Search This Blog

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Just over a year ago today I introduced Ian Juby and now time to add on...

Here is a general topical overview from Institute for Creation Research:

Evidence for Creation » Evidence from Science » The Earth Sciences » The Global Flood Is the Key to the Past » Geological Evidence Indicates Rapid Formation

Geological Evidence Indicates Rapid Formation


There is extensive evidence for the layers of strata in the geologic record being laid down very quickly, similar to the processes observed when Mount St. Helens erupted. Rapid global formation of sedimentary rock beds is evidence that the earth is thousands of years old.
The major formations of the earth’s crust are sedimentary rock beds. These were formed by rapid erosion, transportation, and deposition by water. There is no global evidence of long periods of time between these layers or indications that these layers took long periods of time to form.
For example, sandstone is a major feature of the lower part of the Grand Canyon. The same rock layer is found in Utah, Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, South Dakota, the Midwest, the Ozarks, and in northern New York state. Equivalent formations are found across wide portions of Canada, eastern Greenland, and Scotland.
The flood that covered the earth formed the large geological structures that we can observe today.

The "Visnu Schist" is not evidence against creationism.  In fact we know that these kinds of layering can come from water action, as I shared with everyone just over a year ago:

Cartoon by Misfit with hat tip to House Harkonnen.

~

My Daily Trek is written by a very good-looking conservative Christian Trekkie woman...hard to beat that, kiddies! After this post below? BOOM! To the link list with you!

Friday, May 14, 2010


Obama's Economy is so bad that.....

…I got a pre-declined credit card in the mail.


…When I ordered a burger at McDonald’s and the kid behind the counter asked, “Can you afford fries with that?”


…CEO’s are now playing miniature golf.


…If the bank returns your check marked “Insufficient Funds,” you call them and ask if they meant you or them.


…Hot Wheels and Matchbox stocks are trading higher than GM.


…McDonald’s is now selling the 1/4 ouncer.

…Parents in Beverly Hills fired their nannies and learned their children’s names.


…A truckload of Americans was caught sneaking into Mexico.


…Dick Cheney took his stockbroker hunting.


…Motel Six won’t leave the light on anymore.


…The Mafia is laying off judges and Exxon-Mobil laid off 25 Congressmen.


And, finally…


…I was so depressed last night thinking about the economy that I called the Suicide Lifeline. I got a call center in Pakistan. When I told them I was suicidal, they got all excited, and asked if I could drive a truck.

Thanks, Leticia!!!

Finally today Mr. Kick Darwin's Butt...or is is Woolfs? Jon Woolf likes to talk about his expertise concerning the Grand Canyon and then makes statements that astound creationists. Perhaps this post will astound him? Woolf, it is not too late to change your mind...

Anyway, would you believe a Darwinist once proposed that the dinosaurs in the vicinity of the Grand Canyon must have all backed downhill because all tracks go uphill? Then we discovered they resembled the tracks of a creature being overtaken by water? Well,
Ian Juby decided to test all sorts of hypotheses concerning the rock layers in general and those of the Grand Canyon and the American West in particular...

Preliminary reports of sedimentation experiments held at Glen Rose, Texas, March 2007


Written by Ian Juby

Various footage taken during these experiments can be viewed in my Video Logs (VLOGs) on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=wazooloo


Brief:
In mid-march, 2007, M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and myself performed a series of experiments over two weeks at Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose, Texas. The museum grounds have a rotary flume which was constructed by M.E. and Dr. Henry Voss, and was transported to Glen Rose some years ago. M.E. also brought down "Archimedes," a specially designed and constructed liquefaction tank which will be discussed later. While we were there, we also constructed a linear flume, and had intentions to experiment with silica lithification processes, but ran out of time.

Many lessons were learned which altered my personal views on a number of things and have significance for the geology caused by the global flood of Noah. Specifically, the rotary and linear flumes, and just about everything we did with water (including a simple garden hose) produced layers. Probably the most dramatic results were the production of complex cross-bedding. The process was remarkably easy and solidifies the arguments that crossbeds within the geologic record were indeed formed by a global flood, and not by desert dunes as some have argued. Newts were also placed into the linear flume during runs and their behaviour also confirmed some hypotheses regarding the formation of the coconino fossil trackways that are so prolific throughout the Grand Canyon and area.

While it seemed everything we did led to sedimentary layers being formed, much like what is seen in road cuts, liquefaction was the ultimate destroyer of layers. For myself, this was a fairly radical change in my thinking, as I had wanted for years to perform experiments in liquefaction, and the results were pretty much the exact opposite of what I expected.



The Rotary Flume:




Shown on the right is the rotary flume. The operation is quite simple: The outer, plexiglass wall and the inner, green wall form a tank roughly 12 feet in outer diameter and 8 feet in inner diameter. The paddles are in the upright position in the photo, but spring-lock into a downward position during the runs (paddle at far left is in the "locked" position). The tank is filled with water and sediments, and the paddles drag in the water. The paddles are spun in a counter-clockwise direction, pushing the water in the tank around in the circle, which picks up and carries the sediments in suspension. When the rotation is stopped, the now forward-moving water pushes the paddles out of the locked position, which then spring up out of the water to avoid the turbulence and drag of a stopped paddle in the now flowing water.
The sediments settle out of the water as the water slows down and eventually stops.

Click here to see a video of one of the run-ups.


The principle of the rotary flume is to produce an infinite flow or wave. When we first arrived, this was the first time using the flume with the new, spring-loaded paddle mechanism. We did not know what to expect entirely, but had some educated guesses. Sand was hauled and cleaned, extremely fine dust was also obtained from a wash along the Paluxy River, and extremely fine, white, silica sand was bought from the local hardware store.

Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was.





We ran up the flume in a series of tests with essentially the same sediments for the first couple of runs while varying the water depth. Multiple layers of varying numbers were made throughout the flume, and numerous cuts made in specific locations (randomly selected at first, then simply copied in later runs), followed by a complete circumferential cut on all runs. Posts on the outside frame were labeled by myself, and in hindsight I wish I had labeled them differently: The first, double post for each section was labeled with a negative number; i.e., A-1. Going counterclockwise, looking from the top, they then increased in sequence until the next double post marked the next section. Thus, A-1 and A1 can easily be confused. So, please be aware of this denotation throughout the rest of this report.


Because of Guy Berthault's previous research with flumes years ago, we half-expected to get three layers. Instead we got everything from one uniform layer to seven layers. Before the first run, Andrew correctly pointed out that the inner diameter of the flume would have slower-moving water than the outer diameter, and thus the sediments would settle on the inside first. Not only was this true, but usually the sediments settled out without us seeing it at all, as the sediments would never reach the outside, plexiglass wall.

The differential water speeds also led to complex vortices and helix spirals in the water, which led to complex and confusing layering. However, several principles were verified, namely the fact that layers are formed by flowing water - and quite easily.


Of especial interest was interbedding that was quite apparent, with three layers fingering in to one solid layer, then fingering to five layers.


Also of special interest was a small worm that accidentally got mixed in with the sediments. Andrew happened to cut exactly the correct spot on one of his sectionings. The worm was polystrate (yes, it cut through layers), and the top portion of it was bent over flat within a layer. The reason this is of interest is because this is precisely how a fossilized worm was found in the overburden limestone removed from the Paluxy riverbed in 2003. Also on display within the Royal Tyrell museum in Drumheller, Alberta, is a depiction of three polystrate worms found in the Burgess Shale of Canada. The Paluxy is quite unique in that fossil worms (sometimes still with pigment) are plentiful, and I was quite happy to see the same effect in the Burgess shale.
The point here is that a sediment-laden water flow deposited a dead worm in the upright position, precisely the same way one was found in the Paluxy limestones, which also have plentiful indications of being deposited by a strong current. (I apologize for the lousy photo - my macro mode got turned off without my realizing, and I weren't none too happy 'bout it neither!)



In the end, we saw pretty much every stratigraphical feature produced: Crossbedding, fingering, thinning and thickening of layers, interbedding, and scours.

The Linear Flume:

Due namely to time constraints, our linear flume was very simple. It was a clear-walled (acrylic plexiglass), long box, measuring 6 inches wide, 1 foot tall and 8 feet long. A steel trough, or funnel, was at one end to facilitate ease of loading sediments and water being poured in. The other end was left open, emptying into a container which was merely to recycle the sediments while allowing the water to overflow the container.
A conventional cement mixer was used to keep the sediments homogenized, and a continuous stream of water was added to the mix during the runs.

The linear flume not only gave us plenty of radical lessons to ponder, but also enlightened us as to some of the complexities of layering within the rotary flume. Specifically, we took the lessons learned from Berthault's experiments and not only found them to be true, but that they applied to a much broader scope of sedimentology than I personally thought - both in the field, and in the lab. For example, it appears now that horizontal layers we see throughout the geological record (and which we produced in the flumes) may really just be extremely long-wave crossbeds.
Berthault's main point from his experiments is that sediments sort out by particle size, not density! This certainly seemed true in all of our experiments. While obviously density played a role, it was a minimal one which was usually so insignificant it could be safely ignored.

The reason is not so obvious at first. I very much like the way Andrew explains the sediments being held in suspension: He refers to the particles as "flying," which really is what they are doing. They are flying in a very dense fluid - water.

The density between two sediments may be as large as 0.1 g/cm3, for example - but when you are talking about two particles 10 microns in diameter, their difference in density is so small as to be extremely difficult to even measure. However, the velocity of water needed to suspend and carry a particle 20 microns in diameter is significantly greater than that required to carry a 10 micron particle.

To bring this to layman's terms, envision a boulder made of quartz that's 30 centimeters in diameter, and a boulder of limestone that's 60 centimeters in diameter. The quartz is considerably denser than the limestone, yet the larger rock is obviously much heavier than the smaller rock, and thus will require water moving at significantly higher velocity to pick it up and carry it. If they were both the same size, the water speed required to pick up both rocks would be different, but the difference would be nowhere near as great as the difference between two boulders of differing sizes.

The unusual thing noted when observing settling sediments is the tendency to sort out into three layers: fine on the bottom, coarse in the middle, and fine on top. Berthault's explanation seems to hold water: The flow of water at the bottom of the tank (or river, or lake bed, or stream bed) is almost zero because the bottom of the tank is not moving with the water. Friction causes a rolling of water along the bottom, thus there is a very thin layer of almost stationary water at the bottom of the tank. We refer to this as the "boundary layer."

Because the larger grains require the fastest moving water to carry them, they wind up settling out of the flow first, as the flow slows down. However, within this boundary layer, you get water velocities which may be slow enough for all grains to drop out of the flow. The largest grain winds up settling first, and the gaps between it and the other largest grains are filled in with the finer grains - up to the top of the largest grain. This makes the first, bottom layer that appears at first glance to be all fines.

As the water slows down, the large grains then drop out, largest to smallest, making a "pile" which grows horizontally. Finally, the fines are the last to drop out because they require the least amount of water velocity, and thus they make up the final layer of fines on top.

I will continuously refer to these three-layer sequences as they continually cropped up, and are probably related in some way to cyclothems which are well known in the rock record.

Experiment #1: rapid emptying of entire sedimentary batch.

For the first experiment, I was operating the mixer. It was filled with our variety of sediments and topped off with water. After a brief mixing run to homogenize the sediments, I simply poured out the entire contents rather rapidly. Total contents was probably around 12 gallons worth of water and sediments, poured out in roughly five seconds. I had built a hill in the middle of the flume, which was promptly wiped out by the flow and had little to know effect on the very evident layering:


The layering was very long and the layers thin.

Experiment #2: Slow, continuous pour

The second run was a continuous pour of the same contents, with continuous water flow. The whole pour probably lasted roughly 8 minutes or so and also produced very distinct layering.

Experiment #3: Pulsed flow

M.E. and Dr. Voss produced a paper1 on the subject of tidal action during the flood of Noah for the 1991 ICC. The scriptures are quite clear that it took 150 days for the floodwaters to rise above the highest mountains, and thus during this time you will have tidal action influencing the continually advancing floodwaters. Every twelve hours would see a mini-tsunami encroach upon the land, each higher than the last one.

To simulate this, we pulsed the flow of sediment-laden waters. This produced the most dramatic horizontal layering, with the number of three-layered sets corresponding the number of pulses, or waves, we sent through the flume. This is probably related to the cyclothems we see within the rock record. Note the repeating sequence of layers, from bottom to top: coarse, white, red; coarse, white, red, etc....


Experiment #4: Uphill flow

This experiment led, serendipitously, to the most dramatic find of the two weeks. We merely tilted the flume so that the water and sediments had to go uphill a mere 2 degrees. This produced some rather dramatic crossbedding.



Allow me to introduce what a crossbed is. This photograph is from the Navajo formation, taken within Zion National Park. You'll notice thick layers on top of each other, and within those layers are angled layers. These angled layers are called crossbeds, and the crossbeds are composed of three parts: The topset (the top, swooping downward curve), the foreset (the face of the slope), and the bottomset (the curve leading from the slope, leveling out against the top of the last layer).

I had a personal goal to produce crossbedding while we were down there, so I was thrilled to say the least. However, none of us were expecting the ease at which it was produced. This one experiment led to an understanding of their genesis, and led to a series of experiments in the linear and rotary flumes.

The secret was standing water. While Andrew and I were well aware that Berthault had produced crossbeds in the lab, we considered his method unrealistic in nature. In Berthault's experiments, they had a horizontal, linear flume in which they had water and sediments flowing through. He then dropped a door at the end of the flume, causing a backwash up the flume. Neither Andrew nor I considered this realistic to nature, nor applicable to the global flood of Noah: What was this magical dam that suddenly appeared on land, blocking the floodwaters of a worldwide flood?

However, sediment-laden waters encroaching on land and encountering an uphill will pool standing water ahead of the sedimentary deposit it's producing. It isn't the uphill that's the key, but merely standing water - which could be an inland lake, water coming from the other side of the continent during the flood, or pooled water from the last tidal wave flowing back out to sea.
The fast-flowing water is carrying sediments in suspension. Once it hits the standing water, it suddenly drops speed dramatically - well below the velocity required to hold the sediments in suspension. The sediments "drop like a rock" (pun intended), and make a steep slope much like a conveyor belt will as it drops sand in a pile. In this case though, the conveyor belt moves along with the pile!

The sediments fill in the standing water area, moving the front edge of the standing water ever farther back and making an ever-longer platform for the fast water to ride on. Thus, the crossbeds continually build into the standing water - sometimes at remarkable speeds. Here is a video of them being produced.

This also has some interesting ramifications: If the flow truly is going uphill, then the standing water and the incoming water have no place to go - thus, the crossbeds will thicken inland as the standing water deepens.


Back to the rotary flume:
At this point, Dr. Clark suggested tilting the rotary flume to acheive an uphill on one side. The rotary flume is mounted on several jackscrews, so we applied roughly a 2 degree tilt. We added extra water and ran it. If there were crossbeds, they were formed from the center out, on an extending, radial arm. However, this experiment demonstrated that it was not the uphill nature of the deposition that produced crossbeds, rather it was flowing water hitting standing water. Because all of the water in the rotary flume travels together, there was essentially no standing water and only brief pulses of backflow.

The high point was at C-1, with the low point obviously being between E2 and E3. Layers were produced, but I would say less that we had before - it seemed to make a mess more than orderly layers, but still produced them in line with Andrew's and Clark's laws. Essentially no recognizable crossbeds were formed. The following radial cut was made at E1:


More experiments in the linear flume:

We then proceeded with a couple of experiments relating to crossbedding.

We first performed a run with a very aggressive introduction of sediments and water into a 1 degree uphill slope. Andrew and M.E. were operating the equipment, and both Dr. Carl Baugh and myself witnessed very steep-sloped crossbedding being formed, but within a fairly thin bed (the reasons for this will be discussed later). This is mentioned in passing because while both Baugh and myself witnessed the crossbeds being formed (see video here), when we were finished, the sediments were so uniform as to appear to be one thick layer with no crossbedding! Thus, it appears that perhaps some layers within the geological record may very well have been formed by a cross-bedding process, but leaving no distinct crossbedding. For myself personally, I will be looking at layers and rocks differently in my investigations in the future, though hindsight of all that I've seen has not brought to remembrance any layer anywhere that looked like a solid layer that broke apart into angled layers like crossbedding.

Addendum, April 25: Only weeks after we completed these experiments, I was out on a field trip with Mike Oard and Andrew Snelling in the Rattlesnake Mountains water gap in Montana. I stumbled upon this layer which usually appears as a simple layer of sedimentary rock. However, differential erosion had revealed that it was indeed crossbedded, but the crossbeds are not visible except by differential erosion.


Again remembering our model of tidal formation of layers, we would have a main tidal wave every twelve hours. Riding on top of this wave would be countless smaller waves; perhaps as big as ocean waves today - which easily achieve 5 to 10 feet high. In this particular experiment, waves were superimposed on the flow of sediment and water being introduced. The waves were not deliberate, but rather simply the result of the equipment being used. As a wave would charge into the standing water, it would displace the standing water with a standing wave. This wave would then collapse into the "vacuum" left behind at the face of the crossbed, slamming the sediments into the crossbed and producing incredibly steep crossbeds. Here's a video of it.

In an attempt to make two sets of crossbeds on top of each other (much like is seen at Zion National Park), we performed two runs. We produced crossbeds in the first run with the flume merely tilted uphill at 1 degree. We then blocked the drain end of the flume, creating a 4" high dam, and filled the flume with standing water.

While Andrew and I objected to Berthault's dam at first, we realized that the dam was not the point: The standing water was the point. There is a variety of ways that standing water can be produced inland during a global flood: The rains being trapped, lakes, small seas, etc... I had proposed that because the east coast had essentially no crossbeds, yet the west (Arizona through Utah) had extensive crossbeds, that perhaps this is the where the two water flows of Noah's flood met (the Rocky mountains having not yet formed)- one flow from the east coast, and one from the west coast. Andrew shot this idea down in flames by pointing out the dinosaur tracks among and above the crossbeds. However, later on I also proposed that one big wave will build up a heap of sediments along a shoreline. When we are dealing with a global flood, I have no qualms envisioning a very large sedimentary build-up forming a dam on the shores of the coasts; thus the dam is not in front of the flow, but rather behind it. This dam would trap water inland from the last tidal wave.

At any rate, standing water was the key, so we produced some by merely blocking the end of the tank and filling it up, on top of our previously formed crossbedded layer. We then ran an agressive run, same as before.

Global flood skeptics have argued that wet sand will not produce crossbeds as steep as dry sand. Such a suggestion is ridiculous: If one merely takes a moment to ask oneself, "Which can produce a steeper bank? Dry sand? Or wet, sticky sand?", the answer becomes quite obvious. We also had Dr. Floyd with us on the last day of the runs, and he surprised me by saying that the geology textbooks specifically say that water will not produce crossbeds steeper than 30 degrees. This amazes me because we produced 37 degree crossbeds with little effort, using fairly crude techniques! I am fairly confident that if we worked at it, we could achieve crossbeds meeting or exceeding 40 degrees. This photo is from the run we performed for the TV crew:


The grain size had no effect on the angle. However, in our experiments, because of the equipment we were using, grain size tended to coarsen throughout the run.

Further crossbeds, and the reactions of newts:

We also ran one experiment which produced crossbeds with newts in the water. This was done to examine their behaviour in flood conditions which produce crossbeds, in hopes that our observations would shed light on the prolific fossil tracks found in the coconino sandstone crossbeds - which I think it did.

To finish off the experiment and produce crossbeds to be left for the next day when a TV crew that was there, we cleaned up the flume and loaded the mixer with a double load of sediments. We left the 4-inch high "dam" at the end of the flume and put in some standing water, though it was not filled completely. The newts being as newts are, were quite content in the water and very docile. It probably would have been better to have creatures (such as lizards which are not amphibian) which are not inclined to "hang out" underwater, but the newts still provided quite an education.

The crossbeds were produced, same as before. While one newt swam around, the second was quite content to stay at the bottom of the crossbeds being formed. The answer became obvious: he was sitting the eddy currents; the place where the water was the slowest. Thus, the newt really didn't have to move or fight any current. He was quite content to just sit there.
The encroaching crossbeds would eventually begin to cover him up, so the newt would simple "step up" onto the new crossbed.


Several lessons were learned:
  • This can explain why fossil tracks are so prolific on the foreset and bottomset of crossbeds. The tracks in the coconino have not been positively identified but could be either lizards or salamanders. They are quite consistent in only traveling uphill. If the tracks are from salamanders, the same salamander could potentially be producing multiple trackways on the foresets of hundreds of feet, or perhaps even miles, of crossbeds. The salamander would "hang out" in the eddy at the bottom of the crossbed, and would simply walk up the crossbed when he was getting buried, float away and catch the eddy once more, returning to the bottom of the next crossbed.
  • Animals (such as lizards) which are swept away by the flowing waters would be sucked into the hydraulics and trapped by the eddy currents. Every year people die by being trapped in the hydraulics at the bottom of decorative dams and small waterfalls - the water is very powerful, even in small volume. In this case, the forming crossbeds make the escarpment that the hydraulics form at, thus trapping animals in them. The only way out was to go up the hill. Thus we see why the trackways in the coconino are almost always going uphill, and often show the creature being bouyed up to produce a trackway that goes from heavy foot impressions, to lighter, to claws only, to completely disappearing - often within only a few feet.
  • The preservation of tracks within the crossbeds is now easily explained: The water along the face of the foreset is virtually still. Simultaneously, there is a continuous dumping of sediments on top of any freshly made tracks, thus protecting them until lithification of the sediments.

Conclusions of crossbed research:

  • the depth, or thickness of the crossbedded layer is determined by the depth of the standing water. With an agressive flow, the layer will be slightly thicker than the depth of the standing water, otherwise it will pretty much be the same thickness as the depth of the standing water.
  • the crossbed dip increases during the formation. The maximum angle of the crossbeds are determined primarily by the speed of the water carrying the sediments and forming the crossbeds. More research needs to be performed to determine the relationship. The only other factor in this is the distance from the starting point of deposition. As can be seen in the videos and pictures, a "base" needs to first be deposited, built up to the depth of the standing water. The crossbeds begin to form immediately, increasing to their maximum angle shortly after the deposition depth has matched the standing water depth. Once the maximum angle is acheived, it varies with the flow speed of the incoming water.
  • the crossbeds which are sometimes thin and sandwhiched between perfectly horizontal layers are now easily explained: The layer in the middle was simply formed with trapped, inland, standing water present while the layers above and below were not. A simple beach dune, produced by the last inland flow of water, would trap water inland which then became the standing water during the next depositional episode.
I'll interject my own, personal opinion here which is not necessarily shared by M.E. or Andrew: I am now quite convinced that the crossbeds of the coconino and navajo formations (as well as gravel crossbeds in various locations) are produced by water; convinced to the point that I will be dogmatic about it. The evidence overwhelmingly points to a watery origin.

Crossbeds as a paleocurrent indicator:

Water-formed crossbeds are, in my opinion, easy to recognize compared to wind-blown sand dunes. Wind-blown sand dunes have remnants of the windward and lee sides preserved somewhat in the crossbeds. For example, this is a photo of a sand dune in eastern New Mexico that had been cut by a bulldozer:

While the dune did have bedding planes (layers), and if one were to look strictly at one side, one might interpret that one side's layers as "crossbeds." However, looking at the breadth of the dune, one can see the layers curve right over to the lee side (on the left), within only a few feet. The crossbeds we see throughout the west go on for many, many miles with no windward side evident. This is exactly what we would expect with a continentally-deposited crossbed layer, and completely contrary to what we see with modern sand dunes. While a lot of the crossbed layers we see in the stratigraphic record are considerably thinner than the height of the sand dune above, we can see layers on both sides of the sand dune (roughly 12 feet high)- but never see the windward side of the crossbeds.

There is one wildcard here: Andrew would suggest that there are many, giant sand dunes in deserts today which were laid there during the flood; and I would tend to agree.

Addendum, April 25: David Lines pointed out that there are clear crossbeds within the White Sands of New Mexico which match our crossbeds identically. This of course has been used to argue that wind-blown sand dunes produce crossbeds. However, I would contend that this evidence precisely demonstrates that the white sands were originally laid down by water and are now being reworked by the wind! The above photograph is of a sand dune which has clearly been formed only by wind. The dune has moved enough that if it had been originally laid down by water, any remnants of the layering left behind by the working of that water has been destroyed by the reworking of the wind. Thus, what we see are only the effects of wind and not large quantities of water. Crossbeds are only formed by water.


Thus, water-produced crossbeds which are positively identified within the stratigraphic record (be they sands, gravels or boulders), can be used as a paleocurrent (ancient water flow direction) indicator. I have personally examined crossbedded layers by the hundreds throughout North America, and I cannot think of a single one that even has the potential to be a wind-blown sand dune. They are all missing the tell-tale windward side of the dune. Thus, we can incorporate crossbeds into the mapping of megatrends in paleocurrents: A valuable study reflecting what went on during the global flood of Noah.


