Search This Blog

Monday, September 12, 2011

For all the poor commenters who I am continually censoring...

I am so downhearted and sad that you call me a censor.  Yes, the irony of it all, that I let you comment on my blog and accuse me of censorship.   It hurts me really bad, oh, so bad!   I want to let you know how much it hurts!



I guess since I am such a censor I will never see you come back and comment because I guess I am going to censor you, which is why anonymouse and Canucklehead and Jon Woolf and Chaos Engineer and various anonymous anonymouses (is that a word) will never been seen here again.  In fact they must have never been here at all because I am a censor.  Oh, it is like a drug that has Jonesed me, for imagine all the comments they could have made if only I had let them?   Oh, the pain I must bear in the days ahead!  Busily censoring all the trolls who automatically disagree with anything that is good and true.  Exhausting!  How will I go on?  Help me express my grief, fellas!  Help me, please!




116 comments:

Anonymous said...

A whole post dedicated to this? At least you're capable of feeling guilty. It's a start.

anonymouse said...

"At least you're capable of feeling guilty. It's a start."

LOL, I think you're missing the sarcasm, Anony. Radar's pride actually prevents him from feeling any guilt at all.
The fact is that Radar is just a bad loser. But hey, if it results in hilarious gems like these, who am I to complain? Just one more reason to confront Radar with his censorship.

Anonymous said...

Nope, the sarcasm didn't escape me at all, but the fact that Radar keeps coming back to this shows that it bugs him, somewhere deep inside.

Yo, Radar, just because you're not censoring someone right now doesn't mean you're not guilty of censorship. It would be like a killer showing up in a courtroom and claiming that he can't possibly be a killer because he's not killing everyone in the room right then.

And now that you've taken on the guilt of censorship, whenever you accuse others of censorship, you're just being a hypocrite.

radar said...

Actually, it is you commenters who keep coming back to it and you are the hypocrites. It is Darwinists who fight to keep ID and Creationism out of schools to be compared to Darwinism, it is Darwinists who fire scientists who do not toe their metaphysical line, it is Darwinists who have an organization, the NCSE, that is devoted to censorship and otherwise wouldn't exist. It is Darwinists who kept rejecting technical papers from ID and Creationists so that they eventually had to form their own scientific societies.

You guys are the Jim Crow of science. You are prejudiced cowards. You are afraid of the discussion. You are Mississippi in the 50's and 60's, having banned non-Darwinists from your establishments. Since you are Darwinists, you probably believe in races and think the white race is superior so it is an apt description. It is Darwinism that led America in the beginning of the 20th Century to segregate the Armed Forces (Woodrow Wilson) and when most of the Jim Crow laws were put into practice.

No, this post is what you call sarcasm. Here in this blog I let you give out the most nonsensical of Darwinist propaganda. Go ahead, show the world the paucity of the Darwinist position. I will let you do it. Just don't think I don't know where Darwinism comes from and why it persists. It isn't about science...

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"You are prejudiced cowards. You are afraid of the discussion."

I asked you a number of simple, fact-based questions. You ran away from the discussion. More hypocrisy on your part.

You can come back to those questions at any time, but in the meantime if you're accusing other people of being afraid of the discussion, you're just being a hypocrite. Again.

"Since you are Darwinists, you probably believe in races and think the white race is superior so it is an apt description."

Part one, yes, races do exist as a means of classification. Part two, what are you smoking? How do you think the theory of evolution says that Caucasians are superior to other races?

Anonymous whatsit said...

"It is Darwinists who fight to keep ID and Creationism out of schools to be compared to Darwinism"

Out of science classes, to be specific. And rightly so, since it has no more place there than talk of a flat Earth or alchemy. Creationism can be taught in history classes perhaps, and ID first has to get its shoes on and evolve into a proper theory. So far it lacks any scientific basis. That doesn't mean it's ultimately wrong, but it still has a long way to go.

radar said...

What a bunch of baloney! ID is science whereas Darwinism is a disproven hypothesis. You are all afraid to death of an even playing field where all evidence is discussed, because a logical person will reject Darwinism out of hand unless that is all they ever hear or see. If you feed someone oatmeal and tell them that is the only food in the world, they'll eat it. But give them a chance to try steak or lasagna and they won't be so exited about oatmeal anymore. Of course, oatmeal is actual food so the comparison is not exact. Darwinism is like feeding someone stone soup.

Anonymous said...

Wow Radar, I can almost taste the desperation in that comment.
It really frustrates you to no end that you have no evidence whatsoever against the theory of evolution, doesn't it?
Absolutely hilarious!

Anonymous whatsit said...

"ID is science whereas Darwinism is a disproven hypothesis."

So I guess "Darwinism" doesnt mean "theory of evolution" then?

radar said...

"Wow Radar, I can almost taste the desperation in that comment.
It really frustrates you to no end that you have no evidence whatsoever against the theory of evolution, doesn't it?
Absolutely hilarious!"

I have years of evidence against evolution. I have evidence against evolution like Ft. Knox has gold. How can I be frustrated when all the evidence is on my side? Remember what Dawkins said, that "we have observed evolution, we just haven't observed it while it is happening!" Now THAT is FUNNY!

Jon Woolf said...

You can observe evolution just as much as you can observe a puppy growing. You never actually see the puppy change in any way in real time, not even between sunrise and sunset, but take pictures of your puppy a few days apart, and the amount of growth is obvious.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"I have years of evidence against evolution. I have evidence against evolution like Ft. Knox has gold. How can I be frustrated when all the evidence is on my side?"

Then why on Earth are you holding it all back and only posting a few shopworn arguments from incredulity and strawman arguments? Seriously, if you have actual evidence against evolution, you could be rich and famous - and a hero among creationists.

Or could it be that that evidence isn't as solid as you think it is?

"Remember what Dawkins said, that "we have observed evolution, we just haven't observed it while it is happening!" Now THAT is FUNNY!"

I guess you're just as determined to misunderstand that quote as you are "hide the decline", huh?

highboy said...

Not real sure what any of these anonymous posters think they've said that's so damning to radar's arguments that it needs to be censored. If evolution was such an iron clad proven hypothesis than probably the majority of the world would actually ascribe to it.

Anonymous said...

"If evolution was such an iron clad proven hypothesis than probably the majority of the world would actually ascribe to it."

And what would the 'majority of the world' be? The educated world? The scientific world? Or just every human being on the globe?

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Not real sure what any of these anonymous posters think they've said that's so damning to radar's arguments that it needs to be censored."

You can ask Radar why he thought it needed to be censored. His own explanation at the time was that just once he wanted to have the final word. The subject was information.

"If evolution was such an iron clad proven hypothesis than probably the majority of the world would actually ascribe to it."

What you probably meant to say is something like "if evolution is an overwhelmingly confirmed scientific theory" - which it is. Despite his boasts, Radar has not been able to falsify any of the evidence for evolution.

As for the majority of the world actually ascribing to it, it seems that the majority of the world does ascribe to it. Countries with a strong fundamentalist presence, like the US and Turkey, are outliers. And among scientists, who understandably know more about the subject, acceptance is truly overwhelming and in some areas close to unanimous.

highboy said...

"What you probably meant to say is something like "if evolution is an overwhelmingly confirmed scientific theory" - which it is. Despite his boasts, Radar has not been able to falsify any of the evidence for evolution."

Says who? For every source one of you has that "falsifies" an argument there is a counter argument from the other side that "falsifies" that.

"As for the majority of the world actually ascribing to it, it seems that the majority of the world does ascribe to it. Countries with a strong fundamentalist presence, like the US and Turkey, are outliers. And among scientists, who understandably know more about the subject, acceptance is truly overwhelming and in some areas close to unanimous."

