Search This Blog

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Reasons versus Excuses - Darwin's real message

In this life we continually make decisions.   A sociopath does not see value in other people and thinks of them as nothing more than objects.  So he will make decisions devoid of any morality whatsoever and totally from self-interest.   But many sociopaths are very smart and do meticulous planning to avoid being captured and punished for their actions.   Others manage to last for awhile because  the public doesn't expect that a person could be so warped - for instance, one of Dahmer's victims escaped and tried to convince bystanders and a policeman that he was being held against his will, but he was somewhat incoherent and Dahmer was able to smoothly convince people that the victim was his boyfriend and that he, Dahmer, was taking care of him.  From Wikipedia:

"...In the early morning hours of May 27, 1991, 14-year-old Konerak Sinthasomphone (by coincidence, the younger brother of the boy whom Dahmer had molested) was discovered on the street, wandering naked, heavily under the influence of drugs and bleeding from his rectum. Two young women from the neighborhood found the dazed boy and called 911. Dahmer chased his victim down and tried to take him away, but the women stopped him.[30] Dahmer told police that Sinthasomphone was his 19-year-old boyfriend, and that they had an argument while drinking. Against the protests of the two women who had called 911, police turned him over to Dahmer. They later reported smelling a strange scent while inside Dahmer's apartment, but did not investigate it. The smell was the body of Tony Hughes, Dahmer's previous victim, decomposing in the bedroom. The two policemen did not make any attempt to verify Sinthasomphone's age and failed to run a background check that would have revealed Dahmer was a convicted child molester still under probation.[31] Later that night, Dahmer killed and dismembered Sinthasomphone, keeping his skull as a souvenir.

By summer 1991, Dahmer was murdering approximately one person each week. He killed Matt Turner on June 30, Jeremiah Weinberger on July 5, Oliver Lacy on July 12, and finally Joseph Brandehoft on July 19. Dahmer got the idea that he could turn his victims into "zombies" — completely submissive, eternally youthful sexual partners — and attempted to do so by drilling holes into their skulls and injecting hydrochloric acid or boiling water into the frontal lobe area of their brains with a large syringe, while the victim was usually still alive.[32] Other residents of the Oxford Apartments complex noticed terrible smells coming from Apartment 213, as well as the thumps of falling objects and the occasional buzzing of a power saw.[33] Unlike many serial killers, Dahmer killed victims from a variety of racial backgrounds..."

‘If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…’
Jeffrey Dahmer, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994.

The story goes that Dahmer wanted someone to kill him, that he may have accepted Christ while in prison and he was eventually caught and murdered while in custody. 

The point is that Dahmer wanted to do what he did, but the reason he gave for his actions was the theory of evolution and what it taught.  Frankly it is true that by pure Darwinism applied, people should kill everyone who stand between them and success and by all means kill and push aside your enemies.   It is the survival of the fittest.   He understood perfectly what Darwinism says and appllied it to meet his own twisted desires.
You can argue whether Dahmer was using Darwinism as an EXCUSE rather than a REASON.  Let's consder that concept using Dictionary.com:

Rea·son

[ree-zuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.: the reason for declaring war.
2.
a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action.
3.
the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences.
4.
sound judgment; good sense.
5.
normal or sound powers of mind; sanity.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ex·cuse

[v. ik-skyooz; n. ik-skyoos] Show IPA 
noun
8.
an explanation offered as a reason for being excused; a plea offered in extenuation of a fault or for release from an obligation, promise, etc.: His excuse for being late was unacceptable.
9.
a ground or reason for excusing or being excused: Ignorance is no excuse.
10.
the act of excusing someone or something.
11.
a pretext or subterfuge: He uses his poor health as an excuse for evading all responsibility.
12.
an inferior or inadequate specimen of something specified: That coward is barely an excuse for a man. Her latest effort is a poor excuse for a novel.
~~~~~~~
Probably the difference between excuse and reason depends upon whether the actor believes his actions are justified according to his or her worldview. 
So it is accurate to say that Darwinism is used as either an excuse or a reason for such things as racism and atheism.   This is undeniable.   Darwinists should admit to this as it is true: 

Darwin’s real message: have you missed it?

Photo by Kathy Chapman online, Wikipedia.org
Stephen Gould
Stephen Jay Gould (1941–2002)
Harvard’s renowned Professor Stephen Jay Gould1 is a vigorous anticreationist (and Marxist — see documentation), and perhaps the most knowledgeable student of the history of evolutionary thought and all things Darwinian.

