Search This Blog

Tuesday, December 06, 2011

Whether "Select" or "Design" the implication is obvious, which is that only intelligent agents can design or select!

The 2010 book The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow (screenwriter for Star Trek: the Next Generation) is deceptive from the start.  A new book with DESIGN in the title, and yet it does not give credit to God or any other intelligent source.   It is a misuse of the English language and an insult to the reader (as I will detail in a later post). 

Natural Selection is a term we creationists have become accustomed to, especially since the core process was identified by a creationist, Edward Bylth.   We probably have to rethink this, since the process is neither natural nor selection as described by Darwin.   In order for it to be natural, it would have arisen from natural causes.  But it is selection as well, and selection requires a selector.   The only way a selection process can be in place is if there is a selector actually in control of it, or, a selector has devised it to sort through various predetermined variables (which is what we have, actually).   To explain in detail, another great post from Dr. Guliuzza to do the task. Hmmm, I selected his post to present to you, do you believe I exist or do you think this blog just evolved and randomly posts information?


"Those who understand that organisms are “programmed” by God to “fill” environments accurately identify internal forces as the power source. These are the outworking of internal systems that enable reproduction of variable traits that are inheritable—which are always observed to operate in the context of the whole organism. This means that the DNA and operating cellular machinery of an E. coli bacterium are indispensable for producing another E. coli. “Nature selects for…” is the exact opposite of reality. External versus internal sources of power are clearly not two sides of the same coin."- Randy J. Guliuzza

Darwin's Sacred Imposter: The Illusion That Natural Selection Operates on Organisms

Suppose in July 1969 two men watched the Saturn V rocket launch the Apollo 11 mission to the moon. One marveled at the power of nature’s cosmic siphon acting on the rocket to lift it off the pad and accelerate it upward. The other said that liftoff was actually caused by a natural phenomenon called “natural projection” that was inevitable if compressed combustible fuels were released and ignited in a cone, directing violently expanding gases downward with sufficient thrust to lift the rocket. When conditions that permit “natural projection” occur, he said, liftoff “just happens.”1

But a NASA engineer standing behind them explained that there was no measurable cosmic siphoning force “acting on” the rocket. Nor did the launch “just happen.” The rocket itself possessed designed features facilitating the exact conditions the second man labeled “natural projection.” Liftoff was due to the purposeful outworking of those innate features.

The engineer pointed out how neither of their concepts—or descriptive words—truly reflected reality. Why? They mistakenly ascribed the rocket’s operative power to entirely imaginary and external things that, in effect, took credit for the rocket designer’s built-in functions.

The Crucial Question: Is Adaptive Power External or Internal?

Does functional power reside internally or externally? That is the crucial question in explaining how rockets work or how organisms adapt to environmental conditions. Note that in all cases, function results from the operation of information-based systems. Intelligence is the source of that type of power. For organisms, these are DNA-based systems that enable reproduction of variable traits that are heritable.

Accurately distinguishing the power controlling actions is very different from quibbling over how to describe an action. It may be silly to argue whether a certain action is best described as “a woman walked out her front door” or “a woman walked out of her house.” But accurately identifying the power behind the action is important when another meaning—like “a woman was pulled out of her house”—could be implied.

In the realm of mainstream science, supporters of “natural selection” routinely confuse these differences. They assert that it is just two sides of the same coin to say either an environment “selected for” a creature or a creature “moved into” an environment. But if two opposite sources of power are in view—external versus internal—then correctly distinguishing them is very important.

In terms of the creation-evolution controversy, correctly identifying the source of power comes down to this: Are an organism’s abilities to adapt due to non-natural internal capacities programmed into them by God to enable them to fill His earth, or are adaptive traits due to exogenous ecological variables that select for or against them and, via these pressures, shape an organism’s genetic information as its traits are naturally selected by environments? Is the power truly designed into organisms, or does an external power—natural selection—confer merely the natural appearance of design? Without that external force, the evolutionary process is ended.

All supporters of natural selection assign some external “selecting” agent that “selects for or against,” “operates on,” “pressures,” or “favors” as the power behind an organism’s traits to solve environmental problems. “Nature selects” bears a presumption of inherent intelligence that assigns an operative agency external to the organism—famously popularized by Darwin, who targeted the word “selection” to introduce into organism-environment interactions an intelligence-based power that could “work on” organisms.2 “Natural” indicates that God is not the source of this power.

