Search This Blog

Saturday, June 18, 2011

Dear Darwinist - Topics to avoid if you don't want to lie

If you are alive and have a brain, you have a philosophy of life.   We tend to call this philosophy of life a worldview.   Your worldview contains your suppositions about the meaning of life and the basic answers to the "Big Questions" such as "Is there a God?" and "Does life have meaning?"   Another one might be "Who or what made all of this stuff?"   Your worldview will logically include an explanation for the existence of, well, existence!

Frankly, if you are a Darwinist I have to question why you bother to read anything or believe anything or assert anything.  A pure Darwinist believes that we all have evolved by an unthinkable continuum of amazing pure dumb undirected luck into this Universe in this Solar System on this planet in this body and that there is neither reason nor meaning to any of it.   So if my brain is the result of random evolution and those synapses firing are just happy mistakes, why would I believe my own thoughts?   How can I even hope to reason if reason is not at the bottom of my existence?  How can I be sure that you exist and are not simply a figment of my inexplicable imagination?  Do I exist?  Will we all just *poof* away in the same manner we *poofed* into existence in the first place?

credit

How do we have and use logic and reason if the world is a random accident?   How is it that there are logical laws concerning the way matter and energy work that we can depend upon and use to benefit us as the human race?  How is it that you and I can think abstractly and design or create in ways that cannot possibly be beneficial to our survival over the guy next door?   Why do we have morality?   Shouldn't I kill all the other men in the area and impregnate all the local women so more of me proliferates?   If evolution is true, is it not my duty to reproduce myself at all costs?

Real science began to work well when believing men with education, most of them trained as clerics, decided that a Logical God would build a Logical World and therefore one could study the world and understand processes and phenomenae.  These men believed that study and hard work would be rewarded, and they were right, the Bacons and Newtons and Faradays and Von Brauns.   They believed that understanding God's glorious creation and revealing the working parts to the world would benefit mankind and help man to worship the Mighty God.  

Don't use the Big Bang

Because we know that we are three dimensional beings constrained by the fourth dimension, then we know that we are apparently material in form and substance.   We observe, and the Laws of Thermodynamics agree, that to put it simply everything is running downhill.   We can see that all of the Universe will eventually encounter heat death in which all energy has been converted to entropy.  We know that we have found no material source for creating new "stuff" nor does anything get destroyed.  It just fades away.  So the old concept of an eternal Universe is no longer viable.   The Universe is not infinite and ageless.   It had a beginning and it is heading for an end.

So if you are a Darwinist and you have studied physic a little bit and paid attention to the basic condition of the Universe, you know that the Universe appears to be expanding and that there is not enough mass to produce enough gravity to bring these stars and other objects back to a supposed central starting point, so if there was a Big Bang there is no hope for a retraction of matter back to a central starting point and no hope that object will come flying together in order to Bang again.

But, no particular Big Bang theory has been able to account for all the evidence and no one has been able to define the singularity at the "begining" of a Big Bang nor explain the power that would have caused it nor the source of the original singularity nor account for the product of the explosion.   Explosions break things, they destroy things.  Yet Big Bang believers think that an explosion built all sorts of atoms that were able to join together to provide a great deal of water and yet also form stars and other objects.  There is no logical explanation for this.   The supposed big brain of Astrophysicists or whatever title he gives himself, Stephen Hawking, has basically now asserted that the Universe created itself using a force (gravity) that would not be in existence without existence and so this assertion is ridiculous on the face of it.    In fact Hawking states with authority that there are something like a gazillion universes (put in your own number) all occuring at once made by nothing from nothing.   If you find that to be a satisfactory answer, perhaps you believe babies are grown in cabbage patchs and mommies and daddies go there to select their infant.   Each assertion comes with the same amount of evidence. 

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.   That is the Biblical assertion.   God is the eternal self-sufficient self-existent supernatural being.  The Universe was created intentionally by God for His purposes which He reveals to mankind via the Bible.   This explanation fits the evidence.  Big Bang fails miserably because it has no cause and no power and also what we can understand about the Universe doesn't fit the scenario.

Largely for such reasons, many Darwinists concede that the Universe was created by a God, but a distant, uncaring God who threw the Universe together and then went on His way.   This is not a good answer philosophically, for why would the Creator go to the trouble of making an entire Universe only to leave it behind.   What did He have that drew Him away?   Did He need to take a nap of indeterminant length after all the work involved in Universe-making?  If you concede that you need a Creator God to make the Universe, how do you then deny the Bible?   Wouldn't it make sense that, if a Universe was made for us, the Creator would be involved in the ongoing process?    If you doubt that God created the Universe, how is it that He inspired the writers of the Bible to note the roundness of the Earth and the fact that we are apparently hung on space upon nothing?  How does he acurately describe the motion in space of specific start systems?  Check out this post.

Secular scientists like to claim that they have the truth, but if so why does the truth continually change?  The age of the Universe has grown by about 10 billions years since I was born.   Scientists have also changed their opinion of the age of the earth.   Botton line, there is no one Big Bang hypothesis that explains this Universe, they all have major problems and people will only accept it out of ignorance.   Anyone who looks carefully at any Big Bang hypothesis will quickly see the unexplained problems.

Secular scientitst not only keep changing ages of the Universe and the Earth, they also change their opinions on other issues.   Now, truly, there were not many flat Earth believers at any one time but scientists did manage to disprove that idea.   It took years for people like Copernicus to convince the world that the Earth revolves around the Sun rather than the reverse.  Newtonian physics was displaced to an extent by relativity which has had to make room for quantum mechanics.   I was also born before DNA was presented to the world and before the Miller-Urey experiments.

Darwin had a case...back then.  Not now.

Charles Darwin had a grandfather who was a determined atheist who was sure life had evolved itself somehow, even without knowing the method.   This superstition has been around since the early days of Greek axiomatic thinking and certainly had pagan roots as well.  His father was far more concerned about decorum and appearances and so was a church member in order to move freely in "respectable" society.   Meanwhile Charles experienced personal tragedies that made his opinion of God a very bad one.   How, he asked, could a loving God allow his beloved young daughter, Annie, to pass away after contracting scarlet fever and perhaps dying of tuberculosis?  He himself suffered various maladies as well and palpitations and boils and other signs of stress and overwork accompanied him to the grave.

Darwin actually culled together ideas expressed by Hutton and Wallace and Malthus and Bythe to formulate his eventual hypothesis of simple forms evolving into more complex forms.  He didn't try to prove that life came from non-life, as Pasteur and others had falsified that idea once and for all (we thought).   But Darwin wanted to come up with a way that evolution could happen and considered all kinds of mechanisms that might be plausible.  He understood that finch beaks could vary.  He knew from common animal husbandry that there was some kind of system that would allow for changes in organisms (although Mendel had not yet published his findings on genetics).  He finally settled on Blythe's description of natural selection and published.   Soon the scientific community became aware of the concept of natural mutation plus mutation  as a driver for evolution and an explanation for the development of existing creatures.

When Charles Darwin began publishing, the scientific community was in the process of accepting uniformitarianism as presented by Hutton and Lyell.   Scientists generally believed that the cell was made up of protoplasm, a simple substance, and probably something that developed in a simple way.  The geological column was presented to the world.   Mendelian genetics was born.   More and more fossils of strange-looking beasts were being discovered.  The Haeckel embroyo chart was presented to the world.   I cannot blame Darwin for being unscientific.  He was born to his quest.   He had a hunger to find an explanation for life which could do away with God and he did the best that he could.

But we know better now.   We know the cell is more complex than a modern factory and that a man has about 100 trillion cells, each of which are doing billions of functions every second.  We know we also carry about ten microbes for each cell, many of which are bacteria that help us digest food or are beneficial to us in some other way.  We are all little planets providing home to many symbiotic creatures and quite a few hitchhikers as well.   Charles Darwin would be absolutely staggered by the complexity of a simple e. coli bacteria, let alone a human being.  I cannot imagine he ever would have come up with his books and his hypothesis had he a clue about what the cell is and how it works and especially coming to understand the meaning and implications of DNA>

Don't try to use "Chemical Evolution" on creationists.

Pasteur was the last of a long line of scientists who tested and retested the hypothesis that life could in some way spontaneously generate.   The experimentation went all the way down to the level of microorganisms.   Because life cannot spontaneously generate, if you seal food free from microbes in a can unexposed to air, then microbes cannot enter in and the food will not spoil.  Pasteurization is the process that emerged as a result of Pasteur's experiments, although that is hardly all he accomplished.

Now Darwinists are trying to raise abiogenesis from the dead.   They have changed the name from "spontaneous generation" to "chemical evolution" as if, by changing the terminology the Law will go away.  When challenged on this, Darwinists will ask a creationists to prove that chemical evolution cannot happen.   Gee, thought Pasteur settled that long ago.   Aren't these Darwinists supposed to be scientists?  The Miller-Urey experiment only proved to science that it is incredibly difficult to use laboratory equipment to produce any portion of the ingredients for life and that these ingredients do not survive in the wild on their own.   There are hard chemical barriers to the development of the ingredients of life.   Besides that, if you could build a cell in a lab, by what means would you bring it to life?   Science doesn't know what "life" really is nor can they identify it as a force or energy of any particular kind.

Don't try to use DNA on creationists

Here is another area where thinking people will abandon Darwinism if they understand the situation.  When Watson and Crick discovered DNA and understood what it was, they were immediately dismayed.   Crick understood that DNA meant design and soon began to promote the concept of directed panspermia, the idea that life had been "seeded" on earth from some alien source.   Watson soon became something of a racist eccentric who found himself at odds with virtually every colleague and organization with which he had worked.  

No matter, DNA has been a field that continually discards Darwinist thought as it becomes better understood.   "Junk" DNA has proved to have functionality, ERVs turn out to be design features and so on and so forth.   DNA is a fantastic coding language using four characters (your computer uses only two) that transmits massive amounts of information, not only how to reproduce but also it contains all sorts of choices for variation of kind and the instructions not only how to build a new organism but also how to maintain the cell so that it does what it is supposed to do within the context of the organism.  

The components of DNA cannot naturally be produced in the wild.   Even if they could, they would not contain any information.   If you cannot speak Russian, it will do you no good to give you a cyrillic keyboard, for you will not know Russsian and will not be able to transmit messages thereby. 

Don't try to discuss information with creationists

Information is a pitfall for Darwinists.   They gag on the dictionary definition of information because they know that there is no natural source for information and therefore no explanation for the massive amount of information in DNA and in the cell.  "Natural selection plus mutation" is not an answer, it is a stuck-on-stupid answer.   If I ask you where a tree comes from, you wouldn't say "tree bark."  Natural selection is a designed function of the organism and we can pinpoint how it works within the cell.   Genetics allows us to predict to some degree what the children of a mating pair will look like but there will be variables that will occur by chance.  But all of these choices come from information already within the DNA string.  A broken place on the DNA string is not "new" and, if the same information is copied over again neither is that "new."   Never have Darwinists spotted new information entering the genome. 

The problem for Darwinists is that information is not material in form or substance.   I take a pencil and a writing tablet and weigh them.  I show them to you.   You see a blank page.   I have not really transmitted information to you, have I?   Now I write down "My dog has fleas." with the pencil and show you the pad.  You immediately comprehend the message.   Yet if I weigh the pencil and paper after the message they will weigh just what they did before I wrote.

We take a computer harddrive and put it in a computer after weighing it.   We then load the operating system and write all sorts of programs to the disk as well as downloading hundreds of pictures and hunfreads of MP3 music files until we have put 250 gigs of information on that harddrive.   If I take it out and weight it, care to guess how much heavier it will be?   You are right.   It will weigh the same.

If information has no natural source (and it doesn't) and it cannot be measured materially, then it must be non-material or supernatural.  Life is also not measurable and cannot be measured or defined as matter or energy.   Don't be fooled by Genetic Algorithms, as they cannot exist without a formal program being run on a computer with hardware, software and operating system.

Don't try to convince a creationist that there are "non-overlapping magisteria" when considering Truth

I don't know what state you are in.  Are you a fully committed atheopath who hates the concept of a God to Whom you must answer?   Then you will pay me no heed. 

Are you a Darwinist by education who has never really thought much on the subject?   I hope you give me a chance over the next week or two to convince you that Darwinism is impossible and indefensible.  The evidence for Darwinism is primarily marketing rather than product.

Are you a theistic evolutionist who thinks that science must be true and will trump the Bible?  Then you are building your house on sand rather than rock.   Don't you realize that once upon a time blood-letting was the scientific answer to a variety of ailments?   In fact some doctors used leeches and that is where the term Leeches being used for doctors comes from.  Science used to believe that several parts of the body were "vestigal" such as adenoids, tonsils, the appendix, the coccyx and the pineal gland.   Science now knows there is no such thing as a vestigal organ in the human body, they all have purpose.

The bottom line is this.   You either accept scripture as unchanging Truth that has been given to mankind and have a minsterial view of evidence.   When you examine evidence you keep in mind the superiority of Biblical truth and remember that God knows the Truth while man can only keep advancing uphill on that hill of knowledge that God has, in fact, built beforehand.   If you make the mistake of allowing science to have preeminence and make evidence magisterial and require the Bible to fit into the latest mold science has produced, you will find yourself continually revising and changing what "truth" is and sometimes will see it stood upon it's head.   Because science keeps learning and guessing and sometimes reaching out blindly into the darkness but God is Light and Truth and He is the Author of Logic and Reason Himself.


Portrait of Martin Luther
Image via Wikipedia
“But what about . . . the role of argument and evidence in knowing Christianity to be true?  I’ve already said that it is the self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit that gives us the fundamental knowledge of Christianity’s truth.  Therefore, the only role left for argument and evidence to play is a subsidiary role.  I think Martin Luther correctly distinguished between what he called the magisterial and ministerial uses of reason.

“The magisterial use of reason occurs when reason stands over and above the gospel like a magistrate and judges it on the basis of argument and evidence.  The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason submits to and serves the gospel.  In light of the Spirit’s witness, only the ministerial use of reason is legitimate.  Philosophy is rightly the handmaid of theology.  Reason is a tool to help us better understand and defend our faith; as Anselm put it, ours is a faith that seeks understanding.  A person who knows that Christianity is true on the basis of the witness of the Spirit may also have a sound apologetic which reinforces or confirms for him the Spirit’s witness, but it does not serve as the basis of his belief.

“If the arguments of natural theology and Christian evidences are successful, then Christian belief is warranted by such arguments and evidences for the person who grasps them, even if that person would still be warranted in their absence.  Such a person is doubly warranted in his Christian belief, in the sense that he enjoys two sources of warrant.”

