Search This Blog

Monday, November 21, 2011

Creation by God is the only plausible answer for the Solar System. Evolution fails again!

If you actually know what secular science says about how the Universe came into existence, you know they have incredible problems from the very beginning with no plausible explanation for how the components of a Big Bang would form, how they could explode and how such an explosion could be monitored and controlled to form what secular science says it did.   Actually the vast majority of the energy and mass that would be found after such a Big Bang cannot be detected.  All the anti-matter that should be in existence somewhere is not detected.   The size and shape of the Universe, the CBR, the vast array of logical laws and the exceedingly fine-tuned laws turn out to be necessary to allow for life on Earth, a very unusual planet with a very unusual star we call the Sun.  

By evolutionary hypotheses, eventually after billions of years various stars and galaxies form and eventually our Solar System manages to make itself from clouds of cosmic gas.  Stories.   Darwinists are loaded down with stories.   Their stories have some things in common - they are implausible, they do not fit the evidence and they depend upon miraculous chance rather than a miraculous God to provide miracles for them.   As usual the school kids are fed a line of BS in place of science and they go around just believing things for which there is no good evidence.  So Spike Psarris knows this and will help reveal some of the real evidence about the Solar System, below:


Cosmic catastrophes


Planets crashing together … moons being ripped apart … heavenly bodies forming, shattering, and re-forming again.

According to evolutionists, such catastrophes played a large role in the development of our solar system.
It all sounds very dramatic. But is this true history? Or is it just a fanciful story?

The Bible versus ‘evolutionary’ astronomy

The Bible tells us that after creating the earth, God created the rest of the heavens during Day 4 of Creation Week. This would include all the beautiful things we see in our solar system: the sun, planets, moons, asteroids, comets, and other objects.

Conversely, the standard evolutionary model says our solar system formed from a cloud of gas and dust: a nebula. The gas and dust condensed into rocks, then the rocks stuck together to become planets. This idea is called the ‘nebular hypothesis’.1

(Note that secular astronomers often apply the word ‘evolution’ to their long-ages, non-creationary model. For convenience, we’ll do the same in this article.)

The evolutionary model … can’t produce the solar system we see today.

The evolutionary model is promoted endlessly in textbooks, science magazines, television programs, and so on. But despite the beautiful artwork and computer animations that show how it all happened, there’s a glaring problem with it.

It can’t produce the solar system we see today.

The failure of the nebular hypothesis

Our solar system contradicts the nebular hypothesis in many ways. Here are a few of them, along with the typical solutions proposed by evolutionists. (See if you can spot any recurring themes.)

Mercury is too dense. According to evolutionary theory, it must have formed at a much lower density.2 Therefore, reasons the evolutionist, it did form at a much lower density. Later, a massive asteroid smashed into it, and all the lighter material was blasted away. The material left behind is what we see today. Paladin
Earth has a moon, but the nebular theory can’t explain where it came from. Therefore, reasons the evolutionist, it didn’t exist at first. Later, a massive asteroid crashed into the earth at just the right angle and speed. The debris sprayed into space, and some of it turned into our moon. (This hypothetical asteroid, which of course doesn’t exist today, has even been named—Theia.)

Venus doesn’t have any moons. However, if the earth got its moon in an asteroid collision, then Venus should have one too. (Venus and Earth are neighbors in space, so the nebular hypothesis says they should have similar histories.) Therefore, some evolutionists propose3 that Venus did get a moon from such a collision. Why don’t we see this moon today? Because a second asteroid collision destroyed it.

Some evolutionists propose a catastrophe to solve yet another problem. Venus rotates retrograde, or backwards when compared to the other planets. Since this contradicts the nebular hypothesis, some evolutionists have proposed that Venus initially rotated in the ‘correct’ direction. Then a massive asteroid collision spun it around the other way.

Mars has a very thin atmosphere today. However, for various reasons, evolutionists want Mars to have had a thick atmosphere in the past. The answer, as you might have guessed by now, is that a massive asteroid collision disrupted the planet. As a result, it lost4 its atmosphere.

Jupiter has many ‘irregular’ moons. Most are retrograde, orbiting in the opposite direction of the planet’s rotation. None of them could have formed in their current orbits, according to the nebular hypothesis.

