Search This Blog

Monday, January 23, 2012

The Theory of Creation as presented by Timothy Wallace.

Before presenting a kind of Primer of the basics of Creation and Evolution and Intelligent Design, a coherent description of the Theory of Creation as presented by Timothy Wallace as posted at True Origins.   

At this time in the llfe of the blog I thought it would be wise to define some terms and re-examine some principles and definitions and so on.    Recently a couple of commenters said thing so wrong and goofy that I just figured that, rather than answer some of the really bad science statements, build a foundation?   So let that foundation be presented thoroughly again and then go back to planting ornamental shrubbery.


All cartoons inserted by me  BTW and not the author of the essay.

Presenting....



A Theory of Creation

A Response to the Pretense that No Creation Theory Exists

© 2000 Timothy Wallace.  All Rights Reserved.
Apopular practice among many proponents of evolutionism—including the “regulars” at the Talk.Origins newsgroup—is to claim that “no one has ever presented a scientific theory of creation to us,”[1] without which they find it “impossible to objectively evaluate the idea of creation.”  They then hasten to confirm this by “evaluating” the idea of creation—without objectivity!  Such an approach to the topic of origins shall be shown below to be unreasonable, prejudiced, less-than-honest, and (therefore) not particularly scientific.

 credit

Feigned(?) Ignorance

A classic example of evolutionist pretending may be found at the “Talk.Origins Archive,” an evolutionist website professing to “explore” origins, yet advocating only evolutionary perspectives.  There, a “welcome” document suggests to prospective participants in the evolution/creation debate, that to “really impress the regulars” they should “come prepared with a scientific Theory of Creation,” which is then described as “the Holy Grail of the origins debate”—since (it is claimed) “no one’s ever seen it.”[2]  Considering the volume of literature that has been published by the creation science community[3] the only two possible bases upon which one could claim to have never seen a theory of creation are: 1) willful ignorance or 2) outright dishonesty.

Radar Note:   Talk Origins has been notified that they are continuing to post falsehoods and I have come to realize that they do not care.   Apparently they feel that if they can fool people go for it!

Many arguments advanced in support of evolutionary beliefs do indeed suggest that willful ignorance is indeed widespread among adherents of evolutionism.  Their criticisms are often focused on simplistic caricatures instead of authentic creation science concepts.  Such “straw man” caricatures are easily felled by little more than sophomoric derision, giving evolutionists (and many an unwitting observer) the deceptive impression that the creation model has been effectively undone.  These same caricatures (and their Quixotic “challengers”) persist in peppering the landscape of debate, despite an abundance of informative explanations and clarifications, patiently and repeatedly proffered by a growing number of individual creationists and several creationary organizations.

Many of evolution’s proponents have thus been exposed to accurate and empirically relevant descriptions of the creation paradigm, yet they continue to limit their response to dismantling a caricature.  They either pretend not be unaware of anything better than the arsenal of “straw men” they parade before the public eye, or they willfully ignore what the other side is saying.  Neither tactic is representative of sound scholarship, reasonable scientific debate, or ethical standards worthy of admiration.  Ironically (perhaps as a diversionary tactic?), some of them publish or cite web pages supposedly documenting “dishonesty” among leading creationists.

What is a Scientific Theory?

Evolutionists’ pretensions notwithstanding, it is reasonable to ask whether there is a scientific theory of creation, and—if there is—to ask what it is.  As a foundation for answering this question, the meanings of several relevant terms must first be accurately defined.  This is necessary because many evolutionists tend to invoke arbitrarily contrived and/or equivocal definitions in support of their claims (such as the non-existence of a scientific theory of creation).  Seeing this tactic for what it is enables serious students of the evolution/creation debate to transcend the evolutionists’ semantic smokescreen, and a balanced and informed assessment of either side of the debate—vis-�-vis the empirical evidence—may proceed unhindered.
The word “theory” in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the present context) something like this:

theo�ry n.  a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which have been verified to some degree.
Likewise, “science” in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the context of this topic) like this:

sci�ence n.   1 the state or fact of knowledge   2 systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied
It should be noted up front that neither of these definitions either requires or excludes any particular frame of reference to which either “science” or a “theory” must (or must not) be attached.  This is important, because evolutionists usually redefine both of these terms to suit their purposes by insisting that a“ scientific theory” must conform to their particular religious/philosophical frame of reference (philosophical naturalism) in order to be valid:

nat�u�ral�ism n. philos.   the belief that the natural world, as explained by scientific laws, is all that exists and that there is no supernatural or spiritual creation, control, or significance
Again, it is important to note that this is not the definition of “science”—even though many evolutionist arguments seem to be based on the arbitrary assumption that it is.  The naturalism embraced by most evolutionists is strictly an anti-supernatural belief system, a form of practical atheism.  It is not, by definition, any more or less “scientific” than any other belief system, including one that allows for a Creator-God.  While perhaps only a minority of evolutionists would count themselves as atheists, most tend to argue to exclude or severely limit the idea of a Creator-God.  “Since God cannot be subjected to the process of scientific discovery,” they reason, “the possibility of any direct action on His part must be excluded from the realm of science.”  Whether or not they are averse to the notion of moral accountability to a Creator, their sense of intellectual autonomy is apparently threatened by the idea that science could be limited in scope and (therefore) less than the ultimate, all-encompassing arena of human activity.

It should be noted here that dictionary definitions do state (correctly) that natural science deals with the natural world.  This must not be misunderstood to imply a mandatory subjection to a naturalistic philosophy, which is how evolutionists often misrepresent it.  There is a distinct difference between natural science and naturalistic philosophy:  The former is the study of the natural world, while the latter is a belief that the natural world is all that exists.  [It is furthermore worth noting at this point that the very basis of operational science and “natural law” emerged from a creationist framework, in which the immutable nature of the Creator was the basis for assuming the existence of immutable laws in His creation.]

