Search This Blog

Sunday, May 15, 2011

Want your dream vacation free of charge? Operators are standing by 24 - 7.

The best part of me isn't even me, it is God's Spirit living in me.  Faith in Jesus Christ and not my own efforts is the reason that God can live in me and the Father God decided I would be born so I cannot even take credit for being alive.  The little credit I get is when I get out of the way and let the love and wisdom and will of God shine through me. 

If you have ever been part of the intelligence community even peripherally you are probably shocked by the amount of information that has been revealed about the operation that took down Osama Bin Laden.  Good intelligence is often about limiting intelligence on a "need to know"  basis.   Yes, the American people did have a need to know about Bin Laden being taken out.   Maybe not immediately, but certainly not long after the event the President needed to let the people know that the man behind many acts and attempted acts of terrorism against the USA and liberty had been killed.   One more infamous evil coward has booked one-way passage on the Hell Train. 

Atheism is a belief system and my attack on that system is resented by some and parodied by others.  Those of you who know God understand that I am simply putting up a sign in front of a washed-out bridge warning travelers to stop and take the detour.   There is no saving grace in Atheism, no good comes from Secular Humanism that wouldn't be much better with the love of God involved.  The world needs more George Baileys and fewer Potters (like George Soros).   Mr. Smith needs to go to Washington and kick Harry Reid out.  Toss your Playboy magazine in the trash and read the Bible.  

I see the previews for the popular sitcoms of today and it seems like Hollywood is intent upon making every kind of sin and depravity into either a joke or a normal standard of behavior.   I am telling you that the Ten Commandments have not been revoked.  Jesus fulfilled them and offers salvation as a free gift but so many of you are not just refusing it but you are reviling it and degrading both Christ and yourself.   Somewhere inside of most of you there is still a part of you that is open to be convinced that God is God.    

Anyway, while you consider the philosophical consequences of disagreement with God, allow me to present some great material from Cre-Evo:

Weird Evolution Tricks    05/13/2011      
May 13, 2011 — Evolution is a strange theory; it goes forwards, backwards, sideways and nowhere, fast or slow, up or down, inside out and outside in.  Here are some examples that contradict the slow, gradual picture of progress that was so popular in Victorian England.
  1. Re-using lost genes:  Scientists at Massachusetts Institute of Technology are claiming that evolution dug into an old bag of tricks and pulled out something lost 200 years ago.  “Ever since Charles Darwin proposed his theory of evolution in 1859, scientists have wondered whether evolutionary adaptations can be reversed,” the press release from MIT News said.  Examples have been the re-evolution of wings in insects (see 05/28/2003).
        Using a computational model, Jeff Gore at the university decided that evolution can reverse itself, but only if fewer than four mutations were involved.  He studied bacteria that achieved resistance to an antibiotic named cefotaxime.  It took five mutations to confer resistance; there were 120 ways to get all five, but only 18 could actually occur, he found.
        The article did not get back to the question of how insects could re-evolve wings – a reversal that would seem to involve many more than four mutations.  It also repeated the discredited idea that the human appendix is no longer needed.
  2. Going nowhereNew Scientist announced in a bold headline, “Horsetail fossil tells tale of plant evolution.”  But when the reader looks for said evolution, there is none to be found except a tale indeed.  Alan Channing [Cardiff U] found a fossilized horsetail that must have been preserved in a hot spring environment.  It looks modern: “Though a new species, the fossilised plant is quite similar to some horsetails living today with a single upright evergreen shaft,” the article confessed.  While admitted that horsetails have had a “contested evolutionary history” that Channing’s work now “clears up,” the article went on to say that “The findings suggest horsetails experienced only modest innovations in their long evolutionary history.”
        Innovations?  The article presented no evidence of ancestors of horsetails.  Worse, Channing’s study pushes the origin of modern-looking horsetails back another 14 million years, to 150 million years before the present.  The fossil preserved “not only stems but also leaf sheaths, roots and reproductive structures.”  It’s as if this plant popped into existence 150 million years ago and never dreamt up any new innovations all the way to the present except, if anything, the older ones were bigger and better: “Today’s horsetail plants are living fossils, the only surviving members of the class Equisetopsida, the article ended.  “For more than a 100 million years, Equisetopsida plants dominated the understory of the late Mesozoic period forests, stretching up to 30 metres high.
  3. Evolution in reversePhysOrg tells us that cicada-like insects called treehoppers cast aside their front wings 200 million years ago, only to call them up into service as headgear.  “That’s probably shocking news if you are an entomologist, and challenges some very basic ideas about what makes an insect an insect, the researchers said.”
        Strange things happen in evolution.  “But then, some 50 million years ago, something strange happened to the cicada-like treehoppers: they once again sprouted wing-like structures from the top of the first segment of the thorax.”  But they didn’t flap: “Some of these wildly divergent extrusions resemble thorns, others look like antlers, and still others like aggressive ants or animal droppings, creating one of Nature’s most exotic menageries.”  It wasn’t clear if the capitalized Nature referred to the outdoors or the journal Nature, where the study made the cover story.1 
        What does this mean for evolutionary theory?  “Evolution is usually described as linear, but these modified wings suggested the process had come full circle.”  Turning evolution into a personified inventor, French biologist Benjamin Prud'homme said, “This extra pair of wings was not needed for flight, but nor did it prevent it.  So it became raw material for evolution to play with.”  A co-author said that the study shows “how development abilities can be lost or silenced over millions of years, only to be redeployed to contribute to the evolution of a complex and beautiful appendage.”  The abstract of the Nature paper remarked, “This innovation in the insect body plan is an unprecedented situation in 250 Myr of insect evolution.”  The paper claimed this required no new genetic information: “We submit that morphological innovations can arise from the deployment of existing but silenced developmental potentials, therefore requiring not so much the evolution of new genetic material but instead the expression of these potentials.”
  4. Evolution in hiding:  Biologists who study fungi have found an embarrassing surprise: according to PhysOrg, “a hitherto unknown type of fungi which has fundamentally expanded the scientific understanding of this group of organisms.”  A British team has uncovered a whole new group of fungi which they named cryptomycota – hidden fungi.
    Dr Tom Richards, from the University of Exeter’s Biosciences department and the Natural History Museum London, said: “This study has been very surprising – not least because the original sample came from the nearby pond.  Fungi have been well studied for 150 years and it was thought we had a good understanding of the major evolutionary groups, but these findings have changed that radically.
        “Current understanding of fungal diversity turns out to be only half the story – we’ve discovered this diverse and deep evolutionary branch in fungi that has remained hidden all this time.
    Cryptomycota apparently lack a rigid cell wall.  What does this mean?  The article referred to the fungus as either an “intermediate state” or a “living fossil,” but admitted that it must be successful: “Despite lacking the tough cell wall, they seem still to be very successful in the environment because of their extensive diversity and cosmopolitan distribution.”  The discovery also points out that biologists may be oblivious to large segments of the living world: “Until recent years, researchers investigating microbial diversity have sampled by growing microbes in lab cultures, but now it seems that the vast majority of life forms are never captured using these methods – meaning most of the evolutionary complexity of life remains unsampled.
  5. Evolution by loss:  A lizard in Cambodia has no legs or eyes.  The BBC News has a picture of what looks like an earthworm, but is a “legless lizard” that has also lost its eyes.  Uncommon Descent teased about “Evolution as loss of function.”
  6. Unnatural selection:  What would you call “unnatural selection”?  Would it be synonymous with intelligent design?  Not according to Michael Le Page at New Scientist, who has been writing a series about how humans are harming the environment with their pesticides, hunting, climate change, pollution, diseases, and shuffling of invasive species.  He left begging the question of whether humans were naturally selected to do this.

