Search This Blog

Tuesday, October 04, 2011

Big Bang is a big bust. As usual, the Darwinist mythology is fact-free...

Ashby Camp and Tim Wallace (webmaster) are among the men responsible for the existence of True Origins, the website that actually has factual information about the science behind Darwinist myth versus evidence.   There is no more widespread myth than Darwinism, it is far more popular than Greek mythology or Norse mythology or any other mythology.  It is almost entirely lacking in evidence but is entirely a matter of supposition and stories about the evidence.   Darwinism is frankly anti-science or pseudo-science, which is why many scientists refer to Darwinism as scientism.   I have spent many years posting evidence in favor of Creationism and often use ID sources as well.   True Origins is a great source for those of you who wish to study the subject.

One reason that Darwinism is a myth is that it flies in the face of laws that have been long-established and proven over and over again.   Thermodynamics and Biogenesis, for instance, have been established by many years of experiments and yet Darwinism would, if true, break both of these laws.  

Classic Darwinism has to account for existence, life and information.   If God is invoked to create the Universe then it has lost, because God's Word, the Bible explains the formation of the Universe and life and information and there is no need for any Darwinist explanations at all.   In fact, this is true, Darwinism adds nothing to science at all other than confusion and misdirection of funding and research in a futile effort to find what does not exist.   Just as man eventually accepted that there was no Philosopher's Stone,  one day man will accept that there was no Big Bang nor was there any way for life to come from non-life or information to come from natural sources and scientists will begin to accept the idea of God as did most of the great scientists of the time before Darwin.  

There is a password-protected summary by Ashley Camp of some of the major problems for the Big Bang model that illustrates why it should earn the title of "myth" rather than science that is viewable as a PDF:

SUMMARY OF THE BIG BANG CREATION STORY

I cannot urge you strongly enough to read that entire PDF.  Plaudits to Ashley Camp for providing an overview of the major problems that plague the BB scenario.   Real science should never accept an hypothesis that cannot account for the beginning of the process, the means by which it could have happened, and especially for the fact that about 96% of the Universe that BB mythology describes cannot be detected.  No explanation for the initial singularity, a tiny stretch of time in which any scientific laws we now know to be in existence are completely thrown away, and in fact a plausible cause for the galaxies we observe now and our Solar System.   

No BB myth can explain even one planet or moon in our Solar System.   Planetesimals which are proposed as means by which planets can form would in fact collide and destroy each other rather than clump together.  A big cloud of gas as a cause sounds good to the ignorant, but when you analyze the process you discover it cannot work.  The gas giants absolutely could not exist nor could they be giving out more heat that they receive from the Sun had they evolved.   Oh, you didn't know there was an evolution story for the Universe and the Solar System?   Don't feel too bad about it if you did not know because said story is full of more holes than a sieve.  Not one planet or moon in the entire system fits into the BB/evolution story at all.

In fact no scientist can give a plausible means by which a star could possibly form other than from the remains of old stars.   No one can actually explain the Universe and have a story that fits the evidence other than Creationists.   We can show that the Bible asserts that God created the Universe and he stretched it out.   That actually fits the evidence.  The Big Bang is far more miraculous and implausible than a Creator God.

For now, let's take a look at one fundamental problem and, trust me, there are literally hundreds of major problems with the Big Bang Myth...


Steve Miller
© 2007 Creation Research Society.  All Rights Reserved. 
This article first appeared in the September/October 2007 issue of
Creation Matters, a newsletter published by the Creation Research Society

The Big Bang model requires the existence of Population III stars.  What are Population III stars?  According to the physics of the Big Bang, the only elements the Big Bang could have produced are hydrogen, helium, and possibly a trace of lithium, but no other metals.  Anything atomically heavier than hydrogen and helium is considered a metal including, for example, oxygen.  (Note: In this context astronomers use the term metal differently, not the way the term is used in chemistry).  Therefore, the first stars of the universe could have been made only from hydrogen and helium, and these stars are known as Population III stars.

