Search This Blog

Sunday, June 24, 2012

Darwinism and Secular Humanism. The HMS Censorship is steaming full speed ahead.

Censorship of Christians has already begun. Yes, here in the USA! 



On this blog I let commenters say whatever they like as long as their language is appropriate for all ages.   No profanity and you can express your opinion whether you agree or disagree with me.   So it was interesting to find myself being (apparently) censored this week on a page that supposedly is intended to bring about dialogue.   I honestly tried to log back in and reply to the person who replied to me when I pointed out glaring errors in the article that was supposed to start a debate.   So yesterday and again this morning and then this afternoon I tried to be allowed to post my reply without success.   Glitch?  Maybe.  But it feels like censorship.   

I have been posting as radarbinder for years and yet now I am blocked?  I cannot even get them to admit I exist now.   I gave them the nickname I use (and had just used for my first comment) AND email address and they were both rejected.   I copied their message to me below:


Sorry, radarbinder is not recognized as a user name or an e-mail address.

User account | The Nation

Request a New Password


I will give you the story and you can draw your conclusions.   

Thought Police at work

Karl Priest alerted me to an article written on The Nation in a section entitled "Subject To Debate."   I will present the article, which I considered a good example of contemptuous ignorance.  The writer probably knows little or nothing about the science involved.   But I will give you the entire article, my reply to the article, a reply to my reply and then the counter to the argument which I tried to post.   As always, the article is fully attributed and linked so you can go there and read it fully for yourself. 

I will simply relate what has happened, another source of information (me) censored by Darwinists and evidently out of fear?

I posted a comment after reading this slanted hit-piece of an article with my Disqus login.   Then some guy commented on my comment, dismissing what I had said with an argument that did not address the issue and in fact was woefully ineffective and irrelevant blather rather than a retort.   So I put in an answer to his lame response and...I was not allowed to answer.   The site rejected my login.  I tried several times to login in order to respond but I was denied every time.   I waited a few hours and tried again.   Nope!   Then I tried earlier today.   No.   Finally I tried just before writing this blog post.  Still locked out.   I conclude that the people running the site are censoring me.   Never happened to me before in many years of blogging and commenting and writing.  So I will not only post the article, my first comment, the so-called retort and then what I tried to post as an answer, I will take the liberty of inserting remarks between the paragraphs since the site has decided to keep me from answering in their venue. 



The article, with comments by me now in between the paragraphs and then the actual comment I made, the empty retort and finally the answer that I was blocked from posting.   You can clearly see from the color of the typeface which portions are my comments and which are from the author and site, which are fully attributed.   As usual, I do tend to use blue to highlight quoted sections as is my style on this blog.

First, the article.   My comments being made now on my blog are interspersed within the article.   The one comment I was allowed to make and the follow-up that was blocked are below the article in this color.

"What's the Matter With Creationism?

40 comments:

Anonymous said...

Whining about censorship from a blogger who has engaged in censorship himself - ah, the irony.

radar said...

The only good part of being censored is going back and seeing the remarks that continued after I was cast out. I came to the conclusion that a guy who signs himself as DR. something something must not be a doctor (hope not, anyway) but perhaps something less technical. Dumpster Repair? Disaster Recovery? Something that would explain his lack of understanding of biology.

Commenter Hurd calls me a liar continually and I am not allowed to respond in the site. But allow me to point you to that comments thread and see how increasingly inane the comments become. Perhaps he is frustrated that I do not answer him, but I can't because the site has blocked me.

Perhaps a lesson is learned. The commenters who are least informed are most likely to drag you into a dumb conversation. So if you see that beginning, just let them talk on alone.

radar said...

What? Me engaged in censorship? Are you from Mars? I let all you goofballs post (if you just use G-rated language).

Anonymous whatsit said...

"What? Me engaged in censorship? Are you from Mars?"

Surely you haven't forgotten? You deleted a bunch of comments that happened to disagree with you from your blog a while back and even admitted doing so.