Shortly after publication of The Origin of Species in 1859, Darwin was widely criticized for his “metaphysical jargon” in that he “imagines afterwards that this power of selecting which he gives to Nature is similar to the power of man.”3 Thomas Huxley’s lengthy rebuttal distills a fundamental premise of selection: Traits are owing to the power of inanimate environments to select for or against them just like humans can select.
I have put it in this way, but you see the practical result of the process [struggle for existence] is the same as if some person had nurtured the one and destroyed the other seeds….That is what is meant by NATURAL SELECTION; that is the kind of argument by which it is perfectly demonstrable that the conditions of existence [ecology] may play exactly the same part for natural varieties as man does for domesticated varieties. No one doubts at all that particular circumstances [ecology] may be more favourable for one plant and less so for another, and the moment you admit that, you admit the selective power of nature.4
But, as shown below, no one should admit that an environmental problem is really solved due to personified environment-based powers conferring “favor” vis-à-vis “selection.”

Selection always happens to organisms from the outside. “Selection” is thus nature’s way to “see,” “select,” “save,” and “build” designed features into organisms without a real designer—the foundation of evolutionary thinking.1 As legendary evolutionist Leigh Van Valen stated succinctly, “Evolution is the control of development by ecology.”5 While a contemporary appraisal still champions external forces, “what then about theories of evolution? Adaptationism, as we read it, is also a one-level theory: it purports to explain the fixation of phenotypic properties [traits] as the effects of selection by ecological variables.”6

The disconnect that is almost universally missed is this extraordinarily clever ploy: Use “selection” as an external “pressure,” but define it as a “process” whose interrelated elements are, strangely, the actual outworking of the organism’s own innate capacities to reproduce variable heritable traits.7 In this critical regard, evolutionist and creationist literature advocating “selection” is identical. So, a non-quantifiable and totally imaginary exogenous “selecting agent” gets credit for the success of endogenous systems that bear hallmarks of being designed into organisms.

Those who understand that organisms are “programmed” by God to “fill” environments accurately identify internal forces as the power source. These are the outworking of internal systems that enable reproduction of variable traits that are inheritable—which are always observed to operate in the context of the whole organism. This means that the DNA and operating cellular machinery of an E. coli bacterium are indispensable for producing another E. coli. “Nature selects for…” is the exact opposite of reality. External versus internal sources of power are clearly not two sides of the same coin.

Can nature really “select for” traits like human breeders do? Can human breeders eventually demonstrate unlimited variability in organisms by intentionally selecting for traits? Darwin assumed the obvious answer to both questions was “yes.” Many creationists believe that natural selection is obvious, but unlimited variability is not. Scientifically, neither a natural selecting agent nor unlimited variability has ever been documented.

There are several reasons why it is scientifically and theologically inappropriate to apply “selection” in any way to describe what transpires at the organism-environment interface. In a previous article,2 the first four were summarized as:
  1. Indispensable: “Nature Selects” Is the Heart of Evolution
  2. Intelligence: Falsely Credited to “Nature”
  3. Illegitimate: “Selection” Literally Applied Apart From a Real “Selector”
  4. Imposter: “Selection” Given Credit for Organism’s Capabilities
Another important reason needs to be examined.

Illusion: “Selection” Only Exists as a Mental Construct

Natural selection is used to explain why life looks like it is composed of well-designed parts selected by a designer.1 It carries evolution’s explanation for “apparent design.” By definition, it “selects” and, therefore, fills the bill of substitute intelligence. Selection is a non-random, deliberative, cognitive action indicative of intelligence. People may wonder how “selection” could ever be legitimately applied to inanimate natural forces, seeing, as evolutionist M. Hodge acknowledged, “that no one would easily or inadvertently slip into talking of nature as a realm where anything like selection was located; and, indeed, we find few authors before Darwin making that transition.”8

The answer flows basically from how one explains this scenario: A population of organisms is observed only in environment A. Five years later, some organisms remain in environment A, some offspring and some original organisms are observed in new sub-environment B, and some have died. Ascribing functional power to a real versus imaginary source (i.e., organism vs. environment, or internal vs. external) leads to profoundly different explanations.

Adherents of organism-based programmed filling explain that organisms with innate, developed, or inherited traits suitable to environment B pioneered into it, while organisms with traits still fitting A stayed put, and it is yet uncertain why some died—a fact-restricted explanation. Information-based systems internal to organisms drive the process.