— William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith (Crossway, 2008), 47-48.

~~~~~~~~~~

There will be trolls who will trot out the same old tired arguments on these topics and I ask you to carefully examine their arguments.   Has the Law of Biogenesis ever been broken?   Have any Laws of Thermodynamics been observed to have been broken?  Can the "building blocks" of life form naturally in the wild?  Who would have coded them, had they happened to have happened.  In fact, every creature has it's own DNA string.   Every "mother" cell lays out the framework for every child, so no matter what variety of thing it may be, it will be the same kind of the mother.   Has any organism ever been shown to defy this system?  Carefully examine the claims of Darwinists and in a day or so I will demonstrate some of the terrible flaws in logic Darwinists use to make false claims and fool people.    You will not be easily fooled, I trust!

218 comments:

1 – 200 of 218   Newer›   Newest»
Hawkeye® said...

Radar,

A most excellent post good sir.

(:D) Best regards...

Jon Woolf said...

You either accept scripture as unchanging Truth that has been given to mankind and have a minsterial view of evidence. When you examine evidence you keep in mind the superiority of Biblical truth and remember that God knows the Truth while man can only keep advancing uphill on that hill of knowledge that God has, in fact, built beforehand.

[yawn]

Men are born soft and supple;
dead, they are stiff and hard.
Plats are born tender and pliant;
dead, they are brittle and dry.

Thus whoever is stiff and inflexible
is a disciple of death.
Whoever is soft and yielding
is a disciple of life.

The hard and stiff will be broken.
The soft and supple will prevail.

(Tao Te Ching, chapter 79)

WomanHonorThyself said...

HAPPY FATHERS DAY my friend!!:)

Captain Stubing said...

So Radar's short on answers on a slew of questions and problems... and predictably, we get another "worldview post" littered with fallacies and misrepresentations.

"So if my brain is the result of random evolution and those synapses firing are just happy mistakes, why would I believe my own thoughts?"

You don't have to "believe" your own thoughts. You think your own thoughts. "I think, therefore I am".

"How can I be sure that you exist and are not simply a figment of my inexplicable imagination?"

You can't be sure of that, but that has nothing to do with atheism/theism, whatever. No matter what your worldview is, you have to take the initial leap of assuming that your sensory input is a reflection of the world around you, that it is "real".

Anonymous whatsit said...

"I ask you to carefully examine their arguments."

Please do - and don't forget to carefully examine Radar's arguments as well. They are riddled with misrepresentations, fallacies etc.

"Has the Law of Biogenesis ever been broken?"

With regard to abiogenesis by natural means, the Law of Biogenesis has never been tested in the first place. It has only looked at living things and concluded they come from other living things, which - given that we're looking at a microscopically tiny slice of time quite far along the process of evolution - is what we would expect to see, and no "Darwinist" would disagree with that.

What has not been tested is what Radar keeps implicitly claiming, namely that the law supposedly states non-life can't become life on a microbiological level. There is no scientific law that says that this is impossible. A scientific law requires that it be falsifiable and thoroughly tested. Can molecules start to reproduce with variation? This has never been proven to be impossible, and so the Law of Biogenesis is quite irrelevant when it comes to microbiological abiogenesis by natural means.

"Have any Laws of Thermodynamics been observed to have been broken?"

No, they haven't, but so what? Note that it is a creationist fiction to claim that the theory of evolution represents a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

"Can the "building blocks" of life form naturally in the wild?"

Yes.

"Who would have coded them, had they happened to have happened."

Who says they were "coded" by someone? You're begging the question, which is a logical fallacy.

"In fact, every creature has it's own DNA string. Every "mother" cell lays out the framework for every child, so no matter what variety of thing it may be, it will be the same kind of the mother."

If you look at parent and offspring, any change will almost always be minute. And yet even you accept that, say, dogs can change quite significantly in appearance through breeding. But you'll never look at a dog and its offspring and say it's substantially different.

"Has any organism ever been shown to defy this system?"

Just about all of them if you look at a long enough timespan. No evidence of homo sapiens walking the Earth, say, 50 million years ago, but progressively over time you see organisms closer and closer to humans in the fossil record.

*The Old Geezer said...

Greetings from Southern California

I am your newest follower. I invite you to visit TOGB and become a follower, if you want too.

Take care and have a nice day :-)

Lista said...

Thanks, Radar, for Writing a Little Shorter Post. Your Long One's are Hard for me to Find the Time to Read.

That which Jon Woolf Quoted is not going to be Understood by an Atheist because it is not the Intended Audience that that Paragraph is Directed At, so if he Sleeps through it, that's Ok.

The Soft, Supple, Tender, Pliant and Yielding are those who Submit to God and the Stiff, Hard, Brittle, Dry and Inflexible are Those who Refuse to Yield to God.

The Word Pliant Means not only Flexible, but also Compliant. To be Compliant and Yielding, One has to have Something or Someone to Comply with and Yield to and the Appropriate Someone is God.

What he doesn't Understand is that we are to be Soft, Supple, Tender and Pliant in Relation to God. Allowing Him to Bend and Shape Us to His Will. To Bend, Comply, Yield and Submit to Anything Else is just Plain Foolish.

Captain Stubing,
"So Radar's short on answers on a slew of questions and problems... and predictably, we get another 'worldview post'", Etc. Etc.

If Radar is Short on Answers, he is no more so than Darwinists/Evolutionists. Evolutionists, though, are Short on the Answers that Truly Matter and that is the "Worldview" Questions.

"You don't have to 'believe' your own thoughts."

Ok. Fine. Then how can you Believe your Own Reasoning? I sure don't. I Believe, mine, but yours is Biased and Faulty.

Snonymous Whatsit
On a Purely Scientific Level, you will Find that there are lots of Things that have not been Decisively Tested and Established, both in Creationism and in Evolution. My Conclusion has been that for Evolutionists to Point Out what Creationists can not Prove, nor Explain Scientifically and Deny that there is Quite a Lot that they also can not Prove nor Explain Scientifically is a Hypocrisy and Arrogant Deception.

Careful with that there Back, Old Geezer. :)

Jon Woolf said...

Lista, your lack of comprehension is quite impressive.

On many levels.

Captain Stubing said...

"If Radar is Short on Answers, he is no more so than Darwinists/Evolutionists. Evolutionists, though, are Short on the Answers that Truly Matter and that is the "Worldview" Questions."

It depends on how you come at the questions. You can start with observable evidence and draw your conclusions from there, or you can start with a desirable conclusion (e.g. "God made me, which makes me special and provides answers to everything and allows me to live forever, even after I die") and try to make the evidence fit that.

Some of the commenters here have said that they don't know, for example, why the Universe is here. Which is fine. Maybe there is no reason. Or maybe there is no reason that we can comprehend. But this view has no inconsistency.

Radar, on the other hand, claims to have answers to the so-called Big Questions, and those answers are more or less "because of God", "because of God" and, last but not least, "because of God". It doesn't explain, say, how life came to be, just that God did it.

Now, technically this means that Radar has an answer. But since the foundation of that belief, i.e. the claim that God made everything 6,000 years ago etc., is falsified by scientific observation, he has even less of an answer than the rest of us, just a very elaborate fictional construct.

Captain Stubing said...

"Then how can you Believe your Own Reasoning?"

Again, You Don't haVe To BeLieVe YouR OwN ReasOnIng. (sheesh, this random caps thing is tiring.)

You just reason.

As for believing the results of your reasoning, that's a different matter. That's where logic and observation come into play. If my reasoning lines up with what I can observe, than I can believe that my reasoning is correct.

"I Believe, mine, but yours is Biased and Faulty."

If your reasoning lines up with what you can observe, then fine. But you do have a tendency to accuse others of bias at the drop of a hat. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that they are biased or even wrong or, as Radar so insistently claims, lying.

Lista, bias means something very specific, and if it is indeed present everywhere where you think you perceive it, you should be able to demonstrate this somehow.

"My Conclusion has been that for Evolutionists to Point Out what Creationists can not Prove, nor Explain Scientifically and Deny that there is Quite a Lot that they also can not Prove nor Explain Scientifically is a Hypocrisy and Arrogant Deception."

You're suggesting a simple "he said, she said" scenario to falsely equate the evidence in support of evolution and creationism respectively. Since bias is such a concern for you, how about you put aside your own bias and, for a month or so, focus exclusively on the arguments for the other side, to truly understand what is being said and why it is being said - and then point out the flaws of it.

You may have noticed that Radar quite often dismisses opposing arguments by completely misrepresenting them (e.g. Darwinists say we "poofed" into existence, even though evolution and even abiogenesis says no such thing, though the book of Genesis does), indicating a lack of understanding or a willingness to be dishonest about them.

It can't be very satisfying to not be able to address counterarguments while stubbornly insisting they are wrong.

Lista said...

Woolf,
You Know, you always say stuff like that, but here's the Thing. My Knowledge of a Subject does not have to be Total and Complete in Order for me to Understand Basic Logic and that is what I'm Good at, Recognizing Good and Bad Arguments Based on Pure Logic and Common Sense.

Oh and BTW, your Briefness and Lack of Substance Beyond just Insult is Impressive. :)

Captain Stubing,
"You can start with observable evidence and draw your conclusions from there."

Observation: the World is Complex and has Evidence of Design.
Hypothesis: Perhaps it was Created.

Observation: Many Cultures and Religions have Similar Creation and Flood Stories.
Hypothesis: Perhaps these Things Actually Happened.

Observation: No Part of the Bible has ever been Disproved.
Hypothesis: Perhaps the Bible is Correct and is therefore a Good Source to Draw Hypotheses from.

Actually, Captain Stubing, it is your Assumption that the Creationists Questions Start from Desirable Conclusions and not Observations that is the Most Based on Desirable Conclusions.

In another of Radar's Comment Threads, a Really Big Issue has been Made Out of the Fact that Creationists can't Explain Everything, yet Neither can Evolutionists and the Answer to the Question of Why the Universe is here is a Good Example of their Lack of Explanation. Creationism does have an Explanation for this One.

Scientific Observation has not Falsified the Claim of a Young Earth, Stubing. Nothing has been Proven and there is Evidence on Both Sides of the Issue.

If you can not Believe your Own Reasoning, then there is no Reason or Meaning to Life.

"But you do have a tendency to accuse others of bias at the drop of a hat."

This is because Creationists have been Accused of Bias so much and yet this is a Hypocrisy because there is no such thing as a Person or Group of People who have no Bias. Both Evolutionists and Creationists are Biased, not just the Opponent of who ever is Speaking.

"Darwinists say we 'poofed' into existence."

This is just a Way of Describing the Phenomena of Lack of Explanation and since Evolutionists have not Explained how Life Began, this is not a Misrepresentation.

I just Addressed your Counter Argument in Relation to the "Poofing into Existence" Thing, so don't say that I haven't Addressed Counter Arguments. Some Counter Arguments Require Time and Study in Order to Adequately Respond to them and some do not.

AmericanVet said...

So Woolf just disses Lista with no good reason other than to show us that he thinks he is smarter than she is. Nice.

Whatsit makes some astounding authoritative comments that are quite wrong. So does Stubing.

The chemical barriers to the formation of the components of DNA are staggering and that is why no one is able to do it in a lab, let alone see it happen in the wild. I posted specifically about that before.

*Poof* is a good term to use for Darwinists as that is their explanation for existence, life and information. In other words, you do not have a coherent explanation for them at all.

Thermodynamics tells us existence didn't make itself.

Law of Biogenesis long ago proved life doesn't come from non-life and research makes it clear why.

Information theory requires a sender and a receiver. The natural world is not a source of information so the first sender had to be the Creator who, by the way, made life and existence.

Darwinists keep giving me such lame explanations for those three topics, which is why I remind people about them regularly. They cannot deal with the basics, so why believe their details?

Anonymous said...

Observation: Many Cultures and Religions have Similar Creation and Flood Stories.
Hypothesis: Perhaps these Things Actually Happened.

Evidence: Most cultures don't have flood stories.
Evidence: Most cultures' creation stories don't agree
Evidence: Archaeological evidence doesn't so a discontinuity in civilization.
Evidence: Geological evidence contradicts a global flood
Evidence: Fossil distribution contradicts a global flood

Conclusion: There has not been a global flood.

Lista said...

The Movie "Expelled" Showed Considerable Evidence of the Bias of Evolutionists, that is the Bias of the Status Quo.

Sorry about my Capitalization. It's just a habit and it is a hard one to break. I've gotten more flack for it on this Blog then on any other and I'm not sure why that is so. (Observation)

Perhaps the Fact that Radar's Posts are so Long has Drawn more Impatient Speed Readers than the Other Blogs. (Hypothesis) How Dare I Slow them Down with my Capital Letters. I Suppose that Makes me Scum. Huh? (One Possible False Judgement)

If you are a Fast Reader, Stubing, then you can't even begin to Understand what is it like and how Time Consuming it is to Read Slow. I'll Study what I can, but I can not Allow anyone to Make me Feel in any way Inferior. I have a Very Sharp Mind. I'm just Slow when I Study and Read.

Jon Woolf said...

Lista: "My Knowledge of a Subject does not have to be Total and Complete in Order for me to Understand Basic Logic"

You prove my point. If you had any idea where the passage I quoted came from, you wouldn't be trying to apply logic to it.

As for "Expelled:" you remain as much a naif in the area of critical thought as you are in the realm of non-western religion, unable to grasp the simple fact that anything which has been edited by somebody with an agenda is not trustworthy.

Hey, Radar:

Information theory requires a sender and a receiver. The natural world is not a source of information so the first sender had to be the Creator

Who (or what) was the first receiver, then?

Lista said...

Woolf,
My Statement about Logic was Meant to be a General Statement Relating to my over all Communication with you. What you Quoted is Actually more Philosophical in Nature, yet I Understand Philosophy as well.

You were Implying that Creationists are more Inflexible and Unyielding (also Described as Stiff, Hard, Brittle and Dry) then Evolutionists and I was just Pointing Out that it is the the Atheist Evolutionists that are more Stiff, Hard, Inflexible and Unyielding in Relation to God.

You are going to Interpret my Responses in Accordance with the Way that you wish to View me and that my Friend is Another form of Bias.

If you were not Impressed by the Movie "Expelled", Radar Once Left a Link for other Examples of the Same. When I have more Time, I'm going to Look that Up.

Anonymous said...

Lista,
Maybe take a look at this website before you bring "Expelled" into the discussion.

http://www.expelledexposed.com/

You mention that you "have a Very Sharp Mind." but I have to tell you that the actual contents of your comments say something completely different. You state repeatedly that "evolutionist" lack "answers" in the same way that Theists do. The only reason you say this is because you don't listen to the answers provided by "evolutionists".

"Free your mind and the rest will follow." - En Vogue

-Canucklehead.

AmericanVet said...

"Observation: Many Cultures and Religions have Similar Creation and Flood Stories.
Hypothesis: Perhaps these Things Actually Happened.

Evidence: Most cultures don't have flood stories.
Evidence: Most cultures' creation stories don't agree
Evidence: Archaeological evidence doesn't so a discontinuity in civilization.
Evidence: Geological evidence contradicts a global flood
Evidence: Fossil distribution contradicts a global flood

Conclusion: There has not been a global flood."

The commenter obviously doesn't know culture very well as virtually every culture has a flood story. Also, the population of mankind fits nicely into the Noahic Flood timeline as does the actual civilizations we study.

Futhermore, the fossil record has been slandered and should sue. It is a record of catastrophism and does not show sequential fossils, but rather is an obvious record of flood sedimentation carried out on a world stage. All the crossbedding and interbedding and massive formations stretching across states and even continents, all the paraconformities and polystrate fossils. In fact, all the fossils. All complete creatures, not a continuum of beasts. All buried quickly by catastrophe.

You see mounds of fossil opossums by the side of the road? Nope, bodies rapidly decompose. It takes special circumstances to produce fossils and we have them up to our eyeballs. The Flood is the only explanation. Don't believe Darwinist lies, look at the rock formations and fossils for yourselves.

AmericanVet said...

Is there an argument more boring than "you don't understand evolution?"

Nobody understands it, it doesn't exist. If we are talking about the macroevolution of kinds of creatures evolving from "simpler" ancestors then it has never been observed, doesn't appear to be possible based on the way the cell reproduces and is based on 19th Century science that has been absolutely blown away by modern findings.

Buggy whips are no longer popular, nor are whale oil lamps or horse-drawn lorries or wooden ships of war or blood-letting to heal diseases. Mankind has moved on and left the 1800's behind...except in this one area. Origins. Why are we stuck on this ridiculous unscientific point? How is it that science doesn't rise up of one accord and toss Darwin overboard?

It is a shame on this generation of scientists to make even a pretense of promoting science when discussing evolution. You might as well be supporting seven year's bad luck for the breaking of a mirror for all the science involved in Darwinism.

It defies information theory, Biogenesis, Thermodynamics, Genetics and certainly it defies both honesty and God. Darwinists have made up the concept of a geological column and sequential fossil patterns. DNA by itself, just what we know about it so far, puts the lie to Darwinism. DNA could NEVER form on it's own because of the chemical barriers in place to prevent it from happening. Furthermore from whence comes the information within?

If you believe in Darwinism you may as well sign up for voodoo and tree worship and crystal balls and astrology.

Jon Woolf said...

Is there an argument more boring than "you don't understand evolution?"

Well, yeah, actually. It goes something like "I don't know the science and I don't know the evidence, but I know evolution is a crock 'cause my handy book of compiled Bronze Age superstitions and just-so stories says so."

It is a record of catastrophism and does not show sequential fossils, but rather is an obvious record of flood sedimentation carried out on a world stage.

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

Why don't we ever find flounder fossils mixed in with ostracoderm fossils, Radar? Dolphins and ichthyosaurs? Whales and mosasaurs? Flounder and trilobites? Placoderms and anomalocaridids?

Why don't we ever find fossils of advanced organisms showing up below any possible ancestor for them?

Yes, Gracie, the fossil record is sequential. And the sequence says "evolution happened." Only ignorant fools and YECs (but I repeat myself) still claim otherwise.

Lista said...

Canucklehead,
Just as Stubing has accused me of Assuming Bias in People who Disagree with me, you Assume the Lack of a Sharp Mind in those who Disagree with you and do not Assign the Same Value to the Evidence that you are more Impressed by.

And Evolutionists Lack Answers to the Questions in the Above Post relating to Worldview. Evolutionists do not Feel that these Questions are Important, yet I couldn't Disagree more.

Evolutionists can not Answer the Question of how Life Began and that is the Most Important Question of all.

Woolf,
"I don't know the science and I don't know the evidence, but I know evolution is a crock 'cause my handy book of compiled Bronze Age superstitions and just-so stories says so."

Are you Actually Quoting Someone or did you just Make that One Up? You are much Better at Insulting than at Arguing. I guess you Never Learned that an Insult is not the Same as an Argument.

Also, Expecting anyone to be Able to Explain Everything is an Extremely High Expectation that Evolutionists can not themselves Live Up to, yet you Continue this Ridiculous Hypocrisy Relentlessly.

I Figured Out the Answer to the Dolphins and Ichthyosaurs Question myself while Commenting on another Comment Thread. Apparently, I haven't Submitted that Comment yet, for I Found it in my Word Processor, instead of on the Blog. It was Written in Response to Scohen's Comment on that Comment Thread...

"The issue I brought up seems pretty important if you posit a worldwide flood."

First, I Speculated that Perhaps Larger Dinosaur Like Reptiles and Fish did not Survive the Flood because they were not able to Swim as Fast and had Trouble Getting to the Surface for Air in the Highly Turbulent Waters, yet the Below Sentence from the Wikipedia Suggests that their Brief Existence may have Ended Prior to the Flood.

"Ichthyosaurs thrived during much of the Mesozoic era; based on fossil evidence, they first appeared approximately 245 million years ago (mya) and disappeared about 90 million years ago, about 25 million years before the dinosaurs became extinct." (Wikipedia, Ichthyosaur)

I Guess your Question is Slightly Different than Scohen’s, though.

"Why don't we ever find fossils of advanced organisms showing up below any possible ancestor for them?"

You Mean Like People and a Whole Variety of Different Kinds of Apes? And why don’t we Find More Advanced Engines, Air Planes, Trains and Cars, Below any Possible "Ancestors of them"? I supposed those Evolved through Natural Selection as well.

Radar,
I Liked your Suggestion that Perhaps Our Faith should not be in Science at all. In Relation to that, I Keep Thinking about how Scohen Admitted that Science does not Actually Ever "Prove" Anything.

Anonymous said...

Lista,
It is your own writing on this blog that leads me to disagree with your assertion that you have a sharp mind. I mean, you can't even stop typing in that annoying style, when you've been told multiple times that it takes away from your credibility/legibility. If a child wrote like that in school, they would be corrected. I assume you are an adult, so, um, maybe you should write like one.

Case in point, you say "Evolutionists can not Answer the Question of how Life Began" (seriously though, is there absolutely NO rhyme or reason to your capitalization???). Are you aware that the origin of life has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Zip, zero, zilch. I mean, the catholic church supports the concept of evolution, and I'm fairy certain that they think they have an answer for "how life began". This is a basic concept, Lista, yet you don't seem to have a clue here. In fact, your knowledge appears to be so shallow in this area that you are barely worth responding to. Are you going to ask "why are there monkeys", next? At least educate yourself on the debate you are entering into. Otherwise risk getting completely ignored.

I would also ask if you have even considered the idea that for evolution to be some kind of "deception", as you put it, it would require a global conspiracy spanning a great many disciplines, languages and cultures, not to mention thousands and thousands of individuals. How likely do you think this really is? Do you ascribe to any other conspiracy theories, or just this one? Like, do you think that 9-11 was an "inside job", for example? Both you and Radar (and your creationist masters) have a major motivation to discredit the theory of evolution, you all feel that it would invalidate your world view if it were true. There is no such unifying motivation for those thousands of scientists. Many of whom would call themselves christian, jewish or muslim.

Just look at Radar's rant above (I'm probably not the only one to see the hypocrisy of Radar posting a long list of lies in a post titled "Dear Darwinist - Topics to avoid if you don't want to lie"). Just take one of his unsupported assertions, the existence of "polystrate fossils" as an example. I, and others, say this is a lie. So why don't you do some research on your own and see what you can find. We've asked Radar many times to produce even a single example of a polystrate fossil that is documented to cut through "millions of years of surrounding geology" and he's come up empty every time. If your mind is as "sharp" as you profess it is, you should be able to come up with something, no?

I'll be waiting right here for you to prove me wrong. And waiting, and waiting, and waiting.

Oh, and I have to say there is actually one area where we appear to agree. And that is on the point that Radar's posts are ridiculously long. He, like you, has an annoying writing/posting style, only his involves posting mountains and mountains of creationist propaganda in the hopes that some fool will come along and buy into at least a sliver of it. So, you both have a few things to work on IMHO.

-Canucklehead.

Lista said...

Chucklehead,
*Sigh* Writing style, that is as it has to do with things such as Capitals and Length, not with Content, has nothing to do with how sharp someone's mind is. Having trouble breaking a bad habit also has nothing to do with Intellect.

If the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution, then evolution does not answer the questions that are of true importance and Radar's statement that we should not put our faith in science is all that much more valid. Evolutionism can not prove that all life has descended from a common ancestor and that is the main conflict between them and Creationists.

The evidence that they claim shows that all life came from a common ancestor, could just as easily be evidence that the initial Biblical Kinds have evolved to some degree, or that there is such a thing as evolution within Kinds. Evolution between Kinds, though, has still not been observed.

You can Ignore me if you Like, Canucklehead. I have in no way Forced you to respond to me.

"for evolution to be some kind of 'deception', as you put it, it would require a global conspiracy spanning a great many disciplines."

This was also true when people believed that the world was flat and later when they thought the Earth was the center of the Universe. Since most of the Population is made up of Followers, rather than Leaders, Massive Deception is not as difficult as you suppose.

Those who Believe differently than the Status Quo have become Silent and Apathetic. This has been a problem in the churches for quite some time.

Yes, don't we all have things to work on? This Post was shorter, though, than many of his others, so I will Commend him for that.

AmericanVet said...

Canucklehead, even darwinist scientists admit the existence of multiple polystrate fossils all over the world. There are no lies in my post at all. If you think there are no polystrates then that explains a lot. You have no idea what in the heck you are talking about. Or should I say aboot?

No worries, much of the world has been brainwashed, you are not alone. Will you be happy there?

Anonymous said...

Thank god you're so smart hey, Radar? LOL. I realize that a lot of people out there have been brainwashed, just not in the way you think they have.

Oh and I can't help but notice that despite your protestations you STILL cannot provide a documented example of a polystrate fossil. Weird. Oh, and you further boast that there are "darwinist scientists" that admit to the existence of these fossils. Any evidence for this claim? Or is it just another baseless statement that you're throwing out there to see if it sticks? Put up or shut on polystrate fossils, Radar. Show us the document evidence for a polystrate fossils that spans "millions of years" of surrounding geology. Or how about pointing us to one of these "darwinist scientists" that confirm their existence? If you had anything you would have posted it by now. Just stop with the lies already.

Lista, not knowing something is much different than the idea that scientists are faking data the world over in order to fool the general populace into believing in evolution, which is what Radar is proposing. You are talking about deception on the part of "evolutionists" not ignorance. Ignorance is obviously alive and well, and one need not look any further than your own comments to prove that point.

Oh and, further to this assertion and, just to be clear, Lista, your answer to Jon's question about why "Dolphins and Ichthyosaurs" have never been found together in the fossil record is that Ichthyosaurs appear to have gone extinct 90 million years ago, or at the very least, 25 million years before the flood? Who's side of this debate are you on anyway? Is this a joke? Weren't you telling us all in a previous post just how compelling the evidence for a "young earth" is? Do you not realize that Radar argues that Dinosaurs and people walked the earth at the same time and that being a YEC means that he believes that the earth is roughly 10,000 years old? You are making Jon's point here, Lista. What were you saying about a "sharp mind" again? Maybe you should just sit this one out and, as hb would say, "let the grown ups talk"?

- Canucklehead.

AmericanVet said...

Canucklehead, you take the cake. You are just incapable of comprehending the situation. Any idiot could put "polystrate" in the search box on this site and see lots of evidence for polystrate fossils. You throw the word lie around but frankly you do not demonstrate the intellect capable of differentiating between a lie and a truth. Are you a parody or a nincompoop?

AmericanVet said...

I found a minimum of 27 posts made on this blog using just the search word, "polystrate." A polystrate fossil is one that extends through multiple layers of rock. There have been polystrate trees, reeds, worms, fish, whales and other fossils.

Jon Woolf said...

But there are none that can't be explained by conventional geology.

Lista: "You are much Better at Insulting than at Arguing."

Apparently you've forgotten that I tried arguing rationally with you. Several times, on several different subjects. Each time, you whined about the complexity of the subject, then ignored what I was saying and just dismissed me as biased, with the attendant implication that I was either too stupid to realize it or too dishonest to care. And you accuse me of ad hominems? Feh.

In a way, though, I suppose you aren't as bad as Radar. He clearly has the ability to understand the other side of the argument, he just refuses to use it. I haven't seen any evidence that you even have the ability.

Anonymous said...

Radar,
You lie. The polystrate whale is a lie (as has been pointed out to you many many times).

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

Furthermore, hits on "polystrate fossils" on this blog does not constitute evidence of same. Pictures of fossilized trees don't mean anything without proper documentation of location, geology, dates etc. Give me your best single example of a polystrate fossil right now, Radar. You say there are many cases of this occurring. If this is true, actual examples of something that contradicts accepted science should be very well documented. So lets see what you've got. And, while you're at it, maybe give us the name of the "darwinist scientist" that supports the notion that this fossil runs through millions of years of geology. The bottom line is that you can't come up with anything because you are lying.