The stars we observe throughout the universe today all contain metals, such as Population I stars, which are metal-rich, and Population II stars that are metal-poor.  Population I stars contain approximately 2-3% metals, they are found in the spiral arms or in the disks of galaxies.  Population II stars, containing only 0.1% metal content in their light spectra, are observed around a galaxy halo, in globular clusters, and in the central bulge of a galaxy.

These designations became apparent from the stars' locations in the galaxy, space motion, and metal makeup.  Stars produce the heavier elements by using successive stages of nuclear synthesis within their cores.  According to the evolutionary theory of chemical enrichment, or how stars produce the heavier elements, those elements are spewed back into space through eruptions such as supernova explosions.  In this way, later generations of stars that form are contaminated with heavier elements.  Thus, according to evolutionary theory, the later that a star forms, the more metals that it ought to contain.

This means that if the Big Bang model were true, somewhere in the universe we should see stars without the spectral lines produced by metals.  Moreover, because Population III stars are predecessors of all the observed Population I and II stars, vast numbers of them should have been identified long ago.  But no such stars have ever been discovered; even the light from the most distant galaxies have metal lines in their spectra.  Population III stars are essential for the Big Bang model, yet they have not been observed.  Therefore, the Big Bang is not a plausible scientific model if something the theory requires is nonexistent.

Mainstream scientists who promote the Big Bang model try to refute the situation with the missing Population III stars with a "heads I win, tails you lose" argument.  If evolutionary astronomers were to find a single Population III star, they would claim that proves the model, even though they need massive numbers of Population III stars to account for all that we see.  Moreover, the fact that no one has found a Population III star is explained by their arguing that Population III stars must have been exceptionally massive and therefore burned up quickly.  With this "must have been" explanation, the Big Bang model is confirmed in the minds of evolutionists.  So how can they lose?  The evidence will be made to fit evolutionist theory whatever the evidence may be.

While evolutionary astronomers will admit that the Population III stars are missing, they engage in special pleading to deal with the fact that Population III stars have never been found.  How convenient: all the Population III stars are so massive that they burn up and disappear before even one can be detected.  In other words, how can anyone say Population III stars are super massive if no one has seen one to know?  Big Bang proponents need to be reminded that science is based on testable evidence, not hypothetical conjecture!  If no evidence exits for Population III stars, postulating any reason for their non-existence is unscientific.

Their reasoning is contradictory to what we see in the universe, because over 90% of observable stars are LOW MASS!  Do astronomers have a "testable mechanism" for why the universe would exhibit this sudden change?  In other words, we have another just-so story: the alleged cosmic explosion makes all the first stars "super massive" to the extent that they burn up quickly (therefore no one can find any of them), and then the universe gives rise to small, dwarf type stars, such as our sun, which comprise the vast majority of all stars.  In addition, when we gaze across the universe, looking back in time close to when the Big Bang supposedly occurred, the light which we see exhibits metal spectra!  Here, we should at least find some light that would be free of metal spectra; but alas, metals were apparently present at the beginning of time.  And when all else fails, we are now being told that Population II stars are polluted Population III stars, but what testable, provable mechanism can be found to show how this would happen?