Evolutionists will often argue that allowing for the supernatural in general—or God in particular—opens “science” up to all kinds of potential crackpot notions.  But it is not actually genuine science that is threatened by the prospect of God—the only threat is to a “science” strictly dominated by philosophical naturalism.  The evolutionist is invoking an arbitrarily modified definition of “science” to imply that naturalistic philosophy is entitled to exclusive domination of the“ scientific community.”  [It’s no surprise that these same evolutionists keep their reasoning in a tight circle by defining the “scientific community” exclusively as those persons involved in science who also subscribe to philosophical naturalism—the only religious framework they’re willing to tolerate!]

The most vocal proponents of evolutionism say things like “There is no such thing as creation science!” or “If creationists would just come up with a theory, we would have something to talk about!”  What they mean is that (in their opinions) any legitimate alternative to evolution must be based on the same philosophical naturalism as evolution. In their view, a viable alternative to evolution must satisfy the evolutionists’ criterion (i.e., philosophical naturalism) in order to avoid rejection—by philosophical naturalists!  A better example of religious intolerance would be hard to find.

So the demand, made by many evolutionists, that a “scientific theory” must conform to one religious/philosophical belief system (e.g., humanistic naturalism) to the exclusion of another (e.g., biblical Christianity), is an arbitrarily contrived requirement—and a double standard:


The Evolutionary Double Standard
Characteristic Creation
Hypothesis
Evolution
Hypothesis
Primary approach to scientific methodology
Accumulation and analysis of empirical data through observation, repetition & measurement.
Accumulation and analysis of empirical data through observation, repetition & measurement.
Predominant religious/philosophical
belief system
Biblical Christianity
Humanistic Naturalism
Primary means of demonstrating system’s
positive empirical support
Citation of empirical data
Citation of empirical data
Primary means of criticizing
counterpart system
Citation of empirical data
A priori rejection on basis of religious/ philosophical differences
Table 1.  Close examination reveals that evolutionists’ out-of-hand dismissal of the creation paradigm is due more to their own tightly held religious predispositions—which range from humanistic naturalism to outright atheism—than to matters of empirical science. 
The Talk.Origins Archive “Welcome FAQ” also ascribes the following set of (reasonable) requirements to a genuinely scientific theory:
“A scientific theory must have predictive value, must be internally consistent, must be falsifiable, and must explain at least those phenomena explained by the currently dominant theory.”
These traits do loosely constitute a popular norm in defining scientific theories.  As shall be seen below, an analysis of both the creation and evolution models reveals that the two theories conform with comparable integrity to such demands, when adequate information and analysis are allowed into the picture.  But in typically dismissive style, the FAQ declares that:
“such statements as ‘God created the heavens and the earth...’ are not theories, as they are neither predictive nor falsifiable.”
What the Talk.Origins authors have failed to tell their readers is that there is much more to the creation science model than simply declaring “God created the heavens and the earth,” including much that is both as falsifiable and predictive (if not more so) as the evolutionary model.

What then is the Theory of Creation?

Table 2 (below) highlights a series of fundamental components of biblical young-earth creationism, providing a basic rendering of the creationary paradigm.  To help illustrate its key points vis-�-vis the evolutionary model, they are presented side by side for comparison.  This list is by no means exhaustive, and is likely to grow over time.


Comparison of the Evolutionary & Creationary Origins Theories
Phenomenon/Condition Creation
Hypothesis
Evolution
Hypothesis
Predominant a priori Assumptions (i.e., Philosophical Basis) concerning the Nature, Source, and Limits of Knowledge[4]
As with all man’s endeavors, true science will inevitably honor the Creator and affirm the Bible as His true and accurate record, wherever it addresses the historical past
Man’s scientific endeavors will inevitably affirm man’s autonomy and independence in determining what is true and what is false
Empirically Falsifiable?
No
No
Empirically Falsified?
No
No
Predominant approach
to the Bible
[5]
The biblical record is accepted as a reliable historical basis of interpreting empirical data
The biblical record is rejected as a reliable historical basis, and replaced with strict philosophical naturalism as a basis of interpreting empirical data
Empirically Falsifiable?
No
No
Empirically Falsified?
No
No
Ultimate Primal Cause of Time, Space, and Matter/Energy[6]
God Created...
Time, space, and matter are either eternal or self-created.
Empirically Falsifiable?
No
Yes
Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes
Complexity, Variety and Adaptability in Living Organisms and Ecological Systems[7]
Inherent and complete in original populations as created; manifested (and subject to degradation) over time through genetic variation and natural selection
Increased over time from zero via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years
Empirically Falsifiable?
Yes
Yes
Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes
Massive amounts of Coded Genetic Information[8]
Inherent and complete in original populations as created; sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation
Increased over time from zero via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years
Empirically Falsifiable?
Yes
Yes
Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes
Similarities, ranging from Genetic to Morphological, between various Organisms[9]
Indicative of Creator’s prerogative to employ similar or identical structures or information sequences for similar structures or similar functions in different organisms
Residual evidence that multiple different organisms descended from common ancestors
Empirically Falsifiable?
No
No
Empirically Falsified?
No
No
Billions of Organisms quickly Buried in sedimentary Rock Layers laid down by Water all over the Earth[10]
Global Flood & aftermath
Millions of years of gradual or intermittent burial
Empirically Falsifiable?
No
No
Empirically Falsified?
No
No
The Ice Age[11]
Post-Flood climate compensation
Unknown
Empirically Falsifiable?
No
No
Empirically Falsified?
No
No
Entropy Law as formalized in the Second Law of Thermodynamics[12]
Concurs, indicating a beginning (concurrent with or close to beginning of time) followed by constant degradation
Contradicts, postulating mechanism-free constant increase in order, complexity, and genetic information
Empirically Falsifiable?
Yes
Yes
Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes
Apparent Order or Sequence in Fossil Record[13]
General pattern of ecological zones quickly buried from lower to higher elevations; variations expected
Strict pattern of million-year depositions from “simple” to “complex” variations (i.e., anomalies) problematic
Empirically Falsifiable?
Yes
Yes
Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes
Erratic “Ages” given by Radiometric and various other Uniformitarian Processes[14]
Residual effect of catastrophic processes and conditions during the flood
Selective and dogmatic use of supportive “ages” & dismissal or disparagement of any conflicting indicators
Empirically Falsifiable?
Yes
Yes
Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes
Table 2.  The so-called “non-existent” creation theory, when examined with a measure of objectivity, manages to explain most empirical data with at least as much credibility as the evolutionary counterpart.