Most evolutionists believe these objects formed elsewhere. Later, they were captured by gravity into their current orbits. However, such captures are extremely unlikely,5 and over 90 irregular moons are currently known. A favored solution is to appeal to collisions with other objects.6
Saturn also has many irregular moons. These are also explained as the result of captures and collisions.

Uranus rotates on its side. Unlike the other planets, which spin like tops as they move through space, Uranus rolls along like a ball. According to the nebular hypothesis, it can’t have formed this way. Therefore, reasons the evolutionist, it formed the ‘correct’ way. Later, a massive collision knocked it over on its side. Then it supposedly captured its moons, because their orbits are likewise sideways.

Uranus also has an unusual-looking moon named Miranda. To explain its features, some evolutionists invoke not one, not two, but five collisions.7
Neptune has a large retrograde moon named Triton. Again, this is contrary to the nebular theory. Again, a collision is invoked to explain away the problem.

According to one version of the story,8 Triton used to be a moon of a planet named Amphitrite, until Neptune stole it from the smaller planet. Of course, there is no planet named Amphitrite today. There’s not even a trace of it. Why? Because it allegedly collided with either Neptune or Uranus and was destroyed.

Science or story telling?

As you can see, collisions are invoked to explain away a long list of problems for the nebular hypothesis.
Creationists are frequently charged with believing in a model that is ‘unscientific’. This charge is false, of course. The Bible is consistent with the physical world we live in.

Evolutionists go so far as inventing (and even naming) planets which don’t exist, and for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

On the other hand, how scientific is the evolutionary model? Science is supposed to be based on evidence. But the only ‘evidence’ for most of these collisions is that if they hadn’t occurred, the nebular hypothesis would be disproved!

Notice also that evolutionists go so far as inventing (and even naming) planets which don’t exist, and for which there is no evidence whatsoever. At the same time, they must explain why certain planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune) do exist, when the evolutionary model says they cannot.9,10,11,12
This crater is evidence for a small impact on our Moon.
This crater is evidence for a small impact on our Moon.

What can we learn from all this? Although evolutionists claim to base their model on science, the reality is quite different. The solar system as we see it today—in other words, the actual scientific evidence—contradicts the nebular hypothesis. To rescue their model from the facts, secular astronomers are forced to invent a long series of ‘just so’ stories.

There’s also more than a hint of hypocrisy here. Creationists are often criticized for believing in Noah’s Flood. Since the Flood was a one-time catastrophe, it is non-repeatable. Therefore, say many evolutionists, it is outside of science. But where is the outrage for the endless series of non-repeatable catastrophes in the nebular hypothesis?

Denying true history

When you deny the truth, you must believe a falsehood.

Because secular astronomers deny the Bible, they cannot base their model on the solar system’s true history. Thus, their model cannot be correct. They’re left with a series of just-so stories and self-contradictory assertions.

It’s far better to acknowledge our Creator as we observe the beautiful solar system He has made. The heavens truly declare the glory of God (Psalm 19:1).

Do creationists deny that minor collisions have occurred in our solar system? Of course not.13 We see evidence for them in many places. Many heavenly bodies, including the earth itself, have features such as craters and impact basins.

Nevertheless, we know that these collisions occurred because they left evidence. Conversely, there is no evidence for most of the collisions that are necessary to rescue the nebular hypothesis from the facts.

Indeed, the opposite is often true. The evidence suggests that many of the alleged collisions could never have happened. As one example, a recent analysis of lunar soils revealed that the Moon cannot have come from an earth-shattering collision.14 As another example, the moons of Uranus cause great difficulties for believing in a collision that tilted the planet.

