Search This Blog

Monday, November 28, 2011

Real Miracles come from God, not UM! Ask Elizabeth Bury or a passing Monarch Butterfly.

Psalms 139, history and science.  Here we go...Elizabeth Bury and the amazing Monarch Butterfly!  Down near the bottom of the page I share one creature that, by itself, totally destroys the concept of Darwinism!

Elizabeth Bury is discussed at this page.  She was a very devoted woman of God and a quite intelligent and diligent woman indeed!   I will share her motto with you, from this page:
Her Hebrew motto[1] in her closet for many years was
motto
i.e. Thou LORD seest me,[2] plainly intimating her awful adoration of God’s omniscience, and that her eye of faith should be always upon him; and that she would ever act under the influence of that persuasion that God was present, whether in reading, praying, meditating, examining or recording the solemn transactions that passed betwixt him and her soul[3] in that closet.[4]

She always had this before her, that as oft as she entered in, and as long as she continued there, and in every duty she performed, it might be a memorial that every sin and folly and instance of her departure from God was perfectly known to him; and every penitent confession, tear and groan was in his sight and under the hearing of an omnipresent God; and every prayer and purpose and vow and solemn obligation made and renewed and ratified there was sacred and awful, as under the eye and notice of an all-seeing and heart-searching God. And this she often found had greatly restrained her from sin and excited her to duty, and disposed her for comfortable communion with God, and kept her heart from trifling in her closet.

[1] The characters are a facsimile from the second and third editions, 1721.
[2] Genesis 16:13 And she called the name of the LORD that spake unto her, Thou God seest me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that seeth me?
[3]Cf. Joseph Alleine, Alarme to Unconverted Sinners: ‘This covenant I advise you to make…Keep it as a memorial of the solemn transactions that have passed between God and you.’
[4] Matthew Henry’s sister Sarah was aware of Elizabeth Bury’s closet motto, for on February 4, 1727 she writes, ‘I read a sermon of my dear father’s concerning the last judgment. Many things in it very awful; but that which, especially, affected me was this, “Things done in the closet shall be proclaimed”. This should excite me to seriousness. The motto good Mrs Bury had written in her closet was – Thou God seest me. I praise my God that this thought yields me some comfort. My dear and kind heavenly Father sees some secret transactions between him and me, which I trust he will accept only, only for Christ’s sake’ – Diary of Mrs Sarah Savage (1664–1752).

If you are not familiar with the style of Old England, the writing above will seem stilted and a bit difficult.  "Awful" now would more likely be "Awesome" in modern language.  If you are familiar with the writings of Jane Austen you will read the Bury section and apprehend it.  The writings of Old England were quite conservative in tone and in fact this tendency followed the Founders across the pond to America.   If you have read many writings of our Founding Fathers you will see more similarity to the style of the author, above, than you will in 21st Century prose.  To an extent our society has not only lost morality but also a good measure of civility and grace.   It is the world in which we live now, so in vernacular and tone I also speak with a modern tone on this blog.  I suppose the internet, automobiles, central air conditioning and a constant supply of clean, fresh water makes up for the loss?   We would do well to recover a bit of our lost morality for the sake of the future of our children and our children's children.  Okay, off the soap box.

Now I will share a bit of scripture interspersed with comments and notes and the Bible will be in bright blue.

Psalm 139 - English Standard Version (ESV)

Search Me, O God, and Know My Heart
To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David.
 1O LORD, you have searched me and known me! 2You know when I sit down and when I rise up;
   you discern my thoughts from afar.
3You search out my path and my lying down
   and are acquainted with all my ways.
4Even before a word is on my tongue,
   behold, O LORD, you know it altogether.
5You hem me in, behind and before,
   and lay your hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me;
   it is high; I cannot attain it.

Elizabeth Bury knew that God knew her intimately and completely, in fact, God knows us better than we know ourselves.  The wise man understands that God made everything and therefore He made you and knows you and sees you.   To me, this is a comfort, for I know He knows and understands me and has mercy on my weaknesses and seeks to help me conquer them and accomplish things both good and great.

 7 Where shall I go from your Spirit?
   Or where shall I flee from your presence?
8 If I ascend to heaven, you are there!
    If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!
9If I take the wings of the morning
   and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,
10even there your hand shall lead me,
   and your right hand shall hold me.
11If I say, "Surely the darkness shall cover me,
   and the light about me be night,"
12 even the darkness is not dark to you;
   the night is bright as the day,
   for darkness is as light with you.

There is no place where God does not know for God has made all things.   God invented everything and in fact he invented nothing.   He created the material world, which is why all naturalistic explanations for the Universe are both logically and mathematically absurd.   In stark contrast to Darwinist story-tellers and believers in UM, Elizabeth Bury was a brilliant woman of many accomplishments and interests which humble me to consider.   The secret of her genius must have been her devotion to and knowledge of God!

 13For you formed my inward parts;
   you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.
14I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.[a] Wonderful are your works;
   my soul knows it very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you,when I was being made in secret,
   intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
16Your eyes saw my unformed substance;in your book were written, every one of them,
   the days that were formed for me,
   when as yet there was none of them.