- Canucklehead.

Lista said...

Canucklehead,
I have never accused anyone of "Faking Data" and I also have never claimed to be an Expert on this Subject, yet here's the thing. Even if I had come to this Blog to Learn, rather than Teach, I have found very Few Teachers. Instead I have found people who are Rude, Insulting and Disrespectful.

How do you Expect me to Respect you as an Expert/Teacher if all you know how to do is tell me Repetitively of how Ignorant I am. That is not what Good Teachers do, nor do they tell their Students to "sit this one out and.....'let the grown ups talk'". Honestly, Canacklehead, how can you even wonder for a second why I do not Respect you as a Expert/Teacher.

And here we go with the Accusations of Lying again. I do not consider mistakingly giving out incorrect information a lie, nor do I think that presenting evidence for a point of view that opposes that of a certain Internet Page a lie. I also do not Consider Lacking the Ability to Present Evidence, on Demand, off the Top of One's Head, a Lie.

Woolf,
"Each time, you whined about the complexity of the subject..."

If this is true, then you are not a very good teacher. I have never Claimed to be an Expert on Evolution or Geology, Woolf. Not having the Knowledge is not the same as not having the Ability. You would like to see the Knowledge within a very short time period, though, and for me, that is not Realistic.

AmericanVet said...

Canucklehead, I have already proved the polystrate point. You are an idiot. In fact, you qualify as the top idiot amongst all the commenters. As I mentioned yesterday, I have made at least 27 posts concerning polystrate fossils, most of them with pictures of various polystrate fossils. You could have done a search and found them. But you prefer to show off your ignorance. Congrats!

Anonymous whatsit said...

"I have already proved the polystrate point."

No, Radar, you have not. You have always stopped short of answering the most important question: is the polystrate fossil actually firmly stuck in a series of layers that conventional geologists would identify as being millions of years apart?

Why does this elude you?

Anonymous whatsit said...

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

That reminds me - Radar, are you going to have Sarfati's answers to Jon's questions up on the blog soon?

AmericanVet said...

"No, Radar, you have not. You have always stopped short of answering the most important question: is the polystrate fossil actually firmly stuck in a series of layers that conventional geologists would identify as being millions of years apart?

Why does this elude you?"


It doesn't. What eludes you is the "conventional geologists" part. Conventional geologists are currently in something of a fix. They know uniformitarianism is unsupportable. They realize the rock layers are catastrophic in nature. But being chained to the Darwinist mantra of "millions of years", they cannot come up with a coherent explanation for the rock layers.

As I demonstrated last year, the geological column does not exist in more than about .4% of the world. To quote Woodmrappe, there are these places where a form of the classic column exists:

"These locations appear as white spots on Map 15, and include such places as northwest Russia, Siberia, the Caspian-Sea region, parts of China, the Williston Basin in the western USA, Bulgaria, Chile, Tunisia, central Mexico, and Iran/Iraq/Afghanistan."

Pretty much everywhere else the rocks are out of order according to "conventional geologists." So why would I care about what they say? One of the main points of this blog has always been that conventional geologists are full of BS and need to adjust their claims to the real world for a change.

Many places have flip-flopped or reversed or interbedded layering. Most are missing layers or have them out of order in some way. So a conventional geologist has far more problems than just dealing with polystrates.

But I do not claim that polystrates protrude through millions of years of layers because I don't believe in the Darwin fairy tale. The rock layers are caused by the Flood itself and the aftermath of that flood that produced an ice age and most of the top layering. Glaciation followed by melting produced massive lakes that broke through mudrock and produced formations like the Devil's Canyon and the Grand Canyon and various buttes and mesas and so on. Some of those formations may have resulted from hydroplate activity since there was a tremendous amount of water captive in the mudrock layers that would gather and escape and we also have to consider other factors causing uplifts post-flood.

In short, I believe the rock layers were formed primarily from about 4,300 to around 3,600 years ago. So while polystrates might sometimes thrust through multiple layers, which is a problem for Darwinists, it is just more proof of the Flood to me.

AmericanVet said...

Also both BIFS and LIPS were produced in miniature during the Juby flume experiments. BIFS and LIPS are therefore connected to a worldwide flood.

Granite is something of a problem for "conventional geologists" as they do not know much about how it can be formed. Granitic rock contains zircons that still hold helium atoms within them, which means they cannot be more than a few thousand years old. To my knowledge no conventional geologist can produce granitic rock or explain it.

So it seems that LIPS and BIFS and granite are a problem for Woolf to answer rather than a question for me. Juby's flume experiment produced formations similar to LIPS and BIFS and they are a sign of catastrophic events. The ball in in Woolf's court.

Jon Woolf said...

"Also both BIFS and LIPS were produced in miniature during the Juby flume experiments. "

BWAAA-HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Large Igneous Provinces were formed during Juby's alleged experiments with flowing water and sediment? Radar, a Large IGNEOUS Province is made of IGNEOUS rock. Igneous rock is produced by volcanic activity, not by flowing water.

Note also that most LIPs consist of basaltic lava flows, not granites. Oh, and you seem to have forgotten yet again that the problem for Flood geologists doesn't lie in the lava flows. It lies in the fossiliferous sedimentary strata in between the lava flows. If the entire rock record was formed during the Flood, then the flows must have been happening at a rate of several layers per day. How did land animals manage to reoccupy the area in between those many lava flows?

And incidentally, what is a BIFS? That's an abbreviation I don't recall seeing before.

AmericanVet said...

Yuk it up! LIPS and BIFS can be produced by water flow. They can also be produced by volcanic activity. Volcanic rock is a duh, from the mantle in some way either by volcanoes or intrusion partway through existing rock layers. Why you would think a volcanic intrustion into the sedimentary layers is a problem for creationists is puzzling, since that is a catastrophic event and the Flood certainly involved volcanic activity, tectonic plate subduction, earthquakes, hydroplate action, post-Flood mudslides, storms, multiple blizzards forming glaciation which began to melt forming huge lakes which, when they were breached formed remarkable canyons and rock formations.

When granitic rock is the culprit, creationists are studying the possibilities of such rock forming in the Flood somehow. Many typical granite formations resemble flume-produced formations. But to my knowledge no one has postulated exactly how granitic rock forms. It is not a slamdunk for either side. The general idea is that it forms when crust is subducted into the mantle, which is what was going on during the flood. So rapid plate subduction was the likely source of granite which would then interact with the massive available water and produce the formations we have commonly seen. In short, granite formed during the Flood and water was often a key to shaping many of those igneous rocks.

BIFS are banded iron formations that seem to be associated with the Flood. They are found on every continent and there is abundant BIF in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan which I have studied up close and personal. Again, long-agers miss the forest for the trees and do not see the obvious relationship between BIFs and the Flood.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"And incidentally, what is a BIFS? That's an abbreviation I don't recall seeing before."

Given the context, I suspect he means BIFs, not BIFS. BIF = Banded Iron Formation.

Anonymous whatsit said...

It's always funny to see you go from mere speculation to unsupported statements of fact. Look at the progression in the above paragraph.

"When granitic rock is the culprit, creationists are studying the possibilities of such rock forming in the Flood somehow. Many typical granite formations resemble flume-produced formations. But to my knowledge no one has postulated exactly how granitic rock forms. It is not a slamdunk for either side. The general idea is that it forms when crust is subducted into the mantle, which is what was going on during the flood. So rapid plate subduction was the likely source of granite which would then interact with the massive available water and produce the formations we have commonly seen. In short, granite formed during the Flood and water was often a key to shaping many of those igneous rocks."

From:

"creationists are studying the possibilities of such rock forming in the Flood somehow"

to:

"In short, granite formed during the Flood"

Anonymous whatsit said...

"LIPS and BIFS can be produced by water flow."

How? As Jon already pointed out, LIPs consist of igneous rock. Could you explain what you mean by this?

Jon Woolf said...

"Why you would think a volcanic intrustion into the sedimentary layers is a problem for creationists is puzzling"

Because that isn't how Large Igneous Provinces formed. By examination, we can tell that the individual flows were all extrusive -- they happened at the surface, not underground.

"BIFS are banded iron formations " Ah, OK. Yes, conventional theory accepts that banded iron formation formed mostly underwater. However, many banded-iron formations contain layers of iron ore interspersed with layers of chert and shale -- which are made of very fine-grained sediment that take a long time to accumulate to any depth.

Wherever you turn, Radar, whatever explanation you attempt, you will always find evidence that the geologic record took a long, long time to form. Too bad, so sad.

Anonymous said...

And once again (as also with the fossil record), Radar blithely whistles past the graveyard re. the actual problems, as Jon Woolf poitned out:

"Oh, and you seem to have forgotten yet again that the problem for Flood geologists doesn't lie in the lava flows. It lies in the fossiliferous sedimentary strata in between the lava flows. If the entire rock record was formed during the Flood, then the flows must have been happening at a rate of several layers per day. How did land animals manage to reoccupy the area in between those many lava flows?"

Just sweep it under the rug, huh Radar?

AmericanVet said...

Jon correcting me?! That is a hoot!

I did not say all the layers were formed by the flood, I said the layers were formed by the flood and the post-flood period in which the terrain was exceedingly unstable, the weather unusual and landslides, dike breaks and swift snow and sandstorms were more common.

You, Jon Woolf, cannot comprehend that fossils are a result of catastrophic events and that flows of sediments containing organisms that would be fossilized were often carried far from their point of origination, while others were buried in situ. In addition, it took forty days for the water to overtake the earth and undoubtably many land animals found refuge on floating mats of various plants for awhile before conditions sweep them from their precarious perches and send them into the flow.

Also don't take me out of context. This quote: " From:

"creationists are studying the possibilities of such rock forming in the Flood somehow"

to:

"In short, granite formed during the Flood""

I was explaining a possibility that is being studied. Read the entire paragraph. In the end I summarized the hypothesis and did not make a definitive statement. Flume experiments can produce formations typical of granitic rock. But the rock itself would probably have to come from the magma-crust interaction during rapid plate subduction. This is simply not testable with the scientific methods we have available. But we have gotten temperature readings from the mantle indicating that the massive amount of crust subducted have not yet reached normal temperatures, meaning a quite recent subduction event.

I would think anyone who claims some expertise concerning LIPS would also be familar with BIFS but apparently not.

Lista said...

Most of this is Over my Head, so my Comment is going to be Brief. I'm just Curious about Something.

A Woolf Quote:
"If the entire rock record was formed during the Flood, then the flows must have been happening at a rate of several layers per day."

Radar,
Did you ever Actually say that the ENTIRE Rock Record was Formed during the Flood? I'm just Curious.

Lista said...

Oh Gee! You have already answered that, haven't you? I Walked away from my Computer and did not Hit the Refresh Button before Responding and Submitting my Comment. My Hunch, though, was Correct.

Jon Woolf said...

"I did not say all the layers were formed by the flood, "

Actually, I believe I've seen you write exactly that. But I have neither the time nor the interest to find any examples.

Anyway, this is a novel approach. How do you tell the difference between Flood and post-Flood rocks? Is, say, the Navajo Sandstone a Flood layer or post-Flood? How about the Morrison Formation? The Karoo Supergroup? The Koobi Fora Formation?

So your explanation for Large Igneous Provinces is something like this:

* The water receded and basalt lava flowed out in large amounts, then cooled and hardened in mere hours

* "Floating vegetable mats" deposited a load of survivor animals, which spread out across the land, taking new plants with them.

* The area built up soil and a healthy climax flora, together with typical animals of all kinds, all in just a few hours.

* The water returned, drowned and buried all the animals in a few minutes, then receded again so the whole cycle could start again.

[ROF,L] I'm afraid I cracked up just writing that...

Captain Stubing said...

"Jon correcting me?! That is a hoot!"

It's been happening on an alarmingly regular basis ever since Jon Woolf showed up here.

"You, Jon Woolf, cannot comprehend that fossils are a result of catastrophic events and that flows of sediments containing organisms that would be fossilized were often carried far from their point of origination, while others were buried in situ."

That is incompatible with the fossil record as we find it. Creationists have no explanation for the order in which fossils are consistently found. "Darwinists" do.

Captain Stubing said...

"[ROF,L] I'm afraid I cracked up just writing that..."

Amusing as it is, it is useful to actually try to express what alternate hypothesis is being proposed, just for the sake of overview. So many creationist articles and blog posts tend to consist of minor attempts to poke a hole into some aspect of mainstream science here and there that one can't always be sure what this or that creationist actually has in mind for the bigger picture.

For example, where are they proposing that Noah's Ark landed (and from whence all life on Earth subsequently emanated)? Surely that would have certain consequences for the subsequent distribution of life forms.

It's always the lack of detail that allows creationists to gloss over the glaring problems with their overall scenario.

Maybe Sarfati has the answers, but I suspect that Radar may have been too busy genuflecting to actually ask him any contentious questions.

Anonymous said...

First of all, with this statement from Radar,

"You are an idiot. In fact, you qualify as the top idiot amongst all the commenters."

I'm pretty sure this means that I win the internet.

Second, "readers" like Lista need to pay special attention to rants like this from our resident blogger.

"What eludes you is the "conventional geologists" part. Conventional geologists are currently in something of a fix. They know uniformitarianism is unsupportable. They realize the rock layers are catastrophic in nature. But being chained to the Darwinist mantra of "millions of years", they cannot come up with a coherent explanation for the rock layers."

This is simply Radar's overblown ego (and possible psychological problems) out in the open, on display, for all to see. There are hundreds of thousands of geologists spread across the globe. Intelligent, highly educated men and women that have spent their entire lives studying their respective specialty within the field of geology. And Radar, a computer software salesguy, wants you to believe that he knows more than virtually each and every one these individuals, in a discipline where he has no education whatsoever. And this is no minor disagreement they say the earth is 4,570,000,000 years old, and base this statement on mountains of direct physical evidence, and and yet Radar, and a handful religiously-motivated biblical literalists, say the age of the earth closer to 10,000 years. Nobody in their right mind would take this seriously. Furthermore, note that when it's convenient, Radar has used these same geologists as experts in order to try to poke holes in scientific consensus on global warming (Of course, their "opposition" to the concept turned out to be yet another whopper consisting of pure BS/propaganda).

Oh and Lista, you still don't get it. You say,

"I have never accused anyone of "Faking Data" ..."

Yet, when you consider your past statements with regard to both YEC and ID, in order for either of those concepts to be valid, it would require the faking of reams and reams of data that currently falsify both of those concepts.

I will conclude this morning by again asking Radar to produce just a single documented example of a polystrate fossil that, in the words of whatsit, "is actually firmly stuck in a series of layers that conventional geologists would identify as being millions of years apart". Let see your best evidence Radar. I mean as an amateur geologist that understands "rocks" better than the entire field, this should be pretty easy to produce. Where was this fossil found Radar, and what can you tell us about the surrounding geology? And who was the "darwinist scientist" that confirmed it? Stop ranting and calling me names, Radar, and show me the evidence!

-Canucklehead.

P.S. Lista, the "grown-ups" comment was kind of an inside joke. That is a line regularly used by another christuian extremist that sometimes posts on this blog. Was it rude? Yeah probably, and for that I apologize. In the end, you seem to be generally well meaning, just very very misguided, in my opinion. That said, I am not here to teach you (or to necessarily be polite to you for that matter, especially considering the tone Radar sets on this blog) and if you start making assertions on this blog in a debate where, by your own admission, you are in way over your head, you can expect to be challenged and asked to back up your statements. Do me a favor and check out this blog post, at the very least it will show you both sides of the evolution "debate" between religious literalists and virtually everyone else on the planet.

http://darryl-cunningham.blogspot.com/2011/06/evolution.html

Keep in mind that the vast majority of christians disagree very strongly with Radar when it comes to his literal interpretation of the bible.

Lista said...

Woolf,
"all in just a few hours"

I have a Hunch that Radar/American Vet did not Say this Either and as to the "Survivor Animals" finding Refuge on "Floating Vegetable Mats", You Took that Idea Entirely Out of Context and Forgot to Mention "for awhile, before conditions sweep them from their precarious perches and send them into the flow". What I Think he Meant was that these more Complex Animals were then Deposited in Higher Layers.

Radar can Correct me if I'm Wrong, though there is one thing that I feel quite certain of and that is that you are not Really Listening to and Correctly Understanding Radar's Words.

Lista said...

Chanucklehead,
I'm not sure why your 10:37 AM Comment did not Print on Radar's Blog, but it did come into my Email Box. Perhaps it is also in Radar's Spam File.

Yeh, Radar Called you an Idiot, but you Know what? He is not the Only One Throwing Insults Around.

"With regard to both YEC and ID, in order for either of those concepts to be valid, it would require the faking of reams and reams of data that currently falsify both of those concepts."

This Statement is not True. I've Heard the ID Arguments even more than the YEC Arguments and in My Opinion the Arguments are Impressive. Evolutionists have just chosen to Disregard them.

Thanks for your Apology in regards to "allowing the grown-ups to talk". I Appreciate that and you are forgiven.

"I am not here to teach you (or to necessarily be polite to you for that matter, especially considering the tone Radar sets on this blog)"

You are not Required to Teach me, yet to Use someone else's "Tone" as an Excuse to be Impolite is a Form of Justification, rather than Maturity.

"Keep in mind that the vast majority of Christians disagree very strongly with Radar when it comes to his literal interpretation of the Bible."

I don't Know if I would have used the Words "Very Strongly". Many Christians are Willing to Accept either Interpretation. I've Sensed no Strong Emotions Relating to the Subject on the Non-Literal Side, other then that which I have sensed in the Atheists.

I'll give you One Thing, though, I've Talked to a Couple of Christians that I Personally Respect that are not sure that the Evidence Fully Supports the Young Earth Idea, or at the Very Least, that Creationists still have a Considerable Amount of Work to do, yet One of them Introduced me to an Entirely New Idea which is the "Gap Theory".

I don't have the Time to Look this Up on the Web right now, yet Basically it is Based on the Idea that the Verses in Genesis 1:1 & 2;

"1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2) And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

Apparently, the Hebrew Word "was", in Verse 2, at least the first of them, can also be Translated, and some say would be more Accurately Translated, "Became", so the Question is "What Happened between Verse 1 & 2?" People who Believe in this Idea Believe in an Old Earth, Young World, or that the Earth has been here awhile, but the Current Creation of Life has not. Interesting Idea.

I Guess that is yet another Possible Hypothesis.

What if, Canucklehead, that which is actually True did not Leave Evidence that can not be as Clearly Read as we would like it to be? Will we Ever Know all of the Answers? I Seriously Doubt it.

Anonymous said...

"One of them Introduced me to an Entirely New Idea which is the "Gap Theory"."

It was first posed in the late 18th century. Wikipedia has more under "Gap creationism".

Anonymous said...

"Evolutionists have just chosen to Disregard [ID arguments]."

It's not a matter of evolutionists just discarding them for the fun of it. ID's main problem is that it doesn't propose any testable claims that actually support it, meaning it can't yet be determined whether it's true or false. That may be a good thing or a bad thing, but it basically leaves the issue up in the air.

When people say "ID is not science", that's what they mean. If one were to come up with something that is theoretically irreducible, then that would support ID theory, but so far nothing like this has been found.

You should also be careful with someone like Radar, who doesn't quite grok ID theory and only hears "complexity must mean design" and promptly decides that, say, DNA itself is surefire evidence of design. It's a sad but standard creationist tactic of leaping to the desired conclusion while ignoring any and all objections along the way... while of course not extending that same luxury to anyone who disagrees with them.

Anonymous said...

Lishta,
Well, thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster, that you have forgiven me.

Take a look at the website below and then tell me again that there's no passion on the christian side of the old earth or evolution arguments.

http://www.biologos.org/blog/the-crutch/

You also say,

"Yeh, Radar Called you an Idiot, but you Know what? He is not the Only One Throwing Insults Around."

You know, someone once told me that to Use someone else's "Tone" as an Excuse to be Impolite is a Form of Justification, rather than Maturity. You contradict yourself here Lista. Why is "he did it first" a valid excuse for Radar's rudeness but not mine. The point here is that Radar insults, demonizes, and belittles his opponents and their points of view regularly, and without provocation. The comments sections are a reaction to Radar's posting, so, I guess what I'm saying is, if you don't like the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

- Canucklehead.

Lista said...

Anonymous,
"If one were to come up with something that is theoretically irreducible, then that would support ID theory, but so far nothing like this has been found."

You have Got to be Kidding! I Guess it's Possible that there is a Whole Bunch of Evolutionists Stuff that I haven't read, yet You Know What? The fact that you used the Word "Theoretically" Makes that a Highly Incorrect Statement, because I Know for a Fact that this Much has been Done Several Times Over and I rather Doubt that Evolutionists have been Able to Disprove the Evidence in this Matter.

Even Radar has Presented Stuff that's Impressive. I wish there were not so Many Many Issues, for Reading Both Sides of Every Single one of them Takes an Enormous Amount of Time.

DNA IS Evidence of Design and the Reason why is Because it is Information or Language. Nature doesn't Product Language on it's Own. To me that is Very Obvious and those who Chose to Ignore it are Deciding to not see what is Right in Front of their Face.

"It's a sad but standard creationist tactic of leaping to the desired conclusion while ignoring any and all objections along the way... while of course not extending that same luxury to anyone who disagrees with them."

Well, rather we give them that Luxury or not, they Certainly do Take it.

Canucklehead,
"Why is 'he did it first' a valid excuse for Radar's rudeness but not mine."

I'm not Excusing Radar. I'm just telling you that you are not Excused either if you are Rude to me.

Lista said...

Just as Radar can not Say "He did it First", so also you can not say that, (Let me Find the Quote)...

"I am not here to teach you (or to necessarily be polite to you for that matter, especially considering the tone Radar sets on this blog)"

Your Statement, Canucklehead "especially considering the tone Radar sets on this blog" is Basically the Same as saying, "Well he did it First.", so you see, you are the one who is Displaying the Hypocrisy that you are now Trying to Accuse me of.

On the Other Side of the Coin, everyone is Human, and I will Extend that same Courtesy to you, yet all this Means is that you will be Forgiven if you Slip Up, yet it is still Inappropriate for you to Use "the Tone Radar Sets on this Blog" as your Excuse. And now that you have Accused me of the Same, this Makes the Statement of yours that I just Quoted a Hypocrisy.

The Other Hypocrisy is in that when your Statement, "'readers' like Lista need to pay special attention to rants like this from our resident blogger.", you were Implying that Radar’s "Rants" are Worse than anyone Else’s Rants and this is so Totally Ridiculous that it isn’t Funny. Why should I be any more Careful of Radar's Rants than of Anyone Else's Rants?

In Light of this, you are the One who is the Hypocrite because you say "Why is 'he did it first' a valid excuse for Radar's rudeness but not mine." and yet, I can say "Why should I be any more Careful of Radar's Rants than of Anyone Else's Rants?" and "Why is 'the Tone Radar Sets on this Blog' a Valid Excuse for your Rudeness and yet 'he did it first' is not a Valid Excuse for Radar.

Your Hypocrisy is in that you are Telling me that I should not be Biased in Favor of Radar, yet what you Actually Want is not for me to be Impartial, but to be Biased Against Radar. You Appear to be Saying Don’t be Biased, yet In Reality, what you are Saying is be Biased in Favor of my Position, not of His.

You Suggest that I shouldn’t be Biased against you, while Also Suggesting at the Same Time that I Need to be Careful of your Opponent and not Careful of you. It is Ok for me to be Biased, as long as it is Against Radar, but if my Bias is in Favor of Radar, then that is not Ok. In so Doing, what you Really Mean is not that I shouldn’t be Biased, but that I should Change my Bias in Favor of you.

In all of this, I have Failed to Mention that it is not Ok for Radar to be Rude, but it is Ok for you to be, as you have Clearly Stated, "I am not here to teach you (or to necessarily be polite to you for that matter)"

This Whole Thing is a Very Conflicting and Hypocritical Message that is being Delivered while at the Same Time Accusing me of Hypocrisy. Wow! Now that Bit of Foolishness was Quite Impressive.

To Imply that Radar is more Insulting than his Commenters is Totally Ridiculous, Canucklehead. Sorry that he Called you Stupid, yet you Know What? "If you don’t Like the Heat, then Get Out of the Kitchen."

Jon Woolf said...

"I Guess it's Possible that there is a Whole Bunch of Evolutionists Stuff that I haven't read,"

Oh, it's more than just possible.

"...and I rather Doubt that Evolutionists have been Able to Disprove the Evidence in this Matter."

Fortunately, reality doesn't much care what you do or don't doubt. There are biochemical systems that are "irreducibly complex." But that doesn't mean they couldn't have evolved by variation and selection.

"DNA IS Evidence of Design and the Reason why is Because it is Information or Language. Nature doesn't Product Language on it's Own."

'Information' and 'language' are not synonymous. It's possible for something to contain information without being a language. Nature may or may not produce language on its own, but it definitely can produce information on its own.

Of course, here we run into another of those questions that Radar tries his best to evade: how are we defining "information?" How do you tell that X contains information and Y doesn't? How do you tell if X contains more (or less) information than Y?

Oh Really O'Reilly said...

Fortunately, reality doesn't much care what you do or don't doubt. There are biochemical systems that are "irreducibly complex." But that doesn't mean they couldn't have evolved by variation and selection.

If they could have evolved by variation and selection, then they're not irreducibly complex. Perhaps what you meant was: "There are biochemical systems that may appear "irreducibly complex" at first. But that doesn't mean they couldn't have evolved by variation and selection and are therefore reducibly complex."

Just sayin'.

Oh Really O'Reilly said...

Anonymous: If one were to come up with something that is theoretically irreducible, then that would support ID theory, but so far nothing like this has been found.

Lista: You have Got to be Kidding! I Guess it's Possible that there is a Whole Bunch of Evolutionists Stuff that I haven't read, yet You Know What? The fact that you used the Word "Theoretically" Makes that a Highly Incorrect Statement, because I Know for a Fact that this Much has been Done Several Times Over and I rather Doubt that Evolutionists have been Able to Disprove the Evidence in this Matter.

You seem like a rather confused person. You start off with "I Guess it's Possible that there is a Whole Bunch of Evolutionists Stuff that I haven't read", but then state apparently as a fact (you're claiming that it's incorrect to state otherwise) that "this Much has been Done Several Times Over".

Well guess what. All the "Evolutionists Stuff" that you haven't read does contain plenty of examples of disproving the "Evidence in this Matter".

BTW, I've seen you claim to have some expertise in the area of ID, which is exactly where the subject of irreducible complexity is at home. Just as a piece of friendly advice: you should read up on the subject in more depth.

Re. irreducible complexity, the process usually goes something like this:

IDers (and/or creationists) claim that X is an example of irreducible complexity, meaning that in theory it cannot be reduced into smaller functional components or other components that could have arisen by chance etc.

Scientists then present examples in which exactly that is possible and that X is therefore not irreducibly complex.

In creationist circles, the first part usually makes a big splash on blogs etc. The follow-up usually doesn't reach the ears of casual or excessively biased readers.