Where is the Theory of Creation documented?

Some of the most vocal opponents of creationary thought, ostensibly repulsed by the work involved in objectively studying the technical details of an unfamiliar matter, persist in demanding something like a one- or two-sentence “theory of creation” [preferrably subservient to their naturalistic presuppositions].  Their insistence on such a simplistic approach to both evolution and creation has its reasons:  Evolution appears more credible when essential technical details remain beyond scrutiny, whereas creation finds its most compelling substantiation in technical, detailed analyses of actual empirical data and scientifically sound principles vis-a-vis both perspectives.

While a simplistic “sound bite” approach to the origins issue may be fashionable by contemporary popular media standards, genuine science remains a matter of technical details, empirical data, and thorough analysis of the same.  So what awaits those who sincerely seek an authentic theory of creation is not another sugar-coated pill, but a body of literature comprising a technical “second opinion” bringing into question the superficial diagnosis popularly embraced by a world reluctant to face the implications of a sovereign Creator who has spoken.

Whereas the landscape of popular media and selected “science” texts are peppered with simplistic allusions to evolutionary theory as fact, literature describing and explaining the creationary alternative, while not as plentiful as its dominant counterpart, is readily available to those who seriously want to study it.  This is where the details of empirical science are brought to bear against both competing paradigms.  [Sadly, the same cannot be said for the vast majority of evolutionary literature, which largely persists in treating the assumption of evolution as an immutable fact (and, on that basis, an inevitable conclusion), while heaping derision on heavily caricatured renderings of the creationary perspective.]

credit

Books

Each of the following books offers a fairly balanced presentation of at least some aspect of the creationary paradigm, or model, of origins.  All are written, at least in part, by Ph.D. scientists.  The list begins with general and/or early overviews and moves toward somewhat more specialized and/or recent offerings.
  Morris, Henry M., ed., Scientific Creationism [0-89052-003-2]
(Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1985)
Morris, Henry M. and Gary E. Parker, What is Creation Science? [0-89051-081-4]
(El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1987)
Wilder-Smith, A. E., Man’s Origin, Man’s Destiny [0-87123-356-8]
(Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Co., 1968)
Wilder-Smith, A. E., Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory [9992139676]
(Costa Mesa, CA: TWFT Publishers, 1987)
Whitcomb, John C. and Henry Morris, The Genesis Flood [0-87552-338-2]
(Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964)
Roth, Ariel A., Origins—Linking Science and Scripture [0-8280-1328-4]
(Hagarstown , MD: Review and Herals Publishing Association, 1998)
Woodmorappe, John, Studies in Flood Geology [0-932766-54-4]
(El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993)
Woodmorappe, John, Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study [0-932766-41-2]
(El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1996)
Woodmorappe, John, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods [0-932766-57-9]
(El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1999)
Batten, Don, Editor The Answers Book [0-949906-23-9]
(Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999)
Sarfati, Jonathan, Refuting Evolution [089051258-2]
(Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999)
A slightly more descriptive list appears at http://trueorigin.org/books.asp, while two much more extensive bibliographies are http://trueorigin.org/booklist.asp and http://trueorigin.org/imp-269a.asp. Many of these books can be purchased in the U.S. through the Creation Research Society, the Institute for Creation Research, and Creation Ministries International—the last of which also trades on a nearly worldwide basis.


Journals

The following are the two primary peer-reviewed journals of the creation science community.  Each is published on a quarterly basis and managed by an editorial staff comprised almost entirely of experienced Ph.D. scientists.  Very few of evolution’s most vocal proponents seem to have personally laid eyes on a copy of either of these publications.  The ignorance inherent in their criticism of a caricatured “creationism” therefore comes as no surprise.
The Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ)
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html
Journal of Creation
http://creation.com/periodicals#journal_of_creation


The Question of “How?”

Some advocates of evolutionism have also assumed a right to reject the creationary paradigm because it does not explain in detail exactly how (in scientific terms comprehensible to the mind of man) the Creator performed the act of creation.  The argument goes something like: “It’s not a valid theory unless you can explain exactly how the so-called act of creation took place!”  But the speaker has failed to recognize at least two things as he seeks to impose this demand:
  • The very nature of the creationary paradigm precludes man, as a created being, from any right or entitlement to exhaustive knowledge of the Creator’s ways or means.  It is an act of arrogance for the creature to claim entitlement from the Creator for more information than the Creator has chosen to reveal (as if he had the capability to comprehend it in the first place).  The creationist thus can and will claim to “know” no more about the act of creation than what the Creator has chosen to reveal.
  • By demanding a “how” explanation, the evolutionist has invoked a double standard, since the evolutionary hypothesis ultimately fails to produce an empirically substantiated explanation as to “how” everything “happened” all by itself, with no apparent cause or purpose.  Unable to explain exactly “how” matter and energy appeared where previously there was nothing, and unable to explain exactly “how” genetic information appeared in massive amounts where previously there was none, the evolutionist is scarcely entitled to demand to know “how” it was done by the Creator.
Demanding the right to know “how” the omniscient, omnipotent Creator has done something is a rather self-important and presumptuous posture to be assumed by a creature incapable of suggesting exactly “how” the thing might have happen all by itself via any other means.

Conclusion

By having the terms defined with more clarity (and less bias), and with a measure of information provided, one should have little difficulty seeing that the “theory of creation” not only exists, but also stands up rather well to a rigorous side-by-side comparison with its evolutionary counterpart.  It has predictive value, is internally consistent, is no less falsifiable than evolution, and consistently explains at least as many phenomena allegedly “explained” by evolution.

The vocal proponents of evolution have demonstrated time and again that they are not interested in this kind of straightforward clarity or information.  They object to its presentation, excuse themselves from paying much (if any) careful attention to it, then return to hacking up their favorite “straw-man” caricatures and congratulating each other on a job well done.  (Don’t let this happen to you!)

