Search This Blog

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Why Abiogenesis aka Chemical Evolution aka Spontaneous Generation is a myth, not science!

"...we do know of a cause -- a type of cause -- that has demonstrated the power to produce functionally specified information from physical or chemical constituents. That cause is intelligence, or mind, or conscious activity. As information theorist Henry Quastler observed, "The creation of information is habitually associated with conscious activity."12 Indeed, whenever we find specified information--whether embedded in a radio signal, carved in a stone monument, etched on a magnetic disc, or produced by a genetic algorithm or ribozyme engineering experiment--and we trace it back to its source, invariably we come to a mind, not merely a material process. And, as origin-of-life research itself has helped to demonstrate, we know of no other cause capable of producing functional specified information starting, again, from a purely physical or chemical state. Thus, the discovery of functionally specified, digitally encoded information in the DNA of even the simplest living cells provides compelling positive evidence for the activity of a prior designing intelligence at the point of the origin of the first life."  - Stephen C. Meyer, Of Molecules and (Straw) Men: Stephen Meyer Responds to Dennis Venema's Review of Signature in the Cell - October 9, 2011.
  


If we could just get scientists to respect the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Law of Biogenesis, much of the wasted time and resources spent trying to prove the impossible for the sake of the naturalistic materialistic religion of Darwinism would be directed towards real science.   In this post, we will continue to focus on the veracity of Biogenesis and the wasted futility of the efforts of the "Abiogenesis" aka "Chemical Evolution" aka "Spontaneous Generation" crowd. 

First, a quick review of the establishment of the Law of Biogenesis:


Can Life Arise from Non Life?

People believed for thousands of years that live maggots could be spawned from dead
meat. In 1665, Francesco Redi (1626–1697) put meat in three jars, one open, one closed with
gauze and the third closed with paper. Flies laid their eggs on the meat in the open jar. The eggs
hatched to maggots, then young flies. Unable to reach the meat, flies laid their eggs on the gauze
of the second jar and the maggots hatched on the gauze, not on the meat. No eggs were laid on the
paper or the meat of the third jar, so it remained free of maggots. With this repeatable experiment,
Redi proved scientifically that life, the maggots, comes from life, the flies, and not from non life,
the dead meat. This proved that vitalism and evolution, which depend on vitalism, were
superstitions. However, the vitalists would not give up. They maintained that the
microorganisms that grow in a culture broth or that ferment beers or wines were spawned from
nothing alive.

Figure 1. Redi’s experiment proved that life, maggots, from non life, meat, was superstition.

In 1864 the archetype scientist, Louis Pasteur (1822-1895), proved that the
microorganisms causing fermentation were airborne, not spontaneously generated as the evolution
vitalists insisted. Pasteur also provided reproducible evidence that the airborne distribution of
microorganisms is not uniform. Besides these undisputed experiments, Pasteur successfully
applied these findings to his work on vaccines for chicken cholera, anthrax and rabies. Yet in spite
of all this reproducible scientific evidence, and without one experiment to the contrary, the
evolution vitalists like Charles Darwin, as well as modern biology textbook authors, persisted in
propagandizing the ancient Greek spontaneous generation superstitions of 2,300 years earlier.

Figure 2. Pasteur’s experiments proved that microorganisms come from life, not non life.

Unlike Darwin and other evolutionists, true scientists like Dr. Joseph Lister
(1827–1912) did not dishonor Pasteur’s new scientific knowledge but rather applied it to medical
practice in 1865. For surgeries, Lister sterilized for atmospheric germs with carbolic acid thereby
preventing infection and saving many lives. Like Pasteur and Lister, scientists replace
superstition with repeatable experiments and apply the new knowledge to the relief of human
suffering and the saving of lives. Antiscientists like Darwin regressed to lethal superstitions that
supported slavery and genocide wars at a cost of many millions of lives and great suffering.
                     
Figure 3. Applying Pasteur’s new knowledge, Lister sterilized for germs and saved many lives.

In 1877, the physicist, John Tyndall (1820–1893), with an ingenious apparatus and
protocol proved most rigorously that life cannot arise from non life. His apparatus demonstrated
that light was invisible in a clean chamber and visible when dust with its invisible cargo of
bacteria was introduced. His protocol provided for the cycling of sterilizing heat which killed the
bacterial spores that hatched and became vulnerable after the first thermal stress. This settled the
issue for all time. Scientifically, vitalism and all of its evolution elaborations to “the many
different kinds of organisms living today, including you,” were disproven and relegated to the
dustbin of superstitions. These reproducible experiments have never been overturned and they
refute forever the superstitions of life coming from non life and endlessly evolving.
                  
