Search This Blog

Friday, March 30, 2012

Things Creationism is - Scientifc and Logical and consistent with Biblical Faith

"It is axiomatic that there are only two possible basic models of origins--that is, of the origin of the universe, of the earth, of life, of human life, and of all the basic systems of the cosmos. These are, in simplest terms, evolution or creation. Either the origin of things can be understood in terms of continuing natural processes, or they cannot--one or the other. If they cannot, then we must resort to completed supernatural processes to explain the origin of at least the basic symptoms of the cosmos. Evolution and creation thus exhaust the possibilities, as far as origins are concerned." - Dr. Henry Morris

Scientism

"Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth."  - (PBS.org's so-called "faith and reason" glossary)

Compare and contrast... Scientism is a religion, one that erects a strawman, calls it "Protestant fundamentalism" and then knocks it down. 

Christians do not reject science.  Christians INVENTED modern science.  Yes, Roger Bacon and Isaac Newton and Francis Bacon and James Clerk Maxwell and Johannes Kepler and Lord Kelvin and so many others were believers in the Creator God and, because of that belief, trusted that they could find logical processes and logical reasons for what was observed in the material world around them.  These men, who considered the Bible to be truth, sought the truth within nature because they believed the Logical Mind Who designed it all would have done so logically.  They were correct.

I became a Christian in 1978, and at that time I took evolution for granted.  "Everyone" believed it to be true and I had no reason to doubt it, for I had never thought to challenge the concept.  Upon becoming a Christian and reading the Bible, I continually found references to the Creation account in Genesis by the writers and the very words of Jesus Christ Himself.   Therefore, for the first time in my life I took a look at evolution with a critical eye rather than simple acceptance by faith.

It was a presentation made by Dr. Henry Morris that caused me to see that there was a divide between scientists and laymen over the issue of evolution and long ages.   I began to review my own experiences in the field and reevaluate them in a new way.  What if the rock layers and fossils I had observed had been produced by the Flood event described in Genesis rather than by the long processes of millions upon millions of years of Earth existence?   It immediately struck me that the massive fields of shellfish I had walked upon, all apparently closed (so they were alive when buried in stasis) made sense in a Flood scenario but was not logical from the Uniformitarian point of view.   Uniformitarians would have to suppose that there were many thousands of local disastrous events, flood events, larger than any I had observed or heard of in order to have produced all the rock layers and fossils contained therein!  Further research revealed that there were rock layers that spanned continents and even crossed oceans!   This was evidence of a catastrophic event far beyond anything I had imagined.   I realized that a world-wide flood was an absolute necessity to have accomplished the sedimentary rock layers of the Earth and the ever-growing numbers of fossil remains that put the lie to evolution.

Further investigation convinced me that a great deal of fraud had been perpetrated in the name of Darwinism over the years, along with many foolish assumptions and outright stupidity.  A pig's tooth became an entire line of prehistoric men?   Neanderthal skulls were remodeled and evidence of their sophistication destroyed or hidden.  False evidence had been taught in classrooms around the world and were commonly found in textbooks and museums!  It was astonishing to me!   How did so many liars and fakers ever fool the world?

It did not take long to realize that a Secularization movement had been waging war against faith in a Creator God and was attacking on several fronts.   It was not simply faked evidence in the world of science, but bad philosophy being taught as good and revised history taking the place of actual events.  In schools, in the media, supported by the elitists of the world the religion which could also be called Secular Humanism was being preached and presented as factual or true.  In another post I will discuss the miscreants and blackguards who, along with the foolish and obstinate and foolish have convinced the world that the Emperor does indeed have new clothes!

First, a well-presented positive look at the reason for believing in a Creation by God.

From 2008, the words of the great, late Henry Morris...written before the Sixth ICC (link regarding that conference).

The Logic of Biblical Creation

This month, creation scientists from all over the globe are gathering in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for the sixth International Conference on Creationism. The modern creation movement is largely considered to have been launched by the 1961 publication of The Genesis Flood by Dr. Henry Morris and Dr. John Whitcomb. In honor of our founder, ICR is featuring the following article in which he clearly and succinctly presents the reasons we can believe and defend the Genesis account of creation.


The biblical account of creation is ridiculed by atheists, patronized by liberals, and often allegorized even by conservatives. The fact is, however, that it is God's own account of creation, corroborated by Jesus Christ (Mark 10:6-8, etc.), who was there!