First of all, here in America, the majority rejects it: "As for the majority of the world actually ascribing to it, it seems that the majority of the world does ascribe to it. Countries with a strong fundamentalist presence, like the US and Turkey, are outliers. And among scientists, who understandably know more about the subject, acceptance is truly overwhelming and in some areas close to unanimous." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml

Anonymous whatsit said...

"First of all, here in America, the majority rejects it"

1. So you're changing your tune from the world to America. Okay.

2. The link you provided from 2005 appears to be dead.

3. Here's a more recent link (PDF).

www DOT publicpolicypolling DOT com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_US_0913925.pdf

Believe in evolution = 51%

Don't believe in evolution = 37%

Not sure = 12%`

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Says who? For every source one of you has that "falsifies" an argument there is a counter argument from the other side that "falsifies" that."

Care to point out an actual argument?

radar said...

No, Jon, that is not true. We have observed hundred of generations of fruit flies and thousands of bacteria, waiting for that puppy to turn into a bear instead of a dog. But it never happens. In fact I posted the "I give up" of a primary fruit fly researcher earlier this year who admitted that whether you bombard them with radiation or change their diets or dance to Mozart they remain fruit flies. They do not evolve.

We observe speciation by natural selection, a process first identified by a Creationist, Blyth, who coined the term and considered it part of the created kind, as do I. Darwin "borrowed" the term and tried to give it magical creative powers. Many decades later we still only see the conservation and speciation of kind. We never do see evolution as Darwin described it.

A puppy will always turn into a dog and it will mate only with dogs and produce only dogs. The dogs can vary according to the preexisting information in the genome. Yes, mutations occur but they are deleterious. They do not build new creatures. If they did Darwinists would shout it to high heavens. Instead, they make false claims that make the headlines (like the Nylon-eating bacteria and the Arsenic-Mono Lake bacteria) and then quietly move away when the claims are shown to be empty.

highboy said...

"The link you provided from 2005 appears to be dead."

Copy and past it into your address bar. Works just fine for me. And its from February 2009, not 2005. Try again. And it says this: "CBS) Most Americans do not accept the theory of evolution. Instead, 51 percent of Americans say God created humans in their present form, and another three in 10 say that while humans evolved, God guided the process. Just 15 percent say humans evolved, and that God was not involved."

I also posted it in answer to your assertion that most Americans believe in evolution. Its not a change in tune. Your link incidentally isn't working for me by the way. As for the world, it is true its hard to get a definitive poll number as to belief in evolution on a global scale, though its showing that countries like Canada and Britian have the highest rate of those who accept evolution whereas U.S. has nearly the lowest.

radar said...

The best way to disprove evolution is to provide evidence for creation. Disproving evolution is like disproving the Easter Bunny. There really is no evidence FOR evolution so how do you shoot at a shadow? The answer is that you provide the evidence for the alternative.

Creationism has an explanation for the creation of the Universe and the Solar System (try reading Darwinist hypotheses about the Solar System if you want a good laugh) and information and life. Creationism not only explains Who created and When but even Why. There was and is a purpose to your existence. You are not a meaningless and purposeless accident.

Some Darwinists actually complain about the fact that they were born without having a choice of existence! Well, God had a reason to make you. You can either decide to defy Him or know Him as you will. You have that choice just as Adam and Eve had the choice to obey or disobey. They screwed up, Jesus came to fix it and you can accept the gift of restoration to relationship with God or you can be the grasshopper on the train track shaking his fist at the train. 99% of the time nothing happens because the train is not on that track at that time. But when it comes...SMUSH! Your choice, knowing the fantastic and amazing Creator or getting smushed.

Jon Woolf said...

We have observed hundred of generations of fruit flies and thousands of bacteria, waiting for that puppy to turn into a bear instead of a dog.

Well, you might have been waiting for that. But people who understand evolution don't.

A puppy will always turn into a dog and it will mate only with dogs and produce only dogs.

What's a dog?

See, what you continually miss is the time factor. Evolution doesn't say that a mama dog will give birth to a bear cub, or vice versa. Evolution doesn't say that a puppy will grow up to be a lion, or a kitten to be a bulldog. Evolution says that small changes between parents and offspring, over many generations, can add up to big results. It takes dozens of generations to produce a new subspecies, hundreds of generations to produce a new species, thousands or tens of thousands of generations to produce a new genus or higher clade. We simply haven't been watching nature directly for long enough to see cladogenesis above the species level.

We can, however, watch indirectly through the fossil record. And when we do, we see evidence for evolution. Why is it, for example, that every tetrapod known, past or present, has the same internal anatomy to its forelimbs and hindlimbs? Why is it that every known tetrapod forms these limbs using the same genes? Evolutionary theory can answer this. Creationism can't.

Why is it that we can find adult fossil animals whose anatomy parallels changes we can observe in modern animals' embryos, such as the formation of the mammalian ear from bones that start as part of the jaw? Evolutionary theory can answer this. Creationism can't.

Jon Woolf said...

You have that choice just as Adam and Eve had the choice to obey or disobey. They screwed up,

Speaking of that ... if Adam didn't know what good and evil were yet, how could he know it was evil to disobey God?

radar said...

Cladistics work just as well for design, I saw a great one recently showing the "evolution" of a unicycle to a sports car. But those things were designed.

Cladograms only work if you take Darwinism by faith. Otherwise they are just a set of different designs made by the same designer. Since the fossil record is in sedimentary rocks formed by the Flood and the post-Flood catastrophic era then the whole idea behind evolution falls apart. In fact we have carbon-14 present in all fossil layers and carbon-14 cannot be there if they are millions of years old with a half-life of 5700 years. Also all the evidence I have presented to show the levels are from the Flood are overwhelming anyway. So you are dead in the water, pun intended!

Adam and Eve did not know it was evil to disobey God, they simply knew He was their authority and they were supposed to obey Him. They could not know why, but simply know THAT...then Satan taking the form of a "serpent" (the Hebrew word implies an impressive and shining being) mixed truth and falsehood in telling Eve that she would be like God, knowing good and evil. That was true, but he also said that she would not surely die and that was false. Worse, Adam was not deceived but chose to also eat of the fruit, presumably so whatever happened to Eve would also happen with/to him. So Eve was fooled but Adam chose to disobey and probably because he was so linked to Eve he feared losing her? We cannot know his thinking as we are not told.

In any event, the couple did the ONE THING they were told not to do. I cannot say I would not have done the same thing...

Jon Woolf said...

In fact we have carbon-14 present in all fossil layers and carbon-14 cannot be there if they are millions of years old with a half-life of 5700 years.

Those who have the truth on their side have no need of lies like that, Radar.

Everything we know about the fossil record says that it was not formed by a single global flood, the lies of creationist frauds notwithstanding.

they simply knew He was their authority and they were supposed to obey Him.

How? If they didn't yet know about 'good and evil,' right and wrong, then they couldn't possibly have understood that it was wrong to disobey God. Either they already knew about good and evil, or they didn't know it was evil to disobey. In either case, the whole point of the story falls apart.

Unless, of course, you know something about märchen, and realize that the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden has nothing to do with 'good and evil,' and everything to do with a specific bit of knowledge: the knowledge and understanding of sex. It's a coming of age story, no more, no less, and the "penalty" for coming of age is becoming an adult, with all of adulthood's attendant troubles.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"I also posted it in answer to your assertion that most Americans believe in evolution. Its not a change in tune."

Strangely enough, your answer came before my assertion. You implied that the majority of the world didn't ascribe to evolution, and it seems that they do, with countries like the US and Turkey being outliers. When you back-pedalled to just the US and provided a poll to support that, I gave you a more recent poll that indicates that a slim majority do believe in evolution. Which was the first time I said that (having just found that poll myself), so no, you didn't post that poll in response to my assertion.

