Search This Blog

Saturday, March 10, 2012

What Evolution is Not - Scientific. A review post

"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily." --George 
 Washington

"If the capricious gods of Greek mythology were in charge, we wouldn’t expect unchanging natural laws. And if the universe were one big Thought, as Eastern religions teach, then it could change its mind at any moment! " - Jonathan Sarfati

Darwinism is a term I use for those who believe in naturalism and evolution.   Their concept of evolution is that mutations, given enough time, build new and improved organisms.  They have a small problem in that mutations are MISTAKES and we now know that much of what used to be termed "junk DNA" is actually dedicated to identification and correction of mutations!  

I know that Darwin was writing primarily about preexisting organisms supposedly evolving uphill via mutations by way of natural selection. His work was just another rock thrown at Creation by Vitalists, an ancient concept that life forms itself. That concept has been given many titles and I do not care what name you put on the box.  As I have testified in this blog, all of these Darwinist pillars have been destroyed - Uniformitarianism, junk DNA, vestigial organs, recapitulation,  the geological column, radiometric dating, the age of every single planet in the Solar System, the age of the Sun and Moon, and many, many more.

I find it wearying and boring to type out naturalistic materialistic atheistic humanistic descriptors when "Darwinist" works just fine and I have said this often in the past. It boils down to a worldview which states that all things can be explained by natural causes. This is a worldview or religion. It is then applied to science. When the worldview is applied to science, science is limited by that worldview to answers that fit within that worldview. Fine.

Darwinists have been challenged by me several times to give a coherent and logical natural source for information because new information is required to cause new organisms or new systems within organisms.  Of course they cannot do it and, even if they could, the kind of information needed to build organisms has to be very specific.   

The work of Darwinist scientists Kirshner and Gerhart has actually badly damaged the case for Darwinism even though they were seeking to find ways that evolution could have happened.   Check out my blog for articles on facilitated variation, for instance.  

When I wrote "Mr. Scientist, tear down this Darwinist Wall!!!" I was pointing out that Darwinists are censors and therefore terrified that real science would be taught to students and then students would see the magnificent house of cards that is Darwinism, an entire construct of lies and false assumptions that Darwinism depends upon and frankly if you take away the fairy tales and suppositions there is nothing left at all.  

Two articles spotlighting the work of Kirschner and Gerhart and why they have unwittingly killed Darwinism dead:  Part one.   Part two.

Natural selection is a design trait and not part of an Darwinist uphill climb for organisms.

Genetic Redundancy is another discovery that debunks Darwinism.

Cellular complexity is baffling to Darwinists, although they like to pretend it is not a problem. 

You can search and find that I have pointed out the evidences of dinosaur and man living together which destroys Darwinism by itself.  Tracks of dinosaurs and man together, drawings, carvings and figurines of dinosaurs made by men, official government records of dinosaur sightings and even attacks by dinosaurs on people and other animals.    The sadly pathetic attempts to falsify the evidence made by Darwinists remind me of school children.   For instance, the responses to this blog post.

See if you can figure out how DNA and the cell and the ATP Synthase system could all suddenly evolve together, because they cannot exist without each other?   

Better yet, try to look under the hood of Darwinism's explanation for existence and time and life and information and scientific laws and you will find spontaneous generation.  No cause.   Nonsense!!!

As it happens, population genetics has shown us that mankind has grown from a starting point of about 4,000-4,500 years ago.  This agrees with the Biblical account of a Flood ending at about that time.  Here is a timeline for the history of mankind from the Biblical account and the Bible is the most authoritative and best preserved history mankind has.  Here is a timeline from Answers in Genesis:

The chart above goes to zero at about 4,000-4,500 years ago.   Think one couple kept having one couple for 195,500 years?  Really?  It is a typical sigmoidal population graph and again, science underlines the truth of the Bible!

by David Wright, AiG–U.S.

I can find info on the flood but I am looking for good estimation fixing the date of the flood.

So when exactly was the Flood?

For an accurate chronology on the Bible, including the time of the Flood, I highly recommend The Annals of the World by James Ussher, Adam’s Chart of History, Newton’s Revised History of Ancient Kingdoms, and Chronology of the Old Testament by Floyd Nolen Jones.

There are two possible ways of calculating the date. The first is from creation, and the other is from the present. I will focus on the date from creation since the latter would be much more involved. So here we go.