Figure 4. Tyndall’s apparatus for proving that bacteria cannot spawn or evolve spontaneously.

Summary. Like non living machines, living organisms must be engineered. That means
planned, organized, coordinated, commanded and controlled. Living organisms are the most
complicated objects in the universe so the requirement is mega-engineering, not the sub-idiot,
headless, phantom, superstitious, engineering in the hallucinations of evolutionists.

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

Yes, the summary is a bit tough on Darwinists, but in fairness the author had been recently sparring with P.Z. Myers online, an activity likely to fire a Creationist up.   Louis Pasteur did say that anyone who thought life could come from non-life was believing a "chimera" which would be translated loosely as a nightmare or horrifying dream in the French vernacular of the 1800's.   Here is an excerpt from the NNDB page on Pasteur:  

"...Pasteur one day visited a brewery containing both sound and unsound beer. He examined the yeasts under the microscope, and at once saw that the globules from the sound beer were nearly spherical, while those from the sour beer were elongated; and this led him to a discovery, the consequences of which have revolutionized chemical as well as biological science, inasmuch as it was the beginning of that wonderful series of experimental researches in which he proved conclusively that the notion of spontaneous generation is a chimera. Up to this time the phenomenon of fermentation was considered strange and obscure. Explanations had indeed been put forward by men as eminent as Berzelius and Justus Liebig, but they lacked experimental foundation. This was given in the most complete degree by Pasteur. For he proved that the various changes occurring in the several processes of fermentation -- as, for example, in the vinous, where alcohol is the chief product; in the acetous, where vinegar appears; and in the lactic, where milk turns sour -- are invariably due to the presence and growth of minute organisms called ferments. Exclude every trace of these organisms, and no change occurs. Brewers' wort remains unchanged for years, milk keeps permanently sweet, and these and other complex liquids remain unaltered when freely exposed to air from which all these minute organisms are removed. "The chemical act of fermentation", writes Pasteur, "is essentially a correlative phenomenon of a vital act beginning and ending with it."

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

Definition of CHIMERA

1
a capitalized : a fire-breathing she-monster in Greek mythology having a lion's head, a goat's body, and a serpent's tail b : an imaginary monster compounded of incongruous parts
2
: an illusion or fabrication of the mind; especially : an unrealizable dream chimera in my brain, troubles me in my prayer — John Donne>

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

credit

Such ideas have been imagined for thousands of years, superstitious ideas of mud becoming men.   In Europe this theme was borrowed by Mary Shelley when she wrote her book, "Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus" in 1818.  Prometheus was the mythological Greek god who molded men from clay, an obvious warped version of the Genesis account of Adam being formed from the ground.   Among Eastern European Jews the Golem was a teaching that morphed into the legend of a mud man coming to life, The Golem, based on teaching from the Talmud carried well beyond what is in the Bible.  Golem comes from the Hebrew word for the unshaped form.   Psalms 139:16 -

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them.



Unformed substance = A word that would be pronounced Golemi or Galemi in Hebrew =   גָּלְמִ֤י ׀

Now this article authored by Stephen C. Meyer concerning his book Signature In The Cell is worth reading in it's entirety, as you may by following the link.  The whole article is truly brilliant.  But for blogging purposes I will include the most pertinent excerpt concerning the topic of Spontaneous Generation/Abiogenesis/Chemical Evolution/*poof* or whatever you choose to call it:


"...From the Horse's Mouth: The Argument of Signature in the Cell
 
Signature in the Cell addresses what I call the "DNA Enigma," the mystery of the information necessary to produce the first life. The book begins by describing this enigma and how it emerged from the revolutionary developments in molecular biology during the 1950s and 1960s. When Watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA in 1953, they also discovered that DNA stores information in the form of a four-character alphabetic code. Strings of precisely sequenced chemicals called nucleotide bases store and transmit the assembly instructions -- the information -- for building the crucial protein molecules and protein machines the cell needs to survive. Crick later developed this idea with his famous "sequence hypothesis," according to which the nucleotide bases in DNA function like letters in a written language or symbols in a computer code. Just as letters in an English sentence or digital characters in a computer program may convey information depending on their arrangement, so too do certain sequences of chemical bases along the spine of the DNA molecule convey precise instructions for building proteins.