We are well advised to take it seriously and literally, for God is able to say what He means, and will someday hold us accountable for believing what He says! Furthermore, the account is reasonable and logical, fully in accord with all true science and history. The following chain of logic, while not compelling belief on the part of those who refuse to believe, at least demonstrates the reasonableness of biblical creation.

It is axiomatic that there are only two possible basic models of origins--that is, of the origin of the universe, of the earth, of life, of human life, and of all the basic systems of the cosmos. These are, in simplest terms, evolution or creation. Either the origin of things can be understood in terms of continuing natural processes, or they cannot--one or the other. If they cannot, then we must resort to completed supernatural processes to explain the origin of at least the basic symptoms of the cosmos. Evolution and creation thus exhaust the possibilities, as far as origins are concerned.

This necessarily means that if we can "falsify" (that is, demonstrate to be false) either model of origins, then the other must be true. There is no other option. By definition, evolution should still be occurring now, since it is to be explained by present processes.

Present Processes

If there is anything certain in this world, however, it is that there is no evidence whatever that evolution is occurring today--that is, true vertical evolution, from some simpler kind to a more complex kind. No one has ever observed a star evolve from hydrogen, life evolve from chemicals, a higher species evolve from a lower species, a man from an ape, or anything else of this sort. Not only has no one ever observed true evolution in action, no one knows how evolution works, or even how it might work. Since no one has ever seen it happen (despite thousands of experiments that have tried to produce it), and no one yet has come up with a workable mechanism to explain it, it would seem that it has been falsified, at least as far as the present world is concerned. This does not prove it did not happen in the past, of course, but the evolutionist should recognize that this means it is not science, since it is not observable. Evolution must be accepted on faith.

What about the Past?

Actually, there is no evidence at all that evolution ever took place in the past either. In all recorded history, extending back nearly five thousand years, no one has ever recorded the natural evolution of any kind of creature (living or non-living) into a more complex kind. Furthermore, all known vertical changes seem to go in the wrong direction. An average of at least one species has become extinct every day since records have been kept, but no new species have evolved during that time. Stars explode, comets and meteorites disintegrate, the biosphere deteriorates, and everything eventually dies, so far as all historical observations go, but nothing has ever evolved into higher complexity.

But how about prehistoric changes? The only real records we have of this period are presumably to be found in the sedimentary rocks of the earth's crust, where billions of fossil remains of formerly living creatures have been preserved for our observation. Again, however, the story is one of extinction, not evolution. Numerous kinds of extinct animals are found (e.g., dinosaurs), but never, in all of these billions of fossils, is a truly incipient or transitional form found. No fossil has ever been found with half scales/half feathers, half legs/half wings, half-developed heart, half-developed eye, or any other such thing.

If evolution were true, there should be millions of transitional types among these multiplied billions of fossils--in fact, everything should show transitional features. But they do not! If one were to rely strictly on the observed evidence, he would have to agree that past evolution has also been falsified.

The Necessity of Creation

If evolution did not occur in the past, and does not occur at present, then it is entirely imaginary--not a part of the real world at all. This leaves creation as the necessary explanation of origins.

This fact is also confirmed by the best-proved laws of science--the law of conservation in quantity and the law of decay in complexity, or the famous First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. The First Law notes that, in all real processes, the total quantity of matter and/or energy stays constant, even though it frequently changes form. A parallel principle in biology notes that "like begets like"--dogs are always dogs, for example, though they occur in many varieties. The Second Law notes that the quality of any system--its usefulness, its complexity, its information value--always tends to decrease. In living organisms, true vertical changes go down, not up--mutations cause deterioration, individuals die, species become extinct. In fact, everything in the universe seems to be headed downhill toward ultimate cosmic death.

The First Law notes that nothing is being either "created" or "evolved" by present processes. The Second Law notes that there is, instead, a universal tendency for everything to disintegrate, to run down, and finally, to "die." The whole universe is growing old, wearing out, headed toward ultimate stillness and death. This universal "increase in entropy" leads directly to the conclusion that there must have been a creation of things in the past; otherwise, everything would now be dead (since they are universally dying in the present).

Again, we are driven to the logical necessity of a primal creation--a creation that was accomplished not by present natural processes, but by past supernatural processes. This means, however, that we cannot deduce anything about that creation except just the fact of creation. The processes of creation, the duration of the period of creation, the order of events--all are hidden from us by virtue of the fact that our present observed processes do not create--they only conserve and deteriorate!