Related articles

Further reading


  1. See also Sarfati, J., Solar system origin: Nebular hypothesis, Creation 32(3):34–35, 2010. Return to text.
  2. For more on Mercury, see Mercury—the tiny planet that causes big problems for evolution, Creation 26(4):36–39, 2004. Return to text.
  3. Alemi, A. and Stevenson, D., Why Venus has no moon, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society 38:491, 2006. Abstract available at Return to text.
  4. More precisely, it allegedly lost its magnetic field. Then the Martian atmosphere was dissipated by the solar wind. Return to text.
  5. “None of the suggested mechanisms, including gas-drag, pull-down, and three-body capture, convincingly fit the group characteristics of the irregular satellites. The sources of the satellites also remain unidentified.” Jewitt, D., and Haghighipour, N., Irregular satellites of the planets: products of capture in the early solar system, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 45:261–295, 2007. Abstract available at Return to text.
  6. “[T]he original size-frequency distribution of the irregular moons must have significantly evolved by collisions to produce their present populations.” Nesvorn√Ĺ and two others, Capture of planetary satellites during planetary encounters, The Astronomical Journal 133(5):1962–1976, 2007; Return to text.
  7., 24 May 2010. Return to text.
  8. Desch, S., and Porter, S., Amphitrite: A twist on Triton’s capture, LPI Contribution No. 1533, 41st Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, held March 1–5, 2010 in The Woodlands, Texas, p. 2625. Available at, 24 May 2010. Return to text.
  9. For more on Jupiter, see Jupiter—King of the planets and testament to our Creator, Creation 30(3):38–40, 2008. Return to text.
  10. For more on Saturn, see Saturn—the ringed planet, Creation 30(4):18–20, 2008. Return to text.
  11. For more on Uranus, see Uranus—the strange planet, Creation 24(3):38–40, 2002. Return to text.
  12. For more on Neptune, see Neptune—monument to creation, Creation 25(1):22–24, 2002. Return to text.
  13. Faulkner, D., A biblically-based cratering theory, Journal of Creation 13(1):100–104, 1999; Spencer, W.R., Response to Faulkner’s ‘biblically-based cratering theory’, Journal of Creation 14(1):46–49, 2000. Return to text.
  14. Water has been confirmed to exist in lunar soils. However, it would not be there if the moon had been formed in a giant collision. One of the scientists who discovered it said, “It’s hard to imagine a scenario in which a giant impact melts, completely, the moon, and at the same time allows it to hold onto its water … That’s a really, really difficult knot to untie.”, 24 May 2010. Return to text.


Jon Woolf said...

"Science has to give us ALL the answers, letter-perfect, RIGHT NOW, or science must be completely and forever wrong about everything and my favorite invisible magician must have done it all."

Yawn. Don't you have anything interesting to say anymore, Radar? This kind of drivel isn't even any fun to knock down. Why don't you try to answer HLH's question on age-of-the-Earth data? You won't get any closer to the truth, not as long as you trust creationist sources, but at least you usually manage to be amusing in your ignorance.

Anonymous whatsit said...

It's not just Radar's complete inability, despite repeated requests, to provide the most basic support for a young Earth - a reading of the data that lines up with a young Earth - that so weakens his position.

It's the fact that not a single YEC can come up with such a thing, even the smart ones like Sarfati, that pretty much seals the deal for YE.

So, on to OEC. Anyone know any good OEC blogs?

AmericanVet said...

You two both realize I have posted on dating methods separately and have no reason to pay attention to HLH demands.

The "drivel" I post destroys Darwinist dogma. Most of the time you commenters cannot even deal with the post, so you keep up the mantra of a combined Earth age post as if it was magic. I have already posted on ice cores and tree rings and varves and dating methods in individual posts so I am in no hurry to do a combined post and, when I do, it will be based on a question from Chaos.

Jon, for instance, if you can "knock this down" you will be the only man on Earth because NASA scientists and other astrophysicists have been unable to do it. No one can come up for a materialistic answer to the puzzle set that is the Solar System. Every single planet fails to fit the "Nebular Hypothesis" and the Sun is a big problem as well. Ever hear of the "Faint Young Sun Paradox?"

Revealing ignorance, Jon. You cannot begin to knock down this post because it is full of evidence gathered by NASA expeditions and projects revealing the nature of the planets and moons and other objects of the Solar System and the evidence is mind-boggling to everyone but those who know God created.

I think God decided to reveal Himself in creation. We look deep within organisms, we see design and information and if we are honest that is like God's signature. We send data-collecting space probes out to and past planets and discover that they are all quite different, none of them fit the NH and all of them have unusual features that cannot be explained naturally.

But ignorance must be bliss. You go ahead, Jon, and think the information NASA gathered about the planets is of no consequence. Go ahead and ignore design and intention in organisms and pretend meta-information and algorithms do not exist.