I’m glad he and I are on the same side about one thing at least—the real meaning of ‘Darwin’s revolution’. And we both agree that it’s a meaning that the vast majority of people in the world today, nearly a century and a half after Darwin, don’t really want to face up to. Gould argues that Darwin’s theory is inherently anti-plan, anti-purpose, anti-meaning (in other words, is pure philosophical materialism). Also, that Darwin himself knew this very well and meant it to be so.

By ‘materialism’ he does not mean the drive to possess more and more material things, but the philosophical belief that matter is the only reality. In this belief system, matter, left to itself, produced all things, including the human brain. This brain then invented the idea of the supernatural, of God, of eternal life, and so forth.
It seems obvious why Christians who wish to compromise with evolution, and especially those who encourage others to do this, would not want to face this as the true meaning of Darwinism. Such ‘theistic evolutionists’ believe they can accept the ‘baby’ of evolution (thus saving face with the world) while throwing out the ‘bathwater’ of materialism. I will not here go into the many reasons why the evolution/long geological ages idea is so corrosive to the biblical Gospel2 (even if evolution could be seen as the plan and purpose of some ‘god’).

My purpose is (like Gould’s, but with a different motive) to make people aware of this very common philosophical blind spot, this refusal to wake up to what Darwin was really on about. Why is it true, as Gould also points out, that even among non-Christians who believe in evolution the vast majority don’t wish to face the utter planlessness of Darwin’s theory? Because they would then no longer be able to console themselves with the feeling that there is some sort of plan or purpose to our existence.3


Why is it true, as Gould also points out, that even among non-Christians who believe in evolution the vast majority don’t wish to face the utter planlessness of Darwin’s theory? 

The usual thing vaguely believed in by this majority of people (at the same time as they accept evolution) is some sort of fuzzy, ethereal, oozing god-essence—more like the Star Wars ‘force be with you’ than the personal God of Scripture. They usually obtain some comfort from a vague belief in at least the possibility of some sort of afterlife, which helps explain the success of recent movies like Flatliners and Ghost.4

Gould appears to deplore these popular notions as unfortunate, illogical and unnecessary cultural hangups. He, of course, starts from the proposition that evolution is true. He knows the real message of Darwin to be that ‘there’s nothing else going on out there—just organisms struggling to pass their genes on to the next generation. That’s it.’ In which case it is time for people to abandon comforting fairytales and wake up to this materialistic implication of evolution.

I also regard such notions (of cosmic purpose in a Darwinian world, of life-after-death without belief in the existence of the holy God of the Bible) as tragic fables, for different reasons. They lead people away from the vital revealed truths of Scripture, the propositional facts communicated by the Creator of the universe. It is also tragic that professing Christians can be deluded into embracing a philosophy (evolution) which is so inherently opposed to the very core of Christianity, and has done so much damage to the church and society.

Climbing the ladder

As evidence for this widespread desire to see purpose and plan in the planlessness of evolution, Professor Gould points to the overwhelming tendency among evolution-believers of all levels of education to see the message of Darwin as progress. Evolution is usually illustrated (even on the cover of some foreign translations of Stephen Gould’s books, much to his chagrin) as a ‘ladder of progress’ or similar.
Why is this?

Think of this. If the evolutionary scenario is true, then man’s arrival on the scene has come only at the end of an unspeakably long chain of events. For example, it would have taken 99.999% of the history of the universe to get to man. After life appears, two-thirds of its history on earth doesn’t get past bacteria, and for half of the remainder it stays at the one-celled stage! In order to escape the obvious (which is that in such an evolutionary universe, man has no possible significance, and just happened to come along), our culture, he argues, has had to view these vast ages as some sort of preparation period for the eventual appearance of man. This works if the idea of progress is clung to. The universe, then organisms, just got ‘better and better’, till finally we came along.

Puncturing myths

However, there is no hint of this popular mythology of ‘evolution-as-progress’ in Darwin’s ‘grand idea’. Variations happen by chance. Those organisms which happen, by chance, to suit their local environment more effectively and thus have a better chance to pass their genes on to the next generation, are favoured by natural selection. That’s all. In the theory, the giraffe that develops a longer neck is not a better giraffe—just one with a longer neck. Given a certain change in the environment, that long neck can just as easily be a disadvantage.