"Your link incidentally isn't working for me by the way."

I just tried it again and it seems to be working fine. Obviously you'll have to put in the dots where indicated. Note that it doesn't give a web page, it downloads a PDF.

"As for the world, it is true its hard to get a definitive poll number as to belief in evolution on a global scale, though its showing that countries like Canada and Britian have the highest rate of those who accept evolution whereas U.S. has nearly the lowest."

US, Turkey, and I suspect Africa and various countries with heavy Muslim populations next.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"And it says this: "CBS) Most Americans do not accept the theory of evolution. Instead, 51 percent of Americans say God created humans in their present form, and another three in 10 say that while humans evolved, God guided the process. Just 15 percent say humans evolved, and that God was not involved.",

So that's 51 percent who believe in creationism and 45 percent who believe humans evolved, with or without God involved.

Anonymous whatsit said...

BTW, highboy, your link has two polls in it, one from the year before, and it indicates a trend away from creationism and towards evolution. The poll I posted merely continues that trend.

Anonymous whatsit said...

Blogger keeps dropping one part of my post, which is why I keep having to chop it up into smaller bits.

Just wanted to say that your link is from 2005, not 2009. Take a sentence from the article and google it so you can see for yourself.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Cladistics work just as well for design"

Design can't explain ERVs in identical positions on the genome on some organisms but not on others; evolution can.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Since the fossil record is in sedimentary rocks formed by the Flood and the post-Flood catastrophic era then the whole idea behind evolution falls apart."

Since the first part of your claim is entirely unfounded and actually even contradicted by observable evidence, the second part of your claim doesn't follow.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Creationism has an explanation for the creation of the Universe"

So does every other creation myth out there. Anyone can say "there's an invisible magical being to whom all these rules don't apply and this being made the universe" and then claim that they've explained the origin of the universe.

But it's not a scientific explanation if the mythology as a whole is contradicted by scientific evidence. In the case of YEC, the notion of a young Earth is falsified by evidence from a number of different areas, and so your explanation is simply baseless.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"whether you bombard them with radiation or change their diets or dance to Mozart they remain fruit flies. They do not evolve."

It would help if you actually read a book about evolution sometime. Just because fruit flies remain fruit flies doesn't mean they didn't evolve.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"In fact we have carbon-14 present in all fossil layers and carbon-14 cannot be there if they are millions of years old with a half-life of 5700 years."

Um, yes they can. It's possible for carbon-14 to be generated in situ.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Also all the evidence I have presented to show the levels are from the Flood are overwhelming anyway. So you are dead in the water, pun intended!"

Remind us how you dealt with the falsifications of your claim, for example the fossiliferous strata in Large Igneous Provinces that Jon Woolf has brought up a few times.

highboy said...

"Strangely enough, your answer came before my assertion"

Yes, my original assertion was the world. Never backpeddled. I posted the link about Americans in answer to your assertion about Americans. Get it now? *whew* As for the world, while it doesn't give a global poll, there are a few European countries where the majority ascribe to evolution and that's basically it. As for my link, it clearly says February 2009, and there are more sources from the same date as I'm sure you know since you googled it.

"So that's 51 percent who believe in creationism"

That would be a majority. Your link did work for me finally by the way. LOL. I'm ashamed to admit I actually was trying to copy and paste it DOTs and all. While it is one source (and only one) that gives a slight edge to evolution, it's still pretty disproportionate when considering how "confirmed" this theory is suppose to be. Even if we ascribe to the poll you posted it seems odd that something that's supposedly so thoroughly verified is still so unaccepted, especially since most don't see it colliding with their religious beliefs. I spent 3 years on an entire campus full of Christians and while some knew of the ongoing debate between YEC/OEC/Evolution, most don't seem to care or even know what's going on.

On a side and unrelated not, that source you gave was actually pretty nifty. I have a brother who does polling and surveying in terms of voters and its always pretty fascinating stuff.

Jon Woolf said...

One of the problems with these polls about evolution is that they often wind up measuring something entirely different: the public's ignorance about evolutionary theory and what it says. I recall a poll from four or five years ago which demonstrated this clearly: large majorities of respondents agreed with both a simplified summary of evolutionary theory and a straightforward statement of creationism. Two of the items on that poll were logically contradictory: both could not be true. 62% agreed with one of the two; 40% agreed with the other. When you throw in the inevitable "don't know/no opinion," that result says something pretty sad about the respondents.

As for the notion that you can determine scientific validity from polling people in the 'Stans or sub-Saharan Africa, well ... as the saying goes, if you have to ask, you wouldn't understand the answer. Among those nations with a well-educated populace, only two have a significant creationist presence: the United States and Australia.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Yes, my original assertion was the world. Never backpeddled. I posted the link about Americans in answer to your assertion about Americans. Get it now? *whew*"

You mean my assertion that the US was an outlier? You posted it to confirm my assertion?

Anonymous whatsit said...

"As for my link, it clearly says February 2009, and there are more sources from the same date as I'm sure you know since you googled it."

I know it says that both as the copyright date and the date the page was published. But it's not when it was first published.

1. Look at the link itself, you'll see year, month, day. It says 2005.

2. Take the sentence "51 percent of Americans say God created humans in their present form" and put it in google, including the quotes. I get about 4,780 hits for this. You might get them in a different order, but the first cbsnews hit get starts with this: "22 Oct 2005 – Instead, 51 percent of Americans [etc.]"

Next, a link from an outfit called netphoria, last active 24 Oct 2005. Six links further down, another one from 24 Oct 2005, then one from 2 Sept 2007. Click on any of those and it's this specific poll they're referencing.

Clearly the article you linked to can't have been first published in 2009.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Even if we ascribe to the poll you posted it seems odd that something that's supposedly so thoroughly verified is still so unaccepted, especially since most don't see it colliding with their religious beliefs."

As Jon Woolf pointed out, that's not a reflection on the scientific validity of the theory of evolution, rather a (sad) reflection of the ignorance out there. What would be odd is if there were such a disparity, say, among scientists in closely related fields, and there isn't.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"On a side and unrelated not, that source you gave was actually pretty nifty. I have a brother who does polling and surveying in terms of voters and its always pretty fascinating stuff."

You might like fivethirtyeight DOT com.

highboy said...

@Jon: considering that 10 out of the top 15 schools in the world are in the U.S., its pretty significant that most U.S. reject evolution. You can simply write them off as uneducated or ignorant, but that's hardly the case. The point remains that if evolution was that iron clad, it wouldn't be so largely rejected.

radar said...

I loved the part in the Expelled movie where Meyer remembered a teacher at Cambridge had said, "Beware the sound of one hand clapping." The primary energy amongst Darwinists is pointed towards fending off any investigation or dissent from their position and that is NOT science, that is censorship and it is out of fear.

If fifty per cent or five per cent of the public believes in Darwinism or Creationism that doesn't change what is or isn't true.

Here is where we know Darwinism is not science. Scientists like to explore and test and investigate. Einstein never feared people testing his theories. Newton didn't set up an agency to fend off challenges to his laws of Physics. Real science presses on with investigation and tests and challenges are part of the profession. Darwinists, on the other hand, are all about spreading propaganda and closing ranks like Musk Oxen whenever anyone questions their beliefs. That tells us that Darwinism is about the belief system and not the science. You are not fooling me. I can see what your motivation is. I can see your fear.

Why did the Berlin Wall get built? Not to keep people out, but to keep them IN. Darwinism has build a Berlin Wall around faith in evolution and they work overtime keeping any questions and dissents from reaching the tender ears of the public if they can. They have the media pretty well in hand, they dominate academia and secular science.