Promoters of environment-centered “selection” claim that any organism’s adaptive traits are owing to pressures from environment B that “selected for” its organisms from environment A, and both environments “selected against” the dead organisms—an explanation interwoven with imaginary external forces and selectors. This account permeates scientific literature.

For example, even in the face of their extraordinarily thorough research documenting elaborate innate molecular mechanisms controlling mouse coat color, Harvard researchers paradoxically say:
To unravel evolutionary mechanisms in the wild, we must estimate the fitness advantage of adaptive alleles [alternate forms of a gene] and infer their source, either as new or preexisting variation. In the Sand Hills of Nebraska, deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) have evolved a dorsal coat that closely matches their local habitat…which is probably due to selection against avian predation.9
The Illusion Can Captivate Minds

Those who support selection actually believe they really see mindless environments “select for” coat colors that now exist because exogenous “selective pressures operate on” mice, building traits and driving “favored” mice toward exquisitely crafted adaptations. “And this is the way, we think, that all organisms acquire that appearance of ‘design’ that, before Darwin, was attributed to God,” says a leading evolutionary authority.10 How can minds “see” things in direct opposition to reality, but not see that it is the mice’s sophisticated endogenous systems with the power to produce traits that may overcome problems of certain ecological niches?

For Darwin, it was easier to see external environments as the causal force acting on organisms since scientists then were ignorant of DNA and internal operating cellular machinery. Creatures do fit their environments very well, environmental elements can be seen, so it was thought likely that some type of environmental force caused these remarkably suited adaptations. But “nature” is unthinking, while most features in organisms seem so perfectly designed. How can a human brain reconcile those incongruent facts?

Darwin’s analogy between artificial selection—guided by human intelligence—and natural selection made the intelligence connection. He then left the rest to imagination:
I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term of Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man’s power of selection. We have seen that man by selection can certainly produce great results…But Natural Selection, as we shall hereafter see, is a power incessantly ready for action, and is as immeasurably superior to man’s feeble efforts....11
Cognitive neuroscientist, psychology professor, and evolutionist Michael Shermer elegantly explained how Darwin was able to construct his beliefs and reinforce them as truth. His recent work, summarized in Nature by fellow evolutionist A. C. Grayling, highlights the brain’s “readiness to nominate agency—intentional action—as the cause of natural events.” Grayling describes how “animism [belief that living spirits inhabit inanimate objects]…is fully explained by Shermer’s agenticity concept. It is not religion but proto-science—an attempt to explain natural phenomena by analogy with the one causative power our ancestors knew well: their own agency.”12 This is akin to how “natural selection” attributes power to inanimate environments by analogy to man’s ability to select.

Shermer’s observations of how humans readily project human cognition onto other things—such as why certain dog owners know exactly what their pet is “saying” after a few barks—might explain why Shermer himself believes he really sees nature “select” traits, or that a mouse’s hair color is “due to selection against,” or why some suppose “natural selection works on God’s created gene pool,” and how minds saturated in selection consider factors like competition and predation as true “agents of selection.”13 Remarkably, all these beliefs in external causations via selection by inanimate forces are posited in spite of over 50 years of scientific discoveries involving DNA and how organisms actually produce variable heritable traits.

The Illusion of a “Blind Watchmaker”

For many people, once the fact that natural selection is shown as simply a mental construct that actually “steals” credit for what organisms are programmed to do, the illusion is obvious. Others zealously defend “selection.” Why? It is no accident that knowledgeable evolutionists need power centered in the environment—via natural selection—so an exogenous “force” analogous to human intelligence is available to “work on” organisms. “Selection” is the heart of evolutionary theory since it is the only plausible mechanism external to the organism that can and must explain design as if by the “Blind Watchmaker.”14 However, apply a reality check to their criteria—especially contrasting design mechanisms of a real designer versus natural selection—and the illusion of selection is clear.

In design processes, an engineer’s power flows from his knowledge to see and select specific materials and processes that build a plan suitable to solve a problem. Engineers are active and the problem is passive. If their plan solves a problem, it is a misrepresentation to view the process from the perspective of the problem and claim that the “problem selected” the best plan. Intelligence would be attributed to a non-living thing. No one does this for a human design process. Yet, this is precisely what evolutionists do with natural selection.

Organisms, as evolutionist Jerry Coyne correctly observes, face many environmental problems to solve, “whether that environment be the physical circumstances of life, like temperature and humidity, or the other organisms—competitors, predators, and prey—that every species must deal with.”15 Environments are the problems (or sometimes opportunities) challenging organisms—a challenge magnified by constant change.