So yes: you, Radar, did engage in censorship. It's a fact.

As for that website, it's not clear to me that they did ban you. Have you tried contacting them about this? The fact that you continue to receive comment notifications from them leads me to suspect that there's some other glitch at play here. Keep in mind that your own blog routinely swallows comments, sometimes for length, sometimes because they have links in them. Have you tried chopping up your comment into smaller ones

"I would just love to have the infamous Kenneth Miller give us evidence to support the concept that "...99.9 percent of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct.” But don't hold your breath, evidence is not a strong suit for Darwinists."

Um... the fossil record?

And stuff like this is just priceless:

"As to a 43,000 year old flute? YEC teaches that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, therefore YEC proponents will not date a flute or a bone as being older than the Earth itself! Who is having trouble thinking here?"

Who's having trouble thinking here indeed...

Anonymous said...

Wow Radar, now you're really behaving like a six-year-old. Did you cry by any chance when you noticed you couldn't post anymore?

Good grief man pull yourself together! It's just an internet forum!

radar said...

Those who claim I censor are liars. Heck, I even let you call me the liar. But go ahead and make yourselves look bad. Every Radaractive post still accepts comments. Heck, I have guys going back years and commenting on something from like 2006! All posts on Radaractive allow comments, although there is a spam filter and bad language will get the entire comment removed.

What are these guys talking about, you may ask, if I let people comment on all the posts?

They are referring to one link that I have posted at the top of the links list as a great illustration of the inability of Darwinists to account for information and therefore made it a monument to their futility. I can point people to that link whenever they ask about information. It is not part of this blog.

!_Ultimate Information Post. http://sportsradar.blogspot.com/

It has links to all the Radaractive subposts, where commenters can still comment as they like. It is no longer a part of this blog. But all the posts inside that article are open for comments so they can say whatever they wish on any of them within the rules. So nobody is being censored. They just hate the fact that I put the memorial to their failures up as a link and only allow them to comment on the Radaractive portion of the link rather than the whole thing. You can see from the URL that it is not on this blog. It is not meant to be a blog.

That forces them to address individual portions of the argument. They cannot address any of them, actually, which is why it will remain at the top of my links list. I welcome all to read it and, if so moved, comment on any of the Radaractive posts linked or copied within it as you will.

As for whether I am crying about The Nation, seriously? I think the fact that they banned me is hilarious! They cannot stand up to arguments so they cut me off? To me, that makes them childish.

I have never banned a commenter. No one gets censored on this blog other than for spam or language. That is a fact.

radar said...

So let me be clear. The link at the top of my links list is full of my blog posts, each of which contain comments and can receive further comments. Anyone who wishes to comment on any of those posts may do so. I simply moved what I considered a summation over to that link.

Go ahead and comment on any of those posts if you like. Do not accuse me of censorship because you can go now and comment on any one of them.

You simply hate the fact that I have made your inability to address the issues over the years into an article that will stand atop my links list.

You should be glad you can come here and not be moderated other than by Google spam filters and for language. Most worldview blogs use moderation. I would resort to that if language became an issue. But though you commenters are often annoying and untruthful, you have remained generally civil so I have not resorted to moderation.

Anonymous whatsit said...

Hm, that's funny. I just posted a comment here a little while ago and now it's not here any more. Should I scream censorship, as Radar did in the article above?

Anonymous whatsit said...

I'm going to guess that my article was deemed too long by blogger and repost it in smaller chunks.

Anonymous whatsit said...

Despite Radar's evasions, he very clearly committed censorship. His current defense ("I'm not censoring anyone right now, am I?") would be quite entertaining in a criminal case: "You say I killed someone? How is that possible when I'm not killing anyone right now?" Here is my previous post again, in smaller chunks.

Why so deceitful, Radar?

The accusation was clear and completely accurate: "You deleted a bunch of comments that happened to disagree with you from your blog a while back and even admitted doing so."

You have engaged in censorship. That is a fact.