But there are now hundreds of Radio Free Europes like me blogging. Like free countries, groups of scientists have formed ICR and Creation.com and AIG and the Discovery Institute and many, many more. They provide peer review that actually reviews. They publish technical journals. They investigate. They do the work of science Darwinists fear, that is, to investigate it and determine if it is a worthwhile hypothesis. It has been tested and proven to be lacking.

radar said...

whatsit you make baseless assertions a lot while, when I make a post, I have links and attributions and explanations of my positions. I will not make posts in the comments threads. If you missed what I said about LIPS then that is on you. If you want to believe your mythology that is also on you.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"whatsit you make baseless assertions a lot while, when I make a post, I have links and attributions and explanations of my positions."

The links aren't that impressive if your underlying logic is flawed. If you claim that because something is complex it must be designed, then the logic itself doesn't work, no matter how many links you put up to show complexity itself.

"If you missed what I said about LIPS then that is on you."

I have read it. It failed to address the question of fossiliferous strata within them in any way that salvages YEC.

"If you want to believe your mythology that is also on you."

Likewise.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"considering that 10 out of the top 15 schools in the world are in the U.S., its pretty significant that most U.S. reject evolution."

Pretty iffy logic there, highboy. Because 10 out of the top 15 schools in the world are in the US doesn't mean that the people who DON'T go to those high-end colleges are rocket scientists. And when you ask the students at those high-end colleges, where do you think they fall on the evolution/creation question?

"You can simply write them off as uneducated or ignorant, but that's hardly the case."

There is a demonstrated direct inverse correlation between belief in creationism and level of education, so I think such a case can actually be made.

"The point remains that if evolution was that iron clad, it wouldn't be so largely rejected."

As even Radar acknowledges in the next comment: "If fifty per cent or five per cent of the public believes in Darwinism or Creationism that doesn't change what is or isn't true."

The proof is in the pudding. If YECs claim the world is 6,000 years old, they've got a heck of a lot of explaining to do, and as Radar demonstrates with every post, they're not up to that task. Take away logical fallacies, strawman arguments and vast conspiracy theories, and what's left of Radar's grand argument? Anything at all?

Anonymous whatsit said...

"They provide peer review that actually reviews. They publish technical journals. They investigate. They do the work of science Darwinists fear, that is, to investigate it and determine if it is a worthwhile hypothesis. It has been tested and proven to be lacking."

Awesome. And you read these journals?

So surely you can name a testable, falsifiable, confirmed prediction that confirms YEC.

Just one.

Can you come up with one?

If you try to answer this question, I think you'll find that this is the kind of science that creationists fear....

highboy said...

"Because 10 out of the top 15 schools in the world are in the US doesn't mean that the people who DON'T go to those high-end colleges are rocket scientists"

Touche. LOL. Nice rebuttal.

"There is a demonstrated direct inverse correlation between belief in creationism and level of education, so I think such a case can actually be made."

Not so much on that one. Correlation doesn't equal causation, and statistics have a funny way of twisting such cases. For example, I myself never graduated high school. I dropped out. Yet IQ level is considerably above the norm, I went to college. But statistics will show me as a high school drop out and so in terms "less educated". Even at the college level, not to mention that unless every single grad from those high end schools have direct access to experimentation, testing, results, etc, when it comes to cosmology and biology, simply taking the tests and putting what professors deem as the correct answer doesn't make someone smarter.

Jon Woolf said...

@Jon: considering that 10 out of the top 15 schools in the world are in the U.S., its pretty significant that most U.S. reject evolution.

If it were true that "most US reject evolution," it would be. But it's not, so it isn't. A narrow majority of the US populace say they don't believe in evolution, but a narrow majority is not "most." In fact, survey after survey shows that most of the US populace doesn't know what evolutionary theory says, so their responses to such surveys measure nothing but their own ignorance.

The point remains that if evolution was that iron clad, it wouldn't be so largely rejected.

There are a number of thoroughly verified scientific theories that are nevertheless rejected by average joes. Got any idea how long it took to convince the average joe-in-the-street that the Earth went around the Sun? Got any idea how many people right now think it's possible to build a perpetual-motion machine? How many people think the moon landings were all faked?

highboy said...

"If it were true that "most US reject evolution," it would be. But it's not, so it isn't. A narrow majority of the US populace say they don't believe in evolution, but a narrow majority is not "most."

If English is any use here a majority is most. And you can conclude that most people don't know what evolutionary theory is but you'd have to show me evidence other than a poll number that states most who reject evolution don't understand it.

"There are a number of thoroughly verified scientific theories that are nevertheless rejected by average joes. Got any idea how long it took to convince the average joe-in-the-street that the Earth went around the Sun?"

Darwin's theory has been around for a few minutes, not to mention evolution is taught in literally every single public school from elementary school to high school in this entire country. If you're saying that none of these schools are teaching actual evolutionary theory that's a bold claim to make and would require some verifiable evidence.

Jon Woolf said...

Radar: "Here is where we know Darwinism is not science. Scientists like to explore and test and investigate."

Oh, you mean like Neil Shubin, who predicted where he might find primitive tetrapods, tested his prediction, and found the 'fishapod' Tiktaalik? Like Don Johanson, who predicted where he might find primitive hominids, went there, searched a while, and came home with Australopithecus afarensis, the most primitive hominid known at the time? Like Peter and Rosemary Grant, who have spent almost forty years amassing a huge quantity of data on the operation of evolution among the finches of the Galapagos? Like the embryologists who did tissue transplants on embryonic chicks, and found that domestic chicks -- descended through thousands of generations of birds that had never had teeth -- nevertheless retained the genes for developing teeth.

Or were you referring to armchair-scientists like Duane Gish, who sits around reading different books by various scientists, and whenever he finds two authors that say the same thing a little differently, he howls with glee about how he's found a !!!CONTRADICTION IN EVOLUTIONARY THEORY!!! AND IT MUST ALL BE A COMPLETE LIE!!11!!

radar said...

So a blind squirrel finds a nut? Tiktaalik has already been abandoned as a fishapod since the Polish Salamander is found in "earlier" layers and furthermore it is not unlike some living specimens. You are not keeping up with your own guys?

Australopithecus afarensis is going to turn out to be an ape like all the other pseudo-hominids that have been tossed aside. Lucy, anyone?

Peter and Rosemary Grant threw away 40 years of their life? If you have read Kirschner and Gerhart you probably know that finch beaks have switches built in so they can quickly be changed from one style to another and that this is built in to the organism! Yep, that darned design problem!

As to chickens once having teeth, like Henry Morris said, some birds have teeth and some don't. Some people have teeth and some don't! Rapid speciation can take place in a few short generations. Chickens may have had teeth 3,000 years ago for all we know. Your artificial insertion of "thousands of generations" is completely speculative and is not based on evidence.

Oh, and ERVs are actually not what Darwinists thought they were, as I have already posted. In fact "Junk DNA" is not junk, "vestigal" organs are not vestigal and the pharyngula stage of embryo development is not identical to all creatures. In fact most myths of Darwinism are being dispelled by real science. Jon is a bit behind...

Jon Woolf said...

Tiktaalik has already been abandoned as a fishapod since the Polish Salamander is found in "earlier" layers

That doesn't change the status of Tiktaalik as an anatomical intermediate between advanced fish and primitive tetrapods. All it means is that Tiktaalik itself was an evolutionarily conservative form at the time when it was fossilized.

Note, incidentally, that the Polish ghost tetrapod was the result of somebody looking in other than the expected places -- and his find was accepted and publicized widely by the scientific community despite the fact it contradicted 'darwinian' orthodoxy. So much for your charges of a 'darwinian conspiracy to suppress Da Troof."

and furthermore it is not unlike some living specimens.

Name one.

Jon Woolf said...