1.  Prud'homme et al, “Body plan innovation in treehoppers through the evolution of an extra wing-like appendage,” Nature Volume: 473 (05 May 2011), pp. 83–86, doi:10.1038/nature09977.
By making evolution mean anything, they make it mean everything – and therefore nothing.  By creating an illusion of progress, evolutionists have created the perfect conspiracy: a way to snow the public under the banner of science, using the Stuff Happens Law (SHL).  Philosophers may realize that “stuff happens” amounts to a failure of scientific explanation, but by calling it something more sophisticated – evolution – evolutionists can tinker with it in countless ways.  Being inherently flexible, the Stuff Happens Law lends itself to endless corollaries that can be couched in Darwinian jargon.
  • Strange stuff happens (evolutionary reversal)

  • Stuff happens at any speed (evolutionary stasis or radiation)

  • Stuff happens by surprise (evolutionary innovation)

  • Stuff re-happens (circular evolution)

  • Stuff survives happenstance (living fossils)


  • Stuff makes other stuff happen (humans affecting biology by “unnatural selection”)
    As long as creative minds inhabit evolutionary biology labs, the future looks bright for endless twists on Darwin’s tale.  Whether this amounts to science is an entirely different question.
    Next headline on:  GeneticsPlantsTerrestrial ZoologyPolitics and EthicsDarwin and EvolutionFossilsDumb Ideas

  •   Ben Stein's expose of Darwinian intolerance in Expelled three years ago did not make the Darwinists repent.  It made them even more intolerant.  In the 05/12/2008 entry, read accounts of subsequent acts of Darwinist bigotry, and a commentary on why the very institutions founded to protect rights often end up doing the exact opposite.

    Who’s Playing Your Gene Piano?     05/12/2011      
    May 12, 2011 — Is your genetic code a library or a musical instrument?  Scientists have long considered it to be like the former, a genetic code.  Now, however, a new metaphor is emerging: a piano.  Discoveries in epigenetics (beyond-the-gene), processes that determine which genes are played or silenced, are tending toward the new interpretation.
        In Medical Xpress, a headline reads, “Study gives clue as to how notes are played on the genetic piano.”  It features the work of Dr. Kohzoh Mitsuya [U of Texas Health Science Center] who studies genes as if watching a performance: epigenetics “corresponds to a pianist playing a piece of music,” he said.  “Like keys on a piano, DNA is the static blueprint for all the proteins that cells produce,” the article described.  “Epigenetic information provides additional dynamic or flexible instructions as to how, where and when the blueprint will be used.
        His work has only identified one note on the piano so far: DNA methylation, a process that silences genes by having an RNA attach a methyl group to them.  After watching the response of mice deficient in the RNA, he said, “It shows how one note is played on the piano.”  Perhaps, though, the piano is just one instrument of a larger work.  “The symphony has only just come into view,” Dr. Mitsuya said.  “We can hear it, but we need to learn how all the parts are being played.”  His team’s work, published in Science today,1 did not mention pianos or music, but did not discuss evolution, either.

    1.  Watanabe, Tomizami, Mitsuya et al, “Role for piRNAs and Noncoding RNA in de Novo DNA Methylation of the Imprinted Mouse Rasgrf1 Locus,” Science, 13 May 2011: Vol. 332 no. 6031 pp. 848-852, DOI: 10.1126/science.1203919.
    OK, who’s the pianist?  Who’s the conductor?  Metaphors can be misleading, and should not be pushed too far, but this one causes trouble for Darwin while it fits neatly into intelligent design.  The environment cannot be the musician; it is oblivious to the needs of the organism.  Heredity cannot be the musician; it has no foresight to read or comprehend a collection of processes organized into a work.
        Function (the requirement of an organism to survive and reproduce) is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the origin of the information required to produce function.  Darwinists: don’t give us that line, “If it hadn’t evolved, it wouldn’t be there.”  Science is supposed to seek efficient causes, not just-so stories or appeals to chance based on circular reasoning.  The alternative explanation, intelligent design, is the only explanation with a known cause sufficient to produce functional information: intelligence.
        The article referred to a NOVA special that called epigenetics “The ghost in your genes.”  Just when neuroscience thought they had exercised the ghost in the machine of the brain, another shows up in the genetic code.  Ghosts have a way of coming back to haunt the overconfident.
    Next headline on:  Genetics and DNAIntelligent Design
     
    Science Out of Touch     05/11/2011      
    May 11, 2011 — When science became a profession instead of an avocation, there were some unintended consequences.  Scientists began to lose touch with the public.  When a scientist goes to work doing science for a living, he or she sometimes takes public support for granted, thinking the work is justified for its own sake.  Recent articles, however, warn scientists and scientific institutions to re-think their presumed authority.  They need to start acting more accountable to the public who expects a return on investment.
        Part of the need for scientists to re-evaluate their status comes from mistakes and surprises.  Society looks to scientists to understand the world, but often, they are caught off guard or backtracking on previously well-established theories.  In today’s news, for instance, the BBC said that astronomers are “mystified” by high-energy gamma rays seen coming from the Crab Nebula.  Space.com says this burst “defies explanation.”  Many of the findings from the Cassini Mission to Saturn, like the Enceladus geysers and the lack of an ethane ocean on Titan, contradicted predictions and still have no explanation.  PhysOrg reported that the discovery of hot Jupiters (gas giants orbiting near other stars) orbiting backwards “so obviously violates our most basic picture of planet and star formation.
        Another embarrassment comes when the public comes to believe, or scientists admit, that their projects were not worth doing in the first place.  For instance, the political push for biofuels is well known, but PhysOrg reported on a study that shows that conventional fossil fuels are sometimes greener than biofuels, when their entire carbon footprint is measured.  Remember the promises of artificial intelligence (AI)?   PhysOrg reminded readers that back in the 1950s and 60s, “hopes were high that tools emerging from the new science of computation would soon unravel the mysteries of human thought.”  Since then, AI research has had to dramatically reduce its aspirations; “As the computational complexity of even the most common human cognitive tasks became clear, however, researchers trimmed their sails,” the article admitted, quoting one researcher who couldn’t imagine building a robot able to reach into its pocket for its keys.  Embryonic stem cell research has yet to produce one actual treatment despite soaring promises, and the Human Genome Project, while generating a great deal of knowledge, similarly failed to simplify our understanding of human diseases.  Last week, Science News reported that “Evolutionary literary criticism” (see 01/27/2006) has flopped, remaining unpopular in the university.
        To be sure, any investigation of the unknown is going to have problems and setbacks.  But when the public pays for it, or when parents pay big bucks to have their children sit under science professors, they have reason to expect some return on investment.  This was emphasized in a Nature editorial this week,1 “Value judgements.”  Members of the public are stake-holders in science, the editors admitted; their values cannot be ignored.  Scientists cannot just assume that the old canard of “knowledge for its own sake” will sell.  A recent symposium published by the journal Minerva raised awareness of this:
    Policy-makers, funders and scientists should take note.  For example, a paper by Ryan Meyer, also a policy scientist at Arizona State University, focuses on the failure of the US government’s Global Change Research Program to deliver broad public value (Minerva 49, 47–70; 2011).  Basing his studies on public statements and private interviews with researchers and political decision-makers, Meyer says that US climate programmes have in the past two decades benefited from public investment of more than US$30 billion, but have largely failed to produce information and participation in the forms that policy-makers and the public wanted.  The notion that society considers any advance in knowledge to be inherently good – even if the science fails to meet the objectives and priorities it was meant to address – cannot be sustained, says Meyer.
    The editorial reflected on post-normal science: “Science becomes ‘post-normal’ when facts are uncertain, stakes high, values in dispute and decisions urgent; in such cases, societal needs must be taken into account to avoid costly mistakes.”  The controversies about climate science come to mind.  The editors pointed to climate science as an example; “But, according to the workshop participants, most climate researchers continue to act as if purely scientific values are, and will always be, adequate to set the agenda.”  The editors of Nature agree with the scientific consensus on climate science, but realize that scientists have lost the public trust on the matter.  This pointed up another unintended consequence of the professionalism of science: scientists became a special-interest group, seeking their own priorities instead of those of society:
    More importantly, these studies highlight a significant deficit in current typical appraisals of science and technology outcomes.  They should serve as cautionary tales about the danger of scientists’ interests, deliberately or otherwise, becoming too dominant in determining outcomes.  And they introduce ways to assess failures in social returns on investment that, one can only hope, will help to improve science’s public value.
    How did science become professionalized in the first place?  The Scientist presented an essay by historian of science by Laura J. Snyder.  “In the 19th century, four friends changed the way scientists viewed themselves,” the subtitle of her essay begins.  She believes, “It’s time for another shake-up.”  Those four friends, featured in her new book The Philosophical Breakfast Club (Broadway Books, 2011), were William Whewell (who coined the term scientist), Charles Babbage, John Herschel, and Richard Jones.  “Each of the four men was brilliant, self-assured, and possessed of the optimism of the age,” Snyder said.  It was these four, who met for “Philosophical Breakfasts” to discuss the status of science, who were most influential in transforming science “from the province of the amateur—the clergyman collecting fossils or beetles in his spare hours, or the wealthy gentleman conducting electrical experiments at his country estate—to the career of the professional: trained at the university, published in specialized journals, and admitted to associations open only to fellow professionals.”  Darwin, for instance, rode the wave that elevated the scientist to the revered professional.  But then Snyder pointed out that the achievement of these four philosophers led to a serious problem plaguing science in our day:
    One of the unintended consequences of the revolution wrought by the Philosophical Breakfast Club has been that the professional scientist is now less interested in, and perhaps less capable of, connecting with the broader public, sharing the new discoveries and theories that most excite the scientific community.  Although there are some notable exceptions, today’s researcher has been less adept than the Victorian-era natural philosopher at engaging the public—and this estranged the general public from science.  In part this is because the scientific establishment discourages its members from writing popular books and articles, considering these projects unserious, even frivolous, diversions from the real work of research.  But this attitude has to change in order to mend the ever-deepening rift between science and the rest of modern culture.  Today’s scientist should strive to be more like the 19th-century natural philosopher—ironically, more like those very men who created the modern scientist.

