natural Selection between Species"?

"Well, I Guess that there is no Surprise to the Fact that the Creation Hypothesis is Driven by the Bible, yet there is Nothing that is Stated in Genesis that has been Scientifically Disproved."

The universe being 6,000 years old has been scientifically falsified in a number of ways in different scientific disciplines. Same for the global flood. So I'd say that quite a lot of what is stated in Genesis has been scientifically disproved.

Apart from that, the logic in your statement is somewhat flawed. Scientists haven't disproven the Greek pantheon or the gods of Norse mythology either. Should we see that as confirmation that the Greek pantheon and the Norse gods exist or existed?

"The Main Difference Between ID and Creationism is that Creationists are Allowed to Say what I said in the Above Paragraph. In doing so, they are Accused of Being a Religion,"

Creationism is not a religion. Christianity is a religion. Creationism is a religiously inspired hypothesis that - in the case of YEC - is disproven by various scientific observations.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"yet Naturalism is a Religion too,"

Another thing for you to read up on: naturalism. Plenty of verbiage has been spilled on that subject on this blog as well.

In short, when you say naturalism you should differentiate between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism. The former is the foundation of the scientific method as it has been practiced since at least the scientific revolution (including by all Christian scientists), while the latter is a philosophical stance that goes far beyond what science can investigate.

Creationists, frustrated that science doesn't yield them the results they desire, frequently claim that science has fallen prey to naturalism, by which they can only mean metaphysical naturalism, as methodological naturalism is part and parcel of the scientific method. Yet they've never come up with any evidence at all of metaphysical naturalism being imposed on scientific research.

What these arguments come down to is a logical fallacy known as special pleading. Look it up.

Science has a certain set of rules (as Radar never tires of telling us, they were put in place by Christian scientists, so we should not suspect any anti-Christian motives in these rules, right?) that make science work effectively. One effect of these rules happen to be that we don't just introduce religious texts as "evidence" when we feel like it.

Imagine, for a moment, if a scientist came in with an ancient Norse religious text and proposed that it be included as evidence. What would scientists do? Well first of all, they would subject the text itself to some scrutiny. Where did it come from? What culture? How likely is it that the text is authentic? How likely is it that the text is mythological? (Those two aren't mutually exclusive btw.)

Let's say the text includes a saga of a famous ruler, let's call him Snordibor, who committed a number of amazing deeds. And lo and behold, we have independent confirmation from somewhere that this Snordibor existed - perhaps an ancient monument or some other mention in an ancient text. So we tentatively conclude that Snordibor existed.

In the same ancient text, there is talk of how the world was built on a giant toadstool by a dozen gods over a weekend. And this scientist who presented this text wants to use the fact that there is evidence that Snordibor existed as evidence that the entire text is correct, and so it is evidence that the world was built on a giant toadstool...

The other scientists would quickly point out the shortcomings of the religious text as well as the reasoning involved. And I imagine you would, too... right?

Or wouldn't you? Would you defend this text and insist that it be included?

Maybe you would, but do you see how science would grind to a halt and quickly become quite useless if we simply allowed religious texts as "evidence" in their entirety?

What creationists are attempting with all this special pleading is simply demanding that the standards of science be lowered so that they can sneak their religious text in. Ask yourself - would you be so accommodating with any other religious text?

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"What you have Done, Woolf, is Insulted my Intelligence, for in order for me to Buy what you just said, I would have to Know Absolutely Nothing about Erosion."

If anything, Woolf has assumed that you know more about erosion than you apparently do - which would mean he has actually complimented your intelligence.

Here is a site with some useful info to allow you to catch up - www.soilerosion.net

Anonymous said...

"As to Bias, the Reason why the Bias of Evolutionists is Important is because that is what is Preventing ID and YEC from Receiving Scientific Acceptance."

I dunno, maybe the fact that they can't come up with any testable claims that actually pan out has something to do with it? But I can see how it makes you feel better to blame bias and conspiracies of thousands of scientists.

Lista said...

Anonymous,
"So do these smart people who Work at National Parks and who Write the Information in their Visitors Centers claim that the Grand Canyon was simply a deposit of soft Earth that was washed away in a short time?"

There is a Very Strong Bias against the Young Earth Idea and Against Anything that is not Accepted Status Quo.