Australopithecus afarensis is going to turn out to be an ape like all the other pseudo-hominids that have been tossed aside. Lucy, anyone?

Poor Radar! Australopithecus afarensis IS "Lucy"! Same animal. And it is an ape ... but it's also a hominin, classified as closer to human than to any living ape.

If you have read Kirschner and Gerhart

I have, and understood them too. Which is more than you can honestly say. What K and G actually found is that significant phenotypic changes can be generated by a single mutation in a single regulatory gene. One mutation is all it takes to produce a large-beaked finch from small-beaked parents. "Facilitated variation" has nothing to do with an external Designer; instead, it refers to the way in which the phenotype apparently seems to 'facilitate' the expression of certain genetic variants, which then enhance the whole organism's fitness quotient.

Jon Woolf said...

As to chickens once having teeth, like Henry Morris said, some birds have teeth and some don't.

[snork]

No living bird has teeth. No bird that has lived since the Mesozoic has had teeth. Absence of teeth is one of the defining characteristics of the crown-clade Neornithes, to which all living birds belong.

In fact most myths of Darwinism are being dispelled by real science.

Indeed, the myths of 'darwinism' (or more precisely, the lies about evolutionary theory) peddled by creationists are being dispelled by real science -- science which confirms the real substance of evolutionary theory in every detail.

Jon Woolf said...

highboy: when you say 'most' to me, I think supermajority - 65, 70% or even more.

Darwin's theory has been around for a few minutes, not to mention evolution is taught in literally every single public school from elementary school to high school in this entire country.

The Copernican model of the solar system has been around ... well, since Copernicus.

If you're saying that none of these schools are teaching actual evolutionary theory that's a bold claim to make and would require some verifiable evidence.

Read any of the textbooks or lesson plans used in public schools. What younger kids get in the lower grades is a very simplified version of the theory, tailored to the kids' age/education level. In high school, they get something a little closer to the truth, but still not the whole truth. There are too many other subjects to cover, and really getting deep into any of them would take too much time. That's true for evolutionary theory, geology, quantum mechanics, chemistry, and any other science subject you care to name.

highboy said...

"There are too many other subjects to cover, and really getting deep into any of them would take too much time"

You asserted that most who answer polls on evolution don't understand what the theory is. As basic as public schools may keep it I find it very unbelievable that they make it 12 grades with still no understanding of evolutionary theory.

anonymouse said...

"If evolution was such an iron clad proven hypothesis than probably the majority of the world would actually ascribe to it."

Does it really follow that the evidence for a scientific theory is insufficient simply because the majority of the world's population doesn't believe the theory?
For instance: how long did it last until the majority of the world accepted heliocentrism? Apparently, as of February 2011 still one third of Russia thinks the sun spins around the Earth.

You could argue, though, that current education models are insufficient in communicating the evidence to the general populace, or that ID/Creationist media are quite succesful in spreading their message.
But simply concluding that the evidence isn't solid? Seems too bold a conclusion to me.

highboy said...

"But simply concluding that the evidence isn't solid? Seems too bold a conclusion to me."

No one made any conclusion, I'm simply pointing out that its actually a bolder statement to keep railing away as if evolution is a done deal that the entire world has accepted and radar needs to catch up on while its obviously not the case. And despite Jon's claims, I find it hard to believe that no one or even most of the people who have been taught evolution just simply don't get it.

anonymouse said...

"No one made any conclusion,...

Well, earlier you said:

"The point remains that if evolution was that iron clad, it wouldn't be so largely rejected."

So what is it, then? You DO seem to make a connection between the two: evolution largely rejected = evidence for evolution not iron clad.

Please elaborate.

highboy said...

The conclusion I made was just that: if its so iron clad, it wouldn't be so largely rejected. What "bold conclusion" I did not make, was that the evidence isn't solid.

anonymouse said...

Pray tell, what exactly is the difference between 'evolution not being iron clad' and 'the evidence for evolution not being solid'?

highboy said...

Wow. The difference being that solid evidence is plausible evidence, iron clad evidence means there is no shadow of a doubt and its 100% verifiable.

anonymouse said...

Wow. Are those definitions for 'solid evidence' and 'iron clad evidence' universally accepted? And does 'rock solid evidence' somehow rate higher than 'iron clad evidence'?

Also, you said:

"I'm simply pointing out that its actually a bolder statement to keep railing away as if evolution is a done deal that the entire world has accepted and radar needs to catch up on while its obviously not the case.

I'm not sure if anybody said that the entire world has accepted evolution. The majority of the scientific world: yes. But since Radar likes to talk science that is completely relevant.

Jon Woolf said...

highboy: "You asserted that most who answer polls on evolution don't understand what the theory is. As basic as public schools may keep it I find it very unbelievable that they make it 12 grades with still no understanding of evolutionary theory."

Hard to believe it is, but it also appears to be true. Like I said, a couple of years ago I saw another of these surveys on evolutionary theory. Two of the questions were as follows:

(5) True or false: Human beings were created by God as whole persons and did not evolve from earlier forms of life.

(6) True or false: Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals.

62% of respondents said (5) was true. 40% of respondents said that (6) was true. You don't need a doctorate in statistics to see the contradiction.

Question 4 on the same survey was:

(4) True or false: The earliest humans lived at the same time as the dinosaurs.

28% said this was true; 22% didn't know.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"As basic as public schools may keep it I find it very unbelievable that they make it 12 grades with still no understanding of evolutionary theory."

Look at Radar for an example. He thinks very highly of his own intellectual abilities, yet doesn't grasp basic aspects of biology or the theory of evolution. I would say this is just about entirely because of religious indoctrination. His religion has saved his skin and so he insists that the Bible is a science textbook.

For another answer to this question that's puzzling you, I'd also suggest you look at your own comment earlier in this thread:

"For every source one of you has that "falsifies" an argument there is a counter argument from the other side that "falsifies" that."

A lot of people are fairly apathetic about the details of science. They hear one person say one thing and another person insist on another and assume that there must be some kind of controversy even when, from a scientific perspective, there isn't.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"I'm simply pointing out that its actually a bolder statement to keep railing away as if evolution is a done deal that the entire world has accepted and radar needs to catch up on while its obviously not the case."

Scientifically, macroevolution and an old Earth are a done deal. No serious falsification of either has ever been presented.

See for yourself - go through Radar's blog and try to find just one such attempted falsification that isn't a glaring logical fallacy (argument from incredulity, strawman argument, misrepresentation).

That is why there is a faux "controversy" on sideshow blogs like this one and no actual controversy in areas where such dishonesty is filtered out.

highboy said...

Just because there isn't a controversy among mainstream scientists doesn't mean there isn't a controversy. This myth that peer review is going to be the least bit objective when examining work that if proven true would basically make them all look like fools is actually amusing.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Just because there isn't a controversy among mainstream scientists doesn't mean there isn't a controversy."

True. It just means there is no scientific controversy.

By the same token you can also say that there is a controversy about, say, whether the moon landing was fake.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"This myth that peer review is going to be the least bit objective when examining work that if proven true would basically make them all look like fools is actually amusing."

That's an extremely easy claim to make, mainly because one can make it without any foundation. Do you have any specific work that "if proven true would basically make them all look like fools" in mind?

Here's how creationists can really make some headway with this "controversy":

1. Come up with a testable, falsifiable claim - something that if it turns out to be true confirms, say, creation or a young Earth, and that if it turns out to be false refutes creation and/or a young Earth.

Is there such a claim? With all these creationists allegedly on the case, does such a claim exist?