Any reader on this blog can easily check out for themselves the discussion that ensued after your censorship, for example at this blog post (and perhaps the ones before and after it): radaractive DOT blogspot DOT com/2011/01/promise-worldviews-again-with-gusto.html

(cont'd in next post)

Anonymous whatsit said...

(cont'd from previous post)

The facts (some of which you chose to omit in your characterization above): the post you now have at sportsradar was a post on this blog here, with a number of dissenting comments that you couldn't address. Instead of addressing them, you deleted the entire post, along with the comments you didn't like, then posted the post (now minus the comments, hence censoring them) and locked the post off to comments.

Oh yeah, and the reasoning you gave for this?

"After all these years making posts I decided that one, just one, would leave me with the last word. That is what I did." -- Radar, January 2011

Censorship is indeed a time-honored method of getting the last word, if that's what you're after.

Anonymous said...

"I think the fact that they banned me is hilarious!"

Is it common to still receive comment notifications after being banned? After the system supposedly doesn't recognize you? You might want to check into what actually happened. It's possible you're mistaken.

And as for censorship, William Debski's Uncommon Descent was one of the worst blogs for that kind of behavior. The slightest ideological impurity (no matter how politely phrased) and you were banned from that place.

Anonymous said...

"Those who claim I censor are liars."

Nice try. How about those who claim that you have censored? They're not liars, are they?

You appear to have a very loose interpretation of the Ninth Commandment, you supposed Christian you. What would Jesus do?

radar said...

One more time for those who cannot understand the English language -

No one has made a comment about information I could not answer. Go ahead and try if you think you can do it.

No one is censored on this blog.

The Ultimate Post is a standalone link with a different URL that I posted as a monument to the continued inability of Darwinists to address the information issue and it will remain at the top of the links list as-is. It contains numerous blog links to this blog and you can comment on any of those posts. I find it humorous that you all hate this so passionately. Imagine if the world was dominated by creationists and you Darwinists had to form your own organizations and find that funding and recognition is denied you because you do not go along with the ruling paradigm? Like it?

radar said...

What would Jesus do? He would tell you to repent of your sins and receive the gift of salvation so you do not send yourselves to Hell. He would rightly say that He paid the price of your sinful acts for you and freely gives you the choice to choose God over the fallible opinions of man. He would offer to share the wonders of knowing Truth and understanding things beyond the human mind once you passed from this world and entered into the eternal realm with Him.

Jesus would accept you and you would discover that you can have a living relationship with Him. You would then, if you really wanted to be close to Him, begin to live out the Christian life by reaching out to others in the ways you are gifted.

Jesus grants me a great deal of patience with commenters even though I know there is a lot of insincerity amongst the crowd. Most of you have no intention of actually debating the issues or considering for one second whether Darwinism should be investigated and vetted for actual evidence. But if 99 of you are insincere and one comes along who really is interested in what is true, then the trouble is worth it.

Anonymous whatsit said...

Would Jesus lie and evade?

Never.

"No one is censored on this blog."

Again with the evasions. Your deception has been pointed out over and over in previous comments, and here you come again.

Yes, no one is being censored on this blog right now. Nobody is arguing that point.

But you did censor your commenters, a year and a half ago. There's no denying it. It happened. You made that choice.

You are now guilty of censorship. And you always will be.

That's the part you can't change.

What you can do right now is choose how to deal with that fact. So let's see this superior Christian morality at work.

Do the right thing.

Don't pretend that Christianity is about hiding behind half-truths and evasions.

Your pride has always been your biggest sin. Strive to overcome it.

radar said...

Also, I doubt that Dembski's blog is as bad at banning people as is PZ Myers. Apparently Myers will stifle dissent pretty quickly over at his blog.

But then censorship is a Darwinist commonality. It is the way they survive. So I guess evolution does work in one way. Darwinists just ban everyone who disagrees with them. So they tend to act like serial killers when it comes to information. They kill off the source of dissent, they fire the people who work in the fields of science and academics who disagree if they can and shun those they cannot fire. When they have a Michael Behe that they cannot get fired, they gang up to make fun of him and tell lies about him. But Behe just keeps researching and publishing anyway.

