Search This Blog

Friday, February 24, 2012

Things Evolution is not - well-supported by the true believers

Due to vacation and then an illness my wife and I both caught while traveling (ah, togetherness!) I have not been working steadily and certainly not posting.   On the other hand, my last post was 99% Ian Juby and it was packed full of information and challenges to Darwinists...which they have pathetically failed to rise up to meet.  Somehow it reminds me of what Ian was addressing in his latest video, so in lieu of posting while sick, I will give Ian the wheel again:




It is true that commenters so-called "responses" to issues like the population of the Earth are much like answering the question, "How many of the fifty United States were considered colonies in the year 1750?" with the answer, "Marigolds." 

Not one of you has come close to challenging the information presented in my last post.  Consider perhaps changing your worldview?  Perhaps you pat each other on the back for your so-called "answers" but they are not good science or history and will not mollify the Giver of Final Grades.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Not one of you has come close to challenging the information presented in my last post. Consider perhaps changing your worldview?"

Hm, Jon tore apart the faulty information presented in the post, to which you had no reply. HLH pointed out that YECs have no way of accounting for the scientific data found via any number of dating methods, to which you had no reply. I pointed out that the footprints in the photographs don't look anything like human footprints, to which you had no reply. And I asked how you would account for that difference between those prints and human footprints and if perhaps that meant that humans evolved over the last max. 6,000 years, to which you had no reply.

Now you claim that your "information" wasn't challenged? Yeah, right.

Brave Sir Radar ran away once again.

radar said...

You, Mr. Anonymous, are a joke in that you accuse me of "running away" when in fact I stay right here and keep on posting.

Jon has torn apart nothing and HLH is simply repeating the same old Darwinist boilerplate propaganda. I have posted specifically on many different dating methods and explained why Darwinists use bad calibration methods based on presuppositions in order to find long ages. Not one of these methods stands up to scrutiny as being reliable. There are too many other factors that cause the unbiased observer to note that the Earth cannot be millions of years old, or at least the portion of the Earth we can observe and test.

The childish arguments about the footprints were made by someone who either did not go through the entirety of the presentation or is incapable of rational thought. I suspect it is the first and for their sake not the second. Of course the first prints looked fakey because they were! That is a way to perpetrate a hoax, by making the evidence appear to be something different from the actual evidence. A thorough perusal of the post makes this clear.

Will any of you ever produce a coherent reply to the population problem? Or are you happy with the idea that the human population sustained zero growth for some 195,000 years before expanding?

No, not one of you Darwinist have ever presented a natural source for information.

In short, you should come up with better arguments if you expect me or anyone else to take you seriously. When you are incoherent or presuming to be an authority or repeating oft-refuted propaganda I am not likely to pay attention.

Better commenters, please!

Jon Woolf said...

"Will any of you ever produce a coherent reply to the population problem? "

There is no population problem. As with every other organism, human populations have been restricted by famine, drought, disease, and war. Especially disease. The 'population explosion' of the last 150 years has been due largely to the (mostly) successful battles against lethal pathogens such as cholera, bubonic plague, pneumonic plague, smallpox, polio, kala azar, sleeping sickness, falciparum malaria, yellow fever, and more. The mechanization of farming has also played a large role.

"I have posted specifically on many different dating methods "

And been shown to be specifically wrong on every occasion. Not one of the methods used by YECs to show a young Earth stands up to scrutiny. Not one of the YEC assaults on conventional dating methods stands up to scrutiny.

You disagree? Well, then answer the questions:

What's the YEC explanation for the no-young-isotopes phenomenon, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for paleosols, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for weathered and scavenged fossils, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for fossiliferous strata in Large Igneous Provinces, Radar?

How do we get fossil formations that preserve multiple layers of dinosaur and bird nests, obviously nesting colonies from several different years, in the middle of the geologic column?

How did we get magmatic intrusions -- that is, underground lava flows that took time to occur and more time to cool and solidify -- in between layers of fossil-bearing sedimentary rock?

Why do dating tests run on the same rock samples using different dating methods generally agree within the margin of error?