Creeper
"1. Which two theories? Be specific."

That would be "Darwin's mechanism of random mutation and selection" between Species and Creationism’s Creation of "Kinds".

"2. Are you suggesting that any universe that includes a creator can also not feature any randomness anywhere? That the creator by necessity must control everything?"

No. There were no Absolutes in my Comments. You are Jumping to Conclusions.

"3. It is possible for the creator to have created life and for evolution to have taken place by natural means anyway."

That is not what most Theists Believe. This is not Supposed to be a Determinism/Predestination (God Controls Everything) vs. Free Will Discussion. It is also not a Black and White/All or Nothing Discussion.

In "Darwin's mechanism of random mutation and selection", Random means Random, not Created. The Belief that God Created Life and then Went Away and allowed Randomness to do it's Thing is more of a Religious Idea than a Scientific One because Random Mutation from One Species to Another can not be Proved and when I say that, I am Going with an Earlier Definition of Species in which Dogs and Cats are One Species Each, NOT two Categories of Species.

There is some Randomness within Species, but not from One Species to another.

Lista said...

"According to polls, majorities of Jews, Catholics, Orthodox Christians and Mainline Protestants accept the theory of evolution as the best explanation for the origins of human life on Earth."

Unfortunately, many Religious People are more Like Sheep, than Like Free Thinkers. Christians who have Accepted Evolution are More Interested in Harmony and the Avoidance of Waves, then in Truth and they have Turned Their Backs on what is Stated in the Book of Genesis.

The Definition of Speciation has Changed, Creeper, and I Told you that Until you read the Article I Left a Link to, I am not Interested in Hearing your Claim that Speciation has been Demonstrated. If the Wrong Definition of Species is Used, then None of this is Relevant.

"It's complete speculation regarding what a creator would have the need to do or, aside from that, would choose to do."

From the Perspective of ID, you are Correct, yet from the Perspective of YEC, we have the Book of Genesis as our Guide and it just so Happens that Science has NOT Disproved any Part of it.

"What exactly do you mean by 'Natural Selection between Species'?"

I have now Quoted Michael Denton, M.D., Ph.D., from his Critique of One of Michael Behe's Books, so that I could not be Accused of Making Up my Own Terminology. Apparently Behe used the Phrase, "Darwin's mechanism of random mutation and selection".

By "Between Species", I mean Random Mutation from One Species to Another, but I Mean it in Relation to the Original Definition of Species, before the Definition was Changed. To more Fully Understand, you are going to have to Read the Link that I Presented.

"The universe being 6,000 years old has been scientifically falsified in a number of ways in different scientific disciplines. Same for the global flood. So I'd say that quite a lot of what is stated in Genesis has been scientifically disproved."

Evidence and Proof are not the Same Thing.

Lista said...

Any Religious Statement that can not be Proved should not be Taught as if it is Fact. The Bible is Wrong is a Religious Statement. Everything is Random and Nothing was Created is also a Religious Statement. God Created Life and then Everything was Random from then on is a Religious Statement. I just want these Religious Statements Out of Our Schools, Unless the Opposite Point of View can also be Presented.

"Creationism is a religiously inspired hypothesis"

Evolutionism is Also a Religiously Inspired Hypothesis. The Random Mutation Idea between Species is Inspired and Driven by Naturalism and Naturalism is a Religion.

And Once Again, Evidence and Proof are not the Same Thing and what you Interpret as Evidence and Proof is Determined by your Bias. The Fact that you will not Admit that is Nothing more than Arrogance.

"Creationists, frustrated that science doesn't yield them the results they desire,"

The Only Thing that I Personally Find Frustrating is the Stubborn Bias of Evolutionists, not the Lack of Evidence Provided within Science for my Point of View.

"read up on...", "Look it up."

Have You Read the Links I have Left for you, Creeper, or not?

You are Right that Religious Texts should not be Presented as Scientific Evidence and that anyone who Does so is not being Scientific, yet the Inspiration of a Hypothesis is not the same as Presenting it as Evidence.

Lista said...

Anonymous,
Thanks for the Link. Leaving Links is much Nicer, than just Saying, you Need to Read Up on it, as Creeper does.

"maybe the fact that they can't come up with any testable claims that actually pan out has something to do with it?"