The ICR and AIG and Creation International and similar organizations continue to grow because there is too much evidence against Darwinism for it to make sense to the critical mind open to ideas. This is why more people believe in the creation by God scenario now than in 1982. New scientific evidence keeps coming down on the side of creation.

The field of Intelligent Design is dedicated to study the actual science of design without being concerned about the whodunit aspect. ID has done a lot for science by removing naturalism from the process and opening up science to be free to find the best possible answer without religious constraints. So hurrah for ID even if they do not necessarily believe in God. They at least believe in research free of dogmatic naturalists, who so often are atheopaths.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"No one has made a comment about information I could not answer. Go ahead and try if you think you can do it."

There are many you've ignored and sidestepped. We'll just go with those ones then.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Also, I doubt that Dembski's blog is as bad at banning people as is PZ Myers. Apparently Myers will stifle dissent pretty quickly over at his blog."

I've been banned at Dembski's blog several times after a single critical comment. I haven't been to Pharyngula for a while, but I do recall creationists having protracted existences in the comments sections there. I think he's banned a few that were completely dominating comment threads, but AFAIK it's not like he bans any and all dissenters.

Unlike Dembski.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"The ICR and AIG and Creation International and similar organizations continue to grow because there is too much evidence against Darwinism for it to make sense to the critical mind open to ideas."

Seeing as evolution has yet to be falsified and YECs can't "calibrate" C-14 data to suit their purposes and can't dig up the remains modern animals in the bottom-most layers of the fossil records, I think it's fair to say the "evidence" argument pro creation is a dog that don't hunt.

Thanks for playing.

Anonymous whatsit said...

All these nonsensical attempts to besmirch the other side with censorship aside... do you even know what secular humanism is? It seems a bit weird to try to drag it into this conversation.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"But then censorship is a Darwinist commonality. It is the way they survive."

No censorship is required to prevent a YEC from presenting evidence for YEC.

On the contrary - you ask them for evidence and wait... and nothing happens. There is nothing there to censor.

Look at your buddy Mastropaolo. You ask him for evidence for devolution and you get silence. Not because he is silenced, but because he has nothing to say.

Same goes for you. We ask you for evidence for devolution - and you've got nothing. We ask you for this fabled calibration of C-14 data so it doesn't automatically falsify a young Earth - and you've got nothing. We ask you to back up your claim that there are remains of modern non-extinct animals in the bottom-most flood layers - and you've got nothing.

No silencing, no censorship required.

radar said...

Gee, you guys sure have a lot of unfounded claims bereft of evidence. I post my information in the blog posts. Including modern animals in "ancient" layers, C-14 dating and etc. Just dumping in a bunch of comments pretending that the subjects were not covered is bogus.

As for Woolf, you realize that time for the observer can vary greatly depending upon various factors, so with relativity it is the apparent time rather than the speed of light that varies now, as far as we can tell. Whether the speed of light has been different in the past is another question and, like most forensic questions, not easily answered or proven.

Then there is the question of whether there is a "fabric of space" upon which everything rests. If the speed of light is constant and the fabric is stretched, then the apparent speed of light would change relative to the observer even though the actual c would remain constant.

Jon Woolf said...

"I post my information in the blog posts. Including modern animals in "ancient" layers, C-14 dating and etc. "

Rabbits in the Mesozoic. Cattle in the Paleozoic. Large land animals in Silurian strata. Where have such things been found? They haven't. There isn't a single case on record of an advanced animal being found in strata below any possible ancestor for it.

The rest of Radar's comment, above, responds to something I said on a different comment-thread a few posts down. He's trying to claim that he still accepts relativity and the constancy of c, even though he recently posted and agreed with an article that tried to resolve the lightspeed-age paradox .. well, for YECs it's a paradox, though not for scientists ... by claiming that, let me see, how did it go ...