2. Next: test the claim.

Does it confirm creation/a young Earth? If no, back to step 1. If yes, proceed to:

3. Submit a paper detailing the confirmed claim to a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

a. If it's accepted and published: bingo! Creationists score.

b. If it's rejected (even though steps 1 and 2 were followed), then examine the rejection letter, which will state the reason for the rejection, and make hay with it. Publish it everywhere to show how peer review is broken and how scientists reject scientific evidence. Creationists score again.


Really, that's all creationists have to do. Now can anyone here point us to a creationist who has ever achieved even step 1?

AmericanVet said...

Darwinists are simply cowardly liars. They are afraid of ID and Creationist scientists and sites because they know that if a person with common sense looks at the science of both sides, Darwinism loses. It is a joke, really, the last refuge of desperate Atheists and Atheopaths and the default belief of those who do not think critically and just swallow their teaching like babies being spoon-fed their Gerbers' for lunch.

Of course, the RATE project took care of step one. There is carbon-14 in "pre-cambrian" rocks. Helium atoms are still present in bedrock granitic zircons. Many other young-age proofs have been offered. I also posted a couple of Ian Juby You Tubes that point out the old-age dating methods used by Darwinists have been proven to be incorrect.

But Darwinists are the liars. I do hope you do search my blog and read what I have posted. An old Earth is not only not proven, it makes no sense. It is not possible from what we know of the orbit of the Moon and the behavior of stars like our Sun. The Solar System can only be a few hundred thousand years old at most and could easily be 6-7,000 years old and not one Darwinist explanation for its formation works.

But God created? Fits perfectly. It explains why a Sigmoidal population graph of human population gives us an approximate time period of around 4,000 some odd years - because that goes back to the date of the Flood when Noah and his family stepped off of the Ark.

It was Creationists who discovered the rapid tectonic plate subduction which explains the jigsaw-puzzle appearance of the continents and is a part of the Flood process as well.

It is Creationists who can explain the existence of existence while Darwinists cannot. Wait until I expose what Stephen Hawking actually thinks. His latest book is such a ridiculous and pathetic attempt to be science-y while defending a hopeless philosophy.

Darwinism is no more science than Scientology is. That is why Darwinists are such devoted censors and that is why the NCSE exists. You see, when two opposing hypotheses are allowed to be reviewed together, the superior one will be accepted. Creation is far and away the superior hypothesis.

AmericanVet said...

By the way, the RATE conference did include peer review on the paper on Helium atoms in Zircons was approved. So was the Polonium Radiohalo paper. That was, heck, back in 2004 I think? Darwinists are simply ignoring it because it is a falsification of their pet religion.

Anonymous said...

"Darwinists are simply cowardly liars."

Derision is still not an argument.

"That is why Darwinists are such devoted censors..."

You already know what I'm going to say, don't you?

Anonymous whatsit said...

After all that bluster and prevarication, could you please point us to a creationist who has ever achieved even step 1? Can't do it, can you?

The same way you can't point us to a YEC interpretation of radiometric/ice core/tree ring data that lines up with YEC beliefs.

Run, Radar, run.

"It is Creationists who can explain the existence of existence while Darwinists cannot"

Sorry, but as long as that explanation is "God did it" and that explanation is married to a claim that is falsified by observable evidence, your explanation is null and void. Try again.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"By the way, the RATE conference did include peer review on the paper on Helium atoms in Zircons was approved. So was the Polonium Radiohalo paper. That was, heck, back in 2004 I think? Darwinists are simply ignoring it because it is a falsification of their pet religion."

No, they addressed it. Heck, back in 2005 I think.

AmericanVet said...

If you knew they addressed it in 2005 then you are lying when you say no peer-reviewed papers have falsified the Old Earth. Gotcha!

AmericanVet said...

As usual, I post evidence and commenters just naysay. Or they get caught like whatsit just did, knowing that Creationism has evidence and not wanting to admit it...

Anonymous whatsit said...

"As usual, I post evidence and commenters just naysay."

And here's Radar just naysaying instead of posting evidence.

"Or they get caught like whatsit just did, knowing that Creationism has evidence and not wanting to admit it..."

I've never been presented with evidence for creationism, so I don't "know" that it has such evidence. What I do know is that you're shy some basic, factual answers.

So how about it, can you point out a single creationist who has fulfilled step 1 above?

A single testable, falsifiable claim that confirms YEC?

Just one?

And where are the YEC interpretations of radiometric and ice core layer and tree ring data?

Where?

All the derision in the world isn't going to answer those questions.

Still nothing?

Anonymous whatsit said...

"If you knew they addressed it in 2005 then you are lying when you say no peer-reviewed papers have falsified the Old Earth. Gotcha!"

Say what? Where's the logic in that?

They addressed the polonium halos and helium atoms in zircons. That would mean the so-called falsifications are moot.

As for whether those original claims were published in peer-reviewed papers, no, I didn't bother checking that. What was the journal and who were the peers?

Anonymous said...

Some problems with the RATE project are pointed out (by Christians) here: www DOT answersincreation DOT org/ratedeception.htm

AmericanVet said...

Hard words for Christians to come...who is your God? If you are a Christian, do you trust the Bible first or secular science first? If you trust secular science above the Bible then you trust the words of men above the Word of God and that is a foolish thing to do. There are many actual Christians who will be quite downcast to see they devoted a life's work to fighting against the God they claimed to serve.

Being a Christian, you can be born again and be wrong. You can support Stephen Hawking above Jesus Christ if you are so inclined. God is responsible to keep all Christians once they become part of His family, even when they are wrong.

But there are many pseudo-Christians who claim to be of Christ and are not. This was a problem from the beginning, when Paul and Peter and John and others had to warn the church about wolves in sheep's clothing.

Answers in Creation is working against God. They should be ashamed of themselves. BioLogos, same thing. talkorigins, same thing. It is a cowardly thing to decide to go along with the world rather than have the guts to just stand on the Bible and say "I know God will always be proved to be right!" There is no such thing as non-overlapping magesteria.

You so-called Christians who try to make the Bible fit into what secular science says will be among the ones judged most heavily.

You real Christians who do the same thing? All of those works will be burned up at the Judgment Seat of Christ. Real Christians who were wrong still go to Heaven, but these works you do will be destroyed before your eyes and you will realize that you spent perhaps years working against your own God.

Meanwhile the Darwinists use you to erode the faith of others and laugh at you behind your backs. With me, they laugh at me to my face usually. But that is okay, I know who has the last laugh. I won't be laughing when I see them tossed into Hell because that isn't funny, it is tragic. They won't be laughing then, either.

Darwinism is an excuse to be an Atheist when scientifically it is a grossly inadequate and antiquated hypothesis not supported by the evidence, despite the pompous blowhards that support it. But they support it with censorship and satire and naysaying and threats but no evidence. That is why my posts depend upon evidence. That way the contrast is clearly seen.

AmericanVet said...

"And where are the YEC interpretations of radiometric and ice core layer and tree ring data?

Where?

All the derision in the world isn't going to answer those questions.

Still nothing?"


Still refusing to use the search tool on the blog to see the posts? I am not going to make another blog post in comments. I have made posts on the subject, someone of average intelligence or above can find them using the search tool. Go fish.

AmericanVet said...

You Darwinists think you have come up with something new? Paul called you out in the first century AD in Romans chapter 1 (New King James Version)verses 18-25.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen."

Anonymous said...

Ah, the Christian's ultimate white flag: citing Romans 1:22.

Concession accepted. Have a nice day.

Anonymous said...

"You Darwinists think you have come up with something new? Paul called you out in the first century AD".

There were Darwinists in the first century AD????

highboy said...

Anonymous quit being an immature coward. Quoting the Bible is hardly a "concession" and declaring it a concession doesn't grant you a victory. Its nothing more than a cop out. I'm not saying radar's arguments in this discussion are correct or not but if that's the best you can do it says more about you than it does radar.