Talk yourself into believing that a creature like the Monarch Butterfly could have evolved. Surely there were a few million years when a bag full of biological goo could keep reproducing until it managed to evolve up to a butterfly? From egg to caterpillar to chrysalis to butterfly is a process Darwinists cannot explain with a hundred fairy tales. Nor can they explain the moon, Miranda, nor Io, nor can they give a good reason for a planet that revolves like a ball instead of a top (Uranus) or how some planets have retrograde moons or how the gas giants put off more heat than they receive from the Sun.

You commenters with your information-less derision actually help me make my points because you have nothing to say. Thanks!

Anonymous said...

So much bluster, Radar. This post is such a joke. I love how you go from some YEC nut trying to flog some videos to a very gullible audience, to stating that if you disagree with what Spike says, you are somehow contradicting NASA. To be clear, NASA does not agree with your loon's interpretation of their data. You and your guy are the ones trying to say you're smarter than actual accredited stronomers and astrophysicists. Even a cursory look at the claims made by Mr. Psarris above reveal either a serious lack of knowledge or, more likely the case, some serious deception about what is known about the solar system.

I will try to post a few links to sites that break down Spike's erroneous/deceptive claims about a "created" solar system. Hopefully they don't get blocked.

Not surprisingly, when his claims are investigated, it turns out that Spike is nothing more than a quote mining YEC that (as usual) begins with a conclusion and works backwards from there. He is simply attempting to attack the ruling paradigm in astronomy because it doesn't line up with his interpretation of a religious text (and, of course, because they use the word "evolution" ~gasp~). He has no proof for the idea that the solar system is young. None whatsoever

You also say "But ignorance must be bliss." Well you would certainly know, Radar. You peddle the stuff every day.

Oh and further to your Butterfly "argument". This is merely another argument from incredulity. Because one does not understand how butterfly metamorphosis evolved does not mean it is too complex to have evolved. You merely show more ignorance here Radar. Not all that impressive, bud.


Anonymous said...

Here's a break down of the free portion of Spike Psarris' YEC videos.


AmericanVet said...

You want to believe in multitudes of planetesimals colliding and dozens of just-rght asteroids hitting objects just-right to produce the Solar System, no surprise. You guys throw logic away from the start so why add it in later? Oh, yes, we do have evidence that the Solar System is young. I have given you much of it. You ignore it. Shame on you. I provide the trough full of water, you choose whether to drink.

AmericanVet said...

Oh, and here is the richest irony on those links Canucklehead posted. I quote : "First, I just love it when articles say that scientists are “flabbergasted,” “surprised,” “shocked,” “astounded,” “puzzled,” “clueless,” “can’t understand,” “unbelieving,” “amazed,” “bewildered,” “baffled,” and other such phrases. (Okay, more honestly, I really don’t like it.) Seriously, we’re apparently the people who are supposed to know everything and so it’s like a “gotcha” game when there’s a discovery that “surprises” us. Need I repeat it? THAT’S THE POINT OF SCIENCE — TO FIND OUT NEW THINGS!"

Guess that is supposed to cover for the fact that Darwinists cannot account for the contradictions represented by each and every planet and most of the moons AND the SUN? Whereas a recent creation by God makes it all fit together perfectly and sensibly. The gas giants help protect the Earth from large space objects randomly hitting it, the various moons provide creativity and beauty and the Moon is the way mankind has kept times and seasons and provides the tides necessary for a healthy ocean and life on the planet.

But that kind of NEW THING is not something Darwinists want to learn. Even if it makes sense and doesn't need fifty different fudge factors. It is you naturalistic materialists who are doing bad astronomy. Those two links are yet another example of pretending to make fun of an ignorant YEC while completely missing the point.

There is NO naturalistic explantion for the Solar System that works. None. Zip.

Anonymous said...

Again, "goddidit" is a non-answer, Radar. It's just willful ignorance motivated by your strict religious beliefs.


AmericanVet said...

God did it is a far more scientific answer than nothing did it. Which is what naturalists contend. Naturalists remove God and then call upon miracles to occur without an agent to cause them. That is far less scientific.