Organisms must do what only they can do. DNA’s information corresponds to a real engineer’s thinking and selecting. Environments are the problem—not the solution. In regard to problem solving at the organism-environment interface, living organisms are active, environments are passive. They must reproduce variable heritable traits that “fit” (meaning suitable to solve vital problems in) their environments—or pioneer into a “new” environment. If no members of a group generate suitable traits, the group goes extinct. If some members generate traits that fit, they fill that niche. The ability to generate beneficial variations already resides in living organisms. Dynamic systems powerful enough to overcome environmental problems go hand in hand with life itself. This is the source of design that natural selection fails to explain…and it is important to point this out.

When the problem solving that occurs at organism-environment interfaces is properly viewed as organism-based, it isn’t surprising that organisms do what their internal capabilities enable them to do—solve environmental problems. Bewildered amazement, however, follows hollow explanations based on “selection’s” illusory powers whose advocates see problem solving as something that “is simply a phenomenon…that just happens…simply happens,”1 or is “just a truism that birds are adapted to their airy ecology.”16 It’s normal to be astounded if one’s attention is deflected from where problem-solving capability truly resides by attributing it to the problem itself (i.e., the environment).

Natural selection as a design process is only an illusion—meaning it cannot explain nature’s design. It wrongly views problem solving from the perspective of passive environmental factors that are falsely empowered to “select” the best traits. Some hope to salvage the “act of selection” through environments by arguing that the organism’s solution to environmental problems is a contingency (meaning it is unknown in advance whether it may or may not work). This is irrelevant. An intelligent engineer’s solutions to problems are often contingent as well, which still does not establish that the problem selected its solution.

The Illusion of Selection as a Measurable Force

Some creationists regularly say that organisms “undergo the process of natural selection.” Evolutionist Coyne believes selection “is a powerful molding force.”17 Both statements attribute, for instance, mouse color changes “to selection against avian predation.” Really? Engineers routinely measure external forces in real processes as they exert their influence. If there was a “selection detection” meter in existence and it was placed on any organism “undergoing the process” to actually sense the “molding force” “operating” on it, what would it register? The meter would stay at zero.

Why will nothing tangible be detected “selecting” the organism? Is it because, as advocates assert, when the “conditions are right” it “just happens” or “is inevitable”? No, it’s actually because “selection” only happens in the mind of beholders who attribute results to external powers that are not rooted in reality. An excellent challenge to expose this illusion is to simply say, “Show me the selector.” Lacking that external mechanism, some may say the “molding force” is just another figure of speech—yet its illusory effect is deflecting attention from where the power truly resides.

But what about the owl feasting on non-camouflaged mice? Isn’t the mouse’s coat color due to measurable predatory pressures selecting against some mice? Absent the owl, the variable trait for coat color (in this case due to mutations) would still have been generated by capabilities within the mice and some could still carry those altered genes—independent of any measurable external force. There might simply be a field filled with variably colored mice. Some light brown mice may pioneer onto sand dunes prowled by owls, but this is owing to their ability to reproduce variable heritable traits—a measurable result due to a measurable cause.

Creatures Are Programmed to Fill the Earth

Creatures have intelligence-based systems to reproduce variable heritable traits that comprise their endogenous power to solve environmental problems, enabling them to fill the earth. That the Lord Jesus would design abilities into His creation to do His good pleasure— that is, multiply and fill the earth (Genesis 1:22; 8:17; 9:1) via designed reproductive abilities (Genesis 1:11)—demonstrates His Lordship and creation’s dependence. To say that “creatures are programmed to fill the earth” is measurable, scientifically accurate, and biblical—it is no wonder, therefore, that “it happens.”

Proverbs 26:4 says, “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.”18 Arguing against selection from within its illusory paradigm ignores this wise instruction. Just as starting with belief in the Big Bang and an ancient earth derails a person from true explanations, belief in the idea that “nature selects” cannot be used to accurately describe reality. It exists as a mental construct, a way of looking at organism-environment interactions that attributes selection ability to non-tangible selectors, uses two illegitimate and false descriptors, and furthers evolutionary thinking as a deceptive figure of speech.

As an exogenous power, it is exactly what evolutionary thinking needs to uncouple the Creator-creature connection and, unsurprisingly, is the exact opposite of reality. It, therefore, fails to give the Lord credit by acknowledging the endogenous power He has masterfully programmed into His creatures.