Liquefaction Experiments:

Liquefaction is a state in which sediments are temporarily suspended in water, usually from water percolating up through them. This effect can be seen by working wet concrete, vibrating mud, or even during earthquakes.

Archimedes
was built by our late friend, Don Yeager, from Oklahoma. Sadly, Don passed away literally the day we returned home after performing our research. Archimedes consists of a sealed acrylic box designed to withstand some pressure. Spaced off of the bottom is a membrane which allows water to pass through but not sediments. Beneath this is the inlet from the water pump, and water from this pump goes through a series of baffles to spread out the flow so that it is as uniform as possible throughout the base of the entire unit.

Sediments are loaded into Archimedes on top of the membrane, and the pump intake sticks down from the top of the unit.

In the center of the top is a large, rolling-gasket piston which cycles up and down to induce pressure upon the water and sediments inside the unit. This is to simulate the pressure of waves during the global flood, and the pump's water flow is to induce liquefaction of the sediments. The two mechanisms can be used separately, or in conjunction with each other.

I came to the table with a long-standing desire to perform research in this area of liquefaction, as it relates to the global flood of Noah. I had high expectations that not only would the process produce layers, I had more than one model I had developed in which I used liqeufaction to explain anomolies in the geological and fossil record. I suspected this research would verify some suspicions I had.

Much to my surprise, it became evident very quickly that liquefaction does not produce layers, it destroys them.

I do need to qualify this statement however: liquefaction did indeed sort (more or less) the sediments by density. However, the resulting "layers" were hardly layers at all; they blended together and if the system was to become lithified (cemented, or hardened into rock), it would be one, thick block. If I saw these layers in the geologic record, they would be interesting and noteworthy, but I wouldn't call them layers; I would call it a layer fining upward.
Futhermore, in an attempt to homogonize (uniformly mix-up) the sediments that were loaded into Archimedes, I stuck a high pressure garden hose into the pump return hole and blasted the sediments with high-speed water. To my surprise, this made layers! In fact, try as hard as I could, the only thing that best homogenized the sediments was liquefaction!



Some have suggested (and I personally believed, until now) that cycles of liquefaction during the flood were what produced layers. To affirm/refute this, long period cycles were run in Archimedes. All effects were finished with about 30 seconds, whether liquefying or settling the sediments. We ran 20 cycles of 1 minute duration, pump-induced liquefaction, followed by 1 minute of settling (no moving water). The results were virtually identical on each and every cycle - to the point that it was boring, it was so predictable. It did not produce anything I would call layers, but did definitely (and very, very rapidly) destroy the very definite layers I had inadvertantly produced!

I did run a few long-period cycles with the piston being operated simultaneously, both during liquefaction and settling cycles. The pumping action had no visible effect, except to flex the 1/2" acrylic walls in and out. To be honest, I did not expect the pressure differential to accomplish much. The flexing was enough that it was producing more of an effect than the pressure difference; so the piston action was abandoned.

In the end, the results were the same, no matter what. If we ran the pump any longer than 30 seconds, no change was noted, and no layers were recovered.

There has been some question of flow rates, and this is part of future research. Flow rates will be controlled very accurately, but I strongly suspect this will make no difference on the final outcome except the time required to produce the same results.

Introducing a heresy:

Andrew and I both share a simliar skepticism for the metamorphic interpretation of gneises and schists, and after examining the Llano granite uplift, we both came to the same conclusion: It's a giant, sedimentary rock dome. I know for myself, I believe granite simply has a supernatural origin - there is no natural way to produce it. Contrary to common belief, it is impossible to form it from a melt. This has been borne out both in the lab in and in nature. While Andrew and I both agree that the granite batholith was a sedimentary rock, it's formation still requires previously existing granites! It is granite that has simply been crushed up, transported, and relithified elsewhere. This is a continuing research which I will not discuss here.

One thing I personally noted with the liquefaction sediments was a stark resemblance to schist, gneiss and granitic outcrops I've examined in so many different places: They have stratification, but it's a disordered mess, in the midst of giant plumes. This is precisely what we saw, on a small scale, in the liquefaction tank.

The liquefaction went through several distinguishable phases: Plumes, which brought lower layers through to the top, which caused a tilting of the upper layers downward. This led to "boiling" where all of the layers would eventually go to vertical or near vertical, followed by collapse of all of the structures, including the plumes. I have seen all of these stages within the rock record, namely in the "basement" rocks.

While I cannot be dogmatic on this, it appears as though the granite plume now known as the Llano uplift, was precisely that: A plume. However, it was not formed by a melt (as is conventionally believed), as that is impossible - so it must have been formed "cold" or at lower temperature. I am suggesting that water, supersaturated with silica, produced a liquefaction plume of granitic gravels. The silica precipitated out of the water, cementing the granite gravels into sedimentary granites. The cementing silica (quartz) appears to simply be a part of the granite, as quartz is one of the three main constituents of granite.


Andrew and I were supposed to perform considerable research into silica supersaturation and sedimentary cementation while at Glen Rose, however we simply ran out of time. Andrew has pointed out some processes which are now known which greatly simplify silica super-solubility, even in room termperature water. This may play a major role in explaining the massive beds of silica-cemented sediments around the world.

Conclusions to liquefaction:

Liquefaction doesn't produce layers, it destroys them. However, it may very well be the father of plumes (such as those seen at Kodachrome basin) and the presumed metamorphic rocks referred to as the gneiss and schists so common throughout the Canadian Shield and in the bottom of the Grand Canyon. Some granites and granite "dykes" within these rocks may also very well be simply the cemented sediments from a liquefaction event - layers that were tipped up during the liquefaction process and solidifed before liquefaction destroyed all of the structures.


References and footnotes:

1) M. E. Clark and H. D. Voss, Resonance and Sedimentary Layering in the Context of a Global Flood, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, R. E. Walsh and C. L. Brooks, Editors, 1991, Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, Vol. 2, pp. 53-63.
   