Vocal proponents of evolutionism such as are found at Talk.Origins have employed willful ignorance and arbitrary double-standards to question the scientific legitimacy of the creation science model.  They then go to great lengths to avoid responsibility for using such unscientific—if not outright deceptive—tactics to disparage their worst nightmare:  the truth.
Timothy Wallace      


credit     




Notes


[1] The Talk.Origins Archive “Welcome FAQ” (as of 25 April 2000), apparently authored by Andy Peters, Onar Aam, Jim Acker, Wesley Elsberry, Mark Isaak, Bill Jefferys, Jim Loats, Thomas Marlowe, Paul Neubacher, Tero Sand, Thomas Scharle, Paul Schinder, Chris Stassen, Brett Vickers, and Kurt vonRoeschlaub. [RETURN TO TEXT]

[2] ibid. [RETURN TO TEXT]

[3] Two extensive online book lists are A Young-Earth Creationist Bibliography by Henry M. Morris and Master Creation/Anti-Evolution Bibliography by Eric Blievernicht.  Periodicals include the peer-reviewed Creation Research Society Quarterly and Journal of Creation, and the popular-level Creation Magazine[RETURN TO TEXT]

[4] Such fundamental assumptions are strictly religious/philosophical in both models, and therefore incapable of empirical falsification. [RETURN TO TEXT]

[5] Although much external evidence (e.g., ancient records and archaeological research) points to the accuracy of the Bible (as properly understood), this evidence does not necessarily render the reliability of the Bible an empirically falsifiable postulate—particularly to the mind and will predisposed to resist the moral implications inherent in the Bible’s message.  Some links for serious inquirers might be The Textual Reliability of the New Testament.   [RETURN TO TEXT]

[6] The creationary postulate that the ultimate Primal Cause of time, space, and matter/energy was the Creator-God of the Bible is not empirically falsifiable, although evidence does point to a beginning of time, space, and matter/energy.  The evolutionary postulate that time, space, and matter/energy are either self-created or eternal in nature is empirically falsified, in that empirical evidence (i.e., the principle of entropy) points to a beginning of time, space, and matter/energy, and no unequivocal empirical evidence exists that time, space, and/or matter/energy can spontaneously exist via natural processes where none existed previously.  Serious inquirers might be interested in reading Sarfati’s “If God Created the Universe, then Who Created God?,” “How to Think About God,” by Mortimer J. Adler (New York, 1980: Macmillan).  (Adler was a professor at UNC Chapel Hill, Chairman of the Board of Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, Dir of the Institute of Philosophical Research, and Honorary Trustee of the Aspen Institute for Hamanistic Studies.  A self-described pagan, he nevertheless formulated a rationalistic argument for the existence of God “either beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of reasons for that conclusion over reasons against it.”  His argument hinges on causation.     [RETURN TO TEXT]

[7] The creationary postulate that complexity, variety and adaptability in living organisms and ecological systems are potentially inherent and complete in original populations as created and manifested over time through genetic variation and natural selection would be falsified by the demonstration that natural processes alone are unequivocally capable of producing these phenomena, were such a demonstration possible.  The evolutionary postulate that complexity, variety and adaptability in living organisms and ecological systems have increased over time, starting from zero, via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years, on the other hand, is becoming falsified by a growing body of empirical data indicating that natural processes alone are unequivocally incapable of producing these phenomena. [RETURN TO TEXT]

[8] The creationary postulate that massive amounts of coded genetic information were inherent and complete in the original populations as created, and that the sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation would be falsified by the demonstration of an unequivocal, empirically verifiable increase in new genetic information over time.  The evolutionary postulate that massive amounts of coded genetic information have increased over time starting from zero, via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years, is becoming falsified by a growing body of empirical data pointing only to a net decrease in available genetic code, and the emergence of no unequivocally new genetic information.  [RETURN TO TEXT]

[9] It has not been demonstrated empirically and unequivocally that similarities, ranging from genetic to morphological, between various organisms are either indicative of Creator’s prerogative to employ similar/identical structures and information sequences for similar functions in different organisms, or that they are residual evidence that multiple different organisms descended from common ancestors.  Falsification for either interpretation therefore remains impossible.  [RETURN TO TEXT]

[10] The creationary postulate that the fossil record, comprised of billions of organisms quickly buried in sedimentary rock layers laid down by water all over the earth, is a product of the biblical global Flood and its immediate aftermath has not been falsified.  The evolutionary postulate that the same fossil record is a product of millions of years of gradual or intermittent burial likewise has not been falsified per se, though no empirically observed similar uniformitarian process can be demonstrated to support the claim.  [RETURN TO TEXT]

[11] If the Ice Age could be shown unequivocally to conflict with the creationary paradigm, it would serve as a form of falsification.  But the Ice Age is essentially predictable in the aftermath of a high-energy catastrophic Flood as postulated in the creation model, whereas the evolutionary model offers no firm and unambiguous explanation for the Ice Age.  [RETURN TO TEXT]

[12] The Entropy Law, as formalized in the Second Law of Thermodynamics, finds no disagreement with the creation model, which points to a space/time/matter beginning, followed closely by constant degradation—otherwise creation could be easily falsified via a demonstration that it violates the Entropy Law.  The evolution model, on the other hand, requires a mechanism-free and consistent increase in order, complexity, and new genetic information, which amounts to an outright contradiction to the Entropy Law.  [RETURN TO TEXT]

[13] The loose and distinctly variable stratigraphic sequence in the fossil record, with its many exceptions, presents a pattern of ecological zones quickly buried from lower to higher elevations, which fits the creation/flood model well, whereas a highly consistent and strictly uniform record would only serve to falsify it.  The evolution model calls for a fairly strict and uniform stratigraphic sequence, but ends up with many problematic and unpredicted (i.e., “out-of-order”) anomalies which essentially falsify it.  [RETURN TO TEXT]

[14] This aspect of the creation model would easily be falsified if uniformitarian “dating” methods unanimously and consistently agreed on any one age of the earth contradicting the biblical creation estimate.  Instead, they vary wildly, spanning a range from little or no apparent age to “billions” of years, strongly suggesting that they are unreliable as a rule, and that the various processes measured to produce them are likely residual effects of the high-energy, catastrophic processes and conditions of the flood.  The evolutionary model seeks confirmation in carefully selected samples of carefully selected methods of uniformitarian “dating” but is falsified by the remaining—and equally legitimate—“dates” obtained from the many other processes available for determining unformitarian “dates.”  [RETURN TO TEXT]