References
  1. See Guliuzza, R. 2011. Darwin’s Sacred Imposter: Recognizing Missed Warning Signs. Acts and Facts. 40 (5):12-15 for examples of how evolutionists and creationists insist that natural selection “just happens.”
  2. Guliuzza, R. 2011. Darwin’s Sacred Imposter: How Natural Selection Is Given Credit for Design in Nature. Acts and Facts. 40 (7):12-15.
  3. Huxley, T. H. 1894. Darwiniana. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 99.
  4. Ibid, 469.
  5. Van Valen, L. 1989. Three Paradigms of Evolution. Evolutionary Theory. 9: 2.
  6. Fodor, J. 2010. What Darwin Got Wrong. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 158.
  7. Endler, J. 1992. Natural Selection: Current Usages. Keywords in Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 220.
  8. Hodge, M. J. S. 1992. Natural Selection: Historical Perspectives. Keywords in Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 213.
  9. Linnen, C. et al. 2009. On the Origin and Spread of an Adaptive Allele in Deer Mice. Science. 325 (5944): 1095.
  10. Coyne, J. The Improbability Pump: Why has natural selection always been the most contested part of evolutionary theory? The Nation, May 10, 2010.
  11. Darwin, C. 1859. On the origin of species by means of natural selection. London: John Murray, 61.
  12. Grayling, A. C. 2011. Psychology: How we form beliefs. Nature. 474 (7352): 446-447.
  13. Calsbeek, R. and R. M. Cox. 2010. Experimentally assessing the relative importance of predation and competition as agents of selection. Nature. 465 (7298): 613-616.
  14. Dawkins, R. 1986. The Blind Watchmaker. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.
  15. Coyne, J. 2009. Why Evolution Is True. New York: Viking, 115.
  16. Fodor, 148.
  17. Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, 119.
  18. See “Don’t answer—do answer!” on answersingenesis.org for an excellent exposition of this verse related to creation-evolution discussions.
* Dr. Guliuzza is ICR’s National Representative.
 Cite this article: Guliuzza, R. 2011. Darwin's Sacred Imposter: The Illusion That Natural Selection Operates on Organisms. Acts & Facts. 40 (9): 

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

"(B)irds are adapted to their airy ecology?”   That is what they call "science?"  Why don't men fly?  Where are our wings, if we evolved, we'd be higher up on the evolution chart than a sparrow, right?   Wow.  The brain hurts!!!

20 comments:

Jon Woolf said...

So in one breath you say 'natural selection' is an illusion, and with the next you say the ability to respond to natural selection is programmed into the organism.

Make up your mind, Radar.

Creationists get a lot of mileage out of misuse of words and concepts. 'Selection' as used by evolutionary theory does not imply an intelligent selector. It was never meant to. It was simply the best word that could be found in English to describe a concept that had never been encountered, and therefore never had a word made up to describe it, before.

radar said...

No, Jon, the word is used properly because the organism is designed to be able to reproduce in myriad variations based on the choices within the DNA. The gene pool is preloaded with information. A population mates and produces offspring with combinations of the genetic material of the father and mother and the DNA and cell provide oversight for the reproduction. Mendel saw there was a pattern to how some variations were produced and conceived the concept of genetics.

In the area in which the population resides, the most successful variants survive and reproduce. Over time that means that if the ecosystem is static some genetic material will be lost from the population.

Same organism, different ecosystem may well be quite different after one hundred years or so. Like I think Grahame pointed out, beetles which have no wings on a windy island is an example of information loss. Should we take some of those beetles and move them to an inland location the wingless ones would more likely be eaten and eventually we would see no more of them.

Information loss is common in nature. Information gain, which Darwinism requires, is never observed. Mutations are errors and should they be passed on somehow they never build anything new. Sometimes they break a system and as a result the organism does something new. (Citrase bacteria come to mind).

NEVER do we see mutations building a new system or adding information to the genome. We see information being copied or shared between organisms or we see it broken or lost. For all you students of biology, especially cellular and microbiology, pay attention to this point. It is where Darwin could not go because he didn't know ANYTHING about the workings of DNA and the cell. The cell was a black box to him and those of his day. Now we know better.

Go ahead and read up on the history of the fruit fly generations that scientists tried to use to see evolution in action. Epic fail. For that matter, consider that most bacteria we find today are basically identical to any fossil remnants found or any ancient bacteria preserved in ice and etc. Same with fungi.