Table 1: Dates of biblical events from Creation
Event/Person Passage Total Time from Creation (years)
God created everything. Genesis 1–2 0
Adam became the father of Seth at 130. Genesis 5:3 0 + 130 = 130
Seth became the father of Enosh at 105. Genesis 5:6 130 + 105 = 235
Enosh became the father of Kenan at 90. Genesis 5:9 235 + 90 = 325
Cainan became the father of Mahalalel at 70. Genesis 5:12 325 + 70 = 395
Mahalalel became the father of Jared at 65. Genesis 5:15 395 + 65 = 460
Jared became the father of Enoch at 162. Genesis 5:18 460 + 162 = 622
Enoch became the father of Methuselah at 65. Genesis 5:21 622 + 65 = 687
Methuselah became the father of Lamech at 187. Genesis 5:25 687 + 187 = 874
Lamech became the father of Noah at 182. Genesis 5:28 809 + 182 = 1056
The Flood started when Noah was 600. Genesis 7:6 991 + 600 = 1656

As you can see from Table 1, the year in which the Flood came was 1656 AM1 (Anno Mundi – “year of the world”). From the rest of the Old Testament and other well-documented historical events we understand that creation, as calculated by Ussher, was about 4004 BC. So with a little more math we can calculate the second date.

Calculated BC date for creation: 4004
Calculated AM date for the Flood: - 1656
Calculated BC date for the Flood: 2348
Current Year (minus one2): + 2011
Number of years since beginning of Flood: 4359

Using the Bible, well-documented historical events, and some math, we find that the Flood began approximately 4,359 years ago in the year 1656 AM or 2348 BC. Some may look for an exact date (i.e., month and day), but we are not given that sort of precision in Scripture.

Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.

Footnotes

  1. Since the Bible does not provide the number of months in the age of each patriarch listed from Adam to Noah, then we could add about five more years to this number. For example, Adam may have been 130 years and 10 months old when Seth was born, and Seth may have been 105 years and four months. On average, there would likely be an additional six months for each generation. The same would be true for the genealogy in Genesis 10. 
  2. We need to subtract one year from this calculation since there was not a “year zero.” The calendar we use jumps from 1 BC to AD 1
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My next post in this series will show why Darwinism/Evolution is bad and in fact deadly to society.  But I will begin with a positive view of the good of Christianity.   Dr. Sarfati:

What good is Christianity?


Mainstream media has long attacked biblical Christianity, and these attacks have been fed recently by a flurry of antitheistic books. Of course, Christians have responded by demonstrating the fallacies of the antitheists’ claims, but unfortunately rarely get the same exposure in the secular media.1 So it is worth summarizing some of the many beneficial effects of Christianity over the ages.2

Slavery and other humanitarian causes

stock.xchng
Graffiti art of the word ‘crisis’

In this issue (pp. 12–15), we point out the strong Christian motivation behind William Wilberforce’s determined campaign against the slave trade. We also cite some pro-slavers who told Wilberforce to leave religion out of politics—sound familiar?

Christianity has been at the forefront of other humanitarian causes, such as literacy, hospitals, orphanages and abolition of child labour. The biblical teaching that all humans come from ‘one man/blood’ (Acts 17:26) is the best antidote to racism, and science is catching up (see p. 18). It’s notable that Wilberforce was also an advocate of animal welfare. (Beware the confusion of animal welfare with animal rights. The former seeks to treat animals humanely, while the latter purports to give animals, e.g. the great apes, the same rights as humans—see Focus p. 8.)

Even today, conservative Christians still give far more support to charities than do other people, as noted by a recent book, Who Really Cares, by Prof. Arthur Brooks. The data were a total surprise to Brooks, who had a socially liberal background. It showed that:
‘Religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly nonreligious charities. Religious people give more blood; religious people give more to homeless people on the street.’

 

Christianity and the rise of modern science

 

Religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly nonreligious charities. Religious people give more blood; religious people give more to homeless people on the street.



Science is another area where the conventional wisdom puts it at loggerheads with Christianity. However, historians of science have pointed out that modern science first flourished under a Christian worldview while it was stillborn in other cultures.3 This is due mainly to two biblical teachings: (1) man had dominion over creation (Genesis 1:26–28), so had a duty to investigate it without praying to the ‘water spirit’ or ‘forest god’ or the like. (2) God is a lawgiving God of order, not confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33). So the early scientists had faith that God’s upholding of His creation in an orderly way could be described in terms of ‘natural laws’.