~

Sorry about the presentation, Ian had wrapped some of his pictures in squares and I preferred not to screw around with the code and possibly lose part of the post. Powerful stuff! Geology 202? 310?

~~~~~~~

Back to 2011.  Really interested in Flood Geology and Schists?


Here is an easy read followed by two more technical pieces:



Radioisotope dating of rocks in the Grand Canyon


First published:
Creation 27(3):44–49
June 2005



Rafting through Grand Canyon, northern Arizona, is a most exhilarating and enjoyable experience. Deep below the rim, the crystalline basement rocks tower above the turbulent Colorado River. Official publications say these rocks are more than a billion years old, but when the methods used to date them are carefully examined, a totally different story is discovered.

Figure 1
Photo by Andrew A. Snelling
Figure 1: Crystalline rocks—light-coloured and pink granites, and darker metamorphic rocks—within the Inner Gorge of Grand Canyon.

Clearly visible in the walls of the Inner Gorge are spectacular light-coloured rocks, such as the pink granites,1 which stand out starkly against the darker, metamorphic rocks2 (figures 1 and 2). The latter are former sedimentary and volcanic layers that have been transformed (metamorphosed) by heat and pressure during intense geologic upheavals in the past.

Among these volcanic layers are distinctive dark-coloured rocks called amphibolites3 (figure 3). These were once flows of basalt lava, up to tens of metres thick (figure 4). Some outcrops reveal round pillow structures, showing that the basalt lavas erupted under water.

How old are the rocks?


Based on radiometric dating, long-age geologists say that the basalt lavas erupted 1,745 million years ago4 and were metamorphosed some 1,700 million years ago.5 Many people, including many scientists, accept these dates as absolute truth. They believe that when different radio-dating methods are used on the same rocks, they will all yield the same age. But the quest to test this belief by sampling rocks from deep within Grand Canyon has found it is not true.

Figure 3
Photo by Andrew A. Snelling
Figure 3: Outcrop of the black, metamorphosed basalt flows called amphibolites.
Figure 4
Photo by Andrew A. Snelling
Figure 4: Closer view of an outcrop of amphibolite where a single 1.5 m (5 ft) wide, original basalt flow (now tilted vertically) can be identified.

‘Dating’ amphibolite samples


Figure 5
Photo by Andrew A. Snelling
Figure 5: The thin vertical amphibolite layer (darker rock) just upstream of Clear Creek.

During several raft trips through Grand Canyon, many samples of these ‘Brahma’ amphibolites were collected from various outcrops in the Inner Gorge.6 These included seven samples from a single amphibolite body (figure 5).7

All the samples were sent to two well-respected commercial laboratories for radioisotope testing.8 Both laboratories use standard, best-practice procedures on state-of-the-art equipment and routinely provide accurate and repeatable measurements of the required isotopes.

It is important to realize that the laboratories do not measure the ‘age’ of the rocks but the isotopes in them at the present time. Geologists calculate an ‘age’ using the measured amount of a ‘daughter’ isotope (e.g. argon) and its corresponding ‘parent’ isotope (e.g. potassium).

However, before this calculation can be made, it is necessary to assume how much of the ‘daughter’ and ‘parent’ were present when the rock formed. It is also necessary to assume that no isotopes were gained or lost over time and that the rate of radioactive decay has remained constant at the very slow rate measured today.

Figure 2
Click image to view full-size
Figure 2: Schematic geologic diagram of the rock layers in Grand Canyon. The crystalline rocks of the Inner Gorge are below the horizontal strata of the main canyon walls (after Austin, ref. 13).

The problem is that we don’t know whether these assumptions are reasonable (because they are not provable), and it is especially awkward for metamorphic rocks. Geologists overcome this problem by ‘interpreting’ the result. For example, the calculated ‘age’ could be taken as the ‘date’ of metamorphism, or it could be the ‘age’ of the original volcanic (or sedimentary) rock, or something in between, or something else.

Different methods don’t agree


The calculated ages for all the individual samples from the same geologic formation using the same dating method turned out to be vastly different (see box, ‘Calculating the ages’, below), even for those closely spaced samples from the same outcrop of the same lava flow. The results are not even close to each other, although the samples should all have given the same age.

Furthermore, the ages calculated for these Grand Canyon rocks using three different ‘isochron’ methods also disagreed greatly with each other. Even when the error margins are taken into account, the three different dating methods give completely different ‘ages’ that cannot be explained away.

Indeed, none of the isochron ‘ages’ corresponds to the ‘date’ for any theorized geologic event—neither the original lava eruptions nor the subsequent metamorphism. Clearly, the calculated ages are useless for dating any event.

Calculating the ages

The so-called ‘model’1 potassium-argon (K-Ar) ‘ages’ calculated for each of the 27 amphibolite samples from Grand Canyon ranged from 405.1 ± 10 Ma (million years) to 2,574.2 ± 73 Ma. That is a six-fold difference, for samples that should be of similar age.
Note that the error estimates (the ± numbers) are small compared with the age. They are also small compared with the variation in ages between samples. This means that the laboratory testing was precise. However, as the results show, the error estimates say nothing about the accuracy of the ‘ages’ of the rock samples.
Furthermore, the seven samples from the small amphibolite unit near Clear Creek, which should be even closer in age because they belong to the same metamorphosed basalt lava flow, yielded K-Ar model ‘ages’ ranging from 1,060.4 ± 28 Ma to 2,574.2 ± 73 Ma (figure 6). This includes two samples only 0.84 m (2 ft 9 in) apart that yielded K-Ar model ‘ages’ of 1,205.3 ± 31 and 2,574.2 ± 73 Ma. Clearly, there is a problem with the assumptions on which the K-Ar ‘ages’ are calculated.
The isotopic results other than potassium-argon (K-Ar), namely rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr), samarium-neodymium (Sm-Nd) and lead-lead (Pb-Pb), were used to calculate ages for the rock formation utilizing isochrons.2 Three ages altogether were obtained, one for each isotopic system.
The best isochron plots are where the straight line of best-fit falls within the analytical errors (the ± values) for each data point. Routinely, if the data set is large, a few outlying data points are ignored if they don’t plot on the line. Geologists justify this, saying that some geochemical alteration in the past disturbed the radioisotopes in those samples.
The best-fit isochron plots for these amphibolites yielded a Rb-Sr ‘age’ of 1240 ± 84 Ma from 19 of the 27 samples, a Sm-Nd ‘age’ of 1,655 ± 40 Ma from 21 samples, and a Pb-Pb ‘age’ of 1,883 ± 53 Ma from 20 samples (figure 7).3
Note that the quoted ‘age’ error margins (the ± values) are relatively small, due to the excellent statistical ‘fit’ of these isochrons to the data. In spite of this, the three different radioisotope methods give three very different ‘ages’—that is the ‘isochron discordance’ is pronounced. Figure 8 graphically illustrates how that, even when the calculated error margins are taken into account, the different radioisotope dating methods yield vastly different ‘ages’ that cannot be reconciled.

References

  1. A model age is calculated by assuming a value for the original isotopic composition of the molten liquid from which the rock solidified. In the case of K-Ar, it is assumed that when the rock formed, there was no Ar in it derived from radioactive decay of K.
  2. An isochron is a graphical plot of the isotopic compositions of the samples. It allows an isochron age to be calculated from a straight line plotted through the graph of the results. The Isoplot computer program, developed by Dr Ken Ludwig at the University of California Berkeley Geochronology Center, was used. See: Ludwig, K.R., Isoplot/Ex (Version 2.49): The Geochronological Toolkit for Excel, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley Geochronology Center, Special Publication No. 1a, 2001. The method effectively requires multiple assumptions, namely that the initial isotopic ratio of each sample was the same as the ratio of every other sample in the group.
  3. It is important to note that geologists routinely use only 6–10 samples for plotting isochrons and calculating isochron ages, so the isochrons obtained here from 19–21 samples are exceptional. Furthermore, all the results not included in the isochron ‘age’ calculations still plotted very close to the lines of best fit.

The rule, not the exception


Some might want to dismiss these conflicting ‘dating’ results as an isolated abnormality. They might claim that they are due to the uncertain effects of metamorphism and later alteration, especially erosion and weathering. But these are not isolated results. They are further confirmation of the repeated failure of all the radioisotope ‘dating’ methods to successfully date Grand Canyon rocks.9,10

It is not just creationists who are discovering these dating failures. Other geologists are also reporting that different methods on the same rock unit give conflicting radioisotope ‘dates’.11 But in their reports those geologists include tenuous ‘interpretations’ to try to explain away the abnormal amounts of daughter isotopes. It seems they are trying to avoid the inescapable conclusion that the radioisotope methods simply do not yield reliable ages.12

Conclusion


The radioisotope methods, long touted as irrefutably dating the earth as countless millions of years old, have repeatedly failed to give reliable and meaningful absolute ages for Grand Canyon rocks. Irreconcilable disagreement within, and between, the methods is the norm, even at outcrop scale. In fact, when carefully examined, this radioisotopic evidence is consistent with the view that these rocks are young (see box, ‘Accelerated radioactive decay in the past’, below).

These results are a devastating ‘blow’ to the concept of long ages, foundational to uniformitarian geology and evolutionary biology. It is entirely feasible that the basalt lava flows, now deep in Grand Canyon, erupted onto the ocean floor during Creation Week and were metamorphosed in the upheaval that produced dry land on Day 3, just six thousand years ago.13

Figure 7
Figure 7: Isochron plots for the Brahma amphibolites. (A) Rb-Sr (B) Sm-Nd (C) Pb-Pb. The crosses and ellipses are the data points (sample analyses) and their sizes are proportional to the ± analytical errors.
Figure 6
Figure 6: Sketched plan view of the extent of the thin amphibolite layer just upstream of Clear Creek showing the locations of the ‘dated’ samples and their calculated K-Ar ‘ages’.
Figure 8
Figure 8: Present half-lives versus isochron ‘ages’ for the different radioisotopes ‘dating’ the Brahma amphibolites.

Accelerated radioactive decay in the past

Research by the RATE project1 has uncovered much evidence that radioisotope decay rates were accelerated in a global catastrophic event in the recent past.2 This evidence includes the patterns of discordances between ‘dates’ from the different radioisotope systems.3–6
For example, if accelerated radioisotope decay occurred, then alpha-decaying radioisotopes would yield older isochron ‘ages’ than beta-decaying radioisotopes. This is exactly the pattern in the Brahma amphibolites in Grand Canyon (figure 8).

Because the different radioisotope pairs are supposed to be dating the same geologic (rock formation) event, different ‘dates’ mean that the parent radioisotopes decayed at different rates over the same time period. In other words, the decay of the parent radioisotopes was accelerated by different amounts, the decay of those yielding older ‘ages’ (the alpha-decayers) having been accelerated more. This again matches theory.

Obviously, if radioisotope decay was accelerated, say during the Genesis Flood, then the radioisotope decay ‘clocks’ could never be relied upon when they ‘date’ rocks as millions and billions of years old. Indeed, there are several independent lines of irrefutable evidence7–9which indicate that the rates of decay of these long-age radioisotopes were grossly accelerated during some event in the past, up to millions of times faster than their currently measured rates. Thus, it is entirely plausible that the rocks are only a few thousand years old.

References

  1. RATE is a cooperative research venture between leading creationist geologists and physicists of the Institute for Creation Research and the Creation Research Society of USA into Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth.
  2. Vardiman, L., Snelling, A.A. and Chaffin, E.F. (Eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, California, and the Creation Research Society, St Joseph, Missouri, in preparation, 2005.
  3. Austin, S.A. and Snelling, A.A., Discordant potassium-argon model and isochron ‘ages’ for Cardenas Basalt (Middle Proterozoic) and associated diabase of eastern Grand Canyon, Arizona; in: Walsh, R.E. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 35–51, 1998.
  4. Snelling, A.A., Austin, S.A. and Hoesch, W.A., Radioisotopes in the diabase sill (Upper Precambrian) at Bass Rapids, Grand Canyon, Arizona: An application and test of the isochron dating method; in: Ivey, R.L. Jr., (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 269–284, 2003.
  5. Austin, S.A., Testing the assumptions of radioisotope dating, using whole-rock and mineral isochron methods by K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, and Pb-Pb radioisotope pairs; in: Vardiman et al., ref 2.
  6. Snelling, A.A., Isochron discordance and the role of inheritance and mixing of radioisotopes in the mantle and crust; in: Vardiman et al., ref 2.
  7. Humphreys, D.R., Young helium diffusion age of zircons supports accelerated nuclear decay; in: Vardiman et al., ref. 2.
  8. Snelling, A.A., Radiohalos in granites: evidence for accelerated nuclear decay; in: Vardiman et al., ref. 2.
  9. Baumgardner, J.R., 14C evidence for a recent global Flood and a young earth: in; Vardiman et al., ref. 2.

References


  1. E.g. the Zoroaster Granite. Geological formations have names for ease of identification.
  2. The Vishnu Schist and other rocks of the Granite Gorge Metamorphic Suite. See Karlstrom, K.E., Ilg, B.R., Williams, M.L., Hawkins, D.P., Bowring, S.A. and Seaman, S.J., Paleoproterozoic rocks of the Granite Gorges; in: Beus, S.S. and Morales, M. (Eds.), Grand Canyon Geology, 2nd edition, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 9–38, 2003.
  3. Belonging to a rock unit called the Brahma Schist.
  4. 1741–1750 million years (Ma) based on U-Pb (uranium-lead) ‘dating’ of ‘original’ zircon grains in metamorphosed felsic (granitic) volcanic rock layers within the Brahma and Rama Schists. See Ilg, B.R., Karlstrom, K.E., Hawkins, D.P. and Williams, M.L., Tectonic evolution of Paleoproterozoic rocks of Grand Canyon: Insights into middle-crustal processes, Geological Society of America Bulletin 108:1149–1166, 1996, and Hawkins, D.P., Bowring, S.A., Ilg, B.R., Karlstrom, K.E. and Williams, M.L., U-Pb geochronologic constraints on the Paleoproterozoic crustal evolution of the Upper Granite Gorge, Grand Canyon, Arizona, Geological Society of America Bulletin 108:1167–1181, 1996.
  5. 1690–1710 Ma based on U-Pb ‘dating’ of minerals (monazite, xenotime and titanite) that formed in the overlying Vishnu Schist and underlying Rama Schist during the metamorphism. See Hawkins et al., ref. 4, and Hawkins, D.P. and Bowring, S.A., U-Pb monazite, xenotime, and titanite geochronological constraints on the prograde to post-peak metamorphic thermal history of Paleoproterozoic migmatites from Grand Canyon, Arizona, Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 134:150–169, 1999.
  6. These samples were collected with a Scientific Research and Collecting Permit issued by the Grand Canyon National Park, as part of the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) project.
  7. 50 m (160 ft) long and 2 m (7 ft) wide, outcropping just upstream from the mouth of Clear Creek at river mile 84 (measured from Lees Ferry).
  8. ‘Whole rock’ samples were analyzed in all cases—K-Ar at Activation Laboratories, Ancaster, Ontario, Canada; Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd and Pb-Pb at the PRISE Laboratory, Research School of Earth Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
  9. Austin, S.A. and Snelling, A.A., Discordant potassium-argon model and isochron ‘ages’ for Cardenas Basalt (Middle Proterozoic) and associated diabase of eastern Grand Canyon, Arizona; in: Walsh, R.E. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 35–51, 1998.
  10. Snelling, A.A., Austin, S.A. and Hoesch, W.A., Radioisotopes in the diabase sill (Upper Precambrian) at Bass Rapids, Grand Canyon, Arizona: An application and test of the isochron dating method; in: Ivey, R.L. Jr., (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 269–284, 2003.
  11. Musaka, S.B., Wilson, A.H. and Carlson, R.W., A multielement geochronologic study of the Great Dyke, Zimbabwe: Significance of the robust and reset ages, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 164:353–369, 1998.
  12. Some might argue that these radio-dating methods still give ‘ages’ of many millions of years, as required by evolutionists. However, there is irrefutable evidence that the rates of radioactive decay of these ‘dating’ isotopes were grossly accelerated in the past, being up to millions of times faster than their currently measured rates (see box, ‘Accelerated radioactive decay in the past’, above).
  13. Austin, S.A. (Ed.), Grand Canyon: Monument to the Catastrophe, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, California, ch. 4, pp. 57–82, 1994.




You could read the technical dissertation on ages and isotopes

Discordant Potassium-Argon Model and Isochron “Ages” for Cardenas Basalt (Middle Proterozoic) and Associated Diabase of Eastern Grand Canyon, Arizona

by Steven A. Austin, Ph.D, Institute for Creation Research and Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D., Answers in Genesis

The Geology of Israel within the Biblical Creation-Flood Framework of History:

1. The pre-Flood Rocks

by Dr. Andrew Snelling

155 comments:

Jon Woolf said...

Expecting consistent results from radio-dating metamorphic rocks?

[ROFLMAO]

No better proof could be found of creationists' duplicity and scientific ignorance.

Thanks, Radar, I always like to start the day with a good laugh.

radar said...

I assume therefore you access a mirror? Hehe.

Too good a straight line to pass up...

radar said...

I try so hard...before I was saved I had a famously wicked sarcastic sense of humor. I got a kick out of cutting people to ribbons verbally and I was big and scary looking so few ever did anything about it.

Now I am not scary looking at all and many of the muscles decided to go south for retirement and have populated my stomach like so many ex-NewYawk couples who still root for the Yankees and miss having four seasons.

I was successful in giving up cigarettes and drunkenness and illegal drugs and cursing (I liked stringing together various combinations of foul names and/or suggestions). Then I had to allow God to change other things from the inside out.

I have difficulty with humility and I have difficulty with controlling my sense of humor. Mostly I just hear the "ZING" in my head and let it go.

Once upon a time I thought anywhere I was I was the smartest and toughest and best athlete of the bunch. I was so competitive I would run over anyone or anything to win. So God has done so much to calm me down and balance me out and make me in his image.

But I was a Peter when I rolled out of high school. I am loud and opinionated and lion-hearted and bold and overly confident and too quick to take on a task without careful consideration. I am quick to protect the weak but I was also always looking to take advantage of a good time. Sometimes my mouth made promises my butt couldn't cover.

So sometimes for some reason Jon Woolf is able to get under my skin. It isn't on him, I am responsible for my own behavior. I am frustrated sometimes because I care about what happens to the readers on this blog and I want them to get to know God and not be fooled by a bunch of propped-up outdated anti-science propanda.

Then again, I am reading through the Old Testament in a year's time, I have two men's accountability groups I attend, my wife and I study together and I have the teenagers. I keep holding myself up to God asking Him to smooth off the rough edges. That hurts, by the way, trying sanding off part of you!

So Jon, I apologize for pointing out the wrong lies that did not belong to you and I will try to be very specific to be sure when addressing something you say. I may sometimes choose to ignore what you say, but that beats being hasty.

Anonymous said...

"I apologize for pointing out the wrong lies that did not belong to you"

A nice stab at humility, but if you really want to be a good ambassador for God, you should really lay off the dishonesty. Not just a little bit. Quit it 100%. Are your personality issues really more important to you than bringing people to God?

Earlier you implied that people who "went back and forth" with you were liars. An amazing double standard. When you state blatant untruths that one would have to conclude you know are not untrue (in some cases the evidence was right in front of you), you deny having lied.

But on the other side of the ledger, when somebody disagrees with you - without you even having gone to the trouble of proving them wrong - then that person is a liar. Because they disagreed with you.

Denying the hypocrisy isn't going to work. People notice.

Reconsider your priorities. God or pride?

radar said...

"A nice stab at humility, but if you really want to be a good ambassador for God, you should really lay off the dishonesty. Not just a little bit. Quit it 100%. Are your personality issues really more important to you than bringing people to God?"

I made a mistake by lumping in Woolf with creeper and when I realized the mistake I apologized. Nothing dishonest there. In fact I am not dishonest on this blog at all. I have no idea who you are but you cannot point to me lying on this blog, can you? Or do you know the difference between a mistake and a lie?

If I tell you that Charles Darwin was a Christian, that would be a lie. If I told you that Woolf said something but it was actually creeper, that would be a mistake because all these commenters sometimes get me a bit confused, which is probably their goal. I didn't lie about what was said, it was just that some of it was said by others. I corrected that.

So go find a place where I am lying to you...I will come back to see what you say.

Anonymous said...

"Or do you know the difference between a mistake and a lie?"

I do indeed. Note that I didn't call you a liar in my previous comment.

It seems though that you're thoroughly confused about what a lie is, since you're implying above that somebody who has "gone back and forth" with you must be a liar, apparently just for the sin of disagreeing with you. An amazingly hypocritical stance.

A lie is a knowingly spoken untruth. Sound fair? I suppose one could add "with the intent to deceive", but if you want to add that qualification, then we can't really say that anybody is lying on this blog, and you'd have to retract pretty much all your claims about "Darwinist lies" as well.

Looking back, there are many, many instances of you repeating untruths - and even coming up with some of your own. One could write them off as mistakes, I suppose, if one were feeling charitable...

But what to conclude when that mistake is pointed out to you over and over again? It would be boring and boorish to trade jibes about "reading comprehension".

We've seen how you can't stand having to admit fault on anything, so the most likely explanation, all things considered, is that you prefer not to deal with other people's arguments so as not to endanger your worldview.

Which means you're going to keep repeating untruths. Knowingly. Exactly as you have been doing.

How is that not lying?

Anonymous said...

"If I told you that Woolf said something but it was actually creeper, that would be a mistake because all these commenters sometimes get me a bit confused, which is probably their goal."

Yes, of course that was a mistake. I doubt the commenters are trying to get you confused about which of them said what. That would be nonsensical.

What was presumably not a mistake was that you accused Jon Woolf of having lied about the fossil record and biology. Even if you now say it wasn't Woolf, but maybe creeper or somebody else, you still haven't backed up the claim at all.

What was the lie about the fossil record? What was the lie about biology?

I put it to you that your accusation here is a lie, whether it refers to Woolf or someone else. You're welcome to prove otherwise, of course, or to simply admit that it was a mistake. In the absence of proof, that would be the honest thing to do.

Lista said...

Radar,
I've Read just a Little Less then Half of the Above and I'm Finding it Interesting. Thanks.

I'm getting a little Tired of your Commenters, though. They are Down Right Brutal and they don't even seem to Know it.

First Woolf Laughs without Explaining or Giving any Evidence of the Reason Why he is So Amused. Next, Anonymous Continues to Lay Into you, even After you've Apologized. Apparently, he doesn't Understand that within Christianity, an Apology is Supposed to be Forgiven and the Slate is Wiped Clean. Non-Christians, though, are Quite Unforgiving.

"Are your personality issues really more important to you than bringing people to God?"

That Statement is a Distortion of what you are About and About what Christianity is About. Christianity is about Humility and that is not the Same as Considering Personal Issues Important.

I see Way more Pride and Way more Hypocrisy in your Commenters then I do in you.

This isn't a Fair Playing Field Either, for it would be Difficult to Accuse Anonymous of Lying, since we do not Know which Anonymous is which. He is Trowing Darts at you, while Hiding behind a Wall of Anonymity.

Anonymous,
"A lie is a knowingly spoken untruth. Sound fair? I suppose one could add 'with the intent to deceive', but if you want to add that qualification, then we can't really say that anybody is lying on this blog, and you'd have to retract pretty much all your claims about 'Darwinist lies' as well."

I've Never Liked the Word Liar for this Very Reason. It is Better to say that what you are Saying is Incorrect, for that is less of an Accusation, yet the Accusation of Lying has been Coming from Both Sides, so we Can't just Pin this on Radar.

"We've seen how you can't stand having to admit fault on anything."

That Statement is Simply Untrue, for Radar is the Only One Present that has Shown any Signs of Humility and just because you Perceive Something as Untrue, doesn't Mean that it is.

Gee! I Wonder if I should Avoid Reading the Comments. The Post is Interesting, though.

Anonymous said...

"We've seen how you can't stand having to admit fault on anything."

"That Statement is Simply Untrue,"

Lista, if you read through this blog in its entirety, you'll find that it is actually true.

Lista said...

I Judge People Based on the Way they are Today, not the Way they were Yesterday. An Apology Wipes the Slate Totally Clean. Radar is now Justified before both God and me because of his Apology and that is what that was; an Apology, not a out of Balance Focus on Personality Issues, so even if what you are saying is True, it does not Matter.

Lista said...

Have you Admitted Fault Lately, Anonymous? Have you Admitted your Weakness and your Need for God? If you haven't, then it is you, not Radar, that is Still Guilty before God.

Lista said...

In the Midst of all the Insults that are Being Thrown Around, I am now Going to Try and Say Something that is at Least a Little more Intelligent.

I have now Read the Section Written by Ian Juby about the Sedimentation, Stratification of Crossbeds, and Liquefaction Experiments. I'm Guessing that I do not have much more than 1/4 of your Above Post Left to Read.

These Experiments are Very Interesting, Radar. Setting Bias Aside, I Guess the Main Problem Currently with the Norah's Flood Idea is the Fact that though the Fast Movement of Water Creates Layers, Liquefaction Destroys them, so the Presence of Water Over the Earth for a Period of Time may Destroy what the Initial Flooding Produced.

I Wonder though if the Depth of the Water could be a Factor. In Other Words, if the Water is Deep Enough, would the Vibration Created by the Waves on the Surface be Less at the Bottom, thus Creating Less Liquefaction.

As the Water Evaporated, though, the Water would Eventually be Shallow Again before it Disappeared. From what I can see, the Layers are Produced more by Rapid Water Movement through a Channel, Followed by a Rapid Exit, rather than the Continuing Presence of Water, which Saturates and Liquefies, such as the Situation of the Flood.

Odd that I Would Disagree with you on this, but I Try Really Hard to not Show Bias when it Comes to Science.

The Idea that the Canyons were Formed by the Flooding from the Melting of Glaciers, after the Ice Age, though, seems to have Very Strong Evidence and that is what I'm Leaning Towards and this Still Fits with the Idea of a Young Earth.

These Experiments Clearly Contain Evidence that Crossbeds Similar to those in the Geologic Record can indeed be Created by Water.

I Especially thought that the Experiment that they did with the Newts was Interesting. This Section is Entitled "Further Crossbeds and the Reactions of Newts."

I've Still Got more to Read.

Lista said...

Here's an Idea. Even though the Liquefaction Created by the Waves on the Service of the Flood Waters may have Destroyed whatever Layers were Created by the Initial Flooding, this does not Mean that this Flooding did not Contribute to the Depth in the Canyons. Later, the Flooding from Glacier Waters Finished the Job, Adding Additional Depth to the Canyons and Leaving the Layers that we Observe Today.

radar said...

The concept of Flood Geology is one which men like Dr. Henry Morris pioneered and is carried on by the likes of Tas Walker. Because the waters keep rising, soon the sedimentary layers are far below the surface of the water during the height of the flood stage so that sediments below would remain relatively undisturbed.

Notice that Juby's quite violent flumes produced layers that didn't get stirred up and destroyed but rather simply produced more layers? Also that the various formations of the Grand Canyon were reproduced in Juby's experiements?

We know even now that there are rivers and streams within the ocean. In a world-wide flood event there would have been bigger rivers and streams, some mostly freshwater, plus the areas closer to the volcanic activity would be perfect conditions for blooms of certain kinds of life. Thus we have the White Cliffs of Dover, the product of an amazing population of foraminifera / Coccolithophores living large on nutrient-rich waters and warm water temperatures.

radar said...

I know from my limited diving experience that going down below the waves rather quickly changes the action of the water. As the Flood progressed it covered the highest points on the planet and then exceeded the very highest by 15 cubits. Genesis 7:19 & 20. A biblical cubit is between 18 and 24 inches, so the highest point on the planet at that time was covered by between 22 and 30 feet. Naturally most of the earth would have been covered by much more water than the top of the highest mountains, so the layers put down by the inundatory phase would soon be deep below most turbulence.

It is obvious from the megabreccias, the polystrate fossils, the crossbedding and interbedding and the layers where fossils are sorted by water flow that the sedimentary rocks are the result of water catastrophic events. The sheer magnitude of a layers of sedimentary rock that span several states like the Tapeats makes the uniformitarian or "several huge floods" hypotheses seem childish. Really, there is no way to logically explain the layers other than the flood explanation.

Lista said...

"Because the waters keep rising, soon the sedimentary layers are far below the surface of the water during the height of the flood stage so that sediments below would remain relatively undisturbed."

Eventually, though, the Evaporation would Bring the Water Back to a Shallower Level before the Water was Completely gone.