The Necessity of a Creator

Nevertheless, there must have been a creation and, therefore, a Creator! Being the Creator of the infinitely complex, highly energized cosmos, that Creator necessarily must be omniscient and omnipotent. Having created life, as well as human personalities, He must also be a living Person. No effect can be greater than its cause.

Therefore, He is fully capable of revealing to us knowledge about His creation--knowledge which could never be learned through studying present processes. It almost seems that He must do this, in fact, since He surely is not capricious. He would not create men and women who long to know the meaning of their lives, yet neglect or refuse to tell them anything about it.

Assuming, then, that He has revealed this information to His creatures, just where is His revelation to be found? There are numerous books of religion, ancient and modern, but their cosmogonies do not contain any account at all of the creation of the universe.

The answer, therefore, has to be in His record of creation in the book of Genesis, for there is no alternative. There are only three creationist "religions" in the world--Christianity, Islam, and Judaism--and all three base their belief in creation on the record of Genesis. Without exception, all the other religions and philosophies of the world have based their beliefs concerning origins on some form of evolutionism. That is, they all begin with the universe (space, time, matter) already in existence, then speculate how the forces of nature (often personified as various gods and goddesses) may have generated all the systems and living creatures of the world out of some primordial watery chaos. Only Genesis even attempts to tell how the universe itself came to be.

Genesis: God's Record of Creation

Whether most people believe it or not, therefore, the creation account in Genesis is God's record of His creation. Jesus Christ also taught this truth, so surely any true Christian should believe it. This account does not allow even the possibility of evolution, since everything was created "after its kind" (Genesis 1:24), and since, after six days of creating and making things, God "rested from all His work" (Genesis 2:3), and so is no longer using processes which "create" things, as theistic evolutionists believe. Instead, He now is "upholding all things" (Hebrews 1:3) through His law of conservation--the "First Law."

Space does not allow documentation and further discussion here, but even this brief summary demonstrates the logic of biblical creationism. Although one may escape from this chain of logic if he wishes, the fact remains that the chain is logical and reasonable. When mixed with faith, there is peace and joy in believing God's straightforward, rational, simple, satisfying, and truly scientific account of creation in Genesis.

Adapted from Dr. Morris' article "The Logic of Biblical Creation" in the July 1990 edition of Acts & Facts.

*Dr. Morris (1918-2006) was Founder of the Institute for Creation Research.

Cite this article: Morris, H. 2008. The Logic of Biblical Creation. Acts & Facts. 37 (8): 10.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



72 summaries have been received from 59 primary authors. The theme breakdown is as follows:
  • 23 - Earth Science
  • 8 - Engineering
  • 9 - Foundations of Science
  • 19 - Life Science
  • 4 - Social Science
  • 8 - Stellar and Planetary Science
  • 1 - Astro Science
Each Summary is now being evaluated by the Editorial Board Chairman in consultation with the Editors responsible for the technical review process for possible inclusion into the review process. If accepted, the author will be sent an email from the Editorial Board Chairman no later than 29 February 2012 detailing acceptance of his/her paper and the Editor to whom his/her paper is assigned, along with the Technical Review Process Overview and Procedures and Instructions to Authors documents dealing with the review process and the format of ICC papers respectively as attached files. There is no appeal procedure at the Summary stage. The author will then submit his/her paper to the designated Editor no later than 30 June 2012. The Editor will then send each paper to referees, work with the author to improve his/her paper, and have final jurisdiction over the acceptance or rejection of each such paper. Final drafts of all papers, including any revisions, are to be in the Editor’s hands no later than 28 February 2013. (These dates are firm!) The ICC recommends no more than three (3) papers are to be submitted by any single author. Exceptions should be requested in writing to the Editorial Board Chairman (dates above still hold).
Questions regarding the status of papers should be directed to:

EDITORIAL BOARD CHAIRMAN

Mark Horstemeyer, Ph.D.
CAVS Chair Professor in Computational Solid Mechanics
ASME Fellow, ASM Fellow
Department of Mechanical Engineering
E-mail Address :
mfhorst@cavs.msstate.edu

KEY DATES SUMMARY

  1. Acceptance email from Editorial Board Chairman on summary submissions will be sent no later than 29 February 2012
  2. Paper submitted to designated Editor no later than 30 June 2012
  3. Final papers to designated Editor no later than 28 February 2013
Copyright © 2008-2011 Creation Science Fellowship, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, there are numerous scientists who believe in Creation by God and they have formed large organizations, established peer reviewed papers, publish technical journals, undertake large research projects and produce copious evidence for the scientific evidence that supports Creation by God ex nihilo (Latin for "out of/from nothing).  Many of those organizations are listed on my links list, there are a few who number me amongst their membership and several send me magazines, newsletters, technical journals and informational emails.   The search for truth will not be stopped by the ruling paradigm.  No one court, no one nation, no one company, no one scientist can speak for "Science" and nothing is particularly impressive about the numbers of those who believe in the faith of Darwinism.  Darwinism is a faith and thus it can be accepted or rejected.   Those who believe in it today can change their minds tomorrow.