Further, since life depends upon the presence of genetic information, any theory of the origin of the first life must provide an account of the origin of this information. As origin-of-life researcher Bernd-Olaf Küppers has explained, "The problem of the origin-of-life is clearly basically equivalent to the problem of the origin of biological information."2

The book then draws an important distinction between the mathematical theory of information developed by Claude Shannon at MIT during the late 1940s and what has been called "functional information,"3 "specified information," or "specified complexity."4 According to Shannon, the amount of information conveyed in a series of symbols or characters is inversely proportional to the probability of a particular event, symbol, or character occurring. Functional or specified information, by contrast, is present in sequences in which the specific arrangement of the symbols or characters is crucial to the ability of the string to perform a function or convey meaning. For example, consider two sequences of characters:

Four score and seven years ago

nenen ytawoi jll sn mekhdx nnx 

Both of these sequences have an equal number of characters. Since both are composed of the same 26-letter English alphabet, the probability of producing each of those two sequences at random is identical. Therefore, both sequences have an equal amount of information as measured by Shannon's theory. Nevertheless, the first of these sequences performs a communication function, while the second does not.

When discussing information in a biological context, we must distinguish sequences of characters that are (a) merely improbable from (b) sequences that are improbable and also specifically arranged so as to perform a function. Following Francis Crick himself, I show that DNA-base sequences do not just possess "information" in the strictly mathematical sense of Shannon's theory. Instead, DNA contains information in the richer and more ordinary sense of "alternative sequences or arrangements of characters that produce a specific effect." DNA-base sequences convey assembly instructions. They perform functions in virtue of their specific arrangements. Thus, they do not possess mere "Shannon information," but instead "specified" or "functional information." Indeed, like the precisely arranged zeros and ones in a computer program, the chemical bases in DNA convey instructions in virtue of their "specificity."

Having defined the kind of information that needs to be explained in any theory of the origin of the first life, the book then does two things.

First, it shows that historical scientists typically use a method of multiple competing hypotheses.5 Contemporary philosophers of science such as Peter Lipton have called this the method of "inference to the best explanation." 6 That is, when trying to explain the origin of an event, feature, or structure in the remote past, scientists typically compare various hypotheses to see which would, if true, best explain it. 7 They then provisionally affirm the hypothesis that best explains the data as the one that is most likely to be true. But that raises a question: what makes an explanation best?

Historical scientists have developed criteria for deciding which cause, among a group of competing possible causes, provides the best explanation for some event in the remote past. The most important of these criteria is called "causal adequacy." This criterion requires that historical scientists identify causes that are known to have the power to produce the kind of effect, feature, or event that requires explanation. In making these determinations, historical scientists evaluate hypotheses against their present knowledge of cause and effect. Causes that are known to produce the effect in question are judged to be better candidates than those that do not. For instance, a volcanic eruption provides a better explanation for an ash layer in the earth than an earthquake because eruptions have been observed to produce ash layers, whereas earthquakes have not.

One of the first scientists to develop this principle was the geologist Charles Lyell who also influenced Charles Darwin. Darwin read Lyell's The Principles of Geology while onboard the Beagle and employed its principles of reasoning in The Origin of Species. The subtitle of Lyell's Principles summarized the geologist's central methodological principle: Being an Attempt to Explain the Former Changes of the Earth's Surface, by Reference to Causes Now in Operation (emphasis in title added).8 Lyell argued that when scientists seek to explain events in the past, they should not invoke unknown or exotic causes, the effects of which we do not know. Instead, they should cite causes that are known from our uniform experience to have the power to produce the effect in question. Historical scientists should cite "causes now in operation" or presently acting causes. This was the idea behind his uniformitarian principle and the dictum, "The present is the key to the past." According to Lyell, our present experience of cause and effect should guide our reasoning about the causes of past events. Darwin himself adopted this methodological principle as he sought to demonstrate that natural selection qualified as a vera causa, that is, a true, known, or actual cause of significant biological change.9 He sought to show that natural selection was "causally adequate" to produce the effects he was trying to explain.