In Relation to Natural Selection between Species, that is Prior to the Definition Change, Evolutionists are in the Same Boat. They just Won't Admit it.

Lista said...

Well Anonymous,
I Checked Out your Link and read some of it, but from what I can Tell, it is about "Soil" Erosion, not the Erosion of Rocks and Harder Materials, nor does it Talk about Canyons. It is Mostly in Relation to Farming and the Loss of Soil and Nutrients. My Discussion with Woolf has to do with what was Eroded Away in the Forming of the Grand Canyon and all I am saying is that Initially it was Soil and not Rock.

Sorry, but there is nothing in the Linked Website that you Left for me that Talks about the Erosion of Rocks and therefore, all that I have said still Stands.

radar said...

"Anonymous said...

"I am an information specialist. We can measure containers of information (bytes in computer jargon) but the quantity and quality of the information itself cannot be measured BECAUSE it is not material in form or substance. Simple to understand. Darwinists know this and therefore try to mislead and confuse people. My information post is comprehensive."

Calling yourself an "information specialist" is a heck of an exaggeration. You work with IT equipment, and that's why your understanding of information is limited to computer terms.

Even IDers can set you straight on this, but information theory is completely alien territory to you and apparently always will be."

My understanding is not limited to computer terms. I have a long list of acronyms I can put behind my name in the computer world like VTSP that you would not likely understand. But information theory is also an area I can comprehend.

I have been interviewed and quoted in major IT industry magazines. I was flown in to Las Vegas to speak at a convention along with my wife and given a 2,000 dollar-a-night suite and meals at great restaurants by a major IT company. All that just so I would speak six times during the convention. So I don't just sell IT stuff I know a lot about it.

But apparently you don't know anything about information theory or you would have agreed with my statement. Your disagreement identifies you as ignorant of the subject matter. You are like the little league pitcher critiquing Roy Oswalt's delivery or a kid who sells Kool-Aid by the side of the road in a subdivision explaining why Pepsi's latest ad campaign is a big mistake.

Either come back with better stuff or I will send River Tam after you...

Anonymous said...

"but the quantity and quality of the information itself cannot be measured BECAUSE it is not material in form or substance"

Following that logic, we wouldn't be able to measure time and would have to conclude that time is supernatural.

Meanwhile, on Planet Radar... :-)

Anonymous said...

"But apparently you don't know anything about information theory or you would have agreed with my statement."

Heck, William Dembski wouldn't agree with your statement.

Anonymous said...

Hey Lista, if you want to see what arrogance looks like, fantastic example here:

"Your disagreement identifies you as ignorant of the subject matter. You are like the little league pitcher critiquing Roy Oswalt's delivery or a kid who sells Kool-Aid by the side of the road in a subdivision explaining why Pepsi's latest ad campaign is a big mistake."

You can bring the guy to Jesus, but you just can't get the braggart and the bully out of him, eh?

Oh and by the by, Radar, thanks for the ongoing concession that no information is lost in evolution, as you've claimed so many times before.

radar said...

Somebody notice there are now 174 comments on this post? I don't answer all of them just check and make sure the language is not bad. No matter what silliness has been posted I didn't agree that there is no information loss in speciation and do not believe in evolution at all so of course I do not admit to anything concerning it beyond it is wrong and it has been tested often and never observed.

William Dembski would agree with me concerning information because I made a simple, forthright and standard assertion about information that any information specialist would recognize...except those brainwashed Darwinists who are trying to mess up that field. Lord knows Darwinists have been a hindrance to modern science everywhere we go.

Anonymous said...

Dembski wouldn't be able to do much theorizing about ID if he agreed with you that information can not be quantified outside of information containers themselves (e.g. a 500 GB hard drive).

Hey man, try reading Dembski sometime. He's kinda on your side you know.

As for information loss, you've claimed before that we only see information loss around us - but since the containers aren't being lost and you're claiming that information can only be measured by containers, your various claims don't add up.

On with the show.

Anonymous said...

Lista wins by TKO with a better argument but knockdowns rather than knockouts.

Lista said...

Anonymous,
I Like to Try and Knockdown just enough so that those who are more Studied than myself can have a Better Chance to Deliver the Final Blow. lol