Search This Blog

Sunday, October 30, 2011

Creation versus Evolution - Worldview determines your perception of truth...Part Two The Comments

On to the comments, example one.   I will intersperse remarks with this font and color so you do not confuse the commenter with my responses.

Jon Woolf has left a new comment on your post "Charles Darwin wins the Indianapolis 500! Or does...

":A former druggie and drug dealer tells me I have no morals?

ROFLMAO

You never fail to amuse, Radar.

Very nice that I amuse you.  The point is that I am a FORMER criminal who has been reformed by the working of Christ in my life.   You would have no idea whatever that I ever took or sold drugs if I had not revealed it myself.  George Washington was formerly a loyal subject of England who became the brilliant general who led the colonies to win freedom from England and help found the United States.   Abraham Lincoln was a former political loser who never won an election but became President of the United States and the man who officially ended slavery in this nation.  George Washington Carver was a former slave who became a brilliant inventor, innovator, scientist, educator and inspiration to men of all colors and creeds.  Kurt Warner was the former failed quarterback prospect stocking grocery shelves who worked at becoming a truly great NFL quarterback, one who led three teams to the Super Bowl and won a championship for his team while playing the second half with broken ribs (not revealed to the press at the time).   Josh Hamilton was the baseball prospect whose career was derailed by his dependence upon drugs.  Former drug user Hamilton later became an American League batting champion and MVP and has led his team to consecutive American League pennants.  Notice a theme of men who trusted God making great changes and/or accomplishing great things in the face of failure and opposition?

You miss the point by so far you are upside down!  The power of Christ converted a guy who only looked out for number one and got away with whatever he could into a man who seeks to do the will of God.   How many people kick the needle, all other illegal drugs, alcoholism and cigarettes and sex outside of marriage to become a Christian elder and pillar of the community known by hundreds and thousands of people for doing good rather than harm?   I did not redeem or change myself, I just had to agree with God and let His power make the changes in me.

"With no explanation for existence, life, information or fantastic complexity and precise fine-tuning of the Solar System and the Universe,"

The first two are answered adequately by "Why not?"

"Why not?"   That is what you consider "science?"  I will tell you why not, because there is no evidence for a naturalistic explanation for the very existence of the Universe, let alone life, information or irreducibly complex systems and symbiotic relationships.   Might as well toss the Easter Bunny and Godzilla in there while you are at it.  Why not?  A Creator God who transcends the material has the power to create a Universe in which logical laws exist and designed organisms full of information exist because that God made sure that said Universe would provide a suitable habitat for mankind to both have a chance to comprehend the laws of the Universe and especially to be able to have a relationship with that Creator God.   God is an answer.  Why not?  A total cop-out!

The last is a matter of probability. "Life" is an emergent property of a sufficiently complex chemical system. And information arises naturally, without need of any hand to aid it.


credit

What a fantastically ridiculous statement.  Let's take it apart:  The last is a matter of probability.   Then you have already agreed with me.   The probabilities of even one living organism arising by chance on Earth, even given the existence of Earth itself, is so remote that it is a statistical impossibility.   Just one.   You probably have about 100 trillion organisms living in you and on you.   Imagine all the organisms of all kinds found from over a mile above the surface of the Earth to the very deepest valleys of the oceans!   Here Woolf is shooting himself in the foot.   But it gets better...

"Life" is an emergent property of a sufficiently complex chemical system.  This is just about as unscientific a statement as a man can make.  The Law of Biogenesis states clearly that it has been proven by numerous experiments that life only comes from life.  The statement is science-y sounding gobbledygook!  What property of chemistry is "emergent" when the subject is life?  What a bunch of complete garbage!  Any scientist worth his salt will admit that there is no set of conditions found on Earth today that even begin to produce the raw materials for life.  In fact scientists know that even if the proper amino acids could overcome the many hurdles that stand as chemical barriers to their production, they would be racemic (half right-handed and half left-handed) and the chirality problem is insoluble.   DNA strings are made up of all left-handed components and, oh yes, they are full of information.   They are arranged in a very complex manner to transmit the code by which life is replicated and maintained and furthermore the process by which reproduction takes place is fantastically more complex than just a few amino acids bopping into each other.  The statement is a complete humbug.


credit

And information arises naturally, without need of any hand to aid it.  Just like "Dumb and Dumber" was followed up by "Dumb and Dumberer" Jon Woolf then utters this statement!   Information just kind of pops into existence all by itself?   Really?  So the collected works of Shakespeare just fell from the sky?   James Michener didn't write all those books, they simply went *poof* and appeared on bookshelves in libraries around the world?  This is exactly the opposite of the dictionary definition of information:

in·for·ma·tion  (nfr-mshn)
n.
1. Knowledge derived from study, experience, or instruction.
2. Knowledge of specific events or situations that has been gathered or received by communication; intelligence or news. See Synonyms at knowledge.
3. A collection of facts or data: statistical information.
4. The act of informing or the condition of being informed; communication of knowledge: Safety instructions are provided for the information of our passengers.
5. Computer Science Processed, stored, or transmitted data.
6. A numerical measure of the uncertainty of an experimental outcome.
7. Law A formal accusation of a crime made by a public officer rather than by grand jury indictment.

infor·mation·al adj.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

So Information is associated with knowledge which is associated with intelligence which means that it requires a sentinent source.   If you are collecting data, the data itself may be the product of natural processes but it requires intellect to identify what to quantify and what conclusions to draw from that data.   In the case of organisms, it is necessary for God to have input the initial information into organisms and in fact it is also necessary for the organisms themselves to have begun intact.   DNA requires cells, cells require DNA and both require ATP Synthase production to exist and operate.   In fact far more than those three primary components of life are required to be in place and operational for life to exist and to reproduce.   The remarkable complexity and obvious coding and design involved in making an organic hardware/software/operating system/self-replicating/self-healing being is still beyond our ability to completely understand and yet despite the fact that there are myriad such creatures both prokaryote and eukaryote that are found pretty much everywhere on Earth.

