Search This Blog

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Logic declares that God and science go together and logic and the Bible proves it!

Thanks to John McVay of Creation Nation X and the linked Classical Conversations article farther down from Jonathan Bartlett, we will be looking at logic and evidence for the belief in a Creator God and therefore His rightful place in the world of science.   Belief in a Creator God was the basis for the Christians and Theists (who invented modern empirical scientific research) to devise the scientific method and thereby went beyond the axiomatic methodology of the Greeks.   The scientific method has no requirement for naturalism, that is an artificial religious requirement for Darwinists.  

I say that the Bible is a reliable book of history of all mankind and, when it speaks to science, it is correct and has been far ahead of mankind in terms of demonstrating a knowledge of the physical world.  This is not surprising if you accept that God is the necessary First Cause of a Universe created ex nihilo.

We lead off with John Morris writing briefly about the legacy of his father, written in 2007 after the death of his father, about whom one obituary in a District of Columbia-area secular paper was described in part thusly:

"...Henry Madison Morris Jr. was born in Dallas on Oct. 6, 1918. As a student at Rice University in Houston in the 1930s, he began to undertake serious study of the Bible, which transformed his life. He taught civil engineering at Rice from 1942 to 1946, but in his spare time, he began to explore the religious and scientific questions surrounding the origins of life.

He began to publish religious tracts as early as 1946, even as he pursued graduate studies at the University of Minnesota. He received a master's degree and a doctorate in hydraulic engineering in 1948 and 1950.

He taught civil engineering at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette and at Southern Illinois University before joining the faculty of Virginia Tech in 1957. He was a respected teacher and department head at Virginia Tech, and his 1963 textbook, "Applied Hydraulics in Engineering," remains a cornerstone of the field.

By then, Dr. Morris was increasingly consumed with his interest in creationism. He had founded a Baptist church in Blacksburg, Va., and "The Genesis Flood" was creating a stir among conservative Christians, even though mainstream scientists viewed it with contempt..."

Yes, mainstream science viewed with contempt the very pillars upon which science was built!  By 1961 the scientific community had completely brainwashed the world of academia and various news and entertainment media.   Haeckels fake embryo chart was in virtually every textbook, along with the fake Horse Evolution Chart and the warped description of a geological column that cannot be found in even 1% of exposed rock layers.   Dinosaurs were depicted with less accuracy that the Acambaro figurines demonstrated, as later fossil finds have proven.   We were all brainwashed and there were no dissenting voices.   

The lack of dissent in science means one of two things:
  1. Years of reproducible tests and 100% agreement with a theory has caused it to be declared a Law.  This is why the Law of Biogenesis is a Law (and why Darwinists might as well believe in Leprechauns and the Easter Bunny as in abiogenesis).
  2. There is a concerted effort to stifle dissent.   This is the kind of anti-science that the ruling paradigm of yesteryear presented mankind, a determination to hold fast to axiomatic and doctrinal icons with no concern or regard for actual evidence. 
I obtained and read "The Genesis Flood" after hearing Dr. Morris speak and I was fascinated with the idea that a world-wide flood had not only happened but was the prime cause of all those sedimentary rock layers.   Henry Morris opened my eyes to Truth and helped me Thanks, Dr. Morris!!!!!!!!!!  The author of more than 60 books, he formed the Institute for Creation Research and now there are hundreds of Creation Science organizations in the Western World, studying the evidence to seek answers to old questions and improvements to our daily lives.

The Legacy of Henry Morris

It's been a year now since my father, ICR's Founder and long time President, Dr. Henry Morris, passed into glory. I thought you might like to know how things are going without him, and how we intend to achieve his long-term goals for ICR. 