Yes, as science advances we discover how wondrous a human being is - 100 trillion cells with ten times that many microorganisms inhabiting us as if we were a planet or a spacecraft.  We discover that DNA, the four character code exponentially more complex than binary computer code, is not just a means of coding for reproduction but actually has continuing uses.   We also see that the so-called "junk DNA" is actually quite functional and contains oversight and quality control features.  We have discovered that the cell itself is also holder of information and algorithms.  Not only is DNA and the cell a symbiotic relationship with one not capable of existence without the other, symbiosis goes far beyond a partnership between two organisms.  Within our cells manifold systems and components work in harmony.   We ourselves harbor microorganisms that help us live while at the same time we provide a life for them.   In the ecosystem of Earth there are often multiple organisms all working together to survive and unable to do so alone.  Information, design, algorithms...Life is so obviously designed that it hurts my brain to think that anyone doubts it!


 17How precious to me are your thoughts, O God!
   How vast is the sum of them!
18 If I would count them, they are more than the sand.
   I awake, and I am still with you.
 19Oh that you would slay the wicked, O God!
   O men of blood, depart from me!
20They speak against you with malicious intent;
   your enemies take your name in vain![b]
21 Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD?
   And do I not loathe those who rise up against you?
22I hate them with complete hatred;
   I count them my enemies.

I cannot hate my Darwinist foes.   I want them to know the truth.  Despite the fact that they often attack my character and try to mock me, I will continue to try to present reasons to them to abandon Darwinism, give up on UM and discover God and real science.

The enemies of God, if they remain enemies, shall pay a fearful price in coming face to face with their Creator having lived a life thumbing their noses at Him.  Those who disdain the gift purchased at the terrible price paid by Jesus Christ to save them from their own eternal demise will not find me adding to their griefs.   They will pay with Hell.   I know Hell is eternal separation from God, it is eternal punishment and it is a fate so terrible and awful that I do not spend much time pondering it.  I seek to keep you from knowing exactly what it is!


 23Search me, O God, and know my heart!
    Try me and know my thoughts![c]

24And see if there be any grievous way in me,
   and lead me in the way everlasting![d]

Readers, there is no sense in continuing to believe in nothing when there is a Great and Wondrous God who has revealed Himself in so many ways.   Consider the Monarch butterfly.  

"How long does a monarch live?"

"Why do monarchs migrate south?"


The answers to these two questions go hand-in-hand. Children ask them all the time. Most monarchs live from two to six weeks as an adult butterfly, but the Monarch's migration is the KEY to its yearly life cycle.

The total time frame for one butterfly's life cycle (one generation) is about 6-8 weeks . . . egg, caterpillar, chrysalis, butterfly. It grows inside the egg for about 4 days. It then munches milkweed and grows as a monarch caterpillar (larvae) for about 2 more weeks. The caterpillar's life inside the chrysalis (pupa) lasts about 10 days and its wonderful life as an adult butterfly lasts from 2 - 6 weeks.
February/March - hibernating monarchs in Mexico and southern California reawaken, become active, find a mate, begin the flight northward and lay their eggs. Finally they die. These special monarchs have lived about 4-5 months through the long winter.

March/April -the 1st generation monarchs are born -egg, caterpillar, chrysalis, adult butterfly;

May/June - the 2nd generation is born - egg, caterpillar, chrysalis, adult butterfly;

July/August - the 3rd generation is born - egg, caterpillar, chrysalis, adult butterfly;

Sept/Oct - the 4th generation is born - egg, caterpillar, chrysalis, adult butterfly . . . but THIS generation does not die. It MIGRATES south and lives 6-8 months in Mexico or Southern California. They begin awakening and mating in February/March of the NEXT SPRING, and then lay their eggs! Withered and tattered from their migration and hibernation . . . they finally die.
The cycles goes on as the new baby caterpillars are born each spring and the cycle continues throughout the year into the next spring. MAGICAL and AMAZING!


The last generation is called the Methuselah Generation, named for the longest-lived Biblical Patriarch of the prediluvial world.  The Monarch only lays eggs on Milkweed, which grows in the USA and Canada.  But it must winter far south in the Transvolcanic region of Mexico, far from the food the caterpillar eats.    It is first an egg, a beautiful egg that resembles the dome of a cathedral.   This egg hatches and becomes a caterpillar, which is basically a multiple-legged eating machine that grows out of it's own skin and must make a new skin and then escape the old with a variety of specialized systems needed to accomplish this.    It quickly grows and then begins to transform into a chrysalis that hangs from the Milkweed.  Within the chrysalis a caterpillar is transformed into a butterfly.   A caterpillar forms a few cells before it goes to chrysalis stage that will be used to help make a butterfly, but most of the caterpillar cells will be dissolved and re-formed into completely new cells for an entirely new creature as the Monarch goes from egg to caterpillar to chrysalis to butterfly.  Evolution cannot begin to explain this.   Monarch Butterflies get nutrition from flowers but, because they are first born of a caterpillar that eats Milkweed, which is poisonous,  predators tend to recognize the Monarch wing pattern because the adult butterfly contains some of the Milkweed's poison.  They do not taste good!

But, for the Darwinist it soon gets worse.   Monarchs migrate North as the Milkweed grows with the season, and there will be two or three generations of short-lived Monarchs that go egg-caterpillar-chrysalis-butterfly-lay eggs and die.    The Monarchs move North to places like Michigan and Southern Canada in their last migration North before the seasonal changes clue the Methuselah Generation to begin their migration to either the Transvolcanic Plateau of Mexico or a small percentage that overwinter in Southern California.  So not the children nor grandchildren of butterflies wind up going back South, but rather it will be the great or great-great grandchildren that are almost always the ones that live nine months rather than a few short weeks and go to flock together by the millions upon millions in a type of hibernation for the winter in a place their parents never visited.