There is therefore nothing ‘inevitable’ about the appearance of man, or intelligent self-aware beings, for that matter. I would add to Gould’s comments my opinion that it is this belief in evolution as having been an ‘onwards and upwards’ force leading to us, and then to greater intelligence as a historical inevitability, which makes many dedicated evolutionists so sure that there must be intelligent aliens out there somewhere.

Radical

Image wikipedia.org
Charles Darwin
Charles Darwin

But isn’t Gould going a bit far to suggest that Darwin knew how radically anti-God his philosophy was? After all, wasn’t he a kindly, doddery naturalist who just happened to be in the right place at the right time, who was persuaded by what he saw in the Gal├ípagos?

Wrong on all counts. If what follows sounds too revisionist, remember that Gould (an undisputed intellectual giant who has made a very careful study) is not alone in his conclusions, and has had access to unpublished notebooks of Darwin from when Darwin was a young man. It appears that:
  1. The myth of the ‘kindly slow-witted naturalist stumbling across evolution’ was fostered by an autobiography Darwin wrote as a deliberately self-effacing moral homily for his children, not intending it to be published. It was a common Victorian thing to do. His notebooks tell a different story, of an ambitious young man who knew he had one of the most radical ideas in the history of thought.
  2. Darwin did not get his ideas from Galapagos finches—Gould even says ‘he clearly did not know they were finches’. About the Galapagos tortoises, he says that Darwin ‘missed that story also and only reconstructed it later.’ Did he get that from observing the results of animal breeding? Peter Bowler, writing in Nature (Vol. 353, October 24, 1991, p.713) says that ‘many now accept that Darwin’s analogy between artificial and natural selection was a product of hindsight’. So where did the idea come from?
    Just prior to his famous ‘insight’, Darwin spent months studying the economic theories of Adam Smith. In Smith’s extreme free-market view, the struggle of individuals competing for personal gain in an unfettered marketplace (by eliminating inefficient participants, for instance) is supposed to give an ordered, efficient economy. Although nothing is guiding it, it is as if there is an ‘invisible guiding hand’. The ‘benefits come as an incidental side-effect of this selfish struggle.’
    Of course, it is not hard to see where Darwin applied this idea to nature. The apparent design and order in nature is an incidental side-effect of the selfish struggle to leave more offspring.
  3. Why did Darwin wait 20 years before publishing? It was not because of his modesty (another common myth which Gould debunks), so it is clear that he was afraid to reveal something.
    Was it his belief in evolution itself? No. Evolution was quite a common concept in Darwin’s day. It was because of the bombshell he knew lay behind his theory, namely its rank, radical materialism. He knew as a young man that he had ‘the key to one of the great reforming ideas of history and systematically [went] out to reformulate every discipline from psychology to history.’5 To explain apparent design without a designer—that was the key to Darwin’s theory, not the idea of ‘evolution’ (common descent) itself.
  4. It is likely that this assault on design had a lot to do with a reaction against Captain Fitzroy6 on the Beagle. The captain’s views on almost all political subjects were diametrically opposite to Darwin’s. For instance, Darwin was an ardent abolitionist, whereas Fitzroy believed that slavery was benevolent. Apparently, the good captain would wax long and eloquent on Paley’s argument from design7, which was used to justify many of his ideas. Nothing could possibly have taken deadlier aim at Paley’s argument than Darwin’s persuasive concept that design is an incidental side-effect of otherwise random change.8
  5. Darwin knew that his notion, being utter planlessness, could not possibly involve any sort of purposive progress, which is the romanticized notion of evolution held by so many of its believers today (especially theists). In fact, it is likely that this is why he did not, himself, use the word ‘evolution’ until his last book in 1881, when he gave in to the by then popular term applied to his concept. [Ed. note: Prof. Gould’s information seems to have been out by nine years here: Darwin did refer to his theory as ‘evolution’ in the sixth edition of the Origin, in 1872.] The common meaning of ‘evolution’ at that time implied progress. In a letter to the paleontologist Hyatt, Darwin wrote:
    ‘… I cannot avoid the conclusion that no inherent tendency to progressive development exists.’