If the capricious gods of Greek mythology were in charge, we wouldn’t expect unchanging natural laws. And if the universe were one big Thought, as Eastern religions teach, then it could change its mind at any moment!

So every issue of Creation magazine has an interview with a Bible-believing scientist. This issue features a leading Australian astronomer (pp. 46–48). We also seek to show how God’s handiwork can be seen in His intricate designs, such as the Venus flytrap (pp. 36–37) and amazing instincts in the animal world (pp. 28–30). But design is not enough; it is only one part of biblical history. Only a proper understanding of history makes sense of geology, e.g. gold deposits (pp. 16–17).

Baneful effects of abandoning Christianity

Historians of science have pointed out that modern science first flourished under a Christian world view while it was stillborn in other cultures.



In this magazine, we also show what happens when God’s Word is abandoned. It is no accident that the greatest mass murderers in history were the atheistic communists like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot; and the thoroughly evolutionized Nazi Germany (see pp. 4,5). In this issue, we look at some innocent victims of Nazi policy, the unfortunate Lebensborn children, bred to epitomize the new ‘master race’ (pp. 32–34).

It has also been noted that when people cease believing in the true God, they don’t believe in nothing, but believe in anything. So it is not surprising that absurd God-substitutes abound, such as aliens. Since this year is the 60th anniversary of New Mexico’s Roswell event, this issue has a sober analysis of what really happened there (pp. 19–21).

Finally, while Christianity is good for this world, it is even better for the next. This is why every issue explains the Good News (p. 48).4

Related article

References and notes

  1. See for example, Bell, P., Atheist with a mission, A review of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, 7 February 2007. Return to Text.
  2. See also Koukl, G., Christianity’s real record, www.townhall.com/columnists/GregKoukl/2006/11/21/christianitys_real_record, 21 November 2006. Return to Text.
  3. Stark, R., For the Glory of God: How monotheism led to reformations, science, witch-hunts and the end of slavery, Princeton University Press, 2003; see also review by Williams A., The biblical origins of science, Journal of Creation 18(2):49–52, 2004. Return to Text.
  4. Of course, Christianity is good because it is true. For example, there are at least 17 factors that meant Christianity could not have succeeded in the ancient world, unless it were backed up with irrefutable proof of the Resurrection, as shown by Holding, J.P., The Impossible Faith, Xulon Press, Florida, USA, 2007.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you wanted to read all the other articles listed in this last article, you would have to subscribe to Creation Magazine.  If you wanted the technical articles with all the scientific jargon and math that some commenters claim I do not understand (even though I read these articles and post excerpts from them, eh?) you would have to subscribe to the Journal of Creation.   I get both of these publications and several more besides.   I have bookshelves full of technical journals and magazines from AIG and ICR and Creation Ministries International.   I want to know what is going on in the world of real science.  So I subscribe to output from the Discovery Institute as well, get Ian Juby's newsletters, belong to a few creation science organizations and frankly put a lot of time into keeping up with what is happening in science by reading secular output also.   It may be that I understand more about Darwinism than most Darwinists.   It may be that is what frustrates some of the anonymous commenters.   They know I know how empty their worldview actually is and they don't like it!

Watching secular television programs and reading secular documents?  It requires a filter (you have to cast aside the constant references to millions of years and animals "developing" traits.  As if a fish can go to a fast-evolve restaurant and order a set of arms with a side of lungs!) but Christians can watch NatGeo and Animal Planet and read PNAS and such things and get the science while throwing the indoctrination aside.   Christians who have a scientific side should do it as responsible adults, we should keep on top of science and politics and not just limit ourselves to our own insular world.   Geeks of the Christian persuasion ought to keep up with the current level of Darwinian nonsense as well as the real discoveries that are being made.

Just this afternoon, my wife and I watched a NatGeo documentary called "Eating With Cannibals" and the impact of Christianity on Papua New Guinea was obvious.   We know and support a missionary couple that live there and have been involved in Bible translation and helping the population improve the quality of their lives.  Our friends have told us so many stories of the remarkable changes they have made in order to live in Papua New Guinea and how the people have benefited from Christianity in so many ways.  They've been here to visit us personally whenever they come to the States so they can share stories with us, because most missionaries need to come back for a period of time to encourage the churches and people who support them and share their stories with the folks back in the States.   My wife and I love it when this couple comes to see us!   We would love and support them and pray for them anyway but we are so glad and honored when they come.  