For example, evolutionary pathways have been identified for the bacterial flagellum, while I suspect ID and creationist blogs still cite these as examples of irreducible complexity. Given your own admission of a lack of reading on the subject outside your own bias, I suspect that you, too, would include the bacterial flagellum when you say "I Know for a Fact that this Much [i.e. demonstrating irreducible complexity] has been Done Several Times Over". In the case of the flagellum, you would be mistaken, and you would benefit from reading more "Evolutionists Stuff". The worst that can happen is that you have a better idea of what you're actually arguing against, right?

Lista said...

Before Reading and Responding to Oh Really, O'Reilly, I Want to Finish and Submit what I was Working on Yesterday for Jon Woolf.

Woolf
"There are biochemical systems that are 'irreducibly complex.'
But that doesn't mean they couldn't have evolved by variation and selection."

Oh, so you Admit that there are Biochemical Systems that are Irreducibly Complex. Well, in that Case, it has not been Disproven and therefore, Creationism has Succeeded in Testing and Establishing the Hypothesis that there are things that are Irreducibly Complex. That which I Doubt is Based on what's True and to Claim that the Existence of Irreducible Complexity has not been Established is Untruthful and Deceptive. Also, the Process of Testing such a Hypothesis is Called Science, just in case someone Doubts that it is.

Giving an Alternate Explanation for the Results, Woolf, does not Disprove the Hypothesis that Irreducible Complexity does Exist.

I see no Difference between Information and Language, so you are going to have to Explain.

Anonymous said...

"I see no Difference between Information and Language, so you are going to have to Explain."

How many informations do you speak?

Lista said...

Oh Really O'Reilly,
She Smiles. No, you are not Going to Get Away with Redefining what Woolf Said. The Way he Said it was Accurate.

"You start off with 'I Guess it's Possible that there is a Whole Bunch of Evolutionists Stuff that I haven't read', but then state apparently as a fact (you're claiming that it's incorrect to state otherwise) that 'this Much has been Done Several Times Over'."

It is the Evolutionists Stuff that I haven't Fully Read and the Intelligent Design Stuff that I have, so there is no Contradiction here.

The Reason Why I Could so Confidently Say that "I Know for a Fact" is because Anonymous used the Word "Theoretically". It is One Thing to Claim that something has not been Proved, OROR, but Quite another to Claim that it doesn't Even Work "Theoretically" and that is why my Statement is Absolutely Correct.

I'll Tell you What, though, Give me your Best Link and I will Read it, as Long as it is not Pages and Pages Long.

AmericanVet said...

Oh Really O'Reilly must be a Bill O'Reilly fan?

No, I have read in detail the proposals Darwinists have made concerning the flagellum and they are completely without merit. Irreducibly complex systems are bane to Darwinist because Darwinism posits incremental changes over time and the flagellum has too many different systems going at once for their supposed "answers" to deal with.

Then there are the built-in algorithms in various organisms that are more sophisicated than our own so we try to copy them.

On top of that, we have so many symbiotic relationships that involve two (or more) organisms depending upon each other, with their exact feature set, to survive.

But O'Reilly doesn't post the flagellum "answer" because it is lame. And how about the ATP synthase machine basic to life? You need ATP to build it but it is what produces ATP?

These pseudo-scientists are busy trying to design an RNA world that managed to creat a DNA world but the hard chemical barriers bite them in the butt and the big problem is the information. Cells have more information in them than the Congressional Record and that information is specific for reproduction, for managing all cell functions of maintenance and repair and so on and so forth. Who input all that information?

Lista said...

Anonymous,
"How many informations do you speak?"

Boy, that was Quick and Easy. Ok. Then Language is an Expression of Information. Human Language is Understood through the Arrangement of Words and Letters (Written) or the Arrangement of Sounds and Syllables (Spoken). The Information within DNA is Expressed in a Chemical Language that Involves the Arrangement of Proteins. How is that not Language?

If "you have enough DNA to cover a pinhead" and the Information was Written Out, it would "Fill 15 trillion (15 times 1012) of those 160-page books. If you placed that many books one on top of the other, their height would be 500 times the distance between the Earth and the Moon (384,000 kilometers, or 238,600 miles). Alternatively, if these books were equally distributed among the 6 billion or so people in the world, every individual would receive 2,500 volumes.64"

The Above Quote was Taken from Here.

AmericanVet said...

Now, technically this means that Radar has an answer. But since the foundation of that belief, i.e. the claim that God made everything 6,000 years ago etc., is falsified by scientific observation, he has even less of an answer than the rest of us, just a very elaborate fictional construct.

No, scientific observation was first invented by Christians who believed rational explanations were possible and used a scientific method of inquiry to study the world. They believed that a Creator God was not just logical but also was the only scientific explanation, as science tells us that the Universe cannot create itself and life cannot come from non-life and information must come from an intelligent source.

So scientists have made many observations about the Universe and one of them is the light years required to see all the stars. So they have declared how old the Universe is several times, changing it as they go along. They have done the same thing with the age of the Earth, the age of man, and etc.

Scientists in general believed the Sun revolved around the Earth and it was believers in the Creator God who proved otherwise.

Bottom line, secular science keeps changing their stories. Therefore they cannot claim to have truth because it might change tomorrow.

Meanwhile I have a God who made the light before the sources of the light and made the stars so that mankind could see them and use them. How did He do that in six days? I am not sure. But Bible literalists say six days now and said six days then. Darwinists have probably added almost ten billion years to the Universe since I was born. I'm pretty old but not THAT old.

Bottom line, I can explain everything except why the Universe itself has an appearance of great age. I do have a couple of rational hypotheses for this problem. It is the ONLY problem without a logical answer that is on solid ground. Meanwhile Darwinists cannot even get "off the ground" with no explanation for existence, life or information. So I would say you have some catching up to do.

AmericanVet said...

By the way, a Christian is supposed to be yielding to God but unmoving in the face of ungodly resistance. That is why so many Christians are murdered year after year. When you tell a Christian he cannot believe God and go on living he will probably say "Well, go ahead and shoot, then."

I do not have the slightest doubt about God and my eternal destination. People who take the time to study the history of science and genealogies of mankind and actually study the fossil record without a Darwinist-closed mind will find Occam's Razor cuts them off at the knees at every point but one.

Lista said...

Hi Radar,
You Know, my Absolute Favorite Cell is the One that is the Glue that Holds everything within the Body together and that One is Called Laminin and here is a Brief Explanation and a Picture of it. Note the Shape.

Even Truth or Fiction Confirms this. And here is a Portion of a Sermon on the Subject, that I Know you will Appreciate, even if some of the Skeptics on this Blog will not.

Lista said...

BTW, Radar,
What do you Think of the Gap theory?

Anonymous said...

"How is that not Language?"

In that it is not used for communication between two intelligent entities.

Anonymous said...

"No, scientific observation was first invented by Christians who believed rational explanations were possible and used a scientific method of inquiry to study the world."

That doesn't mean that the principles they proposed and that have been successfully used in scientific endeavors for centuries should suddenly be abandoned when it doesn't confirm what is, after all, merely one interpretation of the Bible. Why should special pleading suddenly be allowed? It's inconsistent to apply this just because you don't like the result.

Incidentally, before these folks came along, did everyone believe that rational explanations were not possible? Seems a little odd.

Anonymous said...

"People who take the time to study the history of science and genealogies of mankind and actually study the fossil record without a Darwinist-closed mind will find Occam's Razor cuts them off at the knees at every point but one."

For Occam's Razor to be applied, you first need two explanations to compare. So what is the YEC explanation for the sorting in the fossil record? Never seen a YEC propose one that passes even the most cursory examination.

Anonymous said...

"Bottom line, I can explain everything except why the Universe itself has an appearance of great age. I do have a couple of rational hypotheses for this problem. It is the ONLY problem without a logical answer that is on solid ground. Meanwhile Darwinists cannot even get "off the ground" with no explanation for existence, life or information. So I would say you have some catching up to do."

News flash: until you can explain the appearance of great age (and a few other things), your whole scenario doesn't hold water, meaning your creator God is an inconsistent fiction, and you don't have a scientifically viable explanation for existence, life or information.

Sure, you could hypothesize that a supernatural being neatly plugs into those questions, but if you want to pose this as the answer to a number of questions and use the Bible as part of the justification for that, then you've introduced something that contradicts observable evidence on a number of counts... which means that the particular supernatural being you want to pose as an answer is falsified.

(I see that Hawkeye in an earlier comment has realized this exact problem as well.)

That doesn't mean that there can't be some supernatural entity involved, but the one that you, Radar, are proposing isn't adding up, and you're in no position to tell others that you have an answer and they don't.

Anonymous said...

"Meanwhile Darwinists cannot even get "off the ground" with no explanation for existence, life or information."

As for those three "questions".

1. Explanation for existence... meaning what exactly? Why does anything at all exist?

Could you explain why there would need to be a reason or origin or narrative for existence itself?

2. Explanation for life... Evolution already does a pretty good job of explaining the variety of life. A scientific explanation for the origin of life is also coming together.

What exactly does YEC have to offer as an answer? This Creator God (who, let's not forget, is part of a narrative that on the whole doesn't hold water any more than countless other creation myths) simply spake it into existence. Talk about "poof!". That is the sum total of the "explanation", isn't that right, Radar?

Allow me to suggest that it is YECs who have some catching up to do in this area, but that they have no inclination (or ability) to do so.

3. Explanation for information... Easily explained by "Darwinists". It's only obfuscation and a recurring "argument from incredulity" by YECs that would have one believe otherwise. Witness Radar's complete meltdown on this issue esp. over the past year, resulting in censorship (his first AFAIK), standing in the way of open discussion, and misrepresenting multiple parts of the debate.

Anonymous said...

"Bottom line, secular science keeps changing their stories. Therefore they cannot claim to have truth because it might change tomorrow."

I wonder what these early modern scientists that you keep bringing up would say to such anti-science weirdness. That Mr. Radar is absolutely correct and that science should never "change its story"?

Amazing (and kind of shameless, really) how you can try to spin this. You're talking about scientific progress. Obviously progress isn't achieved by avoiding any and all change.

Jon Woolf said...

"If they could have evolved by variation and selection, then they're not irreducibly complex."

I think you're making the same mistake that Behe does: you're assuming that "irreducibly complex" and "evolved by variation and selection" are mutually exclusive. I don't see any reason to assume that. Oh, it's certainly impossible for the evolutionary process to build up an irreducibly complex (IC) system out of simpler parts, because there would be no selective benefit to the intermediate stages. But it's very possible to produce an IC system from the other direction: you start with a system that is even more complex and does contain some redundancy, then start taking away 'unnecessary' pieces until what's left is just barely enough to keep working. There is, I believe, some fairly good evidence that the mammalian blood-clotting cascade evolved by just such a process.

Jon Woolf said...

Oh, and regarding Lista's bubbling about "laminin," I wonder if it's even worth the bother to point out that a) laminin isn't a cell, it's a protein; and b) the laminins are a whole class or group of proteins that vary substantially in structure.

Oh Really O'Reilly said...

Oh Really O'Reilly must be a Bill O'Reilly fan?

Er, no. Just an old family in-joke.

About this constant squabbling over who was impolite first - how about a truce on the politeness front? Along with a ceasefire on words like "liar" etc.

Just sayin'.

Lista said...

Anonymous,
The Bible is a Perfectly Acceptable Place to get a Hypothesis from, Regardless of the Interpretation. Observation; the Bible has Never been Disproved. Hypothesis; what it says is True.

It is Simply not True that there has been no Evidence to Back the Creationist Hypothesis Up. Radar has Presented Lots of Evidence. The Fact that you are not Impressed by it is Irrelevant. It's still Evidence.

I do not Believe that Radar is Suggesting that we Do Away with the Scientific Method as it was Originally Put in Place by Early Christians.

I Challenge you to Come Up with a Second Interpretation of the Following Verses...

"24) 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. 25) And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind and God saw that it was good." (Genesis 1:24-25, KJV)

The Above is the Explanation of the Fossil Record. Similarities are there because of the Biblical Kinds and the Holes in the Record are there because of the Gab Between the Kinds, because they did not Evolve from Each Other. All Life is Similar because of a Common Creator.

I Suppose that you also Think that Trains and Airplanes "Evolved" from Cars. The way that any Rational Person who Knows the Truth about the Creation of these Things would Explain the Archeological Remains of such Things, as well as the Similarities between these Things, is According to Creation, rather then Evolution, yet the Fossil Record is Not Really so Different.

"News flash: until you can explain the appearance of great age (and a few other things), your whole scenario doesn't hold water"

What about the Gap Theory? Their Belief is in Old Earth and New World. I Explained it a little more in an Above Comment. Seriously, though, the Existence of God can not be Disproved Scientifically any more then it can be Proved, so the Denial of His Existence is what is the "Inconsistent Fiction".

"You're in no position to tell others that you have an answer and they don't."

I've Said this Many Times and I'll Say it again. Superiority of an Idea does not have to be Established in Order for Two Ideas to be Taught Side by Side; Only Equality.

Lista said...

More for Anonymous,
"A scientific explanation for the origin of life is also coming together."

"Hang on, that's Coming" is not an Acceptable Answer. There is Nothing Inaccurate about Stating that it has not been Shown, for it has not.

"What exactly does YEC have to offer as an answer?"

Radar's Entire Blog has been Answering that Question. The Fact that you Personally are not Satisfied with the Answers he has Given is Irrelevant.

Your Big Words, such as Obfuscation and Incredulity are nothing more than Accusations that have no Merit and what's more, they are Hypocrisies, for it is you who are Darkening, Obscuring and Arguing from Disbelief and Skepticism. I have no Idea how you Got the Idea that False Accusations of this Sort are going to Prove anything at all. Insults of any Form are Offensive, yet Insulting while Using Big Words Only Shows Evidence of Haughty Arrogance while doing so.

You Use Big Words in Order to Show Off, as well as Confuse those who you View as Inferior to you because you have the Ability to Use Words that they have to Look Up, but I'm not Impressed. All I see is a Fool who Likes to Show Off and who thinks he is Something Special if he can Wear his Opponent Down by the Means of Insults, rather than Arguments.

Woolf,
Thanks for Admitting that Irreducible Complexity does at Least Exist. The Thing is that if it Exists and Creationists Hypothesized and then Experimented and Established that it Does Exist, then this is Science and those who say that ID is not Science are Speaking an Untruth.

Perhaps there is Hope for you in that you are more Honest then some about at least a few of the things that some like to Misrepresent. In your Honesty, you have been more Informative and I Appreciate that.

You'll just have to Excuse me, though, for Saying Cell, rather then Protein Molecule. I'm Imperfect and I Misspoke. Show me a Laminin that does not have Three Short Arms and One Long One, Like that of a Cross, and I will Believe your Claim that not all are in the Shape of a Cross. What they Look Like in Certain Solutions Doesn't Count, (that is a Spectacular Flower), for after the Solution is Removed, they Return to their Original Form.

From the Truth or Fiction Page, they Included a Quote From a Book by Peter Elkblom and Pubert Timpl, "Electron microscopy reveals a cross-like shape for all laminins investigated so far."

Lista said...

Oh Really, O'Reilly,
It is Really hard to not Insult while Feeling Insulted. I hope that Throwing someone's Own Words Back at them doesn't Count because how else is One Supposed to Establish that the Insult that is Being Directed at Someone is not the Truth.

I've been Thinking about the "He did it First" Clause anyway and have decided that Very Few People are Truly Passive Enough to not Retaliate in some way when Insulted. To not Retaliate is sort of a Pacifist Position and I'm not Really much of a Pacifist. What Bothers me, though, is that some of this Insulting does not Appear to be Provoked in any way.

As to the Word Liar, I've Never Liked that Word either, cause it is Hard to Prove Motive. I Prefer Words such as Untruth and Misrepresent. I also Use the Word Deceptive, though, when Describing an Argument. I Keep the Emphasis on the Arguments and Words, though, and not the Motives of the Person. That's just me.

Anonymous said...

"It is Really hard to not Insult while Feeling Insulted."

And yet a wise man once said that you should turn the other cheek. Why give in to petty anger?

Anonymous said...

"You Use Big Words in Order to Show Off, as well as Confuse those who you View as Inferior to you because you have the Ability to Use Words that they have to Look Up, but I'm not Impressed."

Defensive much? Thanks for the attempt at mindreading, but it's completely missed the mark. You think "obfuscation" and "incredulity" are "Big Words"? Seriously? Did you have to look them up? Well what about "hypocrisies", "obscuring", "skepticism"? Why do you fling such Big Words around? Trying to impress people by making them look up words?

Anonymous said...

"It is Simply not True that there has been no Evidence to Back the Creationist Hypothesis Up. Radar has Presented Lots of Evidence. The Fact that you are not Impressed by it is Irrelevant. It's still Evidence."

The reason why we're not impressed with it may be relevant, however. The vast majority of it (if not all of it) consists of logical fallacies and misrepresentations. Consider for example the hundreds of pages that Radar has pasted (as well as wasted) on the cell being complex - all based on his mistaken belief that all complexity automatically represents (sorry, big word) proof of a designer.

If the underlying argument doesn't hold up, then it doesn't matter how much data one piles on top.

Anonymous said...

"The Bible is a Perfectly Acceptable Place to get a Hypothesis from, Regardless of the Interpretation. Observation; the Bible has Never been Disproved. Hypothesis; what it says is True."

Falsified by the fact that the Bible actually has been disproven (if by that you mean the perfect accuracy of every dang word of it), not least by its internal inconsistencies. And some interpretations (such as a young Earth) have been disproven by observable evidence.

So the hypothesis that everything the Bible says is true is falsified.

Note also that there is a related fallacy: just because some parts of the Bible are confirmed (e.g. they may mention something that is confirmed by archaeology) doesn't mean that all parts of the Bible are automatically true. Another logical fallacy.

Anonymous said...

"I do not Believe that Radar is Suggesting that we Do Away with the Scientific Method as it was Originally Put in Place by Early Christians."

The scientific method was not put in place by early Christians. Early Christians = approx. 1st/2nd century AD, birth of modern science = approx. 16th/17th century.

When Radar attempts special pleading, he is indeed advocating that the principles of the scientific method are abandoned to make an exception for a particular interpretation of the Bible.

In order to be effective, science has to proceed quite rigorously, building on evidence. YECs routinely want to introduce poorly substantiated evidence (or unsubstantiated evidence) to reach the foregone conclusion that they have in mind. That's when they abandon the scientific method.

Anonymous said...

"I Challenge you to Come Up with a Second Interpretation of the Following Verses...

"24) 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. 25) And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind and God saw that it was good." (Genesis 1:24-25, KJV)

The Above is the Explanation of the Fossil Record."

Then why doesn't it explain the fossil record? Not even a little bit?

"Similarities are there because of the Biblical Kinds and the Holes in the Record are there because of the Gab Between the Kinds, because they did not Evolve from Each Other."

It seems you haven't yet grasped what exact problem the fossil record represents for YECs (or all creationists, for that matter). The problem is that fossils appear in a certain sequence over time, indicating a certain progression. The theory of evolution explains this fact perfectly, while YECs (with their global flood scenario, which they claim deposited the fossils) can't explain it at all. They can't even put up a viable hypothesis. The fossil record as it stands completely falsifies YEC.

A number of Jon Woolf's questions (in his list that he posts on occasion) focus on this point. Radar's been promising to post an answer to this, since he has now discussed this with Dr. Sarfati. Curious to see what they'll come up with.

"All Life is Similar because of a Common Creator."

Interesting hypothesis. Sadly untestable.

"I Suppose that you also Think that Trains and Airplanes "Evolved" from Cars."

No, that would be stupid.

"The way that any Rational Person who Knows the Truth about the Creation of these Things would Explain the Archeological Remains of such Things, as well as the Similarities between these Things, is According to Creation, rather then Evolution, yet the Fossil Record is Not Really so Different."

When you say "The way that any Rational Person who Knows the Truth about the Creation of these Things" you should know that you are well outside of science. You're talking about revealed knowledge, not empirical knowledge.

Anonymous said...

"What about the Gap Theory? Their Belief is in Old Earth and New World. I Explained it a little more in an Above Comment."

It's a start, and the commenters on this blog are probably not unfamiliar with it. Hawkeye at least has recognized the problems that some evidence pose for a YEC scenario. I think you'll find that the Gap Theory still has problems though.

Note though that the above argument was with Radar, a YEC, who claims that he has all the answers while ignoring the fact that they are based on unsupportable claims.

Anonymous said...

"You're in no position to tell others that you have an answer and they don't."

"I've Said this Many Times and I'll Say it again. Superiority of an Idea does not have to be Established in Order for Two Ideas to be Taught Side by Side; Only Equality."

Teaching side by side was not really the issue here. This was about Radar claiming to have the answers and claiming that his opponents didn't.

As for teaching them side by side, from a scientific perspective that equality has not yet been achieved, certainly by YEC. ID is at least aiming for a more scientific approach, but even so has not yet been able to come up with a testable proposition that has actually been confirmed.

Anonymous said...

"A scientific explanation for the origin of life is also coming together."

""Hang on, that's Coming" is not an Acceptable Answer."

Depends on the question, really.

"There is Nothing Inaccurate about Stating that it has not been Shown, for it has not."

True, there is nothing inaccurate about stating that it has not been shown, but if you'll notice that's not what Radar is doing. He's claiming that it's been disproven or that the lack of it having been shown so far proves that it's impossible, which is something else altogether. Surely you'll agree that those aren't logical statements.

Anonymous said...

"Seriously, though, the Existence of God can not be Disproved Scientifically any more then it can be Proved, so the Denial of His Existence is what is the "Inconsistent Fiction"."

Concluding the absence of something that can not be proved and has never been proved is neither inconsistent nor a fiction.

Anonymous said...

"I Keep the Emphasis on the Arguments and Words, though, and not the Motives of the Person. That's just me."

Oh really? That's just you, is it? And this just a few paragraphs after you say this:

"You Use Big Words in Order to Show Off, as well as Confuse those who you View as Inferior to you because you have the Ability to Use Words that they have to Look Up, but I'm not Impressed. All I see is a Fool who Likes to Show Off and who thinks he is Something Special if he can Wear his Opponent Down by the Means of Insults, rather than Arguments."

What have big words ever done to you to make you see them as insults?

Why do you focus on motives instead of arguments?

Anonymous said...

"Giving an Alternate Explanation for the Results, Woolf, does not Disprove the Hypothesis that Irreducible Complexity does Exist."

You pounced on the use of the word "theoretical" earlier, but this is a crucial point. Giving an alternate explanation would indeed disprove irreducible complexity.

It's like this: irreducible complexity actually means theoretically irreducible complexity. It means that someone claims that something can not be reduced, in theory, into smaller functional parts from which it could have evolved. It is by its very nature a theoretical claim.

How does one counter a theoretical claim? By positing a way in which the supposedly irreducibly complex object could, in theory, be reduced into smaller functional parts from which it could have evolved (or, as Woolf pointed out, how it could have plausibly evolved from something more complex).

Incidentally, the bacterial flagellum is not an example of irreducible complexity.

"It is the Evolutionists Stuff that I haven't Fully Read and the Intelligent Design Stuff that I have, so there is no Contradiction here."

Actually there is. You've read the claim, but ignored how it was disproved, so you can't claim that it's incorrect to state that.

Anonymous said...

"No, I have read in detail the proposals Darwinists have made concerning the flagellum and they are completely without merit."

This would be one of these empty authoritative statements that you accused "trolls" of using, right?

Okay then, kindly explain in your own words which explanations you're talking about and why they are "without merit".

Anonymous said...

Show us one that has any merit at all and we will consider it. I haven't seen one yet. Not even close.

Radar

Anonymous said...

Also I would love to see an explanation for the ATP Synthase process.

But then again, I would like to see an explanation for the miraculous appearance of the DNA string which must exist within cells that require DNA to be formed and operate. This is foundational to a theory of origins, that there be an explanation for life. Darwinism gets an F- for this part of the test.

Anonymous said...

"Show us one that has any merit at all and we will consider it. I haven't seen one yet. Not even close."

Way to dodge the question there, Radar. Okay, so you're sticking with the empty authoritative statement. Wow, there's a surprise.

Anonymous said...

"But then again, I would like to see an explanation for the miraculous appearance of the DNA string which must exist within cells that require DNA to be formed and operate. This is foundational to a theory of origins, that there be an explanation for life. Darwinism gets an F- for this part of the test."

1. Kindly direct us to the creationist research that explains how DNA was formed. Oh. There is none. So would that be an "F--" then?

2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

Anonymous said...

Show us one that has any merit at all and we will consider it. I haven't seen one yet. Not even close.

Wait, aren't you that guy that thinks evolution is disproven by bacteria still being bacteria in an experiment meant to confirm speciation?

With that in your background, exactly how do you think you'd be able to assess the accuracy of any scientific explanation, let alone a highly complex one? And not just that, but one that doesn't confirm what you want it to?

AmericanVet said...

A typical empty Darwinist comment:

(Show us one that has any merit at all and we will consider it. I haven't seen one yet. Not even close.) That was me asking for one example of a way the e coli motility motor or the DNA string or the ATP motor could have evolved. What is my answer?

Wait, aren't you that guy that thinks evolution is disproven by bacteria still being bacteria in an experiment meant to confirm speciation?

With that in your background, exactly how do you think you'd be able to assess the accuracy of any scientific explanation, let alone a highly complex one? And not just that, but one that doesn't confirm what you want it to?


So in other words, no, you have no explanation. I have numerous certifications and degrees from several years of college and a good three years of technical schooling. I have a few IT acronyms but I also belong to some scientific organizations and receive technical journals from three of them. In other words, I am as qualified as Charles Lyell or Charles Darwin at a minimum.

Now, DNA and ATP and all complex systems in organisms were designed by the Creator God. He did so in a way that mankind now finds cannot be duplicated in a lab. No one can take a pot of mud or a few chemicals and start mixing up a DNA string. Furthermore the information in cells had to come from somewhere and, again, a bunch of pond scum doesn't compose code.

We use a two-character language to program computers. DNA uses a four-character language for coding. So you call yourself a scientist? Then quit hemming and hawing and give us a reasonable way something like this just happens. Or else go ahead and chicken out again.

AmericanVet said...

Let's be clear. You commenters are dodging the question. I am asking YOU to provide an answer. YOU are the ones who do not provide it and that means YOU are dodging the question.

I will abandon this comment thread unless or until someone actually produces a way that, to be specific, the e. coli flagellum mechanism was the original topic?
If you cannot then you have admitted defeat.

Anonymous said...

"So in other words, no, you have no explanation."

No, I was pointing out that your unfounded claims on scientific matters are highly dubious because you've exhibited some extraordinary gaps in your knowledge in the field of biology and evolution.

"I have numerous certifications and degrees from several years of college and a good three years of technical schooling."

None of which happens to be related to biology or evolution.

