Search This Blog

Sunday, June 26, 2011

This means War! Darwin versus Creationism is a battle, Satan versus Jesus is the war.

THIS MEANS WAR 

credit

Petra (the band) eloquently stated the obvious (to me) reason for this blog and why this blog is what it is:



If you prefer a live performance...



AN ASIDE CONCERNING PETRA (Skip this if you don't care about the background story about Petra)

I was very glad to have the opportunity to meet the lead singer John Schlitt and drummer Louie Weaver of Petra before one of their concerts several years ago.  My kids were completely blissed out at meeting their favorite rockers.  In one of those ironic moments I remembered having a Head East poster on my wall years ago.  Schlitt was the lead singer of Head East, but became a Christian and joined Petra, leaving a life of drinking and drugs behind.  I was a lead singer living a life of drinking and drugs but Christianity came to me and the drinking and drugs dropped away.  Schlitt got saved not long after his wife was converted and that is exactly what happened with me.   In both cases the pastor of the church of the wife came to visit and in both cases we received Christ.  

John Schlitt then abandoned music and concentrated on working to provide for his family until guitarist Bob Hartmann of Petra called him and asked him to consider singing for the Christian rock band Petra.  I gave up on music and concentrated on work and learning what God wanted of me. I was asked to begin singing in church and then eventually found myself singing with a big backing band in a big church with guitars and keyboards and saxophone and two drummers!  Funny how both of us abandoned rock music and yet God wanted us to sing and presented us with opportunities to sing.  For many years I was part of or led bands and music groups and also formed an extended family vocal band.   Lots of fun and good memories there...

Petra was probably the most influential of the many bands I introduced my kids and their friends to as I used Christian rock music to reach out to young people and bring them into the family of God.  White Heart, Guardian, Holy Soldier, Whitecross, DC Talk, Mad At The World, The Newsboys, Third Day, Skillet...went to lots of concerts with lots of teenagers for many years.   We would play music everywhere we went, singing and harmonizing with the bands.   I was blessed to have the house that all the kids went to...now all my kids and Godkids are men and women.  Some of them are active in ministry like I am.  Some of them were or are in the military.  Some have decided to go into the same business I am in.  All of this is part of a very interesting and wonderful life.  I have had hard times and live with pain but I am blessed above all. 

WHY IS RADAR WRITING THIS BLOG?

Lately some people have been discussing whether I am rude and whether my attitude is befitting for a Christian.  So I am glad to discuss that subject.  The fact is, I was writing primarily about sports online and every once in awhile felt like writing some kind of editorial and would post on a site where anyone could obtain a password and write whatever they felt like saying.  I've been writing since I was a kid, when I used to write science fiction stories.  Once teen years hit I wrote a slew of poems until I was maybe 23 years old and quite a few songs.  But once I became a professional journalist and was given the freedom to write pretty much whatever I wanted within the context of the military I really found a groove.  I was a specialist in two areas:  Taking news stories and converting them to radio copy, which is almost a science onto itself in that you need to get the word count just right to fit a 30 second or 60 second window, spell out pronunciation of difficult words and all of this in ALL CAPS.  So I would put an hour or maybe two a day doing that.   But otherwise my day began with breakfast at my desk and the two local Washington, DC newspapers waiting for me there.  I would peruse the local papers and casually eat my breakfast and see what was going on within the Beltway that might be Army-related.  Then after doing any radio copy translations I would check the potential stories tossed in my inbox by colleagues or higher-ups to look for the best news features.  Most of the time a story plus a phone call or two would turn into news copy for our News Features edition.  Sometimes I would have to go to an office to interview an official or an officer and on occasion take a camera girl with me (our best camera person was a GS employee, a young woman, who was also tasked to look for feature pictures that would be a story onto themselves when joined to a cutline).  This was back in the 1970's.  One way or another throughout my life I was writing things.  I have a book that is partway done that might get finished when I maybe retire (if ever).