We have heard the amazing testimony of people like Marilyn Laszlo, a missionary who has devoted her life to Bible translation, medical care and a better life for the people of Papua New Guinea.  She now has a missionary organization that she heads but before she became a speaker and leader of an organization she spent 24 years in the jungle with the people helping them develop a written language and learning basics of medical care.   Missionaries we know give up their comforts to live in places where there is no electricity or running water unless they help the people learn to collect water and build water basins and dig wells.   One couple we know has a kerosene-powered refrigerator as their one luxury, otherwise living in heat and humidity and living much like their neighbors.   The refrigerator is important for some medical supplies, otherwise they likely would not have it.
 
The people of Papua New Guinea did not have a written language when the Wycliffe missionaries began to arrive and interact with the people.   Missionaries found a culture of treachery and revenge and superstition, with living people being buried alive when only being ill and quite curable.   There was widespread murder and occasional cannibalism.   Witch doctors ruled the villages.   Life spans were short and often violent.  Illnesses often meant death, even very simple and quite treatable sicknesses took lives before the missionaries came.  They came with medical training and they came with understanding.   Wycliffe missionaries did not try to make people wear specific clothing or abandon their culture other than the deadly and sinful parts.   Today in Papua New Guinea  most Christians wear Western-style clothing much of the time but that is by their choice.  Now they have a written language and the Bible available to them.  Now they can read and write books and in journals and keep written records.  Now a fever means medical care and not being buried alive to die alone in terror.

There is a powerful book, Peace Child, which tells the story of the old culture of the Sawi tribe of Papua New Guinea and how Christians Don and Carol Richardson came to save these people from traditional evils.   Once treachery and revenge were considered the highest good and celebrated.   Now love is preferred over hatred and murder is considered wrong rather than to be celebrated.   Christianity is certainly good for Papua New Guinea!

As we watched the NatGeo documentary we found it funny as the adventurer (Piers Gibbon) discovered airfields available in the supposedly largely unexplored area.   He found English-speaking translators and people wearing t-shirts and Western clothing even in the most remote areas.  Gibbon was surprised to find English speakers in the deepest jungle areas.  He was searching for cannibals but discovered that the spread of Christianity had ended the practice.  In fact, Gibbon stated that 90% of the population had converted to Christianity and the old ways of revenge and superstitious killings had been ended.  He seemed astonished but that is what happens when Christianity comes to a culture.  Life gets better for people and they have longer lives, live in peace and begin to experience prosperity compared to the lives of their parents and grandparents.   Witch doctors are almost all gone, most of them having turned to Christ and abandoned their old ways.

AMAZON picture...you have to go to the site to actually open the book.

If we know Jesus Christ, we know Truth but we are also responsible to know truths while living in this material world's time/space continuum. The Truth is that Christians were the inventors of modern science and that Christianity was behind the end of the ruler/serf lifestyle of Europe before the Reformation.  Christianity was the driving force behind ordinary folks becoming literate.   Christians led the way to ending slavery in England and in the United States.   Christians led the fight to end Jim Crow laws and to bring about true civil rights in the South in the 1950's and 60's.   Christians have come to places like Papua New Guinea and Suriname and spent their lives dedicated to improving the lives of their neighbors, not simply spreading faith in Christ but also bringing health care and helping the people learn to have a written language and a Bible in their own language. 

What have Darwinists done?   In a later post I will tell you...but I can tell you that it isn't good.   Those who believe in Darwinism have done terrible crimes in the name of "science."

Pilate asked Jesus, "What is truth?" 

(John 18:13 Pilate said to Him, “What is truth?” And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews, and said to them, “I find no fault in Him at all."

But Christ had already told him Truth.   When this life is over we had better know Truth.   Pilate found no fault in Christ because there was no fault to find.  Yet it was His mission to be crucified and die with the sins of the world on His back so that He could rise again and present Himself at the Throne of God with His shed blood as payment for your sins and mine.  It was His mission to rise again and have victory over death so that we who become His own people will also pass from temporal life to eternal life.   So although Jesus Christ had done good at all times throughout His lifetime and performed miracles and spoken truth to all, He did not resist being taken and illegally sentenced, beaten, tortured, mocked and slain because it was the last part of His mission to save mankind from sin and death.