"Normally, it is assumed that light travels at the same speed in both directions (isotropic propagation). What if, instead, light travelled anisotropically? What if the light travelled at 0.5 c down the hallway, and infinitely fast back? We would get exactly the same answer."

This is, of course, nonsense. Here's one illustration of that fact. We have a number of space probes that are in contact with their bases here on Earth, even at very long ranges. To maintain its datastream to Earth at a distance of one light-hour, such a probe must aim its transmitter beam at the place where the receiver will be in one hour, not the place where the receiver is when it transmits. Thus, the speed of light from spacecraft to Earth can't be infinite. And of course, a transmitter here on Earth sending data to the probe must do the same, proving that the speed of light from Earth to the probe is also finite. This is true of every spacecraft ever launched, manned or unmanned, whether it's light-hours, light-minutes, or light-seconds away. Even the signals from GPS satellites, which orbit a mere 12,500 miles above the surface, show these effects. And a mighty good thing it is that they do. The GPS system would not work if the speed of light for an approaching signal was infinite!

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Including modern animals in "ancient" layers, C-14 dating and etc. Just dumping in a bunch of comments pretending that the subjects were not covered is bogus."

Readers who might stumble on this blog and don't know how dishonest its purveyor tends to be need only to look at this comment and then read back through the comments over the last month or two, or do google searches, respectively, for

site:radaractive.blogspot.com modern non-extinct animals "bottom-most layers"

and

site:radaractive.blogspot.com c-14 calibration

In both cases Radar's hubris made him write checks that his YEC "science" couldn't cash.

To be specific:

1. C-14 data falsifies YEC (as do so many other things) as it reliably indicates things being older than the maximum of approx. 6,000 years permitted by a young-Earth scenario. Radar has claimed that the data merely needs to be "re-calibrated" (i.e. fudged to fit a desired result). Ever since Radar was asked to show how this could be accomplished while still being in line with observable evidence, he has been evasive - and now trying to deceive his readers that this question has already been covered.

2. Radar claimed that the remains of modern, non-extinct animals can be found in the bottom-most layers. While this is something that YEC would predict, no YEC proponent would stand behind such a claim - for the simple reason that it's not true, and no modern, non-extinct organisms can be found there, hence confirming evolution and falsifying a young Earth. Radar posted evidence of some organisms in much higher layers bearing some similarities to modern animals, but he failed to back up his own actual claim - and is now trying to deceive his readers that this question has already been covered.

But don't take my word for it - you can read it for yourself.

Any Christian here willing to try to persuade Radar into pursuing a more honest approach in his evangelizing efforts?

radar said...

My posts covered modern animals in rock layers. Let me be clear:

1) I posted an Ian Juby video that completely covered the entire C-14 issue. No Darwinists have been able to answer it.

2) Since we find many specimens of organisms that are still living (Lazarus Taxa) in increasing numbers, that means obviously modern animals in ancient rock layers. That is in addition to the forms that are given differing names depending upon which layer the Darwinists think the organism is in. Some of the organisms we find in Cambrian rocks are still around, and also every basic kind of organism, including vertebrates.

This is what you would expect in a flood scenario when the bottom layer would be primarily bottom-dwelling sea creatures but some of other types not likely to comprehend danger and various plants would be on the lowest level. I mean, the remarkable numbers of shellfish and crinoids and such buried alive is astounding and cannot have just magically happened, they needed to be buried quickly and then retained in anaerobic conditions to be preserved, Especially true of jellies, BTW.

Nope, you guys are lying again, or you are confused. Either/or you are wrong.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"My posts covered modern animals in rock layers."

Again with the evasion and deception...

Your claim was very specific, that there was evidence of the remains modern, non-extinct animals not just "in rock layers" but in the lowest rock layers. This would indeed be powerful evidence for YEC and a major problem for evolution and an old-Earth scenario... and it is not found, which is why YECs don't make this claim.