This is the reason many creatures found today are exactly the same as their fossilized cousins. If the organism does not go extinct it often remains the same or very similar.

Face it, Darwinism cannot account for even one single celled organisms and it cannot explain information and it steals words like select because the word is actually true. God designed organisms and input information that would allow them to survive a multitude of environmental pressures. He also created multiple kinds for the same ecological niche, so if one kind went extinct others would be there to carry on.

Dinosaurs were killed off by mankind because they were of no use to us and they killed cattle and children and sometimes men or wrecked boats. The massive amounts of historical accounts of dinosaurs with man, the large selection of art depicting them, the prints of dinosaurs with man all mean that the lead character in the Darwin charade is a fraud.

Oh, one more thing. The Bible is an historical document and therefore is absolutely good evidence when studying beginnings. Whether you like it or not does not matter.

radar said...

So here is the truth - organisms are designed to be able to vary so they might survive. They never change into another kind of organism. We have had many decades to study short-lived generations of organisms. Darwinists have tried to do whatever they could to get fruit flies to become something else and finally gave up. Bacteria will not do it either.

On the other hand, kinds will vary within kind quite rapidly as studies of guppies proved. Variation within kind can happen very fast because the organism is designed to accommodate it. A change from one kind to another is never obsevered.

If the scientific community was honest and not religion-driven, we would go back to the default setting that God created and organisms are designed to vary. This is what we see and it is what was believed before all the Darwin garbage was shoved down everybody's throats. All they have is a fossil record that they use to write long fairy tales about, but when push comes to shove and we enter the real world, almost nothing they say is true.

Anonymous said...

I suppose that as long as you continue to post stuff like this (apparently in all seriousness), there is simply no way anyone is going to take you seriously (which is obviously a good thing).

"Dinosaurs were killed off by mankind because they were of no use to us and they killed cattle and children and sometimes men or wrecked boats. The massive amounts of historical accounts of dinosaurs with man, the large selection of art depicting them, the prints of dinosaurs with man all mean that the lead character in the Darwin charade is a fraud."

OMG - Unsupported assertions for all!! I still laugh every time you write stuff like this, Radar. To me (and to others I sure), this is one of those positions that is just so far out there, it's hard to imaging you are being serious. Yet, apparently, you are. I mean "massive amounts of historical accounts of dinosaurs with man"? Really? Where? Even the bible barely mentions anything resembling a dinosaur and the vast majority of christians go with a much different interpretation of those passages. Oh well, as usual our resident self described reformed-scumbag/shark/genius thinks he's smarter than 95% of the people on the planet. LOL.

-Canucklehead.

AmericanVet said...

Canucklehead, if I am so stupid why do you waste your time on me?

I posted several articles listing historical accounts of man and dinosaur, artistic representations of dinosaurs done by man, artifacts and evidence like footprints. The Cambodia Temple Stegosaurus, the English church Apatatasaurs (they look like Brontos but those were a mistake, not an animal) the Acambaro figurines, the Delk track, etc. The Bible mentions dinosaurs and dragons.

If it is silly to read what I say, why do you bother? IMO you know what I say is true and you do not like it.

Jon Woolf said...

"Canucklehead, if I am so stupid why do you waste your time on me?"

Because it's fun.

And because if some poor schmuck stumbled across this blog and there were no comments pointing out how stupid and counterfactual your claims are, said schmuck might get the entirely wrong impression you knew what you were talking about and had facts to back you up.

AmericanVet said...

Hahahahahaha! Some poor schmuck, huh?

You guys can't even get a Universe started, let alone explain the Monarch Butterfly.

I asked anyone of you to tell me what was there before the famous big bang singularity and got no answers.

I asked what the singularity coniste of(Bad grammar, good vernacular)? Bupkis.

I asked who or what made the singularity? Zip nada.

Until you can even begin to have a beginning you naturalists are out to lunch.

Do you not understand that even "nothing" is a word describing a material condition? Nothing had to be invented, along with all the somethings and the energy as well. Not only that, a directive agent of some kind needed to organize everything into a usable set of objects. So on down the line.

The concept that a non-material and eternal God decided to create a material world and inhabit that world with beings that could to some extent comprehend Him and communicate with Him? It fits the evidence. Creation, Flood, Babel, all of this is becoming more convincing as we learn more about organisms and the fossil record and language and DNA and the like.