Know Jesus, know eternal life.  No Jesus, no eternal life.   But beyond that, Christians will stand before Jesus Christ and we will be shown what we did to advance the Kingdom by the power of God and we will rejoice at every good thing that happened because we trusted Christ and obeyed God.  But everything we did in our own power and every selfish act and all the wasted and useless things will disappear.  Those who claim the name of Christ should be certain that nothing we do can justify ourselves but that Jesus Christ is our salvation and justification.  But then as Christians we should also work to do the good that God wants us to do.   We have been given talents and gifts.   Use them to glorify God!   

You who do not believe, understand this:  The greatest thing you can ever do in this life is to choose Christ despite all the propaganda and lures of the flesh and the constant advertisements promoting leisure and luxury and selfishness.   Nothing means more to God than the moment that a sinner realizes that Jesus Christ is indeed the Savior and repents of his sins and humbly comes to Christ seeking salvation.  Just like the prodigal son's return, God does not simply allow us into His Kingdom, He rejoices to see us coming and runs to wrap His arms around us with joy!

Luke 15:4-7

 “What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost until he finds it?  And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing.  And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and neighbors, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!’  I say to you that likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance."    
- Jesus Christ

21 comments:

Jon Woolf said...

As I have testified in this blog, all of these Darwinist pillars have been destroyed - Uniformitarianism, junk DNA, vestigial organs, recapitulation, the geological column, radiometric dating, the age of every single planet in the Solar System, the age of the Sun and Moon, and many, many more.

Darwinists have been challenged by me several times to give a coherent and logical natural source for information because new information is required to cause new organisms or new systems within organisms.

I am genuinely curious, Radar: how do you justify this repeated violation of the Ninth Commandment? Several different commenters have pointed out the flaws in creationists' assaults on modern geology, palaeontology, astronomy, and biology. Several different commenters have repeatedly explained where genetic information comes from, and why your definition of "information" is flawed. Each time, you've handwaved it aside and then repeated the tired old lie (no other word fits) that "'Darwinism' can't explain these things."

Do you genuinely not understand the counter-arguments?
Do you think that ignoring the counter-arguments will make them go away?
Does your subconscious simply edit out any passage, any argument, any evidence that your conscious mind doesn't want to see?
Are you so full of deceit and contempt for your audience that you think they won't notice your dissembling?
Or what?

Anonymous said...

Jon, apparently Radar's moral superiority only exists in his own inflated ego and doesn't extend to his actual behavior.

Anonymous said...

Radar,

"As it happens, population genetics has shown us that mankind has grown from a starting point of about 4,000-4,500 years ago. [...] The chart above goes to zero at about 4,000-4,500 years ago."

Erm, no it doesn't. Not even close. Look at the chart in your blog post above. It stops at 1750. To arrive at a population of 2 (or 8) 4,500 years ago, you'd have to plug in a linear progression, completely changing the nature of the graph. Not exactly scientific, huh?

"Think one couple kept having one couple for 195,500 years? Really?"

No, not really. You're indulging in a strawman argument. If you extended the line to the left (not linearly of course), you would end up with a smaller population that would of course be large enough to be stable and sustainable.

Where did this "195,500 years" come from, by the way?

Thank you for including the link to your population genetics btw: radaractive DOT blogspot DOT com/2009/03/quick-post-on-population-and-human DOT html

The population genetics argument is dismantled pretty effectively in the comments section. It took me a while to understand that you had for some reason inserted your own words in creeper's comments, which makes it a little confusing to read.

Nonetheless, your responses are generally weak and/or unsupported. For example, when it is pointed out that the graph would have to switch to a linear progression, not an exponential one, you merely respond: "He was using estimates of population other sources as I understand it there. I myself am certain the progression is NOT linear."

The fact remains that to get to the result you need (population of 8 around 4,500 BC), you have to abandon the exponential nature of the graph. How can you do that and still maintain that it "scientifically" supports your claim?

I'll go through the rest of them later if I have time.

Anonymous said...

...with all the scientific jargon and math that some commenters claim I do not understand (even though I read these articles and post excerpts from them, eh?)...