Hmm, I am rambling.   So blogs were popular and I thought, what the heck, I will start a blog and just write things and publish them on the internet.  It will provide me with an outlet when I really don't feel like writing a whole series of preview articles for every NFC Central team or ranking all the top fifty players in MLB at every position I thought.   Little did I know it would grow like a monster and finally I would have to choose between sports writing or blog writing.   I was offered a paycheck to write sports on my own time in addition to the work I do.   All I had to do was just end the Radaractive Blog and go for it.  I was already in the FSWA and had an article submitted for best article of the year.   Maybe I could turn it into an eventual job with ESPN or Yahoo Sports like a couple of my fantasy buddies have done? 

But I realized that this blog is a front line blog in the war of worldviews and that to abandon my post would be like deserting my post in the military.   When the Jews were allowed to leave and go back to Israel long years after having been taken from their homes and transplanted to Babylon to be supposedly converted to good Babylonians there were still many Jews who never lost the faith.  The very real stories of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego and especially Daniel and also Esther are documented episodes of lives of Jews who remained faithful to the Creator God in the face of threats of death and torment.   Jews like that still abounded when Babylon was conquered by the Medes and Persians and during the reign of  Artaxerxes the King allowed Jews to return to their homeland.   The books of Ezra and Nehemiah tell of the rebuilding of the city walls of Jerusalem and the Temple wherein the Spirit of God would dwell again and the sacrifices and offerings could be resumed and the genealogical records being still preserved the Judah and Jerusalem that was could be built again.

THIS IS WHY SOME OF YOU THINK I AM RUDE

Nehemiah 4:7 & 8 - "But it came to pass that when Sanballat and Tobiah and the Arabians and the Ammonites and the Ashdodites heard that the walls of Jerusalem were being rebuilt, and that the breaches began to be stopped, then they were very wroth,and conspired all of them together to come and to fight against Jerusalem and to hinder it."

There have always been enemies of God.  When the Jews began to rebuild Jerusalem's walls (and in those times a city could not be defended and preserved without good strong walls designed to repel attacks and provide security) there were enemies both within the Jewish community and the non-Jews in the area.   They had been in control of the region and didn't want to give back what they had taken when the bulk of the Jewish community had been carried away.   Thus Darwinists are to worldviews what Sanballat and Tobiah and his cronies were to the Children of Israel - sworn enemies determined to destroy them and prevent them from fortifying and consolidating and taking back their lands.

Nehemiah 4:14-21 -- "And I looked, and rose up, and said unto the nobles and to the rulers and to the rest of the people, "Be not ye afraid of them; remember the Lord, who is great and fearsome, and fight for your brethren, your sons and your daughters, your wives and your houses."

And it came to pass, when our enemies heard that it was known unto us and God had brought their counsel to nought, that we returned all of us to the wall, every one unto his work.And it came to pass from that time forth, that the half of my servants wrought in the work, and the other half of them held both the spears, the shields and the bows and the jackets of mail; and the rulers were behind all the house of Judah.

Those who built on the wall and those who bore burdens with those who loaded -- every one with one of his hands wrought in the work and with the other hand held a weapon.For the builders, every one, had his sword girded by his side, and so built. 

And he that sounded the trumpet was by me.And I said unto the nobles and to the rulers and to the rest of the people, "The work is great and large, and we are separated upon the wall, one far from another.In what place therefore ye hear the sound of the trumpet, resort ye thither unto us. Our God shall fight for us."



I HAVE A SWORD IN ONE HAND AND A TROWEL IN THE OTHER

Nehemiah and Ezra reminded the people of the Word of God and called them to come back to faith and build up the walls of Jerusalem again and the Temple as well.   Two entire books of the Bible devoted to the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the restoration of the nation  

I realized that my job was to fight for the faith, for the defense of the faith, and that such a task requires both a trowel to build up evidence for the veracity of the Bible and a sword to cut the arguments of the foes to ribbons.   The enemies of God know that Darwinism is one of their greatest weapons and will not willingly relinquish it, not in the face of overwhelming evidence nor despite the fact that every one of the presuppositions of the original position of Darwinism has been falsified.  