 WHERE IS TASK FORCE THIRTY-FOUR RR THE WORLD WONDERS

Not sure what to say here.  Jon, the entire story of that message was in effect the disastrous consequences of mutation entering into the intended message.  Just as mutations are harmful to creatures and therefore there are complex systems in place intended to keep mutations from being passed on during the reproduction of organisms, this mistaken insertion combined with a mistaken reading of said message was an embarrassment to Admiral Halsey and all parties concerned.   DNA has stop codons that would be the equivalent to the "RR" portion of the message.  A properly working DNA decryption recognizes stop codons so that such a mistake would be unlikely to happen within an organism.   So Jon Woolf has inadvertently made fun of the very mechanism he thinks causes simple organisms to become more complex, mutations, which are actually mistakes, broken things, garbled messages - the kinds of things that tend to harm and not help.  Jon, again, you are shooting yourself in the foot.   You are out of feet!!!

~~~~~~~~~

Example two - Jon Woolf has left a new comment on your post "Turning the tables and questioning Darwinists. Yo...

":

Radar, you're ranting again.

True transitional forms have to show the transitions of systems that must develop according to Darwinism in steps, like going from a bump on the head to an eye, or some way a woodpecker tongue could be seen to grow step by step while allowing the organism to exist.

This is exactly what the therapsid-to-mammal sequence shows. See also the transition from primitive archaeocete to modern mysticete, especially the changes in skull anatomy that moved the nares from the muzzle to the middle of the forehead.

Says you and what army?   Systems cannot evolve all at once, if they could evolve at all.  That Darwinists will take a bunch of skulls and try to line them up in some kind of order and then suggest they evolved that way is a primitive form of science indeed.   Give me an assortment of a few hundred dog skulls and I can line them up from small to large or from long to short muzzles with all the authority and observed evidence that Jon could cite for his statement above.  Yet I would simply be presenting a wide assortment of variation within kind.   He is telling you a story.  However, considering the catastrophic nature of the sedimentary layers, their lack of a coherent order and their multitudes of anomalies it is pretty obvious that the fossil layers are not what Darwinists claim and because fossil specimens are of different organisms rather than a continuum of slowly changing organisms they are not presenting transitional forms, Darwinists are just sorting and assigning according to their preferences rather than because of observed or observable evidence.  But all the fairy tales in the world will not cause a continuum of evolving organisms to be found.


Let's see the complex system of valves and chambers of the neck of the giraffe being evolved in the fossil record. 

 some fossils seem to preserve everything


a) soft tissues generally don't fossilize.


credit fossil jelly and living jelly


Yet we have fossil jellyfish and other soft-bodied organisms.   We have seen a great deal of partial fossilization of soft parts on various specimens and we have also found flesh and blood remains that are not even fossilized!  The fossil record becomes less friendly to Darwinism year by year.


flesh and blood remains of dinosaur 


b) the elaborate system of valves and chambers that exist in the giraffe's neck also exist in every other mammal living today, and presumably in every mammal that ever lived in the past.

credit

Say WHAT??!!!  You think every mammal in existence has an elaborate system of valves and chambers to keep the blood pressure to the brain relatively constant?   That is like saying all mammals have a covering of quills like the porcupine or that all lizards are able to change their coloration to blend into the environment like chameleons.  The very unique giraffe is unlike virtually any other mammal.   Darwinists really have no explanation for their existence.  Lamarck once posited that they were ordinary mammals which kept stretching out their necks to reach leaves on higher tree branches.  But no matter what, very few mammals have anything even vaguely resembling the complex system of valves and chambers that keep the giraffe from either exploding its skull when drinking or from passing out when quickly raising its head. 

The Amazing Giraffe





What is so amazing about the Giraffe?

The 25 pound giraffe heart is probably the most powerful in the animal kingdom!  Bristol Foster commented in National Geographic on the giraffe’s heart: “To drive blood eight feet up the 500 pound neck to the head, the heart is exceptionally large and thick-muscled, and the blood pressure—twice or three times that of man—is probably the highest in any animal.”   But the brain is a very delicate structure which cannot stand high blood pressure. The elevated pressure on the brain should cause the giraffe to faint when he bends down to take a drink? Does he ‘blow his mind’? Fortunately, three design features were included in the giraffe to control this and related problems.

1. First, the giraffe was designed to know that it must spread his front legs apart in order to drink comfortably. This lowers the level of the heart somewhat and so reduces the difference in height from the heart to the head of the drinking animal. This results in excess pressure in the brain being less than if the legs were kept straight.

2. Second, the giraffe’s jugular vein was designed with a series of one-way check valves which immediately close when the head is lowered, preventing blood from flowing back down into the brain.  But what of the blood flow through the carotid artery from the heart to the brain?

3. A third design feature is the ‘wonder net’, a spongy tissue filled with numerous small blood vessels located near the base of the giraffe brain. The arterial blood first flows through this net of vessels before it reaches the brain. When the giraffe stoops to drink, the wonder net controls the blood flow so that the full pressure is not exerted on the brain.

Equally amazing is the fact the blood does not pool in the legs. This is prevented by an extremely tough skin and an inner fascia.  This skin combination has been studied extensively by NASA scientists in their development of gravity-suits for astronauts.

How can this be?

If the giraffe evolved, along with developing a longer neck, it had to generate a huge heart to push blood up the neck, special valves to maintain its blood pressure, and an anti-gravity suit to resist the extreme pressure that is routinely produced. Did these structures come about merely by coincidence?

Wolf-Ekkehard Lonning wrote in March of 06” “No data from giraffes then (in Darwin’s time) existed to support one theory of causes over another, and none exist now.  The spotty evidence gives no insight into how the long-necked giraffe species arose.”

The most likely conclusion must obviously lead away from evolution. The giraffe’s amazing abilities are a testament to design in the animal kingdom. From its long neck to its anti-gravity-suit skin, the giraffe’s diverse nature defies the theory of evolution, and embraces the opposite concept—design.  When design is evident then the obvious conclusion is THERE MUST BE A DESIGNER.  It takes far more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in God as designer and creator of our amazing world.