Unfortunately, the proponents of the Big Bang accept by faith the essential requirements of their theory in spite of the observations, which clearly do not fit the model.  


~~~~~~~~~
If you want a truly great read I suggest David's Berlinski's paper "Was there a Big Bang?"   You will need to be familiar with multisyllabic words.   Think Dennis Miller without the jokes and a scientific slant.  Ten pages of pure geek entertainment!  Not to mention a wealth of actual information.   Let's see if our normal commenters are capable of absorbing THAT!

Oh, and no one has demonstrated that DNA does not include information.  Anyone who suggests that does not have the SLIGHTEST clue about the nature of DNA...or information.   I have a few "fans" who apparently fit that bill.   Go ahead and read up on information and DNA from the search engine on this blog.  DNA is actually a coding mechanism that is far more sophisticated than anything mankind has designed. 

It reminds me of what Darwinists say about evolution.   It happens too slowly for us to observe now, even having studied hundreds of generations of fruit flies and thousands of generations of bacteria.   Yet it happens too fast to leave a record in the fossil layers in terms of transitional forms.   Darwinists will claim to have identified a handful of very doubtful transitionals but in fact in a Darwinist world there would be a continuum of evolving organisms rather than what we see.   What we see in the rock records is layers laid down like sediments from a flood and organisms found largely by the level they would have lived on before the Flood.   The sedimentary rocks associated with the rising flood waters include lots of tracks of animals all going in one direction and in some places they leave tracks consistent with being in water and then...no more tracks at all.  

In a flood, you would find sedimentary layers that sometimes disappear and reappear depending upon the tides and flows and storms and volcanic activity and other forces such as rapid tectonic plate subduction.  There would be some layers that would, in a world-wide flood, span continents and others that would be associated with special circumstances, such as a bloom of seaborne organisms:

White Cliffs of Dover

 August 21, 2008 Tas Walker

Impressive and dramatic, the White Cliffs of Dover keep watch as a citadel over the southern entrance into the Strait of Dover, which separates England from France. These towering escarpments, stretching 10 miles (16 km) along the coast, not only guard England from its enemies but, more importantly, give tribute to the global Flood as described in Genesis 6–9.

The Chalk Beds

White Cliffs of Dover

Chalk formations are found in many places in Europe, including England, France and Northern Ireland, and even extend into the Middle East as far as Kazakhstan. Extensive chalk beds are also found throughout North America, including the states of Tennessee, Nebraska, Mississippi, and Kansas.

Many secular geologists claim that these chalk beds speak of an old earth since they believe chalk formed slowly and progressively over millions of years. However, when we interpret the evidence from a biblical perspective, we see that there is an explanation for the formation of these chalk beds that aligns with the biblical timescale of thousands of years. The main cause of these beds is the catastrophic, worldwide Flood.

Formation

White chalk is composed almost entirely of calcium carbonate. This calcium carbonate, a very pure type of limestone, consists of billions of microorganisms including foraminifera and calcareous algae, coccoliths and rhabdoliths. Today, these microorganisms live in the upper 300–600 feet (91–183 m) of the open seas. When these microorganisms die, their calcium-rich shells accumulate on the bottom of the ocean floor, often almost 15,000–16,000 feet (4.6–4.9 km) below the surface. These shells cover about one-quarter of the surface of the earth today. It is estimated that these remains take up to 10 days or longer to reach the ocean floor and reportedly accumulate at a rate of .5–3 inches (1.25–7.5 cm) per thousand years.

Interpretation

Evolutionary View

The measured rate of chalk accumulation seems to demonstrate that these chalk beds could not have formed quickly. Evolutionists claim that these chalk beds were formed around 70 to 100 million years ago, during the “Cretaceous period,” when the southern portion of England was submerged by a shallow tropical sea. Chalk slowly accumulated and the land was eventually uplifted by movements of the earth’s crust to where the cliffs tower over the Strait of Dover up to 350 feet (105 m) high.

The Biblical View

With such a slow rate of accumulation, how did such monumental chalk beds form on an earth, which is, according to the Bible, a little over 6000 years old? For the chalk formations to have reached the thickness they are today in a few thousand years, the production of microorganisms would have had to greatly increase sometime in the past. In fact, under the right conditions, rapid production and accumulation of these microorganisms on the ocean floor is possible. These conditions include turbulent waters, high winds, decaying fish, and increased temperature and nutrients from volcanic waters and other sources.

White Cliffs of Dover

With catastrophic volcanic activity warming the oceans and releasing large amounts of CO2, and with the torrential rains and the churning and mixing of fresh and salt waters, the Flood of Noah’s day produced the right conditions for a “blooming” production of microorganisms and the chalk’s rapid accumulation. The three major sections of the White Cliffs of Dover give evidence of three major “blooms” in chalk formation, which would have taken place during the year-long Flood.

The purity of the chalk itself also points to rapid accumulation. One cannot imagine a scenario where deposits over millions of years could maintain such purity without accumulating some contaminating sediments from other events.

Additional evidence for a global Flood in the White Cliffs of Dover includes the layering of the chalk in alternating thin, hard layers and thick, soft layers. In these hard layers, called hardgrounds, we find fossils of mollusk shells and other sea creatures, some as large as 3 feet (1 m) across (ammonites), which could not have been buried alive slowly! The same chalk formation in the Netherlands has yielded a very large Mosasaurus skull. Since sea life was not part of Noah’s cargo on the Ark, they had to endure the ravages of the Flood. Marine life would have been swept into the rapidly forming chalk and other sedimentary layers and quickly buried by successive deposits. That is why we find fossils of sea creatures in even the highest chalk layers, now far above the ocean.

Consider It

The White Cliffs of Dover confirm the biblical account of a global Flood just about 4,000 years ago. The evidence is apparent when viewed through a biblical perspective.