This is why commenters like to use derision.  This is why they like to call names.  This is why I am not gently soothing in my debates with the opponents.   They are primarily sworn enemies of Christ and the concept of a creation made by God, for they do not want to be responsible to a Creator or answerable to Him at the end of this temporal life.   I am not trying to lure people in with soft words and mild corrections.  This is warfare and I bring a full set of armor to the battle!  I will be firm and will not give one inch of ground to the enemy in the form of trolls.  Some commenters are atheopaths who know this is a battle and understand the fight.  Some are simply propagandized who do not realize their mistake.  Some are simply confused or humanists who do not realize that putting themselves on the throne of their lives is the very thing that got Satan cast out of the presence of God and will drag them down to hell as surely as if they were Aleister Crowley himself.  

Ephesians 6:10-18

21st Century King James Version (KJ21)

 10Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might.
   
 11Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
   
 12For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
   
 13Therefore, take unto you the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day and, having done all, to stand.
   
 14Stand therefore, having your loins girded about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness,
   
 15and your feet shod with the preparation of the Gospel of peace.
   
 16Above all, take the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
   
 17And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God,
   
 18praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints.

CHOOSE YE THIS DAY

I will continue to build and I will continue to fight.   Some of my commenters are actually on my side and some of them are building walls in their parts of the city.  For those of you who build and fight in your own ways know that I am not going to abandon my post and I hope you will not abandon yours.  We are in a fight together and we know who wins in the end.  If you happen to stop by to encourage me to continue on?


 

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

Radar, as long as you rail against "Darwinist liars" instead of arguing the issues rationally, it is you who is the most frequent derider and name-caller. Personally I think you're a bully who found God but hasn't been able to fully put aside the bullying habits.

It is telling that whenever you are unable to address actual arguments, you churn out one of these impassioned "worldview" posts. So... did Sarfati not come up with any answers to Woolf's questions?

radar said...

Anonymous I have no idea how many of my posts you have read but I post lots of evidence. Evidence is in no way bullying. Furthermore you gotta be kidding about derision, you haven't been around long or you don't pay attention. Trolls go for derision first, empty authoritative statements second, try to take me down rabbit trails third or post a bunch of unrelated questions rather than provide answers.

Honestly, I have challenged the commenters to come up with answers for the foundational matters of their faith. They cannot do it. Then they want to ask me about minor side issues?

Jonathan Sarfati and I did discuss Jon's list and he told me where to find the answers if I didn't know, but I have a plan of action for my posts and there is a train of thought that is coming down the track which will arrive at the station before I go back to Jon's list in it's entirety, although I have already answered two or three of them in the course of doing other posts.

Lyell lied about Niagara Falls because it didn't fit his uniformitarian worldview.

Haeckel made a completely faked embroyo chart and Darwinists still try to foist it on students.

The Peppered Moths was complete BS. They glued moths to tree trunks because they didn't tend to land there. Both light and dark versions remain.

Darwin's Finch beaks change according to environmental pressures but the genetic information and the switches that cause quick beak changes are all pre-existing.

The Arsenic Bacteria were a lie. They did not replace any of their DNA string with arsenate nor did they keep "eating" arsenic when returned to the wild or restored to a typical Mono Lake environment.

Bacteria from space on a meteor turned out to be non-living formations.

The Citrate Bacteria resulted from a broken mechanism that was not new information and they would not survive in the wild.

The four-winged fruit flies could not fly and could not live in the wild.

Nylon-eating bacteria are no longer heard of because Darwinists discovered that the mechanism to eat nylon was in preexisting information and they cannot explain it.

The "worm from Hell", a nematode, only has to deal with 100 degrees of temperature, which is nothing compared to the vent creatures that inhabit vent seeps spewing sulphur and methane on the ocean floor.

The Pakicetus turned out to be a complete fraud.

Ida turned out to be a fraud as well, just a Lemur fossil that had been in storage for something like 17 years.

Okay, there are just a few Darwinist lies off the top of my head. There are so many more...

Jon Woolf said...