    1.  Editorial, “Value judgements,” Nature 473 (12 May 2011), pp. 123–124, doi:10.1038/473123b.
    The points are well taken, but Snyder and the editors of Nature ignore a couple of realities: one, that many members of the public are just as informed, intelligent, and worthy of being heard as professional scientists, and two, that not all sciences are epistemically equal.  Much in biochemistry is testable and repeatable, for instance, but theories of the origin of the universe or the evolution of life are not.  A third oversight is that information flows one way: from scientist to public.  There needs to be a two-way dialogue.
        The label scientist is an honored badge that attracts many who do not deserve to wear it.  We would include evolutionists as among the worst who take on the label but provide no return on investment to society – in fact, who do much to misuse and harm society while bragging about their status as scientists.  A PhD confers no more authority on a scientist than a real estate license does on a realtor; it depends on what the indivdiual person does with the skills and learning they acquired.
        The legacy of the Philosophical Breakfast Club is interesting history; clearly, however, much has happened since then.  It would be unrealistic, if not ridiculous, to expect science today to go back to being a part-time hobby of clergymen and wealthy gentlemen, not just because many scientists these days are female.  The complexity of science has grown enormously since the days of Babbage, Herschel and Whewell (Scientist of the Month for Nov 2010).  It takes money and large teams to do spacecraft, giant telescopes and genomics.  We’re stuck with big science and professionalism.
        There’s something to be said though, for more private involvement in science.  Consider the benefactor-funded origin of the Palomar Observatory, and today’s private-enterprise space projects.  Look, too, at the good work being done by citizen scientists (PhysOrg).  If the root meaning of science is knowledge, any human has the freedom and obligation to increase it.  Better a field amateur with years of observations than an armchair professor pontificating from his PhD microphone.
        Even if the professionalization of science has had unintended consequences, those consequences are not insurmountable.  Increased scrutiny, accountability, and humility by scientists are worthy steps.  We mean no insult to the many honorable scientists using their position for good, doing honest work each day, and providing society with a good return on investment.  Professional scientists need to realize, though, they they must earn their wings each day.  Not everything they do is scientific, and not everything a non-scientist does is unscientific.  A scientist speaking outside his or her area of knowledge can have opinions no better than those of anyone else.
        One of the best correctives would be to have the media get out of the lap of scientific institutions and turn their critical-thinking scopes on science with the aid of philosophers, ethicists and taxpayer-watchdog groups.  It’s time to doubt the presumptive authority of science and call scientists to reveal their assumptions, justify their methods, face their critics honestly, and serve society rather than preach to it.
    Next headline on:  StarsSolar SystemPolitics and EthicsPhilosophy of ScienceMedia


     

    51 comments:

    Lista said...

    All I Read was your Introduction and it was Very Good. This is Me Marking this as Something I am Going to Take the Time to Read.

    radar said...

    I am busy with work but I definitely need to address some idiocy in the making...

    Lista said...

    Oh Really. Beneath which Post is the Idiocy?

    I've Read most of the Above Post, but for some Reason it has Left me in a Fog. It's the Sort of Thing that I Remember Making Sense when I Read it, yet it didn't Stick in my Mind so that I could Remember it. I'm not sure Why. The Only Thing that Sicks Out in my Mind is What you Said about Darwinian Intolerance...

    "Ben Stein's expose of Darwinian intolerance in Expelled three years ago did not make the Darwinists repent. It made them even more intolerant. In the 05/12/2008 entry, read accounts of subsequent acts of Darwinist bigotry, and a commentary on why the very institutions founded to protect rights often end up doing the exact opposite."

    It's Funny how Evolutionists do not Realize the Full Depth of their Own Bias, even to the Point of Bigotry.

    I Skipped Over the "Weird Evolution Tricks". For Some Reason I Started Reading the Post from the Bottom this Time and didn't Make it all the Way to the Top. I just Can't Seem to Read any of your Posts in One Sitting. Sometimes it Takes me Two or Three Days just to Read one.

    It's Funny that it's that Way, because I'm not at all Unable to Understand the Material.

    Anonymous said...

    "I see the previews for the popular sitcoms of today and it seems like Hollywood is intent upon making every kind of sin and depravity into either a joke or a normal standard of behavior."

    Yeah, cos piety is hilarious, right?

    Incidentally, what do ye fundies make of the impending rapture? Just a few more days!

    Jon Woolf said...

    It's Funny how Evolutionists do not Realize the Full Depth of their Own Bias, even to the Point of Bigotry.


    It's even funnier to watch creationists forget all their skepticism the instant it's one of their own oxen that's a candidate for goring.

    Tell me, Lista, do you believe anything you see in a Michael Moore documentary? How about a "news" story on 60 Minutes? Of course you don't. Because you know that the person in charge of editing that footage was biased and was out to push an agenda, not tell the truth.

    Ben Stein is just the same. He isn't interested in telling the truth. He's interested in pushing an agenda. So what makes him any more trustworthy than Moore or CBS?

    (Hint: the answer is a seven-letter word that starts with N and ends with G.)

    Hey Radar, got a question for you. You want to see Christian creationism taught as science in schools, right? Well, there's a dude named Harun Yahya over in Europe who wants to see Muslim creationism taught as science in public schools. And there's a guy named Vine DeLoria who vilifies evolution as 'white man's science' and wants Amerind mythology taught as science in public schools. Which of these "theories" will you allow to be taught, and which do you dismiss as just a silly story held to by unbelievers?

    Lista said...

    Woolf,
    "know that the person in charge of editing that footage was biased and was out to push an agenda, not tell the truth."

    How many Times do I have to Tell you, Woolf, that Evolutionists are Biased too. There is Absolutely no way that Creationists are more Biased than Evolutionists.

    Christianity is Under Attack on all Fronts. A Teacher Gets in Trouble for Reading the Bible on her Break. We Preach in our Own Churches what the Bible Says and it is Called Hate Speech. A Private Organization Displays a Nativity Scene at Christmas just as they have done for Many Many Years and they are Harassed by Atheists for Doing so.

    Since the Free Speech of Christians in General is Under Attack, the Michael Moore Documentary is Completely and Totally Believable.

    I Think that you are also Pushing an Agenda, Woolf, so why should I Trust you?

    There Needs to be Scientific Evidence there in Order for something to be Taught in School and ID and Creationism has that, at Least when it Comes to Information, Irreversible Complexity and Young Earth. Just because your Bias Prevents you from seeing the Evidence does not Make it Cease to be there.

    radar said...

    ID is a science-based empirical investigative discipline. Methodological investigation has revealed irreducible complexity and mega-design, layers upon layers of design. Only ID has scientific evidence that is not speculative that can speak to where life, for instance, came from. If you take away the speculation from Darwinism you really have nothing at all.