Let me first take a moment to "remember" his graduation, and tell a few stories that many of his friends will enjoy. In his later life he mentioned many times how he abhorred the thought of life in a nursing home (we promised we would never put him in one if there was any alternative), and he hoped the Lord would take him before he was a burden to the family. But he really thought the Lord would come for us all before he died. An avid student of prophecy (see his Revelation Record and Creation and the Second Coming), he lived in the expectation of our Lord's imminent return. As he recognized his end was nearing, he expectantly reasoned that the Rapture of the saints was at hand. Perhaps his favorite Scripture verse by which he lived was "Redeeming the time, because the days are evil" (Ephesians 5:16). For him there was so much to do in the brief time remaining. He even wrote a little book from his deathbed, entitled Some Call It Science, giving a summary of evolution thinking and creation evidences.

ICR will continue to make his books and videos available, although the scientific sections may be revised as discoveries are made. Most of his writings were worldview based and will need little updating. His insightful articles in Days of Praise will be used again, also. He wrote more than ten years worth, so you won't see any one of them too often. To make certain his contributions are extended, we have launched the special Henry M. Morris Center for Christian Leadership in Dallas under the direction of my older brother, with a firm mandate that dad's thinking will be the core of all products and teaching. As best as we can promise, we will not deviate.

Scientifically, he laid the foundation for the new wave of technical research which dominates much of ICR today. His main strength was creation theory and worldview application. Biblically, he set the course for ICR's way of doing science, in submission to God's inerrant Word. ICR today enjoys an excitement with possible breakthroughs in science just ahead. Details regarding the Flood are beginning to unfold, and the new field of genomics bears great promise. In many ways, ICR is stronger than ever. All faculty and staff fully embrace the Founder's vision regarding the necessity of following the Dominion Mandate of Genesis 1:28 and 9:1-7, as well as the Evangelical Mandate of Matthew 28:19-20. The first establishes science, technology, and every honorable profession, and the second stresses Biblical teaching and the guarding of the truth. Following in his footsteps will be difficult and a lifelong effort, but those of us coming along behind pledge to continue his legacy.

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

I was a new Christian who did not even doubt the idea that evolution was an established fact when I heard Henry Morris speak.   He was witty, charming and he was also a wonderful speaker.   He was able to take his very advanced knowledge in the field of hydrology and engineering to teach lay people to understand the science behind the concept of Flood Geology.    Once I got the idea, all those years of climbing around the fossil rock layers suddenly brought me to an epiphany.   Of course!!!   This is why so many anomalies in the rocks were puzzling to me, I had the wrong idea about the fossil rocks and the fossils.   Understanding that there was a Flood opened my eyes.

Dr. Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research has compiled an impressive list of allusions to scientific principles in Scripture. This list actually demonstrates that a matrix of scientific principles underlies the body of Scripture. These principles were not known to the leading minds of the day in which they were written; in fact, many of them contradicted what was being taught at the time. Such a list confirms that the Scriptures are scientifically credible. It further confirms that the Scriptures were supernaturally inspired.
(Compiled by Dr. Henry M. Morris, Defender’s Bible)

Science Phenomenon or Process Scripture

HYDROLOGY:
Hydrologic Cycle- Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10
Evaporation-------Psalms 135:7; Jeremiah 10:13
Condensation Nuclei---Proverbs 8:26
Condensation--------Job 26:8; 37:11, 16
Precipitation---------Job 36:26-28
Run-off---------------Job 28:10
Oceanic Reservoir--Psalms 33:7
Snow-----------------Job 38:22; Psalms 147:16
Hydrologic Balance-Job 28:24-26
Springs in the Sea--Job 38:16

GEOLOGY:
Principle of Isostasy--Isaiah 40:12; Psalm 104:5-9
Shape of Earth--------Isaiah 40:22; Job 26:10; Psalm 103:12
Rotation of Earth ----Job 38:12,14
Gravitation------------Job 26:7; 38:6
Rock Erosion----------Job 14:18,19
Glacial Period---------Job 38:29,30
Uniformitarianism----II Peter 3:4
Dinosaurs-------------Job 40,41