Anonymous said...

"Quoting the Bible is hardly a "concession" and declaring it a concession doesn't grant you a victory."

Quoting the Bible doesn't grant you a victory, either.
But it's endearing how you keep supporting and defending Radar through and through...

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Quoting the Bible is hardly a "concession" and declaring it a concession doesn't grant you a victory"

It wasn't just quoting the Bible in general, it was that specific verse, which amounted to mere fearmongering.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"There were Darwinists in the first century AD????"

The Lord works in mysterious ways... why should time travel be a problem?

Anonymous said...

AmericanVet, you're basically saying "who're you gonna believe, the Bible or your stinkin' eyes?".

But if there is indeed a contradiction between God's creation (nature) and an artifact made and edited by man (the Bible), why ditch nature?

The apparent age of the universe is a problem that YECs haven't been able to explain from what Ive seen so far.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Still refusing to use the search tool on the blog to see the posts? I am not going to make another blog post in comments. I have made posts on the subject, someone of average intelligence or above can find them using the search tool. Go fish."

It ain't there buddy. Sending people off on a wild-goose chase isn't going to get you out of this one.

There are various discussions of dating methods, but they tend to be of the "here's an inconsistent result, so therefore the whole thing doesn't work, ergo God did it" variety. Which doesn't answer the question at all.

Some of your statements are just completely ridiculous. I saw a snow storm and it put down some layers in my backyard, so ice core layers are false? Sorry, but that's not compatible with your claims of being somewhat well-read on the scientific front. Pick one or the other, but you can't stick by claims like that and still cling to any kind of credibility.

If you're aware of the answer, just post a link to it.

Here's the question again:

"Where are the YEC interpretations of radiometric and ice core layer and tree ring data?"

A suitable answer would be the different data laid side by side with a Biblical chronology and a consistent matching of the data to the historical timeline.

Unsuitable answers would be:

- Bible-bashing/fear-mongering

- Pretending you answered this a long time ago but you just can't happen to find the link right now, a.k.a. "the dog ate my homework"

- Hollow derision of so-called "Darwinists"

We already know you can't answer the above question. What's amusing is your refusal to admit it.

highboy said...

"Quoting the Bible doesn't grant you a victory, either.
But it's endearing how you keep supporting and defending Radar through and through..."

Radar didn't claim quoting that verse granted him victory in a scientific discussion, so your whole statement was irrelevant. What a surprise. Its not a defense of radar more pointing out how childish it is to declare "concession! victory!" since its the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears while going "na na na".

"Where are the YEC interpretations of radiometric and ice core layer and tree ring data?"

There loads of sources that discuss this very thing but since they are advocates of YEC, they are dismissed before its even considered.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"There loads of sources that discuss this very thing but since they are advocates of YEC, they are dismissed before its even considered."

Highboy,

1. That's simply an evasion, and not even a particularly good one. A bit like the standard conspiracy theories that Radar keeps having to revert to.

Given the nature of the question, it's a given that if any such source existed, it would be hosted on some kind of YEC website. Doesn't matter. Bring it on. If you think it exists, post a link to it.

Make sure you understand the question though: "Where are the YEC interpretations of radiometric and ice core layer and tree ring data?" Not just pointing at a couple of outliers of radiometric dating while ignoring all the other data. An actual YEC interpretation of radiometric/ice core layer/tree ring data that is consistent both internally and with YEC chronology.


2. You've said in the past that you're on the fence about young Earth/old Earth, and that you don't think you understand the science anyway. Are you now picking a side on that issue?


"how childish it is to declare "concession! victory!" since its the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears while going "na na na"."

You are aware that Radar very frequently declares victory, implicitly or explicitly, in his blog posts, right?

highboy said...

"That's simply an evasion, and not even a particularly good one. A bit like the standard conspiracy theories that Radar keeps having to revert to."

Its not an evasion, its a simple fact. There are dozens of sources concerning the YEC position on radiometric dating, tree rings, ice cores, etc. The position is clear: they are unreliable dating tools. I think you know that. (the position I mean)

"You've said in the past that you're on the fence about young Earth/old Earth, and that you don't think you understand the science anyway. Are you now picking a side on that issue?"

I never said I don't understand the science. I understand both positions very well, but not having done any experiments myself, having no access to any scientific equipment used to draw the conclusions either side have, I'm in no position to declare with one side or the other. I have access to scientific journals, papers, and books, and that's basically it. Or am I suppose to go with mainstream science merely because they're mainstream science? Do I have any way of verifying their conclusions myself?

AmericanVet said...

Highboy, I do get the technical journals and correspond with scientists and have the background to make a decision for myself about new versus old earth. I know you are on the fence in part because for you it doesn't amount to a faith issue. Either way you believe God and you are not entirely sure of the various arguments made by various sources. I absolutely respect that and I never doubt that you are a Christian.

What ticks me off is the people who have credentials and degrees and have seen the evidence that geologists should understand means an old earth is highly improbable and in fact as close to impossible as one can imagine. For instance, we have very good measurements of the magnetic field of earth and have been taking them for longer than probably any other earth process. I believe according to the force (not talking about magnetic poles switching or a certain amount of force at one place at one time) now generated and the degradation of the field's power, the earth could not be more than 50 to 100,000 years old. We could not survive without the magnetic field for it shields us from many deadly rays emitting from the sun and outer space.

Furthermore there is no way that helium atoms can remain in zircon for millions of years unless they are frozen at exceedingly low temperature and they are found in bedrock...close to that hot magma and certainly no evidence that bedrock has spent millions of years at the temperature of dry ice! Polonium radiohalo detection is another sign the rock layers are recent. So is the presence of carbon-14 in all sedimentary rock layers and even layers there before the flood! In other words, actual scientists know that the evidence points to a young earth and they are trying to cover it up. Kind of like watching the Hitchcock move, "Rope." They won't get away with it!

AmericanVet said...

When people are getting fired for even mentioning ID or Creation, that isn't a conspiracy theory, it is a conspiracy.

Darwinists are afraid of Creationism like Teacher's Unions are afraid of charter schools. They realize that is there is competition, they will lose! Few well-informed people would choose Darwinism over a designed Universe if given the arguments from both sides and asked to weigh and judge for themselves.

Darwinists, you are cowards. I know it and I want the world to know it. You are afraid of a fair fight. For instance, a friend of mine knows Duane Gish very well. Gish is getting up in years but he is rather frustrated because it is hard to get Darwinists who will debate him. Even in the most leftists school auditoriums when he engages in debates with them, the students almost always give Gish the win.

Therefore, he cannot find debate partners easily and, when he does, they want to debate religion rather than science.

AmericanVet said...

By the way, any time I have made a post or two on a subject, and I tell you to use the search feature to find it, either go look or zip it! Don't crow that you have victory when you have not even stepped up to bat. I just checked it myself, it is working just fine!

Anonymous whatsit said...

Highboy,

"Its not an evasion, its a simple fact. There are dozens of sources concerning the YEC position on radiometric dating, tree rings, ice cores, etc. The position is clear: they are unreliable dating tools. I think you know that."

1. Please have a look at the question again. Your response is about something else, which is why it is an evasion - perhaps not an intentional one, but an evasion nonetheless. And you'll notice that Radar, despite all his crowing about how the science allegedly shows a young Earth, is still running away from answering it.

2. The YEC position is remarkably weak when it comes to dating methods. It basically amounts to trying to spread doubt on dating methods using some outliers (which have all been explained btw) and misrepresentations, and then using that to try to sweep the remaining data (vast quantities of it) under the rug. Surely if there is any reality to the notion of a young Earth at all, then it must be possible to explain the data in a way that is compatible with a young Earth. Right?