Bibliography

Austin, Steven A., Grand Canyon -- Monument to Catastrophe (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1994).
Behe, Michael J., Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: Free Press, 1996).
Bergman, Jerry, The Criterion (Richfield, MN: Onesimus Publishing, 1984).
Bergman, Jerry and George Howe, Vestigial Organs Are Fully Functional (St. Joseph, MO: Creation Research Society Books, 1990).
Cooper, Bill, After the Flood (Chichester, England: New Wine Press, 1995).
Denton, Michael J., Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler, 1986; originally published in England in 1985).
Gange, Robert, Origins and Destiny (Dallas: Word, 1986).
Gentry, R. V., Creation's Tiny Mystery (Knoxville, TN: Earth Science Associates, 1986).
Gish, Duane T., Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993).
Gish, Duane T., Dinosaurs by Design (El Cajon: Institute for Creation Research, 1992).
Gish, Duane T., Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No! (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1995; an enlargement of Dr. Gish's The Challenge of the Fossil Record, and before it, Evolution: The Fossils Say NO!).
Ham, Ken, Andrew Snelling, and Carl Wieland, The Answers Book (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1991).
Ham, Ken, The Lie: Evolution (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1987).
Humphreys, D. Russell, Starlight and Time (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1994).
Johnson, Phillip E., Darwin on Trial (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991).
Johnson, Phillip E., Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997).
Johnson, Phillip E., Reason in the Balance (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995).
Lammerts, Walter E., ed., Why Not Creation? (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1970).
Lubenow, Marvin, Bones of Contention (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992).
Morris, Henry M., The Biblical Basis for Modern Science (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984).
Morris, Henry M., ed., Scientific Creationism 2d ed. (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1985).
Morris, Henry M. and Gary E. Parker, What is Creation Science? Rev. ed. (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1987).
Morris, John D., The Young Earth (Colorado Springs, CO: Master Books, 1994).
Oard, Michael, An Ice Age Caused by the Genesis Flood (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1990).
Schaeffer, Francis, No Final Conflict (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1975).
Slusher, Harold, S. and Stephen J. Robertson, The Age of the Solar System (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1982).
Slusher, Harold S., Origin of the Universe (San Diego, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1980).
Spetner, Lee, Not By Chance! (New York: Judaica Press, 1996).
Thaxton, Charles B., Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (Dallas: Lewis & Stanley, 1992; originally published by Philosophical Library, 1984).
Thompson, Bert, Creation Compromises (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press, 1995).
Vardiman, Larry, Ice Cores and the Age of the Earth (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993).
Vardiman, Larry, Sea-Floor Sediment and the Age of the Earth (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1996).
Whitcomb, John C. and Henry Morris, The Genesis Flood (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964).
Wilder-Smith, A. E., Man's Origin, Man's Destiny (Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Co., 1968).
Williams, Emmett L., ed., Thermodynamics and the Development of Order (Norcross, GA: Creation Research Society Books, 1981).
Wieland, Carl, Stones and Bones: Powerful Evidence Against Evolution (Acacia Ridge, Australia: Creation Science Foundation, 1994).
Woodmorappe, John, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1996).
Woodmorappe, John, Studies in Flood Geology (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993).

32 comments:

Anonymous whatsit said...

Um... all those claims about what is falsifiable and what is falsified bear closer examination. I'm spotting a number of false claims there.

And as for the article trying to wiggle out of the "how" question, this is a good instance of where creationism departs from science. Science is about the "how", while creationism can't address the "how" at all.

Jon Woolf said...

Good eye, whatsit. :-) There are many potential discoveries that would falsify evolutionary theory, and none of them have ever actually appeared.

The creationism theory in a nutshell: "God did it, the Bible says it, that settles it!"

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Radar Note: Talk Origins has been notified that they are continuing to post falsehoods and I have come to realize that they do not care. Apparently they feel that if they can fool people go for it!"

That just about sums up your own blog, Radar. You've been notified about numerous falsehoods on your own blog that you couldn't address, and yet not only do you let them stand, but repeat them. Apparently you feel that if you can fool people, go for it?

Re. TO: what specific falsehood of theirs do you have in mind? And you can you show that it is false? You have so many logical fallacies in your own arguments that it is likely that they have seen through your mistake and dismissed it for that reason.

Anonymous whatsit said...

Similarities indicating common ancestor IS falsifiable and NOT falsified by the consistent relative positioning of fossils in the fossil record, which supports evolution and falsifies creation.

Billions of organisms buried by flood: again, falsified by the consistent relative positioning of fossils in the fossil record, which supports evolution and falsifies creation.

2nd LOT: Creation does not concur as claimed here, as creation ex nihilo requires positing a speculative supernatural entity that stands outside (and thus contradicts) the 2nd LOT. Evolution does not contradict the 2nd LOT, since reproduction with variation itself does not contradict the 2nd LOT.

Anonymous whatsit said...

Biblical record accepted as reliable (in its entirety): IS falsifiable and IS falsified in many ways, including just about all dating methods. Some parts of the Biblical record can be seen as reliable when it comes to more recent history, but it is a logical fallacy of composition to assume that this means that other parts (e.g. Genesis) must then also be true or confirmed.

Time, space and matter are either eternal or self-created: is claimed here to be falsifiable. How?

Anonymous whatsit said...

Complexity etc. Creation part here claimed to be falsifiable - HOW? Evolution part claimed to be falsified - HOW?

The same goes for the next point, massive amounts of coded genetic information.

Anonymous whatsit said...

Order in fossil record: Creation claim of "general pattern of ecological zones quickly buried from lower to higher elevations; variations expected" not confirmed by the data; no testable prediction available for this claim that has actually been confirmed. Evolution claim falsifiable, but not yet falsified. Evolution can explain why organisms are in the order they are in, creation can not.

Anonymous whatsit said...