Recent studies of the Eastern populations show that most come together in Texas and follow a path through Mexico South before making a hard turn towards the trees they will flock on for winter.  But some choose to go across the Gulf of Mexico rather than go West towards Texas and now oil rigs in the Gulf have proved to be convenient resting spot for groups of migrating Monarchs.  Did they fly across the Gulf without rest before there were oil rigs?

What explanation can Darwinists give for 20,000 species of butterflies, all of which can clearly identify the one plant it's caterpillar can eat and lays its eggs thereon?   Then how do you explain the Monarch, which not only has four different life forms in its life cycle, but also normally goes through four generations between overwintering far from Milkweed to the butterflies that will live 9 months and make their way back down South to the home away from home they have never known?

There are yet more perplexing facts about butterflies in general and Monarchs in particular.   They have inbuilt algorithms that cause them to know when to migrate and how to navigate to a strange location.  In fact the information required to cause them to take four different forms, know what plant to lay their eggs on (a plant poisonous to most creatures) be able to have multiple short migratory generations following the Milkweed North and then have one long-lived generation to migrate South with uncanny accuracy and success.  The very design of butterfly wings is being studied and copied by human engineers.   Within all these designs it appears that our God has also given us clues that He not only made both us and the Monarch, He knows will will be and when.   A researcher has found all letters of the English alphabet and all ten Arabic numerals on the wings of butterflies, for instance: 




Bible Footnotes:
  1. Psalm 139:14 Or for I am fearfully set apart
  2. Psalm 139:20 Hebrew lacks your name
  3. Psalm 139:23 Or cares
  4. Psalm 139:24 Or in the ancient way (compare Jeremiah 6:16)
Recommended resource:  Metamorphosis




    UM cannot compete with GOD!

    43 comments:

    Anonymous said...

    "UM cannot compete with GOD!"

    They're about the same, really. About equally useless, and both made up by religious folk.

    Good thing we still have science.

    Anonymous said...

    Back to simply peddling logical fallacies are we, Radar?

    From Talk Origins,

    "This is an argument from incredulity. Because one does not understand how butterfly metamorphosis evolved does not mean it is too complex to have evolved."

    You know, when you get something wrong, instead of repeating said fallacy over and over, maybe you should try to get it right. Say, read this paper on the origins of insect metamorphosis perhaps,

    http://www.insecta.ufv.br/Entomologia/ent/disciplina/ban%20160/AULAT/aula8/truman.pdf

    Hard to figure how you feel you're helping your side of this "debate" these days. You post absolutely anything regardless of merit, as long as the source is YEC.

    -Canucklehead.

    You know, when you get something wrong, instead of repeating said fallacy over and over, maybe you should try to get it right. Say, read this paper on the origins of insect metamorphosis perhaps,

    http://www.insecta.ufv.br/Entomologia/ent/disciplina/ban%20160/AULAT/aula8/truman.pdf

    Hard to figure how you feel you're helping your side of this "debate" these days. You post absolutely anything regardless of merit, as long as the source is YEC.

    -Canucklehead.

    Anonymous said...

    ~Facepalm~ Oops. Double self post. Forgive me.

    -Canucklehead.

    AmericanVet said...

    Hiding behind the phrase "logical fallacies" is not scientific. A scientific approach to a problem means an attempt to find the likely answer and begin with that answer, then as new information is found determine whether that changes or tweaks the answer.

    That organisms now are apparently designed means that real scientists will take that as their starting point. To appeal to magical Darwinist hopeful pleading is no longer scientific. You do not know "how something evolved" when you have no evidence that it evolved at all, and that is the case with the Monarch and, in fact, all butterflies.

    To have absolutely no evidence on your side other than a belief that magically evolution works despite its failures in real time and despite the falsification of the foundations thereof means you are not scientific at all, just religious. You BELIEVE in evolution because you abhor the concept of God. But the evidence falls into the God column and, the more we learn about organisms and the Universe, the more that is true. That paper of yours is a sad snapshot of the hopelessness of Darwinists propagandized to the point they cannot see the forest for the trees. It certainly is not evidence.

    AmericanVet said...

    Talk Origins is a religious organization that deliberately posts lies, as I have demonstrated.

    Butterflies cannot fit the evolution story because they take four forms and in the chrysalis stage change from one organism to another. A chrysalis does not reproduce at all so it cannot evolve. A caterpillar does not reproduce, it turns into a butterfly. A butterfly does not reproduce, it lays eggs that become caterpillars. And then there are the two or three short-lived generations that follow the Milkweed North then produce a nine-month butterfly that will go to winter where it's great-great grandfather went. With four eggs, caterpillars and chrysalis and butterfly stages of normal short lifespans before the Methuselah stage. It doesn't fit Darwinism AT ALL.

    Chaos Engineer said...

    You BELIEVE in evolution because you abhor the concept of God

    You say this sort of stuff a lot. Do you have any evidence of it?

    It seems kind of silly at first glance. After all, there are lots of people who believe in both the Christian God and evolution, and lots of other people who don't believe in evolution, but don't believe in the Christian God either.