As it happens, Copernicus and Kepler and Newton and Von Braun and Lord Kelvin and in fact most of the founders of modern science believed that God indeed did it. They intended to try to find out how everything worked and did not question that God had created. This is far more scientific because they recognized that a finite Universe required a First Cause that transcends the Universe as the Creator must be greater than the created.

To deny creation by God leaves you with nothing and no way something comes from nothing. THAT is what YOU believe. It isn't really religion because religion is a given. Everybody has a religion (yes, Atheism is a religion and to be an Agnostic is just being a lazy Atheist) so ignore that and address the evidence. As I last posted, the greatest faith of all must be those Darwinists who blindly believe that nothing made everything despite empirical evidence of design, information and intentionality.

Anonymous said...

Double Wrong. There is no science in "goddidit". None whatsoever. And as has been pointed out to you many many times, the only person saying "nothing did it" on this blog is you, bud. Just because you do not understand the first thing about something doesn't mean it's not possible without god (it actually means that you should probably get reading).

As Jon has previously pointed out, it is just so funny that you feel that when modern science says it doesn't know the answer to something (i.e. where did life come from) you, and all YEC's, see this as some kind of magic silver bullet that somehow validates your christian mythology.

And do we really have to go over Metaphysical vs. Methodological Naturalism again? (really Radar, at a certain point don't you think the fact that you can't seem to get this idea straight, despite the fact that it's been explained to you over and over, is going to affect your credibility with any of your supposed "supporters"?) The scientists you cite were all METHODOLOGICAL naturalists. Meaning god played no part in their scientific endeavors. If I'm wrong here you should be able to prove it. Please show us where "god" was worked into their scientific discoveries. Spoiler alert: You cant.

Radar, despite your lies (Atheism a religion?!?! Ha. Good one. I suggest you look up the definitions of both words and report back to me later), what I believe is supported by science (across many disciplines, and among thousands and thousands of independent scientists the world over), what you believe is supported by religion and religion alone (specifically your very own religion and it's holy book).


AmericanVet said...

Canucklehead, you do not know science history at all. The great scientists who established the primary disciplines of science like Bacon and Newton and Kepler and Maxwell and Lord Kelvin and etc. were all Christians or at least devoted Theists. Newton wrote more about Christianity than he did physics. Roger Bacon devised the scientific method and Francis Bacon made it popular. It did not include naturalism nor did it limit conclusions to natural ones. It merely was a way they all agreed one could test the temporal world and determine how things work.

Darwinism defies the Laws of Thermodynamics and I do not care how many times you deny it, it is true. It runs opposite, which is why it does not happen and we cannot observe it happening.

Biogenesis is also proven and changing the name to "chemical evolution" doesn't fool me.

Darwin himself expected that, when the fossil record was more robust, there would be a continuum of changing organisms and also an abundance of organisms existing before the Cambrian evolving up into all the fully formed life we see in the Cambrian rocks. Neither of these things has happened. It is very hard to identify even one or two transitional fossils and all of them are arguable. But in a Darwin world there would be a massive number of transitionals.

Furthermore Darwin believed Lyell and his Uniformitarian credo. The sedimentary rocks have falsified this, they are catastrophic in nature and they are not neatly stacked one atop another. They are missing, they are flip-flopped, they are twisted like taffy, they go back-and-forth, they are out-of-order and they have polystrates and megabreccias and occasionally have fossils that absolutely by Darwinist standards would not be there. The rocks testify to great catastrophic events, not long ages.

Organisms also falsify evolution. There are far too many irreducibly complex systems and relationships. There is far too much information and meta-information and quality control and oversight. We now know that the cell has mutation detection and elimination properties that seek to stop mutations from happening. Mutations are not creative, they are destructive.

Anonymous said...

I repeat, "The scientists you cite were all METHODOLOGICAL naturalists. Meaning god played no part in their scientific endeavors." In other words, their personal religious beliefs are moot as those scientists stuck to the scientific method and not their holy book. Oh and relative to your boastful proclamation concerning "science history", not surprisingly, you aren't presenting all of the facts. Here's some more reading for you,

I think you'll really like this part, "There are hints of experimental methods from the Classical world (e.g., those reported by Archimedes in a report recovered early in the 20th century CE from an overwritten manuscript), but the first clear instances of an experimental scientific method seem to have been developed by Islamic scientists who introduced the use of experimentation and quantification within a generally empirical orientation."