Courtesy Just2Amazing! blog

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you have wet sediments or newly formed-still pliable sediments and there is an massive influx of magma shooting up through them, voila, LIPS.

Wrong-o. Do some research, Radar. Learn what Large Igneous Provinces really are and the form they really take. Those LIPs known as 'traps' and 'flood basalts,' such as the Deccan Traps and the Siberian Traps, are clearly made up of numerous extrusive lava flows deposited one atop another to depths of hundreds of meters, interspersed with fossiliferous sedimentary strata.

Again, LIPS and BIFS are catastrophic formations.   The Noahic Flood and the volatile post-Flood Ice Age were responsible for producing the sedimentary rocks and also innumerable fascinating canyons, buttes, mesas and etc.   I see no reason to doubt that LIPS and BIFS were formed primarily during the time the floodwaters were abating and during the dynamic post-Flood period when the sedimentary layers were mudrock and capable of being twisted like taffy or easily penetrated by a lava flow or flows, in fact, far more likely to be the conditions that allow for the formation of such as LIPS and BIFS as opposed to what we observe today.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Example three - Jon Woolf has left a new comment on your post "Thermodynamics versus Darwinist Mythology. Read a...

"The conditions we see on Earth now and can predict about in the past would not tend to allow for it because it appears that the atmosphere has always been an oxygen-rich environment and one in which water is present.

Nope. The existence of certain minerals such as uraninite in Archaean strata demonstrate that at the time those strata were laid down, Earth's atmosphere was anoxic.


Nope squared.   Evidence of the presence of an oxygenated atmosphere is found in every rock layer.  Besides that, there are steps in the theoretical assembly-by-chance of the components of life that are threatened by oxygen and steps where oxygen is required.   How do you get away from that problem? 

Oh, and Gentry's nonsense about polonium radiohalos was conclusively refuted more than twenty years ago

Rather, your source nonsense about polonium radiohalos was poorly researched and thoroughly refuted by extensive testing as scientists followed up on Gentry's hypothesis and found that further research supported radiohalo formation as evidence for granites being formed in periods of from days to perhaps tens of years.


As for the subject of thermodynamics: it's really fun to watch you and your creationist pals claim to know something about thermo, and then argue with a straight face that reproduction and growth in organisms are violations of the laws of thermodynamics.

Ignorance is bliss.  When it comes to Thermodynamics I suppose Darwinists consider the subject whenever they need a shot of it.  Every aspect of Darwinist teaching from the supposed Big Bang (which is almost entirely composed of supposed forces and matter that has never been observed and begins with a singularity that cannot be explained and admits to including Planck Time in which all the laws of physics are to be ignored) to the formation of stars and galaxies to the formation of the Solar System to the formation of life and the source of information and the alleged ascent of life from a simple one-celled mythical progenitor to the untold billions of billions of various organisms extant today is a violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics.  Dr. Jeff Miller's article on Thermodynamics which you laugh at is a very logical and orderly destruction of your worldview's foundation.  I think I detect a whistle while passing a graveyard rather than a genuine laugh, since the joke is on you.

Let's go ahead and pretend we accept the naturalistic materialistic point of view.  No God, no purpose or intention to the Universe, it just happened to happen.   Thermodynamics tells us nothing is being created or destroyed.   How did the Universe create itself in violation of that law?  Cue Jeff Miller for a follow-up post!


“The Laws of Thermodynamics Don't Apply to the Universe!”

by  Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

Many in the atheistic community have realized various problems with their theories in light of what we know about the laws of thermodynamics. In order for atheism to be a plausible explanation for the origin of the Universe, matter must either be eternal or have the capability of creating itself (i.e., spontaneous generation).
Yet the Second Law of Thermodynamics implies that the first option is impossible, and the First Law implies that the second option is impossible (see Miller, 2007 for a more in depth discussion of the laws of thermodynamics and their application to the origin of the Universe). Upon grudgingly coming to this conclusion, but being unwilling to yield to the obvious alternative (i.e., Someone outside of the Universe put matter here), some have tried to find loopholes in the laws that will allow for their flawed atheistic ideologies to survive.

A common assertion being raised today by some is that the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to the Universe as a whole, and therefore cannot be used to prove that God played a role in the origin of the Universe. More specifically, some question whether our Universe can be considered an “isolated system” (i.e., a system in which mass and energy are not allowed to cross the system boundary; Cengel and Boles, 2002, p. 9). In their well-known thermodynamics textbook, Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, Van Wylen and Sonntag note concerning the Second Law of Thermodynamics: “[W]e of course do not know if the universe can be considered as an isolated system” (1985, p. 233). Dr. Robert Alberty, author of Thermodynamics of Biochemical Reactions, is quoted as saying, “I do not agree that the universe is an isolated system in the thermodynamic sense” (as quoted in Holloway, 2010).

What if the Universe is not an isolated system? How would that fact impact the creation/evolution controversy? First of all, the creationist has always argued that the Universe is not an isolated system, or at least has not always been one. According to the creationist, in the beginning, God created the Universe’s system barrier, then crossed it and placed energy and matter within the system—thus making the Universe non-isolated. So, recognizing that the Universe is, in fact, not an isolated system would really mean that some evolutionists are starting to move in the right direction in their understanding of the Universe! Acquiescence of this truth by atheists in no way disproves the existence of God. In fact, quite the contrary is true. Admission that the Universe is not isolated does not help the case for atheism, but rather tacitly acknowledges a creator of sorts. [More on this point later.]