ASTRONOMY:
Size of Universe-----Job 11:7-9; 22:12; Isa 55:9;Jer.31:37
Number of Stars-----Genesis 22:17; Jeremiah 33:22
Uniqueness of Each Star--I Corinthians 15:41
Precision of Orbits --------Jeremiah 31:35,36

METEOROLOGY:
Circulation of Atmosphere---------Ecclesiastes 1:6
Protective Effect of Atmosphere--Isaiah 40:22
Oceanic Origin of Rain-------------Ecclesiastes 1:7
Relation of Electricity to Rain-----Job 28:26; Jeremiah 10:13
Fluid Dynamics ---------------------Job 28:25

BIOLOGY:
Blood Circulation------------Leviticus 17:11
Psychotherapy--------------Proverbs 16:24; 17:22
Biogenesis and Stability---Genesis 1:11,21,25
Uniqueness of Man---------Genesis 1:26
Chemical Nature of Flesh--Genesis 1:11,24-2:7;3:19
Cave-men--------------------Job 12:23-25; 30:3-8

PHYSICS:
Mass-Energy Equivalence--------Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3
Source of Energy for Earth------Psalms 19:6
Atomic Disintegration------------II Peter 3:10
Electrical Transmission of Information--Job 38:35
Television--------------------------Revelation 11:9-11
Rapid Transportation------------Daniel 12:4
Posted by Jonathan Bartlett on Tuesday, 22 May 2012 in News and Updates

During the past few days, I have had several conversations with people regarding whether or not God has a place in science. To my dismay, many strong, Christian believers with a scientific bent are appalled at the idea of bringing God into science. They believe that if you include God in science, it will stop science from moving forward. Though this may sound far-fetched, this view is not entirely unwarranted. Unfortunately, many people do, in fact, use God to put a stop to science. My goal today, then, is to show how knowledge of God can be both used and abused within science.

One of the areas in which I do research is Intelligent Design, which includes the examination of signs of design within biology. While the technical limits of Intelligent Design theory do not demand that the designer be God, the idea of the intelligent design of life and God as the creator are philosophically connected. The first part of the process of showing that something signifies design is to show that it could not have arisen by purely natural means.

It is precisely at this point that many scientists object. As soon as they hear that, I get a litany of complaints:

“You can`t assign God to solve a gap in knowledge.”

“If we propose God every time we can’t figure something out, science will simply stop.”

“If we don’t let people pursue their scientific goals because we think God did something, we’ll be living in a theocracy.”

“Don’t you remember what happened to Galileo? Are you starting another inquisition?”

Now, all of these objections, if they were used at a legitimate target, would be true. No, we cannot just throw God in as an explanation every time we cannot figure something out. No, we should not prevent scientists from pursuing the ideas they believe to be true (though paying for them is a different question). Finally, inquisitions are bad and we should not have them.

I am sure there are misguided people in the world for whom these would be valid objections. The problem is that these complaints have become a knee-jerk reaction rather than a well-thought-out critique. So, before getting to my main point, let me first explain why Intelligent Design does not fall to these objections.

First of all, establishing that something could not have arisen by natural means is not the same thing as saying that we do not know how it came about. There must be positive evidence shown that something did not arise by natural means. It is always possible that such evidence turns out to be wrong—as with everything else in science, further evidence might overturn previous ideas. This is not unique to exclude design ideas. If it is possible that future evidence might cause us to think something is not designed that we used to think was designed, the reverse is also true. What this tells us is not that we should not use design in science, but rather any attempt to baptize science as equivalent with God’s truth is misguided. Science changes every day, and, whether our science is theistic or not, our understandings of the present, past, and future will be continually changing and even overturning.

So, it is not just that we do not know how something arose naturally, it is that we have evidence that it could not have. Second, we also must establish positive evidence that the cause was a designing cause. In other words, not only must it not have arisen naturally, it should have a logical pattern to it. For instance, if you come across a series of stones laid out to form the letters of a word, you would have evidence of design. First of all, it is highly unlikely for there to have been a physical cause to establish the shapes of letters. Secondly, a word is a logical pattern. So, the configuration is not physical but it is logical. Therefore, you are warranted in inferring design.