Why is it that when we cross-check radiometric dates with dates derived by other means, and they always agree?

Why is it that world-wide markers such as the K-T iridium layer always test out at more or less the same age, whether you take your sample from Gubbio, Italy, or Hell Creek, Montana?

As always, no answer was the sad reply.

radar said...

Actually, Jon, if any readers have been reading my posts for any length of time they have seen your laundry list addressed before. You know the average reader does not read comments, yes? But if they do, they do not often go far down, so I am guessing you are going for the hit-and-run reader with lists like that? Interesting strategy, that.

Anonymous said...

"You, Mr. Anonymous, are a joke in that you accuse me of "running away" when in fact I stay right here and keep on posting."

We accuse you of running away because you consistently run away from answering questions. As is the case here.

"Jon has torn apart nothing"

Yes he has. He pointed out rather big mistakes in Juby's presentation. If you think he's wrong, then show us how.

"and HLH is simply repeating the same old Darwinist boilerplate propaganda. I have posted specifically on many different dating methods and explained why Darwinists use bad calibration methods based on presuppositions in order to find long ages."

As Jon pointed out, you were shown to be wrong in every case.

HLH didn't repeat any propaganda, but pointed out - correctly - that YECs have no explanation for the data obtained by dating methods. And as if on cue, here you are changing the subject.

"There are too many other factors that cause the unbiased observer to note that the Earth cannot be millions of years old, or at least the portion of the Earth we can observe and test."

Not one of these arguments has held up to scrutiny so far.

"The childish arguments about the footprints were made by someone who either did not go through the entirety of the presentation or is incapable of rational thought. I suspect it is the first and for their sake not the second. Of course the first prints looked fakey because they were! That is a way to perpetrate a hoax, by making the evidence appear to be something different from the actual evidence. A thorough perusal of the post makes this clear."

Do you really want to tell us that the actual photograph of the print looks like a human footprint? Seriously?

"Will any of you ever produce a coherent reply to the population problem?"

Easy. I see Jon already did it. Now will you produce a coherent reply to that?

"Or are you happy with the idea that the human population sustained zero growth for some 195,000 years before expanding?"

Yep, for the reasons Jon listed. But why 195,000 years.

"No, not one of you Darwinist have ever presented a natural source for information."

Not our fault if you don't get it, but the answer has been presented to you dozens of times.

"In short, you should come up with better arguments if you expect me or anyone else to take you seriously. When you are incoherent or presuming to be an authority or repeating oft-refuted propaganda I am not likely to pay attention."

You're not likely to pay attention to anything that doesn't fit in with your narrow worldview, that much is clear. A large number of well-reasoned arguments have been made in the comment section of your blog, and you routinely ignore them.

Anonymous said...

"Actually, Jon, if any readers have been reading my posts for any length of time they have seen your laundry list addressed before."

Well, you've attempted some kind of response once, and that was here:

radaractive DOT blogspot DOT com/2011/08/grab-shotgun-woolf-is-at-door-fire-off.html

It's evident you either didn't understand the majority of the questions or willfully distorted them to cover up the lack of actual scientific answers. Readers can easily see by the shallowness of your evasions that there's just no "there" there.

"You know the average reader does not read comments, yes? But if they do, they do not often go far down,"

You're basing this claim on what exactly?

"so I am guessing you are going for the hit-and-run reader with lists like that? Interesting strategy, that."

I'm guessing Jon posts those questions to expose the inanity of the YEC position and highlight a number of phenomena that YEC can't explain, but mainstream science can.

Anonymous said...

And Brave Sir Radar ran away...

radar said...

Wow. Jon, you have NEVER given anyone one shred of evidence for a natural source of information. In fact I have posted numerous times on the subject and you steadfastly refuse to comprehend. It was hilarious when I presented the dictionary definitions of information and you claimed the definition was too restrictive? It is the definition of information! Not the containers of information, not data that people can use to produce information, not computer programs...you can blab away all you like, you cannot do it!