What this admission would do, however, is make some of the creationists’ arguments against atheism less applicable to the discussion about the existence of God—specifically some of the uses of the laws of thermodynamics and their application to the Universe as a whole. For instance, if the Universe is not an isolated system, it means that something or someone outside of the Universe can open the proverbial box that encloses the Universe and put matter and energy into it. Therefore, the Universe could be eternal, as long as something/someone is putting more usable energy into the box to compensate for the energy loss and counter entropy. Thus, the argument against the eternality of matter by way of the Second Law of Thermodynamics could potentially be null and void. Also, with a non-isolated system, it could be argued that the original, imaginary pre-Big Bang ball (which never actually existed—since the Big Bang is flawed [see May, et al., 2003) was not eternal in its existence. Further, it could be contended that it did not have to spontaneously generate in order to explain its existence. Rather, energy and matter could have been put here from a source outside of this Universe other than God.

From a purely scientific perspective, one of the problems with claiming that the Universe is not isolated is that such an assertion presupposes the existence of physical sources outside of this Universe (e.g., multiple universes outside of our own). And yet, how can such a claim be made scientifically, since there is no verifiable evidence to support such a contention? Stephen Hawking has advanced such an idea, but he, himself, recognizes the idea to be merely theoretical (Shukman, 2010). Speculation, conjecture, assertion—not evidence. As Gregory Benford wrote: “This ‘multiverse’ view represents the failure of our grand agenda and seems to me contrary to the prescribed simplicity of Occam’s Razor, solving our lack of understanding by multiplying unseen entities into infinity” (Benford, 2006, p. 226). Belief in the multiverse model is like proclaiming the existence of fairies just because you can imagine one. But such speculation is hardly scientific evidence—and that is the problem.

What does the scientific evidence actually convey today? We live in the only known Universe, and it had to come from somewhere. That is a fact. If the Big Bang occurred, and all matter and energy in the Universe—everything that exists—was initially in that little imaginary sphere the size of the period at the end of this sentence (or much smaller, depending on which “expert” cosmologist you ask), by implication, the evolutionist admits that the Universe is of a finite size. That is a fact. A finite Universe is an isolated system. Since the Universe as a whole is the only true isolated system, the laws of thermodynamics apply perfectly. That is why some reputable scientists examine the evidence, draw reasonable conclusions, and articulate statements in reputable textbooks like the following:
  • “Isolated system: It is the system which exchange [sic] neither matter nor energy with the surroundings. For such a system, the matter and energy remain constant. There is no such perfectly isolated system, but our universe can be considered as an isolated system since by definition it does not have any surroundings” (Senapati, 2006, p. 64, emp. added).
  • A spontaneous process in an isolated system increases the system’s entropy. Because the universe—our entire surroundings—is in contact with no other system, we say that irreversible processes increase the entropy of the universe” (Fishbane, et.al., 1996, p. 551, italics in original).
The truth is, if one is unwilling to accept the existence of God, yet desires to accept the laws of science, one must conjure up other options for how the Universal box could have been legally opened and its contents altered. Envision several atheists sitting around a table speculating options, no matter how wild, in order to avoid conceding the existence of God, and you will have a clear picture of how many in the scientific community operate today. “Okay, people. How did we get here? Think!” “Other universes?” “Maybe.” “Nothing put us here?” “Not bad.” “Aliens?” “Why not?” “The God of the Bible?” “Shut your mouth. You are unscientific. Leave the room.” How can evolutionists like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking safely postulate the existence of alien creators without being laughed out of the spotlight, while creationists get expelled from the scientific community for recognizing the reasonable answer to the matter of origins (Stein and Miller, 2008; BBC News, 2010)?

Ironically, when the atheistic community asserts alleged creative agents outside the Universe, they tacitly acknowledge a creator of some sort. What is the difference between these concessions and the true Creator? Why not accept the God of the Bible? The answer is obvious. Their brand of designer comes packaged without the demands and expectations that come with belief in God. Very convenient—but sad and most certainly unscientific.

Note also that accepting the possibility of alternative creative causes leaves atheists with the same problem with which they started. They claim to use the laws of physics to arrive at the multiverse conclusion (Shukman, 2010). But if the laws of physics apply to their conclusion about multiple universes, why would the laws of physics not apply to those universes? If the laws of science apply to those hypothetical universes (and it would be reasonable to conclude that they would since, according to atheists, the universes interact), then the matter of origins has merely shifted to those other universes. How did they come into being? There are still only three options—they always existed (in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics); they created themselves (in violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics); or they were created. The laws of thermodynamics still echo the truth from the remotest parts of the created order: “You cannot explain it all without God in the equation!”

The truth is, the scientific evidence leads unbiased truth-seekers to the conclusion that there simply must be a Creator. How do we know that the laws of thermodynamics are true on Earth? No one has ever been able to document an exception to them (except when divine miracles have occurred). They always hold true. Why does the same principle not hold when observing the rest of the Universe? As Borgnakke and Sonntag articulate in Fundamentals of Thermodynamics concerning the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics:
The basis of every law of nature is experimental evidence, and this is true also of the first law of thermodynamics. Many different experiments have been conducted on the first law, and every one thus far has verified it either directly or indirectly. The first law has never been disproved.... [W]e can say that the second law of thermodynamics (like every other law of nature) rests on experimental evidence. Every relevant experiment that has been conducted, either directly or indirectly, verifies the second law, and no experiment has ever been conducted that contradicts the second law. The basis of the second law is therefore experimental evidence (2009, p. 116-220, emp. added).