    Jon Woolf said...

    Lista: How many Times do I have to Tell you, Woolf, that Evolutionists are Biased too.

    Zero. I know scientists have their biases. Scientists are human too.

    There is Absolutely no way that Creationists are more Biased than Evolutionists.

    Really? "Evolutionists" don't customarily lie and deceive in order to defend their position. Creationists do.

    I Think that you are also Pushing an Agenda, Woolf, so why should I Trust you?

    Because you can check my statements against the facts and see for yourself if I'm right or not. Not against what other humans say -- humans are, as you note yourself, biased sources. The only unbiased, trustworthy source you have, the only one any of us has, is the original data. Rocks, fossils, anatomy, genetics. Learn what they say and how to interpret it. Then you'll have the information you need to tell who's right.

    I did. That's why I give no credence to creationism.

    radar said...

    Woolf, I believe we call that "transference?" Since you have lied so often about the fossil record and biology and other issues then it is either you who lies or the blame lies with the organizations providing the propaganda you swallow whole? I mean, you think the Grand Canyon represents millions of years of erosion but the evidence on the ground flatly refutes this. The interbedding and crossbedding are associated with flood bedding and the deep canyon walls were formed by a huge water run-off much like Hell's Canyon or the smaller miniature Grand Canyon produced by Mt. St. Helens.

    Maybe I need to blame talk origins or the NCSE or your teachers or modern media for your belief system, but that doesn't give you credit for studying issues on your own. So you ignore the big disastrous problems of uniformitarianism and macroevolution and try to make side issues like LIPS the focus? Counterintuitive, Jon.

    Anonymous said...

    Radar, every time I read one of those rants of yours I'm happy to be an atheist.
    If ever I might feel the urge to re-convert to Christianity I just need to read one of those ramblings of yours to set me straight again.

    radar said...

    What is so appealing about Hell? Is it the torment, the lack of hope or the presence of all of your friends?

    It is God on the throne or you on the throne. If you work for a huge corporation, maybe you could sneak in the CEO's office at lunch and put your butt in his chair, light up one of his Cuban cigars and put your feet up on the desk, but you might get fired once caught?

    God is CEO of everything. He gives people an entire lifetime to consider whether or not to acknowledge His Works and His Word. Don't blame me if you cannot see Him all around. It is on you...

    Now anyone who truly wants to know God, I will be happy to point the way. Sarcastic atheopaths who have already told God to get lost are likely not going to change their ways.

    Anonymous said...

    "What is so appealing about Hell? Is it the torment, the lack of hope or the presence of all of your friends?"

    You see, Radar, unless you already believe in this kind of stuff, it means exactly zip. Trying to scare atheists with hell is like trying to scare a grown-up with the boogeyman.

    "Since you have lied so often about the fossil record and biology and other issues then"

    Woolf lied about the fossil record? When? Where? Link?

    Name the lies. Be specific.

    And Lista, notice how when Radar makes such assertions, he doesn't back them up? He's hoping you're not curious enough to pursue this either. I encourage you to go back through Jon Woolf's posts, especially when he discusses geology etc., and then check that against the facts.

    Jon Woolf said...

    Radar, can you document even one lie that I've told in the year-plus I've been commenting here? Just one?

    I don't think so. I may make the occasional mistake, and more than once I've played word games with you, but I never state as fact things I know to be false.

    and the deep canyon walls were formed by a huge water run-off much like Hell's Canyon

    Where did the water come from?

    Anonymous said...

    "ID is a science-based empirical investigative discipline."

    Well, kinda but not really. It's "science-y", but it suffers from inherent limitations. It kind of has a testable, falsifiable claim, but alas that claim has not been confirmed so far. So it's a bit premature to start praising ID's superiority as a science.

    "Methodological investigation has revealed irreducible complexity"

    Really? How?

    The "irreducible" in "irreducible complexity" is not something that can be studied through methodological investigation alone. It is a theoretical claim ("in theory, this can not be reduced") that can be countered by another theoretical claim ("in theory, this can be reduced"). So far, every claim for IC has been countered.

    Hey, nobody said this would be easy.

    "and mega-design, layers upon layers of design."

    Complexity isn't automatically either design or proof of a creator. Even ID doesn't state that.

    "Only ID has scientific evidence that is not speculative"

    If you're talking about anything other than an "argument from incredulity" here, please tell us what the scientific evidence is.

    "that can speak to where life, for instance, came from."

    So where did life come from? ID avoids specifics, remember?

    "If you take away the speculation from Darwinism you really have nothing at all."

    Simply not true. Read outside your comfort zone sometime.

    Evolution and an old Earth, for example, explain the fossil record perfectly. YEC can't explain it. Take away speculation and you have a pile of data. The data indicates organisms changing over time. Testable claims confirm it - ever hear of Tiktaalik?

    Anonymous said...

    "Radar, can you document even one lie that I've told in the year-plus I've been commenting here? Just one?"

    Lista, pay careful attention to this question. Radar accused Jon Woolf of having lied about the fossil record and biology. Regular readers of this blog know that this isn't true, and that in making this claim, Radar spoke an untruth.

    You may not believe that Radar is capable of speaking an untruth, so watch carefully and you'll see that Radar can't answer this question.

    radar said...

    Not hard, there are so many. Woolf lied about the definition of information, he lied about me stealing photos from his website (once he investigated the photos he later admitted someone else had copied them and I had obtained them from whoever that was), he lied about what I said about the prison populations, he lied about what was said about Hartnett and he always lies about the scientific method. Jon also continually lies about the qualifications of ID and creationist scientists and makes false claims about what evolution has "proven" as well as mischaracterized the record of ID being tested in courts. The long line of falsehoods stretches back years and years.

    Obviously he cannot know the qualifications of someone like Jonathan Sarfati so when he claims that Sarfati cannot be a good scientist because he is a creationist, Jon is being prejudiced as well as false.

    Read the comments threads going back years. Notice all the times he has said I didn't answer something that I did, indeed answer, such as ice cores and ages just for an example, or nylon-munching bacteria.

    Jon Woolf said...

    (once he investigated the photos he later admitted someone else had copied them and I had obtained them from whoever that was)

    To put it delicately, Radar, you're full of it. I don't know for certain where you got my photos and the entire block of HTML that goes with them, but I find your explanation facile at best and not believable at worst. I've never seen any evidence to support your claim that you got them from some other website, instead of taking them direct from the original source -- ie, me.

    he lied about what I said about the prison populations,

    [ROFLMAO]

    I never said a word about the 'prison populations' issue, whatever that was. That all involved other commenters.

    he lied about what was said about Hartnett

    That incident happened long before I found this blog. When you revived it, I looked at the issue and said that I thought what Hartnett had done wasn't all that serious.

    The long line of falsehoods stretches back years and years.


    Quite a trick that would be, since I've only been commenting here for a little over one year.

    Notice all the times he has said I didn't answer something that I did, indeed answer, such as ice cores and ages just for an example, or nylon-munching bacteria.

    I don't recall ever discussing ice cores here. As for the question of nylon-eating bacteria, your 'answers' on that topic simply don't hold water.

    Check the archives, Radar. I can kinda understand how you'd blur together my comments with those of others like lava and creeper, and mistake one commenter for another ... but that only makes the above wrong claims "excusable mistakes" rather than "deliberate lies." They're all still wrong.

    radar said...

    Woolf is right, I did confuse him with creeper on a couple of issues. Then again, I am completely right about the nylon-eating bacteria and also the non-material nature of information and the scientific method and polystrate fossils and cross-bedding and inter-bedding that I know for a fact you and I have gone back and forth on so I am half right. Commenters other than you were responsible for the other ones.

    In my defense I worked three days in a row from early in the morning until 11 PM or after and I will probably be mostly working until close to then tonight and tomorrow as well. Hectic times...

    radar said...

    So to be fair to Jon, I will just post one of his lies and leave it at that, from just over a year ago, a post probably worth reposting"

    "Jon Woolf said...

    Hawkeye: Do I detect a note of cynicism?

    If you had spent as much time as I have chasing down as many different creationist claims as I have, and found that every single one of them, without fail, was based on data that had been distorted in some way, if not outright falsified ...