    A chrysalis does not reproduce at all so it cannot evolve. A caterpillar does not reproduce, it turns into a butterfly. A butterfly does not reproduce, it lays eggs that become caterpillars.

    OK, I think I see where you're confused. When a chrysalis turns into a caterpillar and then a butterfly, it doesn't get brand new sets of genes for each stage. It activates some genes and deactivates others, but the complete set of genes is always there.

    Suppose a butterfly gets a mutation in one of the chrysalis-related genes, and that the mutation helps its children survive when they're in the chrysalis stage. They'll be more likely to survive to adulthood and the mutation will become more common in the next generation. It doesn't matter that the gene has been deactivated in the children by the time they reproduce.

    DogMaBlog said...

    That's all fine. But can you show any evidence that a favorable mutation has ever occurred. Anyone could say it could happen but does it really?

    Grahame said...

    The bit about enemies in this Psalm does bother me somewhat but here are two thoughts.

    First, as a Christian, it's clear to me that my enemies are never really people. My number one enemy is actually my (old) sinful self!

    Sin is my enemy, the devil is my enemy, the world system is my enemy.

    And secondly, the Psalms are poetic literature and sometimes contain vivid imagery that is not meant to be taken literally.

    Grahame said...

    And then to respond to "Anonymous" who relies on "Talk Origins" and in a fit of supreme irony rails against logical fallacies:

    Since you rely on Talk Origins, I can only assume, Anonymous, that you have already excluded God a priory and so a discussion of logical with you is impossible.

    Science is your god (which really means human intelligence is your idol) and since science cannot prove or disprove God, you have attempted to assume the conclusion before even beginning.

    Back to science though. The weight of evidence is that there needs to be a divine intelligence behind the universe, unless one has already determined that the supernatural is excluded as unscientific because of one's commitment to life without God, which as far as I can tell stems back to the desire to reject any external morality so that one can live in whatever sin is that one's preference.

    I pray that you will not find out I am right when it is too late.

    Anonymous whatsit said...

    "Since you rely on Talk Origins, I can only assume, Anonymous, that you have already excluded God a priory and so a discussion of logical with you is impossible."

    Since you have just combined an ad hominem logical fallacy, a non sequitur and misused the word "logical", I suspect that any attempt to discuss logic with you would be unfruitful.

    Chaos Engineer said...

    That's all fine. But can you show any evidence that a favorable mutation has ever occurred. Anyone could say it could happen but does it really?

    Well, I don't want to get too far afield. Radar's argument was: "Butterflies cannot fit the evolution story because they take four forms and in the chrysalis stage change from one organism to another."

    The "evolution story" is that positive mutations can occur. Do you agree with my rebuttal? (If we assume that positive mutations occur, then butterflies can evolve even though they "take four forms".)


    That said, it's theoretically possible to have an ecosystem where positive mutations never occur, but it's really unlikely. It would be like playing a trillion rounds of roulette a trillion times a second for a trillion years and not winning even once. Yes, the odds are against you in a single round, but if you play enough rounds you're bound to get lucky sooner of later.

    One example of a positive mutation that's been discussed here before is the "nylon-eating bacteria":
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria

    Anonymous whatsit said...

    "Back to science though. The weight of evidence is that there needs to be a divine intelligence behind the universe, unless one has already determined that the supernatural is excluded as unscientific because of one's commitment to life without God, which as far as I can tell stems back to the desire to reject any external morality so that one can live in whatever sin is that one's preference."

    Where's the science bit exactly? None of what you say here is backed up by science.

    Anonymous whatsit said...

    "Talk Origins is a religious organization that deliberately posts lies, as I have demonstrated."

    You've demonstrated that you disagree with them on an issue and that they didn't promptly see fit to agree with you and change their claims.

    You have certainly not demonstrated any attempt to lie or deceive.

    And last: define "religious organization".

    AmericanVet said...

    Let's be clear. Science believed that God created the Universe and all life thereon. The only issue was whether He created them to be in stasis, which would then mean zillions of extinctions, or whether He made them capable of adjustments to the environmental pressures of life, in which case only millions or even many thousands of extinctions but rather just changing forms.

    Science in general accepted this into the beginning of the 20th Century, when belief in Evolution steamrollered the Scientific Assumption of creation ex nihilo by God and evolution was popularized. But unfortunately evolution has lacked the evidence to overturn the original assumption and has failed, therefore the previous assumption has not been disproven or even seriously threatened.

    What you call "goddidit" was science to the vast majority of the scientific commnunity until around the time following WWI. You do not know your history of science if you doubt this. Evolutionists believed they had evidence enough to explain life and existence with what they had in hand, certain that newer findings would back them up.

    However, the evidence is absolutely overwhelming that organisms are designed. Furthermore the odds against chance creation of all these life forms is a number too big to comprehend. Statistically it is absolutely impossible even if a simple single-cell organism of some kind had come from natural causes and we know that cannot happen because:

    It is statistically impossible
    It is chemically impossible
    It is unobservable

    Therefore it does not meet the criteria for "science" and becomes religion.

    The advent of the Universe is similar. Some scientists were willing to believe in an eternal Universe back at the beginning of the 20th Century, which along with the (incorrect) assumption of Uniformitarianism helped evolution to become accepted. But we know now that the Universe is finite and is obeying the Laws of Thermodynamics. It is created and it will end.