~~~~~~~~~~~

A Creationist has a better explanation for existence and life and information.   We can provide better answers for the big picture and also for specifics.   I am tremendously thankful for the internet, because I believe that over the next few years the ordinary person who studies the evidence will begin to wonder what people like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking are SMOKING?

29 comments:

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

So... still no YEC interpretation of radiometric/ice core layer/tree ring data that makes them line up with each other and is consistent with a 6,000 year timeline. I'm not surprised, but I thought I'd make your evasions clear to the casual reader.

Sorry, but YECs don't have any explanations for much of anything as long as they've saddled their "God did it" worldview with a falsified young Earth.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"Oh, and no one has demonstrated that DNA does not include information. Anyone who suggests that does not have the SLIGHTEST clue about the nature of DNA...or information. I have a few "fans" who apparently fit that bill."

Ha! LOL. Way to miss the point. Jon Woolf wasn't saying DNA doesn't include information. Look it up yourself. He said that according to your definition there was no information in DNA.

Remember your definition of information?

Anonymous whatsit said...

"It reminds me of what Darwinists say about evolution. It happens too slowly for us to observe now, even having studied hundreds of generations of fruit flies and thousands of generations of bacteria."

Large-scale macroevolution obviously is happening too slowly for us to observe in a human lifetime; speciation (part of macroevolution) has been observed in the wild and in labs, both with fruit flies and bacteria.

"Yet it happens too fast to leave a record in the fossil layers in terms of transitional forms."

No, it leaves a record in the fossil layers just fine. Oh, the old "in terms of transitional forms" dodge. Well there are plenty of transitional forms in the fossil record, but not according to your strawman definition of the term. No, we shouldn't expect to see unviable transitional forms, only viable transitional forms.

You're simply making up a different version of evolution and arguing against that. It doesn't work. If you want to argue against the theory of evolution, you'll have to understand it first and argue against what it is, not what you'd like it to be.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"What we see in the rock records is layers laid down like sediments from a flood"

Well there are varves, yes, but they completely falsify the notion of a global flood 4,000 years ago as well. You can add those to the dating data that YECs can't for the life of them explain. So now that's:

- radiometric data
- ice core layers
- tree rings
- varves

If YECs are right, then they would be able to line up these dating methods next to each other in a way that indicates a global flood 4,000 years ago and the beginning of absolutely everything 6,000 years ago.

And they can't do this. It just doesn't add up.

"and organisms found largely by the level they would have lived on before the Flood."

Ah, the latest unresearched ad-hoc attempt to explain the sorting of fossils in the fossil record - which mainstream science can easily explain but leaves YECs flummoxed. So what is it now, stegosauruses living in the valleys and hippos living on the mountaintops?