    ... you'd get a little cynical too.

    Radar, science is a process, not a job title. If you are working toward a pre-assumed conclusion, as all creationists do, then you aren't doing science.

    Here is a simple question: is there any conceivable piece of evidence that you would admit conclusively disproved creationism?

    If you can't answer that question "yes" and mean it, then you aren't doing science..."


    Woolf, your first statement is an outright flat lie. You have never answered the information question at all and always ran from the answer so the real truth is that Darwinists try to twist the definition of information to run away from the awful truth that it has no material source.

    In fact mostly you just say "nuh-uh" when we talk science instead of actually debating and providing real evidence to support your claims. Then you have the audacity to ask me something you should ask yourself.

    radar said...

    Jon, is there anything at all that would convince you that God created existence ex nihilo?

    radar said...

    If not, you are propagandized and are in advertising and not science. The NCSE could probably use some help?

    Jon Woolf said...

    Then again, I am completely right about the nylon-eating bacteria and also the non-material nature of information and the scientific method and polystrate fossils and cross-bedding and inter-bedding that I know for a fact you and I have gone back and forth on so I am half right.

    I think not.

    To take the one you harp on the most, the origin of information: I've countered your position at least three different ways that I can recall, and Creeper added a fourth.

    Recall your definition of information: "the intelligent transmission of intelligence." Both sender and receiver must be intelligent, according to you.

    1) I've provided examples of new genes -- insecticide resistance in mosquitoes, cecal valves in lizards, anti-atherosclerosis genes in humans -- which can be mathematically shown to be of recent origin. How do these not indicate new genetic information?

    2) Your definition of information is logically flawed: it assumes what it needs to prove.

    3) Your definition of information is inconsistent: if there has to be an intelligence at both ends of the transmission before the transmission can be considered information, then how can there be information in DNA, which is transmitted directly from cell to cell? Do you expect anyone to believe that an individual cell is intelligent?

    Creeper's contribution (and quite a good one, as good or better than any of mine) was to point out that you've never provided a way to measure the amount of information in a gene. If you don't know how much information is in a gene, then how can you tell whether a mutation increases or decreases its information content?

    Jon Woolf said...

    Jon, is there anything at all that would convince you that God created existence ex nihilo?

    Absolutely.

    Jon Woolf said...

    Woolf, your first statement is an outright flat lie.

    Only if it's false. It's not. Every creationist claim I've ever chased down and followed back to the original data turned out to be distorted or deceptive in some way.

    Lista said...

    I Personally do not Like it when People Accuse of Lying. People Make Mistakes, just as Woolf has said, yet this is also True of Creationists. It's Possible that Radar should not have Accused Woolf of Lying, but Woolf also should not have Accused Creationists of Lying. This is Mud Slinging and I'm not Impressed.

    Woolf
    "Learn what they say and how to interpret it."

    If there are Two Possible Ways to Interpret the "Original Data", then I want to Evaluate Both, not just that which is Accepted as Status Quo.

    Anonymous,
    "And Lista, notice how when Radar makes such assertions, he doesn't back them up?"

    Neither does Woolf.

    Woolf,
    "Where did the water come from?"

    The Melting of Glaciers from the Ice Age Following the Flood. You don't Listen to Radar very Well when he Writes, do you?

    Well, this Conversation is Longer than I have Time for Right Now. I guess I'll have to come Back Later. I'm on Woolf, 2:53 PM. I've Read Ten Comments since my Last Comment and as of Right Now, I have 11 more Comments to Go. That's Just a Note to Self. I'm Going to Bed Now.

    Anonymous said...

    Lista, I think you've seen now how Radar was, as predicted, unable to back up his claim that Woolf often lied about the fossil record and biology. To put it mildly, Radar wasn't speaking the truth. He is now insinuating that sleep deprivation is to blame.

    I agree with you that simply saying "you're a liar" doesn't do much to advance the discussion, but I hope that this experience has taught you to be a little skeptical of Radar.

    Another thing you should know about Radar: he finds it incredibly difficult to admit being in error.

    Anonymous said...

    "Then again, I am completely right about the nylon-eating bacteria and also the non-material nature of information and the scientific method and polystrate fossils and cross-bedding and inter-bedding that I know for a fact you and I have gone back and forth on so I am half right."

    Are you equating "going back and forth" on a subject with "the other person lied about it"? Wow.

    So let's get this straight. You claimed that Woolf lied often about the fossil record and biology. Do you stand by that claim, even though you can't point to a single solitary instance of it? Not one? Integrity check.

    Also, to claim that you were "completely right" about all those issues is quite a stretch. For example, what exactly were you right about re. the scientific method? All you've done on that front is confuse methodological and metaphysical naturalism.

    Anonymous said...

    "Not hard, there are so many."

    And yet just about everything you said after this was a complete falsehood.

    "Woolf lied about the definition of information,"

    He did not.

    "he lied about me stealing photos from his website (once he investigated the photos he later admitted someone else had copied them and I had obtained them from whoever that was),"

    This was a dead end. You made somewhat implausible claims that there was an intermediate plagiarist, but the HTML tag that Woolf mentioned makes that pretty unlikely, and I doubt Woolf "admitted" that you were right. It's a verifiable claim btw, so you should be able to provide a link.

    "he lied about what I said about the prison populations,"

    Quite a feat. He wasn't even around when that came up... back in 2007. But hey, if you can try to smear Woolf with this, why not?

    "he lied about what was said about Hartnett"

    Again, he did not.

    "and he always lies about the scientific method."

    When has Woolf ever lied about the scientific method?

    Yet another false accusation.

    "Jon also continually lies about the qualifications of ID and creationist scientists"

    I don't think he's done that either. He may question their credibility, and he'd be right to do so. Even your idol Jon Sarfati may be amazingly intelligent, but he has been known to spread lies, so his credibility should be questioned.

    "and makes false claims about what evolution has "proven""

    Nope, he hasn't. But if you think he has, name something specific about that Woolf claimed was confirmed and tell us how it wasn't confirmed.

    "as well as mischaracterized the record of ID being tested in courts."

    How so?

    "The long line of falsehoods stretches back years and years."

    Even though Woolf only showed up here just over a year ago. Wow, Woolf must be some kind of superhuman.

    "Obviously he cannot know the qualifications of someone like Jonathan Sarfati so when he claims that Sarfati cannot be a good scientist because he is a creationist, Jon is being prejudiced as well as false."

    Sarfati has been known to spread falsehoods, so his statements should be taken with a grain of salt. You can be all impressed with his qualifications (an argument from authority, btw), but you still shouldn't cast aside all skepticism when it comes to creationist claims.

    radar said...

    I mistakenly included Woolf in some commmon commenters lies, retracted it, posted one specific lie according to the challenge and moved on. The point is that I am NOT going to comb through the comments threads and I do not have to. His bluster about new genetic information is a clue immediately that he still doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to genetics.

    New functionality can come from loss and usually does. Take a stool and subtract the top and a couple of legs and now you have a baseball bat. Take the body and other nonessential parts away from an old VW bug and you have a dune buggy. Remove the Darwinist propaganda from Jon Woolf's brain and you would probably have raw material for a good scientist.

    I make my claims and back them up in posts. These misrepresentations of the information I have presented have been covered thoroughly in those posts. So your lathered-up blather isn't impressive.

    Bottom line, I was challenged to find just one lie by Jon, did it easily enough in one of his first comments and went to bed. Back to our movie.

    Lista said...

    Continuing from Yesterday:
    Anonymous Quotes Radar's Words

    "ID is a science-based empirical investigative discipline."

    Anonymous,
    "Well, kinda but not really. It's 'science-y', but it suffers from inherent limitations. It kind of has a testable, falsifiable claim, but alas that claim has not been confirmed so far. So it's a bit premature to start praising ID's superiority as a science."

    Evolution is only "Kinda, but not Really", a Science as Well. It "kind of has a testable, falsifiable claim, but alas that claim has not been confirmed so far." In Relation to Evolution, the Claim that has not been Confirmed so Far is Macro-Evolution.

    In Order for Two Theories to be Taught Side by Side, SUPERIORITY of One Over the Other does not have to Be Established. It's Usually Best to Fight for Equality, rather than Superiority.