    No big bang hypothesis obeys physical laws, which should clue you in to the problems inherent in them. I asked previously:

    What was there before the singularity?

    What was the singularity?

    Who or what caused the singularity to exist?

    How did it "explode"?

    AmericanVet said...

    Now I will continue. We have evidence that every single sedimentary layer was formed by water. Yes, even the Cocino. Only the very top surface layer is a recent one and it is not piling up fossils because fossils are formed in catastrophic conditions. The classic "head-thrown-back-in-agony" position of so many fossilized vertebrates is indicative of drowning death.

    The Flood and the Post-Flood Ice Age explain the rock layers as they are and also the manner in which we find Mammoth and Mastedons fits the Post-Flood Ice Age scenario to a T.

    So when I hear evolution-believers claiming "science" I know better. You have lots of stories but it is all facade. Especially in a case like the Monarch. Seriously, are you kidding me? You think evolution can explain the Monarch Butterfly, you have your brain switched to the religion channel and no evidence is coming in.

    Anonymous whatsit said...

    "Science believed that God created the Universe and all life thereon."

    Until (Christian) scientists came up with the scientific methods and facts started getting in the way.

    For the umpteenth time, mainstream science doesn't claim that single cells appeared ex nihilo. Read up on the subject instead of continuing to embarrass yourself.

    "What was there before the singularity?

    What was the singularity?

    Who or what caused the singularity to exist?

    How did it "explode"?"

    1, 3 and 4: we don't know.
    2 - the singularity has been defined by extrapolation, hasn't it?

    Here are some other questions:

    What was there before God?

    Who or what caused God to exist?

    How did God create the universe?

    Grahame said...

    Here are some other questions:

    What was there before God?

    Who or what caused God to exist?

    How did God create the universe?

    =====

    See - complete lack of logic.

    And you forgot to mention I misspelled priori.

    AmericanVet said...

    God is uncreated, He is not finite, He transcends time and space. He in fact invented them. So God is eternal, existing always. I AM THAT I AM.

    God told us that He spoke the worlds into existence. I am sure that a technical discussion of how He is able to do these things is beyond me. I certainly cannot teach the alphabet to my pair of 13 year old Plecostomus fish in my big fishtank and God is far greater compared to me than I am to a fish.

    No lack of logic. In fact most scientists and philosophers in history since the beginning of the church age have believed God created. They may have been Christian or Theists or even Deists but Atheists were considered aberrant. I see no reason to change that opinion.

    Grahame said...

    For the umpteenth time, mainstream science doesn't claim that single cells appeared ex nihilo. Read up on the subject instead of continuing to embarrass yourself.
    ======
    No, evolutionary science claims that numerous impossible steps occurred over a longer time.

    Here's an apt analogy. If I flap my arms for long enough occasionally it will give me some lift. Ergo, given enough time someone on this planet will eventually fly to the moon if people just kept flapping their arms long enough.

    And that's about Chaos Engineer's argument.

    As to nylon-eating bacteria - nothing to do with Darwinian (UCD) Evolution. see http://creation.com/the-adaptation-of-bacteria-to-feeding-on-nylon-waste or http://creation.com/feedback-that-depends-on-what-your-definition-of-information-is

    The problem is it's not about "beneficial" mutations because Darwinian Evolution needs so much more than mere benefit. Losing wings is beneficial for beetles living of a wind-swept island but will never turn bacteria into people. One needs a mechanism to add encyclopedic amounts of information. So far "science" is relying on wishful thinking and using wishful thinking and bias to exclude God.

    Anonymous whatsit said...

    "No, evolutionary science claims that numerous impossible steps occurred over a longer time."

    Almost there. If you change "impossible" to "possible", you'd have a truthful statement.

    Why would evolutionary science claim that impossible steps occurred?

    And where exactly do you think such claims were made?

    Anonymous whatsit said...

    "And you forgot to mention I misspelled priori."

    No, I just didn't think it was necessary in the context. It wasn't about simply listing mistakes, but listing mistakes that were relevant to your understanding of logic. People can understand logic and still make spelling mistakes

    Anonymous said...

    "And you forgot to mention I misspelled priori."

    What, so you know how to spell it? Or did you look it up afterwards/

    Grahame said...

    From Anonymous Whatsit:

    "No, evolutionary science claims that numerous impossible steps occurred over a longer time."

    Almost there. If you change "impossible" to "possible", you'd have a truthful statement.

    Why would evolutionary science claim that impossible steps occurred?

    And where exactly do you think such claims were made?

    ====
    From Chaos:
    The "evolution story" is that positive mutations can occur. Do you agree with my rebuttal? (If we assume that positive mutations occur, then butterflies can evolve even though they "take four forms".)


    That said, it's theoretically possible to have an ecosystem where positive mutations never occur, but it's really unlikely. It would be like playing a trillion rounds of roulette a trillion times a second for a trillion years and not winning even once. Yes, the odds are against you in a single round, but if you play enough rounds you're bound to get lucky sooner of later.
    ====
    Anon, every time there's a journal article or other reference to proof of evolution it's either natural selection (with which Creationists have no argument) or it's a mutation that may be positive but is a loss of information or at best undetermined.