  6. Darwin’s casual aside about a ‘creator’ in earlier editions of The Origin of Species seems to have been a ploy to soften the implications of his materialistic theory. Ernst Mayr’s recent book on Darwin, One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Evolutionary Thought, Harvard, 1991, also acknowledges that Darwin’s references to purpose were to appease both the public and his wife. His early, private notebooks show his materialism well established. For instance, in one of them he addresses himself as, ‘O, you materialist!’ and says, ‘Why is thought, being a secretion of brain, more wonderful than gravity as a property of matter?’ He clearly already believed that the idea of a separate realm of the spirit was nonsense, as is further shown when he warns himself not to reveal his beliefs, as follows:
    ‘to avoid saying how far I believe in materialism, say only that emotions, instincts, degrees of talent which are hereditary are so because brain of child resembles parent stock.’
In 1837, when Darwin was only 28 years old, he wrote in a private notebook, responding to Plato’s belief that the ideas of our imagination arise from preexistence of the soul, ‘read monkeys for preexistence’. He seems to have violently opposed Alfred Wallace’s suggestion of a ‘divine will’ behind the evolution of man, at least.9

In summary, then, Darwin was fully aware that his idea was a frontal assault on the very notion of an intelligent Designer behind the world. In fact, he might very well have formulated it precisely for that purpose. The idea of a spiritual realm apart from matter seems to have been anathema to him as a young man already. The primary inspiration for his theory of natural selection did not come from observation of nature. Perhaps not incidentally, his writings also reveal glimpses of specific antipathy to the God of the Bible, especially concerning His right to judge unbelievers in eternity.


One can only pray that more and more of the evolution-compromisers in the church begin to see the poisonous core of the fruit they not only swallow, but encourage others to accept. 

Darwin knew, and virtually all the world’s foremost students of his idea know, that belief in his concept quite simply spells materialism with a capital ‘M’. The idea of no designer, no purpose, no guiding intelligence, no progressive plan —these are not afterthoughts to Darwin’s evolution, but form the very core of it. Accept Darwin’s ‘baby’, and this ‘bathwater’ has cta nasty habit of coming along, as the drastic decline in belief among evolution-compromising churches attests.
One can only pray that more and more of the evolution-compromisers in the church begin to see the poisonous core of the fruit they not only swallow, but encourage others to accept. And that many of those outside of Christ will realize that there is no purpose in an evolutionary world. In any case, there is so much evidence stacked against evolution nowadays. True meaning to life can be found only through Jesus Christ, the non-evolutionary, miracle-working Genesis Creator, whose eternal Word is ‘true from the beginning’.

References and notes

  1. Much of the information (and all unreferenced quotes) in this article come from the transcript of a talk given by Dr Gould on June 6, 1990, at Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand, titled ‘The Darwinian Revolution in Thought’. Return to text.
  2. See Ken Ham’s book, The Lie: Evolution,, Master Books, El Cajon CA, 1987. Return to text. See also Some questions for theistic evolutionists.
  3. In my experience, among those who would really be called unbelievers by any common definition, the true atheist is nevertheless very rare. Most people are of course very quick to reject the holy God who is Creator and Judge (see Romans 1) and they readily seize upon evolution as an excuse to do so. It lets them be their own judge, do their ‘own thing’. However, they are very reluctant to take evolution to its logical conclusion which would mean rejecting all belief in any purpose to their existence, as this article contends. Return to text.
  4. Where the suggestion of some sort of afterlife judgment is allowed to come into the popular culture, it is a distortion of the biblical teaching that all are born sinful, and that repentance and faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to avoid the future judgment. Thus in the film Ghost, for example, we are given the strong impression that the hero is going to some heaven (despite blasphemy, fornication, and no hint of any Christian rebirth), whereas the one dragged off in post-mortem terror by ominous shadowy beings has already been revealed as an arch-villain. The message is that you have to be a really, really bad guy, commit murder even, to pay any penalty. Return to text.
  5. This description of Gould’s could easily lead to a caricature of Darwin as an extrovert, which overlooks other sides of his character. That he was timid as well as ambitious is shown by this 20-year delay (which might have been longer if not for Wallace’s impending publication of the same idea). His mysterious illness (long believed to be some form of anxiety neurosis) might have been contributed to by the conflict between these sides to his nature. In addition, of course, there was the psychological enormity of unleashing an idea upon the world which, as is clear from this article, he must have known would wipe out the whole concept of the biblical God from the minds of millions. Return to text.