Both philosophers of science and leading historical scientists have emphasized causal adequacy as the key criterion by which competing hypotheses are adjudicated. But philosophers of science also have noted that assessments of explanatory power lead to conclusive inferences only when it can be shown that there is only one known cause for the effect or evidence in question.10 When scientists can infer a uniquely plausible cause, they avoid the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent (or ignoring other possible causes with the power to produce the same effect).11

Secondly, after establishing parameters for evaluating competing explanations of the origin of the information necessary to produce the first life, I consciously employ the method of multiple competing hypotheses to make a positive case for intelligent design based upon the presence of functionally specified information in the cell. My book argues that intelligent design provides the best -- "most causally adequate" -- explanation of the origin of the functional or specified information necessary to produce life in the first place.

To do so, Signature in the Cell argues, first, that no purely undirected physical or chemical process -- whether those based upon chance, law-like necessity, or the combination of the two -- has provided an adequate causal explanation for the ultimate origin of the functionally specified biological information. In making that claim, I specifically stipulate that I am talking about undirected physical or chemical processes, not processes (such as random genetic mutation and natural selection) that commence only once life has begun. (Clearly, material processes that only commence once life has begun cannot be invoked to explain the origin of the information necessary to produce life in the first place). Nevertheless, I do examine the leading naturalistic attempts to account for the ultimate origin of biological information, including chance-based theories, self-organizational theories, theories of prebiotic natural selection, including the RNA world hypothesis and DNA-first, protein-first, and metabolism-first theories. As a result of this analysis, I show that attempts to account for the origin of specified biological information starting "from purely physical or chemical antecedents" have repeatedly failed.

On the other hand, I further argue, based upon our uniform and repeated experience, we do know of a cause -- a type of cause -- that has demonstrated the power to produce functionally specified information from physical or chemical constituents. That cause is intelligence, or mind, or conscious activity. As information theorist Henry Quastler observed, "The creation of information is habitually associated with conscious activity."12 Indeed, whenever we find specified information--whether embedded in a radio signal, carved in a stone monument, etched on a magnetic disc, or produced by a genetic algorithm or ribozyme engineering experiment--and we trace it back to its source, invariably we come to a mind, not merely a material process. And, as origin-of-life research itself has helped to demonstrate, we know of no other cause capable of producing functional specified information starting, again, from a purely physical or chemical state. Thus, the discovery of functionally specified, digitally encoded information in the DNA of even the simplest living cells provides compelling positive evidence for the activity of a prior designing intelligence at the point of the origin of the first life."

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



The entire article has all the references and goes further into why Abiogenesis or whatever you want to call it is truly a chimera.  Real science says life is designed, period.  Go and see for yourself. So if you want to believe in the Evolution Fairy sprinking Darwin Dust on mud and life coming forth with a "Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo" then you just go on ahead.   But please do not insult science any longer by pretending that such a belief has anything at all to do with science.  Nonsense.  A Chimera. 

credit

22 comments:

Jon Woolf said...

You can repeat it as many times as you like, Radar. It won't make any difference. You're still assuming the conclusion, and that's a logical fallacy.

radar said...

Wrong. Real science does the following: Observation, hypothesis, test, results - if successful, test again and again. If successful present to the world of science that they may test and test again. If all find the hypothesis falsifiable, testable, repeatable and always supported, it becomes a Law. That is the Law of Biogenesis.

However, Darwinists realized that evolution still came with God included and God was not in their worldview so they have ignored Biogenesis and pretended that life can come from non-life despite the findings of science.

Now hordes of scientists have presented conclusive evidence that, not only have we found that life never comes from non-life, the makeup of life is demonstrably designed and very well engineered so that it is inconceivable that organisms could have arisen from random anything. Signature in the Cell makes this very clear.

So I say to you, au contraire, it is Darwinists who assumed that Biogenesis could be ignored and that assumption is anti-science and has absolutely no hope whatsoever. Superstition and magical thinking will never fix this for Darwinists. Louis Pasteur rightly told you long ago that the concept of life from non-life was a chimera. It is illogical, anti-science and impossible.

Jon Woolf said...

If all find the hypothesis falsifiable, testable, repeatable and always supported, it becomes a Law.

And that's the problem. The 'law' of biogenesis has not been tested under all conditions. Stephen Meyer himself admitted this:

"And, as origin-of-life research itself has helped to demonstrate, we know of no other cause capable of producing functional specified information starting, again, from a purely physical or chemical state."