    Chaos' fact free assertions don't align with the actual evidence, only wishful thinking that says its "unscientific" to invoke God and therefore wrong, and that only a natural explanation will do, and so whatever seems the most possible (without God) is accepted as what happened.

    This is circular reasoning, and you are unlikely to see it because you don't examine your thinking deep enough to become aware of this blind spot.

    If any other complex systems were found, they would automatically and naturally be assigned to intelligence, but our world, which is far more complex by a long, long way cannot be created by an intelligence because the only viable one is God who will take all to account for their lives and this is unacceptable.

    The basic problem is not logical because you aren't able to examine deep enough. The problem comes back to rebellion and a desire to not have God "telling you what is right and wrong".

    Grahame said...

    Anonymous said...
    "And you forgot to mention I misspelled priori."

    What, so you know how to spell it? Or did you look it up afterwards/
    =====

    I remembered - something bugged me about it as I wrote it, but I was unable to see what until later.

    Grahame said...

    And whatsit, you're highly likely to be right that I have made and will make mistakes of logic, but your errors are far more fundamental than the minutiae you are accusing me of.

    I am nowhere as skilled in the details of logic as I would like, but it seems to me that you're missing a bigger picture view.

    Anonymous said...

    Coming from such a clearly seasoned "thinker" this is pretty rich, Grahame,

    "This is circular reasoning, and you are unlikely to see it because you don't examine your thinking deep enough to become aware of this blind spot."

    And starting with the conclusion that god exists or that the bible is inerrant totally isn't circular at all. Projection much?

    We got it, "goddidit" is clearly very scientific.

    And thanks for the instant psychoanalysis of all of us atheists here. Unfortunately, you're way off. Non-belief is the default. And in order for one to display the type of christian extremism you've layed down on this blog in just one comment section, i.e. to essentially ignore all of modern science, in my experience, means that you were either indoctrinated/brainwashed (read abused) as a child or have hit absolute rock bottom as a scumbag at some point in your life and "found christ" (like Radar). So which one is it for you Grahame?

    And finally, as has likely been pointed out to you countless times it's pretty hard to rebel against something you don't believe in. Or are you saying that you are rebelling against Norse mythology by preaching christian mythology?

    -Canucklehead.

    AmericanVet said...

    Time for Darwinists to abandon the pretense of "argument from incredulity." Great scientists of the past would have not bothered to study since Aristotlean concepts were generally accepted. Newton was incredulous, Kepler was incredulous, Kelvin was, Maxwell was and so on and so forth. You use that tired old phrase to ward off logic and reason and real science. It is boring and frankly it is stupid.

    The odds against any simple organism arising from chance are astronomically beyond reason. Yet we have so many organisms we keep discovering new ones. All of the organisms we know of have DNA-cell coding systems that are more complex and sophisticated than anything man has devised. We are still learning about them. As we learn, old Darwinian pillars keep falling to the ground.

    The same is true of the fossil record. Darwin himself said that the Cambrian explosion, if it really was that and there were no layers leading up to it, would falsify his hypothesis. He also said that if transitionals were not found in abundance it would falsify his hypothesis. The very real possibility would be that, if we could cause Darwin to *poof* into existence and spend about a month reading up on the current state of our knowledge he would dismiss his own prior beliefs!

    You brainwashed Darwinists cling to false hopes rather than science and hope like mad that others do not come to realize it. Too bad, I know and every year more scientists "come out" and admit to doubting or dismissing Darwinism. Truth always wins out in the end.

    AmericanVet said...

    By the way, the fact that I was once a drug dealer and that Christ changed my life is not an indictment of me and does not really matter in terms of what scientific evidence I present. I am being honest. I was drafted out of college and thrown into a world where many of my peers were criminals told "Army or jail" by judges so I was surrounded by a bad crowd when I was drafted. That doesn't mean I had to fall in with them but in the end I did.

    I was in love and the relationship was broken. I turned to drugs to try to heal the pain. Then when the girl I loved wanted me back I felt unworthy and stayed away. Then I fell into a pit of wild characters - witches and warlocks (self-proclaimed) and drug dealers and oddball mystics and alien hunters. I could probably write a portion of my biography and it would sound like Hunter Thompson. I actually met one of the original Timothy Leary Farm dwellers.

    So God could revamp me like a house about to fall down around itself turned into a new family home. That is an example of His power. He is working in individual lives on Earth now. In the past He created the worlds.

    Anyway, God did it was in fact the default setting for science once the pagan Greek ideas were cast aside. Darwinists are just pagans with labcoats. You want to rewind science back to the days of Alchemy and Magick. You want to believe in impossible and ridiculous claims. Gotta give you guys credit for turning the news media and the vast majority of academics into unquestioning EvolotionBots. Men like Dewey and Marx and Malthus and Galton and Darwin have succeeded in a massive scam to convince the public that liberals know best, capitalism is evil and Darwinism is true. History tells us that capitalism freed the serfs and created the middle class. History tells us that belief in the Creator made scientists sure that they could investigate and discover logical systems and forces. Darwinists are just back to the past pagans with no steak, just sizzle.

    AmericanVet said...

    By the way, Grahame, thanks for the comments. Guys like you and Noogah come by and it encourages me. I have trolls like a shark has remoras. A fellow traveler is always welcome!

    Grahame said...

    Canunckle - let's break down your post and see if I'm being "rich".