Now, examining signs of design in life is certainly a worthy goal in and of itself. However, there is an objection to it which is worth hearing. That is, let us say that the inference of design is correct in some particular case. Of what benefit is that to knowledge as a whole?

Think of it this way. When you learn math, you later apply it to balancing your checkbook. When you learn to balance your checkbook, you can apply that skill to running a business. Running a business might help you learn to run a school. Then, you might use your knowledge of running a school to help someone else learn math. So you see, any one piece of knowledge does not exist by itself, but is part of a larger web of knowledge. Any one piece of knowledge will lead you to so many others.

So, going back to the question of design—where can that take you, or is it just a point of termination? If the search for knowledge ends with the knowledge that something is designed, then in what way is it knowledge? Useful knowledge should fully participate in the web of knowledge and not exist merely as an item of trivia. So how can such ideas usefully contribute to the web of knowledge?

According to Proverbs 9:10, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom...” (NIV 1984) I want to highlight the word beginning. In other words, if we find evidence for God and then we stop, we have stopped at the beginning rather than at the end.

So, when we find that something is the result of God’s design, it is inappropriate to use that fact as a stopping point. Instead, it should be used as a starting point for further investigation. However, since we live in a culture based on materialism, we often get stuck here. How do you investigate God’s works? We know how to investigate nature, but we are pretty stumped when it comes to God. We are used to treating knowledge of God as so subjective that it is beyond investigation—and it is precisely the idea that the knowledge of God is considered subjective rather than objective which has caused Christianity to no longer be taken seriously in the public square.

As Christians, we must learn again to treat knowledge of God as real, objective, knowable truth. But in doing so, we must learn to ask different questions. It is true that when design is inferred, the old questions we were asking may not make sense anymore. But it should open up a new set of questions. For instance, instead of asking, “What was the sequence of physical events that led to the development of this structure?” you can ask, “What are the logical relationships which make this structure work? How do its purpose and its functionality interact? How does it fit functionally within the larger plan of the organism? How does it fit aesthetically within the larger plan of the organism? How does the structure interact morally with the plan of creation?”

We are not used to dealing with aesthetics, morality, or even logical plans as objective reality, but merely as byproducts of other “natural” causes. What we must do, instead, is to truly treat the fear of the Lord as the beginning of wisdom, and ask a whole new set of questions which the secular world no longer has the vocabulary or the imagination to even ask, much less answer.

Then, as the rest of the verse says, “…knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.”


 
Jonathan Bartlett is the director of The Blyth Institute, a nonprofit organization dedicated to research and education in biology. Jonathan started in computer science, both programming and writing about computer science topics. His first book, Programming from the Ground Up, has been used at schools ranging as far as Princeton and DeVry. He also wrote a number of papers for IBM’s DeveloperWorks on technical computer science issues.

Jonathan’s interest in biology came from his family’s battle with genetic illnesses. While studying about genetic illnesses, Jonathan realized the tremendous overlap between computer science and biology, and how much the design patterns that are regularly used in computer science can contribute to understanding how the genome works. Towards this end, Jonathan started The Blyth Institute, and has published several papers on showing how design thinking can relate to the genome.

Jonathan also has a chapter in the recently released book Sacred Cows in Science, covering various alternative ideas within science. His chapter is on genetic mutations, and whether they are accidental, programmed, or both.

Jonathan and his wife Christa have been homeschooling their children for several years, and love being a part of the Classical Conversations community. Christa teaches in the Classical Conversations Challenge program.

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

Applause to both gentlemen for presenting actual evidence that a true scientist should appreciate...unless they are religious zealots for naturalism and allow their religion to ruin their science.  Sadly, that applies to a large number of men and women in science today.    Funny thing is that there are also large numbers of scientists who give lip service to Darwinism in order to have a job but in fact do not use it in their work and find it to be irrelevant to operational science.