Within all the disjointed logic and willful ignorance in this post, this line stands out as my favorite.

lava

radar said...

As usual, I post scientific evidence and commenters just resort to personal attacks and claims of superiority. Reminds me of some words from a recent Taylor Swift song about stupid people who "throw rocks at things that shine" and basically that is what these comments amount to - bupkis. Kind of like the actual evidence for evolution...

radar said...

Also, the entire population post has a sigmoidal curve represented and shows why the UN graphic is just a portion of a normal population curve in which we have had the exponential growth phase and now there will be some leveling off.

The problem with Darwinism is that people do not think it through. If life had been on Earth for just a few hundred thousand years we would have organisms standing on each other's heads! There would be no room for all the living things and there really would be a food shortage. We do not have food shortages now, just corrupt governments and idiotic regulations and some lazy people who expect to get fed for doing nothing. We make all the food mankind needs and if all governments were like the USA before we began acting like socialists there would be no hungry people anywhere.

Anonymous said...

"As usual, I post scientific evidence and commenters just resort to personal attacks and claims of superiority."

This is immediately below a post in which I did not attack you personally nor claim to be superior to you. Instead, I pointed out the massive flaws and lack of scientific rigor in your argument and asked you a factual question.

Sadly, it is you who took the low road with your response by not addressing the logical flaws pointed out in your argument and instead focusing on the personal level.

"Also, the entire population post has a sigmoidal curve represented"

Not all the way to the result that you would so much like to see. To get to that result, you still have to change the graph and append a linear section instead, thus completely (and very unscientifically) changing the nature of the graph.

"and shows why the UN graphic is just a portion of a normal population curve in which we have had the exponential growth phase and now there will be some leveling off."

Note the "leveling off" bit...

"The problem with Darwinism is that people do not think it through. If life had been on Earth for just a few hundred thousand years we would have organisms standing on each other's heads! There would be no room for all the living things and there really would be a food shortage."

Remember the "leveling off" bit? Why is it that your version of "thinking it through" doesn't extend to this "leveling off" in the graph that you keep putting on your blog? Populations level off for various reasons, including availability of food, the effects of other organisms etc. That's why we have room for all the living things and why there isn't a food shortage unless this balance is disturbed - and if it is disturbed, it is rectified in relatively short order until balance is restored. For example, rabbits reproducing like crazy will eventually run into either a shortage of food or an abundance of predators. These then reduce their population until there is balance.

All that aside, however, I'd like to point out yet another strawman argument that you've tried to throw at so-called "Darwinists". Do you really think that Darwinists argue that the population curve trends upwards indefinitely instead of leveling off?

Really, Radar?

Anonymous said...

lava,

"...with all the scientific jargon and math that some commenters claim I do not understand (even though I read these articles and post excerpts from them, eh?)...

Within all the disjointed logic and willful ignorance in this post, this line stands out as my favorite. "

Yes, I noticed that too, and it's pretty funny. After all, cut-n-pasting an article from a creationist website is the same as understanding scientific jargon and math, right? :-)

Come on, Radar, the Hartnett episode alone should have made it clear to you that there is a big difference.

radar said...

The Hartnett episode showed that Schohen lied and refused to admit it because he made a false charge and, when it was disproved, he would not admit his fault. Hartnett's math worked as my engineer and student friends affirmed.

Woolf's rambling rebuttal is fact-free, of course. The two population graph posts I made conclude that you just cannot extrapolate the population of Earth beyond about 4,500 years if you choose to believe population genetics science. Now, if you like fairy tales then go ahead and join Woolf in his dream world.

The UN graphic is a slice of a standard population sigmoidal representation that is typical of populations. A sigmoidal curve is not linear at all. The beginning and ending of such a curve looks much like it could be linear but it is absolutely not. We can look at the UN chart and then at a normal population growth chart and it fits nicely. But then we are using real science now, so that is something Jon is not comfortable with it would seem. He is all broad statements and loaded questions and completely unsupportable claims in the comments thread. Sure hope he is not like that in real life?

Willful ignorance is expecting the world to believe that the Universe, the stars, the planets, the laws, the Solar System, the Earth. information and life itself all spontaneously generated itself, lava.

Jon Woolf said...

Anyone would get the impression you don't actually read the comments to your posts, Radar.