  6. Contrary to another common misconception, Darwin was not the ship’s naturalist—that was the ship’s surgeon, called McCormack. Darwin was employed as the gentleman companion to the captain (with scientific work as an accepted sideline) because he was of sufficient social standing for the aristocratic Fitzroy, who would otherwise have had to eat alone and suffer great solitude, according to the conventions of the time. The price Darwin would have had to pay was to be continually regaled by the opinions of the overbearing Fitzroy for all those years. It was not the done thing to contradict the captain openly, either. Return to text.
  7. William Paley was a most influential thinker in that time, famous for his classic Natural Theology. His most renowned argument involved a comparison between the machinelike precision of living things and machines made by man. Thus, if a watch demands an intelligent watchmaker, how much more must nature demand an intelligent Creator? Unfortunately, such arguments were also used to justify deistic views of the universe which in turn justified all manner of social repression as having divine inevitability. Paley was not defending Genesis or the Bible as such. Return to text.
  8. This scenario is generally admitted in the theistic evolutionary opus Portraits of Creation, by Van Till, Snow, Stek, and Young, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1990, p. 22. Return to text.
  9. William Fix, The Bone Peddlers, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, 1984, p. 213. Fix states that Darwin wrote to Wallace, ‘I differ grievously from you … I hope you have not murdered too completely your own and my child.’ (Wallace was the co-proposer of natural selection as a mechanism for evolution.) Return to text.
(Available in Danish, German and Polish)

The ‘new atheists’ claim that Christianity doesn’t have answers to evolution. This site begs to differ with over 7,000 fully searchable articles—many of them science-based. Keep refuting the skeptics.
Add to Digg Add to Del.icio.us Add to Reddit Add to Yahoo MyWeb Add to Stumble Upon Add to MySpace Add to LinkedIn Add to Google Bookmarks Add to Mixx   

13 comments:

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"The ‘new atheists’ claim that Christianity doesn’t have answers to evolution. This site begs to differ with over 7,000 fully searchable articles—many of them science-based."

That should read: Christianity doesn't have answers to creation. Sure, they can misrepresent evolution a million different ways, but something as simple as having the data scientifically support their most basic beliefs?

This site, the work of people who are about as determined as one can get to propagandize their worldview, apparently features over 7,000 fully searchable articles (which they freely admit are not all science-based) - and not one of them comes close to answering this question:

Is there a YEC interpretation of radiometric/ice core layer/varve/tree ring data that makes them line up with each other and is consistent with a 6,000 year timeline?

If we were to apply the spirit of your previous post here: if you don't have the answer to this right here, right now, your entire scenario is null and void.

But we won't do that. We will, however, note that currently there is no scientific basis for a belief in a young Earth. That doesn't stop people who believe that to engage in research on this front.

Or, better yet - and far more scientifically - for scientists to look at the data and draw conclusions about the age of the Earth without pre-conceived notions.

AmericanVet said...

HLH is stuck on this - Is there a YEC interpretation of radiometric/ice core layer/varve/tree ring data that makes them line up with each other and is consistent with a 6,000 year timeline?

Kind of funny, really. Since Darwinism cannot even explain existence or time or life or sentinence or information or any of the really basic questions and you think ice cores and tree rings is a big deal?

If scientists look at organisms and the Solar System without preconceived notions they will conclude organisms were obviously designed and that the Solar System has no naturalistic explanation so it must be designed as well. Darwinism is nothing BUT pre-conceived notions. It ignores laws like LOT and Biogenesis and expects random chance to be an all-powerful designing and creative force fully capable of performing miracles by the millions with no explanation. And you can call that science, I call it religion. Darwinism is a religion that has infected science and as a result has earned the tag "Scientism."

I told Chaos, not you, that I would put yet another time post up when I got the chance. But I actually have posted individually on ice cores, varves, tree rings and radiometric dating. So either research the blog or wait.

Jon Woolf said...

Yawn.

Radar, when all you've got is false-dichotomy yammerings about abstract philosophical questions, you got nothing. Certainly you got nothing that resembles science. Which of course only proves what evolution-defenders have said all along: creationism isn't science.

When you can answer HLH's question, and all the other questions that science has uncovered over the last three hundred odd years -- the questions that turned science away from creationism in the first place -- then you might be worth listening to. Not before.

AmericanVet said...