Ice core layers have now been explored up to 700,000 to 800,000 layers deep. You can quibble over a few percentage points of deviation/error, but there's no way you can explain how these could have been formed in the context of 6,000 years. Can't be done. And Radar's never managed to find such an explanation.

Tree ring records go back well over 4,000 years without showing any sign of a global flood. Again, YECs have tried to spread doubt by claiming that a ring doesn't always represent one year. You know how they tried to do this? By dragging in a different kind of tree growing in a different climate that had different growth patterns.

Radiometric dating: mainstream science can explain the data. Here's an interesting article on the subject, written by a Christian: www DOT asa3 DOT org/ASA/resources/wiens.html - note also the common misconceptions in the appendix. Have a look at the explanations of how it all ties together.

The question that's been asked of Radar multiple times is whether YECs can explain the data in any consistent way.

And he doesn't have an answer to that. That's why he's changing the subject left and right and using derision etc.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"By the way, any time I have made a post or two on a subject, and I tell you to use the search feature to find it, either go look or zip it! Don't crow that you have victory when you have not even stepped up to bat. I just checked it myself, it is working just fine!"

Nobody said your search feature was broken. It's working like gangbusters. So's Google. And they both show very clearly that you've never answered this question on your blog.

Seems like a pretty basic thing for young Earth creationists to have covered, don't you think? Explaining the data in a way that's compatible with a young Earth.

A curious oversight. Do you know if YECs are doing any research in this direction? 'Cos in the long run that's got to be a little embarrassing.

Anonymous whatsit said...

As for your buddy Duane Gish, has he ever come up with a testable, falsifiable claim to confirm YEC? No?

Can he provide a coherent YEC interpretation of the various dating method data? No?

So you're basically saying he's a gifted public speaker, kinda like Obama. Well good for him, but that doesn't make him right.

Anonymous whatsit said...

Highboy, as you can see from Radar's latest post, continued evasion it is.

Anonymous said...

"Radar didn't claim quoting that verse granted him victory in a scientific discussion, so your whole statement was irrelevant."

I didn't claim victory either, which makes your statement irrelevant.

highboy said...

"I didn't claim victory either, which makes your statement irrelevant."

Nobody said you did. You did however, inform radar that quoting the Bible didn't grant him victory which is of course what I was responding to.

AmericanVet said...

"Grant me victory?" Is this a game? Who keeps score in that case?

There isn't a victory on blogposts. I don't have a tally sheet going. I post information, various commenters comment, most of them say "nuh-uh!" and we all go on our way.

Because I believe in God and belong to Him because of faith in His Son, I have a victory of sorts because I win over death. Also, there is ultimate meaning to my life. I was made on purpose by a purposeful God and, unlike some of His creations, I know it. So every day has meaning and I am not beset with nagging doubts about it.

No one who rejects God is entirely happy about it, because there is that nagging voice inside that reminds you that God is...if you harden your heart to that voice then you will be beyond help and will defy God forever. Don't be that guy.

Anonymous said...

"No one who rejects God is entirely happy about it, because there is that nagging voice inside that reminds you that God is...if you harden your heart to that voice then you will be beyond help and will defy God forever. Don't be that guy."

Thanks for the mind-reading attempt, but sorry, no cigar. Atheists believe in God about as much as you believe in Thor (the Norse god, not the Marvel comic).

Do you feel like you secretly really believe Thor exists? Do you feel like you owe obeisance to him?

No?

Then you have an inkling of how atheists feel about your god. We just include one more deity in the supernatural entities we don't believe in.

Hope that's clearer now.

highboy said...

"Atheists believe in God about as much as you believe in Thor (the Norse god, not the Marvel comic)."

The Marvel comic Thor is the Norse God Thor. They are the same, at least until the early 1990s, which is when the power of Thor was given to an earth human.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for that. Actually that makes the point even better. I'll rephrase:

Atheists believe in God about as much as you believe in Thor (the Norse god or the Marvel comic, take your pick).

Anonymous said...

"Nobody said you did. You did however, inform radar that quoting the Bible didn't grant him victory which is of course what I was responding to."

I didn't say that either.

""Grant me victory?" Is this a game? Who keeps score in that case?"

Apparently, Highboy does...

Anonymous said...

"When people are getting fired for even mentioning ID or Creation, that isn't a conspiracy theory, it is a conspiracy."

And since that hasn't happened, it's not a conspiracy, but a conspiracy theory.

AmericanVet said...

""When people are getting fired for even mentioning ID or Creation, that isn't a conspiracy theory, it is a conspiracy."

And since that hasn't happened, it's not a conspiracy, but a conspiracy theory. "


Just about a month ago I posted an article listing some of the people who were fired for mentioning ID or Creationism and demonstrated that they now realize they can go to court, sue the offending organization, and win. Thus it is beginning to cost Darwinists money to do this. But you are an Ostrich with your head in the sand if you don't know how commonplace the Jim Crow Darwinists Laws are. Good scientists better pretend they believe in Darwinism or no grants, no tenure, no papers published and often no job.

AmericanVet said...

As to "Thor", we know that both the Greek and Norse pantheon of "Gods" was actually just their genealogical records becoming myth. Jupiter is actually Japheth the son of Noah. We have very good records of the early Finns/Danes/Nordics from six sources and can see where many of the so-called Norse "gods" were simply ancestors. Many cultures began worshipping ancestors and abandoned worship of the Creator God. That kind of nonsense is what happens when the Creator is abandoned. They worship Thor, you worship...primordial ooze?

anonymouse said...

"Just about a month ago I posted an article listing some of the people who were fired for mentioning ID or Creationism and demonstrated that they now realize they can go to court, sue the offending organization, and win."

Who won?

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Just about a month ago I posted an article listing some of the people who were fired for mentioning ID or Creationism and demonstrated that they now realize they can go to court, sue the offending organization, and win."

Is this the one that was about Richard Sternberg, Guillermo Gonzalez and Robert Marks?

Which one of them do you think was fired for mentioning ID or creationism?

AmericanVet said...

...and David Coppedge and Pamela Crocker and many more have either been fired, denied tenure or cut off from grant funds just by mentioning or promoting ID or Creationism. It is unusual to have a prominent scientist "come out" and go against the Darwinist flow without repercussions. Micheal Behe is apparently not having much kick-back for his views. But that is more exception than rule.

If you watch the Expelled Movie (with Ben Stein, who is absolutely NOT a Christian) you see that both ID and Creationist viewpoints get people bullied, fired or have their careers stopped just for daring to question Darwinism. This includes Islamists, non-practicing Jews and agnostics, not just Christians. David Berlinsky is not a religious man at all and he delivered a scathing assessment of Darwnism and their censoring bullying tactics.

Right now in science it is the new Jim Crow. If you are ID or Creationist, you are not welcome in the inner circle. Back in the early 20th Century, blacks had to have their own restaurants and hotels and drinking fountains and bathrooms. In the 21st Century, Creationists and ID people have to have their own scientific associations and peer review and technical journals and conferences. Not because they chose to do it, but because they were banned from the secular world.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"As to "Thor", we know that both the Greek and Norse pantheon of "Gods" was actually just their genealogical records becoming myth. Jupiter is actually Japheth the son of Noah. We have very good records of the early Finns/Danes/Nordics from six sources and can see where many of the so-called Norse "gods" were simply ancestors."

So you can clearly see that the human mind is capable of inventing deities and believing they are real. Your own God differs from this how exactly?

Anonymous said...

"David Berlinsky is not a religious man at all and he delivered a scathing assessment of Darwnism and their censoring bullying tactics."

Wait; if he's not religious, by which moral standard can judge the bullying tactics of Darwinists? How can he deem it to be 'wrong' if he doesn't ascribe to any objective morality?