ICR Addendum:   

Who We Are


After more than four decades of ministry, the Institute for Creation Research remains a leader in scientific research within the context of biblical creation. Founded by Dr. Henry Morris in 1970, ICR exists to conduct scientific research within the realms of origins and earth history, and then to educate the public both formally and informally through graduate and professional training programs, through conferences and seminars around the country, and through books, magazines, and media presentations.

ICR was established for three main purposes:

Research. As a research organization, ICR conducts laboratory, field, theoretical, and library research on projects that seek to understand the science of origins and earth history. ICR scientists have conducted multi-year research projects at key locations such as Grand Canyon, Mount St. Helens, Yosemite Valley, Santa Cruz River Valley in Argentina, and on vital issues like Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE), Flood-activated Sedimentation and Tectonics (FAST), and other topics related to geology, genetics, astro/geophysics, paleoclimatology, and much more.

Education. As an educational institution, ICR offers formal courses of instruction, conducts seminars and workshops, and presents radio and television lectures, as well as other means of instruction. With 30 years experience in graduate education, first through our California-based science education program (1981-2010), and now through the M.C.Ed. degree program at the School of Biblical Apologetics, ICR trains men and women to do real-world apologetics with a foundation of biblical authority and creation science. ICR also offers a one-year, non-degree training program for professionals called the Creationist Worldview. Additionally, ICR scientists and staff speak to over 200 groups each year through seminars and conferences. And many of the faculty are contributing authors to ICR’s new Science Education Essentials curriculum products for Christian K-12 teachers.

Communication. ICR produces and/or publishes books, films, periodicals, and other media for communicating the evidence and information related to its research and education to its constituents and to the public in general. ICR’s central publication is Acts & Facts, a full-color monthly magazine with a readership of over 200,000, providing articles relevant to science, apologetics, education, and worldview issues. ICR also publishes the daily devotional Days of Praise with over 300,000 readers worldwide. Additionally, the scientists and staff at ICR publish various books and videos on medicine, history, apologetics, theology, and science. The three radio programs produced by ICR can be heard on some 1,500 outlets around the world.

Today, situated on its new Dallas campus, the Institute for Creation Research continues to expand its work and influence in each of these three areas of ministry, endeavoring to impact the lives and ministries of pastors, teachers, students, and families with the wonders of God’s creation.
 
 

13 comments:

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"I say that the Bible is a reliable book of history of all mankind and, when it speaks to science, it is correct and has been far ahead of mankind in terms of demonstrating a knowledge of the physical world."

Well sure... until the part of it you want to see as a science text was falsified by observable evidence.

Takes a long time to get over that, obviously.

Anonymous whatsit said...

Bejaysus what a load of nonsense.

I was curious about the Bible quotes up there that supposedly show this or that phenomenon - and the ones I checked are complete nonsense:

"Relation of Electricity to Rain-----Job 28:26; Jeremiah 10:13"

Here's what those two say:

"when he made a decree for the rain and a way for the lightning of the thunder,"

"When he utters his voice, there is a tumult of waters in the heavens, and he makes the mist rise from the ends of the earth. He makes lightning for the rain, and he brings forth the wind from his storehouses."

It's nothing more than a basic observation that rain, lightning and thunder are somehow related, which any bronze-age tribe could easily observe. No sign here of any knowledge more advanced than what anyone could plainly see for themselves.

A more honest summary would be "relation of lightning to rain". Well, duh.

Okay, I'll try another one:

"Blood Circulation------------Leviticus 17:11"

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life."

No mention of blood circulation here.

Wow, these people really like to stretch things, don't they? Like this one, Isaiah 40:22:

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in."

What scientific principle do you think is being described here? It's like a strange riddle, isn't it?

Yep: "Protective Effect of the Atmosphere". #facepalm

Anonymous whatsit said...

"So, when we find that something is the result of God’s design, it is inappropriate to use that fact as a stopping point. Instead, it should be used as a starting point for further investigation."

Such as...?

"However, since we live in a culture based on materialism, we often get stuck here."