AmericanVet said...

Canucklehead, wikipedia is a liberal organization that is part of the ruling paradigm. I do not mean there is some giant conspiracy organization, I mean that large numbers of people and organizations have swallowed a lot of propaganda whole.

The scientists I cited were not naturalists at all, not one bit! They took the concept of God created as a starting point, it was presumed and in fact gave them confidence forces could be harnessed and processes would be logically understood. A random world that *poofed* into existence by chance has no reason to have reason or logic or repeatability. Your entire premise is flawed and your knowledge of science history is wrong.

People like Sir Isaac Newton would be insulted by the label of "naturalist" although apparently his good character would have caused him to simply object. You really do not know what the heck you are talking about, Canucklehead.

The lack of critical thinking that causes people to just accept the idea that man is warming the globe (in opposition to the evidence) and that socialism is an optimal society (when it always fails miserably and creates a huge number of poor folks) and that evolution is true (when there simply is no good evidence for it, just a bunch of fairy tales. Richard Dawkins should be a fiction writer). Critical thinking would put an end to such nonsense. People need to examine evidence and their own beliefs and the logic and practicality of them.

Anonymous said...

LOL at Radar putting himself out there as a "critical thinker". Good one man. You know, when you really try, you can be pretty funny.

You said it yourself that you start with a conclusion and work back from there, desperately searching for anything that supports your conclusion all while throwing away any and all evidence that contradicts it. How is that scientific in any way?

And why is it OK for you to cite Wikipedia when it suits your purpose but when information contradicts your ultra-narrow worldview it's a "liberal organization" that can't be trusted?

To quote/paraphrase Steven Colbert, you probably support the idea that "reality has a well-known liberal bias".

You may not like it but god/religion played no functional role in the discoveries of any of the scientists you list. But fortunately your discomfort over this fact has no bearing on whether or not it's true. If I'm wrong please show where the concept of anything supernatural was worked in to actual findings of the scientists you cite. Why cant you understand that the fact that these scientists were christian is irrelevant unless it demonstrably affected their science. Which it didn't. Now if you say it did, prove it. Otherwise all you're left with a bunch of METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISTS.


Anonymous said...

Oh and you say, again, that evolution defies LOT. Although you did add "I do not care how many times you deny it", which is good because evolution in no way contradict the law of thermodynamics.

Fortunately, this little excerpt I found on the web should finally clear things up for you,

"This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws."

Hope that helps.


Anonymous said...

Oh and you are apparently also still confused about the "Law of Biogenesis". This one seems to trip you up a lot. You see, the law you refer to here only addresses the spontaneous appearance of complex life (i.e. mice, maggots, and bacteria), not primitive life.

It seems your confused about quite a few things, Radar. Being such a self professed "smart guy" it must get pretty frustrating being completely wrong so often.


Anonymous said...

Oh geeze, I found another mistake Radar. This is getting embarrassing. You say,

"It is very hard to identify even one or two transitional fossils and all of them are arguable. But in a Darwin world there would be a massive number of transitionals."

Hmmm wherever did you get the idea that it's "hard to identify even one or two transitional fossils"? Ummm... maybe for you. I mean, it sure would be hard to figure all this stuff out when you dont even have the foggiest idea about what evolution actually is. Hopefully this helps,

"There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism."

Again it looks like you don't actually understand the concept of "transitional fossil", so it's really no wonder you get everything so wrong here.


AmericanVet said...

Eventually other readers will get you, Canucklhead. You do not know much about this subject.

1- Biogenesis established that not even microorganisms form spontaneously. This was proven and accepted back in the 19th Century. You need to catch up!

2- Transitional fossils are supposed to be one thing in the process of turning into something else. No one has found even one that is absolutely certain to be one, while there are now millions of fossils of complete organisms AND every organism type was represented in Cambrian layers. So bang and bang, you are gone!

Anonymous said...