There has been no verifiable evidence that the laws of thermodynamics have been violated throughout the Universe. Sure, there has been speculation, conjecture, and theory that it “could” happen. Yet, through it all, the laws still stand unscathed. Granted, atheists may cloud the air when they blow forth their unreasonable, unproven, jargon-filled, imaginary fairy-dust theories, but when the fairy-dust settles, the laws of thermodynamics still declare the truth to all who will listen (Psalm 19:1). The scientific evidence shows that there is unmistakable order and design in the Universe. Design implies a Designer. The God of the Bible. Now that’s scientific.

REFERENCES

BBC News (2010), “Hawking Warns Over Alien Beings,” April 25, http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/8642558.stm.

Benford, Gregory (2006), What We Believe But Cannot Prove, ed. John Brockman (New York: Harper Perennial).

Borgnakke, Claus and Richard E. Sonntag (2009), Fundamentals of Thermodynamics (Asia: John Wiley and Sons), seventh edition.

Cengel, Yunus A. and Michael A. Boles (2002), Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach (New York: McGraw-Hill), fourth edition.

Fishbane, Paul M., Stephen Gasiorowicz, and Stephen T. Thornton (1996), Physics for Scientists and Engineers (New Jersey: Prentice Hall), second edition.

Holloway, Robert (2010), “Experts on Thermodynamics Refute Creationist Claims,” http://www.ntanet.net/Thermo-Internet.htm.

May, Branyon, et al. (2003), “The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique,” Reason & Revelation, 23[5]:32-34,36-47, May, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2635.

Miller, Jeff (2007), “God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective,” Reason & Revelation, 27[4]:25-31, April, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3293.

Senapati, M.R. (2006), Advanced Engineering Chemistry (New Delhi: Laxmi Publications), second edition.

Shukman, David (2010), “Professor Stephen Hawking Says No God Created Universe,” BBC News, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11172158.

Stein, Ben and Kevin Miller (2008), Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Premise Media).

Van Wylen, Gordon J. and Richard Sonntag (1985), Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics (New York: John Wiley and Sons), third edition.




Copyright © 2010 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.


http://www.apologeticspress.org

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


A Darwinist walks into a bar.   He immediately begins reaching for and beginning to pick up an apparently imaginary glass.   

The bartender asks him, "What are you doing, mate?"

The Darwinist replies, "Just providing the proper conditions for a Guinness Stout to spontaneously generate."

The bartender thinks on that.  "Well let's just let us have your wallet and we'll see what we can evolve?"

The Darwinist agrees.  The bartender takes the wallet.   After several minutes the Darwinist asks about his wallet and/or his Stout?

"Sorry, mate, not yet.   But you have an infinite amount of time to spend, right?  So no worries!"

30 comments:

Anonymous whatsit said...

"The power of Christ converted a guy who only looked out for number one and got away with whatever he could into a man who seeks to do the will of God."

Certainly an inspiring tale, but regular readers may have been getting a different impression from how you like to see yourself.

For my part, what I see is a bully and a bigot who found a way to put aside some self-destructive tendencies by finding religion, but who remains a bully and a bigot.

I don't hold it against you that you were once a violent thug and drug dealer etc.

What I do hold against you is your current lack of intellectual honesty (which I consider a moral choice on your part) and lack of logic and intellectual acumen (which may be a side effect of your druggie days).

To be clear about the intellectual honesty, you have for some time now simply been repeating arguments that have been taken apart in great detail. You don't respond to these challenges, pretend they don't exist, wait a while, then repeat the long-challenged claim.

This makes it clear to your readers that you are not able or willing to defend your various claims, and that you lack the ability to revise your views accordingly.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"I will tell you why not, because there is no evidence for a naturalistic explanation for the very existence of the Universe, let alone life, information or irreducibly complex systems and symbiotic relationships."

There is no evidence for either a naturalistic or a supernatural explanation for the existence of the universe.

There are possible naturalistic explanations for life.

And there are very clear naturalistic explanations for information, irreducibly complex systems and symbiotic relationships. You're simply betraying a lack of reading on these subjects.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Might as well toss the Easter Bunny and Godzilla in there while you are at it."

Exactly.

Now do you see why "God did it" is such a useless answer?

Anonymous whatsit said...

"The probabilities of even one living organism arising by chance on Earth, even given the existence of Earth itself, is so remote that it is a statistical impossibility."

A common fallacy, based on the erroneous (and perhaps deceptive) principle of ignoring the process by which life could arise.

True, DNA forming instantly in perfect form is statistically virtually impossible. But that has nothing to do with abiogenesis research, which focuses on chemical processes that are anything but impossible or improbable and that build on each other, leading to reproduction with variation of polymers.

Once reproduction with variation is in place, a process of gradual addition of beneficial features (and thus accumulation of information) is possible.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Information just kind of pops into existence all by itself? Really?"

Not quite "pops", but:

Mutations + natural selection = accumulation of information

The useful is preserved, the rest discarded. No intelligent selector needed.

There's a reason Werner Gitt had to slide into dishonest accusations when it came to GAs and the NASA antenna project.

Jon Woolf said...

It's quite interesting how close you get to the truth time after time, Radar, only to veer away at the last moment. You even have the answer in the title to this post, and yet still you miss it. Worldview really does determine your perception of truth ... but it does not determine truth itself.

Me: The first two are answered adequately by "Why not?"

You: "Why not?" That is what you consider "science?"

No, that's what I consider philosophy. You asked a philosophical question. You shouldn't be surprised you got a philosophical answer. Oh, I'll admit it's a slightly whimsical answer, but I suppose that's inevitable when one's view on such topics is made up of equal parts Zen, Godel, Escher, QM, and G'kar. The question "why does the Universe exist" has no meaningful answer (yet) because there's no evidence either way on which to base a meaningful answer. However, the question "why X?" carries an implication that not-X is a possibility that requires considering. If not-X is not a possibility, then the question "why X?" has no meaning.

So, if you ask "why does the Universe exist?" then "why not?" is also a question worth considering.

AmericanVet said...