    And starting with the conclusion that god exists or that the bible is inerrant totally isn't circular at all. Projection much?
    ======
    Did I say I'm not? One must start with presumptions, I'm aware of mine and find that those who attack us are very rarely aware of theirs. Based on your method of argument it's you who's projecting as you fail to admit your assumptions but when it’s raised project on us.

    We got it, "goddidit" is clearly very scientific.
    =====
    Never said that. It's just that what you call scientific isn't. My argument is that science is not the method for obtaining ultimate truth, but thanks for proving you don't read or think well.

    But thanks for providing the first clue that you aren’t listening or thinking.

    And thanks for the instant psychoanalysis of all of us atheists here.
    ====
    Ah sarcasm!

    Unfortunately, you're way off.
    ======
    Am I??

    Non-belief is the default.
    ====
    really? What a fact free assertion that flies in the face of real science! What excellent proof of your religious beliefs.

    Try reading this article. http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed


    See next post ...

    Grahame said...

    And in order for one to display the type of christian extremism
    =====
    christian extremism? I come on this blog to defend the belief of a fellow christian against evangelistic atheopaths who cannot allow someone to believe what they want but must convert the whole world to their belief and I'm the extremist? Projection much?

    We have a reason for our evangelistic efforts - many reasons in fact. What point is there in atheistic evangelism? If you're right we'll all die and turn to dirt and people will write books arguing about whatever we said or did but it can't be proven or changed because no-one has died and come back to tell us what's really after death. Oh, except Jesus and even the existence of Christianity is as close to proof as you'll get that we're right and you're wrong. see http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html

    And don't start attacking the failures of Christianity as though it proves the whole thing flawed because that will just demonstrate your ignorance and bias.

    you've layed down on this blog in just one comment section, i.e. to essentially ignore all of modern science,
    =======
    Sigh. All? Really? Or just the non-scientific naturalism that seeks to prove what it can't? Are you going to deal with the circular reasoning of the naturalistic view of origins in what you call science or make these nonsensical attacks to cover for the weakness in your argument?


    See next ...

    Grahame said...

    in my experience, means that you were either indoctrinated/brainwashed (read abused) as a child or have hit absolute rock bottom as a scumbag at some point in your life and "found christ" (like Radar). So which one is it for you Grahame?
    =======
    I grew up in a Christian home and have seriously questioned the existence of God a number of times (and in a sense still do as it can’t be “proven”) and come to the conclusion that He does exist as the Bible says He does (as far as I can tell). This is a faith position, obviously (just as much as yours) and one freely made as an intelligent adult, though naturally influenced by my upbringing.

    And would you like me to give you life-stories of those whose lives don't fit that pattern or for me to demonstrate the flawed logic in your "system". No, of course not - you're not interested in facts, just in fact free assertions to support your illogical belief that everyone must believe the same as you.

    And if you’re right (I’ll go ahead and point out some logical flaws anyway), how did “finding Christ” (thanks for not even showing any respect here and once again demonstrating your biased arrogance) change anyone. Did they instantly and suddenly evolve? How does this fit evolution? A person’s life changing to be better than what they naturally were is proof that your naturalism is false.

    What good has atheism done to bring drunks out of the gutter, druggies off their self-destructive path, criminals away from recidivism and etc etc? Christ has done it instantly and completely on many occasions and those people are able to mix freely and easily with “good” people who grew up in church or lived “good” lives without church and “found Christ” later in life. As the Bible says, Christ unifies. And Christ compels those who know Him to tell others this good news of transformation.

    Atheism compels those who have it to destroy belief in Christ and God, if it compels them at all.

    The natural goodness (godlikeness) in Atheists will compel them to bring some measure of good to those around them, but without Christ, it cannot be but slow and piecemeal. But this exists to a greater or lesser degree in all people, simply because we are made in the image of God.

    See next ...

    Grahame said...

    And finally, as has likely been pointed out to you countless times it's pretty hard to rebel against something you don't believe in.
    =====
    No, it hasn't. I may have encountered this illogical argument once or twice before and it's just as wrong this time. Once again, circular reasoning. You're assuming the conclusion (and yes, so was I) but one of us is wrong and maybe one of us it right.

    It seems to me that my belief makes far more sense of both my and your behaviour and your angry, illogical statements confirm my statements.

    Or are you saying that you are rebelling against Norse mythology by preaching christian mythology?
    =====
    If it were true and you or someone else argued it logically, then I could be accused of it, but once again you're being illogical and now you’re reaching, grasping, struggling.

    -Canucklehead.
    ====
    -Grahame

    NOTE TO ALL: Please pay attention to my request below as it seems to me that we’re not really listening to each other.

    P.S. (to Canunckle but relevant to all) since you dealt with very little of what I actually said, I request that you deal with my former post point by point so we don't start going in circles. Responding to this post will mostly be a waste of time as it will complete a circle where you and I start to repeat things we've already said and show that at least one of us isn't listening. And it seems to me that you’re already proven that you’re not listening to what I’m actually saying.

    It seems to be the (perhaps subconscious) ploy of atheopaths to come on someone else's site and use the tag team approach to avoid ever dealing with the issues but keep taking it in the direction(s) you wish to go by continually changing the topic and method of attack. But really it comes back to the same thing - it's as you say a lack of belief, an absence, a negative. And yet you're positively crusading for your empty and destructive cause.