"lthough I have already answered two or three of them in the course of doing other posts. "

Really? I can only think of one, and that one answer was not even close to convincing.

Many of the things you describe as "darwinist lies" are in fact honest mistakes, such as Lyell's argument on erosion at Niagara Falls and the reconstruction of Pakicetus. Of the rest, some are outright untruths on your sources' parts -- for example, peppered moths do rest on tree trunks, and the studies which demonstrate a selective influence for moth color are quite valid. A few are simply examples of your lack of understanding -- such as the fact that 'fitness' is a function of the environment, and the citrate-eating E. coli strain was in fact more fit for the environment it lived in.

Of all the items you list, only one can be remotely considered a case of actual falsehood: Haeckel's embryo diagrams, which were in fact intentionally inaccurate. However, for precisely that reason scientists don't use his embryo arguments anymore, and the way they keep turning up in school textbooks is a serious problem. I consider it a demonstration of the Universe's perverse sense of humor that creationists and other anti-science crusaders do occasionally provide a useful service by finding and calling attention to mistakes in science textbooks.

radar said...

Many of the things you describe as "darwinist lies" are in fact honest mistakes, such as Lyell's argument on erosion at Niagara Falls

No, he was given data about the amount of erosion that the Falls had since locals began keeping track and he changed the numbers to fit his scheme.


and the reconstruction of Pakicetus.

Phil Gingerich blew that one badly, but then he also gave us Ida. He had no reason to suppose Pakicetus was a pre-whale, he was making it all up. Further fossil evidence proves it.

Of the rest, some are outright untruths on your sources' parts -- for example, peppered moths do rest on tree trunks, and the studies which demonstrate a selective influence for moth color are quite valid.

Lie. The moths had to be glued to the tree trunks to take a picture because they actually inhabit the upper leafed branch areas of trees if they rest on trees. The dark and light color moths continue as always with no Darwinist fairy tale fitting their existence.


A few are simply examples of your lack of understanding -- such as the fact that 'fitness' is a function of the environment, and the citrate-eating E. coli strain was in fact more fit for the environment it lived in.

Which was an artificial environment in which citrate was the available food supply. Released into a normal environment the citrate-eating bacteria are at a disadvantage to normal e coli and will disappear.

Look at the Mono Lake bacteria, which were taken from a strange lake full of sulphates and some arsenic and they were forced to subsist on arsenic. They could do it, but they were weakened and would have likely all died out entirely if not given a chance to subsist on a "normal" diet, although Mono Lake is not normal as a lake. The front pages of science rags claimed "Arsenic Bacteria New Life Form" and a few days later the retractions are smaller and off to the side...as usual.

Anonymous said...

"The moths had to be glued to the tree trunks to take a picture because they actually inhabit the upper leafed branch areas of trees if they rest on trees."

As I understand it, the peppered moths had to be glued (or pinned) to trees for illustrative purposes, which hardly qualifies as a lie. If you're a photographer trying to illustrate the respective camouflage qualities of different colored moths, are you going to:

1. Point a camera at a tree trunk and wait for two moths - one light, one dark - to coincidentally land there, then take the picture?

2. Stick'em on the tree and take the picture?

And BTW, Radar, why do you keep slinging around the word "lie" with such an extremely casual attitude when it's to do with "Darwinists", but when it's your side, you get all offended and defensive?

Argue the facts.

Anonymous said...

"Phil Gingerich [..] had no reason to suppose Pakicetus was a pre-whale, he was making it all up."

It was due to specific anatomical features of the inner ear, wasn't it? Why do you say "no reason" and "making it all up"? Do you have any facts to support such slander?

"Further fossil evidence proves it."

Proves what exactly?

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous I have no idea how many of my posts you have read but I post lots of evidence."

You post lots of pasted posts (say that three times in a row...), but you don't fully seem to understand the majority of them, if your purple text represents your own understanding.