What Juby's Experiments Showed was that the Formations of the Grand Canyon can be Created by Water, yet whether this was the Flood of Noah, or the Floods Caused by the Melting of the Glaziers has not been Established by these Experiments and what I'm saying is that that doesn't Matter. The Fact that the Grand Canyon was probably Caused by some Form of Massive Flooding is Enough to give Evidence to the Idea of a Young Earth.

"Notice that Juby's quite violent flumes produced layers that didn't get stirred up and destroyed but rather simply produced more layers?"

That's Right. The Rapid Flow of Water causes Layers. It is when the Rapid Flow Stops and there is Vibration on the Soil Beneath the Water that the Layers are Destroyed. That is Why what I want to Know is How Much Vibration is Required?

"Really, there is no way to logically explain the layers other than the flood explanation."

Careful, Radar. You are going to Limit your Options in Relation to the Young Earth Idea. You Might be Right, but you can't Prove it yet. Personally, I'm Leaning towards the "Several Huge Floods" Idea, followed by some Natural Erosion Over a much Shorter Time Period than at First Thought.

Lista said...

Hi Radar,
My Husband Claims that the Term Liquefaction is a Term that Relates to Earth Quakes, not just Waves, which would Indicate that it Takes Quite a Bit of Vibration in Order to Cause this Liquefaction. I Somehow Missed the Mention of Earthquakes in my First Time Through the Article.

I Think they Probably could have done a Better Job at Explaining how Liquefaction Happens in Nature. According to my Husband, it Happens in Earthquakes and the Wikipedia has a Definition that Fits what he Said; "Soil liquefaction describes a phenomenon whereby a saturated soil substantially loses strength and stiffness in response to an applied stress, usually earthquake, shaking or other sudden change in stress condition, causing it to behave like a liquid."

If this is True, then why didn't they Expose the Liquefaction Tank to Intense Vibrations, such as would be Present During an Earth Quake? I do not Recall any Mention of the Liquefaction Tank being Vibrated. The Focus instead was on a "Rolling Gasket Piston, which Cycles up and down to induce Pressure upon the Water and Sediments inside the Unit." Their Focus Instead was on the Water Pressure Resulting from Waves, but How Many Waves and How Much Vibration is Required?

Keeping this in Mind, even if the Water was Shallow for a Time, if the Weather was Calm and there were no Earthquakes, there would be no Liquefaction.

Anonymous said...

"I Judge People Based on the Way they are Today, not the Way they were Yesterday."

Fine. But a pattern of behavior will give you some clue about a person's character.

"Have you Admitted Fault Lately, Anonymous?"

Yep. Quite frequently actually.

"Have you Admitted your Weakness"

Yeah, I have no qualms in that regard.

"and your Need for God?"

Well, I'm an atheist, so I don't think God exists. That's not to say I don't wish God did exist, as I think I would find it comforting if such a thing did. But wishing alone don't make it so.

"If you haven't, then it is you, not Radar, that is Still Guilty before God."

Well, any one of us is guilty of some horrible crime before someone else's notion of a deity, including you and Radar. But notice that Radar's apology was a backhanded one. He simply said that it was somebody else's lie, but refuses to back up his accusation. Maybe it comes across as honest and humble to you, but Radar is simply continuing to be dishonest.

radar said...

How boring and pathetic you anonymous commenters get to be. Falsely accusing me of lying while completely dodging the evidence presented.

Since I am a first amendment guy, I let this stuff go. But when you accuse me of lying, you are accusing a son of God. Jesus Christ has forgiven me and furthermore your accusations are false, so when you attack a man of God you are attacking God.

I am nothing without God, really. I was going to waste my life on drugs, women, rock & roll and booze. Probably I would be dead or in jail now or else touring with a band with a facelift, a couple of kids with different women I didn't marry and an ego the size of Jupiter. So, yeah, I am a believer because I know that God really does change you on the inside when you are born again.

But the average reader will see this post that explains all the formations of the Grand Canyon and goes into great detail specifically about schists and then wonder why commenters are changing the subject? I will tell you why - because they cannot deal with the evidence. Game, set and match.

Lista said...

Anonymous,
Lives have been Changed as the Result of a Belief in God. In the Alcohol Anonymous Groups, though they have been Careful to not Make it Christian, and to Call God the "Higher Power", Even so, the Emphasis on the "Higher Power" and the Belief in Something Outside of Oneself has been Proven to be more Effective than just Trying to Change on One's Own.

The Biggest Evidence of God, though, is Internal, not External. We Sense His Presence in Our Hearts and He even Speaks to us in a Quiet Way that is Both Comforting and Leads to Positive Decisions that have Positive Effects on Our Lives and Others.

I Make much Better Decisions and am Better Able to Live a good life and do the Right Thing when I Pray and Talk to God and Listen to that Quiet Voice Inside of me. Why do you Suppose that is?

One Thing that I noticed is that Atheists tend to Expect more from Christians than they do from anyone else. In Reality, there is no such Thing as the Total Absence of Hypocrisy in anyone's Life because we are Imperfect as Humans and are not always able to Live Up to Our Own Expectations of Ourselves. This is why, we as People say, "I Believe this." and yet find ourselves Falling Short of it.

It is not as if Atheists do not have this Same Problem, cause they do and Expecting Perfection from anyone, even a Christian, is not Realistic, because God Forgives and Helps us, but Even with God, Growth is a Process.

"Well, any one of us is guilty of some horrible crime before someone else's notion of a deity, including you and Radar."

You are Right, for the Bible says, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23, KJV) and this is why we Need God's Grace.

"But notice that Radar's apology was a backhanded one. He simply said that it was somebody else's lie, but refuses to back up his accusation."

Radar is Asked Continually to Back up such a Large Number of Things that it is Simply not Possible to Achieve such a Task without Spending all Day and all Night at the Computer and Those who Accuse him are Highly Impatient and Unrealistic in what they Expect. Perhaps you could Remind us, though, of what Exactly it is that he has Failed to Back Up. Maybe he'll eventually get to it or Maybe not.

It is Easier to establish an Untrue Statement, though, than it is to establish the Motive of Lying. Personally, I Think it is Better to Allow God to Convict People in relation to their Motives.

Lista said...

Radar,
Sounds like you have an Impressive Testimony. I Praise God, that he has Helped you to Live a Better Life. I was Raised in a Christian Home and was Spared from some of the Stuff that you have Obviously been Through. I don't Know how anyone Goes through Life without God.

Lista said...

After Reading to the End of the Above Post, Including the Section on the Dating of Rocks, I Understand Woolf's Comment a little better, yet I Wonder why he would Laugh at the Expectation of consistent Results from the Radio-Dating of Metamorphic Rocks. If this is so Obvious and Everyone Knows that this Clock is Broken, then why do we Keep Trusting it?

The last three Paragraphs of that Article, though, are the most Impressive because if there are Times in which Radioactive Decay is Accelerated, then this is Evidence for a Younger Earth.

To all Atheists who Follow this Blog. Are you sure that there is not some Underlying Reason for your Reluctance to Believe in God. Are you Angry about something? Is there some personal issue, such as something that you do not want to Give Up? You don't have to Answer. I just want you to Think about it.

Jon Woolf said...

Lista: I Wonder why he would Laugh at the Expectation of consistent Results from the Radio-Dating of Metamorphic Rocks. If this is so Obvious and Everyone Knows that this Clock is Broken, then why do we Keep Trusting it?

I laughed because everyone who actually knows anything about radiometric dating knows that you can only use it on unaltered igneous rocks. When you stay within that restriction, radiometric dating is extremely accurate. When you break that restriction, your results will be nonsense. The quoted paper from Andrew Snelling uses radiometric dates derived from amphibolites -- which are metamorphic rocks -- to claim that all radiometric dating is unreliable. So apparently Snelling didn't know about that restriction. Neither does Radar. Think about that: Radar yammers on at great length, in post after post after post, about how ignorant 'Darwinists' are of science and logic, how they lie and cheat and deceive in order to push their ideas ... and then he quotes a blatantly, stupidly wrong piece of garbage like this!

And even now that I've explained the problem with it, I suspect he still won't admit how wrong Snelling was, or how wrong he was to trust Snelling without checking other sources.

As for the Grand Canyon and the absurd claim that it was formed by flood runoff -- have you by any chance seen my essay on that subject? It starts here:

http://www.jwoolfden.com/gc_intro.html

and goes on for four pages. Not a bad piece, and that's not just my opinion. That article has been used as a reference by two or three college courses.

Jon Woolf said...

Lista: I Wonder why he would Laugh at the Expectation of consistent Results from the Radio-Dating of Metamorphic Rocks. If this is so Obvious and Everyone Knows that this Clock is Broken, then why do we Keep Trusting it?

I laughed because everyone who actually knows anything about radiometric dating knows that you can only use it on unaltered igneous rocks. When you stay within that restriction, radiometric dating is extremely accurate. When you break that restriction, your results will be nonsense. The quoted paper from Andrew Snelling uses radiometric dates derived from amphibolites -- which are metamorphic rocks -- to claim that all radiometric dating is unreliable. So apparently Snelling didn't know about that restriction. Neither does Radar. Think about that: Radar yammers on at great length, in post after post after post, about how ignorant 'Darwinists' are of science and logic, how they lie and cheat and deceive in order to push their ideas ... and then he quotes a blatantly, stupidly wrong piece of garbage like this!

[to be continued...]

Jon Woolf said...

[continued...]

And even now that I've explained the problem with it, I expect he still won't admit how wrong Snelling was, or how wrong he was to trust Snelling without checking other sources.

As for the Grand Canyon and the absurd claim that it was formed by flood runoff -- have you by any chance seen my essay on that subject? It starts here:

http://www.jwoolfden.com/gc_intro.html

and goes on for four pages. Not a bad piece, and that's not just my opinion. That article has been used as a reference by two or three college courses.

Lista said...

"As for the Grand Canyon and the absurd claim that it was formed by flood runoff."

If I Understand it Right, the Theory does not State that it is Flood "Runoff" (as the water receded), but that it was Caused by the Initial Flooding, as it was just Starting and the Above Article Shows Evidence of how it could have been Created in this Way.

I Thought that was your Blog. I Ran Across it Once while Doing a Web Search. I Scanned some of it, but did not Read it in it's Entirety and I've been Wondering ever Since then why you have Left no Link to it by Clicking on your Name.

radar said...

As usual Woolf ignores the major issues of the sedimentary rock formations and goes back to the just-so stories of the ruling paradigm. I have many times illustrated the formations that completely rule out uniformitarianism and multiple-local-floodism.

Once I challenged the entire blog commenting world to give me a material source for information and their failure stands in mute testimony on my blog links roll.

Darwinists have been dating metamorphic rocks for many decades using demonstrably ill-considered methods. You actually miss the point of using the dating methods and the dates yielded thereby and probably it is because you didn't read the article.

Much like Scohen (who was completely wrong about Hartnett's equation and then refused to admit his mistake) this was probably a result of being careless, you probably didn't even read the post but just cherry-picked a small part and gave us a helping of derision.

Jon Woolf, you are just a prejudiced anti-science naturalistic materialist who hates God and will accept no evidence that in any way suggests that God exists. The idea that you consider calling someone a creationist is tantamount to calling him a bad name just underlines your kneejerk reaction to posts. It would be interesting to see you explain to the class what Juby got wrong, for instance.

Jon Woolf said...

Such vitriol, Radar! Is that really all you have in the way of counter-arguments?

On information: you've been given answers, you just rejected them because they weren't what you wanted to hear.

Darwinists have been dating metamorphic rocks for many decades using demonstrably ill-considered methods.

Examples? Evidence, citations? When has any conventional geologist ever used radiometric dating to obtain the original age of a metamorphic rock?

Lista said...

Hi Jon Woolf,
First, Let's Take a look at your Introduction, in which we find a Couple of Interesting Statements, that I’m Going to Respond to.

"Young-Earth Creationists are drawn to the Grand Canyon by that same vastness, and by their need to deny it.

The Statement, "by their need to deny it", Illustrates your Bias, for Denying the Traditional Interpretations is not the Same as Denying the Evidence in the Canyon.

"to try to explain the Canyon in terms of their 'Flood' geology; that the layers of rock were laid down by the Flood, and the Canyon itself was created during the run-off phase of the Flood."

Is that Correct, Radar? Is it the Run-Off Phase, or the Initial Flooding of the Waters as the Earth was Filled with Water.

"All you need is eyes and a brain, and a few very basic principles.

Do you Mean the Principles of the Current "Unquestioned" Conventional Status Quo.

"which one gives a better explanation for ALL the available evidence."

That's a Lofty Claim. We'll just have to see about that.

"Rocks cannot lie."

Yes, but they have to be Interpreted and therein lies the Problem.

"The geologic record shows what actually happened, and there's no way around that."

That's a Lofty Claim too. You are saying that what the Evidence Shows is Crystal Clear, but it is not. I'm going to try and Remember these Lofty Claims as I Read your Article.

scohen said...

"Much like Scohen (who was completely wrong about Hartnett's equation and then refused to admit his mistake) "

First off, I am not wrong about Hartnett, but I did make two mistakes:

1. I over-emphasized his wrongness of using an integral. It's not wrong, much like hammering a nail in with the handle of a screwdriver is not wrong.

2. I overestimated your ability to understand my argument. It's obviously well beyond you. Even Kevin agreed with me, but you didn't seem to read or understand that part of his email.

I'm presently taking a different tack on this and your rather odd understanding of 'information', but you're not going to like it one bit.

Lista said...

More for Jon Woolf,
"which one gives a better explanation for ALL the available evidence."

The Reason Why the Word "ALL" so Caught my Eye, Jon Woolf, is Because the Evidence that is in this Post is what is being Denied by Conventional Geologists.

"Rocks cannot lie."

The Accelerated Decay Mentioned in the Last Three Paragraphs of the Last Article show that the Evidence can indeed Lie if not Viewed Correctly.

Radar,
Here is a Sentence in the Above Article that Impressed me...

"I had proposed that because the east coast had essentially no crossbeds, yet the west (Arizona through Utah) had extensive crossbeds, that perhaps this is where the two water flows of Noah's flood met (the Rocky mountains having not yet formed)- one flow from the east coast, and one from the west coast."

What I was Wondering is whether or not there were also some Massive Underground Springs that Contributed their Part to a lot of these Canyons During the Floods when the "Fountains and Springs of the Deep were Opened." (Genesis 7:11)

The Reason Why I was Questioning Woolf's Statement about the Run Off, Rather than the Initial Flooding is because the Above Article Appears to be Focusing on Massive Flooding, not Run Off and I'm Sure that the Initial Flooding was Far more Violent then the Run Off. That is, if indeed there was Run Off, rather than just Evaporation and Gradual Absorption into the Ground.

To me, it just Sounds like he is Trying to Down Play the Violence of the Initial Flood.

Lista said...

Scohen & Radar,
I Think I am Beginning to Understand something about Radar's Understanding of Information. It has to do with Breeding. When you Breed Dogs, in Order to Get a Particular Breed, you have to Deprive the Dogs of the Information that does not Relate to that Breed, thus the Breeding Process becomes a loss of Information.

This is also the Reason why we are Discouraged from Marrying People that we are too Closely Related to. The Reason Why is because the Loss of Information in this Case, Leaves such a Limited Amount of Genetic Information within any Given Family, that it Contains Medical Risks. To Gain Back the Genetic Information that's been Lost, we have to Marry Outside of the Family, but that Brings up an Interesting Point.

You see, the Information is not Actually Lost. It may be Lost within a Given Individual, or Even a Given Nationality or Breed, but it is not Lost in the Totality of the Species, or is that now Called Genus? (the Definition of Species has been Changed from what it Originally was, which has Distorted the whole Speciation Arguments). Anyway, the Information is Actually Preserved because in the Production of Each New Life a Different Set of Information is Lost.

radar said...

Lista,

Yep, dog breeders breed things OUT to limit the breed to certain traits that are considered optimal to the breed. There are so many different varieties of the dog kind (dog, wolf, coyote, etc.) that one could imagine being able to breed back to the original pair that stepped off of the Ark.

But the information required to make a dodo or a pteranodon or a styrachosaurus or a marsupial wolf is probably lost forever. When a variety of animal goes extinct it is entirely possible that there is not enough of that specific genetic material left amongst its relatives to breed it back into existence.

radar said...

scohen, the one thing I do understand is that you are incapable of admitting you are wrong even when your exact words were repeated back to you. Kevin agreed with me and did in fact explain that Hartnett was simply using an integral when he didn't need to do so. But the equation did represent his argument. If I recall, Kevin simply said that if you read Hartnett's post you would understand the equation.

Your comment seems to be nothing more than a suggestion that you are so much smarter than I am that your error should be ignored. The few lucky individuals with towering intellects should be allowed to be wrong because their wrongs are righter than the ordinary man's right. I do not agree.

You have Arthur Fonzarelli disease. It is curable.

Jon Woolf said...

Lista: "The Accelerated Decay Mentioned in the Last Three Paragraphs of the Last Article show that the Evidence can indeed Lie if not Viewed Correctly."

No. Humans can lie, but the evidence never does. The evidence may be incomplete, or it may contradict your assumptions, but it never lies.

The "accelerated radioactive decay" you're talking about is interpretation, not evidence. Think about it. Evidence is what we see, with our senses and our instruments. So the evidence for radioactive decay rates is the observed decay rates, the observed amounts of parent isotopes, and the observed amounts of daughter isotopes. Everything else -- yes, I said everything else -- is interpretation. The goal of the scientific method is to help us distinguish useful interpretations from not-useful ones.

scohen said...

"scohen, the one thing I do understand is that you are incapable of admitting you are wrong even when your exact words were repeated back to you"

Umm, I'm fully ready to admit a mistake, it's kind of part of my job.
The problem here is that you're unqualified to say if I made a mistake or not, and Kevin clearly said I didn't. You could have avoided the entire miscommunication by putting us in contact, but my evil Jewish vibes would have ruined his life.

"Your comment seems to be nothing more than a suggestion that you are so much smarter than I am that your error should be ignored."

Nope, try again. #1 of my comment clearly cites fault with my approach.

"You have Arthur Fonzarelli disease."

Is that why when I hit jukeboxes they start up?

Radar, there's a plank in your eye.

Jon Woolf said...

Lista: "The Statement, "by their need to deny it", Illustrates your Bias, for Denying the Traditional Interpretations is not the Same as Denying the Evidence in the Canyon."

My bias? Perhaps. It's always possible -- I am only human.

On the other hand ...

I've been to Grand Canyon. Not for as long or in as much depth as I'd like, but I have been there. Words, even pictures don't suffice to describe it. In the Grand Canyon, Deep Time isn't just an idea, it's a thing, an almost-physical force that hits you at gut level and doesn't let you go. I genuinely do not understand how a rational person can see that, feel that, and still think the Grand Canyon was dug in only a few days or weeks.

If that's bias, then I guess I'm biased.

radar said...

scohen,

Kevin is my friend and we have discussed this matter at length and I am confident based on what he wrote and what you wrote that you were wrong and are unwilling to admit it. That is on you,

I will make the following unequivocal statements: God created pluripotent front-loaded baramin or kinds from which all living organisms have descended.

Linnaeus fully intended to represent this concept with his classification system. He was a believer in the Creator God and he was attempting to separate out various organisms into families and groups that would represent the relationships and differences of created kinds.

We now have genetic information that allows us to classify organisms by more advanced methods that Linnaeus. We are beginning to classify the original kinds and we call this baraminology.

Species is a man-made concept that is a bit behind the times. Baramin is the word for "kind." A kind is the progenitor of an entire line of organisms, such as the wolf-dog kind. We have discovered that many supposedly separate species of organisms can successfully mate, thereby leading baraminologists to classify organisms a bit differently than did our predecessors.

There is no natural process that has been demonstrated to produce new information. None.

Lista said...

Woolf,
Let's not get Technical about Words. Obviously Inanimate Objects Can't Lie because Lying Involves Motive and Inanimate Objects do not have Motives. The Phrase, "Rocks cannot Lie.", though Artistic in Writing, can not be Used to Imply that therefore, my Interpretation of these Rocks, or Even the Conventional, Status Quo, Interpretation of these Rocks, is Absolutely Correct and Irrefutable.

The Statement that Rocks have no Motives to Deceive is Meaningless because Interpretation is where the Debate is at, not the Existence or Nonexistence of Certain Rocks.

The Word Lie doesn't Really Fit here because Evidence Neither Lies, nor Tells the Truth. The Reality is that Evidence doesn't Speak at all. The Message is Vague and Requires Interpretation.

We Can, in fact, be Deceived by the Way Certain Facts are at First Perceived. It is not the Rocks Lying to us. It is more a Misunderstanding of the Message they are Conveying. Since Rocks can not Actually Talk, we have to Guess at what their Evidence Actually Means and Guesses can be Incorrect, even if these Guesses have been at One Time Accepted as a Truth by the Status Quo.

"The ‘accelerated radioactive decay’ you're talking about is interpretation, not evidence."

You are Right and so is Everything Else that Relates to the Dating of Rocks. It is Interpretation, when Conventional Geologists do it as well and that is what I Believe the Above Rock Article is Trying to Say.

"The goal of the scientific method is to help us distinguish useful interpretations from not-useful ones."

It is Easy to Get this Wrong, though, as well.

AmericanVet said...

Yes, the Grand Canyon is massive. If big is a sign of age then the Sears Tower is far older than the White House. The Grand Canyon is absolutely dwarfed by the Marianas Trench but, being underwater, we don't ride donkeys down pathways within it.

I share the wonder and grandeur displayed by the GC and the Rockies and many other wonderful sights I have visited in my life. I look up into outer space and I see that there is a beyond I cannot see and a grandeur that dwarfs me.

You feel long ages and deep time. I feel God. I used to just wonder and speculate with no way to know what was of meaning and what wasn't. A life without meaning was all that stretched before me, but if that was truth I was quite willing to live it. I would live for self and avoid hurting others or being jailed while in pursuit of my own pleasures and desires. But God.

God met me where I was, with my years of college and mounds of books and cool dismissal of religious folks and hit me right between the eyes with Truth. God poked me right in that God-shaped hole in my heart and asked me if I wanted to know Him or continue to worship myself? I saw the paucity of the human mind and ability in comparison to the Creator of all things and all time and all concepts and I bowed humbly before Him and asked Him to forgive my sins and take Me into His family.

That day the Grand Canyon was still Grand. But God is the Ultimate Glorious Grandeur for Whom I patiently will wait until my time on Earth is done. When I depart this body I will be able to see Him as He is. That will be the Grandest Sight Ever...

scohen said...

"Kevin is my friend and we have discussed this matter at length"

Radar, since you've never understood the point I made, how can you be expected to convey it to Kevin? Even if you did understand it, I also have no idea how someone as biased as yourself could present my argument fairly.

"I am confident based on what he wrote and what you wrote that you were wrong"

Then why didn't Kevin say that?

The fact of the matter is that you stood in the way of open discussion because you feared the answer.

To clarify your statement, since God front-loaded 'kinds', no information has entered any genome, correct?
Also, a 'Kind' is a broader classification than species, yes?

Lista said...

You Know, this Conversation is Moving Along again Faster than I can Respond to it. I've already got a Two Part Comment Going that is Only in Relation to Jon Woolf & Radar.

Though, I did Read the First Paragraph of American Vet, Agreed with it and Got a Real Kick Out of how he Said it, I'm going to Focus now on what I have already Written for Radar & Jon Woolf, before Reading any Further.

Jon Woolf,
I did not Point out your Bias in Order to Insult you, but Simply to Remind you that it is there.

"Deep Time isn't just an idea, it's a thing, an almost-physical force that hits you at gut level and doesn't let you go."

Sounds like you are talking about the Wow!! Factor. The Fact that the Canyon is even there at all is a Wow!! One Might Even Say, "How in the World did God do this One!!" The Same Exact Impression Hits you when you Look at the Stars and if you Study them, then the Wow!! Factor just gets all that Much Bigger.

The Difference is that you Think of Time and I Think of the Very Awesome Greatness of God.

"I genuinely do not understand how a rational person can see that, feel that, and still think the Grand Canyon was dug in only a few days or weeks."

Actually, I Think I Agree with you on that One. I Think that it was Multiple Floods, not Only One, with the Great Flood of Noah being the Greatest and then a Couple more Floods from the Melted Glacier Waters from the Ice Age.

Radar,
Your Last Comment Makes it Crystal Clear that you are talking about New Information that Moves One "Species" (or Actually Kind), from one Species/Kind to Another.

I have been a Little Confused Lately about what they call the "Speciation" Debate, for if the Word Species does not Relate to the Original Biblical Kind, then this Whole Concept no Longer has any Meaning or Relevance to the Actual Limits within Natural Selection and Evolution between Kinds. In Actuality, this does nothing more than Confuse the Issue.

Here is that Link again that will Help those who do not Already Know how the Definition of Species has Changed.

Fixity of Species

Lista said...

In the Article I just gave a Link to, we see that the Word "Species" Originally Meant the Biblical Kind. I Guess the Definition Change Took Place in the Mid-to-Late 1700s, when the Word Species was Used in Scientific Circles, as part of a Biological Classification System, yet this Definition is Still being Debated to this Day.

Basically the Change is this. What used to be a Dog Species (or Dog Kind), became many Dog "Species" within the "Genus" of Dog.

When a Creationist says, though, that there is no Evidence of Natural Selection or Evolution "between Species", he does not Mean that there has been no Evolution between Breeds of Dog or Cat. He means that no Matter how Hard you Try in your Breeding, a Dog will always be a Dog and a Cat will always be a Cat. If that is Called "Genus" now, rather than "Species", then we are no Longer Talking the Same Language when Debating "Speciation" and Macro-Evolution.

It Appears that there have been Some who have been Slow at Letting Go of the Original Definition, and those in the Church Continue to Understand the Word Species in Relation to Biblical Kinds.

Since there are Two Definitions, it Makes Talking about these Subjects Difficult and yet, just as I said before, if the Word Species does not Relate to the Original Biblical Kind, then this Whole Concept no Longer has any Meaning or Relevance to the Actual Limits within Natural Selection and Evolution between Kinds.

The Only Macro-Evolution Debate that Matters is that which Relates to Kinds, not Species, and Quite Often the "Kind" is more in Line with the "Genus", than the "Species".

Be Assured, though, that Evolutionists are not Going to Win this Debate by Changing the Meaning of a Word.

If we Must, then perhaps we should just Accept the New Definition and instead of Arguing against "Speciation", simply Say, "The idea of one KIND changing into another can be argued against based on the fact that NO SUCH CHANGE HAS EVER BEEN OBSERVED." This is Exactly the Same Argument as before, Except the Word "Species", that was Originally Used, has been Replaced in the Sentence with the Word Kind.

At the End of the Linked Article, Other Definition Changes are Discussed such as the Definition of Science itself and also the Definition of Conception. I guess you’ll have to Read it, if you want to Know what I Mean.

Lista said...

Hi American Vet,
Like I Said, I really do Like your First Paragraph. I Wonder if there are Similar Rock Structures in the Marianas Trench, or has it just been Under Water too Long for such to Remain? I Really do Wonder.

It is Interesting that when some People get that Wow!! Sensation, they Think of Time and Others get the Same Wow!! Feeling and Think of God. Does that Mean that Time is the god that they Believe in?

You Said Something Very Similar as me, yet also Included a Testimony. Your Comment is Truly Lovely.

Scohen,
Hopefully, the Article I Left a Link for, as well as what I Wrote about it, will Clarify some of your Questions about Kind.

As I Understand it, there may be Information Lost with each New Birth, yet it is also Collected as the Information of One Individual is Joined to Another. I Think the Key is that No Information is Ever Gained within any Given Kind.

You Know it is Actually going to be Hard for me to Stop Saying Species and Say Kind Instead.

radar said...

scohen, sadly, you are beyond reasoning. Go back and read what you said about Hartnett, what Kevin said about Hartnett's post and equation and then the part where I cut and pasted your comments to show you what you had said. In a court of law you would be guilty just on the strength of your own words alone.