No other cause that we know of. There may be a cause that we don't know of. You assume that our knowledge is complete and that therefore only an intelligence can give rise to 'functional specified information' -- but that's precisely what you're trying to prove. Some sources call that 'arguing in a circle' and others call it 'assuming the conclusion,' but all agree that it's fallacious.

radar said...

Jon Woolf, you are either a deliberate liar or have onset of Alzheimers or you are calling me a liar again. Ad hominem attacks, boring and boring again. This blog is not about stuff like that.

You know quite well I have already said numerous times that I have been in the field studying and collecting fossils and been all over the country to the West and East as well as a lot of field work in Indiana, Illinois and Michigan, collecting myriad fossils and Indian artifacts and observing the layering in many, many states. I have the years of fossil collecting under my belt whether you care to admit it or not.

I also took some college classes in the field and may even know more overall about science and information than you, Jon. You have your Darwinist talking points down pat but when we talk about information or life or sentience you cannot argue your way out of a paper bag.

You have also denied some totally falsified former Darwinist myths. I suppose you believe in the Haeckel charts and Pakicetus as well?

Just quit it. Quit the ad hominem attacks and the lies and the stupid questions and give real counter-evidence, otherwise you are simply being a troll. You have the right to be a troll, but it will not change any minds.

Jon Woolf said...

My, my. Such venom. Again, most unChristian of thee.

Radar, wandering at random and picking up a few bits and pieces doesn't make you a trained scientist. We went through this all about a year ago, after you posted a detailed description of the rocks around the town where you grew up. At that time we learned that you didn't actually know much of anything about those rocks in geologic terms.

I also took some college classes in the field and may even know more overall about science and information than you, Jon.

Doubtful. If so, you haven't yet done anything to demonstrate it.

You have your Darwinist talking points down pat but when we talk about information or life or sentience you cannot argue your way out of a paper bag.

So you think -- because you and I start from different assumptions where those topics are concerned. You think you can argue about them the same way you can argue about basic chemistry or motion physics. I think otherwise.

radar said...

My real life years of on the ground research in the Southern Indiana rocks are more useful in practical terms that your book learning about the rocks, Jon. I observed the formations and the fossil fields. I also discovered the fact that sedimentary rocks wear out rather quickly, somewhat odd if they were millions of years old but not if thousands. In fact some of my old rocks from going out fossil hunting wound up in our garden and are falling literally apart and turning back into mud.

The region is a cacophony of fossils, with myriad bottom dwelling trilobites and shellfish all appparently buried alive (upright, shells closed) and also fossils of plants like ferns, fish, and the odd nut or etc. With shale, slate, mudrock, limestone all found there and the layering not only inconsistent but sometimes twisted like taffy it is no friend of uniformitarianism. I know, I would often go out every single day for a week or two at a time looking for specimens of wildlife (including finding a famous "hairsnake") and Indian arrowheads and spearheads and hatchet head(singular) and many fossils. Sorry, Jon, I know the Southern Indiana rock layers from the Ohio border to the Illinois border because I had search bases in Connersville, Bedford and Terre Haute in addition to property in between owned by a relative that was unincorporated.

I also did a lot of research in upper and lower Michigan and Illinois in my younger years. In addition I usually made forays out into the field in other places I lived and traveled, which covers most of the states of the USA other than the far North New England group. I always tried to get access to active and abandoned gravel pits, which can yield some really amazing results.

My field work has taught me that the layer-cake sedimentary rocks do resemble flood results and that similar rock layers can be found on the East Coast, Midwest and West. Further study reveals some rock layers span continents and cross oceans, while some appear and reappear and some criss-cross and that there is only .4% of the world where the "geological column" is found. In other words, there really is no standard geological column and the layers do not represent ages, they are simply consistent with the sediments layed down in a big flood.

Since organisms are designed and the Big Bang is a big bust and our space probes have shown us that the Solar System is young and the population of the Earth fits the Flood story...I could go on...I represent real science, you represent Darwinism. Darwinism is being exposed as a religious myth held to tightly by those who will not accept God no matter how logical He is.

Anonymous said...

Man, the lying just never ends with you does it, Radar?

"Since organisms are designed and the Big Bang is a big bust and our space probes have shown us that the Solar System is young and the population of the Earth fits the Flood story...I could go on"

Um, yeah, with more lies maybe. Tell me more about these "space probes", would you? One would think that this, if it were true, would be a big deal. Prove you're not lying for Jesus here and cite your sources, Radar, I dare you.