Alleged erratic ages given by dating processes: creation focuses on outliers but fails to explain the vast amounts of consistent data. Creation posits no scientific explanation for this, nor can it present an interpretation of the data that allows them to be consistent with each other and that indicates a 6,000 year timeline. The "selective and dogmatic use of supportive "ages" & dismissal of conflicting indicators" in this case is applied not to the outliers, but to the overwhelming bulk of the data, for no good reason.

On the evolution side, the outliers have all been explained AFAIK, and - unlike on the creation side - the data from different dating methods do line up with each other and support a consistent overall age.

Anonymous whatsit said...

Re. the "how" question, of course science is about exploring the "how" of things, not the "why".

It is significant that the evasions presented here, in response to a science-related question, are completely non-scientific.

The first claims a supernatural authority that is not supported by science and that apparently places a limit on what man is allowed to know. This is completely speculative, and even reveals the earlier pasted claim that the "primary means of criticizing counterpart system" of the creation hypothesis is "citation of empirical data" and that of the evolution hypothesis is the "a priori rejection on the basis of religious/philosophical differences" to be completely backwards. It is creation that rejects opposing ideas and theories on the basis of religious differences, as we can see by the argument here.

Anonymous whatsit said...

The 2nd claim is that evolution doesn't explain "how" either, which is false, as the "how" is explained in excruciating detail and confirmed by observation. The arguments in support here either jump to poorly supported aspects that don't even fall under evolution (the creation of matter and energy where previously there is claimed to be nothing) and to an aspect that indicates the author isn't very familiar with science (how genetic information appeared in massive amounts where previously there was none, which is explained by natural selection through reproduction with variation).

radar said...

I am surprised whatsit is NOT classified as a spammer with all those comments, good grief!

Jon Woolf thinks that the magnetic field goes to zero if and when the poles reverse!!! So you want to claim I don't know science? If the magnetic field goes to zero then we inhabitants of Earth will die. The magnetosphere protects us from solar winds and space radiation. If the poles reversed, the field would not go to zero, that is a lack of understanding.

The overall strength of the field is weakening. This tells us it had a beginning and will wind down to an ending. Just like all the rest of the Universe and of course like the Bible declares.

The existence of the Monarch Butterfly alone falsifies Darwinism. Just one organism. Go ahead and study it. It takes four forms, the caterpillar does not reproduce caterpillars and the butterfly does not reproduce butterflies! Monarchs lay eggs, eggs become caterpillars, who then become a chrysalis and morph into butterflies, who then lay eggs.

Monarchs migrate North every spring and the first two or three generations of the organism are born to live maybe a month and then die. Each succeeding generation of butterfly is born farther north following the Milkweed plants and then the last generation is born in Canada or Michigan or Minnesota and that generation lives nine months!

The "Methusaleh" generation migrates South to an area in Mexico, the Transvolcanic range, and they fly from the far North of the US and Southern Canada to central Mexico, going about fifty miles or so a day. Millions of Monarchs wind up in the same place that their grandparents or great-grandparents hibernated at the year before!

Caterpillars of Monarchs eat Milkweed, which is poisonous. Butterflies of the organism eat nectar. They are like two completely different organisms and there are two change stages between them. No way can Darwinism explain this!!!

radar said...

Talk Origins has been exposed in detail on this blog, I am not going to go over it time and time again. They are propagandists, get over it! But then again, most Darwinists have to be propagandists and, if possible, censors. Darwinists would not work hard to censor ID and Creationism if it did not threaten them.

For instance, I do not teach the teenagers to be wary of people who will tell them the Mayan calendar says the world will end. We do not make preparations for this. We ignore it entirely. When Harold Camping the false prophet claimed the world would end back in May of 2011 we did not try to keep people from learning what he said.

But I do teach them about things to be concerned with. So do Darwinists. Darwinists do not worry about the flat earth society or the folks who claim the moon landings were staged by Hollywood. Darwinists do not worry about dealing with false claims. But they fear the Truth that God created and they KNOW the evidence points to God.

You people are AFRAID that normal folks will learn the truth. Evolution cannot do what it claims and in fact the mutations that Darwinism claim build more complex organisms are actually deleterious and are threatening to kill off organisms.

Back to work!

Jon Woolf said...

Who are you trying to convince, Radar? Us? Or yourself?

Probably the latter, seeing as how old Mama Gaea keeps tossing out evidence that disproves the nonsense you spout. The latest example: a nesting ground of dinosaurs in South Africa that preserves multiple nests on multiple fossil horizons, which means that it was used over multiple years -- and all of those nesting grounds are in sediments that you claim were laid down in a matter of days. Yet again, the facts contradict YECism...

radar said...

Gee, Jon, not able to support your magnetic field allegations?

No, these nesting sites are actually evidence FOR the Flood. Dinosaurs are nesting hastily and randomly like animals divesting themselves of things like eggs during a crisis. The area is atypical, likely from females dumping eggs somewhere and then moving to higher ground. Catastrophic conditions often cause egg-layers to drop their eggs early. For instance, when earthquakes are about to occur animals will hastily give birth with less care to the offspring.

Like that statement about the magnetic field, Darwinism is full of complete nonsense. Creationism has a First Cause for things Darwinists like to pretend just popped into existence. I would prefer the Transcendent God to *poof* as the better and more logical explanation.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"I am surprised whatsit is NOT classified as a spammer with all those comments, good grief!"

It's only because I had to chop them up into smaller and smaller comments to that blogger wouldn't delete them. Originally they were only three posts.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Darwinists would not work hard to censor ID and Creationism if it did not threaten them."

Darwinists don't censor ID and creationism at all. You're free to purchase, read, watch, blog about those subjects as you please. Right?

"For instance, I do not teach the teenagers to be wary of people who will tell them the Mayan calendar says the world will end. We do not make preparations for this. We ignore it entirely."

So does this mean that you're AFRAID of these claims about the Mayan calendar? Of course not.

"When Harold Camping the false prophet claimed the world would end back in May of 2011 we did not try to keep people from learning what he said."

Exactly.

"But I do teach them about things to be concerned with. So do Darwinists. Darwinists do not worry about the flat earth society or the folks who claim the moon landings were staged by Hollywood. Darwinists do not worry about dealing with false claims. But they fear the Truth that God created and they KNOW the evidence points to God."