Jon Woolf said...

"I asked anyone of you to tell me what was there before the famous big bang singularity"

That question (and the ones following) has no meaningful answer. You can't ask what existed before time. The concept of "before" assumes the previous existence of time and some way of measuring it. No time, no 'before.'

Anonymous said...

Many years ago, man had no idea what was happening during a lightening storm, their answer at the time (like your current answer to "how the universe was created") was that "goddidit". This was not proof for God at the time (or even more preposterously, proof for any one particular brand of religious mythology) and it still isn't an answer, or proof of anything, today. At this point there are still some questions that science just doesn't know the answers to yet (but rest assured they're being investigated). And I'm perfectly fine with that. In fact, I prefer it to just making something up so that I can say that I have an answer.

Sure we could be like you and say that a magical invisible, incorporeal, all- knowing, all powerful dragon in my garage did it, but that wouldn't be much of an answer would it?

Oh and Jon was correct, I come here and comment because its entertaining and, of course, so that said "poor schmuck" gets an idea that many many things that appear to be "fact" in "radar's world" simply aren't in the real world.

-Canucklehead.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Natural Selection is a term we creationists have become accustomed to, especially since the core process was identified by a creationist, Edward Bylth."

At least you've stopped with the lie that Blyth coined the term "natural selection". It's a baby step, but a step nonetheless...

"We probably have to rethink this, since the process is neither natural nor selection as described by Darwin."

It is natural, and selection takes place. What's your beef?

"In order for it to be natural, it would have arisen from natural causes. But it is selection as well, and selection requires a selector. The only way a selection process can be in place is if there is a selector actually in control of it, or, a selector has devised it to sort through various predetermined variables (which is what we have, actually)."

Not only an unfounded statement, but demonstrably wrong. Pebbles are roughly sorted by size and shape on a pebble beach subject to repeated wave action all the time - a clear process of selection. And yet there is no intelligent selector doing the selecting.

Ergo, your statement that selection requires a selector is false.

Anonymous said...

"You guys can't even get a Universe started"

That's what happens when you proceed from the evidence instead of going with some religious creation myth.

Creation myths explain everything and they explain nothing. They explain everything by providing some semblance of a mythological answer ("there's a god of some kind that just did it") and they explain nothing because they have no relevant scientific content.

AmericanVet said...

This list of comments by the trolls is especially telling. For instance, the God created explanation is the only one that does not require fudge factors and unexplained miracles. A Creator God who transcends the material world made it and energized it just as William Paley explained. Like a giant watch wound up, the Universe is obviously designed and intricate and it is tick tick ticking to an eventual and unavoidable ending. Only God can stop it ahead of time, otherwise heat death is coming and none can prevent it.

Darwinists use miracles when they propose their big bangs, but they have no explanation for these miracles because they will not allow for God so they just have magic. This is more paganism than science.

I did not lie about Blyth and he did propose natural selection and Darwin did use his material in his books. This is historical fact, whatsit. If you cannot view history and learn from it, you might be a Darwinist!

If you think nothing can make something, you may be a Darwinist.

As to Jon Woolf, the irony of you giving an example of the wave sorting of rocks when you deny the flood sorting of the fossil layers? I would laugh but a wry smile will do. You just cannot get over the fact that intelligence and design cannot be ascribed to natural forces. I can easily teach a sixth grader the difference but you are not such a good pupil I am afraid.

Anonymous said...

Hmmm... Not doing very well lately, Radar? Because you seem "off", even for you.

Anyway, not surprisingly, I find it sorta' sad that you still think you can call "Darwinists" for using fudge factors (primarily because you don't understand anything about modern science, and refuse to learn), when you use the granddaddy of all fudge factors, "goddidit", all the freaking time.

And again, despite your protestations, scientists have no problem saying "we don't know". Only creationists like you seem to have a problem with this concept. Remember the thunder and lightening example?

Oh and along the same lines, I repeat, the only one saying "nothing can make something" around here is you, Radar. Nobody else. Cool strawman though.

Finally, you go after Jon for the sorting of pebbles by size comment when, clearly, Jon made no such comment (hint: it was whatsit). Anyways, even weirder you go so far as to say,

"As to Jon Woolf, the irony of you giving an example of the wave sorting of rocks when you deny the flood sorting of the fossil layers?"