See, this is where they sneak in the lie. There is no shortage of religion and religiosity in our culture. The actual obstacle here for scientific investigation is that science is subject to methodological naturalism, which is a completely different thing from the philosophical materialism that's implied in the above statement.

And once you say "God did it", you've reached the limits of science, and you can't investigate any further. Which is why the vast majority of scientists avoid that track, and the few that do promptly stop generating useful research. Because it's a dead end.

"How do you investigate God’s works? We know how to investigate nature, but we are pretty stumped when it comes to God."

Yep, that's way outside of the purview of science.

"We are used to treating knowledge of God as so subjective that it is beyond investigation—"

Because it is beyond scientific investigation. Seriously, how could you "investigate" it?

"and it is precisely the idea that the knowledge of God is considered subjective rather than objective which has caused Christianity to no longer be taken seriously in the public square."

No, it's because of people like Radar who insist that the Bible is a science textbook despite tons of scientific evidence to the contrary that has damaged the credibility of Christians in the public square.

"As Christians, we must learn again to treat knowledge of God as real, objective, knowable truth. But in doing so, we must learn to ask different questions. It is true that when design is inferred, the old questions we were asking may not make sense anymore. But it should open up a new set of questions."

Nice thought in theory. But in practice...

"For instance, instead of asking, “What was the sequence of physical events that led to the development of this structure?” you can ask, “What are the logical relationships which make this structure work? How do its purpose and its functionality interact? How does it fit functionally within the larger plan of the organism? How does it fit aesthetically within the larger plan of the organism? How does the structure interact morally with the plan of creation?”"

Well, most of those questions also apply if you look at it from the mainstream science position. Not the last two, obviously, but could you give us any example of how this has ever been shown to be a useful field of study?

Any example will do. There must be one.

radar said...

"Well sure... until the part of it you want to see as a science text was falsified by observable evidence."

Hmmm, that hasn't happened yet.

Naturally you Darwinists who do not know that the English Bible is a translation will take a simplistic view of the passages cited. God knew the Earth was round, knew planets appear to be hung on nothing, knew that the Universe was expanding and had expanded, lots of other things that simple "Bronze Age" people could not know.

Well, except for the round Earth thing. Once people began sailing distances away from home and saw the ships disappearing down yet later coming home, they knew that the Earth was round. One of the big lies of Darwinism is that, for instance, Columbus sailed in part to prove the Earth was not flat! What a crock!

BTW, the life is in the blood. How do we use blood tests to determine paternity? Go ahead, research that...Oh, yes, I forgot, Darwinists do not like to think on life because Biogenesis proved that life does not come from non-life, thus destroying their naturalist religious point of view. Also, naturalists have no way for the Universe to appear or for planets and stars to form and etc and etc.

Anyway, Bartlett lays out a very sound argument you have not dared to touch. Going to try?

radar said...

It is hypocrisy to claim that "methodological naturalism" is not religion. Obviously the men who invented the scientific method did NOT hold to naturalism in any way. This is a lie that naturalists use to keep the conversation focused on only naturalist solutions. But that always leaves you with big problems and I will go into detail in the next post.

When we view the world of engineering, intention always enters in. We can see that organisms are in fact marvelously engineered. It is so misguided to think that the incredible precision of the e. coli motility motor is an accident of nature or that the astounding process by which the Monarch butterfly becomes an egg, then a caterpillar, then a chrysalis, then a butterfly perhaps three times before the last butterfly in the series flies to Mexico, overwinters then moves up the coast to lay eggs that become a caterpillar and the cycle repeats. There is no way this could have evolved. The butterfly does not produce another butterfly. The caterpillar does not produce another caterpillar. How do you explain 2-3-4 short-lived butterflies and then suddenly one that will fly thousands of miles to a place they have never been and live long enough to overwinter, fly north and lay eggs? Go ahead and try.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Hmmm, that hasn't happened yet. "

The combination of all available dating methods have laid the notion of a young Earth to rest some time ago. Get used to it.