You also seem confused about what constitutes evidence. For example, you think that complexity automatically means design, which automatically means proof of God. Since this logic itself doesn't hold up, it doesn't matter how many articles you paste about how complex the cell is etc. - it's still not evidence. Quantity is no substitute for quality, and in this case all you have is an argument from incredulity. You may have heard of it, it's a logical fallacy.

"Evidence is in no way bullying."

As I just said, you haven't posted anywhere near as much evidence as you think you have. Calling people liars while avoiding their arguments is something a bully would do.

"Furthermore you gotta be kidding about derision, you haven't been around long or you don't pay attention. Trolls go for derision first, empty authoritative statements second, try to take me down rabbit trails third or post a bunch of unrelated questions rather than provide answers."

Huh. Well I've seen you do every single one of these -

"derision first" - how many times have you berated "Darwinist liars" etc.? Or put down Jon Woolf without backing up your accusations?

"empty authoritative statements second" - Sarfati has a PhD and is awesome at chess! Ian Juby has clearly demonstrated that there was a global flood!

"try to take me down rabbit trails third or post a bunch of unrelated questions rather than provide answers" - something like this maybe: before we talk about evolution, it's imperative that you tell me where time came from and why we have natural laws.

It's uncanny how clearly you just described yourself. Unintentionally, no doubt.

Oh Really O'Reilly said...

The front pages of science rags claimed "Arsenic Bacteria New Life Form" and a few days later the retractions are smaller and off to the side...as usual.

Hey there, could you provide a link to the retractions posted by, say, AiG? They're so small and off to the side that I'm starting to wonder if they even exist.

cavalier973 said...

Keep up the good work, Radar; I really enjoy reading your blog.

I was wondering if you have read anything about the "Bornavirus"; I was in an argument with someone, and he brought up "Junk DNA" as evidence for an evolutionary past, and I replied that "Junk DNA" was turning out not to be "junk" after all, and he started in about this "Bornavirus", and how it proved, somehow, that "Junk DNA" really was junk, or something. I think what he was trying to say was that the Bornavirus' unique ability to embed itself into the nucleus of a cell provided a possible way to increase the genetic information of an organism.

Thanks

cavalier973 said...

Arguing with Darwinists is a little like being shipwrecked on an island with someone who claims that the island is uncharted. As the two of you wander the beach, however, you see an arrangement of shells that spell out the message "Fresh water 200 yards to the north." Following the directions, you find the fresh water, but the other fellow claims that the "message" of the shells was due to random natural processes; wind and waves and animals, and that it only "appeared" to spell out a message.

Is his theory possible? Perhaps. Is it plausible? Not so much. Is it the likeliest explanation? Certainly not.

Anonymous said...

cavalier973, I suspect you and the "Darwinist" in your analogy didn't have the same kind of "water" in mind.

Chaos Engineer said...

Arguing with Darwinists is a little like being shipwrecked on an island

Ooo, this looks fun! Can I play?

Arguing with Creationists is a lot like being shipwrecked on an island with someone, and you see a sign that says, "Fresh water this way. Personally I don't believe that a All-Loving and All-Powerful God would allow people to be stranded on desert islands, but that's just my opinion and you're free to drink the water even if you disagree with me. But it would be nice if you'd at least think about what I've said, since I went to the trouble of digging the well and everything."

So you go off to have a glass of water, but the person you're with screams, "Nooooo! That's an atheopathic Darwinist well!" So he tries to dig a new well next to it, but it doesn't know what he's doing and it collapses down on him, and then after you've dug him out he won't drink anything, so you have to wait for him to pass out and then dribble water down his throat while he's delirious.

What a waste of time! If you were on your own, you could have a signal fire lit by now!

cavalier973 said...

Chaos: Thanks for proving my point by missing it completely.

Chaos Engineer said...

Huh? Wasn't your point, "Ridiculously overblown analogies are fun to write but not necessarily helpful?"

Let me read it again...


OK. I still don't think it's a helpful analogy. The Evolutionist in your story has presumably seen other examples of human-written language and can easily compare them to the pattern of shells. If he'd been a primitive islander who had never even heard of written language, then he might very well say, "Well, it's certainly possible that somebody arranged the shells in this specific pattern, but why would anyone waste time doing that? It's most likely a semi-random natural phenomenon, like a leopard's spots or the sorting of stones in a riverbed."