Just exactly what whatsit thinks about me is not supported by the evidence. I am far from either a bigot or a bully. A bully would not allow comments because bullies like to wield power over the weak and run from opposition. I allow the opposition to bring their best shots. A bigot would be prejudiced against someone because of the color of their skin or their accent or something akin to that. I do not attack people for who they are. I will attack those who deliberately hurt other people by spreading lies and causing harm. I consider Darwinism to be a plague on society that has encouraged abortion, racism, genocide, "Jim Crow Science" and vast amounts of misspent funds. With all the diseases that we could be seeking to cure, why do people keep trying to do the impossible like making life from non-life? Why do they spend millions scanning the skies for one bit of information and ignore organisms packed full of it? Darwinists are a hindrance to mankind as a group. Individuals can be reformed (like myself) so I will continue to provide them with that chance.

While your ad hominem attacks may make you feel better about yourself in some way, they do not address the facts. Darwinists claim to have answers but my posts dismiss their claims and "nyuh-uh" is not a worthy reply.

It is sufficient to read commenter's opinions bereft of facts and full of nonsense to encourage me to continue to post the truth. I sure cannot think of one thing whatsit has said to challenge what I have posted.

Jon Woolf said...

The last is a matter of probability. Then you have already agreed with me. The probabilities of even one living organism arising by chance on Earth, even given the existence of Earth itself, is so remote that it is a statistical impossibility.

You've made a mistake here, Radar. You got the wrong referent for my comment. In looking back at that, I must have been in a hurry when I wrote it, because I phrased it wrong. So thanks for giving me a chance to clarify.

Every day, it seems, we hear about another discovery of extra-solar planets. Some 700 are known now. Most of them are gas giants, but a few are rocky-cored worlds like Earth, and one or two of those at least have the possibility of being Class-M, capable of supporting Earthlike life. That's what we've found just in our local stellar neighborhood, using very primitive, clumsy sensor devices. What we might find if we actually went out there and looked closely, no one knows. But if we've found this many planets from long range, there must be a lot more there that we can't see.

We already know there's at least one planet in the Universe capable of supporting life -- at least one, out of those 700. One in 700, or even one in a couple of thousand, is not very long odds. Even if you drop the odds of life-friendly worlds to 1 in 10,000, that works out to an awful lot of life-capable planets out there. With that many possibilities, it becomes much less unlikely that at least one would hit the right combination of factors to actually produce life.

AmericanVet said...

The problem with any planets of any kind, extra-solar or otherwise, is a lot like the problem of life. There is no explanation for their existence. Like I heard a buddy say, if you find life on another planet then that is just one more place Darwinists cannot explain where life came from!

All the formations of the Universe are unexplained by naturalistic methods. Planets are one such problem, since the cannot coalesce from dust clouds, once they reach the size of planetesimals they begin to collide and break each other apart rather than to adhere together. I can say with complete confidence that not one single planet in our Solar System can be explained in a naturalistic materialistic purposeless Universe.

logica was the word verification. I guess blogger liked that comment!

AmericanVet said...

Lest anyone think I was picking on Jon Woolf, it is actually the fact that he does assert things and make complete statements on a regular basis that caused me to use him in the post. I just took the last three comments I saw that fit the profile and all three were by Jon Woolf. I have absolutely nothing against him personally. Not angry or upset. In fact I give him credit for his tendency to keep on punching away. Kind of the Chuck Wepner of commenters...you can punch the heck out of him, but you cannot knock him out. I do respect that.

Jon Woolf said...

On the subjects of thermodynamics, Large Igneous Provinces, Banded Iron Formations, and minerals that demonstrate an anoxic atmosphere -- your willful ignorance makes it difficult to carry on any kind of coherent discussion. You don't know what you're talking about. There's just no other way to say it.

On soft-body fossils: the examples you cite of soft-tissue preservation are all extremely rare. There are more brachiopod shells in the Cincinnatian Member alone than there are soft-tissue fossils known in the entire world. Soft-tissue preservation in land animals is even rarer. To the best of my knowledge, there are no known soft-tissue fossil specimens that might shed light on giraffid evolution.

Still, we know enough to know that yes, the giraffe's amazing system of blood vessels and one-way valves are merely an enormously enhanced version of a system that all mammals have. Many mammals face the same problem that the giraffe does, of a head positioned well above the heart. Horses. Elephants. Humans and apes. Titanotheres.

And so on and so forth, time after time. Even where you get the facts right, you follow with unsupportable leaps of illogic.

Jon Woolf said...

On to some other points:

Systems cannot evolve all at once, if they could evolve at all.

No one said that entire systems can evolve all at once. Evolution takes time. Lots of time.

That Darwinists will take a bunch of skulls and try to line them up in some kind of order and then suggest they evolved that way is a primitive form of science indeed.

Unless there's other supporting evidence ... such as embryology, wherein we can watch the jaw of a mammal embryo develop, and see that bones which start as part of the embryonic jaw are moved and reshaped into components of the ear.

Information just kind of pops into existence all by itself? Really? So the collected works of Shakespeare just fell from the sky?

Alas, your example fails because I never made any such claim. Writing requires a sentient writer, but there's much more to information than writing. Consider the acacia tree, for example. When a giraffe browses on an acacia tree, the injured tree starts making tannin, which makes its other leaves poisonous. It also sends a chemical messenger into the air around it. Other nearby acacias detect this messenger and themselves begin manufacturing high amounts of tannin. Information has been sent -- "leaf-eater here" -- and received, and there's no intelligence in sight.

AmericanVet said...

Uh, the information for the giraffe and the tree were input by intelligence when they were designed. Just like the computer you used to make the comment required designers to make the hardware components and the OS components and the system drivers and the BIOS just to provide the computer with the information necessary for you to input your personal files and documents, load a browser, and so on. No one thinks computers just evolved from calculators that evolved from the abacus that evolved from sticks and rocks. Yet that is exactly the equivalent of your claim that organisms just evolved from scratch. You are far more complex than your computer. In fact you are more complex and have more information in your body than the computer factory!