    Jon Woolf said...

    "We have evidence that every single sedimentary layer was formed by water."

    Except, of course, for all the ones that weren't. Aeolian dunes, anyone? Volcanic ash layers?

    "The classic "head-thrown-back-in-agony" position of so many fossilized vertebrates is indicative of drowning death."

    No, it's not. It's indicative of the way that the tendons, ligaments, and muscles behave immediately post-mortem, regardless of the cause of death.

    "Darwinists are just pagans with labcoats. "

    Pagans believe in many gods. Atheists believe in none. Are Darwinists atheists or pagans, Radar?

    As for the monarch butterfly, the fact that Canucklehead's quote came from talk-origins doesn't mean it isn't true. Your 'argument' about the monarch really does boil down to "I don't understand how this could have evolved, therefore it couldn't have evolved." That's an argument from incredulity, pure and simple.

    Grahame said...

    And I forgot to put coding.

    http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed

    and

    http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html

    Anonymous said...

    @ Grahame

    tl;dr

    I'm sure someday you'll figure it all out though.

    -Canucklehead.

    Anonymous said...

    Seriously though, no matter how much i would like to, I just don't have time to educate you on all the errors in your thinking right now, Grahame. Maybe if you stick around we can get into it some other time. That being said, please understand that you don't appear to have any understanding of atheists or atheism at all. I suggest a little Sam Harris reading might help you out in this area. Cheers,

    -Canucklehead.

    radar said...

    Hey, Grahame? I really like that Tektonics site, good link! Can you make a hole in your schedule, (like maybe a 15 minute break) so Canucklehead can tell you everything he knows about science? :-) I mean, since all he seems to do is tell people I don't know anything. I wonder if he knows anything?

    That Tektonics post is probably too long for even me to present, although I will remember to link to it at an appropriate time. The Creation.com article is very interesting, though, because it supports the Bible rather than the (as usual) false claims of Atheists that people believe in God because they are indoctrinated.

    Within our hearts we all know God made everything. Our brains may try to talk us out of it and our indoctrination in colleges will do a pretty good job of talking you out of what you inherently knew as a child: God has made the Universe, no other explanation makes sense!

    Ecclesiastes 3:11 - "He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end."

    Romans 1:18-23 - "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things."

    Grahame said...

    What do you mean, if I stick around?

    You're the one that's run away but sneakily tried to blame me on the convo not continuing.

    I'm not going anywhere - but I won't waste my time on a person that has no ability to deal with what I actually write and when called on it says "You have no understanding and I don't have the time to clear it up" and actually means "I can't be bothered".

    The arrogance of entering a discussion and declaring the other side wrong but not sticking around to prove it shows that your opinion is worth nothing.

    I'll still be here if you return unless I'm dead or some other equally impossible reason.

    Grahame said...

    Oh and I understand you very well because God has revealed your thinking and motivations.

    I understand your thinking far better than you do but as already mentioned you are stuck in an imaginary world where things make themselves and explosions are constructive even more than all the most constructive things we've observed and can accomplish.

    Grahame said...

    Quite frankly, I would have been far less tolerant of trolls coming on my page. especially when they have so few answers and ability to back up their attacks.

    AmericanVet said...

    Grahame,

    I have worked in 12-step programs and even helped write curriculum for college-level training course for counseling. I believe that adherence to Darwinism is very much like a drug dependency or a co-dependency, depending on the individual. In fact I can liken it to an addiction to heroin or crack cocaine.

    The first high is the best. For an atheist, the initial conceptualization of Darwinism is a great and inspirational high! They see a way to avoid responsibility for their thoughts and actions and be accepted and even feted by society for adherence to that belief system. Over time, the problems with Darwinism become more and more evident but like a user who needs a "fix" the Darwinist must desperately grab at straws and find others in agreement with him to assure himself that he is okay with his worldview.

    Darwinists who are scientists or laymen who study the subject at length must go deeper and deeper into denial in order to stay with their faith, just as a drug user slowly begins casting aside other interests and needs to fulfill what becomes the sole purpose for living, which is the next needle or snort. Eventually a dedicated Darwinist will shake off every evidence that he encounters and depnds entirely upon his Darwinist drug. Darwinism now, in the 21st Century, is completely ludicrous and its adherents are entirely swept up in stories about what might have happened and what might be but bereft of actual proofs.

    All the assertions of Darwin himself that speak to how organisms came to be are entirely falsified. He did not know much about organisms or geology. We know better now. Those of us who are not hooked on Darwinism do, that is.

    You Darwinists deny the Laws of Thermodynamics and Biogenesis and the Laws of Information. You are living in a fantasy world...much like addicts and co-dependents.

    The first step is to admit that you are caught up in Darwinism and are powerless to get free without help.

    AmericanVet said...

    Also, please quit passing off the presentation of logic as a fallacy. When a system is too complex to have simply happened by accident the logical man says it is designed. No argument from incredulity but rather an argument for credulity.

    Again, not one of you would come upon a 1959 Oldsmobile and conclude that it evolved. A Monarch is infinitely more complex, a human being is infinitely more complex than a 1959 Oldsmobile. Like the Olds, organisms are signed by the Designer with a code we call DNA.

    The only fallacy here is the Darwinist refusal to be logical and abandoning Occam's Razor for a book of fairy tales.