Amusingly, it is the limitation in your training to information technology that made it so difficult for you to understand information theory arguments. How many times did you argue that information can only be quantified by its container? And amusingly, you've also been arguing that information can't have any material basis because it doesn't have any weight. That's especially embarrassing because it's in your home field of information technology. Do you really think there's no material difference between an empty hard drive and one filled with data, just because they weigh the same?

"I have a few IT acronyms but I also belong to some scientific organizations and receive technical journals from three of them."

So you subscribe to three creationist magazines. That may be enjoyable for you, but did you notice that it didn't exactly enhance your knowledge of biology or even of what the theory of evolution (much as you hate it) actually says?

"In other words, I am as qualified as Charles Lyell or Charles Darwin at a minimum."

Ah yes, pride and hubris have been your greatest downfalls for some time now. Seriously Radar, both these men spent decades conducting original research.

"Now, DNA and ATP and all complex systems in organisms were designed by the Creator God."

Unfounded speculation, surely. Or, as you put it earlier, an empty authoritative statement - which according to you is troll behavior.

"He did so in a way that mankind now finds cannot be duplicated in a lab. No one can take a pot of mud or a few chemicals and start mixing up a DNA string."

And why would they, seeing as that's not how DNA is said to have formed in the first place?

But given enough time, we can't say that the evolution of DNA can't be repeated. But it certainly can't happen in a human lifespan or two.

"Furthermore the information in cells had to come from somewhere and, again, a bunch of pond scum doesn't compose code."

No, but a process of reproduction with variation can amass information through trial and error.

"We use a two-character language to program computers. DNA uses a four-character language for coding."

So?

"So you call yourself a scientist?"

When do you think I called myself a scientist?

"Then quit hemming and hawing and give us a reasonable way something like this just happens. Or else go ahead and chicken out again."

1. I already presented one in a youtube link in a previous comment. If you have a scientific response to it (one commensurate with the vast scientific training that you call your own), then please respond accordingly.

2. You made this claim in a previous comment: "I have read in detail the proposals Darwinists have made concerning the flagellum and they are completely without merit."

Apparently this was empty bluster then, since you've been stalling ever since you were called on it. Okay then.

Anonymous said...

"Let's be clear. You commenters are dodging the question. I am asking YOU to provide an answer. YOU are the ones who do not provide it and that means YOU are dodging the question."

You were asked to back up some of your less believable assertions. Now you're apparently admitting defeat.

"I will abandon this comment thread unless or until someone actually produces a way that, to be specific, the e. coli flagellum mechanism was the original topic?
If you cannot then you have admitted defeat."

Here you go: http://www.pnas.org/content/104/17/7116.full.pdf

See how reducible the flagellum is?

AmericanVet said...

Thank you for finally producing something. I will review thoroughly now that FINALLY an answer of sorts has come in.

Anonymous said...

"Thank you for finally producing something. I will review thoroughly now that FINALLY an answer of sorts has come in."

To be fair, Radar, it's not like these are closely guarded secrets.

Lista said...

So Far, what I've Written in Response to the Above Comments Appears to be 3 or 4 Rather Long Comments Long and All I have Time to Submit Right now is the First One.

Hi Anonymous,
I Once Struggled with Depression. I'm Stronger Now, yet while in that Depressed State, Responding Passively only Increased the Depression. I Eventually had to Learn how to Stick Up for Myself.

It Takes a Very Strong Person to Apply Jesus' Words in Relation to Turning the Other Cheek and this Kind of Strength Takes many many Years to Develop.

Yesterday, I Realized that I had been Reacting to Another Commenter on another Blog and then when I Got to this One and Saw your First Comment below Mine, I Realized that I was Going to have to Take a Very Deep Breath and Calm Down.

Sorry about my Mind Reading. I just Feel Over Whelmed at Times. You see, Sometimes I can Feel Anxious Over Something as Small as Seeing 13 Comments in a Row on One Blog Post from Anonymous Yesterday and Now 5 More Today, Totaling 18 Comments. Oophs, there's another 6. Oh well.

The Words Obscure and Skepticism were two of the Ones in the Dictionary Describing Obfuscation and Incredulity. The Word Obfuscation was not Even in my Small, Hand Held, Electronic Dictionary. I Actually had to Turn the Pages of an Actual Real Book. Imagine that. lol. Sorry, the Dictionary did not have any Words that were Smaller.

I'm Impressed by Evidence that does not Impress you. To me, Complexity is Evidence of Design. Never have I ever Thrown the Parts to a Motor Cycle in the Air and then Saw them Randomly Come Down Fully Assembled in a Very Complex and Functional Way. Complexity is Impressive.

Chuckle. It seems Odd to me, Anonymous, if you do not even Know the Difference between a Big, Less Commonly Used, and a Small, More Commonly Used, Word.

Interpretations of the Bible may have been Disproved, but not the Main Content. That is Unless you want to get Nit Picky.

For Example, did Judas Fall or Hang Himself. Perhaps he Hung Himself First and then Fell. Perhaps the Rope Broke. The Point is that he Committed Suicide. One Person Either Saw him Hang himself or saw him Tying a Rope Up in Preparation for Doing so. Another Person saw him on the Ground Split Open. I Believe them both. Nothing has been Disproven.

It just so Happens that the Bible Stands up to Archaeological Scrutiny better than any other Holy Book.

Observation: The Bible Stands up better to Archaeological Scrutiny (Sorry, Big Words. Chuckle. lol) then any other Holy Book.
Hypothesis: Perhaps this is the Creation Story that's True.

You see, I don't Find anything Wrong with what I just Stated. Remember, an Observation does not have to be a Proven Fact, just a Suspicion based on Observation.

As to those who Started the Scientific Method, I Guess I should have Said Earlier Christians, meaning those Earlier in History, not Necessarily the Very First Christians.

Oh Really O'Reilly said...

Kindly direct us to the creationist research that explains how DNA was formed. Oh. There is none. So would that be an "F--" then?

A valid point. Is there any creationist research along these lines?

Lista said...

Oh Really, O'Reilly,
Creation can not be Proved and Neither can the Unfounded Statement, "If Given Enough Time...". Remember, Equality is all that Matters in Order for Two Ideas to be Taught Side by Side. Since "If Given Enough Time..." is no More Established than Creation, the Positions are both without Support and are both Based on Faith.

Oh Really O'Reilly said...

Creation can not be Proved

Nor, apparently, can it be researched. An "F--" it is.

and Neither can the Unfounded Statement, "If Given Enough Time...".

Not only is that unfounded, it's not a statement. Please complete whatever sentence you had in mind.

Remember, Equality is all that Matters in Order for Two Ideas to be Taught Side by Side.

Yes, and clearly that equality is not at hand. For example, see your statement at the top of this comment.

Since "If Given Enough Time..." is no More Established than Creation, the Positions are both without Support and are both Based on Faith.

Wow. Interesting. You really think the theory of evolution boils down to "If Given Enough Time..."?

Some reading is in order, Lista. I don't mean that as an insult. You really would benefit from it.

AmericanVet said...

Actually Darwinism looks at the statistical impossibility of itself and ignores the implications.

A Darwinist says that the laws of statistics, biogenesis and thermodynamics can all be overcome given enough time. Time is all they seem to have on their side.

Creationists only have one problem, really. What to do about the appearance of age or actual age of the Universe? Did God make things fully formed on Earth, like organisms? Of course. But how about the Sun and the other stars?

Occam's Razor cuts Darwinism to ribbons on every issue except this one. Big Bangers can measure age by computing mass and velocity and employ a calculation for a flat or rounded Universe but they cannot account for the background radiation, they have to posit a great deal of matter that cannot be observed and they have the problem of the singularity at the "start" as well as the problem of stars. No one knows how a star is formed except through the collapse/explosion/death of other stars. Darwinists do not have the time thing down pat either.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Creation can not be Proved"

"Nor, apparently, can it be researched. An "F--" it is."

The more pertinent competition is whether it can be confirmed.

Evolution presents testable claims that are confirmed routinely.

Creation can't present any testable claims that are actually confirmed (though it can provide plenty that are falsified, unfortunately), and therefore Creation is not just confirmed, but it is actually falsified. Even Lista seems to have understood that.

ID can present testable claims, none of which have been confirmed so far. Funny that Lista, of all people, should declare: ""Hang on, that's Coming" is not an Acceptable Answer."

Now granted, ID is on a completely different battlefield from evolution (abiogenesis, to be specific), but creation is fighting on both.

And it has no research, no testable claims that aren't easily falsified --

-- and so, to address your persistent point, Lista, it is not an equal explanation.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Actually Darwinism looks at the statistical impossibility of itself and ignores the implications."

The only statistical impossibility that has been presented so far is based on enormous misrepresentations and strawman arguments. Which, guess what, rightly should be ignored.

"A Darwinist says that the laws of statistics, biogenesis and thermodynamics can all be overcome given enough time."

1. The statistics are bogus.

2. The law of biogenesis has never confirmed (and is incapable of confirming) that non-life can not produce life.

3. The laws of thermodynamics are not violated by the theory of evolution, so time is not required to overcome any such violation - it simply didn't exist in the first place.

"Time is all they seem to have on their side."

No, that's just one of many things on what you keep calling the "Darwinist" side. There's also a vast body of evidence in different fields, all confirming each other.

"Creationists only have one problem, really. What to do about the appearance of age or actual age of the Universe?"

Age is certainly one of them, but you're misstating even this part. You're a YEC. The appearance of age is not a problem for a large number of creationists that don't believe in a young Earth, given the persuasive evidence against it. Your friend Hawkeye appears to be one of them.

"Did God make things fully formed on Earth, like organisms? Of course."

Here's another problem: what's the scientific evidence for this claim? How would you go about confirming this?

"But how about the Sun and the other stars?"

That too.

"Occam's Razor cuts Darwinism to ribbons on every issue except this one."

No. Occam's Razor says that given two explanations of equal explanatory power, the one that adds less suppositions is to be preferred.

One can look at the Universe and say "It exists.". But the moment one looks at the Universe and says "It exists, and because of that it must have been made by a personified deity that cooked all this up and made us special beings in his image and yada yada yada" one has certainly added a truckload of suppositions, none of which are testable.

"Big Bangers can measure age by computing mass and velocity and employ a calculation for a flat or rounded Universe but they cannot account for the background radiation,"

Isn't that what the Big Bang is meant to address?

"they have to posit a great deal of matter that cannot be observed"

How does creationism account for this exactly?

"and they have the problem of the singularity at the "start""

This is a problem how? We can infer this from existing data.

"as well as the problem of stars. No one knows how a star is formed except through the collapse/explosion/death of other stars."

Source please...

"Darwinists do not have the time thing down pat either."

How exactly don't "Darwinists" have "the time thing down pat"? And while you're at it, how do "creationists" have "the time thing down pat"?

Anonymous said...

"The Words Obscure and Skepticism were two of the Ones in the Dictionary Describing Obfuscation and Incredulity. The Word Obfuscation was not Even in my Small, Hand Held, Electronic Dictionary. I Actually had to Turn the Pages of an Actual Real Book. Imagine that. lol. Sorry, the Dictionary did not have any Words that were Smaller."

dictionary.com is a handy resource.

Anonymous said...

"I'm Impressed by Evidence that does not Impress you. To me, Complexity is Evidence of Design. Never have I ever Thrown the Parts to a Motor Cycle in the Air and then Saw them Randomly Come Down Fully Assembled in a Very Complex and Functional Way. Complexity is Impressive."

This is an extremely simplistic version of the argument from incredulity. I say simplistic because you've handicapped yourself with a fairly large chunk of ignorance of current scientific understanding.

Your key error in the above is a common one among creationists, foisted upon them through endless propaganda. You're ignoring the crucial aspect of natural selection.

Anonymous said...

"It just so Happens that the Bible Stands up to Archaeological Scrutiny better than any other Holy Book."

It just so happens that the verifiability of some parts of the Bible (remember, it's an anthology of books by different authors, edited by others hundreds of years later) doesn't mean that all other parts of the Bible are true.

"Observation: The Bible Stands up better to Archaeological Scrutiny (Sorry, Big Words. Chuckle. lol) then any other Holy Book.
Hypothesis: Perhaps this is the Creation Story that's True."

Well, none of the creation story itself is archaeologically verified. Not one bit. And if you want to go with the young-Earth interpretation of Genesis, then it has been falsified conclusively in many different ways.

So this hypothesis goes out the window, unfortunately.

"You see, I don't Find anything Wrong with what I just Stated."

I'll point it out to you then. You've fallen for a logical fallacy called the fallacy of composition. ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition )

"Remember, an Observation does not have to be a Proven Fact, just a Suspicion based on Observation."

An observation has to be an observation; the "suspicion" you refer to would be the hypothesis.

Lista said...

Before I Read the Last 7 Comments, I Think I'll Submit some more of what I Wrote Earlier. I Wish I Knew how to not Respond to Everything, but I don't seem to.

In Response to Anonymous 11:20 PM
"When Radar attempts special pleading, he is indeed advocating that the principles of the scientific method are abandoned to make an exception for a particular interpretation of the Bible."

If there was an Earlier Understanding of the Scientific Method, or an Earlier Philosophy of Science, then he has a Valid Point.

Anonymous, 11:27 PM
"The problem is that fossils appear in a certain sequence over time, indicating a certain progression."

If you Mean by that the Way they are Found in the Layers, I can see how Simpler Animals are Drowned First and Show Up First in the Layers and the more Complex Animals are Stronger and Fight Off the Currents Longer before they Drown and appear in the Layers. This doesn't Sound Irrational to me at all.

To me, if there is a Problem, it is in the Rock Dating, yet I will Need to Study that more before Forming an Option on the Matter.

"'All Life is Similar because of a Common Creator.' Interesting hypothesis. Sadly untestable."

The Hypothesis that Similarity is there because of Evolution is also Untestable. It is Still True that Evolution between Biblical Kinds has not been Observed.

"'I Suppose that you also Think that Trains and Airplanes 'Evolved' from Cars.' No, that would be stupid."

Then Similarity is not enough of an Argument to Establish Evolution.

"You're talking about revealed knowledge, not empirical knowledge." (Context: Trains and Airplanes "Evolving" from Cars)

A Wise Hypothesis is Based on Observations that are made from what we already Know. The "Revealed Knowledge" that we are Talking about here has been Experienced and Observed and Observation has Everything to do with Science.

Anonymous, 11:41 PM
"Teaching side by side was not really the issue here."

For Intelligent Design Scientists it is and they were also Pushing for Evolutionism to just be Taught more Honestly. That is Admitting that this is just a Theory and not Established Fact and that there are Problems with it. To Claim that Everything has been Established would be a Deception and such a Deception should not be Taught in School.

I Guess I missed it when Radar Said that he had an Answer and they don't. To What? I'd have to Hear that One in Context. I Think that Creationists have a Much Better Explanation for the Origin of Life then Evolutionists do.

"ID is at least aiming for a more scientific approach, but even so has not yet been able to come up with a testable proposition that has actually been confirmed."

Woolf Admitted that there is such a Thing as Irreversible Complexity and that Makes your Statement Incorrect. They were not Trying to Establish all that they wish to eventually Establish by those IC Experiments, only that Irreversible Complexity Exists and Woolf has Admitted that it does. To Say Otherwise is Deceptive.

Anonymous, 11:44 PM
"He's claiming that it's been disproven or that the lack of it having been shown so far proves that it's impossible."

I never Heard Radar say that and if you are going to Accuse him of doing so, then you had Better Post an Exact Quote.

Anonymous said...

"If there was an Earlier Understanding of the Scientific Method, or an Earlier Philosophy of Science, then he has a Valid Point."

In that the scientific method should now allow special pleading for Christians? What's the valid point you think he's making exactly?

"If you Mean by that the Way they are Found in the Layers, I can see how Simpler Animals are Drowned First and Show Up First in the Layers and the more Complex Animals are Stronger and Fight Off the Currents Longer before they Drown and appear in the Layers. This doesn't Sound Irrational to me at all."

This is exactly one of those poorly thought out YEC "hypotheses" that doesn't hold up and doesn't actually explain the sorting in the fossil record at all. Jon Woolf also made this point with some of his questions.

Consider that you just had to make that up yourself, as did Radar with some of his attempts. There are allegedly creationist scientists out there, who have had hundreds, even thousands of years to ponder this issue - and there is no adequate creationist explanation for this phenomenon. None.

Then you look over at the theory of evolution (and modern geology with its old Earth consensus), and it explains it perfectly.

And then someone like you comes along, who by your own admission doesn't read "Evolutionist Stuff" and says there are two "equal explanations" that should be taught.

"To me, if there is a Problem, it is in the Rock Dating, yet I will Need to Study that more before Forming an Option on the Matter."

Please do. Here's a very Christian-friendly introduction: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html

"The Hypothesis that Similarity is there because of Evolution is also Untestable."

No, it is testable, thanks to the fossil record and DNA. We can trace the lineage of certain anatomical features etc. over time - and then see them reflected and confirmed in DNA.

"It is Still True that Evolution between Biblical Kinds has not been Observed."

Of course not, because that's not what the theory of evolution has ever claimed. The fossil record doesn't show dogs turning into cats, nor should it. This is simply creationists stumbling over their own strawmen and redefinitions and misunderstandings of the theory of evolution.

Anonymous said...

"A Wise Hypothesis is Based on Observations that are made from what we already Know. The "Revealed Knowledge" that we are Talking about here has been Experienced and Observed and Observation has Everything to do with Science."

If it has been experienced and observed, then it is empirical knowledge.

If you say it's true because this book says it - without any attendant empirical knowledge - then it's revealed knowledge.

"For Intelligent Design Scientists it is and they were also Pushing for Evolutionism to just be Taught more Honestly. That is Admitting that this is just a Theory and not Established Fact and that there are Problems with it."

"Just a theory" is an extreme entry-level argument in this debate, Lista. Please read up on what a scientific theory is.

"To Claim that Everything has been Established would be a Deception and such a Deception should not be Taught in School."

Some aspects of evolution are considered so thoroughly confirmed that they are deemed to be established fact. Evolution having taken place over millions of years in particular. Confirmed with mindnumbing regularity, and never once refuted or disproven. It would actually be deceptive to downplay this and pretend there is controversy about this basic aspect.

"I Guess I missed it when Radar Said that he had an Answer and they don't. To What? I'd have to Hear that One in Context."

Look upthread: "Meanwhile Darwinists cannot even get "off the ground" with no explanation for existence, life or information. So I would say you have some catching up to do."

"I Think that Creationists have a Much Better Explanation for the Origin of Life then Evolutionists do."

I can cook up an even better one over lunch, but it would be just as unsupportable and untestable as the creationist one. Here's one: "The whole world and all life within it was created four hours ago by a mysterious Grumph called Stimper." Can't disprove it, can you? No. Is it testable? Heck no. Is it scientifically interesting? Of course not. Does it explain how life was created? Well it says Stimper did it four hours ago, doesn't it? ... but what does that explain? Nothing.

The problem is that creationists only have a religious explanation, not a scientific one, and even that religious explanation falls apart because it is tied to a mythology that is falsified by observable facts.

Anonymous said...

Moi: "ID is at least aiming for a more scientific approach, but even so has not yet been able to come up with a testable proposition that has actually been confirmed."

You: "Woolf Admitted that there is such a Thing as Irreversible Complexity and that Makes your Statement Incorrect."

Woolf "admitting" such a thing does not make my statement incorrect. Note that he didn't provide any examples of actual irreducible complexity, and keep in mind that he made the point that sometimes the answer doesn't lie in something consisting of more simple parts that are joined together, but in a more complex arrangement from which things are taken away - i.e. he proposed another example of a type of evolutionary pathway that may explain things thought to be irreducibly complex.

If you want to make my statement incorrect, then show the testable ID propositions that have actually been confirmed.

BTW, the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex - it is actually quite reducible, as was pointed out earlier.

"They were not Trying to Establish all that they wish to eventually Establish by those IC Experiments, only that Irreversible Complexity Exists and Woolf has Admitted that it does. To Say Otherwise is Deceptive."

I have no idea what you're talking about here.

Moi: "He's claiming that it's been disproven or that the lack of it having been shown so far proves that it's impossible."

You: "I never Heard Radar say that and if you are going to Accuse him of doing so, then you had Better Post an Exact Quote."

Nah, I'm not going to bother. It's not a particularly controversial statement given Radar's claims on this blog. If he wants to deny that he's claimed that abiogenesis by natural means has been disproven, I'll go looking for exact quotes, but until then you can assume that Radar completely agrees with the above statement. Just ask him.

AmericanVet said...

The last six comments were complete propaganda.

First, evolution is not a proven fact by any means. In fact it has never been observed.

Second, the rock layers are not sequential and neither are the fossils, that is a myth perpetrated by Darwinists. Jon Woolf is no expert and I have posted numerous articles quashing that idea.

Also, the scientific method invented by Theists and Christians was never meant to exclude supernatural conclusions, only that tests would be done in the natural world because they must/. Neither Darwinists nor Creationists have a time machine to go back and observe origins so they must read evidence and make conclusions.

ID is an evidence-based scientific approach that ignores presuppositions of creation or spontaneous *poofs* and just looks at what we can see today. Today says design. Design and information are obvious in organisms.

I have not covered this subject much, but the Solar System is crushing evidence against evolution as well. We have gas giants that put out more energy than they take in, we have moons with active volcanoes, we have moons with almost no craters, moons with lots of craters, our Moon is receding at a rate that would put it sitting on the crust of the Earth 1.5 billion years ago and the Earth's magnetic field would be maxed out 20,000 years ago. The evidence keeps mounting against Darwinism.

Irreducible complexity is not falsified by that paper. I scanned it and will read it through thoroughly this weekend but so far it is just passing the buck.

In short, Lista summarized some major points nicely. The coup de grace for all of this is that the impossibility of spontaneous generation was proved by Pasteur and others well over 150 years ago and yet Darwinists by faith believe they will find a way to overturn a law that always tests true. This is a faith position and not a science position.

Darwinists see that there are irreducible systems everywhere and posit that they will find answers but again, that is a faith position and not a science position.

Archaelogists use the Bible as handbook in the Middle East and so that answer on that subject was completely ignorant and in the extreme. Genealogical records and population genetics say that the Bible is approximately correct. In fact, the millions upon millions of years that Darwinists want to give to the Earth is unsupported by the rocks on the ground as well as the Moon and the Sun. Someone who has a basic understanding of history has to admit that human history doesn't go back very far.

In fact so far in the areas I have addressed I have found that in all areas it is the Darwinist that takes the faith position and has less ammunition on their side. This even applies to the Universe. Despite the appearance of age, when we look at any particular system carefully we see no answers for Darwinists.

No source of comets.

No source of stars.

No source of an initial singularity to the Universe.

No controlling agent for the Big Bang to make it creative rather than destructive.

No explanation for the planets. Every single planet has big problems for astronomy. Planets with magnetic fields that should not have them. Planets with tilted orbits or tilted poles. Supposed cold, old moons with gushing volcanoes.

Yes, an honest scientist would say that, if we taught creation and evolution side by side the amount of faith needed for Darwinism is enormous because their primary crutch is just one thing - they eliminate God.

Anonymous sounded a lot like a Eugenie Scott - long on BS and short on corroborating evidence. Lista, so far your understanding surpasses the average commenter by a long shot. Their presuppositions are not supported by evidence but by sheer numbers of the brainwashed and those who cannot stomach the thought of a Creator God.

Lista said...

It Looks Like this Comment Thread is going to be Incredibly Hard to Keep Up with. I can't Even Seem to Finish what I Wrote awhile Back in my Word Processor in Relation to Earlier Comments. I Said that I had 4 Long Comments. This is Number 3.

Anonymous, 11:46 PM,
"Concluding the absence of something that can not be proved and has never been proved is neither inconsistent nor a fiction."

Ok, then Creationism is not an "Inconsistent Fiction" either and you have Spoken an Accusatory Untruth.

Anonymous, 11:49 PM,
In Regards to Motives, I have Apologized for my Mind Reading, Anonymous. Yes, that had to do with Motives, yet now that I have Apologized, there should be no Further Need for you to Bring it Up Again.

The Main Point that I was Making about the Big Words, though, was that they were Accusations of Radar that I do not Feel are Accurate.

Anonymous, 1:00 AM,
"How does one counter a theoretical claim? By positing a way in which the supposedly irreducibly complex object could, in theory, be reduced into smaller functional parts from which it could have evolved."

Woolf did not Explain how a Irreducible Complex Object can be Reduced to Functional Parts. He Explained how something more Complex could Be Reduced to that which was Irreducibly Complex. Playing with Words, Anonymous, does not Make Irreducible Complexity, Reducible. Woolf's Use of these Words was Accurate. Yours is not.

Besides, Creationists have Come Up with Multiple Theoretical Explanations for that which Evolutionists Consider Established, so by this Argument, Evolutionism is not a Science either.

"You've read the claim, but ignored how it was disproved, so you can't claim that it's incorrect to state that."

The Original Context of this, as well as that which you have Quoted from me has been Entirely Lost. This Screams "Out of Context" to me, but I'm too Tired to go back and Find it and Explain why.

In Relation to the Irreducible Complexity Idea, though, I have Read Woolf's Explanation and he does not Deny that Irreducible Complexity Exists, so at the Very Least, Evolutionists are not in Agreement on the Point you are Trying to Make.

Anonymous, 1:03 AM & 12:43 AM,
"This would be one of these empty authoritative statements that you accused 'trolls' of using, right?" and "Way to dodge the question there, Radar. Okay, so you're sticking with the empty authoritative statement. Wow, there's a surprise."

At the Point at which you had made these Comment, Anonymous, you hadn't Explained the Evidence behind your Claim either and were also Dodging, rather than doing so. Evolutionists Routinely Expect more from their Opponent then they themselves can Produce.

Anonymous, 1:12 AM,
"1. Kindly direct us to the creationist research that explains how DNA was formed. Oh. There is none. So would that be an "F--" then?"

God Created it. Ok, maybe a Theoretical Explanation, yet you don't have any more than that either.

Lista said...

I don't Know if I should Submit the Last of these Four Comments or not. Hopefully, I have not Submitted too much. Oh well. Here it is...

In Response to the Video, Anonymous, 1:12 AM,
"The Early Earth had Order of Magnitude. More: Time, Space, Complex Chemistry and Environmental Conditions."

Can you Prove that? Abiogenesis can't be Proved any more than the Existence of God can.

I'll Watch the Rest of that Later.

Anonymous, 1:28 AM,
"Wait, aren't you that guy that thinks evolution is disproven by bacteria still being bacteria in an experiment meant to confirm speciation?"

What an Experiment was "Meant to Confirm" and what it does Confirm can be Two Different Things, Anonymous, so your Accusation makes no sense. That's Like Saying that an Aneurysm that was Found in an Ex-ray that was "Meant to" Find Gull Stones does not Exist because that is not what the Ex-ray was "Meant to" Find.

This Comment was Actually Nothing more than a Side Stepping of Radar's Question, just as Radar has also Stated.

There has not Been a Large Amount of Actual Evidence and Information in the Comment Area from either Side, so you are Obviously Both Guilty of not Providing it Until more Recently.

Moving on to 9:40 AM. Are we back into Insulting again Anonymous? Stop Comparing Credentials. I just Want to Hear something that Makes Sense.

"Do you really think there's no material difference between an empty hard drive and one filled with data, just because they weigh the same?"

And just how Exactly to you Think that that Statement Proves Material Difference. Sure there may be Lazar Edging of Tiny Little Holes, yet the Fact that such is Understood as Information is a Mystery, at Least to me.

"Unfounded Speculation"

In my Opinion, People have a Tendency to Call that which they do not Believe, "Unfounded Speculation" and that which they do Believe Evidence. That's what I Keep Seeing Over and Over Again, when Equal Evidence is Provided by Both Sides.