AmericanVet said...

Hot Lips speaketh with forked tongue. Use the search engine for my blog to see information about ice cores and tree rings.

Jon Woolf's opinion of what information is has nothing to do with anything other than the place between his ears. DNA meets the definition of information I gave because it is an intelligent message sent from an intelligent source and received by a receiver designed by an intelligent source. Like a man calling on the phone to a colleague and leaving a voice mail, the information in DNA was input by God and his organisms, like the answering machine, receive the messages. Perhaps a better analogy would be the computer. When we tap on the keys, when we navigate in windows and click on things, that is translated into computer code and a designed system using hardware, software and an operating system uses binary signals to convert what you are doing into a computer language that gives orders to all the different levels involved in order to transmit your information into a response - a document, a transition to a new web page, the opening of another application. DNA is from God, the cell is the computer and DNA in concert with the cell receives and passes on the messages from God. The original information held within cells has been sufficient to keep them running and reproducing for over 6,000 years now.

I have a computer in my garage that still works, but I have retired it. It was one of the first Windows 95 machines and I got it ahead of the official roll-out date. Over time I upgraded memory and added a second hard drive and upgraded to Windows 2K and then to XP. That went from being my main computer to a kid's computer to a print server and now just a memorial. I actually have one of the earliest Windows machines that requires a 5 and 1/4 floppy disk to be inserted because the disk contains the OS! It has less memory than my cell phone.

You cannot see the manufacturer of a computer standing next to it at the Best Buy or on Tiger Direct or wherever you purchased your last one from. But you know it was designed by an intelligent source and you know it transmits, holds, and receives information. But you cannot see this same thing in organisms. Not because you cannot but rather because you refuse.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"Hot Lips speaketh with forked tongue. Use the search engine for my blog to see information about ice cores and tree rings."

Yes, please do that, and if you should find that it provides an YEC interpretation of radiometric/ice core layer/tree ring data that makes them line up with each other and is consistent with a 6,000 year timeline, please come back and tell us.

I'm not lying that YECs don't have this, not on this blog or anywhere else. It's just not there. If you think I'm mistaken, don't accuse me of lying - PUT UP A LINK TO IT.

According to Radar's boasts, something like this should exist. If YEC were supported by scientific evidence, then something like this should exist.

But it doesn't.

That's why Radar mutters something about search engines and pretends to misunderstand the question.

That's why Radar can't provide you with a link to it.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"YEC interpretation of radiometric/ice core layer/tree ring data"

Oh, plus VARVES. Yet another falsification of YEC there.

AmericanVet said...

Varves? Nope. We discovered in observing the Mt St Helens disaster that varves can be laid down in a matter of minutes. Varves are not what long-agers claim and we know this from observations made in real time in this century. That incident also finally explained many of the odd features of the Grand Canyon which made no sense until we saw the way the miniature canyons of MSH produced and how they were produced.

AmericanVet said...

BTW God did it beats nothing did it.

AmericanVet said...

I don't have to "put up a link" when it is already on my site. Anyone with the ability to use the search tool will find posts and that would be plural, that address your issue. If you are unable to use a simple search tool then go elsewhere. My statement is true and it stands. I do not misunderstand the question, I have already dealt with the question. One post I made about ice cores is quite extensive. Only an idiot could not find it.

AmericanVet said...

BTW, Houlihan, the radar nickname is not about the television series, it was a basketball nickname. The only nickname I ever had that related to a television/movie/book reference was "Milo Minderbinder" when I was a motor pool clerk waiting for a journalism class to open up. I made friends with clerks all over my fort and a couple of other military bases so I could make trades of excess parts we had, like gamma goat axles, in order to get a bunch of blackout light covers or trading bright yellow airfield paint for a bunch of pole lamps.