-Canucklehead.

Jon Woolf said...

My real life years of on the ground research in the Southern Indiana rocks are more useful in practical terms that your book learning about the rocks,

What makes you think I have only book-learning, Radar?

In fact some of my old rocks from going out fossil hunting wound up in our garden and are falling literally apart and turning back into mud.

Shale, I'd guess. That's what happens to shale that's exposed to air, wind, and rain.

With shale, slate, mudrock, limestone all found there and the layering not only inconsistent but sometimes twisted like taffy ...

You know, if you could document and publish that claim, you'd be an instant celebrity -- certainly among creationists, maybe even among conventional geologists. Why haven't you done so?

I always tried to get access to active and abandoned gravel pits, which can yield some really amazing results.

That's interesting. You went to gravel pits, many of which are built in deposits of alluvial .. well, gravel, and found well-exposed native bedrock?

My field work has taught me that the layer-cake sedimentary rocks do resemble flood results and that similar rock layers can be found on the East Coast, Midwest and West.

Resemble. Similar. Do you see the problem here? You should - your own phrasing demonstrates it.

Of course most sedimentary rocks look like they were deposited underwater. They were. But that doesn't get you very far. Because there are other ways for water to deposit sediment besides a single worldwide flood. Can you prove, rigorously, that the Flood is the only way that all that rock could have been formed?

Then there are the other questions that you can't answer...

If you go out to the top of the Colorado Plateau in southern Utah and start drilling, you'll go through more than two miles of sedimentary rocks before you reach Precambrian basement rock. Two miles. Almost 11,000 feet. All of it - every inch - fossil-bearing sedimentary strata, and all of it - every inch - in the same sequence. Drill ten cores, a hundred cores, ten thousand cores. You'll always get the same sequence, and it will always be the same sequence that you see as you descend the Grand Staircase from Bryce Canyon to the Colorado River. To deposit such a mass of rock in the single year that the Flood lasted, you'd have to be depositing upwards of thirty feet of sediment per day. There's no way you could get burrows, reefs, trackways, shales, clays, delicately-layered varves, or any of the myriad other features of the modern fossil record out of that.

AmericanVet said...

Jon,

As often is the case, your comments do not address the post. But in fact not just shale easily crumbles upon exposure to the elements as you should know. Mudrock and some sandstone does the same thing. Also I have posted some pictures of rock looking like taffy before along with polystrates and megabreccias and cross-bedding and etc. These features are not a surprise in a Flood scenario while reeds and trees and even animals staying in place for millions of years while sediments slowly inexplicably form around them is just completely illogical and impossible.

30 feet of sediment in a day's time in a global flood in which the tectonic plates are rapidly subducting and the topsoil and plant and animal life are all flung into the mix? In fact there are scientists who have spent years observing the rocks and made the observations and not only explained these features but even reproduced the action of global flood flows using the rotary flume method. A world being destroyed and remade gave us unthinkable tons of sedimentary rocks. Massive formations that span continents, all but the very top layers obviously water-formed, could have only come from a world-wide flood. A local flood would not have the power nor the scope to produce such layering.

In addition, recent floods and the Mt St Helens disaster gave scientists a chance to see how the Grand Canyon was formed and also how multitudes of "varves' can be formed in hours. How long did it take a little volcano to lay down 30 feet of sediments? Suppose catastrophic conditions were happening all over the Earth rather than just a small area of Washington State? 30 feet in a day is nothing, world-wide flooding probably could do it in hours, maybe sometimes in minutes. After all, we have numerous fossils of animals eating or giving birth that had to have been buried almost instantly and walled off from normal carrion-munching organisms by massive amounts of water-soaked sediments.

Because we have a historical record of the Flood in the Bible and warped versions of a flood story in virtually every culture of the entire globe, the idea of a world-wide flood comes from history and not just observation. As the dimensions of the Ark are perfect for modern ocean-going ships it would seem that, once again, God was ahead of science and human discovery. No one was making massive vessels like this at that time or for many centuries after Genesis was converted to written Hebrew and preserved. Not until I believe the late 19th or early 20th Centuries did such ships get built. Man used engineers to design such ships but in fact God's Ark design was already there long before.

AmericanVet said...

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2010/05/introducing-my-daily-trek-and-guy-who.html

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2010/10/another-treatise-on-catastrophic-plate.html

Just two of many posts I have made concerning the rock layers and the evidence for a global flood. Copy and paste in your browser...