The Statement "Given Enough Time…" is no Less Speculative or Empty and no More Founded than the Creation Idea.

Anonymous said...

Lista, careful, you are using logic now...

Yes, the God hypothesis is that He created DNA. Since the cell resembles to an extent a computer but on a scale more vast than the biggest auto factory on the planet with hardware, software, operating systems, meta-information and millions of functions running it certainly has all the appearances of design and there is no good reason to doubt that it is designed except on faith.

A Darwinist has faith that somehow, someway, these apparently designed things just happened. Not one *poof* without a trace but untold exponential billions upon billions of times that defy even calculation.

Meanwhile we have a Bible that is backed by historical evidence in that the people and events in it are shown to be real, the statements are accurate and in that Bible God asserts that He is the designer. Once you know how complex life really is, once you realize how young the Solar System must be, once you apply logic then you need vast faith to be a Darwinist. I couldn't do it now. Darwin thought cells were some kind of protoplasm. If he had known what we know I doubt he would have written his books.

Radar

Jon Woolf said...

"First, evolution is not a proven fact by any means. In fact it has never been observed."

Except when it has been: insecticide resistance in mosquitoes, new digestive abilities in lizards, venom enhancement in rattlesnakes, beaks and diets in finches...

And before you claim those aren't evolution, Radar: according to the definition that biologists use, yes they are.

"Second, the rock layers are not sequential and neither are the fossils, that is a myth perpetrated by Darwinists. Jon Woolf is no expert and I have posted numerous articles quashing that idea."

You have? I can recall only a few claims of fossils found out of sequence, but none that stand up under examination. I don't recall ever seeing you offer actual evidence that the fossil record as a whole is not sequential. Which is just as well for you, because anyone who has ever bothered to read primary material knows that it is. Every rock formation has its own distinctive set of fossils. You never find mixes of, say, Cretaceous fossils and Silurian fossils, or Devonian-type fossils together with Cambrian-type fossils. Nor do you ever find complex organisms below any possible ancestor for them - no elephants in Triassic rocks, or dolphins in Ordovician strata. Never happens. Not even once.

So I toss you the gauntlet, Radar. You claim the fossil record is not sequential -- well, show us. Show us some original papers documenting excavation of dinosaurs and advanced mammals side by side, from the same rocks. Show us dinosaur fossils found in situ in rocks previously identified as Pliocene or Miocene. Show us some flounder side by side with Devonian trilobites, or advanced ammonites found together with anomalocaridids. Or any similar combination.

AmericanVet said...

Gaunlet thrown back. Darwinists label the rock layers according to the fossis they contain so you guys rig the game. I have shown the world megabreccias and flows and polystrates and interbedding and crossbedding and rock layers completely out of the mythical order all over the world, all evidences for the Flood. You will not find mdern animals with dinosaurs because dinosaurs are probably extinct now. Speciation is how the kind is designed to react to changing environments.

So I have also shown the world numerous "Lazarus" taxa that are a problem for you, because you claim they disappeared and transformed into other beings and yet suddenly we find gladiator flies and wollemi pines and coelecanths? What happened to those "millions of years" when they disappeared? Well, they didn't disappear, they just didn't wind up in those layers due to when the layers were laid down during the Flood and thereafter.

Furthermore, every example you cite of "evolution" is just speciation. It is either traits being selected from the genome, broken systems that give an advantage in a select situation but is not normally viable, or you find gene transfer and loss. You do not find any evidence for any new information or new systems or new organs or new anything. This is because of the nature of reproduction. Reproduction preserves the kind by allowing for variation within the kind. That is all we see.

Finches? I thought your read and understood K & G? We now know that finch beaks can change swiftly because there are switches built into the genome to cause rapid beak changes. You need to go back and read through their findings.

Jon, you could get a job at the NCSE because you have their patter down cold. But your entire premise is built on the falsehoods of others. Mt. St. Helens was like a living laboratory to produce a Grand Canyon on 1/40th scale and hundreds and thousands of layers in very short time periods. We now know why the interbedding in the Grand Canyon happened because Ian Juby reproduced it in his flume studies and MSH also gave us similar formations in a matter of days.

I do not even buy the premises upon which your challenges are based. You cannot date layers by fossils and then challenge us to find Cambrian and Devonian together when there was no Cambrian or Devonian. There was pre-Flood, Flood, Flood runoff and post-Flood Ice Age mud rock layering.

Radar

Jon Woolf said...

You're squirming, Radar.

"I have shown the world megabreccias and flows and polystrates and interbedding and crossbedding and rock layers completely out of the mythical order all over the world..."

Such as? If it's really as obvious as you claim, then examples should be a dime a dozen. So name some. No more squirming, no more attempts to cover up or change the subject. Just a simple, straightforward answer to a simple, straightforward question.

"You cannot date layers by fossils and then challenge us to find Cambrian and Devonian together when there was no Cambrian or Devonian."

Of course I can. Keep in mind that "Devonian" and "Cambrian" and "Jurassic" were first given as descriptive names: they described the particular sets of fossils that occurred in certain rock strata. Only later did geologists figure out that the names corresponded to periods of time, and rocks could be identified using the fossils that occurred within them. If those descriptions are wrong -- if you can't identify and sort rocks by the sets of fossils that they contain -- then, again, examples of that should be a dime a dozen. You should be able to find something like, oh, a "Devonian" layer conformably overlying a layer with "Cretaceous" type fossils, or a "Miocene" layer above a "Triassic" layer and yet below a "Jurassic" layer.

Where are they?

AmericanVet said...

http://www.rae.org/revev2.html

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:wTNkBrREfJAJ:creationwiki.org/Geological_column+out+of+order+rock+layers&cd=29&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com (cached due to sql svr fail. An attack?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/do-rock-record-fossils-favor-long-ages

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2010/10/toppling-darwinist-geological-column.html

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2009/10/evolution-will-not-fly-first-five.html

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2011/01/rebooting-radaractive-reviewing-noahic.html

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2008/05/big-lie-number-2-evolution-is-accepted.html

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2010/02/csi-entific-method-megabreccias.html

I have written on this many times and I will do a nice picture post for the readers so they can see that Jon's geological column and fossil layering is mythical

AmericanVet said...

There are so many sites with representations of actual formations out of sequence in many ways, missing layers, layers in wrong places if Darwinism is true but perfectly normal for sedimentary flows...oh, yeah, these ARE sedimentary rocks! Where do these come from? Almost all but a few top layers are from catastrophic water events. Geologists know this but they do not like it. They talk about many local floods as if local floods could produce millions of tons of rock layer in one formation and even produce formations that span continents. And how do fossils form? By rapidly anaerobic burial..hmmm. We have so many millions of preserved fossils from the past. But where are the layers of opossums by the side of the road? Where are the fossils of deer in the forests of today? Where do we see fossils being formed in vast quantities and so quick and complete that jellies can be preserved and ripples and footprints and..oh. A FLOOD that covers the globe works. How much water is on the Earth today? If we flattened the planet it would cover the Earth with 1.5 miles of water. Oh.

Jon Woolf said...

You'd better find some better sources first. If this is all you got, then you got nothin'.

I've said more than once here that every time I chase down a creationist argument, I find it's wrong. Consider this another example of that. I went to this link:

http://www.rae.org/revev2.html

and read the first detailed example, of the Franklin Mountains in Texas. Then I did a web search on "Franklin Mountains geology." I got a whole stack of links with detailed geologic maps of the Franklins. They are 'fault block' mountains in which huge chunks of rock were thrust upward or sunk downward, putting Paleozoic and even Precambrian rocks atop Cretaceous rocks. The point here is that the older rocks were moved as a block over younger rocks, and there is a recognizable line of demarcation between the older rocks and the younger ones. In simple terms, this doesn't disprove the conventional view of the geologic column, as much as you might want to believe that it does.

I have no doubt that if I took the time to explore the other"examples" given, I would find the same thing.

Try again, Radar.

Lista said...

I don't Know what to do, you guys. I've Written Enough to Make 5 or 6 More Long Comments, I'm Way Behind on Responding and You Guys are Leaving me in the Dust. This Seems Never Ending, I'm Getting Tired and All I Keep Seeing is Comment After Comment After Comment of Faulty Reasoning and Logic, Incorrect Information and Hypocrisy.

Perhaps I should just Focus on some Highlights, rather then Doing this Systematically in Order.

The First Thing that Comes to Mind is what Anonymous Said at 6:47 AM (The Second of his Comments that is Stamped with this Time).

"If you say it's true because this book says it - without any attendant at empirical knowledge - then it's revealed knowledge."

Ok. I Never Said that. Creationism is Based on a Lot more besides just the Bible, Anonymous. The Bible is Only the Basis of the Hypothesis. To Claim that there's no more there than that is Major Misinformation. You're not an Honest Scientist, if you Make a Claim Like that. All I have to Do is Read One Creationist Article that Includes Actual Research and your Claim that it's Only Based on the Bible becomes Falsified. Even if my Reading has been Limited, Anonymous, you are Still Insulting my Intelligence. Perhaps you're the One who has some Reading to do.

*Sigh*

Moving Right Along, Ok, Maybe I will Start from the Top.

I'm now on Anonymous' Comment, Submitted at 9:40 AM. I Believe this was June 30th. Today is the 2nd. To Find where I Left Off, I Read that Comment Again and as I did, I'm brought back to that Same Quote Again.

"Do you really think there's no material difference between an empty hard drive and one filled with data, just because they weigh the same?"

The Computer is Actually a Good Example of what Might be Happening with DNA. You see, even though the Computer (In Inanimate Object) can Somehow Understand, or at Least Respond to, the Information, it can not Produce it. Without Input that's Produced or Created by the Intelligence of Man, the Computer could not Function.

"No, but a process of reproduction with variation can amass information through trial and error."

Amassing and Composing or Producing are Two Different Things, Anonymous.

My Concluding Statement in my Previous Comment is a Good One for this Comment and is Worth Repeating. "The Statement 'Given Enough Time…' is no Less Speculative or Empty and no More Founded than the Creation Idea."

Evolutionists Worship Time and Creationists Worship God and the Idea of Time Requires no Less Faith in Order to Believe in it.

Anonymous, 9:50 AM,
You Left a Link. If I can Ever Finish Responding to all of your Many Many Comments on this Thread, I may Actually Read it.

Did I Mention that I Agree with Radar that you Guys are also Dodging Questions? I also Agree with his Statement of "FINALLY!!" (American Vet, 10:18 AM)

And your Comment, "To be fair, Radar, it's not like these are closely guarded secrets." is just a Cop Out. (10:40 AM)

Oh Really O'Reilly,
"'Creation can not be Proved.' Nor, apparently, can it be researched. An "F--" it is."

When the Phrase "If given Enough Time..." Means Millions of Years, it can not be Researched either; Only Theorized about.

Well Excuuuuuse me for Initially Using the Word Statement, when I should have said Phrase. This Phrase Refers to Lots of Things, not just One, so no Single Sentence would do it Justice.

Creation can not be Proved and Neither can anything that an Evolutionists Qualifies with the Phrase "If Given Enough Time".

This IS a Statement of Equality, OR O'Reilly. For you to Focus Only on the First Part of it is Biased, Dishonest and a Hypocrisy. This also goes for Anonymous Whatsit, 1:48 PM

Lista said...

Perhaps I'll Work from the Front Now. That is the Most Recent Comments.

We are Now on the Comment of Jon Woolf, 6:35 PM.

I Think, Jon Woolf, that what Radar Means is that Evolution Between Kinds has Never Been Observed.

About Radar's Comment, 7:09 PM,
Don't Know Enough about the Sequential, or Non-Sequential Nature of Fossils to Get Involved in the Discussion the way I would Like to, yet I am Sensing a Word Definition Problem. Do both Woolf and Radar Define the Words Speciation and Evolution in the Same Way? If you don't, then you are Going to have Communication Problems.

A lot of Evolutionists Define all Forms of Natural Selection as Evolution, thus the Distinction between Micro and Macro Evolution. Even the Current Definition of Species, though, Confuses the Issue because with the Current Definitions as they are. Natural Selection within Species is Called Evolution and Speciation is Called Macro-Evolution, yet none of this Matters because what has not Been Observed is Evolution Between Kinds.

Radar is Right, though, that there is no New Information or New Systems or New Organs Produced and this is how he Appears to be Defining Evolution and these are the Things that have not been Observed.

Jon Woolf, 7:31 PM,
I Don't Think that Radar is Squirming. What he Said Made Sense to me.

Radar's Words: "You cannot date layers by fossils and then challenge us to find Cambrian and Devonian together when there was no Cambrian or Devonian."

Woolf's Words: "Of course I can. Keep in mind that 'Devonian' and 'Cambrian' and 'Jurassic' were first given as descriptive names. They described the particular sets of fossils that occurred in certain rock strata."

Don't you Get it?! This is the Very Premise that Radar Rejects. If the Layers were Formed more Quickly, then they Originally thought, then "Descriptive Names" Based on Rock Layers are no Longer Valid.

Radar/American Vet, 8:02 PM & 8:12 PM,
It's too Bad that you are so Long Winded, Radar. I could Really Learn a Lot from you if you were not, yet as it is, I Can't Read any of These Links. I just can't Take the Time. You've Provided an Over Selection that is too Overwhelming to be Helpful. Sorry for the Honesty, yet this is sort of something that you do Need to Know.

On a more Positive Note, the Sheer Number of Links that you Listed Says Something in and of itself.

Jon Woolf,
"Every time I chase down a creationist argument, I find it's wrong."

That's Exactly how I feel about a lot of Evolutionists' Arguments.

Basically all you have Said, Woolf, is that there is Another Explanation Besides the Creationists' One. Well, Guess What? There is also another Explanation Besides the Evolutionists' One. Deal with it.

Lista said...

Ok, Maybe I'll do just One More. I'm Back at the Top Again, with Oh Really O'Reilly's Comment, that he Left at 1:12 PM.

"Wow. Interesting. You really think the theory of evolution boils down to 'If Given Enough Time...'?"

Yes. Evolution within Kinds, or even within Species is not what I'm Talking About, though. The True Controversy Lies in that which Requires Massive Amounts of Time and Therefore, can not Be Proved, nor Even Researched. I have Read some about Speciation and it doesn't Concern me because it has nothing to Do with Evolution between Biblical Kinds.

American Vet, 1:47 PM,
Biogenesis is another thing that Depends on the Argument, "If Given Enough Time".

Anonymous Whatsit, 1:48 PM,
"The more pertinent competition is whether it can be confirmed."

The Same Definition of Words such as "Confirmed" and "Falsified" Need to be Applied to Both Sides Equally and I have a rather Strong Hunch that they have not been. The Bias of the Status Quo is what Dictates this and this Explains the Controversy Over rather or not Irreducibly Complexity has been Confirmed. After Reading Woolfs Comment, I would say Yes.

Jon Woolf, 3:07 AM,
"There are biochemical systems that are 'irreducibly complex'."

Back to Anonymous Whatsit, 1:48 PM,
"Even Lista seems to have understood that."

No. I would Never Claim that Everything about Creationism and ID has been Falsified. I haven't done enough Research to Know for sure rather YEC or Gap Creationism is more Likely to be Correct, yet Giving the Benefit of the Doubt on some of the Evolutionary Issues is not the Same as Admitting something has been Falsified.

"ID can present testable claims, none of which have been confirmed so far." and "And it has no research, no testable claims that aren't easily falsified."

Apparently, the Falsifying of Irreducible Complexity is Controversial. According to Woolf's Comment, the Existence of Irreducible Complexity has been Confirmed, not Falsified, so your Statement is Inaccurate, if not Down Right Deceptive, so my Plea for Equality Still Stands.

Perhaps I should be More Specific. Abiogenesis should not be Taught as if Superior to Creationism and the Specific Evolutionary Claim that all Life has Descended from a Single Ancestor should not be Taught as Superior to the Claim of the Creation of Biblical Kinds.

Anonymous Whatsit, 2:03 PM,
"2. The law of biogenesis has never confirmed (and is incapable of confirming) that non-life can not produce life."

Nor has it in any Way Confirmed that Non-Life Can Produce Life.

Radar: "Did God make things fully formed on Earth, like organisms? Of course."

Anonymous whatsit: "Here's another problem: what's the scientific evidence for this claim? How would you go about confirming this?"

My Response: This can not be Confirmed and yet, neither can the Claim that all Life Descended from a Common Ancestor. You see, this Continued Hypocrisy is Actually Getting Tiring.

"But the moment one looks at the Universe and says 'It exists, and because of that it must have been made by a personified deity'" Etc. Etc.

No One is Saying that. There is Far more Evidence than that. You have just Chosen not to see it.

"none of which are testable."

This is so Untrue and Repeating it a Million Times does not Make it True.

Jon Woolf said...

Lista: "Don't you Get it?! This is the Very Premise that Radar Rejects. If the Layers were Formed more Quickly, then they Originally thought, then "Descriptive Names" Based on Rock Layers are no Longer Valid."

I get it fine. You don't.

For this purpose, it doesn't matter how quickly the layers were formed. The system of naming rock strata has nothing to do with how quickly they were formed. It has to do with what fossils they contain, and (for the older ones) where they were first studied and described. Whether they were formed in a week, or a year, or a thousand years, or ten million years is irrelevant. The early geologists didn't pay any attention to such matters, because they had no way of telling how long it took a given rock layer to form.

The Jurassic Period is named for rocks that were first studied in the Jura Mountain region of Germany. The Permian Period is named for rocks that were first studied in the Perm Krai province of Russia. Rocks of the Devonian Period were first studied in Devonshire, England. And so on and so forth. Every geologic period from the Mesozoic and Paleozoic eras is named for the region where rocks from that period were first formally studied and identified.

Do you see where this is going? If not, I'll spell it out for you: The rocks are not named after the geologic periods -- the geologic periods are named after the rocks. The very names given to the geologic periods falsify Radar's claim that the fossil record is not sequential. In fact the geologic record is so highly and reliably sequential that fossiliferous rocks from anywhere on Earth can be assigned to particular geologic periods based on the fossils they contain. And this system of fossil correlation has never been wrong. Not even once.

Jon Woolf said...

Lista: "That's Exactly how I feel about a lot of Evolutionists' Arguments."

The difference, however, is that I go look at the primary data before I make up my mind. You don't.

"yet I am Sensing a Word Definition Problem. Do both Woolf and Radar Define the Words Speciation and Evolution in the Same Way? If you don't, then you are Going to have Communication Problems."

Congratulations. You've successfully fingered one of the basic problems with creationism and its attacks on science: creationists deliberately use flawed definitions of important terms, to make their attacks sound more plausible.

For example, your own line that "what has never been observed is evolution between kinds." What, exactly, is a "kind?" How do you tell if two organisms belong to different "kinds?" Like most creationists, Radar defines a "kind" in whatever way he must to avoid admitting that evolution "between kinds" is possible, and not a whit does he care if the definition he uses today is logically consistent with the one he gave yesterday.

Anonymous said...

Lista,

"Did I Mention that I Agree with Radar that you Guys are also Dodging Questions? I also Agree with his Statement of "FINALLY!!" (American Vet, 10:18 AM)

And your Comment, "To be fair, Radar, it's not like these are closely guarded secrets." is just a Cop Out. (10:40 AM)"

What exactly do you think the cop-out is?

It seems that you and Radar are more interested in scoring points in a personality-based debate instead of broadening your knowledge and finding answers to questions.

In this case, it's really not that hard to find information. If Radar had been interested in an answer to the question, he could easily have found it.

Anonymous said...

Radar,

"Irreducible complexity is not falsified by that paper. I scanned it and will read it through thoroughly this weekend but so far it is just passing the buck."

Since you lack the scientific education to understand it, it should be interesting to see how you'll try to evade this subject.

Anonymous said...

Lista,

"This [whether God made things fully formed on Earth, like organisms] can not be Confirmed"

True, which is why creation science is at a dead end.

"and yet, neither can the Claim that all Life Descended from a Common Ancestor. You see, this Continued Hypocrisy is Actually Getting Tiring."

No hypocrisy involved. The claim that all life descended from a common ancestor can be tested and verified, both in the fossil record and in DNA.

Anonymous said...

"No One is Saying that. There is Far more Evidence than that. You have just Chosen not to see it."

I choose to discard logical fallacies (this covers virtually all of Radar's posts on YEC), and once I've done that, YEC boils down to "the Bible says so".

If you want to include logical fallacies as solid evidence, I suppose it can look as if there actually is a case to be made for YEC.

Anonymous said...

Lista,

"Biogenesis is another thing that Depends on the Argument, "If Given Enough Time"."

Exactly what problem do you see with processes that may require a long time?

Anonymous said...

"The Same Definition of Words such as "Confirmed" and "Falsified" Need to be Applied to Both Sides Equally and I have a rather Strong Hunch that they have not been."

Your strong hunch unfortunately is wrong. If anything, creationists have overstated the evidence for YEC.

But by all means, pick something that commenters on this board have said is falsified or confirmed, and we'll go into detail. Right now, there are so many topics floating around that it's difficult to see the forest for the trees.

Anonymous said...

"[But the moment one looks at the Universe and says "It exists, and because of that it must have been made by a personified deity that cooked all this up and made us special beings in his image and yada yada yada" one has certainly added a truckload of suppositions,] none of which are testable."

"This is so Untrue and Repeating it a Million Times does not Make it True."

Rather than just saying it's untrue, how about presenting some testable assertions for the suppositions involving a personified deity?

Anonymous said...

"Irreducible complexity is not falsified by that paper. I scanned it and will read it through thoroughly this weekend but so far it is just passing the buck."

Yet another empty authoritative statement.

Radar, the paper reduced the supposedly irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum into smaller functioning parts along with a probable order in which they formed a bacterial flagellum. There's no "passing the buck" involved. It clearly falsifies the claim that the bacterial flagellum is an example of irreducible complexity.

If it is reducible, then it is not irreducible.

Anonymous said...

"Apparently, the Falsifying of Irreducible Complexity is Controversial. According to Woolf's Comment, the Existence of Irreducible Complexity has been Confirmed, not Falsified, so your Statement is Inaccurate, if not Down Right Deceptive, so my Plea for Equality Still Stands."

You seem very hung up on seeing what Woolf says as an absolute standard of what is true and what is not. Fine by me, but it doesn't make me deceptive if I point out that there are no known examples of irreducible complexity, and I'm not seeing any being presented here, not by you or Radar or Woolf or anyone else.

If there are examples of irreducible complexity, then what are they? Not the famous bacterial flagellum, that has been discarded for years now.

Jon Woolf said...

Well, there's the blood-clotting cascade, for one. Take away any of several parts, and it doesn't work. One specific malfunction of the blood-clotting cascade is called "hemophilia."

I recall reading that the Krebs cycle also qualifies: take away any one step, and the whole cycle fails. Though I could be wrong in that -- I am not well-versed in biochemistry, and there may be some new information on the subject in the last few years.

Just remember how I define "irreducibly complex:" take away any part and the whole system stops working. It doesn't mean the system couldn't be repaired or replaced, and it certainly doesn't mean the system couldn't have evolved by variation and selection.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"It doesn't mean the system couldn't be repaired or replaced, and it certainly doesn't mean the system couldn't have evolved by variation and selection."

That would explain the difference between what you're saying about irreducible complexity and what Lista wants to hear, namely that irreducible complexity that couldn't have evolved by variation and selection has been shown to exist.

Lista said...

I Guess I'll Respond to Woolf First. That is the Comments he Wrote at 6:59 & 7:07 PM Yesterday. Today is the 3rd of July.

Woolf,
"It has to do with what fossils they contain, and (for the older ones) where they were first studied and described."

The Minute you say, "For the Older Ones", you are Speaking from an Evolutionists' Mind Set.

Let me Get this Straight, though. The Jurassic Fossils were Found in Germany. The Permian Ones were Fund in Russia and the Devonian Fossils were Found in England. So Far this Sound Geographic, rather then Sequential.

"that fossiliferous rocks from anywhere on Earth can be assigned to particular geologic periods based on the fossils they contain."

You haven't Explained the Connection between the Fossils and the Time Period, Only between the Fossils and the Rocks. I'm Guessing it has to do with Rock Dating, yet you did not Actually say that.

"Congratulation. You've successfully fingered one of the basic problems with creationism and its attacks on science. Creationists deliberately use flawed definitions of important terms, to make their attacks sound more plausible."

The Confusion of Language is Very Common, Woolf. It is not Fair to Blame this One on Creationists, though. It is also not Fair to Use Language that is Biased in the Direction of the Status Quo.

Also, It is Easy to Deceive with Language. For Example, the Above Quote, the Word "Deliberately" Implies Motive, yet it is not Possible to really Know the Motives of Others. The Word "Flawed" is a Value Judgement when, In Fact, the Words Used by Evolutionists may have been Changed Over Time in order to Fit their Own Bias and the Phrase "its attacks on science" Implies that such Skepticism is Unfounded and yet that is a Matter of Biased Opinion.

I have Defined the Word "Kind" on my Blog. It is Based on Genesis. I'll Quote the Verses for you again in a Minute. I Know that I have Quoted these Verses before and even Given Definitions. If you Missed it, then Look at the Blog Post that I Recently did on the Subject. The Word Species has Changed and that is the Reason for this New Added Word, "Kind".

"Like most creationists, Radar defines a 'kind' in whatever way he must to avoid admitting that evolution 'between kinds' is possible."

This is not Unlike the Way in which the word "Species" was Redefined in Order to Show that Speciation does Occur. Like Usual, your Accusation is a Hypocrisy. When Words are Controlled Only by those on One Side of an Argument, this is not a Fair Playing Field.

"The difference, however, is that I go look at the primary data before I make up my mind. You don't."

This is Because you Guys are Throwing too Many Links at me at Once and I'm too Busy Correcting Faulty Logic and Hypocrisies to have Time to Read the Links.

I have, however, Read Most of the Links that have Come to me on my Own Blog because those have Come at a Much Slower Pace. BB-Idaho has been Quite Helpful at Giving me Links that are Shorter and at Talking to me about One Issue at a Time, rather then Expecting me to Become an Expert on Multiple Issues Right Away, Over Night.

In your Last Comment, Woolf, 1:32 PM, you Appear to be Listing Irreducibly Complex Systems and Admitting again that they are Irreducible. I'll have to Study Variation and Selection in Relation to Irreducible Complexity. Thanks again for your Honesty.

I am Over Whelmed, though, with Things that I Need to Look Up and I Will not allow you to Make me Feel Bad because I do not do this Research at a Pace that you would Find Acceptable.

Lista said...

More for Woolf,
I'm Still Shaking my Head at your Hypocrisy, as Pointed Out in my Previous Comment.

Here is the Link that Explains how the Word Species has Changed...

Fixity of Species

And Here is the Verse in Genesis about Kinds...

"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)

And here is the Link to the Post on My Blog that Explains in more Detail the Definition of "Kinds", as well as "Baraminology"...

Baraminology in Response to Biased Biological Classification & Definitions

Anonymous,
Who Ever you are, you are the One who is Over Whelming me. I Still have Three Long Comments in my Word Processor that have been Prepared for Delivery and a Good Portion of what is there was Written in Response to you and Points Out your Massive Amounts of Faulty Logic and Hypocrisy.

I haven't Even Read your Most Recent Comments from Today. Perhaps I won't even Bother, since your Comments are so Full of Hypocrisy anyway and you will not Slow Down so that I can Keep Up with the Pace at which you Post this Endless Nonsense.

Anonymous Whatsit, 1:42 PM,
Thanks for Identifying yourself as someone Other than the other Anonymous. Because of this, I will Respond to you.

"That would explain the difference between what you're saying about irreducible complexity and what Lista wants to hear, namely that irreducible complexity that couldn't have evolved by variation and selection has been shown to exist."

No. That's not True. I've Heard Exactly what I Wanted to Hear, which is that Irreducible Complexity does Exist and therefore, the Hypothesis behind the Research has been Confirmed and therefore, Intelligence Design in a Science.

Just because Evolutionists also have an Explanation based on "Variation and Selection", does not Change the Fact that the Mere Existence of Irreducible Complexity has been Confirmed and therefore, anyone who Claims this is not a Science has either been Deceived or is being Deceptive.

Lista said...