When you have to get excited because a dating method indicates an age of an object of at least tens of thousands of years (which you should realize FALSIFIES YEC) and all the YECs in the world can't account for the data yielded by the dating methods within their worldview... that's when you should realize that something just isn't adding up for a young Earth.

It happened. It's old news. Get over it. You can keep your God. Nobody's taking that away from you.

Anonymous whatsit said...

Man, Radar, you're just running in circles, willfully misunderstanding the same old stuff over and over again. Blaming "Darwinism" for everything under the sun, now apparently "lies" about Columbus.

"It is hypocrisy to claim that "methodological naturalism" is not religion."

Again, you're confusing methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. If you plug philosophical naturalism into this sentence instead of methodological naturalism, you're approaching something resembling a defensible claim.

Instead, what you have is complete nonsense. No, of course it's not hypocrisy to claim that methodological naturalism is not religion. It's a fact. Methodological naturalism is a working basis for science, and one that has stood mankind in good stead for some time now. It has nothing to do with religion.

It's a pity it happens to contradict some of your more outlandish beliefs, but that doesn't make it a religion.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"It is so misguided to think that the incredible precision of the e. coli motility motor is an accident of nature or that the astounding process by which the Monarch butterfly becomes an egg, then a caterpillar, then a chrysalis, then a butterfly perhaps three times before the last butterfly in the series flies to Mexico, overwinters then moves up the coast to lay eggs that become a caterpillar and the cycle repeats. There is no way this could have evolved."

Please explain on what basis you determine the limits of what can or can not evolve. What you have sounds a heck of a lot like an argument from incredulity (a logical fallacy). And if you can't explain any way by which such limits can be determined, then that's exactly what you've got.

Which, in case you don't get it, means you've got nothing.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"How do you explain 2-3-4 short-lived butterflies and then suddenly one that will fly thousands of miles to a place they have never been and live long enough to overwinter, fly north and lay eggs? Go ahead and try."

Because there was a survival advantage that was selected for? Does that somehow not apply here, or what's your point?

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"It is hypocrisy to claim that "methodological naturalism" is not religion. Obviously the men who invented the scientific method did NOT hold to naturalism in any way."

What BS indeed. Obviously the men who invented the scientific method DID hold to methodological naturalism in a major way, because, get this, Radar, methodological naturalism and the scientific method are almost the same thing. You can't have one without the other. It can't be done.

You really don't seem to understand the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism AT ALL. They are not the same thing, not at all. And most of the time when you just say "naturalism" without any qualifier, you're obfuscating on the subject.

If you'd like me to explain it to you again, I'd be happy to, but I suspect your pride and your willful ignorance are your downfall here.

Jon Woolf said...

"I say that the Bible is a reliable book of history of all mankind and, when it speaks to science, it is correct and has been far ahead of mankind in terms of demonstrating a knowledge of the physical world."

Q: If you call the tail a leg, how many legs does a donkey have?

A: Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.

(Attributed to Abraham Lincoln)

Anon whatsit: "When you have to get excited because a dating method indicates an age of an object of at least tens of thousands of years"

You don't even need to give that claim this much credit, you know. It took me a couple of looks from other angles to see it, but the "radiocarbon dated rocks" claim is complete nonsense for a very simple reason: it violates the basic requirements of radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon dating only works on the unaltered remains of once-living organisms that got all their carbon from atmospheric sources. Rocks don't qualify.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"It took me a couple of looks from other angles to see it, but the "radiocarbon dated rocks" claim is complete nonsense for a very simple reason: it violates the basic requirements of radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon dating only works on the unaltered remains of once-living organisms that got all their carbon from atmospheric sources. Rocks don't qualify."

Good point Jon. Was that the case with the claims Radar was making?

Jon Woolf said...

Well, he chatters incessantly about carbon-dating diamonds, coal, sedimentary rocks, and other such things. Carbon-dating doesn't work on inorganic materials.