Huh? Are you trying to say that the fossil layers are "sorted" according to "size"? Because this seems new. I mean, even a cursory look at the evidence, can easily prove that this statement is not true in any way. And the fact that the fossils show no such sorting and pebbles on a beach do, to me at least, means that they were probably formed under very different circumstances. Sooo, your argument doesn't really make any sense.

Hope you're feeling better soon.

-Canucklehead.

AmericanVet said...

No, Canucklehead, the sorting that we see in the fossil record is more of a sorting of layers rather than within the layers, although when we have bones rather than animals that are fossilized they are often found aligned by a water flow.

I posted the Flume and Archimedes experimental results that have demonstrated the formation of the fossil layers by flood activity, including varves and other typical formations that Darwinists use fairy tales to explain.

If you do not understand that the Big Bang is an assertion that something was made by nothing then you are either fooling yourself or do not understand the hypothesis. In fact many people do understand that the Big Bang is exactly that - an unexplained singularity pops into existence from nothing for no reason and then explodes in opposition to all rules of science to create materials that turn into stars and planets and etc. However, the Nebular Hypothesis does not hold water and no new stars are ever observed being formed from those materials available after the imaginary Bang.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"For instance, the God created explanation is the only one that does not require fudge factors and unexplained miracles."

You're kidding, right? It needs the biggest fudge factor and unexplained miracle of them all - the existence of God.

AmericanVet said...

When the Darwinist replaces God with *poof* and calls that science, it reminds me of a bad black and white B movie plot.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"No, Canucklehead, the sorting that we see in the fossil record is more of a sorting of layers rather than within the layers,"

The sorting is that we consistently see the remains of certain organisms in the same layers, in a way that creationists have never been able to explain.

"If you do not understand that the Big Bang is an assertion that something was made by nothing then you are either fooling yourself or do not understand the hypothesis."

Hilarious how you can berate someone else for supposedly not understanding it when you can't even get it right yourself. No, the Big Bang hypothesis doesn't assert that something was made by nothing. That's just wishful thinking on your part.

"In fact many people do understand that the Big Bang is exactly that - an unexplained singularity pops into existence from nothing for no reason"

See that part in bold? That's the part you just added because you felt like it.

"and then explodes in opposition to all rules of science to create materials that turn into stars and planets and etc. "

Which rules of science are you talking about?

Anonymous whatsit said...

"When the Darwinist replaces God with *poof* and calls that science, it reminds me of a bad black and white B movie plot."

The "Darwinist" doesn't.

As for God and *poof*, see the Bible, Genesis.

AmericanVet said...

Whatsit, your ignorance of the Big Bang is almost painful. Don't fool yourself, the singularity is entirely inexplicable from a naturalist perspective. Hawking's wishful thinking is philosophically and scientifically wrong. I have no doubt his IQ exceeds mine, but his steadfast adherence to naturalism precludes his ability to reason correctly about origins.

Gravity cannot operate without existence to already be. The singularity is an unexplained substance from nowhere by no means and naturalists accept this miracle because their only alternative is God.

M-theory is not a theory, really, and honest astrophysicists will admit this.

Multiverses that fit every conceivable possiblity must therefore include one with the Creator God who transcends existence and then He would be the Creator of all universes and a naturally occuring one is then not possible.

The idea that nothing consists of equal parts of matter and anti-matter and equal parts of energy and anti-energy or however it is presented to the public is dishonest. A nothing that has the potential of becoming something is by definition part of existence and such existence still requires a source.

Our Universe is finite and it is runnning downhill from a starting point and heading towards an end, which we call "heat death." It had to be created. Big Bang is nonsense as presented as naturalism because it requires multiple miracles without a miracle-provider.

A Transcendent Self-Existent God is the only logical Creator of the Universe ex nihilo. All other suggestions are simply wishful thinking of those who do not prefer the concept of God.

AmericanVet said...

I apologize for the spelling errors, I am working and commenting and listening to Muse (The Resistance) all at once and us multi-trackers get a bit fast sometimes as our minds exceed the speed of fingers on the keyboard. In fact all minds work faster than fingers and a good thing it is at that!

Christmas would not be without Christ! I'll bet all you naturalists will take the days off (probably with pay) with no qualms and then go back to deriding the Being you say does not exist. Makes me wonder why you spend so much time denying and fighting against a God you do not believe is there? If I didn't think God existed I would not waste one second dealing with those who do. Why would I care? If there is no God there is no value in even discussing Him, let alone spend hours arguing against Him. I would say let's eat and drink and be merry for tomorrow we die!