The United States was formed as a Republic and a Federation of States and NOT a Democracy, because the Founding Fathers knew that the Democracy becomes mob rule and does not work in large numbers.   Instead, they wisely divided powers following Biblical teachings so that power would not be monopolized by any one portion of the Federal nor State nor Local governance, but that there would be a balance of powers.   The balance has been tilted towards Washington for many decades and, as we lean over towards a stronger Federal government we are, like the Tower of Pisa, threatening to fall.   

In the world of science and academics, the Darwinists took over the control of schools and organizations around the world, only to find that Creationists would begin to form their own schools and organizations, and this should be no surprise, since the first schools were actually formed by Christians in this nation and the first schools open to commoners were formed by Christians of the past.   Truth will not be stifled by the actions of men.   As Stephen C. Meyer has wisely said, quoting an unamed professor who probably got it from some unamed ancient philosopher (although you will find that Will Rogers or Mark Twain are known to have said it), "Beware the sound of one hand clapping."    My task is to help provide the other hand.


  • We can't all be heroes because someone has to sit on the curb and clap as they go by. --Will Rogers



  • Beware the sound of one hand clapping

  • Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and the government when it deserves it. --Mark Twain 


  • From webquotes

    27 comments:

    Anonymous said...

    Wow, Radar, you're too funny sometimes:

    "The United States was formed as a Republic and a Federation of States and NOT a Democracy, because the Founding Fathers knew that the Democracy becomes mob rule and does not work in large numbers."

    I guess you shouldn't vote then. Just start plotting a theocratic revolution, eh?

    Jon Woolf said...

    Actually, Radar's closer to right than wrong on this. The Founders tried to create a representative democracy, where the people voted for their representatives and the representatives then ran things according to what they believed was right -- which, presumably, would be what their constituents thought was right. The original role of the Senate was to provide a safeguard against the House of Representatives doing something stupid just because the people who elected them wanted them to do it. Senators were supposed to be older, more experienced, wiser men who could tell when something was a Bad Idea, and who represented the interests of the states, not those of the people.

    Sadly, very little of that original framework is left today.

    Now Radar: "It was a presentation made by Dr. Henry Morris that caused me to see that there was a divide between scientists and laymen over the issue of evolution and long ages. "

    Somehow it doesn't surprise me that Morris the Elder was the initial force behind your conversion to creationism. By most accounts he was one of the best of the creationist snakeoil salesmen, and he could be devilishly convincing. I suppose you can't really be faulted for falling under his spell, especially when all you know was the oversimplified versions of evolution and earth science that are taught in public schools.

    You can, however, be faulted for staying under that spell today, when there are so many sources available for debunking what the creationists tell you.

    Anonymous said...

    "The Founders tried to create a representative democracy, where the people voted for their representatives and the representatives then ran things according to what they believed was right -- which, presumably, would be what their constituents thought was right."

    1. A representative democracy is still a democracy. I don't see why Radar has a problem with democracy all of a sudden. Is he really determined to be on the wrong side of every issue?

    2. Contrary to Radar's insinuation, the notion of republic is not inconsistent with democracy - in fact, it requires people being elected to office.

    "The original role of the Senate was to provide a safeguard against the House of Representatives doing something stupid just because the people who elected them wanted them to do it. Senators were supposed to be older, more experienced, wiser men who could tell when something was a Bad Idea, and who represented the interests of the states, not those of the people."

    It's based on the British House of Commons and House of Lords, which function on similar principles.

    Anonymous said...

    As for Morris's article in the blog post, how simplistic a mind does one have to possess to fall for this nonsense? If something is too slow for us to observe, it is therefore falsified? And is he really unaware of the sequential progression of living organisms in the fossil record?

    If he's "one of the best of the creationist snakeoil salesmen", he must have had some astounding charisma, because his logic is stupendously wrong and easily torn apart.

    Jon Woolf said...

    "I don't see why Radar has a problem with democracy all of a sudden."