Thing about this blog is that the comments are still there and the posts are still there so only those who haven't been around for awhile might think you have some kind of case, while you and I know better. If any of you want to do the work to look all this up, feel free. I hardly think it is worth my time anymore to discuss things with you. I have learned to respect those who can admit it when they are wrong.

Jon Woolf said...

Lista, you should know that "American Vet" is what Internet veterans call a "sockpuppet:" a commenter who supports or encourages another, but the same person is actually behind both IDs. In this case, "American Vet" is a sockpuppet for Radar himself.

"The Phrase, "Rocks cannot Lie.", though Artistic in Writing, can not be Used to Imply that therefore, my Interpretation of these Rocks, or Even the Conventional, Status Quo, Interpretation of these Rocks, is Absolutely Correct and Irrefutable."

True. However, it can be used to imply that an interpretation which isn't consistent with the hard evidence isn't correct. For example, this claim of 'accelerated radioactive decay rates.' Did you know that:

* One of the byproducts of radioactive decay is heat, lots of heat. If such a burst of accelerated radioactive decay had happened, to the degree necessary to allow a young Earth, the amount of heat released would have melted the Earth's crust.

* Quantum physics allows us to predict radioactive decay rates. To change those rates, you have to change certain fundamental constants about the Universe. And (here's the key) changing those constants would affect different isotopes in different ways. You can't simply say "all radioactive decay ran ten times as fast during the Flood as it does today." Isotope A might decay ten times as fast ... but Isotope B might decay only 7 times as fast, and isotope C only twice as fast.

* Radioactive dating methods can be tested against other methods. One of the most striking examples of this is the Hawaiian Islands, where the measured age of the islands by radiometric dating correlates almost perfectly with their distance from the active volcanoes on the Big Island. See here for the data:

http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/HCV/haw_formation.html

If you set aside all your preconceived ideas, then what does this evidence say to you?

Jon Woolf said...

Lista, you should know that "American Vet" is what some people call a "sockpuppet:" a commenter ID who supports or encourages another, but the same person is actually behind both IDs. In this case, "American Vet" is a sockpuppet for Radar himself.

Jon Woolf said...

Lista: "The Phrase, "Rocks cannot Lie.", though Artistic in Writing, can not be Used to Imply that therefore, my Interpretation of these Rocks, or Even the Conventional, Status Quo, Interpretation of these Rocks, is Absolutely Correct and Irrefutable."

True. However, it can be used to imply that an interpretation which isn't consistent with the hard evidence isn't correct. For example, this claim of 'accelerated radioactive decay rates.' Did you know that:

* One of the byproducts of radioactive decay is heat, lots of heat. If such a burst of accelerated radioactive decay had happened, to the degree necessary to allow a young Earth, the amount of heat released would have melted the Earth's crust.

* Quantum physics allows us to predict radioactive decay rates. To change those rates, you have to change certain fundamental constants about the Universe. And (here's the key) changing those constants would affect different isotopes in different ways. You can't simply say "all radioactive decay ran ten times as fast during the Flood as it does today." Isotope A might decay ten times as fast ... but Isotope B might decay only 7 times as fast, and isotope C only twice as fast.

* Radioactive dating methods can be tested against other methods. One of the most striking examples of this is the Hawaiian Islands, where the measured age of the islands by radiometric dating correlates almost perfectly with their distance from the active volcanoes on the Big Island. See here for the data:

http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/HCV/haw_formation.html

If you set aside all your preconceived ideas, then what does this evidence say to you?

AmericanVet said...

All the regular commenters know that AmericanVet is my other Google ID which I use on another (this) computer and not a sock puppet. Typical baseless insult.

AV is the ID I use for the team political blog and in fact two political blogs. If I was trying to hide I would do what most commenters do and post as anonymous.


Woolf, your characterization of giraffe necks is still as unscientific as ever. A creature doesn't decide to develop a trait. We've been observing them and waiting for that to happen ever since Darwin came along and nothing yet.

Lista said...

Hi Woolf,
I'm still thinking about your Comment, "I genuinely do not understand how a rational person can see that, feel that, and still think the Grand Canyon was dug in only a few days or weeks." and thinking that I Genuinely do not Understand how a Rational person can see that, Feel that, and still Think that there is no God.

That is Interesting what you said about a "Sock Puppet". I've Seen that Phenomena before, but didn't Know that it had a Name. The Practice must be more Wide Spread than I thought. It Surprises me to Think that Radar might do it, though. I'm Going to Ignore that for now.

"If such a burst of accelerated radioactive decay had happened, to the degree necessary to allow a young Earth, the amount of heat released would have melted the Earth's crust."

Considering this, makes me Wonder if the Conditions (the "Global Catastrophic Event") that Caused this Acceleration were Volcanic. Also, if this Global Catastrophe Involved Water, then there would be Enough of a Cooling Effect in Order to Allow the Heat to be Released Safely.

"You can't simply say 'all radioactive decay ran ten times as fast during the Flood as it does today.'"

I don't Think that is what the Article did say.

Radar,
When you Use the "American Vet", ID on this Blog, you Really should Sign the Bottom of it as Radar. You don't want to Bring Undue Judgment on yourself because of Misunderstandings.

"Giraffe Necks"? Where is that Conversation Taking Place?

scohen said...

"I have learned to respect those who can admit it when they are wrong."

And when I'm wrong, I'll graciously admit it. I hope that when you find out you're wrong about information you'll admit it too. That said, I'm not holding my breath, admitting error isn't a strong suit of yours.

Go back and read my original post on my blog where I outlined what Hartnett did and why I consider it obfuscatory.

Or if that's too much, maybe you should go back to where you cut and pasted my comments and re-read the part I bolded for you. Even the comment you pasted as a gotcha says what I've always said.

I've been consistent, and my math is correct. Where I've failed is explaining myself to you.

Lista said...

Radar & Scohen,
I Guess it is not appropriate to Admit we are Wrong when we do not Think that we are. Just because someone else Thinks we are Wrong does not Mean that we are. I have no Idea at all who that most Applies to. Naturally I'm Biased in Favor of Radar because we Agree on Lots of Stuff, yet I'll Set that Bias aside and just State this while Directing it at Both Parties and May the Lord Convict where Necessary.

I, myself, have Struggled Greatly Over Lack of Apology, yet when this only has to do with a Disagreement about Truth and not about One Person Actually Hurting another, then Perhaps it is Best to just allow the other Party to Continue to be Foolish and Ignorant. It is Important too to Try our Best to be Intellectually Honest and not to Lie to Ourselves.

Scohen,
It is Possible that Radar has Forgotten where these Comments are, or which of the Posts they are Beneath. If you Happen to Know, then you could Post a Link to them.

Lista said...

Woolf,
I'm not sure what that Evidence says to me. I don't Know Enough about Volcanoes to Form an Opinion. All I Know is that I am Skeptical of all Rock Dating and Therefore can not Trust any Data that is Based on it. If my Mistrust is a Bias, then so be it. You have not Presented any Evidence to Convince me that Rock Dating is Correct and Reliable.

I don't know. Maybe Relative Dating is Valid, that is the Comparison of One Volcano to another, yet My Opinion is that the Actual Estimated Ages are Off.

Oh you know what? Here's Something. "also note that further up the chain, the numbering scheme becomes more subjective."

Could I Assume from this that the Older the Rock, the Less Reliable the Data? I'm guessing that the Person who Admitted this was not a Creationist.

radar said...

Sean Cohen - I haven't found anyplace where you admitted you were wrong. Two brilliant engineering math brains both said that the Hartnett equation worked and it represented what he asserted. You said it was garbage and wrong and misleading. The equation wasn't garbage nor was it wrong. It was not done the way you would have done it. But you are not the final authority. Your exceedingly high opinion of your brain wattage notwithstanding, you can be wrong and you were wrong.

I do admit I am wrong when I am (and did so last week, in fact) because I am a grownup.

I let you comment on this blog but I won't pretend anything else you say is of significance. A man who cannot admit he is wrong has a problem and since I am not God it isn't my job to fix it.

A couple of my friends are smarter than I am (although when I say that they will get all humble on me) but I am 99th percentile and you are not getting off this hook with me. Maybe other readers, but not me. I am not as dumb as you apparently think I am. So I am going to withhold my respect until you man up. You'll feel better if you do...

radar said...

Speaking of people smarter than this blogger, I get to hang out with one of the smartest and multi-faceted scientists on the planet in a couple of weeks. I will be his driver and event coordinator along with my wife and another volunteer. In other words, I am going to be a roadie for Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati B.Sc. (Hons.), Ph.D., F.M. the renowned author, chess champion/master and specialist in chemistry and spectroscopy.

My wife and I got to meet him and his wife awhile back at a convention. Since then I have virtually-befriended the guy who introduced Jonathan to his wife - J P Holding. I was able to use some of his material in my last series of classes. There is no one scientist I would rather speak with or hang out with than Jonathan.

Not sure what particular subjects we will talk about. We'll have a few hours together. He's written eleven books, produced five or six DVD's and numerous articles and journal publications and his expertise is wide-ranging. I am pretty sure we will discuss information as per Dr. Gitt's book and I might ask him a couple of questions about GA.

On those rare occasions I get to hang out with one of my scientist friends it is like flying, I get to discuss any subject I want and my friend can go there with me or even ahead of me. So Dr. Sarfati will be like a space shuttle ride. Cannot hardly wait!

scohen said...

"Two brilliant engineering math brains both said that the Hartnett equation worked"

I never said it didn't work, I said it was wrong. Nailing screws 'works' and hammering nails with the end of a screwdriver 'works'. I've had several math PhDs, one Physics PhD and two engineers look at it and all agree with me. The physics PhD called the post "utter fantasy".

And your statement isn't true, Cecil described a 'notational error', remember?

"Sean Cohen - I haven't found anyplace where you admitted you were wrong"

So, because you couldn't find it that means it didn't happen? Did you read every comment I've made on your blog?

Also, my name's not Sean.

Actually, come to think of it I remember a while back that I was totally wrong about something and Creeper corrected me. No problems there. It's just that even now, you can't seem to articulate my point about Hartnett. When you can, you'll be able to see that I'm not wrong.

Here, I'll give you another chance: Why do I think Hartnett was wrong to use his integral? Don't focus on whether you think it is right or wrong, but tell me, why I think that it was wrong.

And why are you focusing so much on what I think of your intellect? I've haven't said anything disparaging about your intellect on this thread. The problem isn't that you're dumb, it's that you don't understand the point that I've been making all these years.

"I let you comment on this blog but I won't pretend anything else you say is of significance"

Whatever gets you out of answering my rebuttals to your queries above.

So when can we expect your admission on being wrong about:
1. Speciation not being evolution
2. Facilitated variation not supporting evolutionary theory

Jon Woolf said...

Lista: "You have not Presented any Evidence to Convince me that Rock Dating is Correct and Reliable."

OK, how about this:

http://www.jwoolfden.com/rad_dat.html

radar said...

S____Cohen, whatever your first name is. Cecil said that the math works but he wouldn't have used an integral there. Kevin said the same thing. They both said the math worked and YOU said it didn't. End of story, spin as you will.

For the sake of the readership I will gladly answer these two questions.

"So when can we expect your admission on being wrong about:
1. Speciation not being evolution


I am not wrong. Speciation is part of the design of organisms. The original kinds had large genomes from which environmental pressures of all kinds would select the traits that best fit the situation. So we have had kinds speciate and they can do it rapidly. I have posted on rapid speciation as support for the quick variation amongst organisms after the Flood. Darwin's finches are on my side as well. They speciate largely by beak structures changing back and forth to suit the environment.

Natural selection is not a force like gravity. It is an observed process that was designed into living things. As previously stated, the evolution of one kind of an organism into another is never observed and from what we know of reproduction it never will be because it cannot happen.

2. Facilitated variation not supporting evolutionary theory"

K & G had to write their findings in Darwinspeak to keep the funding coming, but in fact their research has provided information that supports creation rather than evolution. After all the posting I have done in great detail on the subject it is astounding you would even ask me that. Facilitated variation is another nail in the coffin of evolution. Pretty soon we are going to run out of space to put more nails!

scohen said...

"They both said the math worked and YOU said it didn't."

No, I said it was wrong, didn't make sense and was obfuscatory. I stand by that. You're free to answer my question and show me that you at least understand my argument by repeating it back to me. I know I can do the same for your arguments.

"I am not wrong"

Yes you are. The shoe's on the other foot now, isn't it? What's Darwin's book called again?

"K & G had to write their findings in Darwinspeak"

Not really, it was a paper for an audience of biologists and they used appropriate language. There were also several papers in lay-journals (here's one) that you could have read, but they were well out of your comfort zone.

"but in fact their research has provided information that supports creation rather than evolution"

No, that's actually not right. Their theory provides additional ammunition for evolution. If you read the actual paper, you'd know that.

What's truly astounding is that you'd use facilitated variation as an example of something that refutes evolution.

So here we have two instances where you're totally wrong. I await your admission.

radar said...

scohen, I am not going to play kindergarten back and forth games. I stand on my blogposts and on the evidence. I state emphatically and without reservation that you are completely and spectacularly wrong about speciation and facilitated variation. Enjoy your own self-satisfaction. On I go...

scohen said...

Classic, Radar.
I thought you respected people that could admit mistakes.

"I state emphatically and without reservation that you are completely and spectacularly wrong about speciation"

Not just me, the dictionary, wikipedia, and pretty much everything else too, right?

"and facilitated variation"

And wikipedia, the original creators of the theory, the article in Discover Magazine, Nature, the article linked to above...

Admit it, you didn't read any of them, did you?

Kindergarten games indeed.

scohen said...

From the article I linked to above:

"In The Plausibility of Life, Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart ’58 propose a theory for the origin of variation that demystifies the evolution of novelty and complexity. It is a milestone book full of new and insightful ideas. I recommend it without hesitation. Most evolution books written for the general public are dumbed down and have little new to say, but Kirschner and Gerhart walk the tightrope with spectacular success, using clear, nontechnical language, brilliantly chosen examples, and numerous illustrations."

I challenge you to read that book and then come and tell us that it supports creationism.

Lista said...

Radar and Scohen,
You Remind me of a Conflict that I am Currently having with someone as well. Communication can be Really Hard with some People. I'm Reminding myself Right now that, though it Really does Appear to me that the Other Person is a Real Jerk, that Part of the Problem may also be that we just do not Speak the Same Language.

I was Actually Feeling a Little Stressed Listening to you two, until I Got to Radar's Remark that made me Laugh.

"I am not going to play kindergarten back and forth games."

She Chuckles. You Mean like "Your Wrong. No, you are. No you are."? Perhaps it's Time to Sit Back and Laugh at Ourselves.

As long as you Keep Accusing Each Other of Being Wrong, you are Still Playing the Kindergarten Game, as I have just Defined it. Accusing Someone continually of Being Wrong doesn't Accomplish much. Wouldn't it be Better to just Say, "I Disagree"? I'm really Curious as to Who is Going to Stop this Game First.

I'll be Back to Talk more about Speciation and Facilitated Variation. I Agree with Radar, but want to Put it into my Own Words and Explain it in my Own Way.

Lista said...

Woolf,
Thanks, but your Article is just too Long. Until I have the Time to Read Massive Amounts of Material, I just have to go with what Makes since to me with the Amount that I Currently Understand.

Interestingly, Radar, Probably has the Same Problem in his Blog, in that not Everyone is going to be Willing to Read such Long Articles.

Lista said...

Radar & Scohen,
That’s Steve Cohen, Right?

Perhaps I shouldn't Feel the Need to Respond to Everything, but somehow I am always Wanting to. I am Very Frustrated Over the Change in Definition of the Word Species. Even though it Happened a Really Long Time ago, it Only Happened in the Scientific Community and not in the Church, yet if Species does not Mean the Same as the Biblical Kind, then Evolution between Species in not Relevant.

I Personally have Never had any Problems with Evolution within Species (that is Biblical Kinds) and have Felt that Evolution within Species and Within Kinds has been Observed and it is Pretty Much Established that it Occurs. This does not Contradict Scripture, so I have no Problems with it.

If Evolution within Kinds Includes Evolution between Species, According to the Current Scientific Definition, then so be it. Evolution Between Kinds, though, has Never been Observed or Proved in any Way and this is Very Key, for if there is no Evolution between Kinds, then the Over All Theory of Evolution Breaks Down.

If Evolution within Kinds is all that can be Proven, then Only a Small and Very Limited Part of the Theory holds up and there is no Proof that we Evolved from Monkeys, which is Really what Evolution is all About.

If "Facilitated Variation" only Happens within and not Between Kinds, then this Results in the Very Same Problem and so Personally, I Think that the Evidence is Meaningless, which I'm Guessing is Radar's View Point as well. If so, then he is not Wrong and Neither am I. Just because you Disagree with us does not Mean that we are Wrong.

I may have to Review the Definition of "Speciation", though, for with the New Definition of Species, Speciation does not Mean what I at First Thought it did and Speciation is no Longer a Problem. It Appears to Mean Simply Variations within Kinds.

This May also just be a Matter of Definition in Relation to Evolution. If Evolution means Natural Selection and Facilitated Variation within Kinds, then all that you have said Supports it, but if Evolution Means that we Evolved from Monkeys, well, that has not been Proved.

scohen said...

"if Evolution Means that we Evolved from Monkeys, well, that has not been Proved."

a. Evolution doesn't say we evolved from monkeys.

b. Science doesn't prove anything ever. It comes up with models that either fit the data or are replaced with other models that do. While evolution has overwhelming support and fits all present data, it's possible that it will be replaced in the future with a better model.

radar said...

Kirschner and Gerhart are the guys I call K & G for short. Alex Williams, among others, have followed up on their research and I have posted several articles on the subjects of Facilitated Variation and Genetic Redundancies.

The problem with K & G is that they must get funding to do research. As many a scientist in the latter half of the 20th and beginning of the 21st Century discovered, if you don't agree with the ruling paradigm you do not get funded, your papers do not get peer reviewed and you do not get tenure at University.

If you were to watch the movie, Expelled, you would see the tip of that iceberg. So K & G must assert that their research supports Darwinism somewhere in their abstract and in their conclusion even if their actual findings slice and dice Darwinism like a small ripe tomato.

What you will find is that there is no evidence whatever for macroevolution that is not inferred or presupposed. It has never been observed. Darwinists have misrepresented speciation often, such as the case of the peppered moth, where they glued specimens to tree trunks because the actual moths don't alight upon the trunks or the very finches that were Darwin's exhibit for evolution. Finches have beaks that can be various sizes and they can vary quickly according to conditions but they remain finches in all scenarios.

Calling speciation microevolution is counterintuitive actually, since speciation doesn't lead to one kind of organism becoming another kind. There is mature science devoted to animal husbandry that understands the ways to try to breed out the traits that are unwanted and bring in those that are wanted and in all cases the genetic material is already available.

Anyway, although K & G wrapped their package in Darwin with a bow, the research itself is a boon to ID and creationists and has advanced the understanding of reproduction for science. I applaud the work of K & G and don't blame them for covering their tails.

scohen said...

"So K & G must assert that their research supports Darwinism somewhere in their abstract and in their conclusion even if their actual findings slice and dice Darwinism like a small ripe tomato"

Where? Be specific.

You're going to have to do better than vague conspiracy theories. K&G had tenure long before they came up with facilitated variation. Your accusations are baseless and don't wash.

Also, tomatoes are really hard to slice and dice.

The fact of the matter is that Williams said facilitated variation acts as a bulwark against too much change, which is the opposite of what the theory says.

Lista said...

Scohen,
"While evolution has overwhelming support and fits all present data, it's possible that it will be replaced in the future with a better model."

What if there are Two Possible Models?

Radar,
"if you don't agree with the ruling paradigm you do not get funded, your papers do not get peer reviewed and you do not get tenure at Universities."

Yes, the Bias of the Status Quo is much more Powerful and Restrictive than any Bias the Creationists might have and if the Movie Expelled is just the Tip of the Ice Burg, then the Problem is Significant.

Calling Speciation Macro-Evolution is not Only Counter-Intuitive. It is even Deceptive.

I Need to Brush Up, though, on the Definition of Speciation and Macro-Evolution to make sure that we are indeed on the Same Page.

Meanwhile, I just did a Post about this that everyone is Invited to. The Link is Below.

Lista said...

Scohen,
"K&G had tenure long before they came up with facilitated variation."

Could that be Because the have Covered their Butts? Also, I have Never had Problems Slicing Tomatoes.

Anonymous said...

"Calling Speciation Macro-Evolution is not Only Counter-Intuitive. It is even Deceptive.

I Need to Brush Up, though, on the Definition of Speciation and Macro-Evolution to make sure that we are indeed on the Same Page."

Maybe it would be helpful if you did the latter before making accusations like the former?

Speciation is evolution at the species level. By definition. It is literally the origin of species. Macroevolution is evolution at the species level and above. Microevolution is evolution below the species level. So speciation is a part of macroevolution. Not synonymous with it, but part of it.

Anonymous said...

"Yes, the Bias of the Status Quo is much more Powerful and Restrictive than any Bias the Creationists might have and if the Movie Expelled is just the Tip of the Ice Burg, then the Problem is Significant."

Not only isn't there more than meets the eye to Expelled, there's actually far less than meets the eye. Have a look at www.expelledexposed.com .

Lista said...

Anonymous,
The Reason why Speciation and Macro-Evolution are Deceptive is because the Definitions of Species has Changed. The Current Definition of Species Makes Speciation Irrelevant to the Concerns of Creationists. If Evolution and Natural Selection has been Observed on a Species Level, According to the Current Definition and yet has not been Observed on any Level Higher then Species, then Evolution is Still Limited to the Biblical Concept of Kinds and so the Species Level of Evolution is Meaningless and therefore to Call it Macro-Evolution is Deceptive.

If you Want to Know Better what I am Saying, you are going to have to Visit the most Recent Post on my Blog. The Link is Below.

Lista said...

Anonymous,
The Reason why I Said that, "I Need to Brush Up, though, on the Definition of Speciation and Macro-Evolution to make sure that we are indeed on the Same Page." is Because I Found the Definitions in the Wikipedia to be quite Confusing. The Way you have Defined the Terms is much more clear and are even in Line with my Current Understanding of the Words.

"Macroevolution is evolution at the species level and above."

The Reason why this is Deceptive is because it Implies that if "Speciation" is Observed, then Higher Levels of Macro-Evolution will be Observed as well and yet no Higher Level of Macro-Evolution has ever been Observed beyond what is now Defined as "Speciation". I Put Speciation in Quotations Only because the Term "Species" was at One Time Defined Differently.

Let me Put this Another Way. The Only Reason that Linnaeus Established Wild Cats as a Genus, rather than a Species, is because he did not Know at the Time that Lions and Tigers can Breed. To Call what is Actually a Mistake in the Taxonomy Biological Classification System Macro-Evolution is Deceptive.

This has been Discussed in a little more Detail in the Comment Section of my Own Blog and I'm too Tired to Repeat it all Again here.

scohen said...

"What if there are Two Possible Models?"

There aren't. Williams simply summarized the original model, and his summary differs with every other summary I've read.
If he wants a separate model, he should name it differently. Don't take it from me, read Williams's summary, and then read several other summaries, the discover article, the Harvard article and the Wikipedia entry. Williams is the odd man out (and thus wrong). Think about it, even the name of the model doesn't make sense. If it was a bulwark against change, why call it facilitated variation? Facilitated stasis would make more sense.

"Could that be Because the have Covered their Butts?"

No. Please don't smear people unless you have some proof. Anyways, now that they have tenure, they're free to do as they like.

"The Reason why Speciation and Macro-Evolution are Deceptive is because the Definitions of Species has Changed."

Lista, the definition hasn't changed in 300 years, and it changed 100 years before the theory of evolution was posited.

Not so long ago, creationists would say that speciation was never observed. Now that it's been observed ad nauseum, they came up with a totally different and undefined concept of "kind".

"I have Never had Problems Slicing Tomatoes."

You must use serrated knives or keep your knives very sharp. Tomatoes are extremely tough to slice unless you have an extremely sharp knife. Fortunately, I keep my knives sharp...

Jon Woolf said...

With all due respect, Lista, you shouldn't be discussing taxonomy when you don't know the subject beyond a grade-school level.

"The Only Reason that Linnaeus Established Wild Cats as a Genus, rather than a Species, is because he did not Know at the Time that Lions and Tigers can Breed."

Linnaeus actually used the same method for defining a species that creationists use for defining a kind: basically, he said "I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it." Later workers have tried very hard to find a more objective definition, which is where the definition you're using came from: if they can mate and produce offspring, they're the same species. It's nice and simple, and so it's what most kids get taught in grade school biology. The problem is, it's too simple. It doesn't match the real world. For example, in the wild, lion and tiger don't crossbreed; indeed, they actively avoid any kind of interaction. Since science is concerned with understanding nature, the fact that the two cats can be induced or forced to crossbreed in captivity is considered irrelevant, and they're classified as two species.

Taxonomists and biologists are well aware of this, which is why "the species problem" is a well known subject in biology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

Just out of curiosity, what are you referring to by the term "wild cats?" Were you aware that under current taxonomy, the Felidae contains more than thirty species in fifteen different genera?

AmericanVet said...

Woolf, I am used to your main tactic of derision but surprised to see you turn it on Lista. Who are you to say that you have a better grasp on "taxonomy" than she does? Maybe you are a well-indoctrinated Darwinist but you cannot see beyond what you have been taught. Lista is willing to think outside of the box and study things.

Also, wikipedia is handy as a first glance at a subject but cannot be considered authoritative when it comes to science. For all I know some brainwashed kneejerk Darwinist wrote the entire wikipedia entry.

That lions and tigers do not tend to breed in the wild misses the point, that is because they CAN breed they are both part of the cat kind/baramin. So there is no hard barrier between lions and tigers, they are varieties from the same original kind.

Jon Woolf said...

Your mistake, Radar. That wasn't derision.

"Who are you to say that you have a better grasp on "taxonomy" than she does?"

Who are you to say I don't?

http://www.jwoolfden.com/BasicTaxonomy.html

[snicker.wav]

Jon Woolf said...

"So there is no hard barrier between lions and tigers, they are varieties from the same original kind."

So if two populations can interbreed, they belong to the same "kind?"

Well then, tell me: how many "cat kinds" are there?

Lista said...

Scohen,
"'What if there are Two Possible Models?' There aren't."

Creationism is the Other Model. Your Prejudice is just Preventing you from seeing that.

Williams was not what Inspired my Question.

"Williams is the odd man out (and thus wrong)."

I disagree that the Odd One Out is always Wrong. Quite the Contrary. Bias and Prejudice Cause the Numbers of People who Hold the Newer of the View Points to Seem Less than it is.

I'm Limited in my Ability to Discuss Williams because I haven't Studied him.

"'Could that be Because they have Covered their Butts?' No. Please don't smear people unless you have some proof."

The Rampant Prejudice in this Country against the Free Speech of Christians is all the Proof that I Need in Order to Suspect Prejudice against Creationism and anyway, that was just a Question.

"they came up with a totally different and undefined concept of 'kind'."

That is not a New Concept or Word. It is from a Very Old Piece of Literature Known as the Bible.

"Tomatoes are extremely tough to slice unless you have an extremely sharp knife."

Can't Relate. I just Use Regular Steak Knifes. You must have Knives that are Quite Dull.