Were you able to back up your claim?

Absolutely not.

And that's not me lying, or being confused or wrong.

It's a simple fact.

You provided no evidence of modern, non-extinct animals in the lowest rock layers. Why not just admit that?

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Since we find many specimens of organisms that are still living (Lazarus Taxa) in increasing numbers, that means obviously modern animals in ancient rock layers"

We find them in the most recent ancient rock layers, which is unremarkable from an evolution standpoint. Some organism evolve very slowly, depending on the circumstances.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"That is in addition to the forms that are given differing names depending upon which layer the Darwinists think the organism is in."

Could you provide evidence that they were not given differing names depending on actual physical differences in the organism? For example, name an organism that was physically identical but given a different name because it was in a different rock layer.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"This is what you would expect in a flood scenario when the bottom layer would be primarily bottom-dwelling sea creatures but some of other types not likely to comprehend danger and various plants would be on the lowest level. I mean, the remarkable numbers of shellfish and crinoids and such buried alive is astounding and cannot have just magically happened, they needed to be buried quickly and then retained in anaerobic conditions to be preserved, Especially true of jellies, BTW."

So why do we find shellfish and jellies etc. at all levels of the fossil record, not just the bottom ones? Was there a rapid burial, then new sedimentation, a calm sea floor, then another rapid burial, etc. etc.?

This is just one of many ad hoc explanations that YECs offer without any scientific evidence. The fossil record is of a highly sequential nature, with certain organisms consistently appearing in certain layers, and this is not explained by "likelihood to comprehend danger" or whatever.

It is however consistently explained by ongoing evolution. That is why dolphins and ichthyosaurs are never found together, for example.

Anonymous said...

So is there any evidence at all that you were banned from that site? Because they have plenty of other fundamentalist nutbags commenting on there, so it's not like William Debski's site or anything.

Anonymous said...

Lemme get this straight: so we have a blogger who is known to have censored in the past accusing another website of censoring him without any evidence to that effect at all... did I get that right?

radar said...

No, I do not censor this blog and those who say I do are liars. They do not like the fact that I have made a link that is atop my links list which does not have a comments thread. So they whine about that from time to time, but that link is not on this blog. However, there are a number of my radaractive blog posts that are linked on that article and all of those posts do take comments as usual.

This blog allows even really stupid comments as long as the language is not profane. So I let commenters pretend to win an argument because they continue to post comments while I have moved on to another post. I am not going to put much evidence in the comments thread when I have already put it on a blog post. That would be counterintuitive. I just make sure the language is not profane. Yes, I read all the comments eventually, sometimes with a day or two worth of lag but usually same day.

Only a few ever read the comments thread and so if you are down this far you are probably one of the anonymous commenters. I am going to keep putting evidence into blog posts. You need to raise your game if you really want me to pay attention because the same old arguments have gotten rather old.

Right now I am involved in pointing out that creation science is real science and that real scientists should not be afraid of questions. There should not be an organization like the NCSE. It makes Darwinists look pretty bad when they have to work so hard to try to keep information from people.

Anonymous said...

"They do not like the fact that I have made a link that is atop my links list which does not have a comments thread."

No, they don't like the fact that that article originally HAD replies which were removed when you moved it to your private blog. Afterwards you admitted that you moved the article because for once you wanted the last word. In other words: you were losing the argument and the only way out you saw was to move the article so the comments would be lost.

You censored. What is done cannot be undone.

radar said...

You lie. I do not censor. End of story. This comments thread is proof of that. You guys just hate the fact that I compiled all the information posts with all the questions you failed to answer for the world to see. Whine if you will.

I wasn't losing an argument, I was instead putting up a monument to the inability of Darwinists to answer the information question. Every post linked on that article is open for comment but you cannot comment on that article itself because it is a compilation that proves Darwinists have no argument.

Go ahead and post an argument on any of the linked articles inside that Ultimate Information Post, they all still work. I dare you to "win the argument" as that has never happened and never will.