    Assuming he follows the usual line on this issue, he doesn't have a problem with democracy. He has a problem with unfettered democracy. Which is, as one of the late-19th-century acerbists once said, "two lions and one lamb deciding what's for dinner."

    "As for Morris's article in the blog post, how simplistic a mind does one have to possess to fall for this nonsense?"

    Very. But you must recall what kind of mind you're dealing with. Morris the Elder had an inherent advantage: an audience that was predisposed to believe anything he said, because he claimed to be speaking for their God. All else must be made to fit within that worldview. Physical evidence is accepted when possible, distorted when convenient, denied or simply ignored when necessary.

    Anonymous said...

    "He has a problem with unfettered democracy."

    Which is somewhat beside the point, as nobody is arguing for unfettered democracy. He's being obtuse as usual (see his confusion re. naturalism).

    "Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

    "Things Creationism is - Scientifc and Logical"

    Okay, so could you name a falsifiable, verifiable claim that is consistent with creationism...

    ... and that can be verified?

    radar said...

    The Law of Biogenesis, for one, HLH. Darwinists ignore a law that was established before Darwin wrote his first book.

    Design features of organisms. We recognize design, we know from experience that all designed things require a designer with intelligence, thus Darwinism is refuted logically.

    Jon Woolf calling Dr. Henry Morris a snakeoil salesman? Really?

    Real science debunks Darwinism. It is typical of Darwinists to be arrogant name-calling accusers who have no real evidence to back themselves up. Woolf's character assassination of Henry Morris, for instance.

    Yes, there are plenty of sites designed to "debunk" creationism. All you need is a handful of propaganda and a willingness to be deceptive and away you go. Darwinism is propped up by fairy tales and lies because the foundational premises Darwin depended upon have all proven to be false.

    I suspect Charles Darwin himself would not be a Darwinist today, at least I would like to give him that much credit. He'd see his assumptions had been overturned. No uniformitarianism, no continuum of transitional forms in the fossil record, no way for a first life to appear without a purposeful Creator, no upward path of evolution observed since the idea was presented. We do have devolution, in which organisms lose genetic material and we have extinction and we have stasis. Period.

    "Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

    You mention the "Law of Biogenesis", which is unrelated to Darwin's theory of evolution, so I don't know why you choose to mention Darwin in that context. As you probably know (and you certainly should, going by the number of times this has been pointed out to you), the Law of Biogenesis is not in contradiction of abiogenesis by natural means at the molecular level. You're peddling an untruth here.

    But who knows, maybe you actually had a cogent point in mind. So... what exactly do you think is the falsifiable, verifiable claim that is consistent with creationism and that can be verified re. the "Law of Biogenesis"? Please be specific.

    You mention alleged "design features" of organisms, but how exactly do you define a "design feature"? You say that "all designed things require a designer with intelligence", but what distinguishes a "designed thing" if one does not know its origin? A process of trial and error such as what results from reproduction with variation over time is clearly capable of adding functionality, so simply noting that something has a useful functionality is by itself not an indication of a designer.

    And again, what exactly do you think is the falsifiable, verifiable claim that is consistent with creationism and that can be verified re. "design features"? Please be specific.

    Readers should note that creationists tend to get very slippery when asked to back up their boastful claims, such as the above "creationism is scientific and logical". Something that is claimed to be scientific should have some basic science and logic to back it up. I predict that Radar will either try to specify the falsifiable, verifiable claims above and fail, or he will abandon/evade the thread altogether. What he will most certainly NOT do is present the falsifiable, verifiable claims, since they do not exist - which is the great failure of creationism.

    "Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

    "It is typical of Darwinists to be arrogant name-calling accusers who have no real evidence to back themselves up. Woolf's character assassination of Henry Morris, for instance."

    Woolf is certainly capable of dismantling creationist arguments using evidence. But why should that stop him from pointing out Henry Morris's intellectual dishonesty? The above article is already clear evidence of either Morris's ignorance or his willingness to deceive others.

    "Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

    "No uniformitarianism,"

    Wrong. It's the default setting of modern geology. On what basis do you make this claim?

    "no continuum of transitional forms in the fossil record,"

    Wrong. I don't even know on what basis you're trying to make this claim. The fossil record shows a clear progression of organisms changing over time.

    "no way for a first life to appear without a purposeful Creator,"

    There is at least one plausible path for first life to arise naturally at the molecular level.

    "no upward path of evolution observed since the idea was presented."

    Again, see the fossil record.