Jon, the HLH question is one that comes long after the big questions, albeit not in order:

1- Where did everything come from?
2- Why does everything work together to allow for life?
3- How can it be that life is so well designed mankind still studies organisms to copy their designs?
4- Is there any purpose to existence?
5- Can we see a materialistic cause for any of it at all?
6- If random chance created, why are logical and consistent laws and forces in existence? Shouldn't random causes produce random results?
7- How is it that people are able to think and be creative and abstract and actually traverse time in their imaginations and memories?
8- Why are there so many different creatures if evolution is the creator of all organisms? Wouldn't evolution be likely to produce very few different things? In fact wouldn't it be likely to produce only one kind of organism (the chances of producing even one are statistically impossible)?
9- How could there be so many massive layers of sedimentary rock on the surface of the planet, all but the top layers obviously produced with water and yet we still have living organisms in existence that could not withstand a world-wide flood?
10- How can some organisms change into other forms within their lifetimes? It isn't just egg-to-chicken. Consider moths and butterflies. They undergo metamorphosis and there is no naturalist solution to give us transitional forms of THAT!
11- Why does the human population of the Earth and the animal population of the Earth still have elbow room if they and we have been around for even hundreds of thousands of years? We know the population of man is still growing. There should be piles of bones everywhere and then men and animals all standing on each other's heads if life as we know it has been around for even 100,000 years!

I could go on and on. How is it that DNA and the cell and ATP can all exist when they must all be in place at once for any of them to exist? They cannot have developed separately and they do not operate unless they are in working order. We see this in animals everywhere without exception.

Yes, there are hundreds of questions more fundamental that the HLH wish list. As I said, I will do an answer to Chaos when I get time. As I also said, I have done posts on each of the HLH questions separately already.

The HLH questions are like asking "when was a car made?" when the bigger question is "where did the car come from?"

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

I'm not the one that's stuck on the question. You are. Yes, you've posted various opinions and articles on various dating-related matters, but you haven't answered the question. Not even close. Nor has any other YEC.

You can complain about worldviews all you want, and say that this question should come before that question, but when it comes to YOUNG EARTH Creationism, certainly scientific evidence indicating a young Earth should be a fairly high priority in that field.

Regarding the other questions that you think should take precedence, I'll point out that you're making a category error. You have "answers" to these questions, but they are religious answers, not scientific ones. Inventing a mythical being that ticks all the boxes without being subject to any kind of verification is not very difficult. Any child could do it. Describe a world to a child and have the child describe a maker. Then point out another aspect of the world (e.g. there is evil in the world), and the child will keep adjusting the tale of the maker to fit in with that. Looking at religions across the globe, this is in essence the process mankind went through to explain the world.

It should go without saying that this process is extremely scientific.

Science has scientific answers to these questions in that it can propose answers only to the extent that they fit in with the evidence. It can not lay down any absolute dogma, but that is a strength, not a weakness.

Creationism does not have any scientific answers to the questions you pose. It doesn't proceed from available evidence, but from doctrine and foregone conclusion, regardless of what the evidence says. That is why, for example, in this case you can't answer the question that I posed. Because YEC did not proceed from scientific data to arrive at its conclusions to begin with.

Incidentally, Radar: since your creation myth is disproven by observable evidence, you don't even have the answers to the big questions that you think you do. OECs are in a much stronger position as far as that goes.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"The HLH questions are like asking "when was a car made?" when the bigger question is "where did the car come from?""

No, they are like asking "and do the tangible aspects of your worldview actually line up with observable evidence?" when posed with a claim that someone has all the answers to life, the universe and everything, but it is contingent on the world being 6,000 years old.

The specific parts of your worldview that should line up with observable evidence fail to do so, and that casts your entire worldview into doubt.

Well, not all of it actually. You could put aside the young Earth part and still believe in God, of course.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

In case you missed it in an earlier post (about 12 posts before this one), here is my very clear explanation of what the question means, since it was clear from the get-go what you would try to squirm out of it by misrepresenting it and pretending you answered it:

"The question is really quite simple (even if the answer is not):

Take, for example, tree ring data. We can calibrate it going back some time (I think you recently said it was 3,000 years). Now, that still leaves another chunk of tree ring data past the last date we can calibrate. Ordinarily one would say that, given that the first 3,000 rings showed that a ring corresponds to a year (within a very small margin of error), we can expect this pattern to more or less continue, barring any evidence of any other drastic change.