Now if you want to tell me that the intelligence in your computer just happened to be there then you are being consistent logically. You believe in a world where information just appears from nowhere with no source. Is there any "intelligence around" when your computer is doing a scheduled virus scan or defragmentation or backup? When you purchased it, was there a tethered team of engineers connected to it so you see the intelligence that went into building it? No.

Organisms are not capable of appearing from nowhere and life cannot come from non-life. Information must have an intelligent source. This is so fundamental and logical and yet you atheopaths cannot stand the idea of God so you prefer completely illogical explanations that Sir William of Ockham would dismiss out of hand. How blind you are.

Embriette said...

I suggest everyone who reads/follows this blog, and Radar too, read Signature in the Cell if you haven't already. And please read it with an open mind. It is a great book, and it does not advertise "God."

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"Uh, the information for the giraffe and the tree were input by intelligence when they were designed."

Uh, that's an unfounded assertion, Radar.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"Now if you want to tell me that the intelligence in your computer just happened to be there then you are being consistent logically."

You're comparing apples and oranges, as you did earlier by equating the information that Woolf was talking about with written text.

"You believe in a world where information just appears from nowhere with no source."

We have evidence that information doesn't necessarily require an intelligent designer but can be accumulated through a process of reproduction with variation plus natural selection. This process has been observed in nature and also modeled in simulations (which you seem curiously unable or unwilling to comprehend).

"Organisms are not capable of appearing from nowhere"

Nobody's claiming they come "from nowhere". Strawman argument.

"and life cannot come from non-life."

Correction: complex life cannot come from non-life. Basic reproduction with variation can come from non-life and evolve into a rudimentary form of life, which is capable of further evolution.

"Information must have an intelligent source"

What intelligent source designed the NASA antennas? Was it the programmer of the simulation? If you think he did, then tell us, did he dictate the shape of the antenna? If so, how?

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

And since you continue to avoid the issue, can we take this as a concession that there is no consistent YEC interpretation of radiometric/tree ring/ice core layer/varve data that allows them to line up with each other and with a 6,000-year timeline?

We already know there isn't one, this question is really more about whether you can face up to certain basic realities (and understand the question, of course - so far you haven't indicated that you understand it).

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"A bigot would be prejudiced against someone because of the color of their skin or their accent or something akin to that."

You may be thinking of "racist" or "xenophobe".

big·ot   [big-uht] noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion


See any rant about atheists on your blog.

"A bully would not allow comments because bullies like to wield power over the weak and run from opposition."

A bully might also choose to have comments on the blog and then ignore, distort and misrepresent them.

And "run from opposition": check.

Anonymous said...

While Radar's constant demonization of atheists is definitely a great example of his bigotry, before we move on from Radar's denial of being a bigot and a bully, I suggest you use the site's google bar and type in "homosexuality". Bingo. Loads and loads of material from our demonstrably bigoted blog host (and not to mention his equally bigoted wife).

And by making this statement above, "I do not attack people for who they are.", you again prove yourself to be a massive liar.

Oh and finally, hows that whole "pride issue" going for you Radar? Looks like you may be falling off the wagon again, as in the first couple paragraphs of this post you appear to hold yourself up to two US presidents, a couple Pro Athlete MVP's, and a guy that Time magazine referred to as the "Black Leonardo". How DO you remain so humble? I guess it must have something to do with your notion that the creator of the universe has a personal interest in you and your life. LOL.

-Canucklehead.

Jon Woolf said...

A few months ago, Radar, you said that a transmission had to be both sent and received by intelligent agents before it could qualify as information.

When errors in that example were pointed out, you changed it to "[information is] an intelligent message sent from an intelligent source and received by a receiver designed by an intelligent source."

Now you've retreated again, to "transmitter, receiver, and contents all designed by an intelligent designer."

Redshifted goalposts are such a spectacular sight.

AmericanVet said...

Canucklehead, I am sorry you have such an unhappy life. But you are making some great logical mistakes.
There is a difference between saying that homosexuality is wrong and that I hate any homosexuals. Homosexual acts are depraved and immoral. Pedophilia is depraved and immoral. This is according to the moral code handed down from God, I didn't make it up. Murder is depraved and immoral. Beating your wife is depraved and immoral. Sins are bad.

But homosexuals, like drug addicts and criminals and adulterers and liars are all human beings that God made and God loves. God wants to bring everyone into relationship with Him. That is what we call forgiveness.

The homosexuals I have known have almost always been "good people" so I have been fortunate in that regard, I guess. A couple of the lesbians were kind of angry people but then I was a drug addict and I knew a lot of people who could be angry and a lot of people who were miserable a lot of the time. Any homosexuals I happen to have known I have not treated them any differently than other people. You will not find any homosexuals I have personally mistreated. Because there is a difference between identifying a sin and judging a sinner.

It goes like this: Everybody sins. No one is perfect. God will forgive sins and, if you accept His forgiveness He will change you on the inside. If you are into drugs His working within you will help you toss them aside. If you have been involved in homosexuality He will help you turn from it. If you have been an angry man prone to hurt people He will bring peace to you.

If I compared myself to people who were not famous it would not have worked. The point is that what a man is today is not what he has to remain. If God is involved in your life He will help you walk the valleys and climb the mountains.

It beats me if any of the commenters are homosexual and I don't care.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Canucklehead, I am sorry you have such an unhappy life."

Who said Canucklehead has an unhappy life?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