    "So far, every claim for IC has been countered."

    So Far, Every Claim for Macro-Evolution has been Countered.

    "Evolution and an old Earth, for example, explain the fossil record perfectly. YEC can't explain it."

    ID and YEC Explain the Holes in the Fossil Record. Evolution can not Adequately Explain it. Micro-Evolution has been Established, but Macro-Evolution has not. ID does not Deny the Existence of Micro-Evolution.

    "Take away speculation and you have a pile of data."

    This is True of Both Evolution and also ID and YEC.

    "The data indicates organisms changing over time. Testable claims confirm it."

    Micro-Evolution has been Established, but Macro-Evolution has not. ID does not Deny the Existence of Micro-Evolution.

    Lista said...

    "Lista, pay careful attention to this question. Radar accused Jon Woolf of having lied about the fossil record and biology. Regular readers of this blog know that this isn't true, and that in making this claim, Radar spoke an untruth."

    Woolf Also can not Document any Lies of Creationists. Just because he Disagrees with someone's Interpretation of the Data, does not mean that that Interpretation is a Lie.

    Some of the Lies that Radar Mentioned could be Mistakes or Disagreements about Definitions, but it also sounds as if Jon Woolf has Misquoted and Falsely Accused Creationists, as well as Radar himself. That isn't good and the Biggest Lie of Evolutionists in General is that they can Prove that which they can not. They have not Proved Macro-Evolution. All of their Claims of it have been Countered and Changing the Definition of Species does not Make it Work either.

    Woolf and Radar,
    Quite Frankly, I wish you would Stop these Accusations and Mud Slinging at Each Other, but that also Means, Woolf, that you Need to Stop Accusing Creationists of Lying. The Only Way to Prove a Lie is to Quote the Lie and then Disprove the Statement, yet even that isn't Enough, for you also than have to Prove the Motive and that it wasn't just a Mistake. Most so Called Lies are Mistakes or Disagreements about what is True, so let’s just Knock it Off.

    Woolf
    "As for the question of nylon-eating bacteria, your 'answers' on that topic simply don't hold water."

    This is a Perfect Example of Disagreements about what is True. To Claim that he did not Give a Response to the Subject is Misleading and Deceptive.

    "If you had spent as much time as I have chasing down as many different creationist claims as I have, and found that every single one of them without fail, was based on data that had been distorted in some way, if not outright falsified …"

    This One is Pretty Obvious because of the Use of the Absolute, "Every". Absolutes are Extremely Rarely Ever True. I don't Even have to Know the Facts in Order to Know that that is at the Very Least an Exaggeration.

    The Rest of what Radar Quoted of Woolf's Words show Slight Forms of Deception.

    Lista said...

    "If you are working toward a pre-assumed conclusion, as all creationists do, then you aren't doing science."

    This "pre-assumed conclusion", Woolf, is Called a Hypothesis. Evolutionists have them too.

    Here is a simple question: Is there any conceivable piece of evidence that you would admit conclusively disproved creationism? If you can't answer that question 'yes' and mean it, then you aren't doing science..."

    This Statement is Very Biased and Untrue. There is no Such Piece of Evidence. In your Bias, you are Blinded to the Inaccuracy of this Statement and if you Believe that there is such a Piece of Evidence, then it is you who are not Doing Science.

    "Every creationist claim I've ever chased down and followed back to the original data turned out to be distorted or deceptive in some way."

    Aside from the Presence of an Absolute, which is Generally an Exaggeration at best, Your Perception of Distortion is Based on your Bias and on the Fact that it does not Fit with your Preconceived Idea about what is True.

    Anonymous,
    A Lie is Different than just not Speaking something that is True. The Word Lie Implies Motive and that is Why I really do Wish that Both Woolf and Radar would Stop it. I Understand Radar’s Frustration, though, for you Guys have done Nothing but Continually Hound Him and Criticize Everything that he Says. When Accused of Lying, it is Really Hard not to Respond Back in the Same Manner. From What I can Tell, all that is Happening is that Mistakes are being Made and there is No One more Guilty than the Other. I am No More Skeptical of Radar than of all of the Rest of You. I have Seen Exaggerations, Rudeness, Accusations and all sorts of Things, and I am not Talking about Radar.

    "Another thing you should know about Radar: he finds it incredibly difficult to admit being in error."

    A Lot of Men are that Way and my First Response was to say that I don't Know Radar Well Enough to Make that Kind of a Judgment, yet in his 7:32 AM Comment he is Humble and this Makes what you have just said an Untruth.

    It is Very Hard for anyone to Respond to Continuous Questioning, Even when that Person is Right. If I was Him, I would be Trying to Think of Ways to Reconstruct my Blog, so as to Attract those who Truly Desire to Learn the Truth, instead of those, like Yourself, that have Concluded that you Already Know it.

    "Even your idol Jon Sarfati may be amazingly intelligent, but he has been known to spread lies, so his credibility should be questioned." and "Sarfati has been known to spread falsehoods, so his statements should be taken with a grain of salt."

    Can you Prove this Claim?

    radar said...

    Lista,

    I agree. I can deal with every Woolf one question at a time. What Woolf and creeper and various anonymous trolls do it throw a bunch of stuff at me at once that is unrelated to the actual post. It is an attempt to confuse me and confuse the readers. That Ultimate Information Post clarifies the information issue and shows that Jon was unable to deal with the question of information and that all of his attempts to dodge it were met and dealt with appropriately. I just point people to that post.

    There is great ignorance concerning this particular issue that commenters use to advantage by trying to mislead people. For instance, saying that being unable to quantify the information within containers is a problem for ID or creationists. It isn't. In fact, only containers of information can be quantified, the qualilty of information must be judged by results or the reaction of the recipient.

    Just because I am an IT professional doesn't mean I only understand information in an IT way. Geneticists have the same issues. When organisms mate we can are learning more about the information held within the DNA but we still cannot predict the exact outcome of mating because the reproductive process is so complex and there are choices made in the process that are outside of our observation at least for now.

    But in computer terms, I have a computer with a huge harddrive. When it was new it had close to a terabyte of storage on the harddrive. It still does. Some of that storage is now used. But the capacity of the harddrive is unchanged. Part one...

    radar said...

    Part two...Even though I fill up the harddrive with MB and KB of information, that only tells me that containers are being filled rather than empty. The quality of the information is not seen by measuring containers. I could have 27 GB of music or pictures or work files or logs or chat text records. I have to drill down specifically to look at what is in the stored containers and my opinion of their value is subjective. Objectively I can only say that I have almost 1,000 gigs of space and that almost 100 gigs are occupied. If I go in and work on deleting unneeded stuff I can do a qualitative hunt.

    Understand, though, that in that case I am looking for the information and not the container. When I find the information and delete it I have no idea which precise container it is in (or containers) because the criteria by which information is stored in computers is a bit sloppy.

    One reason we need to scandisk and disk defragment regularly is because of the way computers store information. End of part two.

    Anonymous said...

    Lista, you have to take the cake for being the most clueless creationist to comment on this site in years. You are not helping your cause. Just look at the disaster of a comment above. Your overwhelming ignorance on most of the topics you choose to comment on makes answering you almost pointless. Although I'm sure someone might give it a try. That said, I can't help but highlight this gem from above,

    "If you are working toward a pre-assumed conclusion, as all creationists do, then you aren't doing science."

    This "pre-assumed conclusion", Woolf, is Called a Hypothesis. Evolutionists have them too."

    So, "Godditit" is a "hypothesis", now? LOL. Seriously, though, you care to spell out this particular "creationist hypothesis" for us?

    You really should take a look at this post, which is a blog article on evolution from a christian prospective.

    biologos.org/blog/the-crutch/

    Here's an excerpt,

    "It is true that Stephen Meyer’s points in Signature in the Cell are written in a manner that make them “seem pretty convincing.” However, we have devoted much space here to demonstrate that his science is fundamentally flawed. We, like Steve and Michael Behe, are followers of Jesus, so we must not take criticizing our brothers lightly, especially when it is carried out in the public sphere. However, the scientists who are doing the work they describe consider their depiction of the research scientifically naïve and we, with full respect for each of them as persons, are convinced of this too. Christians are mistaken if they build their faith around the science of a tiny group of scientific rebels who specialize in telling them what they long to hear. Christians need not try to overturn the scientific applecart. Many believers find much fulfillment in examining its contents and rejoicing in the beauty it reveals. A Christian world-view is what makes the apples sparkle, and it certainly does not require that we turn the cart upside down."