Another misrepresentation/fallacy,

Regarding your stuff on Uniformitarianism and Darwin,

"Let us now consider the Punctuated Equilibrium debate. This is supposed to be anti-Darwinian because it challenges Darwin's "gradualism", which he is supposed to have inherited from Charles Lyell, the geologist (11). However, Darwin himself stated that evolution would proceed at different rates, and two founders of the Synthesis - Mayr and Simpson - both developed theories of relatively rapid change and speciation events. When Gould and Eldredge first proposed their Punctuated Equilibrium Theory they held it to be well within orthodox Darwinism, and after some varying emphases over the next 20 years, it is so held to be orthodox again. The sort of Uniformitarianism that Darwin did inherit from Lyell worked on the assumption that the causes in operation in the modern period are not qualitatively different from those of earlier times. However, they may differ quantitatively in rate and strength, and if the evidence is that they have, this is not a disproof of Darwinism as expressed from 1859 to the current day."

So it's "go fish" again for our dear, brainwashed host. Hopefully next year he figures it out. Not holding my breath though.


Anonymous said...

Wow. Your errors get pointed out to you and yet you still restate them. What's wrong with you man?

What about "you are redefining the term transitional fossil to suit your argument" don't you understand? And why on earth would anyone, even your "readers" (LOL), take your word for what "Transitional fossils are supposed to be"? You have demonstrated that you don't keep up with modern science and have been proven to be wrong so many times it's really not funny any more (see above).

And again the law of biogenesis relates to complex life, not primitive life. Sorry.

Oh and WTH does "Eventually other readers will get you, Canucklhead", mean? You don't have any other readers, Radar. Clicks and hits do not equate to readers. Don't you think that somebody would have spoken up by now? Even Hawkeye stopped commenting and hb only comments when someone says something unflattering about the bible. Lista, gone. Embriette gone. Your wife comes around too but very rarely. Stop overselling your impact Radar. All your site has done for me is help me understand just how deceptive creationist can be. And of course made me pretty aware of just how to counter all of your lies.


AmericanVet said...

Actually, Canucklehead, a reference to punctuated equilibrium is kind of humorous. So you think it is scientific to say the following?

1- Evolution is so slow we do not observe it today
2- Evolution goes so fast it is not recorded in the fossil record

Oh, yes, that is supposed to frustrate me? It just reminds me that you do not even think. You have been handed a plateful of Darwin and you pass it out without a thought. Punctuated equilibrium is hilariously unscientific. Even someone like Dawkins has probably abandoned that one.

AmericanVet said...

Also I see Grahame and Noogah recently said something in favor of my posts, whoever they may be.

In the blog world, most of your readers do not comment but when you are making an impact you pick up trolls. Trolls counter every post whether they have anything to say or not, because they hope to convince the reader that the post is incorrect. Unhappily for you most readers neither comment nor read the comments.

AmericanVet said...

"Science has to give us ALL the answers, letter-perfect, RIGHT NOW, or science must be completely and forever wrong about everything and my favorite invisible magician must have done it all."

Back to the first comment. Science should stick with the accepted explanation until disproven by a beter one. Creation ex nihilo by a Designer is still the best explantion and Darwinists do not have answers. God should still be the default setting.

Yes, science should stick with explanations that make sense until they are overthrown. A Creator explains a finite Universe with beginning and end as well as designed organisms that are too complex to just happen. Darwinism is *poof* with a drink and fries. Not science.

Anonymous said...

What should frustrate you would be the fact that you're wrong all the time.

You push your pseudoscience because you think you are doing "gods work". You've said it yourself recently that you think of this blog as some kind of "ministry" (OMG that is just soooo funny). You therefore have strong motivation to deny reality. Not so much for the other side of this "debate".

And I think you need to re-read the "reference" to "punctuated equilibrium" in my comment above. It seems you're confused again. Shocker.

You say, "Unhappily for you most readers neither comment nor read the comments". Um, I'm not the one assuming anyone else is reading this Radar. And if you think that anybody actually reads your ridiculously long and uninteresting posts in the first place, you are even crazier than I thought.

Finally, you are the "poofer" here Radar. How one can look at an account of the earth spanning 4.5 billion years and boil it down to "poofing into existence" is beyond me. Lying or Stupid? You tell me.

And let's see how long these new guys stick around (although I have not yet seen this "noogah"). Likely they'll be gone once they realize how obnoxious you are, even to other christians. Just like all the others.