So the Flood happened about 4400 years ago, eh? Well, teeny tiny problem: the history of Ancient Egypt is almost continuous back to about 5,000 years ago, and fragmentary for about another two hundred years beyond that. There is no mention in that history of a great flood. Nor is there any mention or evidence of a worldwide flood in any of the other civilizations whose histories go back that far: Sumeria, Mohenjo-daro, Minoan Crete...

As for evidence for evolution: there's plenty of that to be found. One good place to start looking is a book called Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution by biologist Douglas Futuyma. Another good one is At the Water's Edge: Macroevolution and the Transformation of Life by Carl Zimmer. Also recommended: Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin.

radar said...

Jon, sorry, Egypt is not that old and in fact Cush is listed in the Bible lineage and it is he who was the progenitor of Egypt...after the Flood and the Tower of Babel took place. Egyptians added extra centuries to their histories to make their culture seem older and more powerful. Like PT Barnum said...

Historians much closer to the times of the Egyptian dynasties knew better. Check out Ussher and Manetho, for instance. Manetho wrote Aegyptiaca and other documents cited by ancient historians and mostly gone now, but he did credit Cush with beginning the Egyptian dynasty after Babel. You are simply wrong...again.

Jon Woolf said...

Ancient Egypt is younger than the Flood, and Cush was its founder?

Wow.

Even if one could justify this wholesale trashing of conventional Egyptology, the fact remains that the biblical land of Cush is described as lying in the African interior, far to the south of the Two Lands of Ancient Egypt. Ancient Egypt itself is always called Mizraim in Hebrew, supposedly after Noah's grandson Mizraim.

Someone's simply wrong,Radar, but it isn't me.

Anonymous said...

From what I can tell, scohen didn't lie and even went to the trouble of posting his conversations with Kevin. From reading those conversations, we can see that Kevin didn't say what you said he did, or at least he didn't say it to scohen.

Try as I might, I also couldn't find an instance of scohen lying, but you're pretty fast and loose with that accusation, so I don't think much of it.

Are you sure you want to get in to this again? Last time, you didn't come out looking so hot, what with all the character assassination and all.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"The Hartnett episode showed that Schohen lied and refused to admit it because he made a false charge and, when it was disproved, he would not admit his fault. Hartnett's math worked as my engineer and student friends affirmed."

The fact that you conclude that "Hartnett's math worked as my engineer and student friends affirmed" as the outcome of the discussion shows that you never understood Scohen's argument to begin with. Scohen didn't argue that the math didn't work. Read his comments or, better yet, his discussion with Kevin on the subject.

You're in violation of the Ninth Amendment, Radar.

Put aside your sinful pride for a moment and think about that.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"The two population graph posts I made conclude that you just cannot extrapolate the population of Earth beyond about 4,500 years if you choose to believe population genetics science. Now, if you like fairy tales then go ahead and join Woolf in his dream world."

False. The only way to make the graph point to a population of 8 around 4,500 BC is to switch to a linear graph and abandon the sigmoidal one.

"The UN graphic is a slice of a standard population sigmoidal representation that is typical of populations. A sigmoidal curve is not linear at all. The beginning and ending of such a curve looks much like it could be linear but it is absolutely not."

Exactly. So stop substituting a linear one to fudge the graph to get to your result.

"We can look at the UN chart and then at a normal population growth chart and it fits nicely."

Indeed. Until people like you figure out that that doesn't get you to your desired result and you start changing the graph.

"But then we are using real science now, so that is something Jon is not comfortable with it would seem. He is all broad statements and loaded questions and completely unsupportable claims in the comments thread. Sure hope he is not like that in real life?"

It seems you're projecting again. Jon Woolf has shown time and time again that he can easily go into detail on any subject he has chosen to discuss.

You're the one who consistently makes broad, sweeping generalizations and then shies away from backing them up with facts or detailed arguments.

radar said...

No whatsit, I am not. schohen lied and continually claimed falsely that Hartnett's math did not work and was "garbage" and then we he was proved wrong he retreated to a "you didn't understand." I actually reposted his exact remarks. He lied, he stalked a student of mine who was classy enough to correspond with him for awhile and then he pretended that my student agreed with him that GA is a natural source of information. Not true.
Whereas I was willing to say immediately I was wrong when it was pointed out that Kevin didn't work on GA but was only familiar with them, schohen cannot admit he is wrong even when his very words were reprinted for him. So point your ninth commandment at him.