You Know, I got Thinking about this and have Decided to Post Everything that is Stored in my Word Processor that Relates to a Commenter other than the One Particular Anonymous that Posts so much that I can't Respond to it all. So here it is...

Anonymous Whatsit, 2:03 PM,
"How exactly don't 'Darwinists' have 'the time thing down pat'? And while you're at it, how do 'creationists' have 'the time thing down pat'?"

I Believe the Word "Either" Implies that Neither Group has it Down Pat. Your Above Statement is a Statement of Arrogance, for to Claim that you Know ALL the Answers in Relation to Time is Absolutely Ludicrous, so you don't have it "Down Pat".

American Vet, 7:37 AM,
"First, evolution is not a proven fact by any means. In fact it has never been observed."

Be Careful of your Words, Radar. To them, Natural Selection, even within Species, is a Form of Evolution. I Think what you Mean is that Evolution Between Kinds has Never been Observed.

"Also, the scientific method invented by Theists and Christians was never meant to exclude supernatural conclusions, only that tests would be done in the natural world because they must. Neither Darwinists nor Creationists have a time machine to go back and observe origins so they must read evidence and make conclusions."

I Liked that Paragraph, as well as "Design and information are obvious in organisms."

The Rest of your Comment was Excellent as well.

"Lista, so far your understanding surpasses the average commenter by a long shot."

Really?! Wow! Thank You.

Actually, I Like this Paragraph too...

'"Meanwhile we have a Bible that is backed by historical evidence in that the people and events in it are shown to be real, the statements are accurate and in that Bible, God asserts that He is the designer. Once you know how complex life really is, once you realize how young the Solar System must be, once you apply logic, then you need vast faith to be a Darwinist. I couldn't do it now. Darwin thought cells were some kind of protoplasm. If he had known what we know, I doubt he would have written his books." (Anonymous/Radar, 11:21 AM)

Jon Woolf said...

Lista: "The Minute you say, "For the Older Ones", you are Speaking from an Evolutionists' Mind Set."

Actually, no I wasn't. I was thinking of when the rock groups were named, not when they were laid down. In general, the periods of the Mesozoic and Paleozoic Eras were named in the early 1800s, and those are the ones that are (mostly) named after local geographic features. The various sub-units of the Cenozoic Era - Paleocene, Eocene, Oligocene, and so on -- were named more recently, using pseudo-Greek composites.

"Let me Get this Straight, though. The Jurassic Fossils were Found in Germany."

Not quite. The Jurassic Period is named for the Jura Mountains in Germany because the Jura Mountains are where Jurassic-level rocks were first formally identified and described. But there are other rock layers all over the world that contain similar fossils to the Jura Mountains rocks. Because of that, those other rocks have been assigned to the same geological division: the Jurassic Period.

Jon Woolf said...

"You haven't Explained the Connection between the Fossils and the Time Period, Only between the Fossils and the Rocks. I'm Guessing it has to do with Rock Dating, "

You guessed wrong. Almost all the major geologic periods were named in the early 1800s, long before there was any such thing as a geologic time scale or any methods of dating rocks. The sequence went something like this:

1) Geologists study rocks in a certain location -- let's stick with the same example, and say the Jura Mountains in Germany.

2) These geologists determine that these rock formations, with their particular combinations of fossils, don't match any of the already-known formations. They're new. So they need a name.

3) The custom is to derive a name from the location, so "rocks of the Jura Mountains" becomes "Jurassic rocks".

4) Other geologists working in other locations find rocks with fossils that are similar to these Jurassic rocks and their fossils.

5) Because of this similarity, these other rocks are also assigned to the Jurassic.

6) over time it becomes clear that there's a pattern here. The various rock groups always appear in the same order. If there are both Jurassic and Triassic rocks, then the Jurassic rocks are always above the Triassic rocks. If there are both Jurassic and Cretaceous rocks, then the Jurassic rocks always lie below the Cretaceous rocks. And so on. (There are exceptions to this, but we won't go there yet.)

7) eventually, other geologists put all of this data together and assemble "the geologic column." From bottom to top: Precambrian, Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous(a.k.a. Mississippian and Pennsylvanian), Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, Paleocene, Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene, Pliocene, Pleistocene, Holocene (a.k.a. Recent).

Note that I haven't said one word about ages or dating. This is all about which rocks and fossils lie above, and which rocks and fossils lie below. Take away the entire concept of radiometric dating, and the geologic column still stands strong, without so much as a shiver.

Jon Woolf said...

"It is not Fair to Blame this One on Creationists, though."

Actually it is. When scientists say "evolution means the gradual change of life over many generations through variation and selection" and Radar says "evolution means lifeforms just poofed into existence," then Radar is indeed guilty of misusing language. Because that is not what "evolution" means.

If you want to discuss science, you have to use the language and concepts of science.

"It is also not Fair to Use Language that is Biased in the Direction of the Status Quo."

Life's not fair. Get used to it.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Your Above Statement is a Statement of Arrogance, for to Claim that you Know ALL the Answers in Relation to Time is Absolutely Ludicrous, so you don't have it "Down Pat"."

And where do you think I did any such thing?

Anonymous whatsit said...

"No. That's not True. I've Heard Exactly what I Wanted to Hear,"

Priceless.

"which is that Irreducible Complexity does Exist"

Here's the part you don't want to hear: when Woolf talks about IC, what he means is "if you take away any part of the arrangement, it no longer works". What IDers (and you) add automatically is the crucial part "and can therefore not be explained by evolution".

Woolf "admitted" the former, not the latter.

"and therefore, the Hypothesis behind the Research has been Confirmed and therefore, Intelligence Design in a Science."

Examples of arrangements that no longer function if a part is removed are not sufficient to support ID claims. The impossibility of having evolved must also be demonstrated.

"Just because Evolutionists also have an Explanation based on "Variation and Selection", does not Change the Fact that the Mere Existence of Irreducible Complexity has been Confirmed"

Actually it does change that "fact".

Let me break it down for you:

IDers claim that something is an example of irreducible complexity and can therefore not be explained by evolution and thus requires an intelligent designer.

Scientists point out a way in which it can be explained by evolution, and so it actually does not require an intelligent designer.

If IDers have an example of IC that can not be explained by evolution, what is it?

Anonymous whatsit said...

Lista, for someone who complains incessantly about other people commenting too much, has it occurred to you that you're quite prolific yourself?

Do you expect people not to respond to your comments?

"This is Because you Guys are Throwing too Many Links at me at Once and I'm too Busy Correcting Faulty Logic and Hypocrisies to have Time to Read the Links."

Funny how you can be hypocritical in the same sentence in which you accuse others of exactly that - a kind of meta-hypocrisy.

Exactly who do you think has been putting up all the links in this comment thread that feature faulty logic?

The evolution side has put up one or two (I'm not going to go through the whole comment thread again), and their logic and correctness has not been attacked.

Lista said...

Woolf,
"Almost all the major geologic periods were named in the early 1800s, long before there was any such thing as a geologic time scale or any methods of dating rocks."

Why then are they Named "Periods", rather than Simply Rock layers?

At First, all the Scientists Knew was that Certain Types of Fossils are Embedded in Certain Types of Rocks.

"The various rock groups always appear in the same order."

That's sort of Interesting.

"variation and selection"

Didn't that used to be called "Natural Selection"? Just Asking.

"'It is also not Fair to Use Language that is Biased in the Direction of the Status Quo.' Life's not fair. Get used to it."

In the Context of this Discussion, we are not Talking about Fairness in Relation to Equality vs. Control. In this Context, we are Talking about the Quest for Truth. Truth can not be Found when the Rules Applied to the Quest are Based on an Unequal, or Unlevel Playing Field. In this Context, Unfairness will Lead to Distortion and Deception, not Truth.

Anonymous Whatsit,
"And where do you think I did any such thing? (Quote from 9:20 PM)

You Implied that you have the Answers "Down Pat" and that is like Saying that you have all the Answers.

"How exactly don't 'Darwinists' have 'the time thing down pat'?" (Quote from Anonymous Whatsit, at 2:03 PM)

Which is a Claim that Darwinists do have it Down have it "Down Pat". A more Accurate Response to the Original Claim, from Radar, that Darwinists do not have the Time Thing "Down Pat" is that No One does. So What?

"Here's the part you don't want to hear: when Woolf talks about IC, what he means is 'if you take away any part of the arrangement, it no longer works'."

Right. That is what Irreducible Complexity is.

"What IDers (and you) add automatically is the crucial part 'and can therefore not be explained by evolution'. Woolf 'admitted' the former, not the latter."

All you are Doing, Whatsit, is Changing the Subject Away from the Point that I was Making, for if Irreducible Complexity Exists, which Woolf (an Evolutionist) Admits to, then the Hypothesis of the Irreducibly Complex Experiments was Confirmed and those who say that Intelligent Design is not a Science are Stating Incorrect Information and are not being Honest.

Anything at all that you Add to that Distracts from my Point, for the Rest is Irrelevant to the Point being Made. The "Former", that Woolf Admits to, is Relevant to my Point, the "Later", that you Keep Stressing, is not.

"Examples of arrangements that no longer function if a part is removed are not sufficient to support ID claims."

Maybe, but the Hypothesis was Confirmed and the Rest of what you're Saying is Irrelevant to the Point I'm Making.

Lista said...

More for Whatsit,
"The impossibility of having evolved must also be demonstrated."

That Expectation is Unrealistic. For this to be a Level Playing Field, you would also then have to Demonstrate that Creation is an Impossibility. Truth can not Be found if the Playing Field is not a Level One.

We are not Talking about what Intelligent Design Scientist Claim, Whatsit. We are Only Talking about the Hypothesis of a Particular Set of Experiments and you are Determined to Add that which is not Relevant to the Point I am Making.

Creationists also have Alternate Explanations for Things that Evolutionist say are Confirmed and Established, so if we are to Apply the Same Rules to them, as you have to Creationists, then a lot of their Claims are not Confirmed either. If the Rules are not the same for both groups and the Playing Field is not a Level One, then the Truth will Never be Found.

Yes, I'm Long Winded too, yet I was sort of Assuming that you Guys are probably all Fast Readers. If you are Over Whelmed, just say so and I'll Slow Down for you.

"The evolution side has put up one or two (I'm not going to go through the whole comment thread again), and their logic and correctness has not been attacked."

That is a Very Careless Inaccuracy, Whatsit.

There are Links within the Following Comments: Anonymous/Canacklehead 3:16 PM, 5:01 PM, 10:37 AM, 3:22 PM, Anonymous 1:12 AM, 9:50 AM, 11:41 PM, 6:47 AM; and Woolf 8:26 PM. 9 Links is Quite a Few More than One or Two. Ok, Yes, Radar went a Little Nuts in his Comment (American Vet, 8:02 PM), but I can not be Held Responsible for his Links and Called a Hypocrite based on his Behavior. I have Only Left 2 Links and they were Submitted at 3:26 PM.

Since the Comments Contain Large Amounts of Faulty Logic, Whatsit, what Reason do I have to Trust the Links, or to Even Bother to Spend my Precious Time Reading them all?

Woolf Only Left One on this Thread and I'm Starting to Respect him, since he has Shown Evidence of some Level Intellectual Honesty. Perhaps his is the Link I should Read, so Before I Close, I want to say something Complementary to him. Woolf, you are the One who has been the most Informative. I'm Actually Learning Things from you. Thank You.

To the Rest, I say, Impress me with your Comments First and then I will Consider Reading your Links.

AmericanVet said...

Odd that this post lives on and on like a vampire and no one has the correct wooden stake.

LISTA is right on in her logical dissection of the comments thread. I do give Woolf credit for producing a paper but, having read it, found it did not address the problem. There are about 40 components at minimum that are part of the e. coli motor that no other system in another bacteria contains. Each component needs information to make it and more information to oversee it and even more information to do on-the-fly replace and repairs. You see, this particular motor can instantly reverse, is repaired on the fly while still operating and is a marvel we humans cannot reproduce. No Darwinist has come close to presenting any other system that could make the leap to beoome this one. I have seen some systems that may be incomplete version of this one, broken or purposeful I cannot be sure.

Lista said...

Well, Even though I'm Finding this to be Quite Tiring, Perhaps I'll Try to Submit One more Comment to the Long Winded Anonymous. It Looks Like I Still have 4 Long Comments in my Word Processor that were Written in Response to him.

Anonymous, 11:17 PM,
"Dictionary.com"

Thanks, I'll Try it Sometime, Though Sometimes I get too Many Computer Windows Open at Once and so it's Easier to Use what is in my Hand from the Non-Computer World.

Anonymous, 11:26 PM,
You Know, I was Actually Expecting you to say something similar to what you said in this Comment, for Natural Selection is not Actually Random.

The Irreducibly Complex Argument is Quite Impressive, though, and the Existence of Complexity, by itself, Implies such a Large Time Frame that it can not be Observed, any more then Creation can.

Anonymous, 11:41 PM,
Nothing that you have Said Makes my Statement, as Quoted again below, False.

"It just so Happens that the Bible Stands up to Archaeological Scrutiny better than any other Holy Book.

"Observation: The Bible Stands up better to Archaeological Scrutiny....then any other Holy Book.
Hypothesis: Perhaps this is the Creation Story that's True."


There is Nothing Wrong with my Hypothesis, as Stated. It doesn't have to be Verified to Remain a Hypothesis, for it has not been Falsified either, Especially if you Consider the "Gap Theory"

"Remember, an Observation does not have to be a Proven Fact, just a Suspicion based on Observation."

Oophs! I Wrote that Wrong. It should Read, "A Hypothesis does not have to be a Proven Fact, just a Suspicion based on Observation."

Now I'm on Anonymous, 6:47 AM,
"In that the scientific method should not allow special pleading for Christians? What's the valid point you think he's making exactly?"

Calling it "Special Pleading", rather than an Argument, is a Judgment Based on your Bias. The Point is that that which was Changed to Fit someone's Bias is not a Valid Change and the Original Understanding should be Returned to.

"This is exactly one of those poorly thought out YEC 'hypotheses' that doesn't hold up and doesn't actually explain the sorting in the fossil record at all." and "Then you look over at the theory of evolution (and modern geology with its old Earth consensus), and it explains it perfectly."

You Expect me just to Believe you. There is Only so Much that I can Read, Anonymous. As Long as Creationists who are also Experts are saying something Different then you are, all that you say is Suspect.

You have not Explained anything so that I can Understand it. Fortunately for you, though, Woolf did a much better job at this then you did and he did it is a Limited Number of Words.

"No, it is testable, thanks to the fossil record and DNA."

The Only Thing that you can Test is the Similarity, not that this Means Evolution, especially not Between Kinds.

"Of course not, because that's not what the theory of evolution has ever claimed."

Evolution Claims that All Life has Descended from One Common Ancestor. This is in Direct Conflict with the Descended from Created Kinds Idea.

AmericanVet said...

Darwinsts who are naturalist materialists must have an explanation for all of existence to have a worldview. Most of them seem to be naturalistic materialists, which is why "Nothing exploded and became everything" is more palatable to them than "God created" despite the fact that God is a reasonable explanation that fits the evidence much better.

A survey of the rock records shows us that the fossil record was built and controlled by Darwinists who originally thought we had an eternal Universe and millions of years of life on Earth. Like the geological column, their version of the fossil order is myth. They set up strawman arguments but in fact the rock layers are not what they say they are. All are catastrophic, they are sorted mostly by level where the organisms would usually live and there are layers produced after the Flood with very different speciated kinds. Nevertheless you can find areas where flow has obviously aligned fossils and so many other problems I have made many, many posts showing how bad their science is in this field.

Darwinists do not want to understand the Flood and they do not want to consider the post-Flood Ice Age glacial meltdown/superstorm period either. How do you think Mammoths get frozen in place with food in their mouths and stomachs? Long ages?

LISTA, I can recommend one book. If you get and read a copy of Refuting Evolution 2 you'll see brief and brilliant presentations of Darwinist arguments and where they fall apart. I just got my copy and began reading and I saw it was a gold standard for basic creation versus darwin topics.

Lista said...

Hi Radar,
Because your Posts are so Long, it is Difficult for me to Move to a more Current Comment Thread and I am Probably the One who is Continually Aggravating the Vampire.

I Still have 3 Long Comments in my Word Processor that Have Never been Delivered. My Desire to Finish my Thoughts may be another Part of the Vampire that doesn't want to die. Perhaps I should just Let it Go, but for some reason, it's Hard.

"the e. coli motor"! I'm going to Try and Remember that one.

While I'm Still here, there is One Thing that Anonymous Said that has Particularly Bothered me. I Guess it Bothers me Considerably how they all so Disrespectfully Insult you.

Here's what I Wrote...

Anonymous, 10:45 AM,
"Since you" (Spoken to you, Radar) "lack the scientific education to understand it, it should be interesting to see how you'll try to evade this subject."

You see, Anonymous, that is an Unfair Accusation. You are Assuming that he doesn't Understand it and that he will Try and Evade it. For Goodness Sakes, this is the 4th of July Week End. Give the Poor Guy a Chance to Read without all this Pressure.

Anonymous, 12:09 PM,
Radar's Words:
"Irreducible complexity is not falsified by that paper. I scanned it and will read it through thoroughly this weekend but so far it is just passing the buck."

Anonymous's Words: "Yet another empty authoritative statement."

My Guess is that what you just said is an "Empty Authoritative Statement"

We'll see what Radar Says after Reading the Article. Meanwhile, Woolf Mentioned another Couple of Irreducibly Complex Systems.

I guess I should just Repeat what I Said in Relation to an earlier Comment, "This is the 4th of July Week End. Give the Poor Guy a Chance to Read without all this Pressure."

See, Anonymous, he did Read it and Did Respond. You are so Brutal with your Insults.

Lista said...

That which I was Copying from my Word Processor was Probably Written on Saturday, over the 4th of July Weekend. Today is Wednesday, the 6th.

Thanks, Radar, for Holding your Ground, for these Guys can be Quite Deceptive.

AmericanVet said...

Lista,

Thanks for your defense of the poor blogger. I don't feel pressured actually. My primary communication is by blog posts. I know that I will be attacked personally in every way to take the attention away from the information presented. People who have read me for awhile know that I actually know what I am talking about with the exception of following through on the math. I have a couple of friends who can hash that out when necessary. But one is at Microsoft writing code for the summer, one is hunting IEDs in Afghanistan at the moment and the third guy is working over the summer down by the campus but not living there so he is not easy to grab.

My oldest son calls me the "human calculator" because I can do arithmetic in my head so fast but I despise long equations with symbols and constants, especially when they are unknown "constants" thrown in when the actual number is uncertain. For instance one calculation representing the Big Bang had unknown fudge-factor symbols representing about 96% of the Universe as undetected and therefor uncertain. When a Darwinist says any portion of his naturalistic materialistic worldview is "proven scientific fact" time to reach for your intellectual wallet.

Lista said...

Well, I Appreciate it when you Communicate in the Form of a Comment Once in Awhile because I am a Slow Reader and have not been Able to Read more then a Few of your Blog Posts, so I do Thank You for the Times when you have Left Comments.

According to Scohen, Science does not Prove anything. It Only Confirms. It would be Nice, though, if the Rules for Confirming Things were the same for those on Both Sides of the Issue.

AmericanVet said...

"Lista said...
Well, I Appreciate it when you Communicate in the Form of a Comment Once in Awhile because I am a Slow Reader and have not been Able to Read more then a Few of your Blog Posts, so I do Thank You for the Times when you have Left Comments.

According to Scohen, Science does not Prove anything. It Only Confirms. It would be Nice, though, if the Rules for Confirming Things were the same for those on Both Sides of the Issue."


Yes! Darwinists work overtime censoring and stifling dissent and trying to get Creationists fired and blackballed because they do not want people to see both sides of the issue. I cannot tell you how many times I have seen the light enter in the eyes of students when they comprehend that concept.

Scientific American was established by a Creationist seeking to promote knowledge. Now it is a propaganda machine. The NCSE is entirely devoted to keeping ID and Creationist information from students and teachers. The ordinary news media don't know any better and channels like NatGeo and Discovery just crank out the propaganda with every show. I watch them, filter out the Darwinist stuff and just learn the actual evidence part.

Brilliant scientists like Guillermo Gonzalez and David Coppedge have had their ordinary careers ruined by the prejudice of Darwinists. Lately those situations have begun to change, though, because now people like Coppedge will file suit and win in court.

Science can't be settled in court. But America is supposed to be a free country. When Creationists and ID scientists are no longer treated like Medgar Evers back in the Jim Crow days then the chains of prejudice and ignorance and oppression will be loosed and science will go back to basing knowledge on evidence rather than religion. Prejudice and censorship are areas for the courts to rule and right now that is a front line in the war for academic freedom.

People like Jonathan Sarfati are the Martin Luther King, Jr.s of this battle for science. We are being dragged back into axiomatic ignorance by Darwinists and this needs to stop!

Jon Woolf said...

Lista: "Why then are they Named "Periods", rather than Simply Rock layers?

At First, all the Scientists Knew was that Certain Types of Fossils are Embedded in Certain Types of Rocks."

Once upon a time, they weren't called "periods" at all. If you delve into old geology tomes, the kind that you only find in the musty back halls of university libraries and very good used-bookstores, you'll find many references to "systems" of rocks -- the Jurassic System, the Triassic System, the Ordovician System. "System" is the term that geologists use for a large set of rock layers that are connected by containing similar fossils. It was only much later, after lots of fieldwork and labwork, that geologists made the connection between systems of rocks and periods of time, and began to speak of the Ordovician Period, Triassic Period, Cretaceous Period, and so on.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"And where do you think I did any such thing? (Quote from 9:20 PM)

"You Implied that you have the Answers "Down Pat" and that is like Saying that you have all the Answers."

Huh? And where do you think I implied that I have the answers "down pat"?

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Which is a Claim that Darwinists do have it Down have it "Down Pat". A more Accurate Response to the Original Claim, from Radar, that Darwinists do not have the Time Thing "Down Pat" is that No One does. So What?"

I'd still like to have Radar explain what on Earth he's referring to with this "time thing".

Anonymous whatsit said...

"All you are Doing, Whatsit, is Changing the Subject Away from the Point that I was Making, for if Irreducible Complexity Exists, which Woolf (an Evolutionist) Admits to, then the Hypothesis of the Irreducibly Complex Experiments was Confirmed and those who say that Intelligent Design is not a Science are Stating Incorrect Information and are not being Honest.

Anything at all that you Add to that Distracts from my Point, for the Rest is Irrelevant to the Point being Made. The "Former", that Woolf Admits to, is Relevant to my Point, the "Later", that you Keep Stressing, is not."

Entirely wrong, my dear, because IDers don't bring up irreducible complexity just because they feel like it. They bring it up because they claim evolution can't explain it, and therefore a designer must be credited.

That is why, as soon as evolution can explain it, the particular case in question falls apart.

Now I'd like to correct a few falsehoods in your statement above:

1. I was not changing the subject away from the point you were making, I was correcting your faulty logic.

2. Woolf did not admit the existence of any kind of irreducible complexity that can not be explained by evolution, yet this is exactly what you so fervently seek, even if you don't realize it. You're being dishonest (or gullible) by pretending that he confirmed what IDers have been failing to find so far.

Much as you are hung up on Woolf "admitting" this, if you think he's right, then please present an example of irreducible complexity that evolution can not explain.

3. "the Hypothesis of the Irreducibly Complex Experiments was Confirmed"

What exactly is the "Hypothesis of the Irreducibly Complex Experiments"? And what are these experiments?

4. "those who say that Intelligent Design is not a Science are Stating Incorrect Information and are not being Honest"

What are the testable claims made by ID, and how are they confirmed? If you don't have an answer for that, you can't pretend that ID is a science.

5. "Anything at all that you Add to that Distracts from my Point, for the Rest is Irrelevant to the Point being Made."

No, it corrects you on a crucial line that you're trying to blur. One could speculate that you're doing this dishonestly, but I suspect that you bear no ill will and are simply confused.

6. "The "Former", that Woolf Admits to, is Relevant to my Point, the "Later", that you Keep Stressing, is not"

What, just because you're eager to "win" an argument?

The "Former" is the existence of irreducibly complex systems defined as systems that cease to function if you take away any part. Are these proof of design all by themselves? No. (Although it's difficult even finding examples of these.)

The "Latter" is the existence of irreducibly complex systems that cease to function if you take away any part and that can not be explained by evolution in any plausible way.

If one of these were found, Lista, then ID would have a powerful case. That's why these are highly relevant.

I hope this makes it clearer for you.

Anonymous said...

""Since you" (Spoken to you, Radar) "lack the scientific education to understand it, it should be interesting to see how you'll try to evade this subject."

You see, Anonymous, that is an Unfair Accusation. You are Assuming that he doesn't Understand it and that he will Try and Evade it. For Goodness Sakes, this is the 4th of July Week End. Give the Poor Guy a Chance to Read without all this Pressure."

There's no shame in not having the scientific education not to understand something. There is, however, shame in pretending that one has such knowledge when one doesn't.

Radar can take all the time he wants with his analysis of the paper. This isn't a speedreading contest. But in case you didn't notice, the above prediction has already come true, and Radar has already tried to evade the issue in subsequent comments.

Anonymous said...

"Meanwhile, Woolf Mentioned another Couple of Irreducibly Complex Systems."

Did you notice how he didn't mention any that weren't explainable by evolution?

Is there a reason why you insistently keep evading this pretty crucial aspect?

I've seen you claim before that you knew quite a lot about ID, but I don't understand why this part should be such a puzzlement to you.

Anonymous said...

Moi: "No, it is testable, thanks to the fossil record and DNA."

Lista: "The Only Thing that you can Test is the Similarity, not that this Means Evolution, especially not Between Kinds."

It seems to me that you think that we can only look at organism X and organism Y as they exist today and examine the similarities and differences between them.

I can see how you could arrive at this misconception if you restrict your reading to creationist sources.

It's not true, however. You can also observe and examine the interrelationships between various organisms over time and use them to test scientific claims, specifically common descent.

In the fossil record, you can see what organisms existed before and after what other organisms.

You can also line this up with DNA evidence, which allows us to draw conclusions regarding which organism split off from which other organism at which point and in which sequence. Markers like ERVs, for example, are useful in this regard.

Hope that helps.

AmericanVet said...

Mr. Anonymous, back at you. Not only has Woolf not given us an explanation for how any of these systems evolved, no one has. That is why irreducible complexity is still such a difficulty for Darwinists. Please refrain from tooting your horn about how you understand this and I don't, particularly since you think ERVs are evidence for Darwinism. Have you not heard that they have been shown to be intentional and active parts of the reproductive process? Catch up!

Many deluded Darwinists are brainwashed into thinking these issues are addressed and settled. In fact it is the reverse. We find more design and more intricacy and more information as time goes on. We discovered hard barriers to "chemical evolution" and we have found that the planets of the Solar System are not old. We've found that Big Bang models have massive math problems whereas Carmelian models don't need big fudge factors. Nanoengineers have decided to quit trying to defend Darwin and just try to copy the designs of nature becausee they are better than ours. Biomimetics and Biomimicry, anyone?

You can defend Darwinism until you are blue in the face but I know better. You have got to bring better evidence to the table. ERVs are so 2005 at best. Catch up!

Lista said...

Woolf,
Thanks for the Info. You still haven't Explained, though, what the Connection was "Between Systems of Rocks and Periods of Time". Was it Rock Dating, or Bone Dating, or was it Something Else?

Whatsit, 5:53 PM,
"And where do you think I implied that I have the answers 'down pat'?"

I Thought I Answered that Question. I Guess I didn't Quote Enough of it. Here's some More...

Anonymous Whatsit, 2:03 PM,
"How exactly don't 'Darwinists' have 'the time thing down pat'? And while you're at it, how do 'creationists' have 'the time thing down pat'?"

The Statement "How exactly don't 'Darwinists' have 'the time thing down pat'?" Implies that you Think that they do, and I Think that is Arrogant, because Nobody Knows all of the Answers and that is what having something "Down Pat" Implies.

Anonymous Whatsit, 5:55 PM,