So when Darwinists ignore the flat Earth, they don't worry, but when it comes to creationism, somehow FEAR must be involved. Very consistent.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Gee, Jon, not able to support your magnetic field allegations?"

Gee, Radar, not able to respond to the numerous corrections above?

Particularly the creation claim re. order in the fossil record would be interesting to respond to... but you've got nothing.

As for your example of the Monarch butterfly, a mere "it's too complex for me to understand" (aka the argument from incredulity) does not add up to a falsification.

Jon Woolf said...

"Gee, Jon, not able to support your magnetic field allegations?"

You're challenging me? Challenging me?

[bugsbunnyvoice]
Now he oughta know betta dan dat!
[/bugsbunnyvoice]

"Jon Woolf thinks that the magnetic field goes to zero if and when the poles reverse!!! So you want to claim I don't know science? If the magnetic field goes to zero then we inhabitants of Earth will die."

That's right, you don't know science. The dipolar geomagnetic field apparently doesn't go to zero during a polarity reversal, but the average strength of the field does, as demonstrated by paleomagnetism. Most paleomagnetic reversals have the same pattern: The strength of the magnetic alignment grows steadily weaker until it disappears entirely. Then after a while it reappears in reverse polarity and gets steadily stronger, until it reaches a peak and starts declining again.

No one knows for certain what happens to the over-all magnetic field during a reversal, because we've never observed one directly. Several facts suggest that the single large dipolar field breaks up into several smaller fields, each with its own north and south poles. These smaller fields then move around in ways not yet understood, and eventually re-form into a single dipolar field with the polarity reversed.

"The overall strength of the field is weakening. "

Not according to the evidence. The strength of the geomagnetic field has not varied significantly over recorded history.

"Dinosaurs are nesting hastily and randomly like animals divesting themselves of things like eggs during a crisis."

[snork] What part of the article didn't you understand, Radar? These finds are nesting grounds. Each one has several individual nests. The nests are arranged in a consistent non-random pattern, and so are the eggs within each nest. In some cases we find eggshells and baby dinosaurs in or near the nests. Just like many communal ground-nesting birds today.

As usual, Radar, your attacks on science fail rather miserably.

AmericanVet said...

Jon, your magnetic field essay is very Adam Sandler. Why not just say you have no idea what you are talking about and admit you were wrong? The magnetic field does not go to zero in any way. Solar winds would blow the atmosphere from the Earth and radiation would kill most if not all organisms if the field went to zero at any time. You are just entirely and incomprehensibly WRONG. You have Fonzie disease.

The field is losing strength, we have measured it continuously longer than any other force. The direction is not a constant. But it is certainly not getting stronger! You are just wrong. I have no idea where you get these oddball ideas? Talkorgins, maybe?

As for these egg nesting grounds, you better hope you are correct, because the last find turned out to be atypical hastily laid eggs uncared for and abandoned, like I said, typical of animals when an earthquake is coming or a volcano has begun shattering the area with vibrations and explosions.

Again, there is no natural reason egg nesting grounds and eggs and baby dinosaurs should be preserved unless they were suddenly and catastrophically buried! Finding things like this supports the catastrophic flood, not long ages. Babies grow up, egg shells and nests are scattered and integrated into the soil and no traces are left behind. Just as we do not have a zillion opposum fossils by the sides of the road, we do not see nesting grounds preserved in normal conditions.

Jon Woolf said...

Poor Radar! So many attempts to find one, just one bit of evidence for his magical origin-of-everything-from-nothing that holds up under examination. And not a single example can he find. Not even one.

"The magnetic field does not go to zero in any way."

The evidence says it does.

"the last find turned out to be atypical hastily laid eggs uncared for and abandoned,"

You can, of course, prove this...?

"Again, there is no natural reason egg nesting grounds and eggs and baby dinosaurs should be preserved unless they were suddenly and catastrophically buried!"

Buried, yes.

Suddenly ... perhaps, or perhaps not. In any case, once again your "explanation" contradicts itself. Sediment so fine and delicate as to preserve baby dinosaur footprints being deposited while the continents are racing around like bumper cars and huge tsunamis are sweeping across the landscape carrying detritus the size of boulders...

[guffaw]

Nope. Can't even type it with a straight face, let alone imagine how anyone could believe it.

AmericanVet said...

So....you think it is a logical fallacy to abandon evolution over the Monarch Butterfly, which is a completely impossible animal by evolutionary teaching, yet...

You think an entire egg-laying scenario is magically preserved. When the Flood began there were portions of the Earth where the subduction process would have begun and those areas would have been entirely destroyed and not preserved. We can see by all the footprints that were preserved that portions of the Earth were not close to the initial dynamic areas of earthquakes and volcanic activity. When Japan was being tsunami'd, people in Hawaii (and animals) were worried and folks in Iowa had no idea until they turned on the news. So...

The Flood started with many days of rain and since we can see great evidence of volcanic activity and especially earthquakes and tsumamis from the plate subduction it makes sense that the areas farthest from the initial troubles would cause animals to go into emergency mode-dropping their eggs, running away from the direction of perceived troubles, seeking shelter. We then have evidence that the water rose to the point that bigger dinosaurs were moving from water to higher ground and we even have tracks showing them being overcome and the tracks going from splashing in water to running in water to barely touching ground to gone. At that point the water must have caused the animal to swim or die. In fact such tracks are found around your beloved Grand Canyon.

In some areas, then, great disastrous processes destroyed and made a recipe of water, debris and suspended particles of dirt and sand and etc. Some areas were simply covered over with a relatively gentle rise of water with the sediments settling down upon the area and preserving it nicely. That is how nesting areas were preserved.

AmericanVet said...

Underwater, the bottom-dwelling world in many cases was buried in deposits of sediments flowing off of the Earth and into the sea. Thus, we have so many fossils of bottom-dwelling sea creatures. Many of them did not apparently survive the Flood at all, so while we have myriad well-preserved trilobites and evidence that they were quite sophisiticated organisms, we do not see them today. I keep hoping we'll find some in an obscure portion of the ocean, much like finding the Coelecanth and later realizing there were two populations of them, one off of Africa and another in Asian waters.