    Lista, whether you know it or not, you are being used by those who believe you will not research anything they say. And apparently they are correct in this assumption. Blind faith is always a bad thing.

    We can prove bias on the part of creationists, (Sarfati and the moon comes to mind, among countless other examples), please explain and/or demonstrate how the scientific method contains comparable "biases". I mean, are all religious texts going to be allowed as evidence, or just yours?

    - Canucklehead.

    radar said...

    Part three - Even though you can check your drive map and see that a program in located in a logical way like drive/user/program files/program/program name/ on down to dll and exe and txt and other files, you do not know exactly where in the drive physically it might be. Nor do you know how it is "stacked."

    The basic idea is that a computer is like a teenager. If he wants to put something in his room, he might just throw it in the door, or he might specifically toss it on the bed or a desk, or he might put it in a drawer in a desk. Often a computer drive goes down to the file level and throws something in there without carefully and neatly making a space for it. So scandisk is like a mom cleaning up after kids and defrag is like mom straightening up a room.

    Geneticists understand sex-linked traits and dominant and recessive traits. They can know a lot about an organism's DNA string and know what locus a particular trait may be associated with. But if you mate a Bloodhound with a German Shepard no one can know the exact coloring patterns of the coat, the shape of the ears or head or nose because they do not know exactly what information is included in the genes of father and mother and what choices will be made/selected when sperm and egg meet and begin to build the pups.

    One thing we know, and this kills Darwinists, is that the offspring will always be dogs. The mother sets the frame for the child. By this one fact alone we know macroevolution will never happen.

    Anonymous said...

    Radar says,

    "I agree. I can deal with every Woolf one question at a time. What Woolf and creeper and various anonymous trolls do it throw a bunch of stuff at me at once that is unrelated to the actual post."

    Your blog posts themselves are very often ridiculously long, wondering, unfocused pieces, touching on many topics, not to mention, they are just chock full of one sentence/paragraph "Gish Gallops". Glass houses, Radar, glass houses.

    And then you go on to say,

    "It is an attempt to confuse me and confuse the readers. That Ultimate Information Post clarifies the information issue and shows that Jon was unable to deal with the question of information and that all of his attempts to dodge it were met and dealt with appropriately. I just point people to that post."

    Oh, you mean your Ultimate "Censorship Post"? The one where you deleted all the comments and the post itself, only to repost it on your private "sports blog" where commenting is disallowed? That one? Yeah, that's a really powerful article Radar. I still can't believe you trot it out, as if it doesn't represent a low point on this blog. You were embarrassed in the comments section and you admittedly wanted to "have the last word", and didn't care what kind of censorship you had to stoop to in order to get it. Stop the lies please, Radar. Your Jesus wouldn't be impressed, I'm sure.

    - Canucklehead.

    Jon Woolf said...

    Lista: "Quite Frankly, I wish you would Stop these Accusations and Mud Slinging at Each Other, but that also Means, Woolf, that you Need to Stop Accusing Creationists of Lying. The Only Way to Prove a Lie is to Quote the Lie and then Disprove the Statement, yet even that isn't Enough, for you also than have to Prove the Motive and that it wasn't just a Mistake."

    Okay. Consider the claim that lunar recession rate proves that Earth is young. This claim can be found on numerous creationist sites. Here is one example:

    http://creation.com/the-moons-recession-and-age


    Radar quoted this argument in this post:

    http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2010/05/listen-to-humbugs-singthat-there-is-no.html

    It's very scientific-looking. Very convincing. Only one problem with it: it's wrong. And it's easily proven to be wrong with no more than grade school math. I did so on this very blog, although I can't find the comment right now and I haven't got time to retype it all right now. See here for another person's version of the proof:

    http://www.outersystem.us/creationism/moonrecession.html#01

    You can also look up the relevant numbers and do the math for yourself. Do the math for yourself.

    Since the math required to disprove this claim is so simple and so many people have done it, I think I'm safe in concluding that the creationists who still use the "receding Moon" claim are well aware that it's wrong, and continue to use it anyway. Or in other words, they're lying.

    Jon Woolf said...

    Lista: I asked "Where did the water come from" in reference to the water that carved the Grand Canyon. You replied:

    "The Melting of Glaciers from the Ice Age Following the Flood. You don't Listen to Radar very Well when he Writes, do you?"

    A nice attempted dig, but in this case it's misdirected. You misunderstood the question. I wasn't asking about the ultimate origin of the water; I was asking about which direction the water came from. You see, the Grand Canyon proper follows a rough east-to-west course with a trend toward the southwest. It cuts laterally across the southern slope of the Colorado Plateau, rather than flowing directly downslope the way water normally does. Meanwhile, both rims contain smaller canyons that descend to join the main canyon at roughly the current river level. Can you construct any kind of consistent scenario for 'runoff from melting glaciers' to cut all those canyons, all at the same time, and in the rather counterintuitive way that they did?

    radar said...

    Woolf speaks with forked tongue again. I have never printed anything by either Keith Sisman or Marion Fox. If you want a comprehensive look at the moon recession problem, stay away from "grade school math" people. The moon by the rates we see in place couldn't have been there more than 1.3 billion years. But then again, the Sun 1.3 billion years ago would have been hostile to life on Earth anyway.

    radar said...

    I wrote this in another post but here goes -

    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.

    Lista said...

    I Wrote Something Earlier for Radar, but I'm Going to Leave that in my Word Processor for Now and Keep Going. This Conversation is Really Moving along.

    Anonymous/Canucklhead
    "So, 'Godditit' is a 'hypothesis', now? LOL."

    That is not what I said. The Hypothesis is that there is Evidence of Intelligent Design. ID Scientists do not even Call what ever it is that Caused this Evidence to be there God. The Testable Hypothesis is Irreversible Complexity. You are Only Laughing because you have not Understood what I said.

    I Find it Sad that so Many Christians Disagree with Each Other. That doesn't Make Matters any Easier for the One who Desires Truth, rather than Harmony and the Avoidance of Creating Waves.

    It is not True that I have not Done Any Research, but I have Limited Time on the Computer and can not Center my Entire Life Around the Issues that are Brought Up on a Single Blog, like this one.

    "We can prove bias on the part of creationists."

    I have not and Never will Deny that there is Bias. But there is Bias on Both Sides and that is why your Point is Mute.

    "please explain and/or demonstrate how the scientific method contains comparable 'biases'."

    The Scientific Method is Neutral and Contains no Bias. The Bias is in People and in How they Interpret the Evidence.

    The Religious Text is not Scientific Evidence. The Evidence is Outside of the Text and in the World. Any Religious Text that can not Present Scientific Evidence Outside of it's Pages can not be Presented as Science. You are Distorting my Words, as well as those of others who Represent ID and YEC.

    Radar.
    Perhaps you should have just Allowed them to Post all their Silly Comments below your Information Post, so that we would not Still be Rehashing this Issue Over and Over again beneath Unrelated Posts.

    Woolf,
    This so Called "Lie" that you Point Out is Probably Nothing more than One of their Weaker Arguments. Even a Weak Argument, though, is not a Lie. It's just a Weak Argument.

    As to Your Water Question, even if there are Things that can not be Fully Explained with the Level of Detail that you would Like, this doesn't Prove a Thing, for no Geologists can Explain Absolutely Everything and yet you Continue to Expect your Opponent to do just that and that is not Realistic.

    Wow Radar!
    I Love your Last Comment. The Biggest Difference Between Non-Christains and True Christians is the Christian's Ability and Willingness to Apologize and you have Done so Very Well.

    Jon Woolf said...

    Lista, it's not "a weak argument." It's wrong. Provably, mathematically wrong. But they keep using it. Why?

    Lista said...

    You Tell me, Radar, when I should Share what I Wrote and have Saved in my Word Processor for you. I Feel Sort of Bad about it because I'm Afraid that it might be a Little Preachy and yet I am Hoping that you will be Willing to Hear it anyway and Ask the Lord to Guide you as to how and what you should Apply to your Own Life and Blog.