The military requisition process was laborious and slow and the books were very bad. They let me see them and asked if I could fix them and I told them yes, if they let me have the key to the office and go there and skip morning formation I would get it done before the "surprise" IG visit our Colonel already knew about.

I learned to sign various names so that the proper entries were made in the books to take the place of incorrect or missing information. I did a check of inventory to see what we had that was not on the official list and began trading the extra stuff to other clerks who had a similar problem. In a short time I had all the books fixed, took almost every vehicle in the motor pool to "green" status and got me and the sarge a couple of spare pole lamps and some other odds and ends.

One of the mechanics, a good buddy, was a big reader and had read "Catch-22" and dubbed me "Milo Minderbinder" after the character in the book.

So you guys who keep making references to radar o'reilly are off-course. Radar was a basketball nickname I earned playing downtown with the street ballers. That was a long time ago and I do not even play basketball now. So all of your references to MASH are just not "finest kind." Sorry...but then you are wrong about the myth of Darwinism anyway, so naturally it is no surprise you are even wrong about my nickname.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"BTW, Houlihan, the radar nickname is not about the television series"

Well, given that there's not just your screen name, but also your buddy Hawkeye, I figured "Hot Lips" would be a good addition.

AmericanVet said...

Hawkeye? Okay, I guess we need a Spearchucker Jones then as well...

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"I don't have to "put up a link" when it is already on my site."

And since it isn't, you do.

"Anyone with the ability to use the search tool will find posts and that would be plural, that address your issue. If you are unable to use a simple search tool then go elsewhere. My statement is true and it stands. I do not misunderstand the question, I have already dealt with the question. One post I made about ice cores is quite extensive. Only an idiot could not find it."

Nothing to do with not finding them. I've found your various posts on ice core layers a long time ago. Read them. That's why I know they don't come close to answering the question. It's pretty clear you either don't understand what's being asked or you're too disdainful to lower yourself to addressing it.

You have a demonstrated history of not understanding questions even when they're laid out for you in great detail. This is either one of those instances or you're embarrassed by YEC lack of answers on this subject.

Here's the challenge again: is there an YEC interpretation of radiometric/ice core layer/tree ring data that makes them line up with each other and is consistent with a 6,000 year timeline.

No response so far.

Nada.

You claim the answers are in a previous post. But somehow you can't find this link.

Okay, there's this link: radaractive DOT blogspot DOT com/2008/12/ice-cores-and-dating-part-one-being DOT html

It's apparently "part one" of a series of... erm, one - and it has nothing resembling an answer to the challenge above. Some nonsensical article that equates depth of snow with ice core layers. Doesn't even pass the laugh test.

Another link: radaractive DOT blogspot DOT com/2007/04/ice-cores-and-age-of-earth-opening DOT html

Again, zip.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"We discovered in observing the Mt St Helens disaster that varves can be laid down in a matter of minutes."

This argument has the same problem as your ice core argument. Just because something is a "layer" of some kind doesn't mean it's the same kind of layer as that used for dating purposes. The Mt. St. Helen's layers don't have the characteristics of varves. It's wishful thinking on your part to want to use that to rebut the evidence of varves.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"BTW God did it beats nothing did it."

If the surrounding narrative doesn't add up, then no, it doesn't. You'd just be wedging in a fairy tale for the sake of having an "answer".

Jon Woolf said...

DNA meets the definition of information I gave because it is an intelligent message sent from an intelligent source and received by a receiver designed by an intelligent source.

[Jokeresque ROFL]

Wonderful example of moving the goalposts, Radar. Y'see, that's not the definition of information that you've given in the past. In the past, you've said that there must be intelligence at both ends of a signal, transmitter and receiver, for it to contain information.

It's rather nice to see that you can in fact learn from having your nose rubbed in your mistake.

Anonymous said...

"I don't have to "put up a link" when it is already on my site."

Why not? What difference does it make if you think it's on your site if you can't even point out where you think it is?

Hint: you're wrong. It's not there. Never has been. Never will be.