So we have another 8,000 tree rings to account for ( www DOT arts DOT cornell.edu/dendro/ajatext DOT html ) even if you want to dispute that they should now deviate from the pattern of one tree ring to one year, even though there is no evidence of any other drastic change in conditions. So how exactly would YECs line these up against their historical narrative? Where do we see the evidence of the global flood, which is about as catastrophic an event as you can have, that surely must have left a mark in a tree's life? Even if you want to twist and bend the data, the question has to be answered - which tree rings line up with which biblical event?

This is a relatively simple start, but already YEC can't keep up. Next, take another dating method, and repeat the process - but not only does it have to line up with your biblical narrative, it also has to line up with the other dating methods.

Ask any YEC out there if they have an answer to this question - or if at least somebody somewhere is trying to come up with an answer. You'll come up blank. Heck, ask Sarfati. And prepare to be disappointed."

Anonymous said...

"Why does the human population of the Earth and the animal population of the Earth still have elbow room..."

Using your own (faulty) logic, why don't your intestines explode from bacterial growth?

Jon Woolf said...

A lot of your questions are philosophical ones. Most of the rest are unanswerable by science because we have no data to work from. You can't generalize from a sample of one -- as we've learned with planetary systems.

Of the remainder, the answers generally show that you simply don't understand the subject you're asking about. For example:

8- Why are there so many different creatures if evolution is the creator of all organisms?

You read science fiction. Surely you've encountered the acronym TANSTAAFL: There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. There are many different kinds of organisms because there are many different ecological niches for them to fill. Every organism has an energy budget and a resources budget. That budget doesn't allow negative numbers. Different organisms use their resources in different ways, to do different things, and evolution works on them differently as a result.

Et cetera. The answers are out there. You just have to be willing to look for them. I'll admit that some are less convincing than others ... but then, that only means that we don't yet know everything, and that thought is both comforting and awe-inspiring.

AmericanVet said...

Occam's Razor.

Darwinistst twist into pretzels trying to answer questions that the Bible and YEC answer easily. The big problems are already answered by creation ex nihilo by a supernatural God. Darwinists spend so much time and money and talent trying to disprove the obvious answer. It really is a shame.

Then we have dating methods. I have not just posted "religious" answers but evidence for young ages for the Earth using all sorts of methods and that includes everything except very much on tree rings. Ice cores I covered in depth, radiometric in a few posts, etc. The reason that your dating methods are screwed up is calibration and failure to account for the Flood. So when I do post the answers for Chaos, you won't like them.

But just do a search on this blog for dating methods and ice cores.

Please don't bring up Sarfati, as he is a specialist in other areas, not tree rings. Oh, but I would sure pay to watch ANY Darwinist debate him. That would be fun.

Jon Woolf said...

Well, if you want simpleminded answers that consider reality irrelevant, YEC certainly provides those.

Occam's Razor says that one should not multiply logical entities beyond the minimum required to solve the problem. Or in other words, the simplest explanation that fits all the facts is more likely to be correct than either explanations that don't fit all the facts, or explanations that fit the facts but are more complicated. YEC, as we have seen many times, doesn't fit all the evidence. So Occam's Razor says that YEC is unlikely to be correct.

The reason that your dating methods are screwed up is calibration and failure to account for the Flood.

How does this account for the no-young-isotopes phenomenon?

How does it account for the accuracy of isochron dating methods?

How does it account for the ability to test the same sample by multiple radiometric (and other) dating methods, and get answers that agree within the margin of error?

How does it account for the fact that when we do carefully and properly test samples of known dates, we get 'ages' that agree well with those known dates?

How does it account for the Oklo natural nuclear reactors?

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"Then we have dating methods. I have not just posted "religious" answers but evidence for young ages for the Earth using all sorts of methods and that includes everything except very much on tree rings"

These may be related articles, but are you seriously incapable of understanding the actual question that you are being asked? I don't think it could be made any clearer than in the previous comments here.

Anonymous said...

"I have not just posted "religious" answers"

Where are the scientific answers to the "big questions" you cite?

You don't have any.

And your adherence to foregone conclusions based on religious texts make you incurious about any such answers, and resentful of people who do pursue them.