    Meanwhile, as for the Rest of you, You Seem to Keep Forgetting that an Accusation is not the Same as an Argument. A Commenter on my Blog Recently Said Something that I Think Applies here. His Name is BB-Idaho.

    "When non-scientists disagree with scientific findings (quite often, BTW), they fall back on ad hominem, eg criticizing the scientist, rather than the science. 'Ad Hominem-The fallacy is committed when one engages in a personal attack as a means of ignoring, discrediting, or blunting the force of another's argument. Indeed, some who appear to take this view frame their arguments less as scientific critiques and more as ad hominem attacks on the credibility, expertise, or scientific training of any who do what scientists are trained to do, ask questions and seek answers.'"

    Even though when BB-Idaho Said this, he was Referring to Non-Scientists, what I Witness all the Time is Scientists doing it to Each Other when they do not Agree with Each Other on How the Facts should be Interpreted and that is Mostly what I have Seen on this Comment Thread as well as Many of the Others.

    Lista said...

    Woolf,
    I haven't Studied this Particular Argument, so I can not Answer your Question, yet there are Other Arguments, so I'm not too Concerned about it.

    radar said...

    Lista,

    Don't be afraid to say what you want. If you have noticed that I have flaws, gee, God already knows. There is a "work in progress" sticker on my back somewhere. This blog is where my weaknesses are most evident but it is also where God wants me to be.

    Keep in mind that this is a "front line" blog where I am challenging the Ruling Paradigm of Darwinism, Ecoterrorism, Collectivism and Censorship/Bias in government schools.

    I have a sword in one hand and a trowel in the other, if you understand the reference. There are people who are supposed to be on my side who are not. Lots of organizations with "Christian" on the letterhead are casting aside scripture to agree with the science of the day. But the science of the day changes and the Word doesn't.

    So I expect this blog to grow me. I've learned that commenters will say almost anything to take attention away from the parts of the posts they cannot answer or escape from...unfortunately this isn't an onstage debate where there is a set subject and we all weigh in on one side or the other. Commenters bring up rabbit trails, old debunked topics and use questionable sources. They also major in derision and prejudice. So this is kind of a challenging hobby.

    Go ahead and bawl me out if you like. As you have seen, I let the anonymous world as well as those with names and nicknames speak freely things I completely disagree with as long as they are civil.

    Lista said...

    "This blog is where my weaknesses are most evident, but it is also where God wants me to be."

    Gosh! That's Just how I Feel when I Blog.

    "As you have seen, I let the anonymous world, as well as those with names and nicknames speak freely things I completely disagree with, as long as they are civil."

    In my Opinion, sometimes they are not.

    I'm not Going to Ball you Out, though, Radar. You are Actually doing a rather Impressive Job.

    I was Reluctant to Share what I Wrote because in the First Draft, it Sounded Like I was Preaching at you and I don't want to give you the wrong advice and that is why I rewrote it several times and am now going to Deliver it to you, at Least in Part, as an explanation of what I do on my Own Blog and not as a Suggestion that you should Necessarily do the same. What you do on your Own Blog is between you and God and Hopefully, you are Continually Praying and asking for His Guidance, so that you will know if anything I Write is Supposed to Apply to you, or not.

    I Would Never be Able to Handle the Speed of your Blog, Radar, and all the Conversations on it. I have no Idea how you do it and I feel bad that your Blog Seems to Attract so many People who are Rude to you. One Unfortunate Side Effect of that is that it is Really Hard for a True Seeker to Learn Much of Anything in such a Hostile Environment.

    When I First Wrote what Follows, I was Responding to what you Wrote at 7:32 AM. Here is a Quote from that Comment...

    "Take a stool and subtract the top and a couple of legs and now you have a baseball bat."

    Interestingly, I was Thinking about the Idea that Less is More when I Read that and Realized that Loss of Information is Beneficial not Only in Genetics, but also in Blogging.

    I'll Get Back to That, but First I want to Talk a Little about my Own Blog.

    Lista said...

    Ok. Now for what I do on My Own Blog. I have Comment Moderation on, which a lot of People do not Agree with and it is Probably also not your Style, yet I am Slow and if the Conversation Moves too Quickly, I can't Think Straight. Please Bare with me as I Explain to you Why I've made this Decision.

    You see, Censorship is not even the Main Issue. Comment Moderation Slows the Conversation Down, so that a True Seeker, as well as myself, will have the Time to Relax, Reflect and Think.

    With Comment Moderation on, though, I can also Insist on the Presentation of Facts, rather than Accusations and Make all Sorts of Rules of Conduct and Enforce them.

    It is Quite Difficult for me to not Retaliate when I’m Tired, yet When the Conversation is Slowed Down, it is not Only the Readers that have more Time to Reflect and Think, instead of being so Rushed to Respond all the Time. Some of My Commenters have Told me that they do not Like it, but there on Others who do. The Ones who Really Want to Talk to me Still do so. This is my Blog and I have every Right to Take Control Over it and Enforce my Rules.

    Perhaps I could have Left this Part Out, since it may not Apply to you, but I just wanted to Explain it.

    radar said...

    Lista,

    I hope the post I made about the Flume testing and flood geology and ages and layers including schists was useful. I only linked the last two articles because they are quite dry and technical and only the dedicated amateurs and true geologists are going to appreciate them or understand much of them, either.

    Really, your blog is far better behaved and I like it.

    In genetics, there is only recombination of existing material or loss of material. For instance, it would appear unlikely that we could find other birds from which we could bring back the Dodo. It seems highly unlikely that we can find the genetic material in elephants to bring back mastedons and mammoths.

    Breeders make information loss their goal to get to the breed standard they seek. But when you limit the genetic material you also tend to have problems, so breeders of, for instance, show dogs, have to do a lot of x-rays and genetic testing to try to keep the breed healthy. Mutts tend to have better more diverse genetic information.

    Lista said...

    Ok. Now I just Want you to Read this and Ask God what He wants you to get Out of it.

    There is an Inherent Flaw in the Whole Blogging System. True Seekers Need the Time to Think and Reflect and High Speed does not Produce the Right Kind of Environment for that to Happen. Even though High Speed is the Way that the World Tends to Do Blogs, we were Told to…

    "be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." (Romans 12:2, KJV)

    We are Also Told...

    "Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God." (Philipians 4:6, NIV)

    And

    "Wait on the LORD: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart. Wait, I say, on the LORD." (Psalms 27:14, KJV)

    And

    "Be still, and know that I am God." (Psalms 46:10a, KJV)

    In Other Words, Radar, do not be Anxious, but Instead, Take a Deep Breath, Stop, Be at Peace and Slow Down.

    Huh! That Might just be a Message about your Life in General. It's Funny what Happens when we Pray. I'm Thinking about your Blog, yet God Might be Telling you Something else.

    Back to the Blog, Though. One Idea I had for you was that you could Link More, rather than Copy/Paste. The Reason that I say this is because it Makes it Easier to Read a Quick Summary and Make a Quick Comment and then Read the Link Later. Those who Really Want to Know this Stuff, will Click on the Links and Read the Articles, while at the Same Time, some of the More Lazy Readers who have not been Reading much of anything at all, May Actually Read the Summaries.

    Of Course this is just a Suggestion. I Hope that at Least Something that I have Said has been Helpful to you.

    In Closing, just Remember that Often Less is More, or Put another Way, "New functionality can come from loss and usually does." God is Rarely Ever in a Hurry. I'm on your Side, Radar, and Love you as a Brother in the Lord.

    Lista said...

    Oh Hi Radar,
    Apparently we have Both Posted within the Same Minute. Apparently, also, you have Already Linked a Few Things even before Reading my Suggestion Relating to the Same.

    Unfortunately, I haven't Read all of your Flume Testing/Flood Geology/Schists Post Yet, but I do Plan to and am Even Looking Forward to it.

    Thanks for the Complement about my Blog.

    Your Genetic Information is Very Interesting, especially what you said about Pure Breeds vs. Mutts. I Looked at your Samoyeed Blog, BTW. They are so Cute and Believe it or not, We have One. I Need to Post some Pictures of him. Here he is as a Puppy.