Anonymous said...

Jon, as is often the case, your comment is just devastating to Radar's worldview. Kudos.

Notice how he quickly buried the post with more fluff.

And no wonder, when you post great evidence-based stuff like this,

"If you go out to the top of the Colorado Plateau in southern Utah and start drilling, you'll go through more than two miles of sedimentary rocks before you reach Precambrian basement rock. Two miles. Almost 11,000 feet. All of it - every inch - fossil-bearing sedimentary strata, and all of it - every inch - in the same sequence. Drill ten cores, a hundred cores, ten thousand cores. You'll always get the same sequence, and it will always be the same sequence that you see as you descend the Grand Staircase from Bryce Canyon to the Colorado River. To deposit such a mass of rock in the single year that the Flood lasted, you'd have to be depositing upwards of thirty feet of sediment per day. There's no way you could get burrows, reefs, trackways, shales, clays, delicately-layered varves, or any of the myriad other features of the modern fossil record out of that."

And he responds with, "no goddidit"

Check mate?

Oh and in other shocking news, my query about those "space probes" goes unanswered. ~sigh~

-Canucklehead.

AmericanVet said...

Canucklehead,

Yes, "space probes" is something that NASA has been doing since the 1950's and missions have changed from sending man up beyond the atmosphere to sending space vehicles beyond the Solar System outwards and missions to the Moon as well as to and past the other planets.

Spike Psarris, formerly an engineer with the US military space team, has compiled video evidence taken from various space probes such as the Voyager missions and the Hubble and others to present pictures taken and information gathered from all these missions. He has released the first of a set of videos about what these missions (and the moon landings also) learned about the Solar System. The video includes more than 230 pictures and graphical representations from NASA and findings about magnetic fields, the evidence for and against a naturalist formation of the planets and other objects associated with the Solar System:

, What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy, Volume I
Our Created Solar System
costs only $15.00 at http://www.creationastronomy.com/store/

Also you can get it for $13.00 at http://usstore.creation.com/catalog/created-solar-system-p-1115.html

It is also available at Amazon for much more money.

The second video should come out this year hopefully.

AmericanVet said...

You think Jon is making a great comment because he is denying testable and repeatable science? Good grief...

Then you think his "30 feet in a day" comment is worth anything? Believe what you like. Based on what we have observed from Mt St Helens alone, 30 feet in a day is no biggie, heck, 30 feet in an hour is plausible.

Anonymous said...

Whoosh.

That, of course, is the sound of Jon's comment whistling over Radar's head.

It's not "30 feet in a day", dude, its 30 feet of sediment every single day for an entire year that would need to be explained through your "flood" story. Also, you completely ignore the part of Jon's comment referencing the impossibility of forming "burrows, reefs, trackways, shales, clays, delicately-layered varves, or any of the myriad other features of the modern fossil record" under a 30-feet-of-sediment-every-day-for-a-year scenario.

Now do you understand why Jon's comment (and your non answer) is particularly devastating to your worldview?

-Canucklehead.

AmericanVet said...

Oppo. Flood scenario explains all the anomalies that Uniformitarianism could not>

Anonymous said...

I figured you were talking about Spike Psarris (weird though that entering his name in the google bar on this site does not bring up your last post on his videos). Where did he publish those findings again? And can you tell me specifically why you believe this non-astronomer over actual, you know, astronomers. It's not because he's a young earth creationist like you is it? Tell me, Radar, can you tell me of a single scientist that actually supports the notions of Mr. Psarris?

Here's just a little bit of background on those videos Spike is schlepping.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/05/28/the-evolution-of-creationist-astronomy/

-Canucklehead.

AmericanVet said...

See what I mean? Being a Creationist to you guys is like being a black man to a feller from the South back in the 50's and 60's

You guys are prejudiced! Plenty of astronomers know these NASA findings. When they admit it, like Guillermo Gonzalez did, they lose tenure despite being over-qualified. Psarris is a scientist.
His exposure of the findings of NASA pertinent to the Solar System are hostile to Darwinism so they get hushed up. Too bad, Io is going to keep gushing volcanic spray, every single planet is going to fail to be capable of forming from a cloud of cosmic dust, the Moon is still going to be receding away from the Earth and the Faint Young Sun Paradox remains.