    "We do have devolution, in which organisms lose genetic material and we have extinction and we have stasis. Period."

    What is the evidence for organisms losing genetic material?

    Yes, we have extinctions, but we also have evidence of new organisms forming.

    The notion of stasis is also falsified by the fossil record. Why don't we EVER see modern dogs in the same layers as dinosaurs if they were all around at the same time?

    See, this is one of thousands of falsifiable, verifiable claims that "Darwinism" can make that confirm "Darwinism" and falsify creationism: you will NEVER find remains of modern Canis lupus familiaris in the same fossil layer as a brontosaurus.

    Anonymous said...

    HLH, good luck arguing with those "facts" and "logic". Those things don't matter around here.

    Instead, they wisely divided powers following Biblical teachings so that power would not be monopolized by any one portion of the Federal nor State nor Local governance, but that there would be a balance of powers.

    And we're back to this, a derivation of the claim the constitution was based more on the bible than any other source that you couldn't back up initially. This must be the "claiming victory" stage of radar's progression of logical dissonance.


    lava

    radar said...

    The above comments are so typical. As far as the formation of life on Earth, they like to say "the check is in the mail" but the Law of Biogenesis says NO.

    Design in organisms is so obvious that people like Michael Ruse cannot even argue the point, he just pretends ID scientists are "creationists in disguise" and then fails to address the facts. The facts are that we see in the world around us that information and design only come from intelligence and we know that organisms contain information and design. You are free to ponder the identity of the Designer but I call him "God."

    Since God intended to wipe out the civilization that existed pre-flood we do not find fossils of men in the flood stage layers nor the domesticated animals associated with him. A few pieces of anachronistic design have been found in coal but mostly what God intended to destroy got destroyed. So no dogs just wolf-dogs is no big deal. They are the same kind anyway.

    The fossil record is not sequential. That is a lie. All basic life forms are found in the lowest layers. The layering generally is typical of flood layering and the life forms found in the rocks tend to be there because of their normal habitat, ability to see danger and strength or agility to avoid it for a period of time.

    The top-most layers are often post-flood ice age products from sudden loess storms, dike breaks, mudrock slides and etc. But whatever we find in the rocks is a fully formed animal and it is either extinct now or pretty much the same as the living versions. That is what is REALLY found in the rocks.

    radar said...

    For Jon Woolf to use the term "devilish" in association with Henry Morris is like Madonna singing "Like a Virgin." Seriously? Jon, you do not have the knowledge to have taken him on and I know a lot of creation scientists who give Morris a great deal of credit for cutting through the layers of BS propaganda that Darwinists depend upon for belief in their pet worldview. Go ahead and be willfully ignorant if you wish.

    "Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

    “The above comments are so typical.”

    In that they call you to task and you evade them? Yeah, I guess.

    “As far as the formation of life on Earth, they like to say "the check is in the mail" but the Law of Biogenesis says NO.”

    Wrong. The Law of Biogenesis does not concern itself with the focus of current research of abiogenesis by natural means, namely the origin of reproduction with variation at the molecular level.

    You’re comparing apples and oranges and apparently lack either the understanding or honesty to acknowledge this point.

    “Design in organisms is so obvious that people like Michael Ruse cannot even argue the point, he just pretends ID scientists are "creationists in disguise" and then fails to address the facts. The facts are that we see in the world around us that information and design only come from intelligence and we know that organisms contain information and design. You are free to ponder the identity of the Designer but I call him "God."”

    The fact is that we also see information and design come from reproduction with variation guided by nothing other than natural selection, so your line of reasoning falls apart at this point.

    Reader, please note: as predicted, Radar can’t offer a falsifiable, verifiable claim with regard to this point.

    “Since God intended to wipe out the civilization that existed pre-flood we do not find fossils of men in the flood stage layers nor the domesticated animals associated with him.”

    This appears to be a new attempt to wriggle out of the lack of fossil evidence for creationism: God just made whatever part of it doesn’t agree with creationism disappear. Wow. And this is “creationism being scientific and logical”? This doesn’t even pass the laugh test, Radar.

    “A few pieces of anachronistic design have been found in coal but mostly what God intended to destroy got destroyed. So no dogs just wolf-dogs is no big deal. They are the same kind anyway.”

    Fine, so where are the wolf-dogs in the same fossil layers as dinosaurs?

    “The fossil record is not sequential. That is a lie.”