YECs can't get past this hurdle, and it's fundamental to their worldview.

Anonymous said...

"Y'see, that's not the definition of information that you've given in the past. In the past, you've said that there must be intelligence at both ends of a signal, transmitter and receiver, for it to contain information."

IIRC, he was quoting/copypastaing the ethically challenged Werner Gitt, no?

radar said...

You commenters = Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Werner Gitt takes the subject of information and breaks it down carefully and thoroughly. I posted the dictionary definition of information and challenged Darwinists to find a natural source for it, which they cannot do.

Now you claim to know more than Dr. Gitt on the subject? YOU are the ones moving the goalposts, not me. Your arguments are no becoming so incomprehensible I doubt you can coherently make a case for the last thing you have said.

Information comes from an intelligent source and it is not material in form or substance. I have said that from the beginning and I have stated it quite clearly in the very first link on my bloglinks. Since there is no natural source for information, it follows that God first input information into the world and is the Source of that information.

Also, if you read my last post you will see that science declares that the Universe must have been created by God, any other explanation is unscientific.

It is also true that there is no natural source for life and that scientists cannot even isolate a substance or force called "life" and demonstrate it existing outside of the cell/cells/organism.

Hmm, let's think here. No naturalistic explanation (that is scientific) for existence, information or life? I keep saying it, keep demonstrating it and eventually all but the completely brainwashed or the devout atheopaths will have to agree. Science will get the wheel back from scientism soon, because the information age allows free exchange of information and truth is the enemy of Darwinism. Darwinism is built on myths.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"You commenters = Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Derision won't answer the question: is there an YEC interpretation of radiometric/ice core layer/varve/tree ring data that makes them line up with each other and is consistent with a 6,000 year timeline?

You're coming up blank.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"Werner Gitt takes the subject of information and breaks it down carefully and thoroughly."

1. Do you think he said that information must be "received by a receiver designed by an intelligent source"? Gitt's arguments have their own share of problems, but it's clear that you added this part yourself, hence moving the goalposts. Maybe you don't understand it, maybe you think you can get away with a few insults and then changing the subject.

2. Defining information as having to originate from an intelligent source and then declaring that this proves God is simply using an undemonstrated premise to reach an erroneous conclusion. We can see information arising from unintelligent sources, and we can see it being received by unintelligent receivers, so obviously something's fishy with Gitt's so-called "laws".

3. Gitt sadly discredits himself when he addresses evidence that contradicts his claims by accusing NASA scientists of blatant fraud based on no evidence whatsoever.

AmericanVet said...

By the way, we do see large rivers that flow within the oceans today that retain freshwater for a long way out into the ocean. We see oddball things like the Sargasso Sea and we observe a flow that comes from the Mississippi and that Gulf Stream helps warm coastal Europe and the islands of Great Britain.

Anonymous said...

This is in reference to what exactly?

AmericanVet said...

I am beginning to think that HLH is a talkorigins guy. Hmmm.

Anonymous said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Clinical_psychology

AmericanVet said...

The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God."

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

What an odd turn this conversation has taken. One non-sequitur after another.

"I am beginning to think that HLH is a talkorigins guy. Hmmm."

What's "a talkorigins guy"? Hmmm.

Jon Woolf said...

Radar is fond of the hallucination that effective, knowledgeable pro-science commenters are secretly employees of dark-side organizations like talkorigins.org or the National Center for Science Education, and they're paid to come here and commit the horrid blasphemy of answering his logical, factual, intelligent, obviously-true posts with evilutionist propaganda.

The idea that we defend conventional science and criticize creationism because all the evidence says that conventional science is right and creationism is wrong is not one that his fundamentalism-polluted brain is capable of comprehending.

Hey, Radar:

The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God."

A certain gent of my past acquaintance always countered that by quoting Troy Witte: "The fool says in his heart: 'There is no God.' The Wise Man says it to the world."