Botton-dwelling sea creatures were buried in such abundance they are found all over the globe, nicely preserved, mostly buried alive although we also see some areas of mixed shells, the remains of the dead. But mostly the sea life is upright (trilobites) or closed shells, indicating they were alive when buried and they are everywhere! Valleys, level ground, mountaintops...evidence that much of what was the surface of the Earth went under into the magma and much of what was under the sea became eventually dry land.

While you cannot imagine a flood preserving all of these organisms, sometimes with such delicacy that jellies are perfectly captured in time while in other places huge boulders were suspended within a massive flow of mud and water and stone, I cannot imagine how millions upon millions of fossils could have been captured in near instantaneous ways without the Flood event and its aftermath.

Jon Woolf said...

[shaking head sadly]

Where does one start?

"We then have evidence that the water rose to the point that bigger dinosaurs were moving from water to higher ground and we even have tracks showing them being overcome and the tracks going from splashing in water to running in water to barely touching ground to gone."

Where?

"In fact such tracks are found around your beloved Grand Canyon."

In Grand Canyon, or along the rim of Grand Canyon, or elsewhere on the Colorado Plateau? Finding dinosaur tracks in the Grand Canyon, or along either rim, would be quite a trick, since there are no Mesozoic rocks exposed in the Grand Canyon and hence, no dinosaur fossils of any kind there. (Don'cha just hate that durned sequential fossil record? Always gets in the way of your rantings.)

Jon Woolf said...

O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion

(Robert Burns, a'course...)

"In some areas, then, great disastrous processes destroyed and made a recipe of water, debris and suspended particles of dirt and sand and etc. Some areas were simply covered over with a relatively gentle rise of water with the sediments settling down upon the area and preserving it nicely. That is how nesting areas were preserved."

This is why creationism is fundamentally evil. It has a superficial appearance of plausibility, and you have to look ... ahem ... below the surface to find out how wrong it is. Most people don't have the time or energy (or interest) to do that.

Multiple nesting grounds, each featuring carefully arranged clutches of eggs. Nesting grounds stacked on several fossil horizons, one above the other, like the dinosaurs came back to the same place several times to nest. Weathered, scavenged, jumbled, and fragmentary fossils, indicating that the animals to which they belonged were killed in one event, lay on the ground for a while, then were buried and preserved by another event weeks or months later. Rocks strictly segregated by fossil type, with many fossil organisms appearing only in some rocks and never in others. Terrestrial and marine sedimentary rocks stacked in multiple transgression-regression sequences, with the one full only of land and freshwater organisms, the other full only of marine organisms.

Yet you really believe that all this happened in a matter of days, as a result of a single Flood.

Against such blindness, reason has no chance.

AmericanVet said...

Jon, thank you for giving me the basis of another blog post. That response is a classic! You will see yourself in lights before long...

AmericanVet said...

Jon Woolf now says teaching creationism is evil. Too ironic to believe that he would say such a thing.

I am the one aligned with God and He has determined what is and is not evil. You, Jon Woolf, promote evil while I am on the side of good.

There is a clear line drawn in the sand. Darwinists stand on the side of naturalism and anti-theism. I could call them Evo-Atheists.

I stand on the side of truth and God. My side invented modern science and the evil side tries to co-opt it. My side established morality and the other side seeks to warp it and twist it and destroy it. My side has the scientists who established virtually every major scientific discipline. The other side casts the rules of evidence aside and presents fairy tales as facts.

For Jon Woolf to call me evil for teaching creationism is akin to the Sanhedrin calling for the death of Christ because He claimed to be the Son of God. I belong to the Kingdom of God and I am on the side of Truth. You, Jon Woolf, are on the side of evil. Evil is telling children they come from millions of years of death and suffering, from microbes and worms and lizards and apes. Evil is lying about evidence like talkorigins does. Evil is being in the censorship business as is the NAS and the NCSE.

Darwinists fear the truth, they try to stamp it out, they seek to cast all creationists out of schools and scientific institutions.

I have learned that people get angry and try to shut you up when they cannot defend what they believe. What do Darwinists do in this world? They try to shut creationists and ID proponents mouths and cast them out of their institutions. This is out of fear and nothing else. Darwinists fear that the common man will learn the truth. But the truth always comes out.

Jon Woolf said...

Ahhh, I love the smell of fanaticism in the morning.

As always, you're quite easy to manipulate, Radar. You do realize, of course, that you just destroyed your own claim to be arguing because of science or facts. You're a religious fanatic, practically drooling over the prospect of seeing The Others punished for not Believing as you do.

Creationism is religion, not science. Thank you for demonstrating that so clearly.

Anonymous said...

When was the last time Radar had the guts to argue an issue fact against fact? He make spurious claims, fails to support them, proclaims victory, then runs off to the next blog post.

Jon Woolf said...

Long time ago, if ever.

However, it seems now that you can tell how badly wounded he feels by what he picks for his next topic. When he goes off on an extended rant about abortion, he must be feeling gut-shot.

AmericanVet said...

Actually, I make my arguments in blog posts with evidence to back them up. I let you commenters rant as you will. But since I have posted on the Grand Canyon tracks in detail already I am not going to put that post in a comments thread! I had also made a post about eggs and nests before Jon even brought the subject up.

As to abortion, this is a worldview blog. While evolution is such a big and easy target, I do aim at other areas from time to time. I've posted two out of a three part mini-series on baby murdering.

Really, Jon, you and whatsit have very short memories since you keep bringing up topics already covered and pretend you have something new. Maybe it makes you feel good about yourself to crow over your self-preceived triumphs? Enjoy!

Jon Woolf said...

"But since I have posted on the Grand Canyon tracks in detail already"

You might have posted about animal tracks in the Grand Canyon. You haven't posted about dinosaur tracks in Grand Canyon.

"I had also made a post about eggs and nests"

Where is it?

Gut-shot, f'sure.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"For Jon Woolf to call me evil for teaching creationism is akin to the Sanhedrin calling for the death of Christ because He claimed to be the Son of God. I belong to the Kingdom of God and I am on the side of Truth."

Ah, that old persecution complex is alive and well...