Lista said...

Woolf,
"With all due respect, Lista, you shouldn't be discussing taxonomy when you don't know the subject beyond a grade-school level."

I will Discuss what ever I choose to, Thank You, and if what I say is Incorrect, Radar can Correct me. I Absolutely will not Mind it if he does. You do not Make the Rules.

"If they can mate and produce offspring, they're the same species. It's nice and simple, and so it's what most kids get taught in grade school biology."

If it is Taught in Biology at all, then it is not without Acceptance.

"It doesn't match the real world."

It Most Certainly Does. There is a Definite Divide between Animals that can Breed and those that Can not. So if there is a Word to Define this, then it is a Word that Matches the Real World.

"Since science is concerned with understanding nature, the fact that the two cats can be induced or forced to crossbreed in captivity is considered irrelevant, and they're classified as two species."

That is One Way to define it, yet if that is how the Word is Defined within Biology, then those who are Trying to Find the Divide Between when Evolution and Natural Selection Occurs and when it does not, then any Cross Breeding, Forced or Otherwise, is Relevant and we, therefore, Need a Different Term, with a Different Definition, to Define the Limits that Exist in Evolution. Those Limits are Obvious, because Beyond a Certain Level, NO EVOLUTION HAS BEEN OBSERVED.

"Were you aware that under current taxonomy, the Felidae contains more than thirty species in fifteen different genera?"

In my Opinion, the Ones who can Breed, Forced or Otherwise, should be Classified as the Same Species. Regardless of that, though, we should not Allow the Definition of a Word to Confuse the Issue that Macro-Evolution has Definite Limits.

American Vet,
Wow!! Thanks for the Complement.

Jon Woolf said...

So if two individual organisms can be induced to hybridize by any means whatsoever, they're the same species? And if two individual organisms can't be induced to hybridize, then they're different species and going from one to the other would be macroevolution?

Does it matter if the hybrid offspring is itself fertile? Does it matter if the offspring could survive on its own in the wild? What about parthenogenetic or asexually-reproducing organisms?

"Those Limits are Obvious, because Beyond a Certain Level, NO EVOLUTION HAS BEEN OBSERVED."

Yet. We have, after all, been observing in detail for only two hundred years, and most authorities on the subject think it would take longer than that to see the emergence of a new genus or higher taxon.

scohen said...

Lista,
The models I was talking about are Williams's version of facilitated variation and the one advocated by everyone else. *Not* evolution and creationism.

The reason that I reject creationism isn't because I have an inherent bias, but because it doesn't work.

"I disagree that the Odd One Out is always Wrong"

I didn't say that the odd man out is always wrong. I said Williams was the odd man out, and in this instance is wrong. Williams didn't contribute anything new here, he merely summarized the work of others. I've read the original paper, other summaries of it and Williams's summary and have determined that his summary bears no relation to the points the paper was trying to make. You're welcome to do the same thing yourself. In fact, I'm so confident about my conclusion that i encourage you to read all of the papers.

"I'm Limited in my Ability to Discuss Williams because I haven't Studied him."

Then maybe you should before you defend him. You probably shouldn't be commenting on the original paper as well.

"The Rampant Prejudice in this Country against the Free Speech of Christians is all the Proof that I Need"

So, Kirschner and Gerhart are actually creationists publishing a creationist paper? I'm gobsmacked.
Do you have a lick of evidence to support that?

"Prejudice against Creationism"

The only prejudice against creationism stems from the fact that it fails to account for so much data. I think it's you whose biases are showing now.

"and anyway, that was just a question"

Sounded more like a baseless accusation to me. But very well, you should back away.

"Very Old Piece of Literature Known as the Bible"

So can you point me to the part in the bible that unambiguously defines the concept of "kind"? Creationists could use that. Also, why are you using an "old piece of literature" (your words) in science? Seems an odd thing to do. Should we also use Shakespeare?

"Can't Relate. I just Use Regular Steak Knifes. You must have Knives that are Quite Dull."

If you're not going to read what I write, why should I take the time writing it?

Here's what I said earlier:

"You must use serrated knives or keep your knives very sharp. Tomatoes are extremely tough to slice unless you have an extremely sharp knife. Fortunately, I keep my knives sharp..."

Just because I say something is hard doesn't mean that it's hard *for me*. Skiing is hard, yet it's easy for me. Similarly, i keep my knives sharp, so I can slice tomatoes --in fact, I use a tomato as a test for a knife that I suspect is going dull.

I know it's an ancillary point, but not getting this makes me worry that you're not reading what I wrote, and not understanding the message I'm trying to convey.

AmericanVet said...

Kind is found in the Bible and the Hebrew word is "baramin." God said the creatures would reproduce "after their own kind" and that is what they do. No Darwinist can point to one kind of creature becoming another kind, that is a blatant falsehood.

Prejudice against creationists is now hitting the headlines. It is obvious. The commneters on this blog dismiss megabrain Sarfati because he is a creationist but they would be obliterated by him in a debate.

The passing of redundant "hate" speech and crimes is an attack on the first amendment. If I commit a crime silently, is it a love crime? I should be able to say that homosexuality is a sin because according to the Bible it is. That is not hate. Why should homosexuality be picked out among sins and given special protection? Do we have anything in place to give sociopaths their own ways? I mean, they simply want to murder and maim innocent people, that is who they are?

The primary driver IMO for academics and science nabobs to be prejudiced against creationism and ID is they are afraid people will hear both sides and see the evidence, at which point Darwinism looks ridiculous. So they try to keep a lid on things by only teaching one side and a very weak side it is!

AmericanVet said...

There is one cat "Kind" and further research into DNA structure will undoubtably prove this. Some cat kinds will interbreed and some will not but that is due to isolated populations that eventually lose genetic information if there is a pretty constant selection of the same feature set, which means some information gets lost. But I believe that every type of cat kind can interbreed with some other variety. Real science is working on baraminology in which DNA and reproduction help classify organisms with greater accuracy.

scohen said...

"Kind is found in the Bible and the Hebrew word is "baramin.""

And the consistent definition of it is?

"The commneters on this blog dismiss megabrain Sarfati because he is a creationist"

The commenters dismiss Safarti because he knowingly spreads untruths --namely the moon recession argument. No one says he's not smart.

Radar, I'm being charitable, but the rest of your comment was completely off-topic raving.

No one is limiting your rights to say homosexuality is a sin. The recent supreme court case (Snyder vs. Phelps) was a monster win for your right to spew bigotry wherever you want. And wa-hey, there was an amicus brief filed by the ACLU in support of Phelps!

For the record, I'm fully in support of your right to say bigoted things.

"Do we have anything in place to give sociopaths their own ways?"

Ahh, comparing homosexuals and sociopaths.... That's the stuff.

Jon Woolf said...

There is one cat "Kind"

So all the known cats, both living and extinct -- more than forty genera of them, and probably sixty or seventy known species -- belong to just one "kind". One original pair of cats diverged into forms as different as the saber-fanged Smilodon, the speed-demon cheetah, and the tiny Rusty-spotted Cat, in the thousand years between the Creation and the Flood.

Oh yeah, and speaking of the cheetah, just what did it do to offend your God, such that it alone of cat species has been condemned to slow deterioration and eventual extinction by genetic decay?

But I [wrongly] believe that every type of cat kind can interbreed with some other variety.

Fixed that for you.

AmericanVet said...

NO, Jon, you haven't tried to mate every variety of cat with every other variety of cat so you cannot speak with authority. Also, you cannot say when certain cats were alive when. If a smilodon is buried in the sedimentary layers then it was either alive at the time of the flood or during the ice age thereafter, true. But as I have devoted a post entirely to rapid speciation (and when I say speciation I mean variation within kind) it is obvious that many varieties of cats could develop in a short time span.

He isn't just my God, He is yours too, you just won't admit to it.

Darwinists are like men who, happening on the faces of Mt Rushmore would immediately begin speculation on what natural forces shaped the mountain to give an appearance of human faces. Such folly! Organisms are so obviously designed that only fools deny it. There are some very smart fools out there but intellect is no match for commmon sense.

Jon Woolf said...

NO, Jon, you haven't tried to mate every variety of cat with every other variety of cat so you cannot speak with authority.

You might be surprised...

Organisms are so obviously designed that only fools deny it.

You're forgetting Rule 15 again, Radar.

There are some very smart fools out there but intellect is no match for commmon sense.

Sometimes. And sometimes, common sense is no match for intellect.

AmericanVet said...

Whereas intellect is no match for wisdom.

At what point does it hit a Darwinist that life is designed? Francis Crick immediately decided life must have come from aliens upon discovering the complexity of DNA.

Lista said...

Scohen,
"they came up with a totally different and undefined concept of 'kind'."

Aside from the Fact that this Concept is as Old as the Bible, it is also not Undefined. Woolf Defined it rather nicely.

"Tomatoes are extremely tough to slice unless you have an extremely sharp knife."

It just so Happens that the Bible is a Very Sharp Knife. See Hebrews 4:12. Science is the Knife that is Dull.

Woolf,
"With all due respect, Lista, you shouldn't be discussing taxonomy when you don't know the subject beyond a grade-school level."

You Know, if my Dog is Acting Lethargic, Vomiting and having Convulsions on the Floor, I do not have to have a Degree in Veterinarian Medicine in order to Know that the Dog Needs to be Taken to the Vet. I don't Even have to have a Full and Complete Knowledge of the subject of Vomiting and Convulsions in Order to Discuss with a Neighbor that my Dog is Very Sick and has these Symptoms.

Likewise, I do not have to Know Every Detail about the Taxonomy Classification System in Order to Observe that there is a Flaw in it.

"Since science is concerned with understanding nature, the fact that the two cats can be induced or forced to crossbreed in captivity is considered irrelevant, and they're classified as two species."

Crossbreeding may not be Relevant to Basic Biology, yet it is Very Relevant to Evolution, thus the Definition should not Disregard it.

"Yet, We have, after all, been observing in detail for only two hundred years, and most authorities on the subject think it would take longer than that to see the emergence of a new genus or higher taxon."

That is an Out Right Lie. Nothing Outside of Speciation, by a Faulty Definition, has ever been Observed and even if it had, how Convenient for you to Keep Moving the Time Frame that Macro-Evolution takes as Time Keeps Passing and yet no significant Form of Macro-Evolution is Observed and I don’t Consider Speciation, based on a Faulty Definition, Significant.

Lista said...

More for Woolf,
"Does it matter if the hybrid offspring is itself fertile?"

Of course it Matters. How is an Animal Supposed to Produce an Entirely Different Species, if it can not Reproduce or can not Survive on its own in the Wild?

I'm not Qualified to Entirely Answer about Parthenogenesis. Interesting Subject, but I'll leave that one mostly for Radar.

Except, you Know What? I found another Scientific Definition Error in the Wikipedea, were as Science Originally got it Wrong in Assuming that the Animals that were Reproducing Parthenogenecally were Female, yet in Actuality, they have the Reproductive Functions of Both Sexes. I Only Mentioned that to Show that Scientists can Get Definitions Wrong.

American Vet’s Words…,
"Kind is found in the Bible and the Hebrew word is 'baramin.'"

Scohen’s Words…
"And the consistent definition of it is?"

The Definition can be Found Right there is the Scriptures…
"And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.'" (Genesis 1:11, KJV)

"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind, and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:21, KJV), and

"And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind, and it was so.'" (Genesis 1:24, KJV)

It Clearly States that they will Reproduce After their Own KIND.

Lista said...

Scohen,
"No one is limiting your rights to say homosexuality is a sin."

There have been Repeated Attempts to Pass Laws that Make such Teaching a Hate Crime. We are Continually Fighting to Defend Our Freedom of Speech as Christians. The Fact that we Often do Win Our Case does not Make the Constant Annoyance and Expense go away.

"Ahh, comparing homosexuals and sociopaths.... That's the stuff."

Perhaps a Better Comparison would be to Alcoholism, which is not just a Behavior, but a Disease. Homosexuality is Less Healthy Medically, Leads to AIDS and Results in a Shorter Average Life Span.

Homosexuality does not Necessarily have to be Illegal. I'm just Opposed to it Being Taught to Our Children in Schools as an Acceptable Option and to the Definition of Marriage being Changed. Social Unions are what such Relationships should be Called, for Marriage is a Word that has Religious Connotations and is Sacred. Leave our Words Alone. Some Definitions simply should not be Changed. I Guess it is more Convenient for you to call us Bigots than to Actually Listen to and Hear Our Valid Concerns.

That's Off Subject, though. Freedom of Speech was the Issue we were Discussing.

American Vet Said…
"NO, Jon, you haven't tried to mate every variety of cat with every other variety of cat so you cannot speak with authority."

Jon Woolf,
"You might be surprised…"

None of that is Important. What is Important is that if they can Mate, they are the Same Kind and if they can not, then they are of a Different Kind. That is what the Biblical Concept of Kinds Means.

Lista said...

I Found a rather Interesting Statement in the Wikipedia, Under the Heading, Biological Classification. Here is the Quote...

"Modern biological classification has its root in the work of Carolus Linnaeus, who grouped species according to shared physical characteristics. These groupings have since been revised to IMPROVE CONSISTENCY WITH THE DARWINIAN PRINCIPLE of common descent."

Don't you see? That's just the Problem. When ever the System and/or the Definitions are Revised, it is to Improve Consistency with Darwinism, not with the Idea of Evolutionary Limits Between Kinds. The Whole Idea of Evolutionary Limits just Keeps being Pushed Aside, Mostly because that is not what the Atheists want to Believe. The Definitions are just as Biased as the Science.

While I'm Still here, I might as well deal with another Issue. I don't Know what Happened to the Link that Used to be Below these Comments. The Post on my Blog that I Keep Referring to can be Found Here...

Castatrophy Theory, Grand Canyon & Speciation Dabate

It's a Much Shorter Post and Comment Thread than this one, but I Invite anyone's Input.

AmericanVet said...

Lista nailed the definition of baramin or kind.

Barring DNA evidence, we can tell if an organism is a cat kind if it can mate with any other variety of cat. A tiger may not be able to mate with a housecat but can mate with a lion. A bobcat can probably mate with a lynx and one them can probably mate with a housecat.

Ring speciation is what we use to describe organisms kept far apart and in different environments to the point that the creatures at the far ends of the ares cannot breed with each other but can breed with an original of the kind.

Imagine how difficult it is to be trying to mate everything in sight! This is where DNA comes in so we can identify animals of the same kind. Baraminology is using both to redraw the Linnaen charts as accurately as possible.

Lista said...

American Vet/Radar,
I was Curious where you Got the Word Baramin? At First, the Closest Thing that I could find in the Strongs Concordance is Barar, but the Definition didn't Match.

I Kept Looking, though, because I was sure that Baramin is a Valid Hebrew Word. The Wikipedia has a Definition and so does the Conservapedia, yet I was more interested in the Original Hebrew.

As I Write, I've been Looking things up and Finally Discovered that it is Actually not One, but Two Hebrew Words. Bara - Created and Min - Kind.

Ok. That Explains it, for the Word in the Strongs Concordance that is Translated Kind in the Verses that I Quoted is actually Miyn. Same Word; They just Simplified the Spelling. The Literal Hebrew Meaning, from the Strong's Concordance is "to Portion Out, a Sort or Kind"

Bara is Actually Spelled Bara' and it Corresponds to the Word in the Very First Verse.

"Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created (Bara') the heaven and the earth."

So there you have it Bara' Miyn, Created Kinds.

Just so you all Know, I'm not just being Brain Washed. I do Look Things Up.

Jon Woolf said...

Lista: "Of course it Matters. How is an Animal Supposed to Produce an Entirely Different Species, if it can not Reproduce or can not Survive on its own in the Wild?"

Well then, you've got a wee problem. Most of the hybrids that you've been talking about could not either reproduce or survive on their own in the wild. Ligers typically grow much larger than either parent -- so large that it's highly questionable whether one could successfully feed itself in the wild. Most interspecies hybrids are either low-fertility or truly sterile, unable to produce offspring under any conditions.

Jon Woolf said...

Then there are "ring species" and "spectrum species," which consist of multiple populations A, B, C (or more) such that A can interbreed with B, and B can interbreed with C, but A can't interbreed with C. And there are puzzles such as the Empidonax flycatchers: 11 species of birds so similar in appearance that even expert birders have trouble telling them apart by sight in the field or even in the lab ... unless it's spring, and they're singing.

At the other end of the scale are polyploid hybrids such as certain primroses. If you cross the primroses Primula verticillata and P. floribunda, the hybrid offspring are sterile. But if the hybrids happen to undergo a mutation (hey, where'd that word come from?) called "polyploidy," why then they're fertile -- not with either parent, but with other polyploid hybrids. A closed gene pool, readily distinguished from related flowers and even from its own parents -- why, it's a new species in a single generation!

So despite what Radar would have you believe, Lista, every now and then biologists do know what they're talking about. The reproductive species concept doesn't work under all circumstances.

Lista said...

Woolf,
When you Asked me if it Mattered, you did not Specify rather you meant Does it Matter in Relation to Macro-Evolution or whether it Mattered in Relation to Created Kinds.

My Answer is that it Matters a Great Deal in Relation to Macro-Evolution, because for this to Occur, the New Species would have to both Reproduce in the Wild and also Survive in the Wild.

If you Meant Does it Matter in Relation to Created Kinds, well, since Macro-Evolution is not the Goal of Created Kinds, I would have to say No.

So, Woolf, I'm Afraid that you are the One who has the "Wee Problem".

As to the Rest of it, Woolf, I wish you had Left a Link so that I could Better Research what you are saying.

Jon Woolf said...

Really? The last two times I gave you links for further reading, you ignored them.

You have the world's greatest research tool under your fingers, and I've already given you some useful search terms. All you have to do is put the two together ... and then be open-minded enough to accept that not everything that modern biology says is a "Darwinist cover-up."

So far, though, you appear to be running true to the creationist form, just like Radar: a claim of virtue and honesty and open-mindedness is swiftly followed by crass demagoguery, mindless parroting of creationist literature, and an automatic refusal to believe anything that modern science says if it conflicts in any way with your chosen mythology.

radar said...

Jon, they say if you cannot imbue them with information then baffle them with BS.

This post demonstrates how the Grand Canyon layering could have been formed and it explains the crossbedding that Darwinists cannot explain (so they ignore it) as well as the "mystery" of the one-way footprints. These findings are damaging to Darwinism so you change the subject.

Again, baraminology is working on grouping organisms by kinds. Many of us use the word "speciation" to mean "variation within kind" and Darwinists use it a different way. No matter.

Woolf cannot explain how two "different ages" of rock layers can be found going back and forth in the layering but Juby's flume demonstrates that. It demonstrates the angled layers butted up against the flat ones. It explains the one-way footprints of dinosaurs and it even illustrates a polystrate fossil!

So tell me, Jon, if you do want to change the subject. How do cells form if they need DNA to exist? How does DNA form if it requires a cell to exist? How does ATP get produced if ATP is needed to build the ATP synthase "machine?" How does life form by natural means when chemical barriers break down the raw components of DNA before they can begin to connect? You don't know.

Lista said...

No Jon,
I only Ignored the Second of the Said Links because it was too Long. The Length is the Key.

"Not everything that modern biology says is a 'Darwinist cover-up.'"

I Never Said that Everything was a "Darwinist Cover-up" and never would because I Avoid using such Absolutes.

An Excessive Opened Mind just Leads to the Acceptance of Things Blindly, without Thinking it Through. Just because a Person's Thought Processes Lead them in a Different Direction than you would Like them to go does not Mean that their Mind is not Opened.

Your Second Paragraph is just Full of Accusations based on Assumptions, such as what Christians Believe is a Mythology and that what we say is Mindless and Even the Word Demagoguery Implies that that which we Follow is Unprincipled. These are just Accusations, not Statements of Truth.

Go Radar? Excellent Comment!

Jon Woolf said...

"they say if you cannot imbue them with information then baffle them with BS."

A principle that creationists follow religiously. [snicker.wav]

"This post demonstrates how the Grand Canyon layering could have been formed..."

No. It demonstrates how some of the layering in the Colorado Plateau could have been formed given certain assumptions about the environment. It fails completely to explain other evidence about the Plateau's rocks -- the filled-in caves in the Redwall Limestone, the Great Unconformity, the lesser unconformities higher in the local geologic column ...

"...and it explains the crossbedding that Darwinists cannot explain..."

First of all, "Darwinism" has nothing to do with attempts to explain the geology of the Colorado Plateau. Geology stands independent of evolutionary theory. Even if you succeeded in disproving evolution tomorrow, the structure of modern geology would remain standing without a quiver.

Second, what liar told you that conventional geology can't explain crossbedding in the rocks of the Colorado Plateau?

Third, has it ever occurred to you to wonder how a lizard, an air-breathing animal, could leave a long trackway on the surface of a sediment layer that you claim was accumulating at a rate of several inches per hour, all while it was under many feet of water?

Nah, of course it didn't. If you ever wondered about things like that, you wouldn't be a creationist anymore.

Jon Woolf said...

Lista, I really see no further point to trying to discuss things with you. Unlike Radar, your arguments are neither interesting nor amusing. You demanded evidence, evidence was offered, and your response was to whine about its length and then pick nits about the 'biases' of the author. These are complex subjects. Learning them takes time. Deal with it.

Lista said...

Woolf,
"No. It demonstrates how some of the layering in the Colorado Plateau could have been formed, given certain assumptions about the environment."

Just as the Evolutionists Make Assumptions about Macro-Evolution.

Are we Absolutely Positive that those Tracks were Made by Air-Breathing Lizards? And even if it was, Lizards Running from Water would Produce the same One Way Tracks.

"You demanded evidence, evidence was offered."

As Long as there is Evidence on Both Sides, both Sides Deserve to be Taught.

"Learning them Takes Time. Deal with it."

Yes, and since Learning Takes Time, that is Weeks, Months and even Years, If I do not Read what you Present Immediately when you Present it, Quit "Whining" and "Deal with it."

scohen said...

"There have been Repeated Attempts to Pass Laws that Make such Teaching a Hate Crime."

The law that was passed makes violence against someone a hate crime, not speech. If any law was proposed that makes certain speech illegal, then it would be grossly unconstitutional.

"Perhaps a Better Comparison would be to Alcoholism"

That's not the comparison that was made, but yours is no less bigoted.

" Leave our Words Alone. Some Definitions simply should not be Changed."

I see, it's all about the words. The fact that the definition of Marriage has changed repeatedly is of no consequence. If that's the case, why not go back to the original definition of Marriage where women were the property of the husband? Or, the other original definition, where a man can take many wives?

Lista, things change. You're on the wrong side of history on this issue, and I think deep down, you know it.

"I Guess it is more Convenient for you to call us Bigots than to Actually Listen to and Hear Our Valid Concerns."

I see, you have reasons for your bigotry, which makes it not bigotry. The reason you're bigoted against homosexuals is because you care about them so much. The fact is, I know too many homosexuals to accept what you say about them. I could also go into why your data is wrong, but this is a comment thread on a blog.

"That's Off Subject, though. Freedom of Speech was the Issue we were Discussing"

Yes, and no law passed abridges your freedom of speech. If it did, I'd be on your side, arguing against that law, as would the ACLU.

By the way, your whole post is off subject, as it was posted in a different comment thread.

s said...

"Woolf Defined it rather nicely"

If you cant see that his definition was both mocking and unworkable, then I don't know what to tell you.

"were as Science Originally got it Wrong"

First, that's inaccurate, and secondly, science is a process that doesn't stop. The first definition of things is rarely perfect. Witness: "planet"

"The Definition can be Found Right there is the Scriptures…" *snip*

So the definition of "Kind" is "Kind"? Do you see why the definition quoted is not acceptable? Here's the first small reason: If the offspring of two animals or plants is sterile, how can it reproduce after its own kind?

Lista, I can't help but notice that you haven't responded at all to my comments about Williams above, and have moved the discussion away from that issue. Much like Jon, I gave you several links so you could learn how out to lunch Williams is. Somehow, I doubt very seriously that you've read a single one.

You also immediately accused me of bias when dismissing creationism. Frankly, that's rich. You don't know me and have no idea what my background is, so how can you possibly know that I'm intrinsically biased against something? Using your logic, there's no difference between dismissing something because it doesn't work and bias. I don't see how someone can operate under this framework.

scohen said...

That last post was me.

Lista said...

Scohen,
I'm going to Respond to your Comments in Reverse Order, so that the Last of my Comments will be on to the Subject of Creationism, which is Closer to the Subject of the Post, than the Homosexuality Debate.

"The law that was passed makes violence against someone a hate crime, not speech. If any law was proposed that makes certain speech illegal, then it would be grossly unconstitutional."

and "Yes, and no law passed abridges your freedom of speech. If it did, I'd be on your side, arguing against that law, as would the ACLU."

I Agree with the Unconstitutional Part, but I'm not Talking about what is and isn't Constitutional and what is and isn't Passed. I'm Talking about the Constant Attempts. It Costs the Christian Community lots of Money in Legal Fees and Lobbying to Continually Fight these Battles to Protect their Speech and the ACLU is Mostly who is Pushing the Bills against "Hate Speech". In Relation to this, You are Totally Disregarding what I'm saying.

"but yours is no less bigoted."

If that is so, then the Medical Community is no Less Bigoted against Alcoholics.

"The fact that the definition of Marriage has changed repeatedly is of no consequence."

The Consequence is that if Homosexuality becomes a more Accepted Practice, then more People will Experiment with it and get Caught Up in it.

There is an Age in a Child's Development in which there is a Slight Tendency towards Homosexuality, but in Normal Children, it is a Passing Phase. If Encouraged, though, they could go the Other Way. This is why the Idea that Homosexuality is not an Acceptable, or at the Very Least, not the Preferred Practice, Needs to Remain Intact. Calling it Marriage, though, is Assigning a Level of Acceptance and Approval to the Practice that should not be Given.

"Lista, things change. You're on the wrong side of history on this issue, and I think deep down, you know it."

You Mean Back when STDs were not Running Rampant and AIDS was Non-Existent. Even as Late as the 70s, there were only Three Main STDs, then called Venereal Disease; Gonorrhea, Syphilis and Herpes. Now there are 50 Main Ones, Affecting 1/3rd of our Youth. Or is this Statement of Medical Facts just another Form of Bigotry against Sexually Active Teens? Though it is True that it is not Good to be Judgmental, that does not Mean that that which has Negative Consequences should be Encouraged. Some change is good, but some is not and Homosexuality should not be Encouraged in our Youth.

Lista said...

"The fact is, I know too many homosexuals to accept what you say about them."

I Know Homosexuals too and I also Know the Mother of Two of them. They Insist that they were Born that Way, but their Mother Knows that they have Both Been Abused in their Youth by her Ex-Husband.

All Three of the Homosexuals that I Knew Well have Died of AIDS; The First of Which Died in his 20s.

"By the way, your whole post is off subject."

In relation to the Original Post, most of these Comments are Off Subject. When I said, "Off Subject", I was Referring to the Subject being Discussed, not the Subject of the Post.

Now for the Speciation Subject.

"If the offspring of two animals or plants is sterile, how can it reproduce after its own kind?"

There are People who are Sterile too. Obviously, the Verse Means that we are to Reproduce after our Own Kind, if we are Able and Most Animals are.

On the Other Side of that Coin, if the Offspring is Sterile, then how can it Produce a New Species?

Just as I Said Once Before, I'm Limited in my Ability to Discuss Williams because I haven't Studied him and am not Familiar with him. I would have to do Research in Order to Respond to that Issue. I'm on the Computer too Much as it is and Simply can not Read Every Link that is Presented. I’ve been Busy Studying something else and should not have to Apologize for that. You don’t Really Want to Know my Opinion anyway. You just want to Insult me in Relation to something that I have not Studied and am not Familiar with.

Lista said...