radar said...

I had to delete a comment that was full of bad language. That is not tolerated here.

I did not "move the goalposts" about information. Jon asked and I answered how the organism can contain information without God directly inputting it in every reproductive event and I went into more detail. He knew quite well what the answer would be but he wanted to introduce a false conundrum. As I said, an answering machine has been produced by intelligence but the designer doesn't have to be there when the phone rings, obviously.

Since big science is bigoted against creationists and ID'ers and are now being sued for this in court and being forced to pay for their bigotry, watch what happens. Darwinists will either have to quit being censors or they will see their bank accounts drain as they are now being identified as unconstitutional.

radar said...

It is ironic indeed that I let Darwinists spout their claims without censoring content (unless you use offensive language) while in the world of science Darwinists scramble to keep opposing viewpoints off campus, out of scientific organizations and bereft of grant money. The NCSE is basically an organization devoted to censorship.

Now so many of you are attacking my character instead of discussing the science. I believe in the Judeo-Christian ethic upon which the USA was founded. Dedicated Darwinists actually have no foundational moral code upon which to depend unless they borrow it from Christians. If you guys understood your own teachings you would realize that a fully indoctrinated Darwinist does not believe in free will nor a foundational morality so you have no basis to attack me. Darn.

When it comes to logic, you believe that nothing created everything by no means. You believe that muck developed into complex organisms by means of mutation, which is kind of like saying that explosions build buildings. In actuality blowing up a building doesn't remodel it, it causes it to become less organized. Mistakes do not build, they break.

My last post illustrates the vast gulf fixed between indoctrinated and evidence-free Darwinists versus the reality of the information-packed organism. Organisms have the appearance of design because they are designed. They have more information and are more efficient than anything mankind is capable of designing and engineering. Therefore we have branches of science that study and attempt to mimic systems and designs found in organisms.

Too bad you have now had to resort to personal attacks as your science is not sufficient to bulwark your claims.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"I did not "move the goalposts" about information."

You clearly did, as demonstrated above.

"When it comes to logic, you believe that nothing created everything by no means."

False. That's not what mainstream science claims at all. Is there a reason why you refuse to figure out what you're actually arguing against?

"You believe that muck developed into complex organisms by means of mutation, which is kind of like saying that explosions build buildings."

Amazing how you can't understand some of the most basic aspects of this. Seriously, why do you bother arguing against abiogenesis and evolution if you don't understand them at all?

Or if you do understand them, why do you think it's acceptable to misrepresent them like this?

Anonymous said...

Man, I was really hoping that that comment was going to slide by because, while the language was a definitely a little salty, the sentiment was spot on.

Not sure how you got that I was "unhappy" out of a post proving that you are a bigoted bully, particularly when it comes to homosexuals. I actually have a very happy life Radar, not that you care about this lowly atheist.

Am I to understand that you're response to being called a bigot is to call your "enemies" bigots? Oh and please cite one of these court cases where Darwinists are having their wallets emptied by creationists or ID-ers. You know those cases that only exist in your YEC fantasy world.

And ID has been proven in the US courts to be creationism repackaged. It's a fact. Look it up. It appears as though you're the ignorant one here buddy.

"Homosexual" IS what people are, Dummy. And your comparison of the behavior of two consenting adults to that of a pedophile shows just how deep your intolerance and bigotry run. I still remember the unhinged ramblings of you and your wife on the topic of homosexuality and some proposed anti-bullying campaigns of a few years ago (you know, because they spoke of, ~gasp~, homosexuality). Just think, it's entirely possible that your opposition to the proposed legislation and potentially even your own hate filled words at the time, contributed to the suicide of a gay teen. I hope you guys are proud. Oh wait, I forgot, you just don't care.

How very christian of you, Radar.

-Canucklehead.

Jon Woolf said...

Radar: I did not "move the goalposts" about information.

Um, well, actually, yes you did:

"Information is weightless and massless. It is the intelligent transmission of intelligence."
-- from here: http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2010/06/darwinists-and-thinking-often-far-apart.html?showComment=1276805174537#c6384635891455410931

Then:

"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." -- from here: http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2011/10/big-bang-is-big-bust-as-usual-darwinist.html?showComment=1317828797021#c7290921879634259903

And now you say: "Uh, the information for the giraffe and the tree were input by intelligence when they were designed."

As I said: redshifted goalposts are a spectacular sight.

Anon Whatsit: Is there a reason why you refuse to figure out what you're actually arguing against?

It isn't that he refuses to. That implies that he has a choice. I think he simply can't tell the difference between the strawman he's arguing against and what science really says. The superstition that he follows has damped down his brainpower to the point where intelligent consideration of alternative points of view is beyond him. I've seen the same phenomenon in other followers of extreme anti-reality belief systems, such as animal-rights activists.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"It is ironic indeed that I let Darwinists spout their claims without censoring content (unless you use offensive language) while in the world of science Darwinists scramble to keep opposing viewpoints off campus, out of scientific organizations and bereft of grant money."

Scientists don't scramble to keep opposing viewpoints off campus. They just insist they have to meet basic scientific standards, something YEC has not managed by a long shot (see the complete failure to explain dating-related data with any consistency to their religiously inspired claims), and even ID hasn't really come up with any testable, falsifiable claims - so far it's one big argument from complexity/incredulity.

YEC and ID are asking for special treatment because they can't "win" if they play by the same rules as everyone else.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"It isn't that he refuses to. That implies that he has a choice. I think he simply can't tell the difference between the strawman he's arguing against and what science really says."

Yep, that seems likely given the evidence before us on this blog