    Wrong. It is sequential. There is a successive consistency to what organisms we find in each layer, with gradual progression from one type of organism to the next. On what scientific basis do you even make this claim? Can you explain that?

    “All basic life forms are found in the lowest layers.”

    Okay, so where are the wolf-dogs, cats, cows, horses, elephants etc. in the lowest layers? Where?

    “The layering generally is typical of flood layering”

    Except when it isn’t, as Woolf has pointed out to you many times and to which you could not respond cogently, instead slinging insults at him.

    “and the life forms found in the rocks tend to be there because of their normal habitat, ability to see danger and strength or agility to avoid it for a period of time.”

    Now you’ve shifted position from claiming that all the basic life forms being found in the lowest layers to presenting ad-hoc explanations for why they are not found there. And these ad-hoc explanations lack any scientific basis.

    “The top-most layers are often post-flood ice age products from sudden loess storms, dike breaks, mudrock slides and etc.”

    As well as deposits requiring longer ages.

    “But whatever we find in the rocks is a fully formed animal”

    … which of course is what the theory of evolution would predict.

    “and it is either extinct now or pretty much the same as the living versions.”

    So is Homo australopithecus “pretty much the same” as the living version of Homo sapiens?

    “That is what is REALLY found in the rocks.”

    Again, on what scientific basis do you say the fossil record is not sequential?

    "Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

    “Jon, you do not have the knowledge to have taken him on and I know a lot of creation scientists who give Morris a great deal of credit for cutting through the layers of BS propaganda that Darwinists depend upon for belief in their pet worldview.”

    Given the poor logic that Morris displayed in the above article alone, people with far less brain power and knowledge than Jon Woolf (who is considerably more knowledgeable on a large number of topics than you, Radar) can take Morris on. A teenager with a basic understanding of logic can run circles around him.

    Jon Woolf said...

    Once again the plaintive cry comes wafting o'er the dales: is this all you've got? Mindless, rote repetitions of the same long-since-falsified claims, combined with equally rote handwaving dismissals of your opponents? Radar, if you can't do any better than this, I may not bother coming round anymore.

    Henry Morris is either a fool or a liar. I believe him to be a fool; if you prefer to believe he's a liar, so be it. But either way, he's definitely not a reliable source on geology, as his record of misstatements proves. He's been caught falsifying quotes from scientists, and he's also been caught bungling his fieldwork.

    radar said...

    So once again Jon uses an ad hominem attack and false authority, claiming to know more and be more honest than Dr. Morris. Why? Because Darwinists cannot win in the laboratory or out in the field where real science is done. The now-vast collection of fossils found underlines stasis and extinction and vindicates those who support the flood model. Heck, some fossils are actually remains with traces of blood and flesh intact.

    The Intelligent Design movement has taken the Darwinist mantra "processes observed should be considered processes previously in effect" to point out that information and design only come from intelligence. NO ANSWER from Darwinists, just obfuscation and calling names while running away from the issue.

    Darwinists may have control of the media and primary scientific organizations, but that is going to change. We still have observed exactly zero "upward evolution" since Darwin's first book was published. We see countless examples of flood-created rock formations only explicable by massive water events.

    I have a lot of hope for the modern generation who, when not relating to their hand-held devices, have a wealth of information at their fingertips unlike generations before them. They can research everything on the internet. Eventually this will lead to Darwinism's demise. I believe that Truth always wins out.

    Either Jon Woolf or Henry Morris was a liar. I know where my vote will go on that issue...

    Anonymous whatsit said...

    "Either Jon Woolf or Henry Morris was a liar. I know where my vote will go on that issue..."

    ... and apparently - as with so much else on your blog - it will go against the evidence. Woolf has linked to evidence of Morris's deceptiveness, and Morris's poor logic is on display in your own blog post.

    On the other hand, you can't present any actual evidence of Woolf either lying or presenting poor logic. At least you've never managed to do so in the past.

    Anonymous said...

    Yes, someone was lying. Henry Morris was a liar. Every leader in the evolution denial movement is, and necessarily must be, a nonstop pathological liar.

    I have personally about given up on teaching the delusional by means of presenting science as they are universally resistant to all non-confirming information; assuming that they even possess the faculties and background necessary to reach a logical conclusion w/om the confirmation bias.

    I don't expect anything to affect closed minds too much, but I've concluded that the best way to make a creatard very uncomfortable (also climate deniers) is to bury them under mountains of examples of their icons of antiscience lyaing through their teeth, intentionally using failed arguments, presenting transparent logical fallacies, and generally treating their audiences like mentally challenged four year olds.