Evolutionists and Darwinists in General are Biased, Scohen, so I didn't see any Reason why I should Assume that you are the Exception. My Main Reason for Making an Issue Out of it is because Evolutionists are Continually Accusing Creationists of Bias and yet they are just as Guilty. It just so Happens that Bias is a Human Condition that we all have to some Degree and that Includes you. Since all People are Biased to Some Degree, I do not have to Know a Person, to Know that some Level of Bias is there.

I guess it's Time to Repeat something that I Quoted Earlier from the Wikipedia, Under the Heading Biological Classification.

"Modern biological classification has its root in the work of Carolus Linnaeus, who grouped species according to shared physical characteristics. These groupings have since been revised to IMPROVE CONSISTENCY WITH THE DARWINIAN PRINCIPLE of common descent."

That Right There is an Admission of the Bias of the Classification System in the Direction of Darwinism.

I've been Trying to Organize my Thoughts Better on the Subject of Speciation on my Own Blog. And will be Making another Post Shortly giving Definitions of some of the Words we've been Debating from the Conservapedia, which should Clarify how the Definition can be Workable. It also Explains the Reason for Baraminology, which is Primarily because of the Darwinist Bias of the Other Classifying System

The Definition is made more Clear in the Scriptures, themselves. I quoted three Scriptures Above in a Comment Made at 11:36 AM (Genesis 1:11, 21 & 24) that Clearly State that they will Reproduce "After their Own Kind". In Other Words, those within the Same Kind can Breed and those from Two Separate Kinds can not. This Link will Take you Directly to that Comment.

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2011/05/just-over-year-ago-today-I-introduced.html?showComment=1306953371251#c4310233552681971055

I Feel Like I'm Repeating myself and not being Listened to.

scohen said...

"I'm Talking about the Constant Attempts"

Any congresscritter can submit any bill they want. There's no need to worry about it unless it's passed.

"It Costs the Christian Community lots of Money"

"ACLU is Mostly who is Pushing the Bills against "Hate Speech"

Do you have *any* evidence of that? Any at all? If that's the case, why did they file an amicus brief in favor of the Phelps church hmmmm? Seems like they were defending his right to spread hate speech to me. You do know that the ACLU famously defended Nazis, right? What's more hateful speech than that?

"There is an Age in a Child's Development..."

You're not even wrong, Lista.

"You Mean Back when STDs were not Running Rampant and AIDS was Non-Existent."

So homosexuality caused AIDS?

"Now there are 50 Main Ones, Affecting 1/3rd of our Youth."

Source? Link? Did you just say that 1/3 of our youth have STDs?

"All Three of the Homosexuals that I Knew Well have Died of AIDS; The First of Which Died in his 20s."

Wow, you know three?!? And all died of AIDS? What terrible luck.
Well Lista, I know dozens, and none have HIV. All are friendly, normal, happy people who just want to live their life. Maybe when you're feeling curious, you might look into why they have a lower life expectancy (hint, it's not because of immorality).

"In relation to the Original Post, most of these Comments are Off Subject"

Yeah, but you posted on the wrong blog post. That's what I was pointing out.

I read your stuff twice and am just too dumbfounded to come up with anything coherent, but I'm heartened to know that even if I had, it wouldn't have done a bit of good.

scohen said...

"There are People who are Sterile too."

But most of the time, when two disparate species reproduce every offspring is sterile.

"On the Other Side of that Coin, if the Offspring is Sterile, then how can it Produce a New Species?"

Because two different species interbreeding isn't how natural selection works. You were the one who suggested that the definition of "kind" was something akin to forcing interbreeding different species and seeing if it produces offspring.

This is going to be tough if you can't keep the arguments straight.

"Just as I Said Once Before, I'm Limited in my Ability to Discuss Williams because I haven't Studied him and am not Familiar with him."

But you felt it necessary to come into the discussion about facilitated variation already on his side. Why would you do that when you didn't understand what either his summary or the original article said? What did you think you could contribute?

If Radar talks about Geology, I don't put in my opinions, because I know nothing about it. In my opinion, that's the polite thing to do.

"You don’t Really Want to Know my Opinion anyway."

First off, please don't assume you know what I want. Secondly, I'd love to hear your opinion after you've read and have had time to digest several of the articles relating to facilitated variation. You'll see that the creation.com summary of the theory is basically 180 degrees off.

But you're partially right, I don't want to hear your uninformed opinion.

" You just want to Insult me in Relation to something that I have not Studied and am not Familiar with."

If I've insulted you, then it was not intentional and I apologize. If, however, I've pointed out that you're ignorant of the matter under discussion, then that's rather simple to remedy, right?

scohen said...

"Evolutionists and Darwinists in General are Biased, Scohen"

That's statement is pretty biased, itself no? You've still failed to establish my specific bias. You don't even know me, how could you possibly do so?

"My Main Reason for Making an Issue Out of it is because Evolutionists are Continually Accusing Creationists of Bias and yet they are just as Guilty"

Pretend for a minute that at some point in my life, I was completely unbiased towards either creationism or evolution and had evidence from both sides in front of me. Then imagine that I chose evolution because the evidence supporting it was much stronger. That's biased?

No, Lista, that's choosing the model that best fits the evidence. Your definition of bias is faulty.

"That Right There is an Admission of the Bias of the Classification System in the Direction of Darwinism."

No Lista, that's an acknowledgement of the strength of the theory. We can now look at the genetic similarity between organisms (couldn't do that in the 90's, let alone Linnaeus's time) and, well, let's read the rest of that paragraph:

"These groupings have since been revised to improve consistency with the Darwinian principle of common descent. Molecular phylogenetics, which uses DNA sequences as data, has driven many recent revisions and is likely to continue to do so."

See, that's not a statement of bias at all. It's saying that the theory of common descent is consistent with the DNA in similar organisms. The changes are due to genetic similarity, not some blind adherence to a model (bias in your parlance). Additionally, you have to at least concede that evolution enjoys near universal acceptance by biologists, and biologists are the primary consumers of the classification system. It makes sense that that system would take evolution in to account, and it makes more sense that the DNA backs up evolution.

""After their Own Kind". In Other Words, those within the Same Kind can Breed and those from Two Separate Kinds can not..."

And what kind are the children of inter-species breeding? The same kind, right? What if the result is always sterile? How can that be the same kind when it can't breed after it's own kind? Remember, most of these hybrids are always sterile.

"I Feel Like I'm Repeating myself and not being Listened to."

No, I get you, I just think you don't understand what I'm saying. Hopefully the above should clear that up.

Also, where's the creationist "kind discovery farm"? Where are they cross-breeding animals to see if every possible combination is viable?

Again, do you see why that definition is unworkable from a purely combinatoric perspective? And even if that place existed (we both know creationists aren't doing any such experiments), what would you gain other than eliminating the useful, genetically sound, accepted-for-300-or-so-years concept of species?

See, that's creationism's problem in a nutshell. You're stuck with 5000 year old 'definitions' for things. Imagine what chemistry or physics would be if we stuck with a similarly old definition of "atom".

Thankfully, science doesn't work that way. It's not static. It's an admittedly human tool that we use to make sense of the universe. Life doesn't follow our rules, so we're constantly finding things that don't fit into our neat little boxes. People that use the system fix the boxes, and for some reason, you don't like that.

Lista said...

Hi Scohen,
I'm Actually Feeling a Little Burnt Out by this Comment Thread and Besides that, I just Visited and Commented on a Blog that I've been Avoiding because the Blog Author and I have not been Getting Along. I should not have Gone there and Left a Comment. Turns Out, it was a Mistake and I'm Burnt Out by that as well.

Perhaps I shouldn't be so Honest, yet one of your Above Comments Includes an Apology for Non-Intentionally Insulting me and I have to Think about it, now, to see if you ever Actually really did.

Thanks for that and Perhaps there is a Possibility that you are a Really Nice Guy, yet Debating has a Tendency to Bring Out Negatives in People, as well as Misunderstandings and Sometimes it is Easy to Forget that we are Talking to actual Real People, rather than Just a Computer, So I Apologize if I haven’t Stepped Back Often Enough and Asked myself who this Scohen Person Really is.

I Mean After all, you are Actually a person who Apologizes on Occasion and there have been Times in my Life in which I have Found that to be a much Rarer Quality than it should be.

Anyway, I'm Tired and I'm Hoping now that you are not Going Judge me for that and Conclude that in Actuality, I have Nothing to say.

AmericanVet said...

scohen, there is nothing more counterintuitive than to claim creationism is hundreds of years behind. Darwinism is hundreds of years behind. Modern creation science began in the second half of the 20th Century and has advanced tremendously. What you call common descent is actually common Designer and, since Darwinists cannot find a cause for design or information or in fact have the foggiest notion about where life comes from if they throw out God, it is you who is the superstitious holder of old, outdated ideas.

Lista said...

I've been thinking about my Dilemma, Scohen. I have Recently Written a 4 Part Comment that is now Stored in my Word Processor, yet I have had Limited Time on the Computer, so I have to Manage my Priorities.

If we are Going to Start Writing Really Long Responses to Each Other, the way Creeper and I did Awhile back, I am not going to be Able to Give Responses in a Timely, within 24 Hours, Fashion. Since Radar doesn't Allow Dates to Print on his Comment Threads, I am just going to have to Remember to Keep Track of it myself.

My Above Comment was Written in the Early Hours of 6/5 (Sunday). Today is Monday, 6/6, more that 24 Hours Later. Your Comments were Written on 6/3 PM & 6/4 AM, so my Initial Response was about 24 Hours Later; Maybe Closer to 25, but Close Enough. This Response, though, is a Few Hours Past the 48 Hour Mark. Ok. I Guess that's not so Bad. Now Let's get Going.

We get Information in the Mail all the Time about Ways in which the Freedom of Speech of Christians is Under Attack and how we Need to Write to Our Congressman, as well as Send Our Donations in Order to Help to Fight this Battle, either Legally or through Lobbying.

"There's no need to worry about it unless it's passed."

It is Better to Worry about it Before it Passes when you might be Able to do something about it.

I was not Able to Tell at a Glance what Paul Wolfgang had to do with a Certain Age in a Child's Development in which they have Homosexual Tendencies. I Used the Word Search Function and couldn't Find anything.

"So homosexuality caused AIDS?"

That is where the Disease Started. Later it was Spread to Heterosexuals, yet it is Still more Prevalent in Homosexuals. I'm Surprised you do not Know this Stuff.

"Did you just say that 1/3 of our youth have STDs?"

Yes, that's what I said, or it could be just the Sexually Active Ones. I'm going to have to Double Check that Brochure.

The Average Life Span of Homosexuals is Lower then the Rest of the Population and the Incidents of AIDS is Higher. I Know my Facts are Right, Scohen, I just don't have the Resources Right in front of me Right now. I did not get this Information from the Internet. I Worked at a Pregnancy Center with Unwed Pregnant Teens and we had Tons of Brochures about STDs. I was not Prepared for a Full Blown Discussion on this Subject. It is not the Subject of this Post.

AmericanVet said...

Also, any of you "gentlemen" sho spoke so rudely to the lady need a lesson in civility. Lista has been far more civil than the commenting crowd.

Lista said...

"Maybe when you're feeling curious, you might look into why they have a lower life expectancy (hint, it's not because of immorality)."

You do not Know that.

"you posted on the wrong blog post."

I have no Idea what you Mean.

"You were the one who suggested that the definition of 'kind' was something akin to forcing interbreeding different species and seeing if it produces offspring."

That doesn't Sound like my Words at all. If Radar Said it, then he might have to Explain it. I Need to Submit my Next Post before I can say much more on the Definition of Species, because I Looked it Up in the Conservapedia and it is Explained much better there, but I've got to Look it Up again.

The Definition in the Bible is just that Animals will Reproduce After their Own Kind. There is no Mention of Hybrids in these Verses. That is for us to Figure Out. Everyone is just Speculating about these Things and that Includes the Evolutionists and if you don't Think that's so, then that Only Shows me Evidence of your Bias and Arrogance in Relation to the Evolutionary Idea.

In a Lot of Ways, Scohen, you are Smarter than me, when it Comes to Evolution, yet that does not mean that you are Right. It Only Means that you have the Ammunition Necessary to Support your Point of View more Readily Available.

Just because I do not Immediately Know Something, or do not Have the Time to do all of the Research Necessary to Talk to you at a Speed that would Impress you, does not Mean that you're Position is the Correct One. If you were to Conclude that, it would only show me Evidence of Arrogance. There are People who are much Smarter than me that Hold the Same Position that I do.

"But you felt it necessary to come into the discussion about facilitated variation already on his" (that is Williams) "side."

That's Right and I believe that when I did so, it was done in the Form of a Question, "Could it be..." and anyway, I can Spot Good and Bad Arguments even when I do not Know the Subject Matter, because Some Things Make Sense Logically and other Things do not.

"If Radar talks about Geology, I don't put in my opinions, because I know nothing about it. In my opinion, that's the polite thing to do."

Sometimes I Learn by Guessing and then Being Corrected.

"I'd love to hear your opinion after you've read..."

Well, I Appreciate that, yet I Need to Make you Aware that I am Either going to Study Facilitated Variation, or Read some more of Woolf's Blog. I'm not Going to be Able to do both, so I'm going to have to Make a Decision. I am also Getting Ready to Leave on a Vacation soon, so it will be awhile before I can do either.

Lista said...

Oh Hi American Vet,
I didn't see you There. Thanks for Sticking Up for me.

Scohen,
"But you're partially right. I don't want to hear your uninformed opinion."

Then why did you make me Feel Bad for not Responding to the Subject when you Asked me to?

"If, however, I've pointed out that you're ignorant of the matter under discussion, then that's rather simple to remedy, right?"

I'm a Slow Reader, so the Answer to that Question is Actually no, yet it's not Impossible.

My Words: "Evolutionists and Darwinists in General are Biased, Scohen"

Your Words: "That statement is pretty biased, itself, no?"

All People are Biased, Scohen, and I have Never Once Denied Possessing the Same Problem, it's just that it is not just me, it's not just Creationists and even you are not Immune. That is what you Need to Continually Keep in Mind. And Actually, now that I Think about it, if all People are Biased, then Pointing Out the Bias of Evolutionists is not Biased at all, but simply a Fact.

I am Biased in the Direction of Creationism and your Bias is in the Direction of Evolution. It doesn't Take a Very Long Period of Time to Figure that Out.

"Imagine that I chose evolution because the evidence supporting it was much stronger. That's biased?"

Yes, because Once you are Convinced, you are Going to Lean that Way Until the Evidence Against it is not just Reasonable, but Overwhelming. If you Happen to be an Atheist, then that will add to your Bias Even Further, but I won't Assume that Until you say it. Everyone is Biased, Scohen. To Claim Immunity is Arrogance.

My Opinion is that if there are Two Ideas that Contain Evidence, but not Proof, which there are, then the Added Evidence of God within my Own Heart is going to Put the Creation Side Way Over the Top.

Think about it, Scohen. If you Met and Talked to Someone and Someone Else told you that if you Just Read this, you will Realize that the One you were Talking to just a Minute ago is just a Figment of you Imagination, how Eagerly would you Believe him. It just so Happens, that I Know that I Know that I Know that God is not a Figment of my Imagination and that the Bible is True. I Know this because of Evidence within my Own Heart.

"you have to at least concede that evolution enjoys near universal acceptance by biologists."

There was a Time in which the Idea that the Earth was Flat had the Same Universal Acceptance.

Lista said...

The Comment that I'm now Working on is a 4 Parter and the Above was Part 3, so there is One More, but I'm Tired, so I'm going to Put the Last one off until Later Tonight. I also have some things to do Today.

scohen said...

"We get Information in the Mail all the Time about Ways in which the Freedom of Speech of Christians is Under Attack "

Do you think that maybe there's a reason that the people that send those mailers want to keep you in a constant sense of panic and fear?

I asked a simple question Lista, just name one of the acts that limits free speech that has come close to passing. Just one.

Also, you have absolutely failed to show a single instance where the ACLU has come out in favor of limiting your (or anyone's) first amendment rights. There are people handing you a narrative, and you've yet to question it.

"I was not Able to Tell at a Glance what Paul Wolfgang.."

Did you mean Wolfgang Pauli? It means that what you said isn't worth discussing because it's plain silly.

"That is where the Disease Started"

No, wrong. That was the initial community affected by the disease, but it actually started in the 1960s and was not recognized until the 1980s. From Wikipedia:

The current consensus is that HIV was introduced to North America by a Haitian immigrant who contracted it while working in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the early 1960s, or from another person who worked there during that time.[37]

"Yes, that's what I said, or it could be just the Sexually Active Ones"

Link? Source? What constitutes a STD? Is Herpes a STD? I've seen figures for this, and actually know the figure you're talking about. It's 25%, and herpes is an STD (but the study didn't ask how it was contracted). Needless to say, it was a remarkably flawed study.

"The Average Life Span of Homosexuals is Lower "

The average life span for a black male is also lower. Do you think that's because they're immoral?
Perhaps when you're actually curious as to *why* the average ages are lower you'll look into it and find out something quite sad.

"You do not Know that."

Actually, yes I do. I looked it up. Averages are funny things Lista. they're horribly skewed if someone dies early, and extremely skewed if say, an epidemic 20 years ago killed off many of the young members of the population. Also, considering "homosexuals" as a group is exceedingly odd, since that group is exceedingly diverse.

"I have no Idea what you Mean."

Radar had a different blog post with a different comment thread that was more germane. You were responding to a comment that I made on *that* thread.

Lista, with all due respect, you're out to lunch when it comes to Homosexuality, and I really don't think anything I can ever say will make you realize that. You don't have much first hand experience, and you're using terribly biased, non-clinical sources for your data. There's not much I can do to help.

So, with that in mind, I don't really want to talk to you about it any more. It's too depressing.

scohen said...

"Also, any of you "gentlemen" sho spoke so rudely to the lady need a lesson in civility"

I'm a feminist Radar, I treat men and women the same way. I also apologized for any offense that Lista claimed, and if I read her comment correctly, she couldn't even find where I insulted her.

You're not the most civil person either. I don't see why everyone can't be civil.

Also, a while back, Lista put up some little word puzzles and wondered if the commenters were smart enough to decode them. Not terribly civil if you ask me.

scohen said...

"Then why did you make me Feel Bad for not Responding to the Subject when you Asked me to?"

First off, I have no control over what my words do do you. My objective wasn't to make you feel bad. What I wanted you to do was to read a couple of articles and then give me your opinion.

I actually think you're confusing me with Wolf here. To the best of my knowledge, I've never criticized you for not responding to me.

"I'm a Slow Reader, so the Answer to that Question is Actually no, yet it's not Impossible."

But reading an article is a simple matter, no? It's not like you'll have to complete several college courses or design a nuclear reactor. I'm more than happy to continue this discussion in the future after you've read a number of articles on facilitated variation.

"I am Biased in the Direction of Creationism and your Bias is in the Direction of Evolution."

*ahem* You have yet to show me why you think I'm biased in favor of evolution. I think evolution explains the data much better than creationism, but that in and of itself isn't bias.

I think germ theory explains the data better than miasma theory, but that's not a bias.

Lista, it's possible that there could be a discovery tomorrow that explains the data better than evolution. Then I'd accept that (in reality, it'd take years). What I'm describing isn't bias.

What I'm saying is that I didn't have an a priori bias towards evolution. You'd need to establish that, but you can't because all you know of me is a couple postings on the internet.

As I said before, your definition is faulty.

"If you Happen to be an Atheist"

I'm not.

"Everyone is Biased, Scohen. To Claim Immunity is Arrogance."

Everyone has biases, but that doesn't mean they're biased on every issue. To claim otherwise is silliness. I have no bias with regards to monetary policy in Zimbabwe. What I'm saying is that your accusation of 'bias' is worthless because you can't show it. I welcome you to show where my bias lays and why. The reason that I think creationism is bunk is because I read what they have to say and in every single instance it's lacking. Williams above is an excellent example.

"My Opinion is that if there are Two Ideas that Contain Evidence, but not Proof"

Science doesn't work that way. There's never proof, and theories are always open to change. Can creationism make that claim?

"I Know this because of Evidence within my Own Heart."

That kind of evidence may be very real and important to you, but doesn't have any use in science.
I'd also like to point out that there are a great many believers (in many religions) that accept evolution. What about what's in their hearts?

"There was a Time in which the Idea that the Earth was Flat had the Same Universal Acceptance."

And how was that shown to be false? Belief?
Was that a scientific theory based on evidence? How did that model change over time? Who changed it and why?

Also, does attacking evolution bolster creationism? If so, how?

Lista said...

Still Working on the Last of my Above Four Part Comment. It Looks like this one is in Response to Scohen's 12:07 AM Comment Above, Starting with the Third to Last Paragraph.

Scohen
"Again, do you see why that definition is unworkable from a purely combinatoric perspective?"

Nope. The Definition Talks about Breeding and Producing Offspring, but says Nothing about whether or not some of the Offspring would be Starile and it also says Nothing about Hybrids and I have already Responded to the Hybrid Question.

Ok. You Know What? I do Remember what I Read from the Conservapedia. They Basically said that the Ability to Breed is Evidence that the Said Animals are of the Same Kind, but... Oh shoot! I'm going to have to Look it Up. Here's a Quote from the Entry Defining Baraminology...

"Based on the Biblical criterion for kinds, creationists deduce that as long as two creatures can hybridize with true fertilization, the two creatures are (i.e. descended from) the same kind. Also, if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same kind. The hybridization criterion is a valid operational definition, which could in principle enable researchers to list all the kinds. The implication is one-way—hybridization is evidence that they are the same kind, but it does not necessarily follow that if hybridization cannot occur then they are not members of the same kind (failure to hybridize could be due to degenerative mutations). After all, there are couples who can’t have children, and we don’t classify them as a different species, let alone a different kind."

It Looks Like "True Fertilization" is Emphasized, yet "The implication is one-way. Hybridization is evidence that they are the same kind, but it does not necessarily follow that if hybridization cannot occur, then they are not members of the same kind (failure to hybridize could be due to degenerative mutations)."

That Definition Works for me. Time Changes Things and Mutations do not Cause Something to Cease to be Descended from whatever it was Descended from. It's just that Kinds do not Interbreed with Kinds and there is no Evolution between them. Evolution has in no Way Disproved this Idea.

I was Going to Save that for my Next Post, but here it is.

"See, that's creationism's problem in a nutshell. You're stuck with 5000 year old 'definitions' for things."

Well, the Part of the Definition that I Just Quoted from the Concervapedia Included Hybrids and I'm sure that was Modified and Added to Sooner than 5,000 Years Ago.

"Life doesn't follow our rules, so we're constantly finding things that don't fit into our neat little boxes."

You're Right, for it Follows God's Rules, not Man's. What Creationists have been Trying to do is Fix the "Box" that Excludes God. "And for some reason, YOU don't like THAT."

Lista said...

Scohen,
"and if I read her comment correctly, she couldn't even find where I insulted her."

I didn't Even Bother to look, Scohen, for when someone Apologizes to me, I just Allow the Issue to Drop and Move on. I don't really think that Radar was directing his Comment at you, though, so there was no Reason for you to Take it as if he was.

My Word Puzzle was not Meant to be an Insult. I just Wondered rather or not anyone would Figure it Out. That's All. And I thought that it was Rather Creative. I'll give you the Answer if you want it.

I Apologize too, if I Insulted you, cause just Like you, that was not my Intent. Honest.

You Need to Learn how to Not Take Things Personal, Scohen, that are not Meant to be Insults. I'm that way too at Times, so for that, I Apologize again. I'll Tell you what I Think we should Do? Let's Both just Relax, Take a Deep Breath, Start Giving Each Other the Benefit of the Doubt, and Stop Taking so much Offense. Ok? :)

"But reading an article is a simple matter, no?"

Depends on the Length. If I can Find some Short Ones, then I'm Fine, but it Still Takes a Little Time to Read Several of them. It's Ok if you do not Fully Understand. Most Fast Readers don't. I Graduated from College, yet with my Reading Speed, that was a Bit of a Miracle.

We will be Leaving for our Trip Saturday and my Cousin will be Arriving at Our House on Friday, so my Time is Limited. Perhaps I'll Look into that Facilitated Variation Thing when I get Back.

"You have yet to show me why you think I'm biased in favor of evolution."

Did you not Hear me say that Everyone is Biased, Scohen, and I do not Think that you are Immuned? Why is that such a Hard Explanation to Understand? I guess it's Possible that you are Better at Pushing your Bias Aside than Others. I do not Know you Well enough to Determine that, yet I'll give you the Benefit of a Doubt, since you are so Insistent on the Issue.

If you are not an Atheist, then that Removes One of the Motives for Bias, so you've just Given me an Additional Reason to Believe you. All I did, Scohen, was Started with what is Generally True about People. When First Meeting someone, it is not really so Wrong to Start with such a Starting Point and even that was not Meant to be an Insult.

Lista said...

"Everyone has biases, but that doesn't mean they're biased on every issue."

Oh I see. I Guess it’s Possible that you do not Have Biases Relating to Evolution and Creationism. I am fully Willing to Consider your Claim in this Matter. The Problem is that I have Still Found Reasons for Suspecting Bias in you which I will Explain very Shortly.

You do Need to Keep in Mind, though, that Usually my Statements about Bias are Directed at Evolutionists in General, not Specifically at you.

There IS Prejudice against Creationism, as Exposed in the Movie "Expelled". That is Obvious Bias and Radar has Sited Other Examples as well that he has Left a Link to.

"I read what they have to say and in every single instance it's lacking."

When Ever I see Words that Indicate Absolutes in Sentences, I Suspect Bias. Though there are Some Absolute Laws in Nature (Gravity, for Example), when Absolutes are Connected to Our Judgments About People and their Ideas, they are Rarely Ever Valid. You are Suggesting that Creationists have Never Ever been Right about anything and that just isn't Possible. If that were True, I would be Smart Enough to Know it, cause I am Not a Stupid Person and I wouldn't Make such a Claim about Evolutionists.

"There's never proof, and theories are always open to change."

Ok, Fine. I'll Gladly Rephrase. If Two Ideas Contain Evidence, shouldn't they be Taught Side by Side?

Lista said...

"Theories are always open to change. Can creationism make that claim?"

God is the Same Yesterday, Today and Forever. Man is Fallible, but God is both Holy and Perfect and that is why the Only Absolutes that are Valid are the Ones that Originate from God. This, in itself, is not a Scientific Statement, but it does Explain why the Bible is Pretty Much Accurate from the Start and Science has Never Disproved it.

There are some Changes within Creationism, though, such as the Change in the Definition of Kind, as I have Quoted Earlier from the Conservapedia, under the Word Baramin. The Reality of Kind has not Actually Changed, yet we can Still Define it Wrong if we do not Fully Understand it at the Beginning.

"there are a great many believers (in many religions) that accept evolution."

They are not as Concerned about the Validity of the Scriptures. I've seen much Evidence that the Scriptures are True, which is yet another Form of Evidence. All we Need to do in Order to Make that Evidence more Scientific is to Call the Bible a Historic Book, rather than a Religious One and Compare it to Other Historical Holy Books. When this is Done the Bible Ranks at the Top in Relation to Historical Accuracy.

"And how was that shown to be false? Belief?"

No, Creationism has Evidence. The Belief that the Evidence within Creationism is an Absolute Zero is Incorrect Enough to show the Evidence of the Bias that you have Denied. Whenever someone Claims Something that is Very Obviously Untrue, I suspect Bias.

"Also, does attacking evolution bolster creationism? If so, how?"

The Idea that All Life has Originally Evolved from a Single Celled Organism is in Direct Conflict with Creationism and has not Been Proved. Though you have Stated that Science doesn't Prove anything, there are Many who Believe in Evolution that Claim that it does. And there is Really no Evidence that Evolution Goes Beyond Speciation. That is the Point of Conflict and is the Only Part of the Issue that Really Matters.

This Concludes all that I am going to Have the Time to Respond to Prior to our Return from Our Trip.

Lista said...

Oh, We'll be Gone from the 11th to the 18th.

scohen said...

Lista,
First some housekeeping:
" I don't really think that Radar was directing his Comment at you, though, so there was no Reason for you to Take it as if he was."