As to the sigmoidal graph, you just do not understand how to read graphs. The UN graph is a slice of a full sigmoidal graph signature and of course the end portion has a ways to go. We had the exponential jump of population and now there is leveling off beginning to occur. Do not blame me for your failure to comprehend simple graphs.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"No whatsit, I am not. schohen lied and continually claimed falsely that Hartnett's math did not work and was "garbage""

Wrong, Radar. You have access to every single comment that scohen ever made on your blog, as well as to his complete e-mail dialogue with Kevin. (It's there for all to see at kevin DOT scohen DOT org)

Can you point out a single time where scohen claimed that Hartnett's math did not work?

Just one direct quote? None of your hollow, boastful claims, but an actual quote where you think he said this.

If you really think that this is what scohen's claim was (and apparently you do), then it's crystal clear that you didn't understand the whole conversation.

"and then we he was proved wrong he retreated to a "you didn't understand.""

You keep making it clear that you don't understand, even in your comment right here. This isn't a retreat on scohen's part, it's simply calling a spade a spade. You don't understand, and perhaps you never will. It's not for lack of trying by other commenters...

"I actually reposted his exact remarks. He lied,"

No evidence of that so far.

"he stalked a student of mine"

He sent Kevin a single, polite e-mail to which Kevin chose to respond. This is what passes for stalking these days? Seriously?

"who was classy enough to correspond with him for awhile and then he pretended that my student agreed with him that GA is a natural source of information. Not true."

First, you should be accurate about what scohen said. Look up his exact words.

Second, Kevin's exact words were: "You say that genetic algorithms produce information that was not there before. I agree, but so does a brute force algorithm."

It doesn't get much clearer than that.

Genetic algorithms can produce information that wasn't there before and that was not put there by the programmer. Since genetic algorithms model the process of reproduction with variation in nature, this shows that the process of reproduction with variation can produce information that was not put there by an intelligent designer.

"Whereas I was willing to say immediately I was wrong when it was pointed out that Kevin didn't work on GA but was only familiar with them, schohen cannot admit he is wrong even when his very words were reprinted for him. So point your ninth commandment at him."

If he had stated a falsehood, I would. But he has not.

"As to the sigmoidal graph, you just do not understand how to read graphs. The UN graph is a slice of a full sigmoidal graph signature and of course the end portion has a ways to go. We had the exponential jump of population and now there is leveling off beginning to occur. Do not blame me for your failure to comprehend simple graphs."

I understand perfectly well that to reach a population of 8 4,500 years ago, I would have to abandon the sigmoidal graph and go linear straight to 8 or 2 (essentially zero in this context). Tell me, Radar, what kind of population graph starts at 8, proceeds linearly for 4,500 years and only then displays the characteristics of a population graph?

radar said...

Whatsit, I made a post showing what scohen said and I am not going to repeat it. Go fetch!

Duh on the GA. It is formal, not natural.

You do not understand the graph at all so no point trying to correct you. The population is sigmoidal from 4500 years ago until now. You just do not have the ability to comprehend this.

Anonymous said...

"Whatsit, I made a post showing what scohen said and I am not going to repeat it."

Or even bother linking to it for that matter.

If you have the evidence, and it's just a matter of linking to it, why wouldn't you just do that?

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Whatsit, I made a post showing what scohen said and I am not going to repeat it. Go fetch!"

It doesn't have the goods and doesn't back up your claims. Sucks for you, but there you go.

"Duh on the GA. It is formal, not natural."

Any idea what a "model" is? Still no?

"You do not understand the graph at all so no point trying to correct you. The population is sigmoidal from 4500 years ago until now. You just do not have the ability to comprehend this."

So where's the sigmoidal graph that goes all the way back to Noah and his crew? Shouldn't be that hard for YECs to cobble this together, should it?

Doesn't the fact that YECs have completely failed to construct such a graph tell you something? It should.

As usual, all you have is bluster, no facts.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

""If the capricious gods of Greek mythology were in charge, we wouldn’t expect unchanging natural laws. And if the universe were one big Thought, as Eastern religions teach, then it could change its mind at any moment! " - Jonathan Sarfati"

I wonder what this Sarfati makes of the madly inconsistent deity described in the Christian Bible.