    Anonymous said...

    I can't believe this classical caser of willful ignorance accused someone esle of willful ignorance. The projection of creatards is astonishing at times.

    radar said...

    "Anonymous said...

    I can't believe this classical caser of willful ignorance accused someone esle of willful ignorance. The projection of creatards is astonishing at times."

    Thank you for showing us the evil underbelly of the Darwninist establishment. Your foolish, anonymous, illogical and faulty verbiage makes me willing to remind everyone how the absolute evil stupidity of Darwinism led to the rise of Hitler and those like him (Stalin and Mao are two good examples) without remorse.

    Anonymous said...

    "Evil underbelly"?? LOL. Can't you come up with a single argument on your own, Radar. Let me get this straight, it's recently pointed out to you that you are one of the worst examples of christianity on the web and that you very likely drive more people towards atheism as a result. Then you get referred to as a willfully ignorant "creatard" (which, according to this very blog, is a pretty apt description BTW) and you claim that this comment shows the evil underbelly of Darwinism. Um, wut? You clearly and demonstrably don't even understand the first thing evolution, yet are also a frothing-at-the-mouth critic of the very thing you don't understand. Sounds pretty creatarded to me. And to top it off, these accusations of being "evil" all come from the same guy that compares adult consenting homosexual relationships to pedophilia. You, and your equally bigoted ignorant wife, contribute to teen suicide rates with your hateful dogma regarding homosexuality and yet it's your critics that are "evil".

    At some point, and it may even be dawning on you now somewhere deep in the recesses of your brain, but some day you are going to wake up and realize that you've wasted a large chunk of your life on lies. Time you could have spent with your family or actually helping people in need through volunteering your time. Some day...

    -Canucklehead.

    ktowers said...

    Thank you, radar; thank you! Your response amounts to:

    1) Baseless ad hominems.

    2) An infantile diversion inre “faulty verbiage” on the basis of . . . wait for it . . . fat-fingering an ‘r’ while typing an ‘e’!

    3) Yet another repetition of the tired, endlessly debunked, creatard Big Lie inre science (“Darwinism” (sic)) being the cause of totalitarianism, etc. w/o the slightest acknowledgement of the millions of refutations.

    Thus, you serve as persuasive evidence for the desperation and both intellectual and moral bankruptcy that DEFINES creationism. No rationalist can expose you the way you can. Keep posting!

    d said...

    Radar, surely you know that Hitler despised Darwin's theory... right? Hitler's Aryan superman related to the chimp in the zoo? Please.

    What other canards you got?

    Human Ape said...

    "I became a Christian in 1978, and at that time I took evolution for granted. "Everyone" believed it to be true and I had no reason to doubt it, for I had never thought to challenge the concept. Upon becoming a Christian and reading the Bible, I continually found references to the Creation account in Genesis by the writers and the very words of Jesus Christ Himself. Therefore, for the first time in my life I took a look at evolution with a critical eye rather than simple acceptance by faith."

    After reading the Bible you threw out evolutionary biology. The Bible convinced you to prefer magic.

    Are you a tard boy or what?

    radar said...

    Dear Ape, it is Darwinism that is magic. You apparently are among the many who have blindly accepted the big lie and have not studied the subject.

    For instance, every cell has the DNA/RNA string operating and the ATP Synthase system, among many other things. DNA/RNA and ATP Synthase must be within a cell to exist and DNA/RNA use ATP to operate, as does the cell BUT the cell must be in place and DNA must code for the ATP Synthase system for it to exist. In other words, they must all exist for any of them to exist. This is just basic cell biology. There is a host of systems that are in operation in a cell and it is difficult to imagine the cell being alive without the vast majority in operation. They keep the cell alive, that needs DNA to exist, that needs ATP to function, that are all coded from DNA. Do you see the problem?

    I only specified three systems but there are thousands of functions ongoing in just one of your cells right now and you have roughly 100 trillion of them. A rough estimate is that you have ten microorganisms in you and on you for every one cell, many of which help you live. There are many bacteria in your abdominal tract that help you digest your food, as an example.

    The complexity and interdependency of organisms is something Darwin never imagined. It is truly farcical that anyone with a brain and a desire to learn keeps believing in such a simplistic, crude and illogical thing as evolution. It is anti-science and in direct violation of known scientific laws. It is also bolstered by lies and fairy tales rather than evidence.

    So Evolution is the magical belief. It is not good philosophy and it is rotten science.