He'd be wrong, of course, but I don't think we can blame him for that. We should just use this as an opportunity to provide a demonstration of how to write a message and read it back later.

So, to complete the analogy: I think it's perfectly reasonable for an evolutionist to assume that DNA molecules have formed through a semi-random process. If someone wants to insist that DNA was arranged by extra-dimensional energy beings or whatever, then they really ought to start by presenting convincing evidence that at least one extra-dimensional energy being exists and has the ability to arrange DNA.

AmericanVet said...

Chaos, you are not really an engineer, are you? Because an engineer realizes what kinds of planning goes into making a functional electic motor or a structurally sound bridge or perhaps a refrigerator? Anyone would come across a bridge across a freeway or an electric motor or a refrigerator and recognize that there had to be both designer and manufacturer for it to exist. Yet you think that far more complex organisms with far more complex coding systems just happened? Where is your logic?

Cavalier, the "Junk DNA" is now known to have functionality. Is what you are referring to the ERVs? ERVs were thought be Darwinists to be relics inserted into the DNA string by infection and about 1% of the human DNA string has them. In fact there is much that is not known about ERV but they do serve as a means to insert information into a genome, so there may have been some ERVs in original organisms to help bring about transfer of genetic material. Some ERVs are helpful or necessary for life. Whether they are evidence for common ancestry or common designer is in the eye of the beholder. They are transposable elements of the DNA string, we recognize that. Clearly, the symbiotic relationship of man and other organisms with microbes is by no means evidence for Darwinism. Every symbiotic relationship in existence requires more random miracles to occur and life is teeming with symbiosis.

I see some commenters defending Gingerich when he is now famed for his ability to make a ridiculous fuss over non-evidence like Pakicetus, which was a land animal all the way. That was almost as bad as Nebraska Man! AND Ida the Lemur was his idea, too, so I am not giving him a pass.

As to Peppered Moths, no, they do NOT rest on tree trunks normally so the entire "blackened tree trunks turned moths dark" fairy tale is dead. The moths inhabit the upper regions of trees and dark and light versions both continue to exist as they apparently have for as long as we have been catching moths.

Jon Woolf said...

"I see some commenters defending Gingerich when he is now famed for his ability to make a ridiculous fuss over non-evidence like Pakicetus, which was a land animal all the way."

Except that there's evidence it was semi-aquatic, perhaps something like otters, and definite anatomical evidence connecting it to later cetaceans.

"As to Peppered Moths, no, they do NOT rest on tree trunks normally ..."

On tree trunks, about 1/3rd of the time, or a bit more. Most of the rest of the time, they're on tree branches.

"The moths inhabit the upper regions of trees and dark and light versions both continue to exist as they apparently have for as long as we have been catching moths."

Oh dear, you seem to have done it again. Overreached, that is. You've been told this before, but apparently ignored it because the source was a nasty evil lying liar darwinist demonspawn, namely me. In the early to mid 1800s, England saw a moth-collecting craze. A lot of people collected and mounted moths. Many of them kept good field notes on what they caught, where, and when. As a result, we can do a pretty good job of tracing the population curve for the melanistic (dark) version of Biston betularia. In the early 1800s there were none. The first record of a melanistic B. betularia is dated 1848. Within fifteen years it was widespread. By 1900 it dominated the population in many parts of England. It continued to do so until the 1960s, after which the numbers of the dark morph fell and the light morph returned.

cavalier973 said...

American Vet: here's an article detailing the Bornavirus argument:
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/enogenous-viruses-and-junk-dna/

Anonymous said...

"Cavalier, the "Junk DNA" is now known to have functionality."

Ah, yet another misrepresentation (or overreach). A more accurate statement would be:

"Cavalier, some of the "Junk DNA" is now known to have functionality."

AmericanVet said...