"The Time Thing", to Evolutionists, Represents Millions of Years.

Anonymous Whatsit, 6:14 PM
"Entirely wrong, my dear, because IDers don't bring up irreducible complexity just because they feel like it. They bring it up because they claim evolution can't explain it, and therefore a designer must be credited."

Well, you Need to Study Up on Hypothesis, Experiments and the Confirmation of Hypotheses. You will not Understand what I am saying Until you do. Each Confirmed Hypothesis is a Step Towards the Final Goal, yet the Final Goal is not what I am Talking about. I am Only Talking about the Confirmation of a Single Hypothesis. That Reality is not Removed just because of your Ignorance to what I am saying.

And it just so Happens that the Creationists Explanation of Irreducible Complexity is Equal to and In Fact, Even Better then the Evolutionists Explanation, so I'm Afraid Nothing has "Fallen Apart" as you had Hoped it would.

"1. I was not changing the subject away from the point you were making, I was correcting your faulty logic."

You do not Realize that you Changed the Subject, because you do not Understand that the Reason for any Experiment is to Confirm or Deny a Given Hypotheses that Relates Specifically to that Experiment, not to Confirm or Deny the Entire Theory. Perhaps you should Stop While you are Ahead, Whatsit, for your Ignorance is Beginning to Show.

"2. Woolf did not admit the existence of any kind of irreducible complexity that can not be explained by evolution."

I have Already Quoted what Woolf Admitted to and that which I've Placed in Bold in your Statement is Irrelevant. If you do not Understand this, I do not Know what more I can say.

I Seek Only the Confirmation of a Single Hypothesis, that Irreducible Complexity Exists. Period. The Rest will be Dealt with on Another Day. I'm Talking about a Single Battle and you are Talking about the Entire War. These are Two Separate Subjects, Whatsit.

"What exactly is the 'Hypothesis of the Irreducibly Complex Experiments'?"

That Irreducible Complexity Exists; Nothing Less and Nothing More. Haven't I said that Before. I Wonder how many Times I have Repeated myself.

"What are the testable claims made by ID, and how are they confirmed?"

Does Irreducible Complexity Exist? Gee, Let's see what Happens if we Remove this, Will it Still Function? Oh Look! It No Longer Functions. Irreducible Complexity Does Exist. Hypothesis Confirmed.

Radar, you don't Happen to have a Link for this Uninformed......*Sigh*, Ok, I'll just say Person? Uninformed is Enough of an Adjective, without also Adding the "I" Word.

I'll Find such a Link, just not Right this Second. I'm Tired.

Lista said...

More for Whatsit,
You Obviously do not Understand what I'm Staying, Whatsit, and it is you who are Confused.

"What, just because you're eager to 'win' an argument?"

Assigning an Imaginary Motive to my Words is not Going to Change the Truth behind what I'm Saying.

"The 'Former' is the existence of irreducibly complex systems defined as systems that cease to function if you take away any part. Are these proof of design all by themselves? No. (Although it's difficult even finding examples of these.)"

Science Doesn't Prove Things, Whatsit, it Only Confirms and Produces Evidence and Yes, the Mere Presence of Irreducible Complexity is Impressive Evidence of Design. There are Lots of Examples of These. Even Woolf has Mentioned a Few.

"If one of these were found, Lista, then ID would have a powerful case. That's why these are highly relevant."

Yes, Relevant to the Over all Case, but not to the Issue of Whether or not a Single Hypothesis has been Confirmed.

"I hope this makes it clearer for you."

What is Crystal Clear to me, Whatsit, is that you have Serious Holes in your Knowledge of this Subject. Sorry, but what I'm Saying is True.

Anonymous,
Radar does Understand and he did not Evade the Subject.

Not Immediately having the Time to Respond to Something, especially when it Involves Research, is not the Same Thing as Evading it.

"Did you notice how he didn't mention any that weren't explainable by evolution? Is there a reason why you insistently keep evading this pretty crucial aspect?"

I'm not Evading it. It's just not Relevant to my Point that a Irreducible Complexity Exists and therefore a Hypothesis has been Confirmed.

I'm not Puzzled. I'm just not being Listened to. You and Whatsit are the Ones who are Evading my Point as just Made in my Previous Paragraph.

"It seems to me that you think that we can only look at organism X and organism Y as they exist today and examine the similarities and differences between them."

I Never Said that, so there is no Misconception. There are DNA Similarities too, but this doesn't Establish or Prove anything.

Your Common Descent Idea is Based on Assumptions about Similarities in DNA. Once Assumptions are Held for Extended Periods of Time, they are then Treated as Fact, even though they may not be. The Conclusions that have been Made about the Fossil Record are just Filled with such Assumptions.

"which allows us to draw conclusions"

Actually, it Allows you to Form Assumptions.

"Hope that helps."

The Only One so Far that has Actually been Helpful and Informative is Woolf. The Rest of you are still just Speaking Evolutionist Nonsense as it has been Taught in a Biased way in School and I Resent being Spoken to as if I am your Student, when you haven't Understood something as Simple as a Confirmed IC Hypothesis.

The Way Whatsit has Explained it, Only Shows his Lack of Understanding of the Difference between a Single Hypothesis and an Over All Theory. All you have done in your Comment, Anonymous, is Shown the Same Lack of Knowledge and the Only Reason why you Agree is because Both of you have been Exposed to the Same Biased Education.

Anonymous whatsit said...

After wading through a rather large volume of accusations of bias and very little in the way of substantive responses, I'll try to filter out the actual points we could discuss:


1. Lista, you keep saying that the ID hypothesis has been confirmed. Could you please explain in your own words what the actual ID hypothesis with regard to irreducible complexity actually is, and how it can be confirmed or refuted?


2. May I suggest a second ID-related hypothesis to you: "An irreducibly complex system, i.e. a system in which the removal of any one part would cause the whole system to cease functioning, can not possibly be the result of evolution."

This is a crucial aspect of the ID theory, especially the way in which you have made clear that you understand the issue of irreducible complexity.

And it seems to me that this very hypothesis has already been falsified, given some of the examples mentioned here.

And that is why the addition "and can not be explained by evolution" is a crucial one.


3. Radar: "Not only has Woolf not given us an explanation for how any of these systems evolved, no one has."

Woolf mentioned blood clotting and the Krebs cycle. For starters, blood clotting isn't even irreducibly complex, in that some parts of the system can be removed without causing the whole to cease functioning, and in addition an explanation for how blood clotting can have evolved can be found here: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html

An explanation for the evolution of the Krebs cycle (citric acid cycle) can be found here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8703096

And we've already dealt with the bacterial flagellum.

So your statement here is factually incorrect.


I'll respond to a few of the apparent misunderstandings or misrepresentations, but with regard to these points and questions above, I would welcome actual attempts at debate instead of blind accusations of bias and lying and so on.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Have you not heard that [ERVs] have been shown to be intentional and active parts of the reproductive process?"

Link to the scientific research please.

A said...

After wading through a rather large volume of accusations of bias and very little in the way of substantive responses, I'll try to filter out the actual points we could hopefully discuss rationally:

1. Lista, you keep saying that the ID hypothesis has been confirmed. Could you please explain in your own words what the actual ID hypothesis with regard to irreducible complexity actually is, and how it can be confirmed or refuted?

Anonymous whatsit said...

2. May I suggest a second ID-related hypothesis to you: "An irreducibly complex system, i.e. a system in which the removal of any one part would cause the whole system to cease functioning, can not possibly be the result of evolution."

This is a crucial aspect of the ID theory, especially the way in which you have made clear that you understand it.

And it seems to me that this very hypothesis has already been falsified, given some of the examples mentioned here.

And with that in mind, the addition of "and that evolution can't explain" that was mentioned before is a crucial one.

Anonymous whatsit said...

3. Radar: "Not only has Woolf not given us an explanation for how any of these systems evolved, no one has."

Woolf mentioned blood clotting and the Krebs cycle. For starters, blood clotting isn't even irreducibly complex, in that some parts of the system can be removed without causing the whole to cease functioning, and in addition an explanation for how blood clotting can have evolved can be found here: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html

An explanation for the evolution of the Krebs cycle (citric acid cycle) can be found here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8703096

And we've already dealt with the bacterial flagellum.

So your statement here is factually incorrect.

I'll respond to a few more apparent misunderstandings or misrepresentations, but with regard to these points and questions above, I would welcome actual attempts at debate instead of blind accusations of bias and lying and so on.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Nanoengineers have decided to quit trying to defend Darwin and just try to copy the designs of nature becausee they are better than ours. Biomimetics and Biomimicry, anyone?"

Mimicking nature is not abandoning Darwin. We know intricate functionality exists in nature. Evolution explains this as the result of untold instances of trial and error, which can lead to surprisingly efficient systems that sometimes go even beyond what a conscious designer could envision - see genetic algorithms as an example.

Anonymous whatsit said...

This comment keeps getting deleted by Blogger, I'm guessing because of the links it contains. I've now hobbled the links, but you can still reconstruct them:

3. Radar: "Not only has Woolf not given us an explanation for how any of these systems evolved, no one has."

Woolf mentioned blood clotting and the Krebs cycle. For starters, blood clotting isn't even irreducibly complex, in that some parts of the system can be removed without causing the whole to cease functioning, and in addition an explanation for how blood clotting can have evolved can be found here: http://www.millerandlevine DOT com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html

An explanation for the evolution of the Krebs cycle (citric acid cycle) can be found here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih DOT gov/pubmed/8703096

And we've already dealt with the bacterial flagellum.

So your statement here is factually incorrect.

I'll respond to a few more apparent misunderstandings or misrepresentations, but with regard to these points and questions above, I would welcome actual attempts at debate instead of blind accusations of bias and lying and so on.

Jon Woolf said...

Lista: "You still haven't Explained, though, what the Connection was "Between Systems of Rocks and Periods of Time". Was it Rock Dating, or Bone Dating, or was it Something Else?"

Yes.

I'm not sure who first suggested the connection, or when, but by the 1870s geologists were speaking of Deep Time -- that is, a history for planet Earth that could be measured at least in millions of years. I believe their first conclusion was an inductive one: given the sheer amount of rock, and of fossils, the most likely explanation was an old Earth which had seen several major groups of lifeforms -- which is where the names Paleozoic (Ancient Life), Mesozoic (Middle Life) and Cenozoic (Recent Life) came from.

Later they learned how to estimate how long it would take certain types of rock to form, and that let them make a stab at assigning a few actual ages. But still, even the best geologists didn't really grasp just how much time was involved until the advent of radiometric dating, in the early 20th century.

Lista said...

Hi A, 3:31 PM,
As I've Said a Million Times, All the Hypothesis says is that Irreducibly Complex Systems Exist and that has been Confirmed. It was Confirmed when they Removed Certain Parts of Said Irreducibly Complex Organisms to see if they could Still Function and they could not.

I Wonder how Many Times I have Repeated that Now. Sometime when I have more Time, I'll Look Up the Actual Research.

Anonymous Whatsit, 3:32 PM,
"2. May I suggest a second ID-related hypothesis to you; 'An irreducibly complex system, i.e. a system in which the removal of any one part would cause the whole system to cease functioning, can not possibly be the result of evolution.'"

Nice Try, Whatsit, but that was not the Hypothesis. Also, the Phrase "Can not Possibly" Implies Proof and since Science Never Actually Proves anything, but only Confirms, this is not a Very Scientific Hypothesis and that is why it was not Used.

Well, Congratulations. You Falsified a Hypothesis that was Never Actually Stated.

"and that evolution can't explain"

That was not Included. Making Up your Own Hypotheses so that you can Falsify them is not how Science is Done, Whatsit. You're just Playing with Words and not Making any Points that are Valid.

Ok. Enough of that Nonsense. I've Been Feeling Frustrated with the Fact that I have not Made much Progress in Submitting what I Wrote Earlier and Stored in my Word Processor. I'll Start from the Bottom of it this Time and Work Backwards, since the Last of the Comments that I Responded to at the Time is Related to the Subject that we have been Discussing.

Anonymous, 12:21 PM,
"You seem very hung up on seeing what Woolf says as an absolute standard of what is true and what is not."

No. It's just that Woolf's Words show Evidence of Disagreement, not just among Scientists, but even among Evolutionists, so your Idea that the Mere Existence of Irreducible Complexity has not been Confirmed is Clearly not Settled.

"Fine by me, but it doesn't make me deceptive if I point out that there are no known examples of irreducible complexity, and I'm not seeing any being presented here, not by you or Radar or Woolf or anyone else."

Well, Woolf just Presented them in the Very Next Comment Down (Woolf, 1:32 PM). Thanks again for your Honesty, Woolf. You have Earned some Respect from me for Evidence of your Willingness to Set Bias Aside.

Lista said...

Well, it Sounds to me, Jon Woolf, that they Made some Assumptions and more Recently the Creationists have been Challenging those Assumptions.

Lista said...

One Last Comment before I quit for the Night.

Anonymous, 6:47 AM, (The First of Two with that Time Stamp),

My Words: "It is Still True that Evolution between Biblical Kinds has not been Observed."
Anonymous' Words: "Of course not, because that's not what the theory of evolution has ever claimed. The fossil record doesn't show dogs turning into cats, nor should it."

Evolution Claims that All Life has Descended from One Common Ancestor. This is in Direct Conflict with the Descended from Created Kinds Idea.

If Evolutionism and the Original Darwinism are not the Same Thing and Evolutionism has Changed so that it Fits Better with the Idea of Created Kinds, then Perhaps you Better Tell the Creationists that, yet what I'm Leaning Towards instead is that you just Misrepresented Evolutionism.

Anonymous, 6:47 AM, (The Second of Two with that Time Stamp),
"If it has been experienced and observed, then it is empirical knowledge."

Right, and therefore, the Progression of Cars, Trains and Airplanes is Empirical and I have no Idea what "Revealed Knowledge" you were Talking about. That just doesn't Make any Sense at all.

I'm going to have to Go all the Way Back to your Comment Made at 11:27 PM, on who Knows what day.

"When you say 'The way that any Rational Person who Knows the Truth about the Creation of these Things' you should know that you are well outside of science. You're talking about revealed knowledge, not empirical knowledge."

What Revealed Knowledge??!? I was Talking about Cars, Trains and Airplanes! I was not Talking about the Bible, Anonymous. Have you Never Observed a Car, Train or Airplane?!? Why are you Changing the Subject to Revealed Knowledge when I Made no Mention of that?

Now, Let’s go Back to 6:47 AM, that is the Second of them, for there were Two in a Row Marked by this Date.

"without any attendant empirical knowledge"

Creationism is Based on a Lot more besides just the Bible, Anonymous. The Bible is Only the Basis of the Hypothesis. To Claim that there is no more there than that is Major Misinformation. You are not an Honest Scientist if you Make a Claim Like that. All I have to Do is Read One Creationist Article that Includes Actual Research and your Claim that it is Only Based on the Bible becomes Falsified. Even if my Reading has been Limited, Anonymous, you are Still Insulting my Intelligence.

"Some aspects of evolution are considered so thoroughly confirmed that they are deemed to be established fact."

Exactly and when Evolutionism is Taught as if this Applies to Most of it, if not all of it, that is when it Becomes a Lie. I Use that Word Lie here, rather than Misinformation or Mistake, because when Taught in School, there should be no Mistakes. What is Taught in School should be Accurate.

"Evolution having taken place over millions of years in particular."

I Disagree. Creationists may still have a lot of Work to do, but it is not as if they have Absolutely Nothing. That is most Definitely Misinformation. You are Highly Biased, if not Down Right Dishonest. You are Down Playing the Controversy.

"I can cook up an even better one over lunch," (That is Hypothesis), "but it would be just as unsupportable and untestable as the creationist one."

The Origin of Life can not Be Observed or Tested. There is no such Thing as an Idea on the Subject that has been Scientifically Confirmed. Both Evolutionists and Creationists are on Equal Ground on that one.

I've Observed more than 4 Hours Pass during my Life Time. That will have to be Explained by the Stimperists, or 4 Hours ago Creationists. lol. (See the Original Comment to Understand what I'm Talking about in this Paragraph.)

Anonymous whatsit said...

"As I've Said a Million Times, All the Hypothesis says is that Irreducibly Complex Systems Exist and that has been Confirmed."

If that's all that the hypothesis says, then that doesn't buy you the automatic conclusion of design.

"It was Confirmed when they Removed Certain Parts of Said Irreducibly Complex Organisms to see if they could Still Function and they could not."

Please name the "Irreducibly Complex Organisms" that you have in mind.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Nice Try, Whatsit, but that was not the Hypothesis. Also, the Phrase "Can not Possibly" Implies Proof and since Science Never Actually Proves anything, but only Confirms, this is not a Very Scientific Hypothesis and that is why it was not Used."

Nice try, Lista, but "can not possibly" is not unscientific. You may want to reread your ID books. IDers consistently try to find organisms that could not have come about by way of evolution.

I wasn't trying to formulate a new hypothesis. I was trying to get you to understand what ID is actually trying to achieve.

It has been said that ID is not scientific because it can't present testable claims, and you may have inadvertently put your finger on it in this comment here.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"That was not Included. Making Up your Own Hypotheses so that you can Falsify them is not how Science is Done, Whatsit. You're just Playing with Words and not Making any Points that are Valid."

If you think that wasn't included, then you've missed the argument altogether. Google "Michael Behe" "could not have evolved" or "William Dembski" "could not have evolved".

This is not "me playing with words", this is the crux of the IC argument as it pertains to ID.

Would any of the creationists like to comment on this?

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Evolution Claims that All Life has Descended from One Common Ancestor."

Yes it does, and it has the evidence to confirm this.

"This is in Direct Conflict with the Descended from Created Kinds Idea."

It is indeed, which is why creationism is falsified as it stands and can not possibly account for, say, the fossil record. Note that when Radar responds to any questions re. the fossil record, he makes blanket assertions like "the fossil record is evidence of creationism", but can't support this in detail.

Woolf had a series of questions pertaining to this that Radar said he would address soon, e.g. why are dolphins and ichthyosaurs never found together in the fossil record.

Creationists can not address this.

Now when a scientific theory can explain a phenomenon and a hypothesis that is trying to compete with that theory has no explanation for it at all, what conclusion would a scientist draw?

Anonymous said...

"I've Observed more than 4 Hours Pass during my Life Time. That will have to be Explained by the Stimperists, or 4 Hours ago Creationists. lol. (See the Original Comment to Understand what I'm Talking about in this Paragraph.)"

Exactly. And we can observe evidence that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old, which YECs are unable to explain. Even Radar acknowledges that the appearance of age is a stumbling block for YECs.

A Stimperist could counter that Stimper created the world exactly as it was, including your place in it, and you with your memories of your whole life up to that point intact.

How can you respond to such a claim?

Anonymous said...

"If Evolutionism and the Original Darwinism are not the Same Thing and Evolutionism has Changed so that it Fits Better with the Idea of Created Kinds, then Perhaps you Better Tell the Creationists that, yet what I'm Leaning Towards instead is that you just Misrepresented Evolutionism."

By "Evolutionism" you mean the theory of evolution? It hasn't changed to fit in better with the idea of created kinds at all. You may have misunderstood something here.

My statement was: "Of course not, because [evolution between biblical kinds] is not what the theory of evolution has ever claimed. The fossil record doesn't show dogs turning into cats, nor should it."

This is not a misrepresentation of evolution, but an accurate statement. Leaving aside that there is no current scientific definition of biblical kinds, the theory of evolution doesn't claim that one currently observable "kind" evolves into another. It claims that current species and other taxonomic groups have common ancestors, which is different.

"Exactly and when Evolutionism is Taught as if this Applies to Most of it, if not all of it, that is when it Becomes a Lie."

So you're okay with "the fact of evolution" being applied to evolution having taken place over millions of years is so well-confirmed that it can be considered fact? Or did you have some other aspects in mind here?

"I Use that Word Lie here, rather than Misinformation or Mistake, because when Taught in School, there should be no Mistakes. What is Taught in School should be Accurate."

Could you name an example of the theory of evolution being inappropriately represented as fact? Far as I recall, it was called the theory of evolution back when I was in high school.

AmericanVet said...

Wrongest comment of the year?

"Evolution Claims that All Life has Descended from One Common Ancestor."

Yes it does, and it has the evidence to confirm this.

This is so wrong it is funny! No evidence for how life came from non-life. No explanation for the so-called "Cambrian Explosion." The sedimentary rocks are catastrophic and are not is neat order like Darwinist claim. If Darwinism were true, there would be a wide assortment of obvious transistional forms instead of handful of dubious ones.

No explanation for information, wrong about embroyology, wrong about speciation, wrong about spontaneous generation, wrong about long ages for fossils. There have been numerous fossils found since Mary Schweitzer's T-Trex was found to have remains that became soft and squishy. They are found in Europe and actually from Montana to Mongolia.

I have been putting the Woolf questions off because I have so much good stuff to share and, when I do it, he'll probably just come up with another list of minor points again. It is on my bucket list but really it isn't a big deal. Nothing foundational at all.

Creationism actually addresses every single major point for the existence of the Universe all the way to complex organisms and tiny systems like ATP. Darwinists cannot even give us a way ATP Synthase system came about, as it is a chicken and egg argument. You need the cell to have ATP, you need ATP to have the cell, you cannot have the cell without DNA and they have no idea how to come up with that!

AmericanVet said...

If commenters leave this thread and read subsequent posts most of their comments and questions are being answered by full comprehensive posts in the blog.

Strawman arguments, Lista, are Darwinist SOP. In time you see them immediately. Whatsit is one of the guys who does it.

Making authoritative statements about Darwinism with no evidence is a standard NCSE tactic. Darwinism is in no way proven and it has not tested out. Other than failures, that is. Another common fallacy.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Strawman arguments, Lista, are Darwinist SOP. [...] Whatsit is one of the guys who does it."

And unfounded blanket assertions like this one are Radar's SOP.

Radar, I challenge you to point out the alleged strawman arguments that you say I've presented.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Evolution Claims that All Life has Descended from One Common Ancestor."

"Yes it does, and it has the evidence to confirm this."

"This is so wrong it is funny!"

No, there is plenty of evidence for common descent.

"No evidence for how life came from non-life."

First example you cite you're already jumping to a different subject. Common descent comes after life has already started. You're welcome to plug "God did it" into the "how did life start" box if you want.

"No explanation for the so-called "Cambrian Explosion.""

Not an insurmountable problem. There are various explanations, but aside from that, why would you, Radar, advocate of rapid speciation taking place over a few thousand years, have a problem with "rapid" evolution over 70 or 80 million years? You're not being consistent here.

"The sedimentary rocks are catastrophic"

This flies in the face of current scientific understanding. Please provide evidence of all sedimentary rocks plausibly being catastrophic. You've repeatedly failed to address problems in this area that Woolf has pointed out to you.

"and are not is neat order like Darwinist claim."

They certainly follow the order in accordance with geological processes as they are currently understood.

Perhaps you're applying a creationist misunderstanding here, possibly teleology.

"If Darwinism were true, there would be a wide assortment of obvious transistional forms instead of handful of dubious ones."

And there is such a wide assortment of transitional forms present in the fossil record, but something tells me you have some strawman version of "transitional form" in mind, a common problem for creationists.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"I have been putting the Woolf questions off because I have so much good stuff to share"

Yeah, that must be it. Come on, Radar, you've been avoiding these for, what, a year now?

"and, when I do it, he'll probably just come up with another list of minor points again."

I suspect he'll point out the obvious flaws in whatever attempt you'll make to address these problems.

But you said that Sarfati gave you the answers, right?

"Darwinism is in no way proven"

The theory of evolution has been confirmed in many ways. Really not that hard to look up.

"and it has not tested out. Other than failures, that is."

Ah, now this is so wrong that it's funny. You've been at this for, what, five or six years now? Never once have you been able to dig up a falsification of evolution that wasn't based on a whopper of a fallacy, misrepresentation or colossal misunderstanding.

Confirmation of evolution: organisms changing over time, with a tendency to increasing complexity - shown in the fossil record, both relatively in that we can see which organisms existed before and after which other ones, and absolutely as we can see through radiometric dating.

Relationships among organisms confirmed in DNA. ERVs are interesting in that they indicate at which point lineages separated.

All of this completely falsifies both a young Earth and created kinds/baramins.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Evolution Claims that All Life has Descended from One Common Ancestor."

"Yes it does, and it has the evidence to confirm this."

"This is so wrong it is funny!"

No, there is plenty of evidence for common descent.

"No evidence for how life came from non-life."

First example you cite is already on an unrelated subject. Common descent comes after life has already started. You're welcome to plug "God did it" in there if you want.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"No explanation for the so-called "Cambrian Explosion.""

Not an insurmountable problem. There are various explanations, but aside from that, why would you, Radar, advocate of rapid speciation taking place over just a few thousand years, have a problem with "rapid" evolution taking place over 70 or 80 million years? You're being completly inconsistent here.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"The sedimentary rocks are catastrophic"

This flies in the face of current scientific understanding. Please provide evidence of all sedimentary rocks plausibly being catastrophic. You've already repeatedly failed to address a few problems in this area.

"and are not is neat order like Darwinist claim."

They certainly follow the order in accordance with geological processes as they are currently understood.

"If Darwinism were true, there would be a wide assortment of obvious transistional forms instead of handful of dubious ones."

And there is such a wide assortment of transitional forms present in the fossil record, but something tells me you have some strawman version of "transitional form" in mind, a common problem for creationists.

Anonymous said...

"which allows us to draw conclusions"

"Actually, it Allows you to Form Assumptions."

Actually, no, Lista:

assumption:

–noun
1. something taken for granted; a supposition: a correct assumption.
2. the act of taking for granted or supposing.
3. the act of taking to or upon oneself.

If one looks at data and then formulates an explanation that fits that data, then it is not an assumption at all.

I notice you accuse others of bias and using assumptions at the drop of a hat, but you refuse to address the arguments.

AmericanVet said...

I am consistent because I stick with the evidence. The evidence shows speciation is part of the design of the organism, with a large range of features available within the genome. As Mendel pointed out, we can actually breed features out to get certain traits because speciation is a matter of breeding information out. Poeiea fish kinds and finches of all kinds have proven that rapid speciation is observable, thus, no problem for vast ranges of feature sets amongst the kinds found today.

Darwinism doesn't declare speciation though. It asserts one kind transforming into another kind. This is where all tests have proven to be failures. Thousands of generations of bacteria, hundreds of generations of fruit flies being artificially coaxed into becomiing another kind and all failures.

Therefore, speciation aka variation within kind is easily proven, can happen quickly and has mechanisms within the cell we have identified. We have also identified the reproductive process hard stop against Darwinism because the mother lays the framework for the child and the metainformation in the cell tells the cell what to build. Rats build rats, bacteria build bacteria, dogs build dogs.

Whenever I mention the Cambrian explosion or spontaneous generation I get the "various explanations" boilerplate. Actually, no, there are no cohesive explanations for either one of them.

Anyone can do a search of my blog to find the answers to this long string of comments. I have addressed some of them with posts made after this one. Maybe this is some kind of Darwinist drinking game. You down a shot every time I say Darwinist? Hope none of you are driving.

DarwinistDarwinistDarwinist
DarwinistDarwinistDarwinist

Now, go lay down and sleep it off!

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 218   Newer› Newest»