What is the natural source of information? Go ahead and tell us.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"You lie. I do not censor. End of story."

The actual statement was that you HAVE censored. That is not a lie. You HAVE censored. You can squirm and evade all you want, but until you admit to your fault and make amends for it, you're going to have to get used to having this rubbed in your face, especially whenever you have the gall to complain about supposed censorship elsewhere.

"You guys just hate the fact that I compiled all the information posts with all the questions you failed to answer for the world to see."

No, that's not anything to be annoyed about. We just like pointing out that in order for you to have the last word on this, you had to throw out a bunch of opposing arguments - instead of actually having better arguments.

Admit it, Radar, if you were commenting on somebody else's thread and they threw out a bunch of your comments and then made it impossible to keep commenting on that thread - you'd be annoyed and you'd call it censorship. Right?

"I wasn't losing an argument, I was instead putting up a monument to the inability of Darwinists to answer the information question. Every post linked on that article is open for comment but you cannot comment on that article itself because it is a compilation that proves Darwinists have no argument."

If it proves that "Darwinists have no argument", then how come no commenting is allowed on that post? Can you see how absurdly Kafkaesque your argument is? "Look, they have nothing to say, and the fact that I gagged them is proof of that."

"What is the natural source of information? Go ahead and tell us."

Answered this dozens of times. Mutation plus natural selection. Not our fault if you don't get it. Come back when you can argue this point cogently instead of merely using derision (as I suspect you're about to do).

radar said...

Mutation needs something to mutate and natural selection needs something to select. Your answer is Adam Sandler bad.

The average amount of information in just one human cell is more than 20 GB and you have approximately 10 trillion cells...and 10 microorganisms of some kind for each cell, approximately. This is being conservative. No one has ever been able to identify a substance or material form for information, so we have to measure it by the containers it uses. How many letters, how many pages, how many gigabytes, how many terabytes...etc.

Having clearly demonstrated that information itself has no material form, even a child can understand that it does not have a material source either. When we talk about organisms, the information is highly specified so that just one CATG "letter" out of place can cause big problems. This is why part of the so-called "junk DNA" is actually a Quality Process Control system. Mutations are corrected if possible so to avoid them. Yes, the supposed mechanism of building organisms actually tears them down and there is a system in place designed to fix them or avoid them if possible.

Mutations are mistakes and natural selection is a process first identified by a creationist that allows organisms to choose from pre-existing genetic materials and, depending upon environmental pressures, the favored genetic mixtures will be passed on. This is how animal and plant husbandry has been operating for many generations, breeders and agronomists knowing that one must remove genetic choices to select out the ones favored by the breeder.

Anonymous whatsit said...

Is your idea of "bouncing ideas off each other" to just throw stuff out there and ignore what is bounced back at you? Your blog certainly seems to indicate so. This seems like a prime example of why it's so useless to engage in discussion with YECs.

"Mutation needs something to mutate and natural selection needs something to select. Your answer is Adam Sandler bad."

A more pertinent question would be whether it is possible for reproduction with variation to generate spontaneously. Science has an answer to this. YECs run away from it.

Regarding the rest of your hasty diatribe, every single one of these points has been addressed at laborious length by various commenters.

This is a standard tactic. You've had a number of questions thrown at you over the last few months (and, let's face it, years) that you couldn't answer. So you throw out a number of questions, mostly irrelevant to the topic at hand, in an attempt to make your position look "strong".

And yet the questions remain unanswered. They're questions that have been "bounced" at you. But they bounce right off. Where are your answers?

Do you have the courage to address them one by one, or will you flee forever?

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Having clearly demonstrated that information itself has no material form, even a child can understand that it does not have a material source either."

What happens when you burn a hard drive containing the contents of the Library of Congress, then have a truck drive over it, then grind the remains of that into a fine powder?

Anonymous said...

"Having clearly demonstrated that information itself has no material form, even a child can understand that it does not have a material source either."

Sometimes what a child understands isn't actually correct.