Thanks for the article, Cavalier. The author is intentionally ironic, as his accusations towards creationists leave most of the fingers pointing back at him. It was Darwinists who made arguments from ignorance about both "vestigal organs" and "Junk DNA." Creationists are going through all of the human vestigal myths one by one and deflating them while at the same time researching the DNA which Darwinists labeled "Junk" in the first place, not creationists.

Creationists have been identifying DNA functionality as research continues because the majority of operational scientists in the field of genetics are releasing their findings and operational science means evidence.

As to Woolf and his moth myth, I haven't used you as a moth source and if you think dark moths are a new phenomenon you need better sources. That is just not true. The Peppered Moth myth is something you still believe, hey, maybe Gingerich needs an assistant?

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Because an engineer realizes what kinds of planning goes into making a functional electic motor or a structurally sound bridge or perhaps a refrigerator? Anyone would come across a bridge across a freeway or an electric motor or a refrigerator and recognize that there had to be both designer and manufacturer for it to exist. Yet you think that far more complex organisms with far more complex coding systems just happened? Where is your logic?"

Cute. Reminds me of Vizzini's debating skills in The Princess Bride.

So would an engineer look at a tree and conclude that it was designed? What if they happened to know a thing or two about the theory of evolution?

AmericanVet said...

You cannot see because you do not want to see. The "theory of evolution" is a hypothesis that has always failed to occur under observation. Always. Meanwhile, cars and machines and motors do not evolve from rubble. We observe that everything that is living has hardware, software and information. We observe irreducibly complex systems that make Darwinism impossible. You don't have science, you have a refusal to admit that there is a Creator God.

Let's try this. First I will give you a valid reason that a Creator is necessary from the discoverer of DNA himself, Francis Crick. Then I will review the Bible and how the Bible presents creation and where some people look for loopholes in the Book of Genesis and we will consider the loopholes.

Chaos Engineer said...

The Peppered Moth thing is kind of interesting.

At first glance, you'd think that Creationists wouldn't have a problem with Industrial Melanism. It's something that happened over a few decades, so it's compatible with a young earth. And a color change is pretty minor, so it doesn't require any significant positive mutations. (If in fact there were any mutations at all; for all we know, it was just selection on genes that were already present in the environment.)

But what we see is that Creationists vehemently reject this idea. They aren't willing to say that it's still open for debate, or even that it was an honest mistake. They insist that it's a "myth"; a "fairy tale"; a "lie". Why are they so adamantly opposed to an idea that's perfectly compatible with mainstream Creationism?

It's a bit of a mystery.

It's a shame that ridiculously overblown analogies aren't more helpful; otherwise I might be able to find the answer in my story up above (where one character decides that he'd rather die of thirst than drink water from a Theologically Incorrect well.)

AmericanVet said...

I object to bad science. The idea that coal dust somehow "got into" the organism smacks of Lamarkism to me. Industrial Melanism?

Peppered moths have the genetic information for lighter or darker color scheme. It didn't suddenly appear in the 1700's nor did it disappear in the 20th Century. I would not be surprised if more dark moths lived during the worst of the coal-burning years as even tree tops may have been dusted in some areas around a big city like London. But there is no evidence that they came into being after the industrial age hit. Furthermore, they do not tend to sit on tree trunks even a third of the time.

Jon Woolf said...

"As to Woolf and his moth myth, I haven't used you as a moth source"

Didn't say you had. I said I'd told you about the English moth-collectors before, and you ignored it.

"...and if you think dark moths are a new phenomenon you need better sources. That is just not true."

[snork] You who trust creationists are telling me that I need better sources? Yes, you definitely have a future in stand-up, Radar.

AmericanVet said...

At least I have a future...

AmericanVet said...

So let's see your proof that only light-colored Peppered Moths existed in the 1500's please? Or else give in.

Anonymous said...

"I object to bad science. The idea that coal dust somehow "got into" the organism smacks of Lamarkism to me. Industrial Melanism?"

I'm sensing a strawman. Who do you think is proposing that coal dust somehow got into the organism, or that that is what industrial melanism is?