Jon Woolf said...

[yawn] As ever, Radar you overestimate the muscle of your creationist sources and underestimate the sheer mass of the evidence they're pushing against.

In addition, recent floods and the Mt St Helens disaster gave scientists a chance to see how the Grand Canyon was formed and also how multitudes of "varves' can be formed in hours.

Varves are aquatic deposits. Mount St Helens happened on land.

The "Little Grand Canyon of the Toutle River" is dug through loose volcanic ash, not through hard rock.

How long did it take a little volcano to lay down 30 feet of sediments?

The ash deposits from the Mount St Helens eruption are recognizably the result of a single event. So are the lava and pyroclastic deposits that buried Pompeii two thousand years ago ... and the lava and pyroclastics that buried Akrotiri 4500 years ago ... and the Huckleberry Ridge Tuff that occurs over much of the western United States, and erupted from the Yellowstone hotspot roughly 2.1 million years ago. And other volcanic deposits far too numerous to list. Geologists say that each of these formations is the result of a single event -- and the evidence supports them in that. Why, then, do the same geologists say that sedimentary strata like the Claron, Kaiparowits, Wahweap, Dakota, Navajo, Chinle, Kaibab, Coconino, Hermit, Supai, Redwall, Bright Angel, Tapeats formations (to name only a few from the Grand Staircase) are definitely not the results of single events? Perhaps because the evidence supports them in that...

Anonymous said...

"You guys are prejudiced!"

Wow, that's some serious impotent rage you're spouting there, Radar. This from a guy that constantly demonizes atheists, and calls homosexuality immoral.

Read the article I linked to. It explains why Psarris is a fraud. And it has way more to do with actual dishonesty in his work and writing, although being a YEC is a pretty good clue that he is far far from being a scientist.

As Jon alluded to above, one person (a YEC) makes these claims of a "young/created solar system/universe" and you swallow the whole idea hook line and sinker without ever investigating his claims (that are not published in a peer reviewed journal and not actually supported by even one other scientist). While at the same time you dismiss 10 or 20 entire scientific disciplines involving thousands and thousands of REAL scientists because their work doesn't fit your worldview. Yeah, being a creationist has nothing to do with your support of him. That said. "lying for Jesus" is pretty much your "thing". Especially lately, it seems.

-Canucklehead.

AmericanVet said...

The well-named Canucklehead apparently thinks NASA presents faked data to the public? That Discover Magazine article is a blowhard who is afraid to debate Psarris but calls him names instead. Not impressive at all. In fact he doesn't address the issues or evidence, he just makes fun of Psarris.

If Darwinists had the guts and the evidence, they would take Mastropaolo up on his offers of cash prizes for presenting evidence for Darwinism in open court. They always refuse. The coward who wrote the Discover Magazine piece declines to debate Psarris and likely for the same reason Dawkins will not debate William Lane Craig or Jonathan Sarfati. He even tried to wiggle out of the argument and deny he was using ad hominem!

Psarris is a scientist, he used evidence from the NASA space program and his evidence has not been addressed by Darwinists, apparently, if that is the best they have!

AmericanVet said...

Jon, the Grand Canyon was not made by only one event. Creation geologists believe that it was composed primarily of sediments laid down by the Flood, but then formed by more than one event. Some of it was likely formed during Flood runoff, some formed by one or perhaps two dike breaks of glacial lakes in the post_Flood Ice Age and Normalization period and also very possibly some hydroplate activity as well.

So Creationist geologists believe it was formed by probably 3 to 5 different events after the Flood had crested while the raw materials, the layers, had been formed by the Flood itself. You do not apparently know what they say so you make it all up. I know of no Creationist Geologist who believes the Canyon was formed by one event.

Anonymous said...

Yawn. Spike is saying the universe is young, Radar, not NASA. Are you really this confused? And simply stating that Psarris is a scientist is not enough to disprove reality. And how are you able discern that Phil Plait is "afraid to debate Psarris"? More mind reading I suppose? But honestly what is there to debate? One single solitary YEC non-scientist interprets NASA data to line up with his worldview and all of the sudden one of the most famous And busy) astronomers on the planet needs to debate him. Do you understand how nutty that is?

Dr. J. is clearly a complete loon and one would have to be comparably wacky to not recognize this.

See for yourself.

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2010/07/batting-cleanup-dr-joseph-mastropaolo.html

-Canucklehead.