I have made numerous posts on dating methods, not just one. Furthermore my column devoted to answering a string of Woolf questions did in fact address those questions. You think I am going to let him drive my blog because he likes putting up strings of questions loaded with presuppositions? Some of them have been answered already and I will not go and do it again.

The idea of "no young isotopes" is a presupposition.

The idea that different dating methods give the approximate same ages is a flat lie. I have debunked that one before. We've seen wildly differing ages from rock samples from the same areas many times.

The KT boundary being very probably the result of the same event has no impact on creation versus evolution.

The rest have been answered thoroughly. Believe me or believe Woolf. But pay attention to the way he runs away (yes, Jon is the one who runs away, not me) from the population problem by listing factors that impact populations and are taken into account when calculating expected population growth. Population genetics considers all these factors and with those factors considered the human race is right where it should be after around 4500 years. Not 200,000 years. One couple did not produce one couple that produced one couple for 195,500 years and then suddenly the population begins to grow! You deny the science, which is typical of Darwinists. Rely on the propaganda and run like mad away from the science when it disagrees with you. Just like Darwinists do now with DNA discoveries, and new fossil findings blowing the idea of a tree of life to bits. Just like Darwinists do when flesh, not just rock, is found in dinosaur remains. Just like Darwinists do when we discover the Solar System appears to be young, when the Sun is shown to be young, when the Moon is proved to have been circling the globe for a relatively short time, when the accumulation of mutations proves that organisms have not lived very long on the Earth, when irreducibly complex systems and symbiotic relationships pile up everywhere with no possible naturalistic explanation?

radar said...

In fact, the more we learn about life the more we learn that there are organisms like the Monarch Butterfly that completely disprove Darwinism all by themselves.

If you had any respect for statistics and acknowledge that even the accidental formation of a "simple" organism is statistically impossible then you would quit trying to convince people that untold billions of different organisms evolved.

In fact, if you had any respect for real science you would quit asserting that nothing made everything by no means (spontaneous generation) when discussing the Universe and life and information and time and physical laws - yes, folks, Darwinists resort to spontaneous generation of EVERYTHING, which is an incoherent, ignorant and superstitious pagan belief. It is no more science than the idea that breaking a mirror brings seven years bad luck. Darwinism is anti-science and complete and utter nonsense!

radar said...

How's that for running away? :-)

Jon Woolf said...

"How's that for running away? :-) "

Pretty good.

As an answer, on the other hand ... it leaves something to be desired.

"Wow. Jon, you have NEVER given anyone one shred of evidence for a natural source of information."

So you say. But you steadfastly refuse to even consider any of the evidence that I and others have offered. Genetic information arises by genetic variation. Examples of this abound: citrate-eating bacteria, nylon-eating bacteria, humans who are resistant to cardiovascular disease, speed-vs-stamina genes in horses...

"It was hilarious when I presented the dictionary definitions of information and you claimed the definition was too restrictive? It is the definition of information!"

You gave a definition of information, not the definition of information. The dictionary is not the be-all and end-all of meanings. How you reached your age without understanding that eludes me.

Jon Woolf said...

"The idea of "no young isotopes" is a presupposition."

Nope. It's a fact. Of all the known radioisotopes, none occur on Earth unless they either have a half-life longer than eighty million years or they're produced by ongoing radioactive decay processes.

"The idea that different dating methods give the approximate same ages is a flat lie. I have debunked that one before. We've seen wildly differing ages from rock samples from the same areas many times."

Your creationist sources cherrypick a few dozen exceptions from among tens of thousands of data points, most of them explainable by conventional theory, and then claim that proves the other 99.9% of data is disproven and therefore irrelevant. Not very impressive.

The rest of your rant -- the Bunny Blunder, the age of the Moon, the rate of mutation, symbioses -- has all been dealt with before. You're either unwilling or unable to understand the explanations, so you reject them. Well, that's your right. It is, after all, every man's right to make a fool of himself in whatever way he desires. Just don't expect those of us who know and understand the facts to react in any way other than amusement, pity, and an occasional dash of contempt.