Here's what I see as the facts:
1. There were two people talking on this thread (you and I).
2. You said that I insulted you.
3. I apologized.
4. You wrote a rather nice reply to that. I haven't expressed to you the good feeling I got when I read that.
5. Radar made a statement about how rude it was to insult a woman.
6. I concluded Radar was speaking about me.

I think that's a fair assumption. Then again, Radar could be doing what he does when he talks about deleting comments for profanity. In all my years of reading and commenting on this blog, I've never seen a comment that has profanity in it. Ever.

" I'll give you the Answer if you want it."

Not necessary. Perhaps the reason that I thought it was meant as an insult is because the puzzle was so easy. It's like saying "I wonder if the commenters are smart enough to unscramble this: tca".

Maybe you actually meant it to be hard, but when I looked at it, the puzzle kind of solved itself.

scohen said...

me:
"Again, do you see why that definition is unworkable from a purely combinatoric perspective?"

Lista: "Nope"

Alright then I disagree, but it looks like *if* that's the definition you want to use (and it's not a particularly useful definition, by the way) then creationists now have a testable, falsifiable hypothesis. Congratulations!

All you have to do now is the hard work of identifying "kinds". That should involve a lot of forced breeding of many different biological species. Then, when you've figured out what animals are in what "kind", then you guys can show why the genetic and morphological pathways for change so far identified actually constitute a barrier to change on that level.

We're talking 40-50 years of hard work tops. Then we can talk on level footing. Biologists have already done this hard work when it comes to the current system, so it's only fair that creationists get to as well.

"Evolution has in no Way Disproved this Idea."

It's not evolution's job to disprove anything. It's the creationist community's job to show that this idea exists in the first place. I'm still skeptical, as I've seen no work that backs it up. So far, I've only seen words.

"You're Right, for it Follows God's Rules, not Man's."

I don't agree. Life seems to follow its own rules.

By the way, for someone that is concerned about bias, citing conservapedia, an organization that's inherently biased, seems at best odd.

AmericanVet said...

1 - There have been more commenters than Lista and scohen talking on this thread. Remarks made about Lista in this and other threads about her intellect, for one thing, are crude and unbecoming for those who are supposedly gentlemen. The idea that she likes to capitalize does not in any way lead to a conclusion that she is a dullard nor a flake. It is her STYLE, people, maybe she is rather creative and this is an outlet?

2 - Creationism was accepted long before Darwinism and the burden of proof should be on Darwinism, particularly since it breaks scientific laws.

3 - I have removed a couple of comments for profanity, both from the same source who apparently didn't come back or else changed his ways. He was, of course, anonymous. I hope I haven't missed deleting one with profanity but it is a big blog and some people comment on posts made years ago.

scohen said...

"Oh I see. I Guess it’s Possible that you do not Have Biases Relating to Evolution and Creationism. I am fully Willing to Consider your Claim in this Matter."

Now we're getting somewhere.

"When Ever I see Words that Indicate Absolutes in Sentences, I Suspect Bias"

Let me rephrase what I said.

Every time I have knowledge in a subject, and I read creationist literature that deals with the subject, I find it lacking.

It's a qualified absolute, but it's true. It's possible that there's some good creationist literature out there that doesn't distort, grossly oversimplify or lie, but I haven't seen it.

I didn't say all, I said all I've seen.

And you know what Lista? I know nothing about geology, and when I read creationist literature, some of it seems to make sense. I don't know a megabraccia from a crossbed, but my overlapping knowledge --say fossil deposition-- sets off my spidey sense and makes me do some research. And when I do, guess who's out to lunch?

"Man is Fallible, but God is both Holy and Perfect and that is why the Only Absolutes that are Valid are the Ones that Originate from God."

So how do you know that *your specific interpretation of the bible* is the correct one? Why discount the other people who feel the same feelings in their hearts that you do in yours but side with the mountains of real evidence?

What you're describing above isn't science. It's the opposite.

"They are not as Concerned about the Validity of the Scriptures."

I bet they beg to differ.

"No, Creationism has Evidence"

Only if you discard, ignore and make conspiracy theories out of the lions share of evidence.

Tell me Lista, how does creationism account for the distribution of fossils? Radar said that it's because of 'hydrologic sorting', but that's easy to rule out. Similarly sized animals that share environments are *never* found together as fossils. Why's that?

"The Idea that All Life has Originally Evolved from a Single Celled Organism is in Direct Conflict with Creationism"

It's in conflict with your interpretation of the bible, which you call 'Creationism'. Nothing more. Also, that's not what the theory states. It only states that all life has a common ancestor

For example, Jews pretty much figured out how to settle observations and their interpretation of the bible 800 years ago.

My question was:
"Also, does attacking evolution bolster creationism? If so, how?"

Your answer was to a different question. Perhaps if I rephrase:

Hypothetically, let's say evolution is false. This doesn't make creationism true. Creationism needs to stand up on its own two legs, not just take potshots at dominant theories. Creationism doesn't account for so much more than biological diversity. It's in direct conflict with physics, astrophysics, linguistics, geology, paleontology, and on and on.

"there are Many who Believe in Evolution that Claim that it does."

Then they're not being careful with their words. I haven't encountered a scientist yet that uses 'proved' (unless you count mathematicians as scientists).

"Really no Evidence that Evolution Goes Beyond Speciation"

Well, that's not true, is it? The fossil record plainly speaks to that. You just reject it.

A while back Radar made a comment that said something like this:

We've been watching bacteria for 20 years now and they haven't turned into something else.

He meant that as an indictment against evolution, but if such a thing happened, it would immediately falsify the theory.



"Oh, We'll be Gone from the 11th to the 18th"

I'll be out of the country from the 12th to the 20th.

scohen said...

"Ok, Fine. I'll Gladly Rephrase. If Two Ideas Contain Evidence, shouldn't they be Taught Side by Side?"

Only if they:
a. Account for all evidence available
b. Have the same explanatory power

Creationism fails both tests.

AmericanVet said...

scohen said...
"Ok, Fine. I'll Gladly Rephrase. "If Two Ideas Contain Evidence, shouldn't they be Taught Side by Side?"

Only if they:
a. Account for all evidence available
b. Have the same explanatory power

Creationism fails both tests."


What a canard! Creationism accounts for the evidence and provides explanatory power/Darwinism doesn't.

Where does information come from, where does life come from, how can living organisms poof into existence, how did the Universe come into existence? I can answer all those questions and no Darwinists can.

A sigmoidal graph of population growth takes the human race back about 4,000 some years, just in time for Noah and crew to exit the Ark. Darwinism supposes humans have been around for many hundreds of thousands of years at a minimum. Well, then where are all the people?

Historical documents cannot be found dating back too far into the past, but what we have in the vast majority of cultures is a creation story and a flood story and a history that goes back maybe 6,000 years. Some cultures throw in extra years to make themselves look important but archaeology in the Middle East has tended to prove the Biblical timeline of mankind. Genealogical records also show cultures as descendants of Ham, Shem or Japheth (three sons of Noah).

Any creationist worth his salt can out-evidence a Darwinist.

scohen said...

"What a canard! Creationism accounts for the evidence"

It doesn't account for *all* the evidence, does it?

Why do we never see icthyosaurs and dolphins together?

Jon has many other examples that you brush off without reason.

"Where does information come from"

That's been explained to you again and again. There's a long article on BioLogos as to why your reasoning is wrong, but you didn't read it. Hint: your definition of 'information' is partly to blame.

"where does life come from"
The theory of evolution doesn't say and has no opinion on the matter. This too has been explained to you before.

"how can living organisms poof into existence"

That's creationism. To say that evolution says this isn't accurate.

"how did the Universe come into existence?"

That's a matter of physics, not evolution.

"A sigmoidal graph..."
Minor quibble: How can you state the graph is sigmoidal when it hasn't yet flattened out yet?

Lista, this is another easily-falsified creationist "answer". Radar says the graph is sigmoidal, so we can then extrapolate the populations at various known times? IIRC, if you do, the entire human population when exodus happened was 1500 or so. That's laughably small, and less than Exodus claims (exodus 12:37). Also, this argument assumes constant population growth. Do you think that's a reasonable assumption? I don't.

See Lista, that's a perfect example of what I was talking about above when I was talking about examining creationist claims and finding them lacking. Thanks for bringing it up, Radar.

"Any creationist worth his salt can out-evidence a Darwinist."

What is a darwinist? In it a physicist? Biologist? Geologist? Linguist? You've indicted all in the above small paragraph. Somehow, I think if you limit your discussion to the "darwinist"'s (whatever that means) area of expertise, you'd get trounced on the evidence.

AmericanVet said...

I like the word, "canard." Goes nicely with Darwin.

None of you "explained" a natural source of information to me nor can you do it now. Point one, you evidently concede.

Where does the Universe come from is a basic question for every worldview. You think it is scientific to just pass on that one? Okay I have won that point as well.

How about life? The hypothesis of evolution is going to give up on that one as well? Radar 3 and Darwinism 0.

As to the sigmoidal graph, as you know I made an entire post on the subject and, in fact, the flattening is happening. Furthermore while you cannot do an exact extrapolation back to the Flood, you do come pretty close. But hundreds of thousands of years of humans? Not possible according to population studies. A population geneticist of the first order is referenced in my posts BTW. 4 to 0.

As to Woolf's long list of side issues, most of them are like asking what color a unicorn's tail is when you know there are no unicorns. But the problem of whether ichthyosaurs and dolphins is the question itself. Are there any relatives of ichthyosaurs still living? Perhaps not. But relatives of dolphins are found, so dolphin KINDS are found. The versions of whale kind we have now are not necessarily what was extant at Flood time. Speciation using the information in the genome has caused all sorts of organisms to change in appearance and size since the Flood. Jon asks the wrong question. I would love to have a live debate with you, scohen, but you are pretty far away. This venue is what we have.

AmericanVet said...

However, may I point out that you, scohen, stated that the hypothesis of evolution had answers to all the questions and creationism does not. Yet you cannot answer where information or life come from and in fact dodge the life and Universe question altogether. So Darwinism doesn't even want to TRY to answer these big questions and it is a superior concept to teach than creationism? I think not!

I think Darwinists know that if both explanations are taught at the same time students will choose creationism as far more logical and elegant a solution to the problems of origins and the explanation for the forms of living organisms in the world today.

Jon Woolf said...

"I think Darwinists know that if both explanations are taught at the same time students will choose creationism as far more logical and elegant a solution to the problems of origins and the explanation for the forms of living organisms in the world today."

Until they encounter some of the questions that creationism can't answer.

Which is, of course, where evolutionary theory came form in the first place: an attempt by science to explain what superstition could not.

"None of you "explained" a natural source of information to me.."

Patrick Jane would have a field day with you, Radar.

scohen said...

"However, may I point out that you, scohen, stated that the hypothesis of evolution had answers to all the questions and creationism does not"

I didn't say that. Evolution has explanatory power *within its context*. Its context does not include the creation of the universe.

This is simple stuff, Radar.

I have no idea what "Darwinism" is.


"As to Woolf's long list of side issues,... (rest of evasion removed for brevity)"

The issue I brought up seems pretty important if you posit a worldwide flood.

"But the problem of whether ichthyosaurs and dolphins is the question itself. Are there any relatives of ichthyosaurs still living? Perhaps not. But relatives of dolphins are found, so dolphin KINDS are found. "

Are you saying that an Ichthyosaur is a dolphin kind? Because one's a reptile and one's a mammal.

You guys better get these "Kinds" sorted quickly. I'm dead certain a dolphin and a reptile can't reproduce.

AmericanVet said...

Patrick Jane would be on my side. He'd detect that I was telling the truth or at least believe I am telling the truth.

No, I said whale kinds were found and Ichys were found. Ichys seems to have died out but we still have whale kinds but they have speciated so they do not, for the most part, resemble those found in the field.

Findings in the field are still sketchy, since most paleontologists are Darwinists and will tend to put aside anything that casts Darwinism in a bad light. How many remains of dinosaurs were found and ignored until Mary Schweitzer had the guts to reveal flesh preserved in her T-Rex? After that revelation we now find other specimens being announced. With most field work in the hands of Darwinists, I would rather send Patrick Jane to a paleontologist's convention to try, like Diogenes, to find a truth-teller.

scohen said...

"No, I said whale kinds were found and Ichys were found."

So whales and dolphins can reproduce?

...and whales were around when ichythyosaurs were? I was not aware of that.

Probably because that's not true.

". How many remains of dinosaurs were found and ignored until Mary Schweitzer had the guts to reveal flesh preserved in her T-Rex? "

She didn't find preserved flesh, you should really read her articles on what she found. She's also not kind to creationists because she feels that they misrepresent her data, and she's an evangelical christian, so atheist bashing won't work.

AmericanVet said...

How Schweitzer and her team spins the results is of no significance, it has been shown that the T-Rex did have REMAINS and not just fossilized standard grade fossilization. Furthermore other remains have since been uncovered.

What her team says about that T-Rex and what other researchers have shown to be true is a story onto itself. I have already presented evidence on this blog that falsifies their attempts at backing away from a fossil that challenges their worldviews. Too bad.

Yes, whales have been found in fossil rock, even a relatively famous polystrate fossil is in fact a whale. So whales and aquatic dinosaurs shared the same ocean.

In the end, one of the tragedies of the myth of Darwin is the deleterious effect on the church. Those who compromise their beliefs then find no solid ground upon which to stand. You cannot have Jesus Christ and Charles Darwin at the same time. You MUST reject one or the other if you are logical and true to yourself. Pick one and stick with one. Millions of years of evolution make Jesus a liar and therefore neither Savior nor Lord. He proclaimed a real Adam and Eve and a real Flood and the New Testment writers back that up. So be a Christian and throw away evolutionary myths or, be a Darwinist and abandon God.

scohen said...

"How Schweitzer and her team spins the results is of no significance,"

Yeah, why would the person who found it know anything more about it than you do? I mean, it's not like she bathed the bones in acid for days or anything.

"it has been shown that the T-Rex did have REMAINS"

Shown by whom, exactly? Mary Schweitzer doesn't seem to agree. Is this committed christian part of the atheist conspiracy?

"...not just fossilized standard grade fossilization"

That's probably true. But 'not standard grade fossilization' isn't the same thing as 'remains'.

Why no DNA, pray tell? Also aren't the lion's share of fossils like this?

"Yes, whales have been found in fossil rock"

That's equivocation. I never said whales weren't found in rock. I said that *dolphins* and *Ichthyosaurs* weren't found together.

Why not?
Are whales and dolphins the same "kind"?
Are all beetles the same "kind"?

"So whales and aquatic dinosaurs shared the same ocean."

So why are they *never* found together in the same strata? Where's the creationist answer?

"You cannot have Jesus Christ and Charles Darwin at the same time."

Tell that to all the non-YEC christians... and Mary Schweitzer. Maybe you can't, but others do.

"...be a Darwinist and abandon God"

Yet there are many people who accept long ages and evolution that have not abandoned God.

But you already know this. Do I need to pull out that musty old pew survey to make my case?

AmericanVet said...

scohen,

dolphins are of the whale kind and in fact we have wholphins to prove it (dolphins and whales mated). So, yes, dolphins are of the whale kind and the whale kind as well as the ichthyosaur kind were entombed in fossil rocks. So they shared the same ocean.

No, the lion's share of fossils are not remains, but a few have shown up since Mary's T-Rex caught the headlines. DNA has been found often in fossils, which should clue us in to the idea that fossils are thousands rather than millions of years old.

http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/fossilizeddna.html

Again, I said that LOGICALLY you cannot believe in both Darwin and Christ. Not everyone is logical or fully informed on the issues. It cannot be that scohen fits either of those groups. You have chosen Darwin rather than Christ. That is logical although from my point of view rather tragic.

Jon Woolf said...

"...even a relatively famous polystrate fossil is in fact a whale."

[bzzt] Time to douse your jeans in foam again, Radar. See here:

http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/polystrate_whale.txt

for an explanation of why this claim is another example of creationists getting major points wrong.

"dolphins are of the whale kind and in fact we have wholphins to prove it (dolphins and whales mated)."

Also wrong, and rather pathetically so. The "wholphin" is a cross between two fairly closely related species of dolphin: the bottlenose dolphin and the false killer whale. You still have a ways to go to prove that, say, the Harbor Porpoise and the Blue Whale belong to the same "kind."

AmericanVet said...

Sigh...Woolf, you were willing to believe that Pakicetus was a whale ancestor but cannot imagine that a blue whale and a porpoise could be related?

Baraminology is the science of studying DNA and the ability to breed and structure to determine what the original kinds might be and more importantly determine what kind of organism the current varieties of organisms are. It is Linnaeus using 21st Century science.

I assure you that Eddie Gaedel and Andrei the Giant standing side-by-side would not appear to be the same kind of organism and yet they were most certainly both human. Just because a Blue Whale is larger than a Dolphin doesn't mean that they cannot be closely related and even have descended from the same original ancestors.

scohen said...

"dolphins are of the whale kind and in fact we have wholphins to prove it (dolphins and whales mated)"

So all whales can mate with all dolphins?

" ...and the whale kind as well as the ichthyosaur kind were entombed in fossil rocks"

The same rocks? The same strata? Be specific, you seem to be equivocating.

"DNA has been found often in fossils"

Are you talking about the T-Rex fossils that Mary Schweitzer discovered? Again, you went from discussing a very specific set of fossils to fossils in general.

Beetles? All the same kind?

scohen said...

"Woolf, you were willing to believe that Pakicetus was a whale ancestor but cannot imagine that a blue whale and a porpoise could be related?"

What's with you today? Jon didn't say that they weren't related.
What Jon said was that since the wholphin parents are actually both dolphins, you still haven't shown that a whale and a dolphin can successfully mate. Since you haven't shown that, they're not the same kind (by your own definition).

Jon Woolf said...

So easy, it's not even much fun anymore...

Of course the blue whale and the porpoise are related, Radar. But the relationship is pretty distant as such things go. The Harbor Porpoise belongs to suborder Odontoceti, toothed whales; the Blue Whale is a baleen whale, suborder Mysticeti. That makes them about as closely related as a cat and a bear. If you claim them as the same "kind", well...

Lista said...

Hi you Guys,
As it Turns Out, I did Take my Lap Top with me on Our Trip, but I've had Very Limited Time on the Computer, so all I'm going to do Right now is a One Part Response to two of Scohen's Comments, Starting with the One Made at 9:34 AM.

I'm Really Glad that I was Able to Produce Good Feelings in you, Scohen, rather than those of Frustration and Conflict. Thanks for Sharing that and you are Welcome for it.

What you are Sort of Saying is that Radar Ruined that more Pleasant Mood. He did, however, say that "ANY of you 'Gentlemen'" and it is not Against the Law for him to Address his Over All Audience, rather than just those who are Currently Speaking.

"Perhaps the reason that I thought it was meant as an insult is because the puzzle was so easy." (You were Referring to my Word Puzzle.)

Now that I Think about it, I am going to Apologize, for I was Feeling Quite Insulted at the Time by Commeters Other than you and may have been Retaliating. Again, though, you should not have Taken that Personally because it was not Directed at you. Don't tell me that you have Never done something Similar when Feeling Insulted. I Bet that you have.

I Meant it to Be Creative and Cute, not Necessarily Hard and if the Crowd I was Addressing was not in such a Hostile Mood (Not Directed at You, Scohen), then at Least Some of them Might have Viewed it that Way. Why you Viewed it the Way that you did, is not Real Clear.

Skipping Over Scohen's Comments 9:45 AM and 10:32 AM, I'm Using Self-Discipline and am not Even going to Read them Until I have more Time.

Moving on to his Comment made at 10:33 AM, since it is Short.

"a. Account for all the Evidence Available"

Evolutionism also does not Account for All of the Evidence. They do not Know how Life Began. The Fact that Life Exists at all is Evidence that it did Begin, so that is Most Definitely Evidence that Evolution can not Explain.

"b. Have the same explanatory power"

That is a Subjective Statement based on those who Hear the Explanations. When Evidence is Evaluated in an Unfair Manner, this is Evidence of Bias and that is what I Feel Evolutionist do and I have not Observed that the Same is Absent in you. Sorry, Scohen, but that's what I see. Radar’s Response to you Shows that what you have Said is Far from Set in Concrete.

American Vet/Radar,
Thanks for your Support. I May Capitalize because of a Strong Desire to be Heard, due to being Disrespected a Lot in the Past. I really like the second of your points. (Response to American Vet's Comment Made at 9:55 AM)

Lista said...

Hello Again Scohen,
Here I am just Writing a Little Each Night, even while I'm on my Vacation. This is in Response to your 9:45 AM Comment.

"it's not a particularly useful definition."

I Disagree.

"then creationists now have a testable, falsifiable hypothesis. Congratulations!"

I don't Really Think that that Only Happened Yesterday, Scohen. This is just the First that you have Actually Understood it. You Finally Understand what Creationists are about. Congratulations!

"Life seems to follow its own rules."

Now you're sort of Talking like an Atheist, Scohen. Who's to Say that Nature's Rules were not Put there by God.

Oh and BTW, the Wikipedia is Biased as well, for the Wikipedia is more Liberal. Seems Odd to me that you do not Know that.

Now I'm Moving on to your Longer 10:32 AM Comment.

"Every time I have knowledge in a subject, and I read creationist literature that deals with the subject, I find it lacking."

Every Time that I have Heard an Argument for Macro-Evolution, I have Found it Lacking, so that Still Puts us Both in the Same Boat.

I'll Accept your "Qualified Absolute" because it is not Uncommon for that which a Person has Experienced to be Absolute, simply because the Person is not Yet Aware of the Exception.

"makes me do some research. And when I do, guess who's out to lunch?"

In a Lot of Ways Creationism is a Newer Science. The Young Earth Idea didn't Really get Going Until the Mount Saint Helens Eruption and Science Takes Time.

"Why discount the other people who feel the same feelings in their hearts that you do in yours but side with the mountains of real evidence?"

My Opinion of Christians who just Accept Evolution without Question is that they Care More About Harmony and Peace, than about Truth. Most of the People in this Category are not really Interested in Science and would rather just Accept what does not Create Conflict.

I didn't Claim that my Personal Experience with God was Science. If anything it is just Evidence that there are Realities Outside of Science that can not Be Studied in a Scientific Way, yet this doesn't Cause it to Cease to be a Reality.

There's more, but I'm Quitting for the Night.

Lista said...

I guess I'm Still Responding to Scohen's Comment, as Written at 10:32 AM.

Me: "They are not as Concerned about the Validity of the Scriptures."

Scohen: "I bet they beg to differ.”

Ok. I'll Rephrase. They are not Concerned with the Accuracy of the Creation Story and have Chosen not to Take it Literally, yet how can the Idea of Reproducing "After their Kind" be Symbolic? What is it Symbolic of, if it doesn't Mean Exactly what it Says?

Sometimes you Ask me Questions, Scohen, that are Over my Head and I don't have the Time to Study Everything. I'm not Concerned, though, if a Young Science can not Answer all of the Questions. Your Expectations are not at all Fair because there are Things that Evolution can not Explain as well, even though their Science is much Older.

"It's in conflict with your interpretation of the Bible, which you call 'Creationism'. Nothing more."

I Challenge you to Come Up with an Alternate Interpretation of the Scriptures about Reproducing "After their Own Kind" Aside from Simply Disregarding these Verses. If this has not been Disproved, which it hasn't, then why shouldn't we Keep Believing in it?

"It only states that all life has a common ancestor."

And this Common Ancestor is not a Single Cell? Actually, it doesn't Matter because that is not what the Bible Says and it has not been Established as True.

"Also, does attacking evolution bolster creationism? If so, how?"

Since the Two Ideas are in Conflict, they can not Both be True, so if One is Established, the Other becomes False.

Though if Evolution is False, this doesn't make Creationism True. If Evolution is True, in that all Life has Evolved from the same Ancestor, this Makes Creationism False.

I don't Think that Creationism Disregards all of Evolutions Explanations of Things, such as "Biological Diversity". I have no Issue at All with Natural Selection and Evolution within Kinds, so the Explanations for such may be the Same as that of Evolutionists Except that this is not Seen as Evidence of Macro-Evolution, Only the Fact that God is Very Creative and Diversified.

Lista said...

I Guess there is a Possibility that no one cares Except for me, yet I Sort of Like to Know how much Time is Passing when I Communicate on a Comment Thread. My Three Previous Comments were Written on Three Different Nights; the 13th, 14th and 15th of June. Or Actually, the Last One was on the 16th because it was Past Midnight. Tonight is the 16th.

Though I will be Back from my Vacation on the 18th, Scohen will be Out of Country until the 20th. That's Monday. Today is Thursday, June 16 and this is my Fourth Comment in a Row, so it Probably should be my Last One Until Scohen Returns.

I'm Still Responding to his 10:32 AM Comment. From my Email Notification Records, this Comment was Submitted on the 8th, just Slightly Over a Week Ago. While on Vacation, the Computer has not been my Top Priority. What more can I say.

Scohen
"It's in direct conflict with physics, astrophysics, linguistics, geology, paleontology, and on and on."

The Part of this that I Know about is Just in Conflict with the Interpretations of the Current Status Quo.

"Then they're not being careful with their words."

Yes, and such Runs Rampant.

"The fossil record plainly speaks to that. You just reject it."

The Record has Multiple Holes. You Just Ignore and Reject the Reality of that Problem.

"It doesn't account for *all* the evidence, does it?"

How many Times do I have to Repeat it, Scohen, Neither does Evolution, such as American Vet/Radar has Established. Your Questions are Meaningless, Scohen, because Neither Evolution, nor Creationism can Fully Establish Everything Scientifically.

"'where does life come from?' The theory of evolution doesn't say and has no opinion on the matter."

It doesn't Matter how you Word it, Scohen. They have no Opinion, nor Explanation. The Fact that Life Exists at All is Evidence that Needs to be Explained and Evolutionists can not do it.

Woolf,
"Until they encounter some of the questions that creationism can't answer. Which is, of course, where evolutionary theory came form in the first place; an attempt by science to explain what superstition could not."

Atheism is where Evolutionary Theory Came From. Apart from Atheism, that is, in the Presence of the Belief in God, the Explanation of Creation is not Superstition.

Scohen,
"Are you saying that an Ichthyosaur is a dolphin kind? Because one's a reptile and one's a mammal."

I don't Think that Radar Said that. I didn't Read that at all.

Response to American Vet, 11:41 AM:

Yes, American Vet, Evolutionism Fails Both of the Tests that were Suggested by Scohen, doesn't it? This is Evidence of both Hypocrisy and Bias, for Creationists Are Expected to do more than Evolutionists can do. This is just the Sort of Bias that I am Talking about, for Hypocrisy is a Sign of Bias and you have Given even more Examples than me of Things that they can not Adequately Explain. Your Comment is Excellent.

Lista said...

I Wonder if Scohen is Going to Come Back to this Post. He should be Back by Now, for it is the 21rst. I Guess I could Write a Response to American Vet and Woolf. I have more for Scohen too, though.

More in Regards to American Vet, 11:41 AM,
I Agree with your Statement about Scohen’s Statement being a Canard. Well Put.

Woolf, 5:29 PM,
"Until they encounter some of the questions that creationism can't answer."

Both you and Scohen are Unbelievable. You Keep Pointing out what Creationists can’t Answer and Denying what Evolutionists can’t Answer. Such Hypocrisy!!! It Looks Like I Responded to This in my Above Comment, though. When I Respond on Various Different Days, I sometimes lose track of where I'm at.

Woolf, 6:10 PM,
I’m not Following why whether or not a Whale and a Dolphin are the Same Kind is Important. Even if Radar did get Something Wrong, this would Still in no Way Disprove some of the Very Good Points that he has Made.

From his Response, though, he may not have Gotten the Whale/Dolphin Connection Wrong, for he Mentioned DNA and Structure, not just the Ability to Breed. It just Depends on which System you Believe in as to whether or not Whales and Dolphins are Distantly or Closely Related. To Say it is so because the Current Categorizing System says so is not Much Different than saying because the Bible Says so. You just Follow a Different System and are Denying any way that it has been Challenged.